Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-08-08 regular minutes — reading text

another password. She said no one has requested it because usually if there is research to be done she has done it for them. The City Attorney was questioned on the inclusion of " as requested by the City Manager" in # 2 Scope of Services and the inclusion of " City Manager" in #4 Scope of Legal Services, and questioned whether she works as a Charter Officer independently, making her own decisions, or if she is tasked by others. The City Attorney explained the basis of the contract was drafted when Mr. Silverboard was here and they wanted to make sure that the tasking not only was going to come from City Council but obviously that it would come from the City Manager. She said it is her opinion that she works completely independent from the City Manager, City Clerk, Finance Director, and that she exercises as much discretion as she can in giving opinions. She said it is in Council' s purview to determine how the City Attorney is tasked and how she works but she would say she has enjoyed great latitude with the staff and the City Manager has encouraged that, and it helps her do a better job. The City Attorney was asked the distinction between a task and a request. The City Attorney replied she did not see any distinction, that she agrees to provide specific legal services stated in the Agreement under the Scope of Legal Services and then if there is something extraordinary that Council wanted her to take on, or if the City Manager did, then either one could task her outside of what is in the agreement because it says " and otherwise as tasked by the City Council or as requested by the City Manager." The City Attorney was questioned if that was a conflict with the Charter. The City Attorney said she did not see anything in the Contract as a violation of the Charter and the way they have operated has not been a violation of the Charter in her opinion. u:~ t~~~ n~~~ e~~~: ~~~ h~~~~~~ h~:: ~: ~:: Ya~~~~ egi~ eb~~;~ t. I. I~ e~~~a:~~ when she first started as the City Attorney there was a suggestion that Council may want to bring ....... the attorney on staff and each year, with the of Mr. help Wiltsie and the City Manager, she has looked at how much it would cost to do that. She said basically they have kept the legal services lower than what it would cost to bring someone on staff. She said in preparing for her taxes this year the contract cost her $ 14, 500 last year and she was paid at a rate much lower. She thought being paid a fair amount of $ 125 an hour is necessary and thought if it is billed at an hourly rate then that will give the City Manager and Council an opportunity to control that amount as well.  Regular Council 1- 8- 08 281 AMENDMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACTcont. The City Attorney was questioned whether she made the decision on her own as to what committees meetings she would attend, such as the Beautification, Waterfront, Historic Sites, which use up her time and are outside those that may be mandated such as the Council meetings, Code Enforcement, CRA, and Municipal Planning Board. The City Attorney replied she has not gone to quite a few of the third- level board meetings in quite some time, that she allots a certain amount of time for City work and a certain amount for private clients, and she has not attended a lot of those meetings because of the expenditure of time. She said the only reason she would go to one of those meetings is if there was an issue that she needed to see or be present for, and that would be at her discretion. The City Attorney was questioned whether Council is reducing the responsibilities and increasing the amount of money. The City Attorney replied no, that her billing has been very frugal for the City and has tended to make sure she did not over bill the City for work being done. She did not expect the change to be a significant increase or significant decrease for the City. The City Attorney was questioned whether the Scope of Services had changed at all. The City Attorney replied it did not change at all. The City Attorney was questioned why the contract was being considered in January rather than in May. The City Attorney replied that January is a new fiscal year for her and previously it was an issue of her anniversary month when changes were made in May to take effect July. The City Attorney was questioned on how she perceives it will affect the City if they have an annual budget for her services, and whether it is being done for her benefit. The City Attorney replied it does not affect the City at all, it affects her and she believed she deserved to be fairly paid for the work she does for the City. The City Attorney was questioned whether her Mission Statement was generated by the City or by her. The City Attorney believed she generated it in 2004. The City Attorney was questioned about her objection to an annual performance review. The City Attorney replied she did not object, and believed at any point in time anyone on Council can call her and tell her what she is doing wrong or right. She did not object if Council wants to do a performance evaluation but she believed that it waters down the agency of an independent contractor and the City. She said if she were an employee, there would not be an issue of agency between them; she would be an employee not an independent contractor. The City Attorney was asked if she were interested in having the collective opinion of how they think she is doing for the City. The City Attorney replied they did not give collective performance evaluations, they give individual performance evaluations. The City Attorney said she thought that individually she could receive the same advice, but it is up to the Council. The City Attorney was questioned if a Council member called her and disagreed with her r performance whether she would share that with the rest of Council. The City Attorney replied she would not do that as it would violate the Sunshine Law because it could come before Council for a i decision. She said if one of Council were to call her and ask for advice or a performance review or disagreed with her opinion, she would not tell that to the other Council members. The City Attorney was questioned if a Councilmember were to call to ask a question if she is going to bill for each phone call. The City Attorney replied she generally did because a lawyer' s trade is their time, so she generally bills for those. She said the billing she has done has been true, it is there because of the discussions she has had and she will continue to bill on 1/ 10th of an hour increments. She said if she initiates a phone call with the City Council, she has not generally billed for that, but she does list a certain amount of time and preparation for the meetings. The Mayor opened the floor for questions from the public. No one wished to speak.  Regular Council 1- 8- 08 282 AMENDMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT cont. Mr. Minich moved to approve amendment to the City Attorney contract (compensated at the hourly fee of $125. 00 billed in one-tenth of an hour increments, $ 7, 000 monthly retainer to be applied toward the total monthly fee ( based on 60- 65 hours), enlargement of notice of termination to 60 days, expansion of scope of services to include Charter Officers meetings and staff meetings as necessary, provision for back- up attorney, removal of charges for long distance, faxes, and file opening fees, and authorization to use City logo). Mr. Holmes seconded motion. An exchange of views included that the contract is to that it is going to be incumbent upon the above the 60 or 65 hours that was the intent of the be paid fairly for her services but the amount of align it with what it was originally intended; City not to waste the attorney' s time because it will go original contract; that the City Attorney should money should be decided; that the City Manager will have the latitude to watch it and if she sees staff getting out of line, she will bring it to their I;I attention; that the legal advice the City Attorney provides on legal affairs of the City has been good but repeating an opinion over and over again starts bordering on enforcement; that the City Attorney should pay attention to the legal affairs and stay out of personal affairs of the City; that the contract is a departure from the original contract; that having an hourly charge will restrict people from calling to ask questions; that the City Attorney lost $ 14, 000 last year so the fees will go up $ 14, 000 if she continues the same level of service; that the City Attorney is an advisor to Council and lengthy discussion is not something they need to do; that maybe Council should address which things they feel are important in the Boards that she should