Village Council - Regular Meeting

The regular council meeting for Tuesday, November 18th is called to order at 7.03 p.m. Let's have a moment of silent meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll call, Mayor Nickerson. Yeah. Vice Mayor Martin will not be in tonight. Councilperson Erbaum.

Present.

Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward. Councilperson Winters.

Present.

Also present for the record, Janice Jacoby, Village Clerk. Joseph Gutter is running a little late.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Do you have a motion to approve the agenda? Vice Mayor Martins said she wanted her item G2 to be pulled. Do you have a motion to approve the agenda with the new agenda? Do you have a motion?

Motion to approve agenda.

Thank you very much. Do you have a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor say nay, hearing none. So the one item now is G1. Attorney Geller's not here. Interim manager, do you have any report? We're just going to move to the report. No, no report. You guys see my mayor's report there. It's always there if you guys have any questions or comments. Let's go to good and welfare. before we get, Attorney Geller put on G1, so we need him for G1, the agenda item. So let's go to the first good and welfare. If anybody wants to come up and say any words. If you guys wanna come up and say any words, I'll allow you guys to say anything at all. Let's make note, let's make note that we are following the rules from now on when it comes to our meeting procedures. Let's make note that our meeting procedures are one time per item, three minutes limit. And we can change that. That is the rules and regulations as El Pertal has always been. I've been very lenient with those rules where I allow people to come up over and over and over and over and talk for as long as possible. But that seems to have led to nothing but disrespect for me. So we're sticking to the rules from now on. El Pertal rules are the meeting procedures, one time per item, plus you have the good and welfare, three-minute limit, as it's always been. Say your name. I just put a record the floor is yours. This is Good and Welfare right now.

I'm . I just want to mention the West Side Traffic Circle. First, I want to thank the mayor and .

Oh, thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you. I want to thank the mayor. Regarding the West Side Traffic Circle, It's coming around, get it? All right, okay. Yes, so I want to thank the mayor and Councilman Winters for their involvement here. I also want to thank Frankie from Roadway Construction. They were able to figure out a way to not hurt our safety wall and to put in that sidewalk and they're working on this well the thing is is that um i do think the council along with the village attorney and i spoke to attorney geller he basically concurs you know it's great that mr rubio is saying that oh well this was the county and this was the state and this was fdot but But no one really believes that anymore. I think there are some, what I would say, aesthetic improvements that could be made to the circle that would fit within FDOT and safety regulations that can be done. I think some foliage can be put in, especially in the main circle. I think the splitter islands don't have to be just filled in with concrete. I think there's some opportunities there. I know we're sort of at the... you know, the ad nauseum of all this thing. But, like, hey, we got standards here in El Portal, aesthetic standards. We got an urban planner. We have a charrette. We, you know, we hear about houses all the time. But this is something that affects everyone's property values in the area. But we want kids to be safe. But we want things to look good like El Portal does. So that's, I think that covers it.

All right? There's more to be and will be.

Yeah, more to be, more to follow.

But thanks a lot, okay? Thank you. More to fix. Thank you very much. Good and welfare, you guys.

Hmm.

I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM THE LAST MEETING WHICH WEREN'T ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED, WHICH HAPPENS A LOT. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS SO FEW PEOPLE ATTEND THESE MEETINGS. THEY GET A LITTLE FRUSTRATED THAT THEIR VOICES AREN'T BEING HEARD. A LOT OF US THOUGHT THAT THE LAST SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING WAS ABOUT THE BUDGET. AND I BROUGHT THAT UP AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T PICKED A BUDGET MEETING, BUT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THAT TONIGHT. SO I'M HOPING THAT'S THE CASE. FISCAL YEAR STARTED OCTOBER 1ST. WE'RE ALMOST INTO THE FINAL MONTH OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING HAS BEEN REVISED OR UPDATED FROM THE BUDGET THAT WE ADOPTED. WAY BACK IN SEPTEMBER, LIKE TWO MONTHS AGO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE REVENUE SHORTFALL FROM THE ANTICIPATED BARRINGTON BROTHERS MONEY WHEN THEY CHANGED FROM A MARKET RATE COMPLEX TO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX. and in doing so qualified themselves for a huge tax reduction and a shortfall for the village. By the way, there's been no real open airing of that betrayal. No one's taken responsibility. There's been no accountability. But I think there's an opportunity for the village to kind of push back on that. You know the village is being, or the Barrington brothers are being sued by a resident over the process of the launch. And the village has been named as a defendant. So the village has an opportunity here to settle with the plaintiff or even to switch sides and become one of the plaintiffs against the Barrington brothers. Just an idea. Retribution, poetic justice. Finally, Adam Neumann. So I asked about his plans, and that question was deflected by the mayor and the council for a variety of reasons, but my question again is, are there plans for either the Raider Church or Little Farm, and have they been shared with any council members or with Plus Serbia or the Corradino Group, and if so, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO BE SHARED WITH THE RESIDENTS WHO WILL BE THE MOST IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER CAVISTA, IT'S TEN TIMES THE SIZE. So this lack of transparency, again, just breeds mistrust and suspicion. I think there's a lot of talent in the village. There's a lot of residents who have deep experience in various fields, including real estate, and I think the council could leverage that. It doesn't always have to be us versus them. It doesn't have to be adversarial. Everybody's invested in making El Portal a better place, more livable, and not selling it down the river or the canal. And lastly, I want to know about live streaming. How come these meetings are not live streamed in the day and age of Google Meets and Zoom. I heard it was a budget constraint, but you just spent $167,000 on rocks. Not needed or wanted, from what I can tell. If you really want buy-in from the residents and encourage community engagement, you should prioritize live streaming instead of spending $10,000 on tasers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we're going to welfare.

Okay.

Alexandra Baza, 120 Northwest 36th Street. So now that the three minutes are going to be enforced, I appreciate that. So there's more opportunity for participation, but at the same time, I have to bring in public what I share with all of you in the email. What can we do to increase the participation of people via streaming, all these meetings? I don't think it's that expensive or difficult to include more people, especially elderly. On the west side, it's impossible for them to stay here until past 10 p.m. in this freezing room, if you have children, if you have anything else to do the next day, it's really hard for people to be here. So in order to be more inclusive, I urge you to find ways to not just to be more efficient with time, but to communicate with us better. And the second thing is, again, yes, about the budget. I was surprised not to see it in the agenda today. I understand, Mr. Mayor, that you have, you know, a lot to share with us about, you know, the activities that you have in your free time. But, yes, I was really surprised that we don't have that at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next for good and well?

Attorney Geller said he was five minutes away.

All right. Hearing, seeing none. Closing good and welfare. Going to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve consent agenda? So moved. Moved by Councilperson Urban-Mondula. I have a second. Second. Second by Councilperson Winters. Consent agenda. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Hearing none. All right, so we're waiting for agenda item number G1. That's Attorney Geller. And he's five minutes away, we've been told. OK, so let me try to remember. So as far as what was spoken about in Good and Welfare, the Adam Newman the site plan, what was gonna be there did not come up. What was stated in the previous meeting was Adam Newman shouted out the mayor and why would Adam Newman, it was something like this, I'm paraphrasing, you don't shout out somebody unless somebody owes you a favor, unless they did a favor for you. Nothing was brought up as far as are there site plans, have site plans been, put in nothing, not one thing was brought up about that. So that's what was said in the previous meeting. And the next meeting, if you want to, I can read the transcripts from that. Nothing was brought up about the site plan, all right? It was suggested that Adam Newman shouted out the mayor at an event and therefore somebody doesn't shout out somebody without somebody doing a favor for somebody. That's what we said.

Mayor, there's still a standing question of has... Yeah, I got you.

I got you. I got you. I got you. I got you. So that's what was being said. As far as... As far as... Live streaming, we can look into that. But understand that when budgets are cut, then things are cut if it's not already budgeted. But we can look into that as far as live streaming. And we'll look into as far as other individuals that live stream also and see if they have a live stream individual or company that does it pretty cheap. So we'll look into that. As far as any type of site plan or anything like that, and when we're talking about what was stated was it's gonna be much larger than the Cavista or 10 times or whatever times larger than the Cavista, not one thing has even been looked upon or spoken about when it comes to the trailer park. Not one thing has been submitted when it comes to the trailer park. I believe that Mr. Newman's focusing on the church first But not one thing has been submitted as far as that happens. I think that the Corradino group, once they do get things submitted, then they'll reach out and they give it to us and then we let it out as soon as it's submitted. So nothing's been submitted as far as that goes. So it gets submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department first. They'll submit with them. They speak directly with the Planning and Zoning Department and or the Building Department. And then once it runs through there, It goes to the clerk and then it's submitted to us as a whole, okay? So we'll keep you guys updated on that. For those of you who got my, oh, and by the way, the comment about I do a lot of my off time, on every agenda you see my marriage report. I've been doing that for about two years already. So it's not the first time there's been a marriage report, okay? Attorney Geller, G1 is your item, if you would please jump into that.

We, where is Ms. Driver, there you go, okay, hi. Ms. Driver and I have had the occasion to speak on two, three occasions. We discussed some general parameters. I had a conference with the vice mayor who's handling this for us. I understood she would not be able to be with us this evening. Based on my conversation with the vice mayor, we prepared a draft contract which we sent to Ms. Driver, but only this morning. And I told her that she should understand clearly that, although I try my best to be fair, that I'm here to represent the interests of the village, and that she was strongly encouraged to have that draft contract reviewed by council. of her choice, and my understanding is she is going about doing that, obviously. They need a little bit of time, whoever it is, has to look at it, read it, think about it, and then at that point, either they or she will get back to us. There was a proposal, I should maybe call it an offer, that the Vice Mayor instructed me to convey, in terms of salary and some of the other conditions that are set out in the draft contract. And right now, we've finally been able to get that information to Ms. Driver. I'm sure she'll be back with us as soon as her counsel has the opportunity to review it. And at that point, we'll go from there. I don't think this needs to be an extensive process. That's where we're at. I want to be clear that the process of negotiation is somewhat confidential or will be apparent as we move down the road. But I certainly want to be clear that we do not negotiate in a public forum. Negotiation is a private thing. Any council member who wants to be briefed on our progress and where we're at is certainly entitled to that, and I'll make myself available to each of you to bring you up to speed if that's what you'd like, but that's not something that we do in public. There are still some terms that are not settled between the person you've chosen and the village.

Before I go to the residents, are there any comments or questions from the council about the interim manager position negotiations?

No, I just think the general question of what is the anticipated timeline for accomplishing the contract.

I have something I want to share. Ms. Jacoby, can you share?

Attorney Geller, Councilperson Erbaum asked about the anticipated timeline for the negotiations.

I'll answer this way. I have to put myself in the shoes of Ms. Driver's counsel. That's why people get lawyers. So I would say to you that I would assume that we're talking days. I don't see any reason why it would be longer than that. I wouldn't be shocked, considering that it was transmitted today before noon. I wouldn't be shocked if I heard something tomorrow. But if it were Thursday instead of Wednesday or Friday instead of Thursday, that would not shock me. Perhaps the attorney in question, I don't know yet who it is. And in fact, it may not be somebody that negotiates on behalf of Ms. Driver. It may be somebody that gives her private individual advice and tells her to go forth and pursue it in direct negotiations. If somebody said that the attorney's got a busy week, but he'll make the time or she'll make the time this weekend, I would be at least a little surprised if we didn't hear something back by Monday, but that doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.

Thank you. Councilperson Winters.

All right. And let me just stress again, I'm happy to talk to any of you one at a time so there's no sunshine issue and bring you up to speed. Vice Mayor Morton, when she told me she was not able to be with us this evening, specifically did ask that I brief the council and tell you where we're at with it. I'm comfortable with the document that we've extended, but nothing about it is carved in stone.

COUNSPERSON WINTERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COLLEAGUES, I PASSED OUT A PIECE OF PAPER THAT IS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. SO IN OUR LAST MEETING ABOUT HIRING A NEW MANAGER, MY CONCERNS RESPONDED WITH AN IMMEDIATE MOTION CONTRADICTING MY CONCERNS. NOW THESE CONCERNS HAVE BECOME VALID WITH PROOF. COLLEAGUES, TONIGHT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY AS WE FINALIZE THE TERMS OF THE INCOMING INTERIM VILLAGE The votes appear to be settled, and I accept that. But because this decision directly affects our residents and our financial stability, we owe the public an honest, complete picture before approving a salary that exceeds even that of our former manager, especially when our village cannot afford such a figure without cuts elsewhere. To begin this relationship on the right foundation, we must acknowledge the factual record of the candidate's most recent employment. According to the City of Belle Glade official HR documents, the candidate's total service there lasted approximately five months, all of which occurred within a probationary period. Under every established HR and public administration standard, employment that does not survive a probationary period does not constitute completed or qualifying managerial experience. The employee action form in the personal file classifies for separation as a termination. While the candidate submitted a resignation letter requesting the effective date of December 31st, the interim city manager issued a written directive the second day on November 21st as her final day of employment, effective immediately. He required the return of all city equipment, denied remote work requests for December, and processed her separation that day. She then received her final paycheck plus an additional month of pay, compensation consistent with severance type agreements. Now, there are not interpretations or opinions. These are just the formal records that have been given by the city of Belle Glade. So to maintain transparency and ensure public record is accurate, I'm submitting the following documents. One, Belle Glade employee action form, which listed the separation as a termination, signed by the HR. Two, the candidate's own resignation letter, dated November 20th, requesting for a final employment date of December 31st. And three, the memorandum from Belle Glade's HR director, dated November 21st, confirming that her actual final day of employment was November 21st, and documenting that the additional month of pay. Together, these documents establish an unmistakable record. The candidate did not complete her probationary period, did not complete a full performance cycle, and did not leave under conditions typically associated with a successful service of managerial role. Leading experts in HR and public administration consistently affirm that a full performance cycle, generally one year, is required to demonstrate managerial competence. Employments that end during the probationary period is considered introductory, not experience. Based on these standards, a five-month probationary tenure ending in a separation does not qualify as managerial experience under any credible HR framework. For this reason, I will not be able to support the incoming interim manager's request for the top salary, which was inside of the documents that were sent out to all possible applicants as it is much higher than our previous village manager. And we cannot afford this without significant budget cuts. If the council moves forward with this appointment as appears likely, I strongly urge that her salary be set at the entry level of the scale, approximately $90,000 was what the entry level on the scale was, which is fully appropriate for an interim manager who has not yet completed a prior managerial probationary period or demonstrated a full cycle of performance. This is not about personality or politics. It's about transparency, fiscal responsibility, and ensuring that we make decisions grounded in documented facts and sound public administration standards. Our residents deserve that clarity, and our incoming manager deserves to begin her role without uncertainty or unanswered questions hanging over her appointment. Now since we did have a discussion with the interim manager and we requested for the reason for the separation was for a resignation, there is technically a resignation here. But it does not appear to be under the same circumstances as we originally thought. So I would like to make a motion to end negotiations with the interim manager driver and reopening the hiring process. And I would like to have a second for discussion on this motion.

Second from Light Ward. Does Councilperson Winters have a second? Does Councilperson Winters have a second?

She just said yes.

Does Councilperson Winters have a second?

She said I needed to talk through this mic. Second.

Okay, thank you very much. We have a motion, we have a second. Councilperson Winters, you said for a discussion. You want to discuss?

Yes, so I would like a chance for everyone on the council to discuss this so that we all agree on the reasons and why it makes sense.

yeah so i'll take the first three minutes on that one firstly by the councilman's own logic it would be defined as wholly unacceptable and out of place to say i don't know halfway through your first term as an elected official try and give yourself a raise from three thousand dollars a year to sixty seven thousand dollars a year So credibility here is falling through the floor. There is no credibility on this issue. I discussed this exact issue with the candidate in a phone call before coming in here already with the mind that she was probably the leading candidate. Many of the residents here tonight were here the evening of the interviewing process, and I believe everyone who witnessed that process also believes that Ms. Driver is the most qualified candidate. And this is where I take my hardworking background, because I made it to 40 before I realized, oh, the C-suite don't talk about hard work. The C-suite talks about everyone else's hard work. So here, late in life, I'm getting my act together, and I'm figuring out how to work smart, not harder. Personally, I went through 42 employers to learn a whole bunch of skills that a lot of people don't seem to have, the least of which is reading the room and reading someone standing in front of you to understand what degree of certainty they have that they know what bull versus horse tastes like out the rear end, if you know what I'm saying. Nothing about this resignation letter is intimidating that we don't have a qualified candidate. I don't even know what the big deal about this is, to be perfectly honest. So I'm not going to sit here and have someone who tried to give themselves a $67,000 raise a few months into their first term say that the higher end of what we advertised is too much when we've had multiple discussions on the council that the high end of what we advertised is too low or not high enough to get the kind of talent we're looking for. And I'm just gonna explain to you that I stand firmly behind our decision and our candidate. And I think we have someone who can absolutely, on the first day, walk in and get us in the correct direction.

Okay, thank you, Council President Irvine. All right, so you guys, there was a, so let me just explain a couple of procedural things here. So first of all, if somebody motions, I have to hear their motion. Somebody else can't tell me that somebody else motioned. All right, I have to hear their motion. The second thing is we had a motion, we had a second. Council President Erdman wanted to speak, so he jumped right forward. It's rare that individuals can force individuals to talk or make a statement, but there was a motion, there was a second. We would first have to take the vote. Councilperson Erbaum kind of jumped forward. He wanted to speak. But we have to take a vote on the motion. There's a motion. There's a second. We have to take a vote on that when it comes to the speeches. So Councilperson Erbaum spoke. We do have to have a vote for the motion, Madam Clerk. We have a motion. We have a second motion by Councilperson Winters.

The second was Councilperson Lightfoot.

Well, the vote is, that's why I said this is unorthodox because the vote is about discussion. That is not what the motion was. The motion was to discuss. And my, Councilperson Winters, wasn't that the motion? It's part of it.

The motion was to end negotiations with Interim Manager Driver and reopen the hiring process and have a second to discuss the motion.

It was to discuss, yeah, the motion was, it was a discussion.

The first part of that motion is an action statement, to end discussion with the candidate. The first part of that motion is an action statement. So I discussed it.

Discussion is appropriate on the motion.

Yeah. So we're removing the discussion portion from the motion then? Okay. Well then we have a motion and we have a second.

Roll call.

So if the motion is in the second, Madam Clerk, specify that one more time for the motion. Take out the discussion, Councilperson Winters.

Okay. Do we want to have a discussion first? Because I think Lightfoot Ward wanted to say something. You want me to remove the motion for the second?

Yeah, restate the motion.

Okay. So motion to end negotiations with interim manager driver and reopening the hiring process. Okay.

So that's the motion. We have a motion. We have a second. Councilperson Lightfoot Ward.

Did you get a second?

You were the second.

Okay. So the whole thing is we're voting against?

Correct.

Okay. Because a lot of this talking is kind of gibberish for me. I don't know about anybody else. It's kind of gibberish. And it don't matter that I have a PhD. That's not the issue. The issue is it's got to be plain language. Where are we going? What are we trying to do? And my partner over here says we need to do some more. We don't need to just accept one. Am I saying that right? Yes. So it makes sense to me before we start making final decisions. That's my thoughts.

Thank you very much. There's a motion, there's a second. I think that a vote needs to be made. I think that when it comes to situations like this, I think transparency is key, but I think when you have a motion, when you have a second, all that takes place within the votes. But if we're talking about shutting down or closing the current negotiations. Do we go back to opening it up fully?

I said it was part of the motion was to reopen the hiring process.

Yeah, so if I could have 30 seconds. No, go ahead, go ahead. Okay, so we went through an exhaustive process. We thought we were only going to have two candidates. We had 12 that were effectively emailed to us, eight that we interviewed, six that showed up. And so, I mean, we went through the process. And I'm just going to remind everybody, once again, the person who is making this motion Earlier this year, tried to get themselves $67,000 a year, have been looking for some way to get whatever they can out of the village ever since, and had a candidate that they, guys, I'm telling you, the worst person that you saw in that interview process is the closest person to Councilperson Winters, okay? Just ask the meta glasses, all right? So what are we, this is an obnoxious motion, flat out.

Yeah, I think that the problem that I kind of have with this is to reopen it all the way again. I just think that that would be an exhaustive process. You're talking about reopening it for another, what, couple of months?

I thought we were going to have some kind of financial scandal. I thought we were going to have some kind of ethics issue. I thought we were going to have some kind of whistleblower. This is a resignation letter in amicable terms. I don't understand at all how we're making this molehill into a mountain other than the unending effort by the person sitting to my right to inflict his will in every single possible way in every single seat that exists in this village. If you think I'm going to sit here quietly and not call it out, you have never met me.

Yeah, the concern that I have is that we've gone through a hiring process. Now, if it was something like reopening it to the final individuals, that's different.

That was my original intent, but I misspoken, I apologize.

Okay, so that was your original intent?

It was original intent was to reopen the last section of the process.

To the five individuals who were here? Yes.

Mayor, if the maker of the motion is qualifying it, we have to ask, is the second okay with the way the maker of the motion said it? Do you still second based on how he said it?

No.

Excuse me, Councilman Lightfoot Ward.

If we haven't done it properly, if we haven't done it professionally, if we haven't done it the right way, then we need to start again.

That's what the yes would be for, to start again.

Councilman Lightfoot Ward, just to clarify, the maker of the motion in response to the mayor has said that he wants to not, if I understand it, and forgive me for paraphrasing, now he wants to go back to the beginning. He wants to go back one step to finalists. Now, I have no vote and no opinion and no say. I'm just trying to clarify. But he's stated he wants to go back a step to the finalists and The question is, is that okay with the seconder? He's still second, taking a step back, which is what he's proposing.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney. So you are rescinding what you asked for?

Modifying. It's clarifying, not really rescinding. Clarifying, yes.

You're clarifying it. So I'm going to remove my second. Is that all right? Do we have to do a vote on that?

No, ma'am.

I'm removing my second.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we have a motion. That's three times. We have a motion to reopen to the.

What is the motion clearly stated at this point in time?

I think the motion is clearly stated that the councilman wants to return to the last step.

To the.

Before this, which was.

The five finalists.

Well.

the interview of six.

Yeah, but whoever was a finalist.

The evening of the interview of six. Yes. With the same six.

Well, there were, I think, eight games.

Right, so two additional may show up.

So this includes individuals who are not here in person also? Yes.

Okay. All right. Those that were presented as finalists, whether they were here, not here, that's my understanding. I can be corrected. The second has withdrawn it. Obviously, I don't think you're seconding it, Councilman.

I want a little bit more clarity, though, because I feel like we're having this... motion and discussion before we're having the discussion about what the interim process is, which is going to lead us to a process where we're selecting a permanent manager.

I hope I've explained the interim process.

Yes, and you're correct. I'm not going to be the second.

So my only comment then would be that the Mayor, though he's presiding, has the privilege to second the motion without passing the gavel, but that does not mean he has to. So the motion is restated. Unless, since it's pretty clear, Councilman Ervam, you're not seconding. Well, I'd like to. If Councilwoman Lightfoot Ward chooses to second it after all, that's up to her. She said no. And the mayor has the right to second. Otherwise, procedurally, the motion would not receive a second.

Well, we need to explain it again because, obviously, things have been changed around, and we want to make sure everyone understands completely on the dais what's going on. So, Life at Ward. During the last meeting, we had a resignation from Belle Glade for quality of life reasons. Now that we learned that that resignation was not for quality of life, it was actually termination, we were told something different than what is actually in the city records of Belle Glade. So my motion is simply to go back one step to our finalist and re-choose another interim manager using all the hard work that's already been done with the council for the last month.

I'm sorry, Councilman, but I have to correct something you've said. You've said to choose another interim manager. In fact, if you go back one step to where the finalists, nothing about that motion disqualifies Ms. Driver as somebody that is one of those finalists. So she's not disqualified and to say it's another, it's just to re-choose from the last step. It's not a disqualification.

Part of my motion was to end negotiations with Ms. Driver.

By returning to the previous step, but she would nonetheless remain eligible.

Okay. So I will make the motion again. My motion is to end negotiations with the interim manager driver and reopen the hiring process from the step last week with our finalists.

That's the motion. Is there a second?

Point of order.

Do we have any other candidates?

You have eight candidates.

We have eight. If the motion passes, you go back to the eight. That's the effect of the motion, Councilwoman Lightfoot-Ward. The effect of the motion would be to go back to the eight candidates who were finalists last time. That includes Ms. Driver, it includes those who presented to you, and it includes a couple of finalists who were unable, apparently, to attend the meeting. So it's up to you to whether or not you second. The mayor certainly has the ability as well. Actually, Councilman Ermbaum has the ability, but stated clearly that that's not his intention or desire. So whether you choose to second it and go back a step, or if the motion is not seconded and dies, we will continue our process that we're working on with Ms. Driver.

In all fairness, erase my second right now. Obviously we're not ready for it.

So, first of all, let me straighten something out. So, let me straighten this out, first of all.

I meant to say, by the way, Ms. Councilwoman Lightfoot-Ward, if you have a question, still, I'd be happy to address it, but maybe we'll hear from the mayor first, if that's okay with you, Councilwoman.

That's perfectly okay.

The mayor seconds, procedure usually the mayor seconds if we have less, if we have three people with the mayor included. We have four people. Therefore the mayor is presiding over the meeting, the mayor does not second. It's always been like that. We have a motion. I'll ask three times for a second.

What is the motion?

Councilperson Winches, repeat your motion.

Let me try it, Mayor, if I might. Last week, Councilwoman, you had eight finalists. You voted as a body, not unanimously, but you voted by a majority to select Kamitra Driver, who's sitting right here, as the top candidate, and to negotiate a contract with her to be the interim village manager. That process is moving forward now. The motion would be to stop that negotiation with Ms. Driver to be the interim manager and instead to return to the posture you were in last week before you voted for Ms. Driver as a body, not all of you and I don't really recall who voted exactly how in every case, but to return to the posture you were in last week of having eight finalists before you for your consideration in selecting an interim manager. That essentially is the motion to stop the negotiation that's now ongoing and to return to where the Village Council had eight finalists in front of you. That's the motion. I think that's correctly stated, Councilman? You should say... Yes, sir. Okay, because they don't get the nod. And the question that's going to you, Councilwoman, because it's your privilege... Do you want to second the motion for further discussion and possible action? Or do you decline to second the motion, which unless, I mean, the mayor stated that he does not feel comfortable issuing a second as the presiding officer. That's certainly his privilege. In the same way, it's your privilege to second or not to second. And so the question is whether you prefer to continue, practically speaking, whether you prefer to continue the negotiation process with Ms. Driver to see if we can reach an agreement for her to be the interim village manager, or whether you prefer to stop that process and return to when there were eight finalists before the council to choose. Well, okay. That's the mayor's prerogative. He's chairing the meeting.

Mayor, can I speak? May I speak? Yes. Point of order. I think we need to slow this thing down. Because right now, what you're asking, what I thought we were asking, is that eight people, can you say eight people? Eight people have not been what we understood. Only one person. That doesn't sound fair to me, now that you're telling me this. In the meantime, it's holding up a responsibility that we really need to be more fervent about. And that is to get a new person. So if I'm wrong, I apologize.

DAVID BURRAGE- No, ma'am. You're correct. It's either to stay with the selection you made last week of this person, this woman who's sitting in front of you, or to put it back in front of the council to choose again from the eight finalists. And whether you second the motion to stop the ongoing negotiations and go back to the eight, or whether you decline to second, in which case we stay in the posture of going forward and negotiating with the person who was voted for last week. And that's your prerogative to choose.

OK, since I started this rat running around in the room, I'm hearing this. We only have one person that we've talked to. We only have one person to give us information. I don't doubt that one person can't do the job. I do not doubt that at all. But it doesn't seem fair. If we're coming here with just one person, period, that we've heard from. If it's been more than that, I'm not getting that. So when my council person here made the motion, you did, that's why I second it.

But if it's not... All right, so let me jump in here.

Hold on, if it's... I'm going to stop. If it's not that... then we need to make it that. It should be more than one person. It should be more than one person if that's what we want. If we just want to get the first person that says, I do, then that's a prerogative. But it doesn't seem like. If nobody else right now that we've talked to, or you all have because we haven't, I haven't, has decided that they want a piece of the pie too, why not give it to them? Why take one person and then say, okay, that's enough?

Is that what you're saying? Councilwoman, if I might, if you want to continue with the person chosen last week, decline to second. If you want to open it to other finalists, then second. It's what you want to do, whether you second or not.

I want to decline it so that we can make this fair. Because the last time I heard something like this, we only took one person out and everybody voted it. Once I realized what was happening, not this one in particular, but way down, you know I've been here a little while. Yes, ma'am. So I'm not trying to not have this person. I'm saying let's be fair. If it's just one person that said, yeah, let me come, let me go, let me do this.

I may have stated it confusingly. If you want the person in front of you for us to negotiate with, then don't second. If you want other candidates that we heard from last time, then second.

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying the second one. Listen, I have no personal influence on anybody. I just want it to be done right. If we have more than one candidate that wants to look at this, and we have had them come before whoever to say they want the job too, that's what I'm talking about. If nobody else has come forward, that's why I said yes.

If you're saying you want other candidates continued, then you are seconding the motion.

I want other people.

Then you would second the motion if that's your preference. If that's your preference, then you would second the motion.

So we have a motion on the table. Do we have a second?

What's the motion?

The motion is to stop the negotiations with one person, with Ms. Driver. and return to where you had eight finalists and go back to consider the eight. That's the motion. If you want further candidates considered, you do second. If you want to continue with Ms. Driver only, then you do not second.

Who made the motion to second?

Mr. Winters. Let me do this, you guys.

We want this person to be here, but we haven't heard anybody else.

I'd like to see all eight finalists. Okay.

We're in the same ballgame. You want to see all of them. I want to see all of them. I don't want just one. I want to see all of them.

Then you would second.

So I did the right thing. Why are y'all looking at me like I was... Yes, ma'am.

But you need to re... Because the motion was restated. If you choose to second, you need to restate that you second.

I second... and the process will continue and this person doesn't automatically become the person? That's correct. Then I'm not taking back my second.

Okay. But it still depends on whether the motion passes. That has yet to be determined. But yes, then it's seconded.

Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. I'm going to open it up to our residents. About this particular item, the village manager position, come to the microphone. You have three minutes. Say your name and address for the record if you'd like to comment on this.

Hi, Adam Simon, 360 Northeast 85th Street. Good to see you all. I just wanted to just say a couple things. I wish Darien Martin was here today. So last week, I felt, so first off, I think you all need to get along. I mean, we voted for you guys. You guys represent us. I think you guys don't have to like each other. But yeah, Charlie, your $67,000 was stupid. Let's get past it. It's not going to happen. It was dumb. And I'm glad it was voted against. But you made some salient points last week. And I felt you were railroaded. by Darien Martin. You made a point that the commute was that she resigned. Today you said you found evidence that she was terminated. So if that's true, that would be a lie. I'm not saying it is a lie. But if it's true, that would be a lie. And then second, your two points, I felt at the moment you made those two points. Mrs. Martin said, I move to vote. And then it went right to Urban. He says, I second. Went to Lightfoot Ward. She said, I'll do whatever this guy does. By the time it got to Charlie, he was sunken underneath the bench here. Why? Because nobody likes him. And at the end of the day, his points are valid. There's valid points. Let's look at this stuff. We had a problem with our... Not all of us, but many of us had a problem with our city manager before, right, wrong, or indifferent. She did some great things, and she did some not-so-great things. We want to be in a position where the people that we don't elect are the right people, and just because we went through one interviewing process, how do we know we picked the right person? So I think it's great. I saw last week the old city manager was here. He seemed great. Also... Like, this is an interim position, right? So it's not like a permanent spot. Why not save a little money, let that person prove themselves out, and then give them a raise when it's time to pay the piper, right? It's like, why give somebody $165,000 or whatever, $170,000 for an interim job? I saw a guy here that said, I'll do it for $85,000. Didn't fit the mold. Couldn't say the city right. He's at El Portal or whatever he was saying. But sink or swim, right? Like, 85 grand. If the guy can't do the job, he's out interim. You have time to get what could be an amazing candidate here, you know, to proof itself out. And I think he did the right thing today. I know it took some time. But it just seemed weird to me that it was just flushed through so quickly. I think you're awesome, but I've never seen you smile ear to ear since I've been coming to these things, how you were. when she left the room and like Martin was just railroaded you and I thought that was wrong because two meetings earlier you were rude and disrespectful and she put you in your place and then she did that in a very lawyerly way last week and disrespected you and I didn't like that that slippery slope that way of doing it and I wish she was here because I would say that I voted for her I voted for you I voted for you and I voted for you Wrap us. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Simon. Yeah, you will be able to. Anyone else for the interim manager position? Say your name and address for the record, and the floor is yours.

Hi, my name is Janelle Rodriguez, 8825 Northeast 2nd Avenue. Haven't been to one of these meetings in probably 15 years. So I would like to applaud all of you for showing up. And I am so happy that I came. What I just witnessed was, I have no idea, but there's a lot of tension in this room. I own a med spa right down the street. And I just wanted to know what's going on with the church next to me. But I actually wanna run for like city council now because there's obviously serious, serious issues here. And I don't know how I can help, but I wanna help our community to come to these meetings. And I have nothing, I don't know any of you, I think you're all very smart. And if I can help to just get people to be aware of what's happening here, then I'll get involved.

Thank you. Anyone else for the village manager position?

Greg Steer, 120 Northwest 86th Street. I didn't, you know, I don't want to question the qualifications of the interim village manager, but I'm just wondering why you guys had an applicant who actually held the position before, who knows the village, knows where the buttons are and how to push them who would have no learning curve who would hit the ground running which is what we need because we're so far behind the eight ball after our former city manager left so abruptly so it's just kind of a head scratcher why we wouldn't have gone with that applicant thank you thank you mr this is about the village manager position anyone else

Name and address for the record.

Jay Rivera, 225 Northeast 86th Street. For those that have not attended this meeting previously or met the previous applicant that was the city manager, let's go back and look at the history of him, just like what Mr. Winters did on Ms. Drivers. He was terminated from here, okay? Secondly, yes, we all need to get along. We all need to get our ducks in the road here and spend the village money correctly. Ms. Driver is one of six candidates that was in front of all of you last week. You had enough time to review their resumes. You had enough time to make contact with their employers and or any history you wanted to know, besides asking them how long is the drive. I don't know. a firm seat of Ms. Drivers, but we need a city manager that can put this city back in order. If she's coming in as an interim manager, let her work on an average type salary, I'm not looking at whatever the proposed was, then consider the work that she's done when you post for a permanent position. Out of the five that you interview, yes, one could not even say the name of the village. Another one was extremely young, no experience whatsoever. Another one, like I said, previous manager that was terminated and there's action against him. He filed a lawsuit against the village. And the other one was supposedly a candidate for governor that had no experience as a village manager or really working in public sector. So we all need to go back and look at the minutes, look at the tapes, and reconsider what this waste of time is. I am not spending another five hours in here for you to make a decision that's not a valid one, because you did not do what you need to do. And Attorney Geller? About two, three months ago that there was meetings here, you were not here, you had one of your proxies.

Yes, sir, my partner, yes.

I requested information about a recall petition in recalling Lightfoot Ward, Dr. Lightfoot Ward, and possibly Mr. Winters, based on their actions Life at war has been here many years. Cannot even speak over the microphone. Votes automatically yes or no for information without reading her information.

Thank you. Who else for good and welfare? Village manager position. One time up, Mr. Simon. One time up.

Velvet Connelly, 355 Northeast 87th Street. So I do think it's valid if a candidate gave information that was found later on to not be accurate as far as experience, because that is directly connected to salary, right? Salary a lot of times is based on your level of experience. So if the experience level is not what it was represented to be, then I do think that that's something valid to examine to say, are we going in the right direction as far as salary negotiation price-wise? And then we also have to consider

Okay.

looking at that candidate in context of the other candidates that they were put up against if we thought they were more qualified and that was the reason they were voted for. Now I don't know, I wasn't here for the entirety of the meeting, so I'm definitely not saying that is what happened, but I'm saying to me that's the validity of if new information is presented, I think that does have to be taken into consideration if something now is being brought to the forefront that we didn't know last week when the decision was being made. So, you know, for me, I also would like to see from a fiscal standpoint that if we're taking anybody, because I remember there were several candidates that I was here for at the beginning who were offering to do the job at a reduced rate. It's an interim position. So if we can get somebody in who will do the job for less than the going rate and we can use that as a probationary period and perhaps save some money during that time or hire more staff during that time that could be able to accelerate the results, I think that's a good decision to make. I don't know what the salary is that's being discussed as far as the current interim candidate. What I've heard is that it's higher than what the previous village manager was making. And if that is the case, I think that should be taken into consideration as well if we had other candidates because it is an interim position. We're not locked in. can we get somebody to do it at a lower rate that might allow us to do more in that shorter period of time and that person also prove themselves and if we don't like it, we can always go back and we can always look at another person for a permanent position. So just some ideas on how we might handle it, thank you.

Thank you. Mayor, just as a clarification, I know that because that's who we hear from typically, you use the word residents. I do need to say for the record that anyone present has the right to speak. And specifically, I should point out that although Ms. Driver is not a resident of the village, particularly in view of the fact that she's being discussed, Should she choose, she certainly has the right to speak and to address these. She's not required or compelled to in any way, but just because you, by habit, use the word residence, I want to be clear for the record that the opportunity to speak is available to Ms. Driver, who is not required to do so.

Yeah, Ms. Driver already motioned that she wanted to speak. I'm bringing her up after the public comment is closed because she's a person.

Yes, I didn't see that.

No problem. Anyone else from the audience about the village manager position? All right. Hearing, seeing none, bringing it back to the council. Ms. Driver, would you like to say a few words?

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. First I want to say that I appreciate the due diligence of the council persons. You absolutely, this is a big decision, choosing who will help steer the ship and the vision of the council for the village of El Portal. And it should not be taken lightly. And you absolutely should do your due diligence and investigate every candidate. So I am full support of that. I wanted to speak only because I want to clarify and let the record reflect that what is here as far as marked termination is not accurate. This is not correct at all. As you see in the file, I submitted a resignation letter. You see from the memo from the city manager accepting the resignation and our terms, and I also have a letter of reference from the city manager that I could be more than happy to provide to you all. Additionally, I was shocked to see that this was marked termination on this one. I hadn't seen this in my personnel file. So while you were discussing, I text the city manager of Belle Glade and sent him a picture of this. And he has said that that is absolutely not correct, that that should not have been marked that way. He doesn't know why the HR director who was no longer employed at the city would mark that as termination and said that he will definitely take care of that and make sure that it is corrected. So no matter how you guys decide to move forward, I fully support how you choose to move forward, whether it's with me or to open it up and go out with another candidate, because I want the best for the village of El Portal. So no matter how you move forward, I will make sure that, for the record, that you will get the corrected form from the city manager of the city of Belle Glade, because the last thing I want to leave any impression that I'm not honest, that I'm not a woman of integrity, and that I'm not a woman of my word. And I have been nothing but forthright and honest with my discussions with each of you, well, not each of you, but with council person, Those are the only two that I spoke to over the phone before the interview. I was very upfront and very honest with my communication and responses to your questions. I was very honest and upfront when I interviewed before this council and before the residents here. And as I said, no matter moving forward, the one thing that I have of value is my reputation. refuse to be known as a woman that is not of integrity and that was dishonest. So I will make sure that you all have that. But at the end of the day, whatever works best for the city of village, I mean city, the village of El Portal, I completely support it. I still firmly believe that I am the best candidate for this city. I do believe that I can bring A lot to the village. I'm not going to reiterate and go through another interview process, but I did want to just say that I do wish this city, this village, the best. I think it has such great potential. It's beautiful, and I truly was looking forward to starting here and bringing the vision of the residents and the council to light. But if you guys choose to go in a different direction, I still wish you all the best. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the council? We do have a motion and a second.

Yeah, just a quick comment. So like I said, there's nothing in this piece of information that was news to me because I did address those concerns in the phone interview I did with the candidate. And the reason I selected the candidate out of the six that we spoke with was because of the expertise with which she answered questions in a nuanced way that tells me she can walk the tightrope, has walked the tightrope. This is not a new skill for her. I don't find anything within the job description of village manager to be new skills for her to acquire. I believe we have a prepared candidate.

So I would like to address some of those claims from Ms. Driver. So the box marked termination on the employment action maybe is accurate, maybe is not accurate. But her own resignation related correspondence from the Bill Glade contains language that does not align with the standard voluntary resignation. According to the memorandum we received, it's quote, additionally, your final paycheck will contain your regular biweekly net salary in addition to one extra month of pay. That is not common practice or routine for resignations. We don't give away pay when you go, and this isn't stated as missing PTO days or missing anything. It says as addition of one extra month pay. So you do not normally.

Time out. Point of order. What source do you have for the information that that's not standard operating procedure for a 30-day period? pay regardless of how HR chooses to term the separation for their own administrative and accounting purposes, which I'm sure is what you'll find out the HR department had done for the convenience of the administration. They termed it a termination versus a resignation. And I'm just curious, of course, 30 days compensation is pretty standard for almost any separation that exists within the corporate world, private or public. Not according to SHRM. What's the source? SHRM, S-H-R-M. S-H-R-M. SHRM says what? You want me to look up the exact words right now? Basically, when someone resigns, it's not common practice.

I don't like to make assumptions. to give out an extra month of salary. If someone is terminated, it is common practice to give out an extra month of salary. So I'm going to continue with what I was saying. So you do not normally receive your full biweekly pay plus an additional month of pay when you voluntarily resign from a municipal position. That type of payment structure is typically associated with a separation initiated by the employer and the employee. So we have two conflicting representations here. The official employment action form from Belglay clearly checked, the box says termination. Ms. Driver is now claiming that the selection was inaccurate. So yet the documentation we received shows a type of payout that is not consistent with the standard voluntary resignation. So this discrepancy is exactly why the public records request was necessary and why the timing matters. We did not, Lightfoot Ward, we made the public records request before we were able to vote last week and it took Bell Glades two weeks to give us the information. So the discrepancy is exactly why the public records request was necessary and why time matters. The documents took more than a week to obtain, and we did not have time before last week's interviews. So now the documents have been put on the record and on the diet so everyone can see exactly what it says, which conflicts what was said to us in the interview last week. And since myself and Council President Erbom were on the phone with her, it also conflicts with the statement that was given to me on the phone in the phone interview.

Mr. Mayor.

Councilperson Leifert-Ward.

What was the motion? Can I have my colleagues say what the motion was? Because obviously I must have understood something completely different, and I'm wide awake. What was your motion?

The motion was to end negotiations with the interim manager driver in reopening the hiring process for the last eight qualified applications for the manager position from last week.

In other words, don't settle for just one. Try to see many. Mr. Attorney. Yes, sir. Is that kosher? Is that all right? Because what I was hearing is, if that's what the, if that's...

Yes, ma'am. It is your... choice as a village council. You're not required to do what Councilman Winters is suggesting, neither are you precluded from doing what Councilman Winters is suggesting. It is squarely within your discretion to decide how you wish to proceed. It is proper to bring such a motion It is proper to vote for it. It is proper to vote against it. It is an exercise of your discretion as to what you think is the proper path for the village to move forward. My only additional comment, and I said this last time, is if under any circumstances we are not concluding OUR NEGOTIATION WITH MS. DRIVER WITH A CONTRACT TO GO FORWARD TONIGHT THAT IS NOT ON MS. DRIVER. SHE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE DRAFT TILL EARLIER TODAY. I WAS STILL, YOU KNOW, I WORKED ON IT, THE VICE MAYOR WORKED ON IT. THIS MORNING IS WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT TO MS. DRIVER. THAT'S BEYOND HER CONTROL. I will again say that since we are not, you must at least name an interim clerk because it is not proper for this length of time to have your regular permanent clerk, Ms. Jacoby wearing two hats. And if she is to continue, even if it's a matter of another week, If she is to continue as interim until something gets decided, you must name an interim clerk. She cannot continue to wear two hats. The only one who can wear one hat is Councilman Winters. With that said, that's my only caveat. How you proceed is up to you. The motion is proper. Being against the motion is also proper. That's up to you, each of you, to make a decision. Vice Mayor is unable to be here tonight. I was advised that in advance.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

There was a motion and I second it, yes? Yes. And that motion came from my colleague up here, right? Yes. Is there a problem there? Listening to our attorney, there is no problem with what I said. He offered a motion and I said yes. Absolutely.

So it's in discussion, Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward. The Council, you've heard from the audience. The Council is now discussing it. I guess three of you have weighed in. When the Mayor spoke before, he asked about a clarification. that he expressed a concern about and that's what led to the clarification of the motion by the maker and ultimately to your renewed second. So I think three of you have weighed in. One may or may not have additional comments. He's sitting at the front table, that's up to him. Or you go to a vote.

then I don't have need to change anything. No.

No, ma'am. When we get to the vote, which will be presumably shortly, all the residents have been heard from, and at least three of the council, you could have the vote right this minute, or you could have further comment. That's up to the gavel. But as soon as that's concluded... You'll come to a vote and, you know, you've indicated, I shouldn't say that. You've seconded the motion. It's up to you to how you vote on the motion. People do second things and not vote for them. It does happen.

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate it. Thank you. That I'm on the right track. Yes. You made the motion. I gave you a second. That was it. Yes. So what was the problem?

There's no problem. We're in discussion. And then we'll have a vote.

So... Is there any further discussion or questions from the council?

Well, I just found a part for Councilperson Erbaum. According to SHRM.org, severance pay is a benefit offered by many employers when involuntary terminating the employment of the employee. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the council? Okay.

Mr. Mayor, so you have a motion and a second.

We do have a motion. We do have a motion and a second. Thank you. Let me just say very quickly, you guys, the first thing is that I'm not necessarily for, I'm not necessarily against opening it back up. I do have a concern about opening it back up to those who weren't here the original time. Because you're essentially, that night, if you guys don't remember, that night the residents didn't even speak. They turned in questions that were written down and we went to like 11.30 p.m. or 12, something like that, that night. And that was like the quickest we could have done it. We brought them out one by one. If you're talking about adding two more individuals to bring it to the individuals that didn't show up, we have to redo the entire thing again. because they didn't have a chance to answer. So you're talking about doing the entire night all over again. Like, I think that we've already interviewed the six. If you wanna bring those six back,

I'm with that. But you're talking about bringing back... I apologize for interrupting, but as a procedural matter, I need to advise you that the fact that Councilman Winters has, I said, clarified, that's essentially an amendment. The fact that that amendment was presented and seconded... does not deprive you of the ability to further amend. That might not be clear, but procedurally, it is within your power and authority as a member of council to make another amendment to the pending motion. You're not required to, but you are privileged to do so if that's your choice.

No problem. So that's where I'm at with that. Always remember, you guys, also, that we can get rid of anyone at any time with three votes. I don't care if they're interim. I don't care if they're permanent. For anyone at any time. So just know that. So I just don't want us to kind of act like if someone's interim, it's like, oh, we're stuck with her. I mean, I don't understand. I want to get rid of her, but I can't. We're just stuck. No, if there's three votes, we can get rid of them tonight, next meeting, whenever we want to. It doesn't matter if they're permanent, interim, whatever they are. So just understand that the council, as a council, we're never stuck and our hands are tied and our hands are handcuffed. It's never like that. With three votes, we can get rid of anyone at any time. All right, so just kind of keep that in mind. And I'm not necessarily against it, but my only concern is bringing it back to the individuals also that didn't show up. You're talking about a full-on process all over again. And we went past 12 last time with no resident interaction. Are you moving to amendment? No, I'm not moving to amend anything. I'm just saying my piece. We do have a motion. We do have a second. Before I ask for a vote, any last questions or comments from the council? I'm open to your amendments.

Councilman, you're also privileged to move to amend.

But he asked us to make the vote. Let's just make the vote and you move forward whatever way.

Any last questions or comments?

Councilperson Winters, is he amending it?

No, no. I'm confused. No, he's not. Oh. No amending. No. Madam Clerk, may I please have a roll call, please?

Roll call. Councilperson Winters?

Yes.

Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward? Yes. Councilperson Ervam?

No.

Mayor Nickerson?

No.

Is there a new motion?

I'd like to take the same motion and amend it so that instead of taking all eight candidates, we only take the five or six that showed up on the day of the last meeting. We have a new motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. Any last questions or comments from the council?

My only comment is that we've already done that exact process. That's my only comment. Thank you very much, Councilperson Erbom.

Madam Clerk, may I please have a roll call?

Roll call. Councilperson Winters? Yes. Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward? Yes. Council President Ervam.

No.

Mayor Nickerson.

Yes.

Motion passes three to two, three to one, sorry.

All right, thank you very much. We need a motion for an interim clerk. My suggestion would be Mr. Perez. David Perez is the one that does all the work throughout different departments. He's the administrative assistant and office director, and he knows the clerk position also, or can be taught, and led with Clerk Jacoby. She works very closely with him. I have also over the past year and a half. Do I have any motion for interim clerk?

I'd like to just hear from Sokobe. She proved me wrong and has really been a great interim manager. I just want to know how she feels about that.

I would still be actually doing the position. He's just saying for the dual role situation. But I think if you guys are bringing it back by the next meeting for the whole interview, I don't really think, I can still hold on. There's clerks who've been on the role for three, four months or more. So I can still hold on to the position. You guys don't need to choose one right away like he's saying. I can hold on to it. I would have his help anyway.

Yeah, but for procedural purposes, we just need the interim clerk to be named, you guys.

Would you prefer that, Mr. Mayor, that we go with him? I'm honestly okay with either one doing this. So how should we make the motion then? Hold on one second. I think we're getting clarification.

I can hold the fort until the next meeting, but you guys have to come up with something by the next meeting. It's in two weeks anyway. That's right. And I'm gonna still be doing the role. I mean, David can help me, but it's up to you guys.

Okay, so we're good as is for the time being. Councilperson Winters, we don't have to make a motion right now. I would like to make the motion

A motion is on the floor. Hold on. A motion is on the floor.

No, we won the first motion. Now we have to find someone in the city to...

There's no need for that. They just decided there's no need for it.

There's no need. You guys are going to bring back for the December meeting in two weeks.

So we're just trying to get someone that already works here to hold down the fort till we get the next people inside to talk to them?

No, no, it was just decided that we're okay. We'll just leave it the same. We're okay.

Okay.

Yeah. So do we have to make a motion then? Yeah, we don't need a motion. We don't need a motion. Okay. We're good. All right. Um, since we have that, uh, we, we, we don't have a motion in a second. We're good. You guys, um, attorney Geller, do we have any village attorney reports?

The only thing I would say is that you, based on your vote, need to establish what the next step is because I don't know exactly what you've got in mind. if you're going to re-interview or if you don't think interviews are necessary or however you want to do it, but perhaps you don't want to wait until your regular meeting. There's a, what, a P&Z meeting is what's coming up soon? It's the same day as the regular meeting. It's the same day. The regular council meeting is that night? It's now the 9th? That's going to be regular council too. Well, if in that case, if there is any directive from you as to how you want to proceed so that you could take action at that meeting, you might want to clarify what you intend your next step to be so you don't have to wait to decide the next step until the next meeting. You may want to say something procedurally now as to how you do want to proceed forward because I don't know what's in your minds.

Yeah. Let me just say really quickly, you guys, it's not that complicated. We're bringing back the same individuals. We can, if we want to, create maybe like one or two or three new questions or something like that. That's it. We don't need to do the whole interview process. They've been through it. Okay, so maybe we just need to come up with like maybe two or three questions, new questions that maybe will have us like look more into the way they think about certain things or maybe three different scenario situations, something like that, that we wanna look into and that's it. And that's all it should be pretty much.

Mayor, is your instruction, and when I say you, I don't mean you personally, I mean as a council, that the interim manager slash clerk invite those people, all of those that were interviewed, to come back for a further interview that evening.

That's what we voted on, I thought.

Well, you didn't specifically, you voted to reopen it and just to close the loop, so to speak. If it's your intention to re-interview those individuals, you should so direct the clerk to tell them to all come back. to be re-interviewed.

Can I make a suggestion? I'm sorry. So they're going to come back and I think that's exactly what they voted for. Can I make a suggestion that each of you provide me with a question? And then when you guys come back for the interview, I will ask those questions. So each of you get an opportunity to get your questions or reaffirm or that's my suggestion.

Yeah, sounds good. All right. All right. I appreciate it, everybody. Any last questions or comments from the council?

Yeah, we're going in the wrong direction here.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Council President Irvine.

Any further questions or comments from the council?

What was the motion?

There's no motion currently. We're good, Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the council? Hearing, seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Moved by Councilperson Winters, seconded by Councilperson Lightfoot-Ward. All in favor say aye. Aye. The regular council meeting for Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 is adjourned at 8.34 p.m.