The primary topic of concern was the potential appointment of Jeffrey S. Curts as the town attorney without a traditional contract, a move that would instead treat him like other town employees regarding benefits. The proposal aimed to bypass contentious issues such as severance pay, which had been problematic in previous meetings. However, council members expressed mixed feelings about the lack of a formal contract, citing potential legal liabilities and the necessity for transparency. One council member pointed out that Florida law would not provide severance pay without a specified severance clause, clarifying that the resolution terms would default to basic legal standards as outlined in the town charter.

The council’s debate highlighted the complexities of municipal governance, with some members advocating for a more traditional contract to ensure accountability and avoid financial repercussions. Concerns were raised about the financial implications of Mr. Curts’s hiring, particularly in light of past incidents where termination costs were significant. A council member referenced the termination of a town manager that previously cost the town around $100,000, emphasizing the need for a time-limited agreement to ensure accountability.

The financial aspects of the agreement were scrutinized, with one council member highlighting the proposed $360,000 budget for legal services, which included $50,000 for outside counsel fees. This figure was contrasted with historical legal expenses that had exceeded $400,000 in previous years, sparking apprehension that the current arrangement might lead to increased expenses rather than savings. The council discussed the necessity of having in-house counsel versus relying on outside firms, considering the complexities of legal challenges that might require external assistance.

Public comments further complicated the discussion, with residents expressing skepticism about the wisdom of hiring an in-house attorney for a town with a population of less than 4,000. Virginia Standish, a resident, noted that other towns typically employ in-house counsel only when their populations exceed 50,000. Concerns were voiced about the lack of an end date in the proposed agreement, with Standish emphasizing the need for due diligence and questioning the town’s candidate vetting process. Another commenter, Cynthia Scrunchie, criticized the council’s approach to negotiations, questioning the council’s adherence to transparency laws.

The council was urged to interview other firms and consider the ramifications of establishing an in-house position. The sentiment was that the council should not rush the decision, as it could set a precedent for future financial obligations and operational practices.

It was noted that the charter necessitates an employment contract for charter officers like the town attorney and town manager. The dialogue revealed a conflict within the charter regarding employment terms, with emphasis placed on the necessity of a contract due to the four-vote requirement for dismissals.

As discussions continued, the council was informed that only one firm had responded to the request for proposals for legal counsel, with the understanding that firms commonly respond just before the deadline. While some council members favored a single meeting to handle the hiring process, others advised against it, leading to a split in opinions.

The meeting concluded with a motion to solidify Mr. Curts’s agreement and frame it as an official contract for consideration in the next meeting. The motion was approved, with all members present casting their votes in favor. The council also discussed streamlining future contract negotiations to avoid excessive legal fees, instructing Glenn to work on a contract that would incorporate the discussed terms without incurring high costs.