05-16-83SpMtg MAY 16, 1983
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Willard V. Young in the
Council Chambers at City Hall at 4:10 P.M., Monday, May 16, 1983.
Roll call showed~
Present - Council Member Malcolm T. Bird
Council Member Doak S. Campbell
Council Member Arthur Jackel
Council Member Edward L. Perry
Mayor Willard V. Young
Absent - None
Also present were - City Manager Gordon D. Tiffany, and
City Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele.
Mayor Young called the meeting to order and announced that
this meeting has been called for the purpose of: (1) Considering mat-
ters raised by the Golf Advisory Committee relative to the operation of
the Delray Beach Country Club; (2) Consideration of problems with al-
leged unauthorized exercise of legislative authority and policy-making
functions; and (3) Consideration of appropriate disciplinary measures
relative to the City Manager, and/or further direction to the City
Manager as a result of those matters set forth in Agenda Item No. 2
above.
1. Mayor Young reported on the following problems at the Delray
Beach Country Club: (1) carts are repeatedly left unattended in the
parking area with keys in the switches; (2) in many instances there is
no check on valid membership cards; people who have no membership cards
are playing golf without paying greens fees; and (3) there has been a
great deal of complaint about the impertinence of the Starter and he
(Mayor Young) has witnessed this himself. He further stated that all of
these things must be stopped. He has discussed them several times with
the City Manager and nothing has been done. At the last meeting, Mr.
Clark, Golf Pro, was unable to answer any questions regarding the number
of members or the number of people on the waiting list. He felt that
this showed a lack of managerial ability. He added that another item
which should have been brought up is the matter of a $75 summer member-
ship and $50 fee to apply to people who want to go on the waiting list.
Mayor Young stated that if they want to maintain a golf course as it
should be maintained, they must have some kind of discipline and man-
agerial experience and he is going to demand that they have it.
2. Mr. Bird referred to a memo he sent to Mayor Young dated May
12, 1983~ "Over the past several months there have been numerous exam-
ples of the City Manager making policy for this Council. They range
from a letter to the City of Highland Beach stating a policy position on
speed limits, to a decision, later rescinded, to let a piece of City
property go by default to the company repairing it; to a failure to
communicate an offer of the City Hall contractor to move the Finance
Department, and culminating in the revelation Tuesday night that we are
and, according to the newspapers, have been for some time, providing
E.M.S. to the Town of Gulfstream. This exercise of policy making not
only is illegal since it involves expenditure of funds collected by us
from Delray residents, but since it was not a Council action, we in-
curred a significantly greater liability exposure than we should have."
Upon question by Mr. Bird, the City Attorney replied that he
first heard of the service to Gulfstream last Tuesday night. Upon
further question by Mr. Bird, the City Attorney advised that with regard
to sovereign immunity, if there was no planning function exercised,
there is the possiblity that could constitute a waiver. As to the
City's insurance, they now have a blanket policy that covers all of
their general liability. Although there is nothing specific in there,
he feels there is a meritorious argument that if they exercise extra-
jurisdictional functions without at least informing the insurance com-
pany of same, they could make the argument that the City has no coverage
for those kinds of actions. Mr. Bird asked the City Attorney if his
office has been contacted at any time with regard to the formation of an
agreement to be executed between this City and Gulfstream for the ex-
tension of Emergency Medical Service. The City Attorney replied, no.
Upon question by Mr. Bird as to when he first learned of the
agreement to extend service, the City Manager replied that there is no
agreement that he is aware of. He knew of the fact that the service was
being extended; however, he did not know the legal insufficiency of that
extension of service until after last Tuesday night. Upon further
questions, the City Manager replied that he does consider the extension
of service outside of the City to be a policy matter.
Mr. Bird asked the City Manager if, to his knowledge, the
matter of extending E.M.S. to non-Delray residents has ever been dis-
cussed by Council. The City Manager replied that except for the mutual
aid agreement, he is not aware that it ever has been and he stated he
has not set policy in determining that it be extended or not extended.
The City Manager added that this was a policy which was in existence
when he arrived and he had no reason to review it. Upon further ques-
tion, the City Manager advised that it is his intent to ask for Council
guidance in this matter and he has not discussed this matter with the
City Attorney. Mr. Bird asked the City Manager to have the Fire Chief
make himself available.
Upon question by Mr. Jackel, the City Manager stated that
sometime after he arrived he learned that the City, on occasion, re-
sponded to E.M.S calls not only in Gulfstream but in unincorporated
areas, in Highland Beach and adjacent unincorporated areas. Upon ques-
tioning this, he learned that the City had a mutual aid agreement which
made it proper. It was not until last Wednesday that he realized that
this policy was not properly established by the City Council. Upon
further question by Mr. Jackel, the City Manager stated that the Fire
Chief did mention to him that Mayor Koch had approached him and offered
to make a payment to the City in return for this service. His comment
was that if Mayor Koch feels that is something the City of Gulfstream
should do, then they need to develop their cost and formulas and see
whether the City Council would review such an agreement. He viewed that
as being simply an extension of the mutual aid. He had assumed, errone-
ously, that they were under mutual aid with all of their neighbors.
Mr. Perry stated that he spent the weekend looking into this
matter and has done as much research as he could in the little time
given. Mr. Perry submitted the following presentation:
As to the charges and specifications brought forward
against the City Manager by a member of this Council, I have
found the following points of fact and bring them to Council
for its serious consideration. This meeting has the potential
of being the most important ever held in this City, for the
welfare of the City and the credibility of this Council hang in
the balance.
As to the specified charge that the City Manager exercised
legislative authority and policy making function by making "a
decision, later rescinded, to let a piece of City property go
by default to the company repairing it," the following facts
must be examined. Two letters which were dated, each, January
5, 1983, and signed by Richard L. Seguin of Certified Welding
Engineers, Inc., and which were, both, directed to the City
Manager, indicate a recommendation for modification of truck
#33 in one, and an offer to buy the truck from the City for, in
effect, $1,000.00 on top of a forgiven charge of $12,500 due
for repairs. This particular letter does not even hint at the
possibility that the City Manager had intimated acceptance of
this offer. In fact, the letter which recommends the modifica-
tion of the vehicle, written on the same day, which followed by
one day the alleged telephoned conversation of the 4th, as-
sumes, by its essence, that the City will be reassuming Truck
#33 into its fleet.
- 2 - 05/16/83
There follows a letter, dated January 24, 1983, from Michael T.
Ballentine, a Sales Representative for Petersen Industries, the
manufacturer of Truck #33, in which letter, Mr. Ballentine
refers directly to the question which has obviously been posed
by the City through Mr. Robert A. Gance, to wit: "Should the
City sell this unit or put it back into operation ..... ?"
Obviously, the City Manager has yet to make "a decision to let
a piece of City property go by default to the company repairing
it." On February 4, 1983, Petersen Industries forwarded an-
other letter which indicated the values of other trucks of some
similarity to Truck #33 to be approximately $1,500.00 more,
each, than the value stated for Truck #33 in their letter of
January 24, 1983. This letter was received on February 8,
1983, and was presented to Council along with a Memorandum of
Recommendation from the City Manager at that evening's Regular
Meeting as Agenda Item ~42. In the interim, there has not been
one iota of evidence to bear out the charges of abrogation of
Council authority or power. All evidence points to a prudent
and responsible examination of all facts and alternatives
preparatory to bringing a recommendation to Council.
Mr. Perry stated that a recommendation did, in fact, come to
Council. As he remembers that night a statement was made by Mr. Bird,
in effect a challenge to the City Manager, that that item was a matter
of line item budget. It turned out that that was not true. After
apparently putting it to rest 90 days ago, they are now visiting it
again and he has to question why. He continued as follows:
As to the specified charge that the City Manager exer-
cised legislative authority and policy making function by "a
failure to communicate an offer of the City Hall contractor to
move the Finance Department", the following facts must be
examined.
Mr. Perry stated that on September 28, 1982, a contract
stipulated, through Article 2, Section 2.2.1 of the General Conditions
of Contract, American Institute of Architects, Document A201, that the
architect is the administrator of the contract. On December 1, 1982, a
memo from Dave Huddleston to the City Manager describes the needs for
the City Finance Department, anticipating a move into trailers. (See
Contract page 4, Section lB, paragraph 12, entitled Phase 2). On Decem-
ber 9, 1982, apparently the Finance Department figured relocation costs
based on their going into trailers which would have fit in with their
Phase 2 plans according to contract. A letter which was dated December
7, 1982, and signed by Edward A. Cox, President of Cox & Palmer Con-
struction Corp., was directed to Mr. Gerry Church, which letter initi-
ated an offer "to compensate the City in the amount of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00) for the expense of relocating the employees pres-
ently located in the south wing of the City Hall." On December 14th,
which was the date of the second and final meeting in December, the City
Council was apprised of rain damage in the Finance Department and the
City Clerk's office, immediately following the regular meeting. On
January 7, 1983, there was a City Attorney letter to Mr. Cox regarding
notification of noncompliance. There was also a special meeting on the
7th which approves the rental agreement for the Finance offices. So
they had already started, sometime in the interim, to have gone out and
checked to find out what space was available at what cost, and it came
back to a special meeting at which time they approved of the funds
necessary for the imminent removal of the Finance and secretaries of-
fices to the Executive Mall office plaza. On January 12th there was a
letter from Mr. Cox to the City Manager withdrawing the $5,000 because
he was now going to react to the City Attorney's letter. Right in here
there seems to be a question as to whether or not there was a decision
rendered by the City Administration which ticked off Mr. Cox. In fact
it turns out that the City Attorney apparently did it, but he did it
responsibly to protect the personnel that work for the City; he brought
up the rain damage and other health threatening factors.
- 3 - 05/16/83
Further, on January 19th, there was a letter from Mr. Cox to
Mr. Rubsamen reinstating the offer with conditions. The conditions were
that the City was to withdraw the complaints made as a part of the City
Attorney's letter of January 7th. On February 8th there was a regular
meeting at which Mr. Blair indicated his problem with having found out
about the $5,000 offer, to-wit: why wasn't the Council informed. At
that time, he (Mr. Perry) did not understand that the City Manager was
not the one to have gone to for that question. The one to administer
the contract as previously specified was the architect working on this
particular project. Mr. Bird, at that time, had a difference with "a
decision of the Administration". Actually the Administration found that
the ball was already rolling out of the City Attorney's office and had
little to do to stop it. He is not blaming the City Attorney and thinks
that the City Attorney was timely in his reaction. He thinks that the
City Administration did its job by having received a letter from Mr. Cox
which was mistakenly sent to the City Engineer when, in fact, Mr. Cox,
as a party to the contract, should have understood that the letter was
to have gone to the architect.
Mr. Perry continued:
~4e must first remember that the one and only party responsible
for the administration of the "City Hall Contract" is, by
Council's action, the architect. The Contractor, therefore,
erred in directing this offer to the City Engineer. At any
rate, the matter was finally directed to the architect who took
the matter under advisement. In general terms, the salient
points raised by this matter indicated that such a move would
cost the City unexpectedly and additional to the tightly bud-
geted $893,989.00 for this project, somewhere between $24,000
and $32,000. This did not, apparently, include such hidden
cost factors as time and staff effort expended in searching out
suitable space. The actual investigation, conducted properly
by the architect, with the aid of certain involved staff,
apparently was completed a couple of weeks ago, with the con-
tractor withdrawing his offer. In sum, I cannot conceive of
any attempt to place liability for a project which did not fall
into the jurisdiction of the accused, especially in light of
the specified charge. The City Manager is clearly not guilty
of any attempt to abrogate the powers or latitudes of the City
Council in this matter.
As to the specified charge that the City Manager exercised
legislative authority and policy making function by "providing
E.M.S. (service) to the Town of Gulfstream," the following
facts must be examined. A letter which is dated May 12, 1983,
and signed by M.T. Jackson, Chief of the Delray Beach Fire
Department, and which was directed to the City Manager, fully
explains a limited provision of E.M.S. service to the Town of
Gulfstream, which limited service is interim to formal recip-
rocal aid agreements which are hoped for the future, after
suitable formulae for payment can be negotiated. The decision
to proceed on the present course was, according to the best
available evidence, reached during the tenure of a former City
Manager. When the matter was described to Council, at its
Regular Meeting of May 10, 1983, it did nothing to curtail this
action. How can Council expect the City Manager to curtail
what appears to be standing policy when the Council is un-
willing to curtail what is described as being counterfeit
policy? Does Council really expect the City Manager to ques-
tion the rationale and legal standing of every policy with
which he finds himself faced? I must conclude that there is
clearly no ground upon which to find against the City Manager
in this matter, insofar as its having anything to do with an
alleged attempt to abrogate or circumvent the authority or
function of the City Council.
As to the specified charge that the City Manager exercised
legislative authority and policy making function by "stating a
policy position on speed limits," the charges are clearly
nullified by the DELRAY BEACH CODE, Sec. 26-1.5. Traffic-con-
trol devices, (b) & (d), which subsections clearly give to the
City Engineering Department authority, which by the very nature
- 4 - D5/16/83
of authority is passed down through the City Manager, to effect
the changes described in the letters exchanged between the Town
Manager of Highland Beach and the City Manager of the City of
Delray Beach in the alluded matter, as long as the described
changes are effected in the manner as put forth in the City
Manager's letter of May 4, 1983, to the Town Manager of High-
land Beach. Note that the City Manager refused to become a
party to a political pressure tactic, returned the ball to the
Court of the Town of Highland Beach, and stipulated our concur-
rence strictly within the terms of our own Ordinances. There
is clearly no question of any wrong doing in this matter.
Please let us note the utter absence of even the softest evi-
dence as a basis to proceed with any of these charges. On the
other hand, hard evidence, time and again indicates that the
City Manager has not only not attempted to abrogate the powers
and latitudes of the City Council, but that he has proceeded in
a painstaking, prudent and responsible manner to protect the
best interests of this City and its Council. He deserves our
deepest thanks and our most heartfelt apologies for the pres-
sure through which we have put him and his family during the
last few days.
Mayor Young stated that one thing Mr. Perry left out in his
presentation was that the City Manager made absolutely no attempt to do
anything with regard to that flood until the following morning when the
City Manager received his memo instructing him, without fail and at the
earliest possible moment, to move those departments out. Mr. Perry
stated that he suspects, had the City Manager done anything about the
flooded conditions beyond the steps he did take to cover equipment, that
Council would have hung him on that one.
Mr. Bird asked the City Attorney, within the concept of the
contract for the expansion of City Hall, if he interprets that Mr.
Rubsamen should be the "decider" as to whether or not to accept an offer
tendered to change the contract specifications. The City Attorney
advised that the architect is the arbiter, to a certain extent, between
the City and the contractor; however, as he recalls, the architect does
not have the authority to make the decision on whether or not to accept
the $5,000. Mr. Bird noted that in the letter of December 7th addressed
to Mr. Church, Mr. Palmer says "pursuant to our recent discussion, I
would like this letter to serve as a formal offer to compensate the
City". He added that Council is available on the call of the Mayor
virtually anytime. So if there is a policy decision to be made, the
failure to have a regularly scheduled meeting to do it in hardly seems
to him to be a mitigating circumstance.
Mr. Bird stated that Mr. Perry has arrived at a conclusion
that Chief Jackson received authority for the extension of E.M.S. from
some documented source and asked that Mr. Perry share that with them.
Mr. Perry replied that he has not intimated that there is any documented
evidence to indicate that any policy had been forwarded to the Chief; he
has simply stated that the Chief has stated that sometime during the
tenure of Mr. Fisk, this informal agreement was initiated. So far he
has had to accept Chief Jackson's letter as the only documentation on
this particular situation.
Upon further question by Mr. Bird, Mr. Perry referred to
Chief Jackson's letter in which he said "this situation was discussed
with the Fire Department staff and Mr. Fisk, the then Acting City Man-
ager.'' Mr. Perry advised that a telephone call to Mr. Fisk on Friday
morning indicated that Mr. Fisk did not deny it, he did not admit it, he
said that he was very hazy about it. Mr. Fisk did indicate that if
anybody interpreted an okay from him, it was misconstrued. Mr. Bird
noted that the second sentence in the Chief's letter states that "it was
decided to look at the impact on the number of runs to see if we could
help them out until such time as a contractual arrangement could be
worked out and approved by both governing agencies." Mr. Bird stated
that this does not intimate to him that Chief Jackson received any
authority to commence service, only that he was authorized to look into
it.
- 5 - 05/16/83
Chief Jackson arrived at this time. Mr. Bird asked him if
Mr. Fisk instructed him to extend service to Gulfstream Chief Jackson
replied, no, and stated that at the time this was decided, in his mind
it was not a policy matter. Mr. Bird asked Chief Jackson if he recalls
a discussion by the former City Council subsequent to the destruction of
a building on Linton Boulevard, approximately a block away from the Fire
Station, where the discussion was about the extension of E.M.S. and fire
services to citizens other than Delray Beach residents. Chief Jackson
replied that he does not recall the exact conversation. Mr. Bird stated
that he recalls Mr. Scheifley, former Council member, saying that it
would be a mistake because there are a couple of things they hold which
makes it desirable for pockets to annex to the City of Delray Beach; one
is their police and fire services; the other is their water and sewer
service. He has checked with some other members of that Council and
they recollect the same tenure to his discussion and a concurrence by
Council that indeed that is the policy the City should follow. To his
knowledge, that issue of policy has never been discussed again other
than through the appropriate granting of authority to the Chief to
respond in accordance with an interlocal agreement for a mutual aid
service to Boca Raton, Boynton Beach and Del Trail.
Chief Jackson stated that he remembers the mutual aid agree-
ment coming before Council and approved. Mr. Bird asked Chief Jackson
why in an extended period of time this proposed agreement to render
service (1) has yet to be formatted; (2) has not yet even been discussed
with the City Attorney. Chief Jackson stated that it is hard to come up
with a format. First they are trying to figure out whether to do it on
a per capita basis or on a per run basis. He can provide the informa-
tion as to how much it is per run or how much equipment or manpower they
need but he does not know the other figures and does not have the au-
thority to say which way it should be done.
Mr. Bird asked Chief Jackson if he has discussed this with
the City Attorney over the last few days. Chief Jackson stated that
they had a meeting the other day and the City Attorney was informing him
as to what went on at the Council meeting. Upon further question by Mr.
Bird, he added that the City Attorney indicated that it was probably a
policy matter; he does not recall any specific recommendation as to its
continuation. The City Attorney stated that it was his recommendation
that it be stopped immediately and presented to Council.
Upon further question by Mr. Bird, Chief Jackson stated that
he has discussed with the City Manager over the last couple of days
whether or not they should discontinue it. Mr. Bird stated that they
pay a lot of money to have a City Attorney and it seems like he's been
ignored along with Council in this whole issue; this concerns him some.
Mr. Perry asked when this counterfeit policy was actually initiated; did
it predate Mr. Tiffany's coming to this City, February 2, 19827 Chief
Jackson replied that it did.
Mr. Jackel quoted the News of Delray Beach dated May 13th
which states: "Chief Jackson said Tiffany knows about the service but
the decision to service Gulfstream under life threatening conditions was
made under Mr. Fisk". Mr. Jackel asked Chief Jackson when he brought
this matter up to Mr. Tiffany. Chief Jackson replied that it was some-
time within six months after he arrived. Chief Jackson stated that he
informed Mr. Tiffany that they were in the process of trying to work out
an agreement with Gulfstream on a contractual basis; he was more or less
lust informing him of what they had been doing in the past and what they
were trying to do.
Mr. Bird asked the City Manager if after listening to Chief
Jackson's discussion as to informing him of this item and discussing
with him the difficulty of getting a contract together, if he feels it
should have alerted him to the fact that maybe this was not a simple
interlocal agreement. The City Manager stated that his recollection is
close to, but a little bit different from what Chief Jackson recalls.
He only remembers that they talked about E.M.S. in general and the fact
that they respond, from time to time, outside of the City.
- 6 - 05/16/83
Mr. Bird asked, for clarification purposes, if this was
essentially a unilateral decision on the part of the Fire Chief. Chief
Jackson replied that obviously it was. He added that at that time,
there had been an accident in Gulfstream where two women were killed.
They had the facilities to help them and everybody he talked to thought
that conceptually it was a good idea. He didn't think it was a policy
decision at the time he was making the decision. It was done on a
limited basis where they have from 5 to 10 runs per year and they have
not had any problems with it. If Council wants them to stop it, they
will stop it.
Mr. Bird stated his recollection is that they have discussed
this before and have instructed the Fire Chief, as a matter of consensus
opinion of Council if not formal opinion, that such service should not
be authorized except to Delray residents. Chief Jackson stated that had
he known at the time that Council did not want them to do this, they
would not have done it.
Mr. Campbell stated that he is concerned about the need to
set a policy. He would hate to see an accident out there knowing that
there is no emergency medical service in the meantime.
Mr. Bird stated that it is never going to be his intent to
be as knowledgable or to be able to spend the amount of effort which is
available to be spent by the senior administrator. On the subject of
what is policy and what is not, the City Manager has agreed that the
item they are discussing today is policy, it should have been addressed
as policy and should have been a decision of this Council. If, however,
in order to stop an illegal action which was started unilaterally ap-
parently by the Fire Chief, takes a motion of this Council, he would
make such a motion. The City Attorney advised that it would not be
appropriate at this time.
Upon question by Mr. Bird, the City Manager stated that now
that he has a better understanding of how it was started, he understands
that they can stop it. Upon further question, he replied that he will
stop it as of now. Mr. Bird asked that be communicated to Mayor Koch
with the understanding that it is not that Council does not desire to
work out an agreement, but no such agreement exists and they are not
prepared to have the citizens of Delray Beach jeopardized.
Mr. Bird stated that it concerns him that a member of the
administrative staff should feel comfortable making a policy issue for
this Council. He doesn't think any amount of meetings will serve to
improve that. There are 520 people out there all capable of denying
this Council an opportunity to properly exercise its authority; this
concerns him. Mr. Bird concluded that this action occurred before Mr.
Tiffany's arrival, without the knowledge of any City Manager and asked
the City Manager what he is going to do about that. The City Manager
replied that it will take some further investigation before he can
answer that.
Mr. Bird stated that this is a sufficiently complex issue
and asked to be excused for a few minutes so he could talk to the City
Attorney in private.
The City Manager stated that the reason he is not able to
make a report to Council on what kind of action he deems appropriate at
this time is that there is still one principle in this that he has not
talked to; that is Mr. Fisk. He would intend to do that; before doing
that he would not feel comfortable committing himself to action of any
kind.
Mayor Young declared a two minute recess at this time. The
meeting reconvened at 5:25 P.M.
- 7 - 05/16/83
The City Manager stated that it has been charged that he has
overstepped his authority and made certain policy decisions, cited are
four examples. He has reexamined the facts today and is fairly com-
fortable that he did not set policy in any of the specifically cited
instances. Regarding the Highland Beach speed limit matter, on April
13th, the Highland Beach Town Manager wrote requesting that the Mayor
and Council support their request for a 35 mile an hour speed limit in
Delray Beach. On April 20th, he acknowledged this letter and sent
copies to Council; at the same time he referred the matter, as he would
any traffic matter, to the City Engineer. On May 4th, he signed a
letter prepared by the City Engineer recommending that a study request
be made and stating that if a study shows that speed reduction is war-
ranted, the City would concur. This reply was sent under the specific
authority of Section 26-1.5 of the City Code of Ordinances which is a
policy statement of the City that delegates the authority to the Engi-
neering Department to install, remove or modify traffic control devices
and that all such devices shall conform to State requirements. That
requirement would include a study in this case. The City Code takes
this matter out of the policy area and places it specifically into an
administrative matter. It is his responsibility under the City Code and
Charter to see that all such laws are carried out. His actions in this
matter did not establish policy but merely carried out the specific
policy as established in the City Code.
The City Manager stated further, regarding payment for a
truck repair, he never, as stated, decided to let a piece of equipment
go by default to the company repairing it. He placed this item before
Council for its policy decision at the next regular meeting after in-
formation necessary for that decision was obtained. The truck in ques-
tion had been repaired without proper City authority; it had been dam-
aged by fire somewhat before his arrival. Repairs were not a budgeted
item. A departmental request was specifically eliminated from budget
because of Council's policy to consider refuse contract service. When
he learned that unauthorized repairs had been made, he directed that an
appraisal be obtained so that Council would have all the information
that it needed to make a policy decision. His first recommendation was
changed the day he had scheduled this matter for Council's decision
based on information obtained only that same day. Council did accept
that recommendation. He never authorized transfer of title and never
did anything beyond gathering information and making recommendation to
Council.
Regarding the letter from Cox and Palmer, the City Manager
stated that it is true that he neglected to send some informational
copies of this letter to Council; however, his failure to send a copy of
this letter to Council is not at all the same thing as setting policy
for Council. The contract for City Hall construction specifically does
name the architect as contract administrator. As he understands the
policy established by the contract with Council's signature on it, he
does not have the right to ask Council to modify the construction con-
tract without referring the matter to the architect. Only the architect
can do that. The letter in question was a request for a change order to
specific language in the contract. It was proper for the matter to be
handled by the architect and it was done so. There was no attempt or
intent to set policy, merely an unfortunate oversight on his part for
which he has already answered.
Regarding E.M.S. for Gulfstream, the City Manager repeated
that he has no direct knowledge of the origin of this policy and must
rely on the memo from the Fire Chief and the discussion they've already
had at this meeting. He has only received the information today that
Council had previously established a policy some time ago that is in
conflict with the practice and he has agreed that it needs to be changed
immediately.
Discussion was had relative to the matter of the speed
limit. Mr. Perry stated that the City Code Section 26-1.5 "Traffic
Control Devices" specifically gives authority to the Engineering Depart-
ment. Council discussion was had relative to City Code Section 26-1.5,
the request from Mrs. Roberts of Highland Beach and the City Manager's
reply. Mr. Perry read from the City Manager's letter which recommends
- 8 - 05/16/83
that "the Town contact the Department of Transportation to perform the
necessary study. If the study shows that a speed reduction is war-
ranted, the City would concur with the change." Mr. Bird stated that he
finds that puts him in a position of concurring with Highland Beach
without anyone having ever asked him.
Mr. Campbell stated that they have heard the accusations.
He thinks they can independently make a judgment as to whether or not
there were violations of the City Charter in making policy decisions by
the City Manager. It still remains to be seen as to what degree they
all judge those violations to be and what is going to be done. He
suggested that they get on with that rather than continue with this
subjective arguing.
3. Mayor Young stated that he personally feels that they have
tried to cover all of the ground fairly. He feels very definitely that
Mr. Tiffany has greatly been at fault in his management of the City of
Delray Beach and has injured their taxpayers by many of the things he
has done. He thinks Mr. Tiffany definitely deserves censure.
Mr. Jackel moved to publicly censure the City Manager, Mr.
Tiffany, for his policy making procedures outlined during this meeting
and that this resolution be put in his personnel file, seconded by Mr.
Bird.
Mr. Campbell stated that if this has to go in the City
Manager's personnel file, then he cannot vote in favor of the motion.
He feels there may have been some technical violations and is willing to
vote for censure but not this.
Mr. Jackel reworded the motion as follows:
Mr. Jackel moved to publicly censure the City Manager, Mr.
· iffany, for his policy making actions during the past year, seconded by
Mr. Bird. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Bird - Yes; Mr.
Campbell - Yes; Mr. Jackel - Yes; Mr. Perry - No; Mayor Young - Yes.
Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
Mayor Young declare~ the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray
Beach and that the information provided herein is the minutes of the
meeting of said City Council of May 16, 1983, which minutes were for-
mally approved and adopted by the City Council on
- City
NOTE TO READER:
If the minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated
above, then this means that these are not the official minutes of City
Council. They will become the official minutes only after they have
been reviewed and approved which may involve some amendments, additions,
or deletions to the minutes as set forth above.
- 9 - 05/16/83