Laserfiche WebLink
found there was a violation of public meeting <br />law of state law. Therefore Mr. Stahl's <br />letter agreements were void since they were <br />not done in public. By this time our new <br />city attorney was appointed so I took it to <br />him to see if there was a possibility of <br />getting the money back from Mr. Stahl. We <br />agreed to bring it up to the council, there <br />was a question to whether Mr. Stahl's <br />agreement was legal since there was no taped <br />minutes of that part of the meeting where he <br />resigned. After talking to individuals that <br />were at the meeting it was the attorney's <br />opinion that the resignation was excepted in <br />public. Mr. Stahl's resignation letter was <br />the only legal agreement with him but it was <br />done in public. In that letter he asked for <br />a lump sum of money and it was approved by <br />the last council. The current council did <br />not take action on the issue because we were <br />advised that the case against Mr. Stahl would <br />be very costly and that the resignation took <br />place in public. So it was dropped by the <br />council. It is my feeling that the citizens <br />need. to know about this issue. The question <br />becomes how can we learn from this exercise? <br />One, in drafting a new contract for the new <br />city administrator we need to make sure we <br />list what our expectations of the <br />administrator is as well as what he expects <br />from us and the city. We need to improve <br />access to public information. I believe that <br />for many of these steps have been taken by <br />Sharon and we need to continue to make the <br />city responsible to its residents. The last <br />point is the importance of over site <br />function as the council. It is our <br />responsibility to make sure that the city <br />policies are clear and effective and that <br />financial affairs are scrutinized and the tax <br />payers money is spent wisely. I am <br />disappointed that we could not get the money <br />back because there were so many other things <br />that we could have done with $25,000. <br />Hornbostel also stated there have been <br />numerous discussions about the city water <br />attorney and after seeing the last $19,000 <br />bill I would like to move that we replace Mr. <br />Williamson and that we have an intern <br />attorney be retained until we hire a new one <br />and that Mr. Williams help us find that <br />intern attorney, seconded by Davidson. <br />Sackett asked if there had been a committee <br />13 <br />