FAIRMONT — A resident of Ward 3 wanted answers from Fairmont City Council representatives about their handling of the recent termination process of Elizabeth Bloomquist, city attorney, and the subsequent financial cost of their actions. Erin Maidl sought an explanation during “Saturday With the City,” an informal session that allowed citizens to ask questions of Fairmont’s city staff and its elected officials,

Armed with information from the Fairmont City Charter, the League of Minnesota Cities and Bloomquist’s separation agreement obtained through a data request, Maidl asked council members Tom Hawkins, Randy Lubenow and Ruth Cyphers to justify their termination of the city’s in-house attorney as being financially in the best interest of Fairmont.

Maidl pointed out that information from the charter and the LMC places responsibility on the council to manage city’s financial operations “in the best interest of the entire city.” She also noted that the separation agreement between the city and Bloomquist stated that “neither party admits to any legal liability or violation of any contract or law or that she (Bloomquist) has engaged in any wrongdoing in this matter.”

She cited the separation agreement’s requirement to pay Bloomquist regular salary and benefits through Nov. 15 as well as paying the county attorney to handle the city’s criminal cases, an interim attorney for civil matters and seeking a permanent replacement to handle civil matters.

“So, council members, where and how are you justifying to us that terminating the city attorney at this time was financially in the best interest of Fairmont?” Maidl asked. “Why would you not wait until closer to Ms. Bloomquist’s retirement and formulate a fiscally responsible plan for the position, therefore saving the city of Fairmont unneeded expenditures?”

Hawkins told Maidl she should talk to Mayor Debbie Foster, City Attorney Mike Humpal and Councilman Bruce Peters about the cost of the separation agreement as they were the ones who negotiated the deal with Bloomquist.

Lubenow said Bloomquist had an employment agreement mandating she would get six months pay at the end of her tenure “no matter what.”

“I’m not talking about what she’s getting. She had 30 years of service and a city staff that looks up to her,” Maidl said. “What is the whole cost that we are now going to have to pay to have somebody else do it?”

“There’s a misconception that you stated as fact, that we’re going to spend much more by bringing somebody else in from outside,” Hawkins said. “I believe it will be substantially less, but in the end, we don’t know for sure if it is. It’s going to be more in the beginning because we have to pay the separation agreement.”

“Again, why?” Maidl asked. “If she did nothing wrong, as stated in the agreement, why did you have to do this right now and incur the cost for the next how many months?”

Cyphers alluded to the confidentiality involved with personnel matters.

“I’ve been involved in three evaluations since I’ve been on the council, and we can’t talk about that. We can’t tell you what went on in the evaluations, which is unfortunate,” she said.

When Cyphers told Maidl you ” just have to trust sometimes,” another person attending the listening session asked “which side” should be trusted, referring to the 3-3 council division on Bloomquist’s job performance.

Lubenow disagreed with Maidl’s comments that Bloomquist did nothing wrong, claiming he heard complaints about her job performance when he was campaigning for his council seat last year.

“I have received complaints about her performance,” he said. “I did my research. I talked to people that worked with her. I also heard from city employees and everyone involved, and I made the best decision I could.”

Peters then spoke up, reminding the residents present that he supported Bloomquist.

“I would say that when I got on the city council, I had a similar opinion due to street talk about Elizabeth Bloomquist, that maybe she should be let go, but after being on the council for a year and paying attention, my mind changed completely,” Peters said. “She was a very superb employee, and she did her job very well.”

Maidl reminded Lubenow of the council’s April 15 work session when city management staff and supervisors unanimously spoke out in support of Bloomquist and their working relationship with her. She asked him for the connection to his subsequent judgment of the attorney’s job performance, but Lubenow doubled down on his support for her termination.

“I talked to people that worked with her on a regular basis, people that had first-hand knowledge,” he said. “I talked to former city employees. I’ve heard from a lot of people that have supported the change with the city attorney.”

Maidl raised questions about the evaluation process used for Bloomquist.

Foster said the council used the same evaluation process for the city attorney and city administration, the two municipal employees under direct supervision of the council, all others falling under the administrator’s responsibilities.

“The city attorney position is difficult to evaluate as a council because we don’t see what she does every day,” Foster said. “But we are in contact with the city administrator almost every day. We can see what he does.”

“So Humpal wasn’t involved? And he worked with Libby quite a bit,” Maidl said.

She asked which council member had served the longest and was told it was Peters.

“And you heard what he said,” Maidl said.

Her recommendation that the council adopt a “360” performance evaluation, a process that involves input from all staff above and below the employee being evaluated, and her suggestion was met with a positive reaction from council members and staff.