John Willoughby
reporter2@greenepublishing.com
Following the reading of a preliminary resolution towards the conclusion of the Greenville Town Council meeting on Monday, May 11, long-time Town Clerk Kimberly Reams was suspended with pay and provided with an intent of termination via Zoom, given 10 days to respond or request an appeal hearing, or accept the removal of office.
This action resulted in members of the community and Councilman Bobby Burnett calling it a blindside. In addition, the question remained whether or not the charter was followed correctly, with Town Attorney John Reid citing the provision of sufficient notification.
As discussion began to take form on agenda item No. 17 - "discuss and possibly take action on discipline," Councilman Calvin Malone presented a preliminary resolution to the council to remove Reams from her position as town clerk of Greenville. In the resolution, the following was stated as reasoning for the petition of removal: "I would like Mrs. Reams removed from office as clerk. The town is moving in a positive direction as there is an uncooperative environment when questioned or given directives. For the greater good of the town council and citizens of Greenville, I recommend that Mrs. Kimberly be removed from office."
According to the town charter, under Section 4 (5) Removal of Charter Officer, the Greenville Town Council is required to adopt a preliminary resolution stating reasons for the intended removal, offering the said charter officer the opportunity for a public hearing on the matters raised by the resolution within 10 days from the adoption of the resolution.
However, questions were raised as far as whether the preliminary resolution was sufficiently provided to the town clerk. As the charter continues to add, "any written motion for removal of a charter officer or similar paper prepared by any town council member shall constitute a preliminary resolution for purposes of this subsection and shall be immediately placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting upon receipt of the town clerk."
Attorney John Reid informed the council he dispersed the resolution to all council members during the week of May 6, and informed Councilman Malone that he [Reid] could provide the town clerk with the resolution, given, as Reid stated, it would be ideally better to give the resolution directly to the clerk. "Just whatever I can do to try to help, obviously this is an uncomfortable situation for everyone."
Attorney Reid also questioned, "if you vote now, is there a potential to say we didn't follow the procedures set forth in the charter?"
"So you came prepared with this document wanting to make a motion to remove the town clerk from her position, am I correct?" asked Mayor Brittni Brown of Councilman Malone.
"Correct," Councilman Malone responded.
"And Mr. Reid, you're saying that what Mr. Malone wants to do, or came to do, is improper because he didn't give it to the town clerk?" Mayor Brown continued.
"It could be," Attorney Reid responded, saying he thinks "we're open to a defense to say that the procedures weren't followed." "It would be easier if we scheduled this for the next meeting, but if it's the desire to act tonight then I just want the board to know there is a possibility they could seek to [unintelligible]."
Councilman Bobby Burnett was the only member of the council to meet virtually through Zoom, along with other citizens of the public and interested parties. Burnett made a motion to table the issue, but it didn't go far.
"My main concern was that this was placed on the agenda kind of in a secretive manner with no information given to me as a council member of what we were even going to be discussing," Councilman Burnett stated, adding that he had heard no complaints at any previous council meetings regarding the accusations made against the town clerk.
"I know I don't have the information that I need to make a decision and also, it was done in a way that the public didn't know what was going to be on the agenda and there might've been some other people who would've been interested in knowing what was going on. If you ask me, this is a blindside that's being done since everybody can't be at the meeting," Councilman Burnett concluded before his motion died for a lack of a second.
As the council dissected the charter provision regarding the removal of a charter officer and confirmed the potential issue to be the clerk's receipt of the preliminary resolution, Mayor Brown asked what options were available to move forward with the meeting.
Attorney Reid flashed back to a now-modified Florida Sunshine Law which stated that a board has authority to do anything it wants during a publicly-noticed meeting, whether a matter was on the agenda or not. "That's somewhat modified in 2013 when the legislature amended the statute to say the public has the right to comment on items before they are voted upon," Attorney Reid informed the board. "So, we could have an issue with that. I don't know whether it would prevail or not. I think it would be subject to litigation."
"As you said, you and Councilman Malone had been in conversation about the logistics about this," said Mayor Brown. "So we had town staff that knew about the preliminary resolution. It's on the agenda … Now, it's not specific, like Mr. Burnett said. It does not say 'removal of town clerk' … Are you saying that No. 17 would not be sufficient as far as noticing that there will be discussion and possible discipline action at this meeting?"
Attorney Reid responded, saying he thought it complied with Florida law and case law, but "the only concern I would raise is whether there was a requirement that it go through the clerk and be placed on the agenda for a regularly-scheduled meeting and that was the process [we're] supposed to follow."
Prior to a vote, Councilman Malone spoke, stating that the council is changing the face of Greenville and "we are doing better." He added that he has a problem with "continued mild-mannered, if you will, resistance," adding that's not a precedence the council wants to set for the community of Greenville.
"We want to get along. We want to represent everybody, not just the few in the community … We're trying to become a respected town, just like any other municipality. Not being talked to by the charter officers," said Councilman Malone. "We deserve the same respect."
Mayor Brown asked Councilman Malone if he had a motion before he proceeded to ask Attorney Reid about his opinion regarding termination versus suspension. Attorney Reid informed the council the provision regarding removal of charter officers does not apply to suspension. "If the action you wish to take was simply just a suspension and not a termination, then it would not fall under this charter provision because this is limited only to removal," Reid concluded.
"Yeah, but he wants to terminate," Mayor Brown added.
"The charter officer don't understand that we do have that – " Councilman Malone stopped. "Motion that we terminate according to the resolution." The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Brandi Tillman before Councilman Burnett was unmuted, giving his final thoughts on the issue.
"I've sat here and I've listened and I've heard Councilman Malone and I'm going to be honest with you, it's coming across to me as something personal," said Councilman Burnett. "I haven't heard another council member report any issues that they're having with Mrs. Reams … being treated by the way he's saying and I believe this whole thing is a personal vendetta. I think to do what this council is doing under these circumstances during these meetings [the way they are], it is so uncalled for. You're talking about moving the town forward, you folks are fixing to move the town backwards more than you ever thought."
Councilman Malone responded, stating that Councilman Burnett was entitled to his opinion. The motion was passed 4-1, with Councilman Burnett casting the dissenting vote.
This incident isn't the first time Reams has been the subject of councilman complaints. In September of 2017, Reams reported an incident to the Madison County Sheriff's Office where Councilwoman Brandi Tillman (then Seabrooks), as reported in Sgt. Jeff Rosenberg's report, was "trying to force her into paying [former Councilman Kovacherich Arnold]," who was no longer a council member. The report added that "City Mayor Calvin Malone came into the office and began ordering her around."
Rosenberg then spoke with Seabrooks and Malone, who told the MCSO official that Reams had "refused to comply with any directives and do her job."
Questions floated whether Arnold's status as a member of the board was legitimate after missing eight meetings. In a request for guidance from Reams, then-attorney Clay Schnitcker, in an August 2017 memo, stated "It is our opinion that currently, as town clerk, you [Reams] are not authorized to continue to pay the monthly council member fee to Mr. Arnold, since in our opinion he is not currently a council member."
Days later, during a regularly-scheduled council meeting on Monday, Sept. 18, 2017, one of Reams' attorneys, Louis Baptiste, addressed the council, stating: "I have reviewed your town charter and under your town charter, no single [council] member has supervisory authority over a city clerk."
During his time at the meeting, he continued to inform the council that "Mr. Arnold is no longer on this commission, per law. The city attorney told you that, but you refuse to enforce. I have no problem with Mr. Arnold, but the law is the law. I hope you guys will please start following the law."