KEY WEST, Fla. — Brian Barroso’s reign of error will continue — at least for now.
The Key West City Commission voted 4-3 Thursday against a resolution intended to preserve the city’s right to modify or terminate Barroso’s contract before it automatically renews for another two years.
Mayor Sam Kaufman and Commissioners Chris Massicotte and Monica Haskell voted to reserve the commission’s contractual rights.
Vice Mayor Donie Lee and Commissioners Aaron Castillo, Lissette Carey and Mark Rossi voted against the measure, effectively lacking the courage to re-visit Barroso’s and allowing the automatic-renewal process to continue.
The vote followed a legal opinion from contract City Attorney Mayanne Downs that treated the advance notice contemplated by Barroso’s renewal provision as carrying the consequences of terminating his employment agreement.
That interpretation appears inconsistent with a Florida appellate ruling holding that non-renewal and termination without cause are separate contractual events with different consequences.
In Paladyne Corp. v. Weindruch, the 5th District Court of Appeal considered an employment agreement that automatically renewed unless either party provided advance notice of nonrenewal.
A separate provision allowed the employer to terminate the employee without cause and required the payment of severance.
When the employer provided notice that it would not renew the agreement, the employee sued, arguing that the decision was effectively a termination without cause and entitled him to severance. A trial court agreed.
The appellate court reversed.
The court held that nonrenewal and termination were not the same thing and that treating them as identical would render the contract’s separate nonrenewal provision meaningless.
“There would be no point in having a non-renewal provision if the effect of not renewing the contract is identical to the effect of terminating the contract,” the court wrote.
Florida courts are required to interpret contracts in a way that gives meaning to every provision rather than adopting an interpretation that effectively erases one.
That distinction is directly relevant to Barroso’s agreement.
Paragraph 4.A governs the term and automatic renewal of Barroso’s contract. It says the agreement will automatically renew for another two years unless the city or Barroso provides written notice of an intent to modify or terminate it at least 120 days before the existing term expires.
Paragraph 4.C.2 separately governs termination by the city without cause. It requires a specific action item at a duly noticed commission meeting, a majority vote of the full commission (all 7) and the payment of severance.
The resolution rejected Thursday did not fire Barroso, establish a separation date or invoke Paragraph 4.C.2. It was intended to satisfy the advance-notice requirement in Paragraph 4.A and preserve the commission’s ability to decide later whether to modify or terminate the agreement.
Under the reasoning in Paladyne, treating that notice as though it were an actual termination risks collapsing two separate contractual provisions into one.
The appellate decision does not automatically resolve the meaning of Barroso’s agreement. The wording is not identical, and Paladyne was decided by the 5th District Court of Appeal, while Monroe County is within the 3rd District.
But it is Florida appellate authority directly addressing the distinction between ending an automatically renewing contract through advance notice and terminating an employee under a separate dismissal provision. At a minimum, it undercuts any categorical opinion that providing notice under Paragraph 4.A necessarily constitutes termination under Paragraph 4.C.2.
The commission received Downs’ opinion without a comparable discussion of the appellate ruling or its potential application to Barroso’s contract.
The city faces a Sept. 9 deadline to provide the 120-day notice required under the agreement. Without notice, Barroso’s contract is scheduled to renew automatically Jan. 7, 2027, for another two years.
The renewal would also trigger a 5% raise, increasing Barroso’s $265,000 base salary to $278,250. His total compensation package would be worth approximately $330,000 when benefits are included.
At the same time that Carey, Lee, Castillo and Rossi are pushing to save the embattled city manager and give him a $13,000 raise on top of his current exorbitant contract, Barroso is looking to terminate/fire/dismiss up to 15 employees — although it appears that the Key West police and fire departments would be immune.
Providing notice would not have immediately fired Barroso or changed his current salary. It would have prevented the contract from renewing automatically and preserved the commission’s ability to negotiate changes or allow the agreement to expire.
Thursday’s vote is unlikely to be the commission’s final word on Barroso.
The District 4 election could change the balance of power on the seven-member dais. If Sarah Compton wins the seat, Barroso could face a four-vote majority willing to seek his removal.
It is unclear where her competitor Wayne Garcia stands on Barroso, his contract and his future.
By then, however, the contractual notice deadline will have passed. A new commission majority may be left with termination for cause as its most viable path forward.
Barroso survived Thursday. But the groundwork is being laid.
If Compton wins District 4, he may quickly become an endangered species.
Don’t want to become a paid subscriber?
Great reporting! How is it that we are paying $500/hr plus expenses, plus travel, to a contract attorney who is acting essentially as the personal attorney of the city manager, at the expense of the city and taxpayers? Why is it that she didn’t highlight to the commission paragraph 4A during negotiations and the finalizing of his contract?