Palatka commission puts staff–elected-officials policy under review after concerns about access and discipline

A proposed staff–elected-officials relations policy that would formalize how city employees communicate with commissioners drew caution and calls for more public review at the Palatka City Commission meeting.

City staff presented the draft policy, explaining it is meant to preserve the city manager’s administrative authority, provide clear expectations for professional interactions and email use (including limits on blind-carbon-copying commissioners), and reduce legal and personnel risk. City Manager (Miss Jones) told the commission the policy is not for adoption that night but for commissioners to review and suggest changes.

Commissioners raised repeated concerns that the draft could have the opposite effect of what staff intended. Commissioner Jones said the policy as written could be read to impede staff — who are also constituents — from bringing information to elected officials and could look like a form of retaliation if employees feared disciplinary action for ordinary communications. Commissioner Campbell urged that staff should not be pigeonholed and stressed commissioners remain a channel for constituent information.

Several commissioners asked that the document be removed from the regular meeting agenda and brought back only after a thorough workshop so the body could review language and propose edits. Commissioner Kim and others recommended adding clearer language protecting employees’ ability to report concerns and to identify what counts as an excused versus unexcused communication.

Miss Jones said she welcomed edits and asked commissioners to send suggested changes by email; she offered to redraft the policy to better preserve employees’ rights while maintaining necessary internal controls. The commission agreed to schedule a workshop to consider the policy collectively rather than adopt it that night.

The discussion closed with a procedural direction to staff: present a revised draft that narrows any disciplinary language perceived as punitive, clarifies when BCC is permitted (for example, for public-safety or legal matters), and includes an explicit statement preserving an employee’s right to communicate as a constituent. No formal vote on adoption occurred; commissioners asked staff to return with a workshop-ready draft.

What happens next: The commission requested a dedicated workshop on boards and governance policies; staff will produce a revised policy for that workshop and circulate proposed edits in advance.