A meeting has been called for Wednesday, August 15, at 6:30pm, with an unusual item coming third on the agenda.
Resolution 2012-L, which serves as notification to City Manager Jeri Langman the commission intends to terminate her employment, will be voted on during the special meeting.
No other details, including which commissioner(s) called for the resolution to be voted upon, are known at this time.
Eric May
Former elected official Eric May provides readers a view on government they rarely get: one from the inside. Eric currently works for a political consulting firm handling all forms of political media and communications. He is married to his beautiful wife Jenna, who both enjoy serving actively in their church and community.
So, what happened? Did someone not realize that Ms. Langman isn’t as crooked as she should be??
You know, with the negative attitude towards the staff displayed in certain quarters of the City, and from some blog sites; and what is reported by the press, I don’t how we can retain the staff we have, and attract the staff we may need someday.
Jeri Langman has certainly demonstrated her ability to come into a difficult situation, learn the ropes; and leave a positive effect on the Staff. She has particularly been open minded and flexible enough to adjust her opinions once brought “up to speed” from her insider perspective and observations.
I was initially upset with her selection process; and it prejudiced my opinion of her. However, I was wrong. I have come to appreciate her professionalizm and abilities.
This soap opera is really getting to be too much. And what is unfair, is that the Staff have to tolerate it; or face retribution from certain people feel they have a “blank check” to manage others in any way they choose.
I agree with Mr Manley. In my experience Ms Langman has been most helpful in procuring information. At city meetings that I have attended her remarks have been informative and provided much needed insight. It is unfortunate that she has no voting power and cannot circumvent the majority of three intent on having evrything their way with no regard for the welfare of the residents of High Springs.
Mr. Manley is spot on. I’ll add the city staff which has served the citizens above and beyond are also our neighbors, who have way longer been a part of our community and, invested in our city much more so than Barnas and, Gestrin. Roots deeper than and, actual ones. Individually claiming due to relatives who were a part of is cheap when it lays foundation to the horrific treatment these Commissioners have slung toward staff.I hope one day Mayor Davis ponders his part and, lack of leadership.Is it any surprise that the illicit manner in which they brought the city manager in is the same in which they seek to remove her? Even in my disagreement, Jeri Langman has my huge respect for they way in which she has conducted herself and, the tireless efforts she has demonstrated. Friends come and, go but,integrity and, the lack thereof is indelible.
After having watched the soap opera which is the High Springs City Commission for these past months I am saddened.
I have also come to the conclusion that there needs to be a “removal” movement directed toward the City Government but it should not address the City manager.
The parties of unspeakable disarray, pettiness and self serving actions should be the parties addressed in the “removal” movement. Those parties are numbered three and it is self evident to any ‘reasonable’ observer of whom I speak.
Would that there were a ‘viable’ option for such removal other than “vote the rascals out”.
Figures!!!! It’s their way or the highway!!!!
Gosh….I wonder how many of the above responders have actually READ the Charter of High Springs or the REQUIREMENTS of DUTIES of the City Manager? MMMM…while Mrs. Langman is extremely helpful, would it surprise any of you that she herself said that she only wanted to be “helpful” to the seated commissioners and would “gladly” step down after 6 months? My or my…please LISTEN to the recorded minutes of all the meetings or attend without maliciousness or ill intent of making a commissioners’ platform a “dump”! Thanks for all you do.
Ms Newcomb, with all due respect I have to disagree with you.I look at decisions and results from those meetings when I consider the sad state we’re in.
The position for Mrs. Langman, by mutual consent, was switched to become a permanent position;and not just so she could get benefits. The three Commissioners had their candidate installed; and they knew the hiring process would be compromised for any replacement that the other Commissioners might want. When Mrs. Langman failed to remain in lockstep with their program, she too fell under their vindictive ways.
The core issue is the back channel complaints and remarks made by Bob Barnas regarding Mrs. Langman after she made her problems dealing with Barnas public. That,along with; and because of,his singularly obstructive form of management and disrespectful communication, we now have exposure to liability for on a number of EEOC and Labor Board violations. It appears we have already lost one battle over back wages for overtime. Since we stand at over 80 meetings (about 48 over the norm)since the beginning of the year, I am sure the liability for overtime could be rather large.
That episode of taking the problems public, has been the catalyst for the blow up. But, faced with the power Barnas is trying to project, what else could Mrs. Langman do? As a Manager, she has a moral and legal obligation to show to in protect her employees from such disruption and harassment at the hands of this Commissioner.
If you wish to interprete the requirements for the duties of the City Manager by minicking Bob Barnas’ very public interpretation, I think you would be in error. I think that you need to reconsider your position with respect to the realities of modern day management, true reading of the Charter; and accepted HR regulation and litigation.
Mrs. Langman, along with the staff, have performed to; or exceeded, the specifications of the duties of the Charter. I believe that Mr. Barnas is exceeding his authority as a Commissioner. In any business environment, Barnas would have been repremanded and/or terminated for the way he directs and communicates to the staff and to individual taxpayers.
I believe that he, Davis and Gestrin, have set up all the staff for a failure strickly out of spite; and to promote their outsourcing agenda. They feel they can balance the budget on the backs of the staff, while increasing overhead and not fulfilling their obligation to protect the financial solvancy of the City. In fact, I would go so far as to say, they have violated the Charter due to their irresponsibility visa viz the sewer system, the call center, the handling of the bank loan, handling of the potential liability to the contractor/developers and the mishandling of the staff.
Your surmising about Mrs. Langman. At least that is what I get from READING City Charter and, Listing to the meeting tapes.First person account seems to disagree with you as well. But, your opining lost my attention when you called Sgt Hines a disgruntled former employee. You left the truth way behind on that one and,I’m only responding to express my disappointment in your un truth and, ill intent toward.Pure malicious to just make up something like that. Now a solution I’m sure none of the get even gang will ponder what with those few sacred addresses on main.Disolve the police department and, the financial disaster in bringing back dispatch. Work with the Sheriff to set up a sub station and, keep the dispatch with the County. How much money does that give us?
While I was reviewing the City budget for next year, I saw that the Public Offical liability policy line item under the Commission section was increasing $107,401 to around $121,00 from about $13,650. Stunned, I wrote the City of High Springs Manager’s office;and had it confirmed.
The insurance broker is qouted as saying the Underwriter did a public records search, and the result is that the “Underwriter believes large claims are imminent”. This is not something from the previous Commissions. Otherwise the premium for 2010/2011 would have been increased. No, this is because of “imminent” litigation – just forming – under the tenure of present Commission.
What is particularly upsetting is what has not been widely circulated, the policy premium for 2013:
“Total premium FY 2012 $110,916 FY 2013 $237,949 115% increase”
From 2011, at $13,764 to $110,916 and to $237,949?
That is an increase of $224,185.
I estimate from my calculations that between the liability premiums and the costs associated with the Call Center, the three Commissioners have managed to increase the overhead $220,610 ($195,810 for dispatch line item costs, plus $24,800 in other costs) in Police – dispatch; plus $107,650 for the premium increase.
So, the staff are being told that they have to accept dramatic cuts in pay and benefits. For what? To cover the premium and the call center. That’s cruel and could have been totally avoidable.
Barnas et al, has, in effect, added between $50-75 in direct cost to every taxpayer in High Springs, not including the short fall from the rest of the budget. His “no increase in fees and taxes” stance is bogus. But, he and his followers will gut the budget, cut staff compensation and reduce services; yet, when done, they can say they balanced the budget. Gestrin can brag that we in fact “we lived with in our means”.
This whole approach reminds me of the famous phrase from the Vietnam War regarding the bombing of Ben Tre: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
What will they do next year when ad velorum and other revenures falls another 8% (are you all seeing any increase is local sales? I’m not);and the full weight of the liability policy premium increase kicks in? The city will have been bled white.
We might as well have a recording on that fancy new dispatch center that says:”We’re sorry; but do to budget constraints and pending litigation, we are only available Monday, Wedenesday and Friday. Please leave a message;or, if an emergency, please call 352-367-4000. Tell them Bob referred you”
That is a lot of liability and premium risk. Barnas Davis and Gestrin have cost us. Taxed us. That is a fact Gestrins constant mantra can not hide. Surreptitiously evident and, with not considering dissolving the police department and, letting dispatch stay with the County to the tune of Millions a year. All while keeping the fire department in NON compliance and, sub par to what keeps those servants safe wile risking to save ours.If they bothered to poll the town and, be honest with what the are costing us, the move to spend outside of what we can afford to have dispatch here and, the idea to dissolve the police department for a County sub station would be a no brainer. But, outside of their inner circle those listening to them have been dumbed down from the honest truth.