UPDATE: Despite a closed door meeting that lasted late Wednesday night, no decision has been made regarding City Manager Tommy Gonzalez’s fate. His contract expires on May 1. There are some members of the council and community who are happy to let it expire, no action necessary. Others want to give him a buyout at the cost of thousands of dollars, and there are others who are interested in offering a new contract.
By Sharon Barbosa-Crain
On Wednesday, Feb. 20, the Irving City Council’s Work Session Agenda included an Executive Session item entitled “Legal Advice-City Manager’s Contract.” This discussion was expected to yield a decision on whether the Council wanted to offer Irving City Manager Tommy Gonzalez a new contract. While the discussion was closed to the public, one thing is apparent, no decision was reached. Well-placed sources said no Council member offered a framework of a new contract for consideration, including Mayor Beth Van Duyne, although two of the officials strongly supported a new agreement.
Following this meeting, with no Council meeting scheduled until the week of March 18, the Mayor set a special meeting for 11 a.m., Friday, March 8. Apparently several Council members were not consulted as to the convenience of the date and they had conflicting responsibilities. The meeting was cancelled on the prior Thursday.
Prior to that date, on March 5, the City Council received a letter from the City Attorney’s office advising them Gonzalez’s attorney, John Lynch, had contacted the City Attorney’s office with allegations of ongoing conversations and correspondence among Council members regarding the Manager’s contract, which Lynch believed to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Council members asked were at a loss as to what the attorney was talking about.
On Wednesday, March 20, in a Council work session, another executive session was held and the matter discussed. This discussion included the Manager. Council members, with the exception of the Mayor, have declined to comment on details. However, from the Mayor’s interviews and private conversations, and other reports, it appears the Council agreed to offer the Manager a severance in line with what was in the contract. It was discussed with the Manager and, reportedly, he was in agreement. The City Attorneys then sent over specifics to his attorney. The City Attorney was expecting a response the first of the week.
In the meantime, three Council members called a special meeting for Wednesday, March 27, at 6:30 p.m., with agenda items to discuss the contract and employment of the Manager in executive session and a public item to take any required action. The three Council members were Dennis Webb, Rose Cannaday, and Roy Santoscoy.
Whatever the extent of conversation among Council members, there is a great deal of conversation between Council members and the public. The reports and accompanying gossip have generated a great deal of consternation as many people do not understand paying a severance when the contract runs out in May.
Councilman Joe Putnam was very blunt in his response: This is the only alternative at least five council members were in agreement with. He stated his preference was a separation on May 1 with no severance, but that was not the preference of a majority of his colleagues. At the same time, there was not an agreement to offer a new contract.
While there are those in the public who understand the necessity of the action contemplated, others have attacked the City Council, accusing them of all kinds of illicit behavior. Still others say they want the Manager gone, but just do not want to pay a severance.
The matter intensifies as the hours pass as Council members wait for the Manager’s response and process the public reaction. Rumors abound. And May 1 looms large with only two Council meetings and one called meeting between now and then.
