Kiffi Summa, LWV Observer
This special meeting had only one Agenda item : Consider options for separation agreement - Resolution 2008 - 086
The Mayor delayed the beginning of the meeting for a few minutes, as two of the councilors had not arrived. C. Vohs arrived a few minutes after 7:00 , and the meeting began at 7:10; C. Davis came in at about twenty minutes after the hour, but missed very little of the discussion.
Also in attendance was the city’s “employment attorney”, Roger Knutson; Maren Swanson, the City Attorney, was not in attendance.
Background: C. Vohs and C. Pokorney had worked with former Administrator Roder on developing terms for a severance agreement. Those discussions resulted in what were called options 1&2: the first, which was preferred by Mr. Roder, requested an apology from the Mayor to Mr. Roder, to be approved by Mr. Roder, and that would result in Mr. Roder releasing the City from the threat of future legal action. Option 2 included the payment of $10,000 to Mr. Roder at the time of his leaving, and a further $25,000 if Mr. Roder was exonerated from the criminal investigation ongoing in Goodhue County. This $35,000 total payment would be on top of the attorney’s fees the council had already committed to pay; it should be noted that Mr. Roder’s employment contract called for no severance payment if he resigned, which was the case.
The Mayor wrote a “letter of reconciliation”; Mr. Roder did not consider it an adequate “apology”.
More detail can be read in previous observer reports.
Roger Knutson prepared two different documents which were attached to tonight’s resolution. They are summarized here, in direct quote from the packet:
- Severance Agreement A - Lump sum of $10,000 following a rescission period for release of claims and $25,000 following rescission period if Roder is exonerated by Goodhue County Attorney, plus reasonable attorney’s fees related to Goodhue Matter.
- Severance Agreement B - Continue the payment of Mr. Roder’s legal fees in conjunction with the Goodhue Matter. (Although not stated in the summary, this also included a release of threat of future legal action from Mr. Roder.)
The Mayor asked C. Vohs to begin, since he had been a negotiator, and C. Vohs stated that since the “apology” option had not worked out, these two options were being presented. C. Vohs stated that his preference was option B, which he then read. Lengthy discussion ensued, covering many issues, and details of different considerations of the city’s obligation to indemnify its employees.
Some of the issues discussed were: whether or not Mr. Roder would be inclined to sign such an agreement, since it was not one of the original two options; if there was a third option, i.e., “to do nothing”; the City’s legal responsibility to indemnify their employees and under what circumstances; how this affects the City’s ability to attract good employees in the future; escalating insurance costs on legal fees/coverage; what are reasonable attorney’s fees; whether payment of legal fees should be capped; and more …
An early vote on an amendment to the motion (B) had revealed a 3-3 tie, and it was felt that might continue.
C. Vohs pushed for a $10,000 cap on fees from Aug 13, going forward, but this failed when voted. (It should be noted that amounts of what has been paid to date was not clear, nor were amounts of attorney’s bill submitted to date available.)
Finally it was suggested that there should be a one week time period allowed for Mr. Roder’s response; the vote on that amendment was all aye.
To conclude: A vote was then taken on Option B, amended to include a one week response time from Mr. Roder, and Option B as amended passed on a 4-2 vote. The Nay votes were C. Vohs and Mayor Lansing.
Note: With the League’s concern for good governmental process, it should be noted that despite the potential of being very contentious and personal, as some past meetings have been, this meeting was calm and measured.
Adjourned at approximately 8: 50 PM.
