Gainesville City Commission agrees to pay $245k to Interim City Manager
BY JENNIFER CABRERA
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the September 25 General Policy Committee meeting, the Gainesville City Commission approved a $245,000 employment contract for Interim City Manager Andrew Persons, starting October 21.
Human Resources Director Laura Graetz said the salary is in the first quartile of the pay range for the City Manager position. She said the contract is different from other recent interim contracts because Persons is currently the Chief Operating Officer of the City, so there are provisions to return him to that position under various circumstances.
Graetz also said the Chief Operating Officer position will remain open while Persons is Interim City Manager. He will become Interim City Manager on October 21, about a month before City Manager Cynthia Curry’s last day.
Click here to read the contract.
Commissioner Ed Book asked about a paragraph regarding what happens if Persons is removed for cause: “I think the chances of this applying to Mr. Persons is none and none, but… we always want to make sure that we’re handling our top-level employees as role models for the same way we would handle all other employees.” The contract says that if Persons is removed for cause, including gross negligence, willfully disregarding a direct order of the City Commission or a City policy, or pleading guilty or nolo contendere to a list of crimes, he will be returned to the Chief Operating Officer position “and afforded all rights and privileges available as any other Management and Professional Services (MAPS) employee.”
City Attorney Daniel Nee said if Persons were removed for cause, “he would still be subject to all of the rules and regulations related to our employees… This is dealing with the appointment context. In the employment context, things such as a conviction for a felony might lead to immediate termination of an employee”; other offenses might lead to disciplinary action, “but not necessarily termination.” Nee said Persons would revert to being an employee under a new Acting City Manager if he were removed for cause, so the matter would be handled the same as it would be in his current position.
Ward: “When we hire an Interim, until we replace that person with somebody else, that is the Charter Officer in that position.”
Mayor Harvey Ward pointed out that the City’s Charter “does not contemplate an Interim position… When we hire an Interim City Manager,… they are fulfilling that office per the Charter, not an interim position… When we hire an Interim, until we replace that person with somebody else, that is the Charter Officer in that position.”
Book made a motion to approve the employment agreement “subject to some minor clarifying language,” but Ward asked him to specify the language before the motion was seconded. Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut asked whether the City Attorney’s Office could create the language and bring it back at the end of the meeting, and everyone agreed.
At the end of the meeting, the City Attorney proposed adding this sentence to Section 4(C) of the employment agreement: “In the event this interim appointment is terminated for cause and Andrew Persons is returned to his pre-appointment position, his employment remains subject to all Human Resources Policies and Procedures applicable to City of Gainesville employees, up to and including termination of employment, as appropriate, for ’cause’ situations that occured prior, during, or after the interim appointment.”
The motion passed unanimously.
The gravy train barrels on.
According to Grok…. the salary for the City Manager role in Jacksonville (population 1,008,845) is $275k, and the salary for City Manager role in Miami (population 453,000) is $273k.
Gainesville City Manager salary is $245k in a population of 148,000.
I think Florida DOGE needs to do a deeper dive into waste in Gainesville.
And the previous Gainesville City Manager’s pay was almost $300k!
For reference:
– Members of Congress earn $174k salary
– The governor of Florida earns $141k (to be increased to $251k in 2027)
– Florida Supreme Court Justices earn $251k
Why does the city manager make more than all of these people? The corruption in Gainesville is appalling.
“We always want to make sure that we’re handling our top-level employees as role models for the same way we would handle all other employees.”
Yeah right. Try telling that to the employees on the bottom end of the pay scale.
The white guys to the rescue, as usual.
Why does the City of Gainesville have anyone on their payroll making $250,000 or more ? We are in debt but they keep paying people that are not bring down the debt enormous salaries. Taxpayers are being hoodwinked.
245k? The city is broke and in debt and they are paying a quarter million a year?
They want to make sure the “interim” manager gets more than the “interim” superintendent at the school district.
Not who you know but …
These city managers, commissioners, upper positions get paid way too much for a small city.
He could have gotten $50 K more if he’d have been a black and a female. Oh well. That’s the price that privileged white males have to pay…
Fallacies in the Reader Comments
The comments section contains several informal arguments critiquing the salary decision. Here are the identified fallacies:
Someone’s Comment (“According to Grok…. the salary for the City Manager role in Jacksonville… is $275k, and… in Miami… is $273k. Gainesville City Manager salary is $245k in a population of 148,000. I think Florida DOGE needs to do a deeper dive into waste in Gainesville.”):
False Equivalence (or Faulty Comparison): This compares city manager salaries across cities (Jacksonville, Miami, Gainesville) primarily based on population size, implying that Gainesville’s salary is disproportionately high and wasteful. However, it ignores other relevant factors that could justify differences, such as local cost of living, city budget size, economic conditions, job responsibilities, or market rates for talent. Population alone is not a sufficient basis for equivalence, making the comparison oversimplified and invalid.
Hasty Generalization: The call for investigating “waste” is based on a limited sample of two larger cities’ salaries, extrapolated to conclude systemic waste in Gainesville without broader evidence (e.g., comparisons to similar-sized cities or historical data).
Gainesville Dad’s Comment (“And the previous Gainesville City Manager’s pay was almost $300k! For reference: – Members of Congress earn $174k salary – The governor of Florida earns $141k… – Florida Supreme Court Justices earn $251k. Why does the city manager make more than all of these people? The corruption in Gainesville is appalling.”):
False Equivalence: This equates the city manager role to positions like U.S. Congress members, the Florida Governor, or Supreme Court Justices, suggesting the salary is unjust because it’s higher. However, these roles have vastly different scopes, accountability structures, market dynamics, and compensation benchmarks (e.g., public sector executive pay often follows private-sector-like markets for city managers, while elected officials’ salaries are capped by law and include other perks). The comparison assumes identical value or responsibility without evidence.
Appeal to Emotion (or Argumentum ad Populum): The rhetorical question and label of “appalling” corruption evoke outrage without providing evidence of actual corruption (e.g., no proof of bribery, embezzlement, or unethical processes). It relies on stirring indignation rather than logical substantiation.
Poisoning the Well: By concluding with “The corruption in Gainesville is appalling,” the commenter preemptively discredits the entire decision-making process as corrupt, biasing readers against it without specific evidence.
This may work…’s Comment (“‘We always want to make sure that we’re handling our top-level employees as role models for the same way we would handle all other employees.’ Yeah right. Try telling that to the employees on the bottom end of the pay scale.”):
Straw Man: This misrepresents the quoted statement from Commissioner Book (about consistent treatment in termination scenarios) by implying it claims equal pay or treatment across all levels, then attacks that distorted version by contrasting it with lower-paid employees. The original quote is about procedural fairness (e.g., rights upon removal), not salary equity, making the rebuttal a caricature.
Ad Hominem (Implied): The sarcastic “Yeah right” dismisses the commission’s sincerity or hypocrisy without addressing the substance of the policy, attacking the speakers’ credibility instead.
realJK’s Comment (“The white guys to the rescue, as usual.”):
Ad Hominem: This attacks the racial identity of the appointee (Andrew Persons, implied as white male) or the decision-makers rather than critiquing the decision’s merits (e.g., salary or qualifications). It implies bias or favoritism based on race without evidence.
Hasty Generalization: The phrase “as usual” extrapolates from this single instance to suggest a pattern of “white guys” being favored, without providing data on hiring trends in Gainesville.
Clay’s Comment (“245k? The city is broke and in debt and they are paying a quarter million a year?”):
Oversimplification (or False Dilemma): This presents the situation as if high executive pay directly causes or exacerbates the city’s debt, ignoring nuances like budget allocations, revenue sources, or the necessity of competitive salaries to attract talent. It implies a zero-sum choice (pay executive OR fix debt) without evidence.
DLH’s Comment (“These city managers, commissioners, upper positions get paid way too much for a small city.”):
Hasty Generalization: Concludes overpayment based solely on city size (“small city”), without comparing to benchmarks for similar municipalities or considering factors like regional economics or job demands.
Seeking Truth’s Comment (“He could have gotten $50 K more if he’d have been a black and a female. Oh well. That’s the price that privileged white males have to pay…”):
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause): Implies that the previous city manager (Cynthia Curry, a Black woman) received a higher salary (~$300k) because of her race and gender, rather than other factors (e.g., experience, negotiation, or market conditions). It assumes correlation (demographics and pay) equals causation without evidence.
Appeal to Prejudice (or Ad Hominem): Frames the salary difference as reverse discrimination against “privileged white males,” invoking resentment toward diversity considerations without substantiating bias in this case.
Straw Man: Exaggerates or invents a narrative of affirmative action dictating pay, attacking that instead of the actual contract details.
ipse-dixitism at its finest.
I took a semester of logic as well. You must have a lot of time on your hands. BTW, what I wrote was not a ‘false dilemma’. A false dilemma might be: Does the author of this screed stand to benefit from the exorbitant salaries paid by the city or does he/she/they/them/ already somehow benefit?’