The Board of the Rossmoor Community Services District has voted 3-2 to award a contract to the interim General Manager, Sharon Landers, with opposition coming from at least one Director who said he enjoys working with her.
Although Landers’ six-month “interim” contract ended soon, there was considerable debate first as to how the matter ended up on the board’s agenda.Director Tony DeMarco immediately made a motion that would effectively allow what was discussed in a recent closed session, waiving the attorney-client privilege and waiving closed session protections.
“Would you be okay with us doing that,” Director Mary Ann Remnet asked the district’s legal advisor Tarquin Preziosi.
“As long as we’re not discussing the employee evaluation itself,” said Preziosi, “we’re just discussing the terms of the contract negotiation.”
Board President Nathan Searles, an attorney, wasn’t thrilled with doing that.“I would strongly discourage taking a previously determined closed session and making the discussion open; there’s a candor that comes from the idea that someone is discussing something in closed session,” he said.
“If it’s to be an open session, it should be an open session to begin with and not later decided that we will discuss things that were decided in open session,” said Searles.
“I strongly discourage this as a pattern,” he said.
Maynard agreed with DeMarco to allow the discussion.
“I think it’s the right call,” he said. “I think we know the ground rules, it’s not about her evaluation…and it’s the terms that we thought we were talking about versus the terms that are showing up now.”
“I think transparency is critical,” he said.
Directors voted unanimously to allow the discussion and Landers intimated she did not mind the open meeting discussion of the terms of her contract.“First of all,” said DeMarco, “we did not discuss five years (term), we discussed a much lower term. I want an explanation as to why it’s in here, because it gives the impression that we’ve okayed five years and we did not.”
“I think the contract should have a term and I proposed two years in closed session and I read it, it’s five years. Now for me, it’s like I’m taking away three years.
“I’m just wondering how it got to five years,” asked DeMarco.
Searles confirmed in his response to DeMarco that the board had indeed agreed in closed session to offer Landers a two-year contract as General Manager following her six-month “interim status.”
However, he told DeMarco that when they presented the two-year agreement to Landers, “she wanted five.” Therefore, the “five-year term” was added solely for discussion purposes. “That’s what I was getting at earlier,” said Searles, “it wasn’t that I approved it or offered it.”
“I just think we’re going about this wrong,” said DeMarco, speaking of the contract. He said the five-year term should have been Searles’ recommendation to the community and the board. It should not be the general manager. This is her contract we are discussing, and she’s preparing it.”
DeMarco then brought up other benefits that he thought had been excluded during the closed session discussion of Lander’s contract that reappeared in the agreement in the packet.
“I just want it to be right,” said DeMarco.
“I understand,” said Searles, “and I accept the criticism, and what Ms. Landers’ has presented is her counteroffer and allowing us to discuss it in open session. I applaud her for allowing this,” said Searles.
“I think it would have been nice, in hindsight, if it would have been made clear that this is a counteroffer,” said Remnet. “I really appreciated being able to clarify that issue,” she said.
Landers, who said she did not attend the closed session at which her agreement was discussed, said some of this information was new to her as well.
“Now I think for you, your starting point was a different place, you know, and I am hearing that, and I’m hearing some of this for the first time also,” the interim general manager said.
“I did understand that there was some discussion about not being an evergreen contract, which is puzzling to me, since your two previous general managers were evergreen.
Landers used the open session to paint with a broad brush the changes and improvements she has achieved in six months.
“I feel as if we’ve done a lot of problem solving,” she told the Board. “We’ve moved ahead on some projects,” she said, noting also that she has joined the Rossmoor Women’s Club and other organizations that will make her more effective.
DeMarco made it clear that he has nothing against Landers.
“I have nothing against our interim General Manager, Sharon Landers, said DeMarco. “I just want the best contract for our community,” he said.
In fact, DeMarco spelled out the changes made in Rossmoor policies to allow for the entry of Landers six months ago, significantly raising the salary of the General Manager and adding other perks more common in city manager agreements.
“We do not have the resources to pay a city manager,” said DeMarco, asking Landers to consider and compare the complexity of her tenure at the City of Carson where she served as City Manager to her duties at Rossmoor.
“You’re saying you’re giving up a lot. I don’t see that,” said DeMarco, naming the specific benefits in her agreement that previous general managers did not enjoy. Landers will be paid a base salary of $140,000 per year, with additional benefits.
In addition, Landers will be reimbursed $20,000 per year to cover her own insurance, which officials said would be more cost-effective than the District directly providing it.
“All the things you’re talking about are the things that we offered her when you brought up these concerns,” Remnet told DeMarco. “The vote was to proceed with the contract,” she said.
In addition, she suggested a public records request might easily disprove the notion that GM’s have made less in the past. “That may or may not be the case,” said Remnet, because what showed up in contracts and iterations of contracts are various other benefits.”
Remnet said Landers brings her vision and experience from bigger cities to Rossmoor, “to be able to have the things that we need to prepare for a sustainable future. We need to have a fiscal plan; we have to be able to compete for grants, and I think the moves and the steps we’ve taken merit supporting the health of our district.
She told DeMarco and Maynard she was in no way attacking what they’ve done for the board in previous years.
“This is going to be awkward but it’s the truth,” said Maynard. He said the board had put a two-year term on the agreement to mitigate “the threat of being sued.” He asked Landers how many times she had sued previous employers? “Zero,” said Landers.
“Well thank you,” said Maynard, “for some reason, there was a concern and I’m calling it out and I’m not the one who proposed this (two year term).
Maynard said while he disagrees with the overall cost of the contract, he sees value in what Landers brings to the district.
“I’ve never had an issue with the executive package. I do feel that the package is significantly higher than I am comfortable with but let me be very clear, that this is not about the person it’s about the package and the contract that I don’t like,” he said.
“I actually think you are a smart professional person that brings value I’ve enjoyed working with you I would love to continue to work I wish there was a way somehow that you can actually bring down your costs for us,” said Maynard.
Maynard said he and DeMarco, both former Presidents of the Rossmoor Board, have worked for more than a decade to bring costs down to keep the districts relatively small budget in line.
“I want to clarify that I am not attacking what you’ve done on the previous board in terms of savings and building. It was a directive at the time, and it needed to be done,” she said. “You’ve done an excellent job at that and we have the reserves we do because of those cost cutting measures.”
“I am analyzing this contract like I’ve done for the past ten years on the general manager contracts so it is not about the affected this because I don’t really know I’ve seen you within the community I don’t have a complaint about what you’re doing you’re trying to save that most of the insurance is OK so I’m not I don’t have a problem with you individually it’s this this contract for our budget in my opinion it is just a bit high for what I’m comfortable with,” said DeMarco, noting that there will be bonuses and additional costs to come.
Director Jo Shade said she, too, believes it is time for the District to embark on a new direction and away from the methods used by past managers.
“I think it’s a wise decision for our community to move in this direction with the expanded role for Landers. She said the contract debate was useful because “we all learned a lot during this process.”
“I’ve been very involved with working with Ms. Landers and I can’t say enough about the time she spent trying to solve the problems she’s you know I like hearing the resident talk about the upgrades that the you know pickleball facility for you know just making it more fun and enjoyable,” said Searles.
“That is the general manager being a conduit of the board to the residents has been really seamless in that sense, he added.
Landers said later that she had no objection to the debate happening in open session rather than behind closed doors. “I really don’t mind at all,” she said later.
In the end, the interim general manager had answers to each of the contract provision questions and the Directors eventually moved to make it an evergreen contract, almost an “at will” employment agreement that gives Landers a suitable agreement, but one that will allow Directors to dismiss her at will with tight severance language embedded in the agreement.
DeMarco told Landers his concern was about “protecting where I live, so I thought it would be prudent to have a limit to where we’ve never had one before.”
He told Landers “we can relieve you of your duties with a majority so as long as you understand that, okay?”
“I just want you to know that I’m thankful to have the opportunity to answer that question,” Landers told him.
President Searles asked Landers if she would be okay with an “evergreen” contract as Remnet moved the contract, replete with the array of benefits, but no longer a term, leaving Preziosi to negotiate and work out the final details.
Searles asked that when the final draft of the agreement is ready that Preziosi send a copy not only to him but the entire board for review.
The motion to award the evergreen, at-will contract to Landers passed 3-2, with DeMarco and Maynard voting against.
“I feel like we’re going to continue to make progress,” said Landers.
