The Pahokee City Commission had yet another disastrous meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2023. The meeting once again consisted of fighting among the dais and the public in attendance. The major issue that night was the city manager’s evaluation and contract. Manager Lucas’s contract has been on the agenda for the last several meetings. At this particular meeting, Mrs. Perez was able to present her evaluation and commentary since she was absent from the last meeting on Aug. 7.

At meeting mark 52:56, Perez says “Out of all the commissioners, I gave the lowest score.” At 54:50, Perez proceeds to open an envelope and pulls out a one page paper and said “The city manager’s contract, section 4 termination of this contract, “can be with cause and at this time, I would like to put a motion to terminate the city manager with cause for both misfeasance and nonfeasance, the performance of his duties and responsibilities.” After which Mr. Gonzalez seconded the motion. At the 56:07 meeting mark, the city attorney advises the Commission that they have a process in place for removal of a charter officer in the city’s charter section 3.03. She goes on to state there would need to be a preliminary resolution to terminate stating the reasons. City Attorney Weeks then goes on to read the specific language in Section 3.03 of the City Charter at meeting marker 57:30. The city attorney then advised it would need to be done under the future agenda items section of the meeting’s agenda. She stated “It would not be proper at this point on the agenda.”

Under the future agenda items section of the agenda at meeting mark 1:47:15, Perez remakes her motion to terminate the manager’s contract. It was once again seconded by Gonzalez. Boldin asks Perez to explain what misfeasance and nonfeasance mean. He then asks the attorney to expand on what those terms entail. He again asks Perez for specific manager instances using those terms. Perez gave none. City Attorney Weeks then went into the specifics of both the manager’s contract and the removal section of the charter on what the process would be. She made clear the vote tonight is to put “a preliminary resolution with or without cause” for the next meeting. At 1:55:44, “It has been motioned by Perez and seconded by Gonzalez to add to future agenda to terminate the city manager contract with cause.” The vote passed 3 to 2 with Vice Mayor Murvin and Commissioner Boldin in dissent.

As it pertains to the manager’s evaluations, I strongly believe that 2 out of the 5 evaluations should not have been considered. I say this because the evaluations were sent by Mr. Mangual to all commissioners on Jan. 25 at 3:59 p.m. with a deadline of Feb. 28. So the first deadline was a month away. As of March 2, Mr. Mangual had not received Gonzalez and Perez’s evaluations. Thus, they were given an extended deadline of April 14. That deadline was also missed by Perez and Gonzalez.

Mayor Babb brought up the manager evaluation at the June 13 meeting at 3:05:46 as an item that needed to be before the board. Mr. Mangual stated as of that meeting he had only obtained 3 evaluations. Perez at the meeting said she had her evaluation but forgot to turn it in. As for Gonzalez, he said he was at fault for not getting his evaluation in. I agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Boldin’s statement on honoring deadlines. If a deadline is set it should be followed. You cannot hold others accountable until you first start holding yourself accountable.

Mayor Babb motioned to allow the two late evaluations to be submitted by C.O.B. June 14 with Perez seconding the motion. It passed 4-1 (Boldin in dissent). Mr. Mangual emailed the commission June 14 at 9:03pm saying he received the missing 2 evaluations that afternoon. Clearly the manager’s evaluation was not important or a pressing need for Perez and Gonzalez as the commission had to vote on allowing the non-submitted evaluations to be included in the final manager evaluation scores/summary. Put plainly, Perez and Gonzalez were given four and half months (Feb 28-June 14) to get their evaluations in. How do we expect others to work within timelines and deadlines if certain commissioners can disregard them? Why is Perez hell bent on tearing others down for not following deadlines when she cannot follow them? Why does Perez attack or call out the manager at practically every meeting but the evaluation which is her main way to provide review was left without submission for almost 5 months. It is to be a hypocrite to have one standard for yourself and another for everyone else Perez and Gonzalez.

The commission is a whole is the legislative body of the city which means they set policy and directives. Their sole job is to vote and then allow the manager to carry out those actions. However, Perez and Gonzalez are hell bent on also interfering with day to day operations of the manager. Interfering with the manager’s day to day operations as a commissioner is a clear violation of the city charter as has been advised by the city attorney publically in meetings several times to Gonzalez and Perez.

At the Pahokee City Commission meeting on July 25, 2023, Commissioner Gonzalez at 1:39: 57 mark stated he gave the city manager a specific company to call in regards to work that needed to be done at the marina. At 1:40:00 meeting mark, Gonzalez asked the manager if he contacted the company which was JG Marine Construction.

At 1:41:20 mark, the city attorney advised Commissioner Gonzalez that he “cannot interfere in the day to day operations under the city’s charter of the manager”. The attorney made clear that Mr. Gonzalez cannot direct the manager to make calls to a particular vendor. She said it was a clear violation of the city’s charter.

At the August 7, 2023 Pahokee City Commission meeting, the splash pad was on the agenda and the manager stated at 1:41:42 mark that Commissioner Gonzalez had a gentleman from Clewiston give the manager a call about fixing the splash pad.

At the August 7, 2023 Pahokee City Commission meeting, the city manager’s evaluation was on the agenda. At the meeting mark of 3:26:21, City staff confirmed that Mr. Gonzalez turned in his and Commissioner Perez’s manager evaluations. Commissioner Boldin stated “even the appearance of impropriety is an issue.” To which the Acting City Attorney that night agreed.

I have seen Pahokee City Managers fired for years since Ken Schenck. While some were justified, others were not. Pahokee loses every time a manager is fired or leaves. This repeated action sets us back decades. Projects become stalled and chaos ensues. The public needs to amplify their voices against allowing certain commissioners to take Pahokee down a destructive path. Citizens must attend the next two city commission meetings to speak out to reverse the resolution to terminate the current manager. If not, Pahokee will once again become an embarrassment to not only the county but also the state. After a while, if you constantly fire or cause to resign all of your managers, no one will want to come work in that position. Every member of the community should hear Boldin’s comments at the August 7 meeting (3:17:35-3:30:10). I completely agree. In the end, no one will take your city seriously if you have a proven record of instability in your manager’s office along with constant quarreling on your dais.

Thank you and as always Pahokee Progress,

David J. Ruiz