The State Attorney’s Office has determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mayor Ashton Hayward committed any crime when he settled his former city administrator’s lawsuit with the City of Pensacola for $95,571.
Last week, Inweekly discovered that in late September 2015 Mayor Hayward had settled the lawsuit without obtaining the council’s approval. In return for voluntarily withdrawing his lawsuit, former City Administrator Bill Reynolds received a check for $81,113. His attorney, Odom & Barlow P.A., was paid $14,458.
Mayor Hayward had fired Reynolds in July 2013 for violating his “sacred responsibility†after the State Attorney’s Office reported the administrator had leaked an employment’s complaint to former Council President Maren Deweese. Reynolds had investigated the February 2013 leak for the mayor and had told the city council he couldn’t determine the source.
The mayor not only didn’t ask the council to approve the settlement, but he, his city administrator, CFO, and city attorney failed to notify the council of the payout.
After the mayor refused to answer questions about the settlement, Inweekly asked the State Attorney’s Office to review whether Mayor Hayward committed official misconduct when he settled the Reynolds’ lawsuit without council approval. The newspaper had found no other lawsuit settlement that had been made without council approval.
Chief Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille determined that the mayor acted on the advice of legal counsel that he had the authority to act on the behalf of the City.
“The authority to settle a lawsuit is not specifically addressed in the City Charter,†said Marcille.
He pointed out that Reynolds’ employment agreement was between the mayor and the administrator, a position that is solely under the authority of the mayor according to the charter. The settlement was paid with funds “designated to and controlled by the mayor.â€
Read ah_reynolds.
For the Pensacola City Council, the issue now becomes whether the legal counsel’s opinion about the authority to settle was valid. The council or an individual council member would need to seek for a court ruling to settle the matter.