Loading...
03/07/1994 - 1:04 PM CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 7, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur Deegan Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present were: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Richard Paul Hull Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance Assistant City Attorney Janis Przywara Senior Legal Staff Assistant La Vonne Newcomer Legal Staff Assistant Donna Tormeno Legal Staff Assistant Janet Skinner Paralegal Chuck Santangelo Hildebrandt, Inc. Jack Kaufman Hildebrandt, Inc. Tom Cloud Attorney hired to assist Hildebrandt, Inc. Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Absent: Robert Surette Assistant City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to review Hildebrandt's audit of the Legal Department. Commissioner Deegan requested the Hildebrandt representative summarize what they were asked to do, what they found and their recommendations. Mr. Santangelo indicated Hildebrandt was asked to investigate and report on the organizational structure of the department, its budget, work allocation and use of outside counsel. He stated the major finding is the Legal Department needs improved management. He indicated the staff did get along well with others. Keeping time records in order to address the issue of whether more assistance was needed is recommended. Recommendations also included that the Legal Department staff meet more regularly and there be an effort to deal with the work given to outside counsel. Electronic connections for the department need to be addressed. There needs to be better management for increased work loads and more leadership. He indicated this is not uncommon as lawyers do not receive management training in school. This has nothing to do with their ability as a lawyer. He stated it has been his experience the better the lawyer, the worse the manager. Mr. Kaufman indicated a lot of the conclusions of the audit were based on interviews with the clients, i.e. the department heads, Commissioners, et cetera. He stated these were confidential interviews. Mr. Cloud stated he looked at several hundred cases handled by the Legal Department and interviewed each attorney, some staff members and attorneys in the community. He stated he found the attorney staff had pro-active skills that were above average. They did lack time sheets to determine capacity of the department. The litigation updates which have been provided show an increase in the number of cases. He referred to Mr. Surette's medical leave and stated there was a need to fill that position. Mayor Garvey indicated the report includes a summary of the department's strengths and its weaknesses. Commissioner Berfield referred to a statement in the report that the success of the department depended on the City Attorney regaining the confidence of the City Commission. She questioned what they would recommend if it was found this was not possible. Mr. Kaufman indicated, clearly, if this cannot be done, the City would need to look for a new City Attorney. He stated he felt the possibility was there. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the Hildebrandt representatives had looked at downsizing and contracting out some of the Legal Department's work. Mr. Santangelo indicated the control of outside counsel had not been good enough to determine this. He stated the department is just not managed. Mr. Cloud indicated he had started out in a four-member office in Orange County, which has now grown to fifteen individuals. He stated the trend is to move away from outside counsel. If the decision is to downsize, case loads would need to be considered. He felt there was a need for additional help in the Legal Department, even if Mr. Surette was not on leave. He stated, however, he had no empirical evidence to support this feeling. Mr. Kaufman indicated there were some corporations that were doing away with their legal departments and moving to outside counsel. He stated there was no way to measure what it would take to go to outside attorneys. Mr. Santangelo indicated this was the basis for the recommendation that the Legal Department be monitored. Mr. Kaufman indicated other departments are going through outside counsel rather than the Legal Department. Ms. Deptula indicated no outside counsel would be used without City Commission approval. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had specifically requested information on all the money spent for legal services and he was told this was not available. He stated other departments are allowed to hire outside legal counsel. Ms. Deptula indicated that, to her knowledge, all information requested by the Hildebrandt staff had been provided. Mr. Galbraith agreed with Ms. Deptula. Commissioner Thomas asked several questions of the Legal Department staff members. He questioned if they were all interviewed. They all answered affirmatively. He asked them how long the interviews took. Mr. Lance indicated he was interviewed by Ms. Friedler and Mr. Cloud, the Friedler interview taking an hour, Mr. Cloud an hour and a half. Mr. Hull indicated he was interviewed by Mr. Santangelo and Mr. Cloud at about an hour each. Ms. Przywara and Ms. Skinner indicated they did not recall how long it took. Ms. Newcomer indicated her interview took approximately an hour; Ms. Tormeno approximately a half hour. Commissioner Thomas questioned if written notes were taken during the interview. All indicated notes were taken. Commissioner Thomas questioned if any staff members had delivered any files to the Hildebrandt representatives. Most responded in the negative. Ms. Przywara indicated she had provided files, but not at the time of the interview. Mr. Cloud indicated he spent a day in the Legal Department going through files. Commissioner Thomas questioned which files had been reviewed. Mr. Galbraith indicated the ones he was aware of had to do with the Pope, Dimmitt and Sun Bank cases and cases listed on the litigation update. Ms. Przywara indicated there were others Mr. Cloud went through, but she did not monitor which ones. Commissioner Thomas questioned a report he had received that after the report was issued, Hildebrandt returned and went through additional files. Mr. Cloud indicated he did return to go over a couple of things. Mr. Galbraith indicated he had no additional titles to add to the list of files Mr. Cloud had reviewed. Essentially, he had shown Mr. Cloud the files and told him to help himself. He stated Mr. Cloud was the only individual he was aware of that had reviewed files. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, reviewed a list of the materials that had been provided to the Hildebrandt firm, which included itemized statements from some outside counsel. Ms. Rice reported Hildebrandt did not ask for additional information. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had been told by Ms. Friedler that the costs for outside counsel were not all available through the Legal Department. Ms. Rice indicated the majority of those go through the City Attorney. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Rice if she was aware of anything missing from what had been requested by the Hildebrandt firm. Ms. Rice indicated she was not. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that Mr. Kaufman was indicating there was a vast void in the information provided. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had never use the term vast void, but felt he did not have complete figures based on the information provided him by Ms. Friedler. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the firm had enough information to give an accurate report. Mr. Kaufman indicated, regarding outside counsel, he did not have enough information to evaluate whether there was a need for more or less. Commissioner Berfield questioned if City staff had any estimates of outside counsel. Ms. Deptula indicated that the bond attorney is paid out of any bond issue and the Gas System pays their attorney. Mr. Galbraith indicated there was also an environmental lawyer for Gas Services. Ms. Deptula indicated this was also charged to Gas Services. She stated one major outside attorney was Johns Eastern, who works the City's Worker's Compensation claims. Mr. Santangelo indicated there appeared to be no centralized process for outside counsel and therefore, they did not feel they knew the total impact. Mayor Garvey felt this was a management issue for the City Manager and the City Attorney to coordinate. Commissioner Thomas referenced a statement on page 11 of the report saying decentralization of outside counsel was virtually unheard of. Mr. Santangelo indicated the statement was based on what the firm knew. Mr. Cloud indicated, in general, all outside counsel submitted their work through a County of City attorney. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he had a general question regarding who, in a law firm, manages the firm. Mr. Kaufman indicated there was no one answer to this question. Mr. Santangelo stated firms are starting to distinguish between management and administration. He stated Ms. Przywara does some office management for the department. He again stated these findings are not earth-shattering, as they find this day-in and day-out in legal departments. He stated, in the City of Clearwater, the work load has increased, the attorneys are working hard and have not worried themselves regarding management of the department. Commissioner Deegan stated on page 3, it indicates a primary weakness of the department is ineffective management. He questioned how to make it effective and if certain skills were essential. Mr. Santangelo indicated certain skills were essential. Mr. Deegan questioned if Mr. Galbraith possessed these skills. Mr. Santangelo indicated he did not know. Commissioner Deegan referenced responses to the interview question regarding what the interviewees thought was the purpose of the audit. The report indicated many volunteered it was to justify firing the City Attorney. Commissioner Deegan questioned if any City Commissioners had indicated this. Mr. Santangelo indicated they had. Mr. Kaufman indicated seven of the twelve people he interviewed indicated this. Commissioner Deegan questioned how many Commissioners had said this. Mr. Cloud indicated this answer could not be given without violating the Sunshine Law. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Hildebrandt representatives felt the confidence level could be restored. Mr. Santangelo stated it could be, if everyone was committed to that. Commissioner Deegan referenced a comment on page 4 regarding, on occasion, the City Commission ignored the department's advise. He questioned if there was a difference between ignoring versus disagreeing with the advise. Mr. Santangelo stated there was a distinction without a difference. Commissioner Deegan felt there was a difference. Mr. Santangelo indicated the Commission chose not to follow the City Attorney's advise. Commissioner Deegan questioned a reference on page 5 indicating, until recently, there was not a need to focus on management. He questioned why this need was not present before. Mr. Santangelo indicated the need manifested itself when work loads increased and the demands of the Commission increased. Commissioner Deegan questioned why there was not prior need. Mr. Santangelo indicated no harm had been done. Commissioner Deegan questioned if it was ever possible to run a department with only ten percent of the time spent on management. Mr. Santangelo indicated he doubted it. Mr. Kaufman expressed concerns regarding this being an exercise in semantics. He stated two to four years ago the department needed more management but no one said it was needed. He stated is has just now become an issue. Commissioner Deegan questioned a reference to the Legal Department being a "collection of sole practitioners." He questioned how this differed from a private law firm. Mr. Cloud indicated many lawyers share office space, but are not a firm. He stated, in a firm, the clients are the firm's clients and there is a team approach. He stated a private firm can "staff up" when needed. Commissioner Deegan questioned a statement that work loads were preventing the attorney from providing quality representation. Mr. Kaufman indicated this was a concern of some of the attorney's that had been interviewed. Mr. Cloud indicated there were some attorneys who indicated they could do a better job if the workload were decreased. Commissioner Deegan referenced an opinion that the definition of the City Attorney's responsibilities was not clearly defined. He questioned if there was any reason why the management responsibilities need to be spelled out for a City Attorney more than for any other department head. Mr. Kaufman felt it was necessary in the Legal environment. Commissioner Deegan referenced a list of responsibilities contained on pages 13 and 14 and questioned if the Hildebrandt firm felt Mr. Galbraith was qualified to fulfill all those responsibilities and duties. Mr. Santangelo indicated he believed so. Commissioner Deegan questioned what the Hildebrandt firm would need for them to provide empirical justification for added staff. Mr. Santangelo indicated time records would need to be kept and there would need to be a better tracking system of all matters under review. He stated there also needed to be a use of technology. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the records were available, to what they would be compared. Mr. Kaufman indicated there are norms in the legal profession. Commissioner Deegan questioned if they had those norms. Mr. Kaufman indicated they did. Commissioner Deegan questioned if they could anecdotally determine how the Legal Department compares. Mr. Santangelo indicated he had not reviewed the files. Commissioner Deegan questioned if anyone had checked the productivity of the department. Mr. Cloud indicated he was not aware of any productivity standards for a legal department. Mr. Kaufman indicated the productivity used in private law firms is simply an accounting of the number of billable hours an attorney works. Mr. Cloud indicated an attorney must spend whatever time it takes to do the job on a particular case. Commissioner Deegan felt, unless the time spent was used against some norm, it would be a waste of time to track the time spent on cases. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was a standard time needed to prepare a brief. Mr. Santangelo indicated there were no such norms. Commissioner Thomas referred to an October 8 letter from Hildebrandt regarding what they would do for the City in auditing the Legal Department. He questioned the reports assertion that there was no value in comparing the Legal Department to other municipal legal offices if work loads could not be determined. Mr. Kaufman indicated time records were not kept. Commissioner Thomas felt contradictory statements were being made. He said it was very clear what Hildebrandt agreed to do for the Commission. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had been assured the data necessary would be available. Commissioner Thomas questioned if they received information from other municipalities. Mr. Kaufman indicated they did. Further discussion ensued on regarding the ability of the attorneys to come up with a standard amount of time spent for certain things. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Lance and Mr. Hull felt they could estimate an average amount of time spent. Mr. Lance indicated he could on those things he does routinely. Mr. Hull indicated there are not many repetitious tasks that he performs. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding the allegation of lack of management and that this negatively impacts the department. He questioned what evidence the Hildebrandt firm found of this. Mr. Kaufman indicated this was based on talking to the City Attorney's clients and their concern regarding the time it took to handle matters, et cetera. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the clients were saying the Legal Department was not efficient or effective. Mr. Kaufman indicated they were and communication was not where it should be. Commissioner Deegan questioned if this was due to lack of management. Mr. Kaufman indicated it was. Commissioner Deegan questioned the clients that had been interviewed. Mr. Kaufman indicated he interviewed fifteen people within the City. Commissioner Deegan requested clarification in regard to a statement that non-litigation matters found their way into a black hole. Mr. Kaufman indicate that was to indicate non-litigation matters did not receive the same priority attention and they would often get lost. Commissioner Deegan questioned if this pertained to the preparation of ordinances. Mr. Kaufman indicated it did. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Kaufman was convinced this was a fact. Mr. Kaufman answered affirmatively. Commissioner Deegan questioned if this was due to the lack of staff. Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Santangelo indicated this was not necessarily the case. Commissioner Deegan questioned if they agreed with the statement the Legal Department loses or settles too many cases. Mr. Cloud indicated he did not agree with this statement, but that there was a perception of this in the community. Commissioner Deegan asked for examples of this not being the case. Mr. Cloud referred to the utility interest rate case, indicating Pinellas County had handled the case differently and they had to pay interest retroactively, whereas the City settled the case and was able to charge the interest forward and not retroactively. He also referred to a case handled by Assistant City Attorney Hull in which a skier was outside a buoy. The case was won by the City and the City did not offer to settle. Commissioner Berfield questioned if they got any sense of this perception from the City family. Mr. Cloud indicated he had not. Mr. Kaufman indicated he had gotten this from some of the City Commissioners. Commissioner Deegan referred to the conclusion that Mr. Galbraith was not an effective manager and that he had not shown an interest in managing. He questioned if Hildebrandt representatives felt Mr. Galbraith could rectify this. Mr. Kaufman indicated that, subsequent to the last evaluation and the publishing of the study, Mr. Galbraith has shown a desire and willingness to start to rectify the situation. Mr. Santangelo stated Mr. Galbraith was a bright individual and could learn many of the disciplines required. Commissioner Deegan questioned deciding to use outside counsel and if it should be based on the availability of in-house attorneys or the need for expertise. Mr. Kaufman indicated both. Mr. Cloud agreed. Mr. Cloud cited the gas attorney as an example of expertise being needed and the labor attorneys as an example of the work load being too great for on-staff attorneys. Commissioner Deegan questioned how to evaluate if Mr. Galbraith is able to change his style as recommended in the report. Mr. Kaufman indicated the satisfaction of the clients would be used to make that judgement. Commissioner Deegan questioned if that was the criteria used in the report. Mr. Kaufman indicated it had been. Commissioner Deegan questioned how satisfied the clients were. Mr. Kaufman indicated moderately satisfied. Mr. Santangelo indicated there needed to be a distinction between quality of legal work versus legal service. He stated most individuals were evaluated on service provided, not legal work. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Hildebrandt recommended any service indicators. Mr. Kaufman stated he believed so. He reported that the major criteria used for evaluation in every study he has done has nothing to do with quality, but responsiveness. Commissioner Deegan recommended adding a service benchmark regarding the time to respond to requests. He pointed out that one of the recommendations was that time records be kept in 15-minute intervals. Mr. Galbraith's memo had indicated this would be tracked in six-minute intervals. It was indicated this was acceptable. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding outside counsel, indicating at mid-year budget, Mr. Galbraith was not aware he had already exceeded his budget. Mr. Kaufman indicated he wished Mr. Galbraith had been able to answer that question as soon as it was asked. Commissioner Deegan questioned what the Hildebrandt firm had found when they looked at the attorney's mission statement, goals and productivity standards. Mr. Kaufman indicated they had a simple mission statement and no particular goals. He indicated some goals had been prepared at the last minute. Commissioner Deegan stated he did not see any of Hildebrandt's recommendations addressing any of these issues. Mr. Kaufman stated he probably assumed they would be in Mr. Galbraith's evaluation. Commissioner Deegan referenced malpractice being used as a standard in evaluating an attorney. He felt an attorney could be unsuccessful without being guilty of malpractice. Mr. Cloud indicated malpractice was the only articulated standard he could find. Commissioner Deegan questioned on what Mr. Cloud judged Mr. Galbraith to be an above-average attorney. Mr. Cloud indicated the review of cases and the interviews. He stated it was a subjective opinion. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Cloud thought the Commission was looking for subjective opinions. Mr. Cloud stated he understood the Commission was looking for his opinion. Commissioner Deegan indicated the City Commission had not chosen Mr. Cloud; the Hildebrandt firm had. He stated he was looking for objective opinions. Mr. Cloud stated he felt Commissioner Deegan was requesting disinterested opinions. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Cloud had interviewed the City Commissioners. He indicated he had not. Commissioner Deegan questioned Mr. Cloud's statement that he had reviewed a couple of hundred cases. Mr. Cloud indicated he had. He said he spent part of three days going through case files, not just litigation, but also contract files. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was exhaustive study of some of the files. Mr. Cloud indicated there was. Commissioner Deegan questioned how much time was spent on those that were not studied exhaustively. Mr. Cloud indicated 10 to 15 minutes. Commissioner Deegan questioned if anyone had mentioned the Commission had to make corrections to Sun Bank documents. Mr. Cloud indicated they had not. Commissioner Deegan questioned the City Attorney not giving weight to the Attorney General's opinion. Mr. Cloud referenced an issue where the Attorney General repeated a mistake over a ten-year period. He stated an attorney must be able to make independent judgement. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Cloud had looked at the goals for the Legal Department. Mr. Cloud indicated he had and they were laudable but unachieveable. Commissioner Deegan stated he believed the Commisison had asked Mr. Cloud to make a judgement as to the effectiveness of the Legal Department. He wanted to know how well they were using their skills. He stated he did not feel this had been done. Mr. Cloud stated he understood the Commission wanted them to evaluate the City's attorneys capabilities as attorneys. Mr. Cloud felt Mr. Galbraith was an above average attorney. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the answer was relatively simple and there was a need for management skills in order to address the issues. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the only person who had reviewed legal files had been Mr. Cloud. It was indicated this was the case. Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr. Cloud's field of experience. Mr. Cloud indicated his expertise was in public law, land use law, public utility law, etcetera. Commissioner Thomas questioned if he had any bond work. Mr. Cloud indicated he did not. In response to a question, Mr. Cloud indicated he managed seven attorneys. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this was a quarter of the firm. Mr. Cloud indicated it was not; there are 40 lawyers in his firm, seven in public law. In response to additional questions from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated the department heads of the firm meet once a month and, at partner's meetings, final decisions are made. He stated it is a team management. Commissioner Thomas questioned if it was fair to say Mr. Cloud reviewed all the attorneys' work on a monthly basis. Mr. Cloud said it was not. While some cases are in his department, another partner may be responsible for that case. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not paralegals were used. Mr. Cloud indicated there was one paralegal in his department. He stated there was a higher number of paralegals in the litigation department. Commissioner Thomas questioned how many were in the firm. Mr. Cloud indicated eight to ten, perhaps more. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the managing partner reviewed all the work in the firm. Mr. Cloud indicated he did not as he has to manage his own case loads. The managing partner attempts to be the person between the business manager and the rest of the attorneys. The meeting recessed from 3:15 to 3:31 p.m. Commissioner Thomas questioned how the Hildebrandt firm had selected Mr. Cloud. Mr. Santangelo stated they reviewed the attorneys in the area and selected Mr. Cloud. He indicated Mr. Cloud's selection had the okay of Ms. Rice. Commissioner Thomas questioned the methodology Mr. Cloud used in selecting the files he reviewed. Mr. Cloud indicated he looked for broad categories such as utilities, real estate, torts and civil rights, then zeroed in on those areas. In response to additional questions from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated the files were in alphabetical order and he was able to tell the type of case by the summary in the file. He indicated the files were easy to find. In reviewing utility files, he looked for the agreements that were negotiated; in the real estate files, he checked for closing statements to see if they were in order; in civil right cases, he looked at the types of cases filed and the results. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was any similarity in civil rights cases being filed. Mr. Cloud indicated recently police seemed to be the common factor. Commissioner Thomas asked if he had found any suggested remedies to address this in the files. Mr. Cloud indicated he had not. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Cloud interviewed adversarial attorneys. Mr. Cloud indicated he had. Commissioner Thomas questioned if high marks were given to Mr. Galbraith by attorneys to whom he had lost, or those against whom he had won. Mr. Cloud indicated both. He also indicated that the high marks were consistent. Commissioner Thomas asked the Hildebrandt firm to describe the ideal structure, shape and size of a legal department for a city the size of Clearwater. Mr. Kaufman indicated, until they know the time needed, cases filed, etcetera, they could not tell. He stated he did have a gut feeling about the issue. Commissioner Thomas stated Hildebrandt representatives were here as experts and were supposed to have vast knowledge in reviewing the legal arena. He questioned, based on their expertise, what was the ideal makeup? Mr. Kaufman said, as an expert, it would be a disservice to answer the question without sufficient data. He stated his gut reaction was that they probably need one or two paralegals, more administrative support and one or two more lawyers. Mr. Santangelo stated his feel was that they need two or three paralegals, one intralevel attorney and an administrative officer. Mr. Cloud indicated he felt an administrative person was needed, one extra paralegal and two lawyers; one with expertise in Federal district court litigation and the other, an entry level to work with the other attorneys. Mr. Santangelo cautioned the Commission should go slowly in adding employees to the Legal Department. He stated their basic premise is the Legal Department needed to be looked at carefully for six months. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the sample of a daily time sheet that was submitted. He thought it was an antiquated form and questioned why the Hildebrandt firm had not recommended software packages that could be used. Mr. Santangelo indicated they were not technology experts. Mr. Kaufman replied the time sheet is used as an input document and is not an archaic piece of paper. Mr. Cloud confirmed legal offices still use time sheets, but the billing is computerized. Mr. Kaufman indicated he was aware of sophisticated legal service users, but they were only about ten percent of the law firms in the United States. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Cloud was a managing partner. Mr. Cloud indicate he was a partner and department head in his law firm. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated he had read the report. Commissioner Thomas pointed out there were 30 recommendations and 48 subrecommendations in the report. He questioned if Mr. Cloud, in reviewing an attorney, would have that many recommendations on how to improve. Mr. Cloud indicated probably not. In response to an additional question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Cloud indicated he had quarterly reviews, not annual ones. He stated that, for a brand new attorney, recommendations for improvements may add up to 78. He said he tries to limit his to three or four big items that need to be addressed. In response to questions regarding who reviews Mr. Cloud's work, Mr. Cloud indicated the compensation committee and that he would not expect 78 recommendations on how to improve. Mayor Garvey stated she wished to emphasize the firm had reported on the strengths and weaknesses of the Legal Department and the City Attorney has begun to respond to those comments. She stated the main recommendation was that this be reviewed in six months. She stated there needs to be a definite emphasis on management style. Mr. Galbraith took strong exception to the comment in the report that the department was not managed and that his style was not working. He questioned if the Hildebrandt firm had ever performed a similar study for an office of four attorneys. The firm representatives indicated that would be confidential information. Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm had any preconceived ideas. Mr. Santangelo indicated they did not. Mr. Galbraith questioned if time sheets were common practice for government lawyers. Mr. Santangelo indicated they are becoming more common. Mr. Galbraith questioned how much time firm members had spent in the City Attorney's office. Mr. Santangelo indicated, other than Mr. Cloud, just a walk-through. Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm had any appreciation of the work load of Messrs. Lance and Hull. Firm representatives indicated, according to those attorneys, it was heavy and they had no reason to not believe them. Mr. Galbraith questioned how, if he was to spend more time managing, he could be more effective and efficient. Mr. Santangelo indicated Mr. Surette clearly needed to be replaced and all members had suggested on a gut feel there needed to be more attorneys in the City Attorney's department. Mr. Galbraith expressed a concern he felt he was in a Catch-22 as they are saying he needs more people but it needs to wait for six months. Mr. Santangelo indicated the firm was looking at the process and not an event. He stated, clearly, Mr. Surette needs to be replaced. Mr. Galbraith questioned if the firm could provide him with some measurable and obtainable goals. It was indicated they could. Mr. Galbraith questioned if Mr. Cloud used goals. He indicated to the best of his ability, he did. Mr. Galbraith questioned why the firm had not contacted him when they felt the data needed was not available and why he had received no feedback. Mr. Santangelo indicated their obligation was to the City Commission, not the City Attorney. Mr. Galbraith indicated the report lays a lot of challenges at his feet and questioned if there were challenges to anyone else. Mr. Santangelo indicated the City Commission has to want to work with Mr. Galbraith on these recommendations. Mr. Santangelo expressed concerns that no one had raised any questions on what the firm was trying to accomplish. He stated some Commission members have come very close to questioning the credibility of the approach used. He felt the attempt was transparent to "kill the messenger." He indicated there was a lot of disharmony in the City of Clearwater on this issue. He felt there was enough meat in the report for the Commission to make a decision and to get on with it. Miles Lance questioned there being no salary information in the report and matching of position statements and work loads of attorneys in other cities. Mr. Santangelo stated government attorneys are usually dramatically underpaid and the reason they stay is their affection for their City. Mr. Lance indicated in response to the comment that they were a group of independent practitioners that he and Mr. Hull consult regularly. Mr. Santangelo stated he would provide the materials requested by the City Attorney. Commissioner Deegan stated, the question is if the Commission is satisfied with the report. He stated three times the Commission had taken exception to the way the proposal was submitted and they wanted to focus on the way the department had performed in the past. He stated, in his opinion, the report does not answer that question and the report should not be accepted. He stated the assignment has not been fulfilled and the Hildebrandt firm missed to boat completely. He stated something should have been said to the City Commission regarding the data not being available. He also did not understand why Mr. Cloud returned to the Legal Department to review files after the report had been submitted. Mayor Garvey disagreed. She felt they did get the information regarding past performance and there were recommendations for the future. Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Deegan, stating this was supposed to have been a performance and productivity driven audit. He stated they still don't have a handle on the true productivity and performance of the Legal Department. He stated the list of managerial improvements are helpful. He stated he concurred there is a need for more paralegals and attorneys. He was not sure he agreed with Mr. Cloud regarding the expertise needed for the additional attorneys. Commissioner Thomas recommended scheduling further discussion for the next City Commission meeting. Mayor Garvey suggested April 7 would be a better date. Commissioner Thomas felt more expeditious action was needed. Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize a temporary replacement for Rob Surette. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Thomas felt there should be a permanent additional Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Deegan did not amend his motion. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether Mr. Galbraith knew of someone who could fill in on a temporary basis. Mr. Galbraith indicated he had several qualified people in mind who could do it. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas moved that Mr. Galbraith institute an analysis to determine how another paralegal would fit into his department and to hire one additional paralegal. There was no second. The meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.