Brittany Kelley
KYLE — Kyle City Council had an open discussion regarding the contract of city manager Bryan Langley at its March 3 special meeting.
“We were originally going to go into the back to discuss, but Bryan Langley and Aimee Alcorn-Reed would like us to discuss this out front,” said Mayor Yvonne Flores-Cale.
She then divulged that Langley’s contract states that council should review his performance annually, which is why it was brought forth.
“Upon reviewing it, I came up with several questions. I was confused with the amendment, which happened at the 11th hour at the end of July [when his contract was renewed in April] and very little people were here to speak on it and I don’t think it was properly noticed on the agenda,” said Flores-Cale, who explained that her questions will be geared toward the three council members that were serving at the time: council members Marc McKinney, Lauralee Harris and Michael Tobias.
A private attorney did consult with council prior to making the decision for the revisions in July, said Alcorn-Reed.
The first question was what the reasoning was for amending the salary, the percentage of 401(a) — which inconsistently stated both 4% and 6% — and adding 32 weeks of leave benefits, as well as unlimited accrued vacation leave.
The mayor questioned what occurred in between Langley’s renewal in the spring that caused needed amendments in July.
“State legislation,” replied McKinney. “They changed the requirements of what was allowed as far as severance, which would have been a severe detriment to both parties and it was our attempt to make it whole to what they were promised when they took on the position.”
“[House Bill 762] isn’t so much about money; it’s about termination and severance. For example, if something is triggered by your termination, that is now considered severance. So, trying to circumvent the situation is concerning to me. What they did was say, ‘[The state limits us to give you] 20 weeks of paid vacation [for severance] that you can keep [when it was originally 12 months] and [the city is now] going to give you 32. If you take 32 plus 20, how many weeks do you have? Fifty-two. And the [original] agreement was that you would have a year’s salary,” explained Flores-Cale. “So, 52 weeks to me is now the same as a year’s salary … At the end of the day, all this looks to me to be very much the same.”
Regarding the vacation time, McKinney posed the question of why lose it, if they earned it. Flores-Cale noted that it’s not just that they’d lose the days, it’s that staff can cash it out, “So, what’s the benefit to the taxpayer?”
He stated that the taxpayer has the staff whenever they need them, rather than potentially missing important sessions on vacation.
The cost to not renew Langley’s contract, with the unlimited vacation time, would be approximately $500,000, said McKinney, who determined the number based off of Langley’s salary and an estimate of hours accrued.
According to Alcorn-Reed, there is a specific revision of the contract that limits the amount that can be paid out, even upon termination, to 2,000 hours that includes banked leave and the maximum vacation accruement of 720 hours.
Though, if Langley left voluntarily, he would only be entitled to the 720 hours.
Tobias became concerned and wanted to discuss “the elephant in the room” about whether half of the council was going to request termination for both Langley and Alcorn-Reed. Council member Melisa Medina clarified that they just wanted clarification, since the meeting in which the conversation occurred was not public.
“I just wanted to get an understanding … as far as the direction of this conversation itself and what’s the overall end goal that we’re trying to get when we’re talking about their two contracts. So, we can just come out and just be fair to them and respect both of them for what they stand for. Because, again, when we’re starting to talk about people’s contracts, people’s salaries on a personal level, you’re talking about their daily lives, their livelihood,” said Tobias.
“I used the exact same language that you guys used to give them a raise. So, if it wasn’t concerning then, then why does it concern you now,” rebutted the mayor. “I led with, ‘Why did you guys vote that way’ and the first thing that was said was, ‘The law.’ When previous Mayor [Travis] Mitchell came to take his vote, he said ‘He is going to make whole.’ That means circumventing the law.”
Council member Lauralee Harris noted that that was simply Flores-Cale’s interpretation and that that was not the intention, though council member Courtney Goza also agreed that it was going around the law.
Additionally, Langley confirmed that “the goal was to make sure I still had that 12-month severance provision in my contract.”
The conversation began to gain traction, as McKinney shared that he believed the current discussion didn’t need to be an agenda item and that the mayor could have asked her questions separately. Furthermore, he accused Flores-Cale of acting in retaliation for having an item against her put in executive session, adding that he is not the only one that thinks so, as others have been “blowing up his phone.”
She responded, “Well, they could have called me. They could have called us. We’re all available. Aren’t you the one that just said, ‘If you want to know, you can contact us?’”
Council member Claudia Zapata agreed with the sentiment that there are “shenanigans” going on that are creating a hostile work environment for staff and inappropriately using taxpayer dollars.
“This is ridiculous. This is not a circus. This is actual governance and I understand that you are upset that you do not have all the power that you would like to have, but we are a council of checks and balances. We are not a strong-mayor system,” Zapata stressed. “Just because you don’t like something also doesn’t make it illegal. There’s a lot of stuff that happens right now that I don’t like and it’s not necessarily illegal … There’s a huge difference in this and the accusations that are constantly being thrown around, like violations, code, ethics, whatever, all of that, all of that to me is absolutely disgusting that you would do that to another human being, especially someone whose entire career is in doing this. You can ruin someone’s career for their lifetime by throwing around the things that you’re throwing around.”
Zapata continued, stating that these are the opinions of someone who is not an accredited lawyer and that Flores-Cale is attempting to fulfill her campaign promise.
“I’m glad that this conversation was had out front because I don’t see our residents as children that we must protect. I believe that they deserve the full response and attention and answers and honesty that we are able to give them,” concluded Zapata.
To listen to the full discussion, visit bit.ly/40Lm0TZ.
