If the city council didn’t agree to pay him extra and keep him as a city employee until the end of the year, former City Manager Steve Sheiffer threatened to not retire, council President Amy Loasching said.
Two months later, Loasching still is irritated.
“We felt like he was holding a gun to our heads,” she said.
The $9,424 in extra pay and benefits Sheiffer negotiated in June to extend his employment through the end of the year didn’t sit well with some council members.
Council member Russ Steeber sees it differently. He said some council members read too much into the negotiations and that Sheiffer was only negotiating to get the best deal he could from the city.
The Janesville Gazette only recently received the contract from a council member.
Although Sheiffer announced in January that he would retire Sept. 2, his contract required the council to give him six months notice of its intent to terminate his employment. That notice was due March 1 if the council intended to terminate Sheiffer’s contract Sept. 2, or the notice was due June 30 if the council intended to terminate his contract Dec. 31.
Loasching said the council was unaware of the need to send Sheiffer a notice of intent to terminate. The council assumed it would simply buy out Sheiffer’s vacation and sick days and release him from his contract, she said.
Late on Friday, June 13, Loasching was shocked to see a letter from Sheiffer’s attorney.
In the letter, the attorney notes that the council had not given Sheiffer notice to terminate his contract, which runs through Dec. 31.
Because no notice had been delivered as of June 13, the council could not force Sheiffer to retire before mid-December.
And while Sheiffer was manager, a new city manager could not be appointed, the letter points out.
If notice to terminate wasn’t delivered by June 30—six months before the expiration of his contract—Sheiffer’s contract automatically would renew Dec. 31 for another five years.
Sheiffer’s contract gave him six months pay if the council were to terminate his contract early.
The letter said Sheiffer’s personal circumstances had changed. It said Sheiffer anticipated “needing a medical procedure later this year,” and he no longer wanted to end his employment as city manager before Dec. 31.
“Mr. Sheiffer is aware of the city’s desire to continue with the recruitment of a new city manager,” the letter said. “At the same time, Mr. Sheiffer is aware that technically one may not be appointed while he is still under contract, at least not absent the city taking action to terminate the contract early and provide the attendant benefits to Mr. Sheiffer provided for under his employment agreement.”
Loasching said it smacked of blackmail.
The council had 17 days to respond to meet the June 30 deadline.
“We really trusted Mr. Sheiffer to be bringing us through this whole process with the hiring of a new city manger … and then for this to be pulled out right when we’re going to be looking at the candidates …”
If Sheiffer stayed on, the council would have wasted money on the search for a new city manager.
“I thought the timing of it stunk,” Loasching said.
“I think he timed this out perfectly so the council was in a position (where) we had to negotiate with him. Otherwise we were going to cost the city even more money.”
The council hired its own attorney, and the two attorneys negotiated the eventual agreement.
The council at an emergency meeting June 30 voted 4-1 to approve the contract, with Bill Truman voting no and George Brunner abstaining. Loasching had a previously scheduled vacation with family in Arizona so could not make the meeting.
Truman said he wanted to pay Sheiffer his due and have him off the payroll in September.
“The way I look at it, (he got) $9,424 more than what we really wanted to give him,” Truman said
Steeber said he wasn’t surprised Sheiffer would take his benefit time and run it out to the end of the year.
“In my opinion, people were reading a lot more (into it) than what they should have,” Steeber said. “I didn’t see it as any conniving or pressuring.
“In my opinion, there were some unanswered issues,” he said. “I blame part of it on the council for sitting on our laurels and … not being clear with Steve regarding what his expectations were of us and our expectations of him.”
There could have been better communication all around, he said.
Councilman Tom McDonald agreed that everybody believed Sheiffer’s retirement date was Sept. 2, that the council would buy out Sheiffer’s vacation and sick days and that the city would go forward.
But as a new council member, he was not part of original discussions, McDonald said.
The new deal allows Sheiffer to continue as a city employee by using his vacation days. He also can use his medical leave.
If the council hadn’t negotiated the deal, Sheiffer could have technically “gone on vacation” Sept. 5 and continued as city manager. Then, he could have used his sick days to take him through Jan. 1.
Sheiffer did have the city “over the barrel in a certain sense,” and some people didn’t like the way he did it, McDonald said.
“At the same time, that was his bargaining position. Both sides were using what leverage they had.
“I see it as maximizing his benefits,” McDonald said.
“He’s definitely getting a great deal out of all this,” McDonald said.
“I just look at it as all things that past councils have given him in the contracts … When it came to us on this council—buying him out and finishing this deal—our hands were basically tied.”