The meeting brought to light concerns regarding the dual engagement of Fisher Phillips and Fay Gree. Questions were raised by council members about the rationale behind hiring Fay Gree when Fisher Phillips already had the necessary capabilities for handling the legal matters involved. Members expressed discomfort with the potential redundancy and financial implications of paying two firms, emphasizing the need for clarity on taxpayer expenditures. This sentiment was echoed with remarks questioning the prudence of involving multiple entities when one might suffice.

The discussion delved into the specifics of the email discovery process, a crucial component of the investigation. Council members sought details on the criteria used for searching and filtering emails before they were handed over to Fisher Phillips. It was explained that broad search terms had been employed, resulting in a substantial volume of emails being generated. Concerns were also raised about the retrieval of deleted emails, with assurances given that such emails could be included in search results.

The role differentiation between Fisher Phillips and Fay Gree was clarified during the meeting. While both firms were engaged in the same matter, their functions were not identical. Fay Gree was described as handling more administrative or clerical duties to streamline document production for Fisher Phillips. This led to further debate on whether a single firm could manage both aspects, potentially reducing costs and increasing efficiency.

The committee underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in the investigation, particularly in light of the taxpayer funds involved. Members called for detailed documentation, including a list of search terms used in the email discovery process, to ensure clarity and facilitate understanding among council members. The conversation also extended to other forms of communication, such as text messages, with assurances given that all relevant communications would be included in the document submission.

In tandem with the discussion on the law firms, the committee reviewed the implementation of the “Speak Freely” tool, designed for city and county employees to report workplace concerns anonymously. The system, launched on January 10, had already recorded 13 workplace-related concerns. This prompted discussion about the implications of receiving such a volume of complaints in a short period, with members expressing the need to investigate underlying causes.

The committee explored several aspects of the tool’s functionality, including response times to complaints and the process for following up on reports. Concerns were voiced about ensuring thorough investigations and preventing premature closure of complaints. The importance of training department heads and leaders to guide employees in using the tool effectively was also highlighted. Suggestions were made for printed materials to facilitate access to the tool, addressing potential challenges with accessing the QR code from mobile devices.

Additionally, the committee emphasized gathering employee feedback to assess the tool’s usability and effectiveness. There were inquiries about any disproportionate number of complaints from specific departments, but it was noted that such details would remain confidential as investigations were ongoing.