At the heart of the meeting was Mr. Flowers’ email, which accused a commissioner of influencing his employment decisions. The commissioner in question responded by recounting their role in the negotiation process, emphasizing that they were not involved in the interviews and only facilitated communication of contract requests to the mayor. They disputed the claims made in Mr. Flowers’ email, asserting their long-standing career in law as evidence of their integrity and transparency in the matter. The commissioner detailed a timeline of interactions with Mr. Flowers, highlighting that they had communicated a reasonable contract offer after Mr. Flowers had adjusted some initial demands, such as reducing a car allowance request from $1,000 to $750.

Further complicating matters were claims of unfair contract demands made by Mr. Flowers, which were challenged by the city attorney. The attorney countered Mr. Flowers’ assertions that he only sought corrections to the contract, pointing out that requests for increased payouts for unused leave and severance terms directly altered the financial terms previously agreed upon by the commission. These proposals, the attorney argued, would have financial implications and were not part of the original agreement.

The discussion revealed broader issues within the commission, including a lack of unity and clarity in the negotiation process. One commissioner expressed dissatisfaction with how the negotiations were handled, noting that the process seemed to favor Mr. Flowers without adequate debate or consideration. They suggested reassessing the process to ensure a more thorough and equitable approach in future hiring decisions. It was also noted that some commissioners engaged in individual communications with Mr. Flowers outside the established protocol, leading to concerns about fairness and transparency.

Commissioners debated whether to allow Mr. Flowers to reapply for the position if it was reopened, with some emphasizing the importance of creating a level playing field for all candidates. The commission also faced financial considerations in deciding whether to restart the hiring process, as the costs of bringing in new candidates were a point of concern.

Public comments further highlighted the community’s interest in the matter, with citizens expressing skepticism about the decision to re-advertise the position and urging consideration of Mr. Flowers’ personal circumstances, such as relocating his family. These sentiments reflected broader concerns about the implications of the commission’s decisions on the community and the need for responsible fiscal management.

As the meeting concluded, the commission planned to reconsider the city manager position when it reopens, with assurances that Mr. Flowers could reapply. They acknowledged past mistakes and expressed a commitment to moving forward with a more organized and professional approach. The commission aimed to finalize decisions in future meetings.