Larson raises contract questions

Commissioner Lynn Larson raised two questions at a Thursday, Feb. 16 workshop discussion of Town Manager David Bullock’s first quarterly review: Is the town manager’s contract in compliance with the town’s charter? And does the town manager’s contract give him the degree of independence he needs to do his job — and, if necessary, make difficult decisions?

The town’s charter states:

“The town manager may be removed from office upon the affirmative vote of five (5) members of the town commission.”

During the term of Bullock’s contract, a five-commissioner vote is needed to terminate the agreement. However, a provision in Bullock’s contract, which extends through Sept. 15, states that the contract will automatically extend for one year unless a majority of the commissioners decided otherwise — meaning it would take four commissioners to vote not to renew Bullock’s contract.

Town Attorney David Persson wrote in a Feb. 21 letter that he believes the contract does comply with the town’s charter.

“These provisions accomplish different goals,” Persson wrote. “The decision not to extend the contract does not terminate the town manager, but it does, however, provide a final date for his contract. If during the term of the contract, the Town Commission wishes to terminate the manager, it needs five (5) votes under both the charter and the current contract. Because the majority vote provision does not apply to terminating the manager during the term of the contract, there is no conflict between the method of allowing the contract to end and Article III, Section 2 of the Town Charter regarding termination of the town manager.”

But Persson wrote that just because the contract is legal doesn’t mean it’s the best policy. He wrote:

“Legality of the contract does not address the other portion of your question concerning independence of the town manager, nor does it address the policy questions to be considered in a contract in order to secure that independence.

“A traditional fixed-term, multiple-year contract would remove the issue of whether non extension of the manager’s contract should be by majority or super majority vote. My observation is that Mr. Bullock faces challenges within the town that will take several years to complete. The desirability of a fixed-term, multiple-year contract would be an interesting discussion by the Town Commission assuming that the commission continues to be satisfied with Mr. Bullock’s services.”

Larson said that she believes the commission should enter into a longer-term contract with Bullock that would require five votes for dismissal.

“There’s a lot of issues that the town is facing,” she said. “There’s a lot of issues that he is involved with and he may have to make some unpopular decisions as a town manager. It should not be a popularity contest.”

But other commissioners contacted by the Longboat Observer indicated that the discussion was premature.

Commissioner Hal Lenobel, who had not read Persson’s letter Tuesday afternoon, said he didn’t see any need to change the contract at the moment. Commissioner Pat Zunz said that more discussion was needed.

“This is an issue that we would need to discuss in a public meeting the pros and cons of,” she said.
Vice Mayor David Brenner had not yet reviewed Persson’s letter Tuesday afternoon; Commissioner Jack Duncan did not return a phone call Tuesday afternoon seeking comment.

Mayor Jim Brown didn’t seem worried about the current contract.

“The only reason I would be concerned is that we’ve found a good guy and want to give him an incentive to stay,” he said.

But Brown said that he believes that both a town-manager evaluation and contract review should be done annually by the commission.

“I approach every job the same,” Bullock said. “I understand who I work for, and in this position, you’re called upon to make a variety of decisions. That contract will not compromise that in any way.”