The focal point of the meeting was the discussion surrounding City Manager Daryl Bell, whose management has come under scrutiny following the departure of several employees. Five employees have reportedly left their positions, with some alleging their departures were linked to issues with Bell’s leadership. The commission deliberated on hiring an external firm, Sniff and Spelman, to investigate these concerns and ensure the rights of all parties involved are protected. One commissioner emphasized the need to address these issues sensitively, citing the potential exposure of employees who voiced complaints if Bell remained present during the discussion.

A significant portion of the debate centered on whether Bell should be asked to leave the room during the deliberations. Legal counsel, Susan Erley, clarified that Bell’s presence was permissible, but the commission was divided on this issue. Ultimately, the consensus leaned towards allowing Bell to stay, provided no legal grounds mandated his removal.

The conversation then shifted to the financial implications of the investigation. Some commissioners expressed reluctance to authorize a $30,000 expenditure for the investigation without substantial justification. Concerns were raised about the validity of the claims against Bell, with questions posed regarding the accuracy of statements indicating that several employees left due to his management. The idea of an independent investigation was proposed to ensure impartiality and gather facts without direct involvement from the commission.

Bell’s probationary period was another topic, with his probation set to expire the following day. Bell declined an extension of his probation, arguing that it would not be beneficial for the city’s stability or his leadership role. He maintained that extending the probation would create uncertainty within the organization. One commissioner countered Bell’s stance. The commissioner pointed out that Bell’s contract already contained provisions allowing for termination without severance in cases involving criminal or illegal activity.

The commission also faced procedural challenges regarding the agenda. A motion was made to add an emergency item to discuss the complaints raised by staff, leading to confusion over whether to prioritize this discussion or address scheduled business matters first. Ultimately, the agenda was modified to place the discussion of Bell’s situation at the forefront of the meeting.

One commissioner emphasized that the investigation could continue regardless of Bell’s probation status, yet the risk of incurring severance pay remained if issues arose during the investigation. Another commissioner highlighted the need for transparency and the integrity of the investigation process, pointing out that conversations taking place outside the commission regarding Bell’s employment could undermine the commission’s authority and decision-making process.

Public comments also played a role in the meeting, with residents expressing frustration over the handling of the situation involving Bell. One resident criticized the commission for allowing public opinion to influence their decisions, urging them to make determinations based on city regulations rather than sentiment. Another resident voiced concerns about Bell’s continued employment.

The commission sought to maintain the integrity of the investigation while navigating employee concerns and public opinion. A motion to adjourn the meeting was eventually made and seconded, concluding the session with unresolved yet matters still at hand.