The meeting was called as a special session to address employment actions concerning CFO Lisa McLaclin. Labor counsel William Blay outlined the unique disciplinary process for a CFO, which involves formal charges reviewed by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and potentially an administrative law judge. Blay noted a delay due to a “rice notice” issue, which resulted in McLaclin not being notified on time. The meeting aimed to clarify procedural steps and ensure compliance with the law.

Tensions rose as council members debated the preparation and review of complaints against McLaclin. One commissioner questioned Blay about the complaint preparation process, who stated that he had prepared them based on information from Mr. Moran. The commissioner pressed for transparency, expressing frustration over not seeing the complaints before they were sent to McLaclin’s attorney. This raised issues about internal communication and the approval process for sending complaints, with disagreements on whether the complaints had been circulated to commissioners beforehand.

The discussion revealed that a private investigator had been hired to look into McLaclin’s conduct without commission approval. A commissioner voiced concern about the nearly $5,000 spent on this investigation, questioning its necessity since McLaclin had allegedly admitted to accessing another employee’s computer without permission.

A long-serving commissioner voiced strong opposition to the proposed actions against McLaclin, characterizing them as a “targeted attack of retaliation” against a respected employee. He emphasized that many actions cited in the complaints were pre-approved by him, warning that proceeding with them would undermine public trust and be unethical. He recounted an incident where his request for McLaclin to perform her duties unhindered was ignored, leading to a confrontation with the administrator, who allegedly threatened him and left the meeting abruptly.

Another commissioner defended the complaints, asserting they were backed by substantial documentation. He criticized the former administrator’s hiring and claimed financial mismanagement had occurred, costing the city almost $180,000. The commissioner alleged that the first commissioner had tried to manipulate the bidding process and had facilitated unauthorized payments to an employee without a required license, resulting in financial consequences for the city.

The first commissioner called for the complaints to be rescinded, urging internal resolution to avoid costly legal battles that could lead to substantial financial damages. In contrast, the second commissioner argued for an external investigation.

Despite disagreements, the council agreed to transition into a closed session to discuss the issues further. The motion for an executive session received mixed support among council members.