At the forefront of the meeting was the draft of “Resolution 192-25,” which centers on the appointment of interim business administrator Peter Smaldo. The council exercised its advice and consent authority, as stipulated in the municipal code, to address the fact that Smaldo’s appointment exceeded the legally allowed 60-day period without the council’s approval for an extension. The council emphasized that this appointment occurred without their prior consultation, a requirement that had not been met. Additionally, there was concern over the substantial increase in Smaldo’s compensation following his appointment.

The council president read the resolution. However, the resolution was only slated for addition to a future agenda, not for immediate legal action. The town attorney cautioned that extensive discussion on Smaldo might expose the council to legal risks. As a result, the council voted unanimously to place the resolution on a future agenda, thereby allowing more time for examination and discussion.

The council’s decision to hold a special meeting was driven by the urgency to resolve the litigation swiftly. It was proposed to schedule this meeting as soon as possible, with a target date set for that Friday. Council members expressed a consensus on the need for expedited actions, hoping that the town attorney could prepare the necessary legal documentation in time. There was a shared sentiment among some members that the ongoing litigation had taken too long, and the public’s interest in resolving this matter was paramount.

In the discussions, there was a push to ensure that the public was adequately informed about the litigation’s progress. Some members suggested that the resolution notice should specify its intent to “settle the litigation,” thereby covering various agreements needed to resolve the issue comprehensively. However, if the resolution was not ready by the proposed meeting date, there was a possibility it would be omitted from the agenda.

Concerns were voiced regarding the timing of the special meeting, given that some members had pre-existing commitments. Although there was a suggestion to move the meeting to the following Monday to allow for thorough preparation, the preference to maintain the originally scheduled Friday meeting prevailed. This decision was based on the urgency of the litigation and the desire to keep the process moving forward.

In addition to the discussions on litigation, the council briefly touched upon procedural aspects of setting a budget workshop, which was deemed inappropriate to address during the special meeting as it was not included in the agenda. Nonetheless, a motion was made, seconded, and passed to add the budget discussion to the upcoming meeting’s agenda.