12/08/1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1997 Kurk Corson, 6662 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated that he would like to present Council with detailed reasons why Agenda Item No. 9 should not be considered at this time, but that he did not wish to do so at this evening's Council meeting rather at a work session. Raymond Stadum, 663 Andall Street, stated that the recent election represented a repudiation of past practices and policies as well as of the architect of those practices and policies. He added his expression of dissatisfaction with the current Council. Steve Worcsher reminded the group that the purpose of the City Council and of the Council meetings is for the benefit of Lino Lakes. Jerry Burt expressed concern that Agenda Item No. 9 should be tabled to allow for review by the City Attorney. Council Member Lyden stated that Council should retain outside legal counsel for the express purpose of reviewing Agenda Item No. 9. Caroline Dahl, 1101 Holly Court, indicated that citizens should question the immediacy with which the City Administrator's employment agreement was handled, and that the opportunity should be given to the residents of the community, as well as to her as Council Member Elect, to participate in this employment review. Kim Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Lane, stated that review of the City Administrator's employment agreement was conducted during an illegal closed meeting. According to Ms. Sullivan, this meeting was illegal because it took place in violation of notification for a public meeting, Council did not identify the individual to be evaluated, specific grounds were not stated to close the meeting, the subject of the meeting was not described, and all meetings shall be open to the public. She further stated that upon beginning review of the employment agreement, the meeting became illegal. Ms. Sullivan asked what attorney had reviewed the employment agreement on behalf of the City. She asked who wrote the agreement, and if the City was responsible for those fees. She also asked if the City Attorney had reviewed State Statute 465.722 relating to a highly compensated employee. Ms. Sullivan stated that the employment agreement represented an enormous buyout amount, and that the revised agreement will hold the citizens of Lino Lakes hostage. She referred to an allowance in the amount of $335 per month as a vehicle allowance; calculation of sick leave (2/3 of annual salary); concluding that termination benefits under the subject agreement could total between $90,000 and $200,000. She added that the indemnification clause was far too liberal in favor of the employee. She called for wise money management, and delay of a revised agreement until the new administration takes office. Don Dunn, 6885 Black Duck Drive, indicated that strong evidence had been presented for delay of consideration of Agenda Item No. 9. He suggested that a significant number of citizens would appreciate the opportunity to participate in the subject employee review. Diane Turner, 7404 Sunset Avenue, asked that Council state individually their reasons for an approving or disapproving vote on Agenda Item No. 9.