Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/26/2011SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 26 SEPTEMBER 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 26 September 2011, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; K. Murphy, City Manager’s Staff; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; M. Young, D. Gravelin, C. Smith, S. Dopp, P. Linn, J. McNeill, J. & M. Zaetz, M. Williams, B. Navin, F. Ryan, M. G. Cleveland, A. Clift, G. Farrell, L. Gerbison, F. Murray, A. Cleaves, G. Rounds Executive Session: Ms. Emery moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and litigation, where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the municipality at a substantial disadvantage. Special Session: 1. Council Report and Decisions on the Eligibility for Retirement and Long Term Care Benefits and Home Equity Repayment Obligation Regarding Former City Manager: Ms. Dooley said the Council have identified three areas that need decision-making, and these will result in either three or four motions. Ms. Dooley and Ms. Emery then read the Findings of Fact dated 26 September 2011. Mr. Knapp moved to adopt the Findings of Fact as read, with the correction of the spelling of “principal” on page 9. Ms. Greco seconded. The Chair then asked for public comment. Mr. Farrell said he is concerned that the Council’s decisions will be relying on information that is missing. He noted that the Council secretary was allowed to go home prior to executive sessions. Following the executive sessions, the Council may have taken actions that were supposed to be added to the Minutes, which appears not to have happened. Mr. Farrell said he is bothered that there is a lack of facts. He added that he would be shocked if Mr. Hafter had availed himself of anything that wasn’t approved by the City Council. Mr. Farrell also added that the city had paid the premiums on policies for a number of years. He didn’t feel that a lack of minutes is reason to deny that things happened. Mr. Murray thanked the Council for their hard work in this regard. He agreed with the findings and felt the Council has done what it should do and has risen above accusations. Ms. Gerbison said she is upset that Mr. Hafter has to be represented by Counsel here after all the years he served the city. She also felt the wording of the Findings of Fact should be more neutral as this is supposed to be a neutral document, not people’s opinions. Mr. Zaetz said most of the community knew what Chuck Hafter was getting for benefits years ago. It wasn’t a guessing game. He said the Council only took testimony at one meeting, and that is shameful. He added that Mr. Hafter earned everything and has a right to a good retirement. Another audience member said the benefits Mr. Hafter got were an incentive. He also felt there should be an appraisal of the Hafter house and the city should be entitled to a percentage of the increase in value of the home. Another audience member said he was disturbed at how the Council was handling this. There is no evidence that anyone denied Mr. Hafter the benefits he was getting. He felt the Council only wanted to present one side. Mr. Knapp said the Council is obliged to take everything that was said into account and to review the records to identify where things agree and where nothing can be found. An audience member said this has been a very divisive issue for the city and wanted to know how the city will go forward. He noted there was a big audit last year and nothing negative to Mr. Hafter’s benefits was found. He did not want to spend taxpayer money on a law suit. Ms. Dooley noted that the next item on the agenda relates to actions the city will take so this doesn’t happen again. Ms. Clift noted that at the School Board they usually put actions after an executive session on the next agenda so things don’t get lost. She felt the Council is doing its best. Ms. Navin said she personally knows the Hafters and cannot imagine either Mr. or Mrs. Hafter asking for more than what they are entitled to. Mrs. Moore­Hafter said Mr. Hafter didn’t get 2 pensions. He got 2 retirement packages. She added that this is true for many city employees. Mr. Knapp responded that most employees in the city have both packages, but most of them contribute to the costs of those packages and the city provides a match. In Mr.Hafter’s case, the city paid all. He agreed it is not unusual for employees to be enrolled in the two plans. Ms. Dooley said that in the collective bargaining contracts, it is clear about matches for both plans. Mr. Miller added that since about 2001, Public Safety employees have had no city contribution to the ICMA plan. This is now true for many administrators as well. Mr. Cleaves said he moved to the city in 1986 to serve as a minister to his church. He tried to prove he was better than the previous minister. He now regrets that. It was noted that on p. 11 of the Findings of Fact, the promissory note date should be 2001. In the vote on the amended Findings of Fact that followed, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley then asked the Council if they had any motions regarding the Findings of Fact. Ms. Greco moved that the City Council hereby ratify and confirm Charles E. Hafter’s participation in both the SBRIP and the ICMA Program in which he has been enrolled, and hereby also waive and relinquish any and all rights to recover any financial contributions made to either of such plans by the City. Mr. Knapp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Greco then moved that this City Council vote to make no further premium payments to the existing long-term care plans for Charles E. Hafter and his spouse, which are owned by Mr. Hafter. Mr. Engels seconded. Mr. Smith said he understands the Council’s dilemma. He noted that 3 former City Councilors remember approving the long-term care plan. He questioned whether the Council was opening itself to a law suit. He noted that the premiums are small, but the legal fees could be large. Mr. Knapp responded that the Council found less evidence that this was taken up, discussed in public, and voted on by the City Council. It fails to meet the legal requirements and as such the City could be sued by citizens for disbursements illegally made. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery then moved that this City Council hereby declare that the City’s payments of the premiums for the long­term care plans owned by Mr. Charles E. Hafter have been made improperly and, pursuant to this declaration, request that the dollar amount of such premium payments be returned to the City within a reasonable time period and, should Mr. Hafter refuse to reimburse the City, authorize and direct the City to take all appropriate legal action to recover the premium amounts paid. Mr. Engels seconded. Mr. Zaetz felt this action could cost the city “a bundle.” He felt it was absurd to spend taxpayer money on a witch hunt. He added it was shameful to take money away from a man who served the city for 20 years. Ms. Dopp said she had great regard for Chuck Hafter, but it seems the documentation isn’t there. The City Council’s job is to do the best they can and not be persuaded by threats. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Greco voting against. Ms. Greco then moved that this City Council vote that the obligation of former City Manager Charles E. Hafter and Betty Moore-Hafter to share in the growth in value of their South Burlington homestead within the City of South Burlington be complied with in accordance with the provisions of the promissory note that they executed, and authorize the City to carry out all appropriate legal action to secure enforcement of this obligation, if compliance is not immediately forthcoming. Mr. Knapp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Smith said he understands the city’s position but felt this could have been handled in a different way instead of going immediately to lawyers and creating so much divisiveness. Ms. Greco agreed totally and said this City Council will do things in public and record everything they do. Mr. Rounds said he is a city employee and life-long resident of the city. He asked if the city will put a dollar amount on what all of this cost. He said there has been a lot of talk of transparency and he was concerned with what this could continue to cost in the future. Ms. Dooley noted that through 15 August, the law firm hired by the City has been paid $21,400.00, an amount which includes some other work they have done for the City. Mrs. Murray asked if 1099’s were issued for the benefits paid. Mr. Miller said he didn’t know. Ms. Greco conceded that the Council did not communicate well at first. She stressed that the Council has an obligation to everyone. She also noted receipt of “hate e­mails” and name­calling. Mr. Murray said all the City Councils liked Mr. Hafter, and no one has said he was an evil man, but there were mistakes made. 2. Council to Vote on Council Resolutions re” protection of city taxpayer money, Council best practices and transparency of actions: Ms. Dooley read the proposed City Council Resolution which includes the following provisions: 1. No loans to City employees 2. The City Council will discuss in public session all aspects of any contract it enters into with the City Manager or any of the city’s collective bargaining units. 3. The Minutes of any City Council meeting at which the City Council approves a contract with the City Manager or any of the city’s collective bargaining units shall include a summary of the specific items in the City Manager’s or collective bargaining unit’s contract approved by the City Council. 4. Following approval of contracts, they shall be posted promptly on the City’s website. 5. The City Manager shall, within 10 working days of a new City Council’s swearing in, provide the new City Councilors with copies of his/her current contract with the City and Council Minutes at which this contract was approved, and all of his or her prior contracts with the City and the City Council Minutes at which contracts were approved. Mr. Miller noted that steps are being taken to make public data of pension plans and actuarial/auditors reports. 6. Any such document obligating the City to pay for a benefit specific to the City Manager must be signed for by the City Council Chair. The City is registered as the owner of the policy and allows for the City Council to have access to plan documents. Ms. Dooley noted that no action will be taken on the Resolution tonight to allow for it to be posted for public comment. Mr. Miller noted that based on public comment, changes have already been made in how the City negotiates contracts. Mr. Murray noted that a union takes a proposed contract back to its members. The public, however, gets short-changed in not knowing what the agreement is and is not able to make comments. Ms. Dooley noted the auditor will be coming to a meeting soon and will be reporting on actions taken to address deficiencies that were earlier noted. Ms. Greco added that the Council now sees disbursements in advance of checks going out. Ms. Dooley noted that the City Manager’s current contract indicates what is being changed from his previous contract and what is the same and is being carried forward. A member of the audience asked that things also be published in The Other Paper for those who don’t have web access. Ms. Dooley felt this could be done a few times a year. Mr. Miller noted there is a very minimal copying fee for those who want copies of documents. 3. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 4. Executive Session: Mr. Knapp moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and pending litigation and to take no further action thereafter other than to adjourn. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Resume Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned. ________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.