There’s been a lot of speculation on whether Randy Oliver was fired or resigned voluntarily. Oliver and the council say he resigned voluntarily, but it has been reported that he will be receiving a severance package — something usually reserved for the terminated. I obtained a copy of Oliver’s employment contract via a Freedom of Information Act request so we can all read it and draw our own conclusions.

One would think that there are only two options: “terminated” and “voluntarily resigned.” But in fact there’s a third option (from Section 3(C) of the contract):

In the event the City Council at any time reduces the salary, compensation or other benefits of the City Manager in a greater amount than an applicable across-the-board reduction for all employees of the City, or in the event the City Council fails to comply with any other provision of this Employment Agreement, or if the Employee resigns following a suggestion by a majority of the Council, then, in that event, Employee may, at his/her option, be deemed to be “terminated” at the date of such reduction, such refusal to comply, or such resignation within the meaning and context of the herein severance pay provision then in that event Employee may at his/her option, be deemed to be terminated, as provided herein.

The third option is, in a nutshell, “as if terminated.” Since, according to the contract, the City Manager has to either be terminated or “as if terminated” in order to be eligible to get severance pay, and since everyone denies that he was terminated by the council, that leaves us with option 3, “as if terminated,” as the only viable explanation. To further substantiate this conclusion, consider this provision in the contract from Section 3(F): “If the City Manager resigns voluntarily, he will provide a sixty (60) days’ notice to the City Council.” Oliver provided only 30 days’ notice.

Something evidently happened to trigger the “as if terminated” clause (as I call it). What was it? Was it that he was not going to be getting a raise, and that could be construed as a reduction of “salary, compensation or other benefits”? Or did the council take a no-confidence vote, which would be “a suggestion by a majority of the council”?

Whatever it was, it’s worth asking why this clause is even in the contract at all. Gary Sandberg said on WCBU’s “Outside the Horseshoe” program Tuesday that he voted against this contract precisely because of the termination section, which he thought was not in the best interests of the city. According to Sandberg, Oliver wrote up this contract, and the council at the time voted for it because they were desperate for a new city manager.

On the other hand, if the council really is dissatisfied with the city manager and asks him to resign or starts taking away salary and benefits in an effort to pressure him to resign, how is that appreciably different than terminating him? And why shouldn’t he get a severance package in such a case? It could be argued that this is nothing more than protection for the city manager from getting forced out without severance.

If you’re still trying to figure out how Randy Oliver could quit voluntarily and still get a sweet severance package, well so is John Sharp in today’s Word on the Street column. It appears there’s nothing in his contract that would require the city to give him severance unless he were either directly or indirectly terminated. However, it appears to be a common practice in the industry to give severance to city managers who quit voluntarily. Go figure. Oh well, it’s only tax money, right? Who cares?

Also in today’s WOTS column is a(nother) Schock endorsement from Karen McDonald.