FORT PIERCE — A discussion about the city’s charter devolved into a dispute over authority and legal compliance after commissioners raised concerns about how a wage garnishment case involving a city employee was handled.
The issue surfaced during a recent City Commission meeting, when Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky pointed to the situation as an example of unclear lines of authority between city officials.
“In a recent scenario regarding an employee’s wages being garnished and a total disconnect between what the advice was from the attorney to the city manager, and then not letting the city manager reach out to our contracted outside counsel, who is an expert in employment law, was a total overreach,” Dzadovsky said.
According to city officials, a decision was made to suspend the employee, raising questions about whether that action complied with federal law governing wage garnishment.
“Under federal law, the assertion to terminate an employee with one garnishment is not legal. It clearly states that the person firing an individual for one garnishment would then be held possibly accountable with a $1,000 fine or up to a year in jail. The conversation between the two individuals got sideways, and what I understand to be true is that the city attorney refused to let the city manager speak to outside counsel,” Dzadovsky said.
Dzadovsky attributed the situation to what he described as a breakdown in clearly defined roles under the city charter, particularly regarding access to outside legal counsel. He argued that City Attorney Sarah Hedges should not have restricted City Manager Richard Chess from consulting outside attorneys.
Commissioner Michael Broderick disputed that characterization, pointing to the structure of how outside legal services are managed.
“If this outside counsel is contracted through the city attorney’s office, and the expenditure for that outside counsel is coming from her outside counsel budget, I believe that that control point rests with the city attorney,” Broderick said. “So if the city manager wants to have a discussion with the outside attorney, he gets clearance from her, and candidly, she should be participating in that, to know what outside counsel is up to.”
Commissioner Arnold Gaines focused his concerns on how the situation developed, particularly regarding awareness of federal law.
“How come a decision was made, and no one knew about this federal law? That’s where I’ve been stuck with at the beginning, because once I found out about it, I did a Google search. Can you do XYZ? And a Google search came up with a big letter no,” Gaines said.
As the discussion continued, Commissioner Curtis Johnson suggested the exchange was becoming unproductive and highlighted the competing claims over authority.
“We’re at a crossroads where a party is saying I didn’t have the opportunity to speak with outside counsel. There’s a party saying, ‘well, this outside counsel is retained through my office. I have a right to be there and to listen to what this conversation is.’ So that’s where I’m at right now,” Johnson said. “It’s a complete mess. And what I’m furthermore disturbed about is our constitutional officers. I’m just going to say everybody, just to lump everybody in. We’re better than this.”
With disagreements unresolved, commissioners moved toward delaying further debate to allow for a more structured discussion.
“We need to either table this or put this on the agenda so people can have notice and we discuss it because it’s going back and forth. Everybody has looked like they’ve drawn their line in the sands and it’s not fair to Madam Attorney. It’s not fair to Mr. Chess,” Gaines said.
The commission agreed to revisit the issue at its May 4 meeting, where officials plan to examine the circumstances in greater detail.