City administrator Bob Farley

Live Oak City Administrator Robert Farley was placed on evaluation status by the Live Oak City Council during its special called Tuesday night meeting.

District 5 Councilman Keith Mixon voiced his concerns about the city administrator position and cited his displeasure with communication breakdowns and the practices he sees.

Initially Mixon called for a 30 day evaluation of Farley, but amended his motion to a 60 day evaluation period following a discussion of the council. Although City Attorney Erny Sellers recommended the council employ the services of an outside facilitator to explore the complaints and solutions between Farley and the city council, the council elected to meet with Farley on an individual basis and discuss practices they are unhappy with.

“If we don’t know it’s broke, we can’t fix it,” Farley told the city council.

The motion was again amended and the city council agreed to revisit Farley’s evaluation status during September’s city council meeting.

“There seems to be a lot of issues in city hall about whether Mr. Farley is going to retained or not going to be retained,” Mixon stated. “My concern is that when your employment gets to the point  that there is a breakdown or a concern about management and what will happen next often times impedes your ability to get the work and the job done.”

Mixon elaborated that he is concerned about Farley’s concern about being fired.

“I’ve heard a lot of discussion and comments and I need more time to make an evaluation good, bad or indifferent and that’s what I’m asking for is more time to evaluate this position,” Mixon said.

District 2 Councilman Bennie Thomas felt that 30 days wasn’t enough time and suggested the council consider a 60 day evaluation period for Farley.

Mixon expressed his concern for addressing issues, but articulated that councilmen and councils of the past are partially at fault for some of the issues.

According to Mixon, he has spent considerable time with Farley and believes that Farley has Live Oak’s best interest at heart. Mixon then lauded the city administrator’s skills and abilities as a public works director.

Emphasizing that the city administrator position is one of the most important positions in the building, Mixon stressed that he believes Farley is giving the job his best effort and thinks the council should give him feedback.

“Mr. Farley has concern for his position and I understand his posistion well,” Mixon acknowledged. “It is not fair to Mr. Farley to be under the gun. We need to have communication from this council to Mr. Farley and from Mr. Farley to council and from the council to the city.”

District 1 Councilman John Yulee expressed his concern that the city council was rushing to judgement.

“Why are we rushing to judgement?” Yulee asked. “We need to start working closer together to resolve some of the problems we’re having here. I don’t think we need to put Mr. Farley on a 60 day notice. He’s really been doing a fantastic job here in the city of Live Oak. There’s some things we might not like, but we have to work it out. Why get rid of someone and get someone worse?”

Council President Adam Prins countered Yulee’s comments by stating the motion was to evaluate Farley and not get rid of him.

“I’m not suggesting we terminate Mr. Farley,” Mixon stated. “I’m suggesting we give Mr. Farley a chance to perform and show us the skills that he has over the next 30, 60 or 90 days. Mr. Farley is unfairly under a bad situation. He’s afraid he’s going to get fired. I don’t think I’m asking what you’re suggesting.”

Farley addressed the council and stated that unfortunately the state of Florida doesn’t allow good management practices to take hold between a council and a staff member.

“We cannot have a group discussion unless we do it in public and unless we advertise,” Farley said. “My management practices and courses I’ve taken is when management has a problem with an employee, you set down and discuss it with him. My suggestion is to set up a meeting in public and each of you set here and tell me what my weak points are.”

Farley added that he and the council should come together and work as a team to resolve the issues so they can be fixed.

“Whatever action you take, I will abide by,” Farley said.

After extensive discussion between Farley and the city council, it was agreed that each councilman would speak with Farley individually, discuss the issues and address them during the the Sept. 11 city council meeting.

According to Prins, if it comes down to a question of his employment, it will be brought out in a public meeting.

After lengthy discussion about Farley’s evaluation status, Mixon presented a separate motion to the city council to move the city’s finance department out from under the supervision of the city administrator and directly under the supervision of the city council.

Prins stated that a city ordinance currently mandates that every department head is to report directly to the city administrator and the issue should be placed on a future agenda with the ordinance number.