Mayor Hayward responds, Inweekly asks for clarification

The Pensacola News Journal published these statements attributed to the Hayward administration in regards to the $95K paid to former City Administrator Bill Reynolds and his attorney:

1. The city was sued in an employment contractual dispute and defended the dispute as with any other lawsuit the city is required to defend.
2. In providing that defense, the case was evaluated based on factors relevant to the legal merits and strategy, defense costs and insurance coverage.
3. The outcome of the lawsuit was uncertain, therefore a determination was made that it was in the city’s best interest to settle the case.
4. Since September 2015, the case file and the settlement agreement have been a public record and have been available upon request.
5. The settlement of this case was within the authority of the mayor pursuant to the city code and city charter.
6. The settlement cost was included in the monthly and quarterly financial reports to the city council and available to the public. The settlement cost was included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City.

We asked Public Information Officer Vernon Stewart to provide the following:

• The documentation that supports the evaluation of the factors relevant to “legal merits and strategy, defense costs and insurance coverage” -as stated in no. 2.
• The documentation that outlines how the outcome of the lawsuit was uncertain-as stated in no. 3.
• The code and charter sections that gave the mayor the authority to settle the lawsuit without council approval-as stated in no. 5.
• Show where in the 2015 CAFR there is a reference to the settlement with Mr. Reynolds and where CFO Dick Barker pointed out the settlement in his monthly and quarterly financial reports-as stated in no. 6.

Our analysis of Mayor Hayward’s responses is as follows:

1. The city was sued in an employment contractual dispute and defended the dispute as with any other lawsuit the city is required to defend.

We agree Reynolds’ lawsuit was not different than any other lawsuit against the City of Pensacola. The council has been asked to approve other lawsuit settlements.

2. In providing that defense, the case was evaluated based on factors relevant to the legal merits and strategy, defense costs and insurance coverage.

We have requested any documentation that supports the evaluation of the factors relevant to “legal merits and strategy, defense costs and insurance coverage.” Since taxpayers’ dollars paid off Reynolds, the taxpayers have a right to see the evaluation.

3. The outcome of the lawsuit was uncertain, therefore a determination was made that it was in the city’s best interest to settle the case.

We have requested any documentation that outlines how the outcome was uncertain. Again the taxpayers have the right to understand the risks in fighting the lawsuit.

4. Since September 2015, the case file and the settlement agreement have been a public record and have been available upon request.

The settlement agreement was not in Bill Reynold’s personal folder, on the city’s website or the Clerk of Court website. Inweekly finally figured out how to get the agreement by requesting the entire legal case file. It took six days to get the records.

5. The settlement of this case was within the authority of the mayor pursuant to the city code and city charter.

We have requested the code and charter sections that give the mayor the authority to settle the lawsuit without council approval. Former City Attorney Jim Messer has stated he believes the council had to approve the settlement.

6. The settlement cost was included in the monthly and quarterly financial reports to the city council and available to the public. The settlement cost was included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City.

CFO Dick Barker did not highlight the settlement costs in his reports regarding the August and September financial reports. The 2015 CAFR has no reference to the settlement with Reynolds. 

However, PIO Stewart may be able to provide documentation that will contradict our analysis. We will post it as the public records are provided.