The Mayor has called a special meeting for the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, according to the city web page (under City Records, then Public Records). The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 14th at 3:00 p.m.
To see the agenda, click here.
NOTE: This is a “sticky” post so will stay at the top of the page until I “unstick” it. Be sure to scroll down for additional new posts.
Does anybody know the details of Option 1 and Option 2 or will that be revealed at the meeting?
While 3:00 p.m. is a difficult time to attend for day-workers, I would encourage EVERYONE who can to make it to this meeting.
I know I had a long conversation with Mr. Broeker and do understand more where his vote came from. BUT I am still stuck on the fact that Mr. Moshea had agreed to his separation package and signed it… I can't help but think that the three board members MUST consider their fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. Why spend more of our money when he has already agreed to the terms of the separation?
That's the one thing that's stuck in my craw… not the good ol' boys, the who said what and when, the demands to comment, etc.(although all those comments made for some interesting discussion)…
It boils down to representing what is BEST FOR THE CITY. Shelling out more money just doesn't seem the right thing to do for a town that's already financially strapped. It just doesn't pass the sniff test to me.
I totally agree, Kathy. Somethin' just ain't right here.
i hope lots of people show up to support,lavergne,
Again I repeat, DON' T reward poor performance with more money. Spend OUR MONEY like you would spend your own!!!
AMEN!
I haven't been posting on here much in the past few weeks due to work and family obligations, but I have been following the news. I would like to share my thoughts:
1 – It looks like La Vergne now has a swing vote in Tom Broeker. I don't think that's such a bad thing, I think Farmer and Mosley are probably together on their direction for the city, and I gather that Waldron and Green are probably together on their direction. That leaves Broerker to chime in on split votes, and IMO means he will be likely to hear out both sides of any action.
2 – I agree and disagree with the vote on the seperation package. For one, I agree that the board needs to look out for the best financial interest of the taxpayers. With that said, letting a guy go with no severance when he's been employed here for 10+ years may discourage qualified candidates to come to La Vergne to work. It's like the old saying, "it takes money to make money." By spending a relatively small amount of money (what are we talking, 3 months pay, or about $20k?), will we receive better feedback when seeking qualified candidates to fill this position?
3 – I would like to see La Vergne create guidelines for non-contract employees that address just such issues. I'm sure there are guidelines for paid vacation and sick days, let's add this to the employee handbook.
4 – The other side of the coin is, how often int he private sector do non-contract employees receive severance for resigning? I have been with my employer for 9 years and 4 months. I guarnatee you if I walk into their office tomorrow and submit a two weeks notice, they will not come back and offer me a seperation package just to be nice.
5 – Tying into comment number 4, remember that Tom Broeker is a union guy not a private sector employer. Working for a union is similar to having a contract (negotiated by the union), that would stipulate things like severance packages based on years of service.
With all this said, at the end of the day I would not have offered Mr. Moshea a severance package. It was not and is not part of his agreement when he was employed in La Vergne, and we are not offering it to other employees, and quite frankly the city cannot afford to offer 3 month severance packages to every employee and doing this is setting us up for another discrimination lawsuit the next time a 10+ year employee resigns. If we believe that offering a seperation package is neccessary in recruiting the next city administrator, let's offer them a contract offering such perks. After all, it's a lot harder to find a qualified city admin than it is to find a meter reader, why offer the same benefits to both positions?
Very good points for CoL to consider MichaelinLV.
Michael — in looking back at old mins. of the M/A Board meetings, it appears Mr. Moshea asked for "Additional City Administor Benefits" at the same meeting that former Mayor Webb resigned (April 2004). It was deferred until the next month. It was on the agenda May '04 & was deferred; on the agenda June '04 & was deferred; on the agenda July '04 & was deferred. At the August 2004 meeting, Moshea asked that the item be removed from the agenda. One would have to wonder about the timing of the request & the reason(s) why it never passed the Board.
Thank you Theresa and Cee Dee. Did you happen to find anyting indicating what the "Additional City Administrator Benefits" were? At the time, Mosley, Green, and Waldron would have been on the board.
Not Mosley or Waldron. We came on board October of 2004.:)
oops, that's right! Well, I knew it was sometime in 2004 🙂
Michael — the Board members were: Mayor Mike Webb, Vice Mayor Sherry Green, Alderman Ronnie Erwin, Alderman Jerry Gann — Alderman Richard Norris was absent for the meeting. Maybe Alderman Green could tell you about the benefit package Moshea was seeking — if she answers her phone! They City should have copies of the proposed "package" with the original mins. from April '04 — maybe!