City reevaluates city manager contract

HIGH SPRINGS – High Springs City Commissioners may have missed the deadline for enforcing any changes into City Manager James Drumm’s expiring contract apart from ending it all together or keeping it as is.

Drumm’s four-year contract was signed on July 20, 2006 and states if “the city does not notify [Drumm] of the intention to non-renew his contract within six months of its expiration, the contract shall be deemed renewed under the same terms and conditions…”

City attorney Thomas Depeter said Tuesday this stipulation translates to say if commissioners wanted to change any terms of the contract, they would have had to notify Drumm of their intentions by Jan. 20 – six months before it expires July 20. Because they did not do so, the contract’s terms automatically renewed and can only be changed if Drumm fully agrees with the negotiated adjustments.

Commissioners scheduled a discussion of possible changes to Drumm’s $87,200 contract for the City Commission meeting Feb. 11. At a workshop on the issue Tuesday, commissioners were also unable to determine whether Drumm’s contract technically ends on July 20 or March 9.

Drumm began working for the city with a two-year contract on March 9, 2004. By March 2006 commissioners failed to end or renegotiate Drumm’s contract, so the contract was automatically renewed.

Commissioners finally addressed Drumm’s contract in July 2006 and renewed it for four years but retro-dated the terms to also apply to those previous four months Drumm had worked since the contract expired that March.

Now that Drumm’s contract is set to expire this year, it is unclear if the reference date is March 9 or July 20. Either way, commissioners did not notify Drumm about negotiations six months prior to either date, so changes to his contract can only be enforced with Drumm’s agreement.

Under the current terms, commissioners would still be able to fire Drumm at any point during the contract, but Drumm would be entitled to a six-month severance package from the date he is notified.

At Tuesday’s workshop, commissioners hinted at coming to an agreement about contract terms before the earlier date of March 9. Although commissioners discussed the technicalities of severance pay in terminating Drumm for more than one hour Tuesday, the only term commissioners specifically suggested changing was the length of Drumm’s contract.

“I’ve been fortunate enough to be on this commission with Jim for five years, and every evaluation we’ve done from the total commission has been above average and excellent,” Commissioner Larry Travis said.
“I’m not sure four years is where we’re going, but I’d like to see Jim stay with us.”

Mayor William Coughlin was not as flattering in his comments but also suggested a shorter contract term for Drumm. Coughlin said when he was elected to the commission he received hostility from fellow commissioners and Drumm and questioned Drumm’s personal views with city business.

“The question for me and the question for the city at large is we as a community, we were heading in one direction pretty hard, and the community spoke out really clearly about changing that direction,” Coughlin said, referring to the victory of two new commissioners over two incumbents during November’s city commission election.

“So the question for me is during this next period of time…because for someone in your role they must be completely apolitical, and I think that’s the challenge for you in the next period…can you do as good a job for this commission as you can for the (past) commission?” Coughlin asked Drumm.

In his comments, Coughlin pointed at several controversies that have arisen in the last few years of Drumm’s management of the city. He mentioned the wrongful termination of Ginger Travers in 2008 from the police department, who was awarded damages in arbitration; the current termination of former lieutenant Gordon Fulwood and the grievances filed with the city as a result; the Pigg property owned by the city that will cost High Springs thousands of dollars in the process of selling it; as well as complaints from citizens about hostility from Drumm and his failure to follow through with certain business.

Travis adamantly disagreed with Coughlin and criticized his blaming of the previous group of commissioners, which Travis was a member of, for current problems in the city.

“It’s a sad state of affairs that you take a personal attack when you feel you were mistreated,” Travis said to Coughlin. “Just as many people say they appreciate what Mr. Drumm has done from around the county and around the state. I think it’s ridiculous and very unprofessional.”

But with negotiations of his contract approaching Feb. 11, Drumm said he would be open to certain changes to his contract, especially since commissioners only suggested changing the length of his contract Tuesday. He acknowledged that since changes can only be made with his approval, the commission can give him an ultimatum of agreeing with amendments to the contract or accepting termination.

“If the commission is looking to enact change, I think we can come to an agreement,” Drumm said. “A lot of the [complaints] brought up may be rumors, and it’s hard to follow rumors.”