Farmington Hills City Manager Resignation — or Termination?
In January 2026, the Farmington Hills City Council voted by a 4-to-3 margin to accept the resignation of the city manager, effective February 2026. The decision was made behind closed doors. The reasons remain sealed under a non-disclosure agreement. The taxpayer cost of the settlement totaled approximately $350,000.
This presentation is grounded in documented public records. The purpose is not to assign blame, but to walk through the timeline, the structure, and the agreement — and to ask what informed citizens are entitled to know about how their local government operates.
The Authority of City Council
Farmington Hills operates under a council-manager form of government. Under this structure, the City Council holds direct hiring and termination authority over exactly two employees: the City Manager and the City Clerk.
A city manager can be terminated for three broad reasons:
Failure to perform required duties of the office.
Illegal or unethical conduct in office.
Without cause, at the Council's discretion, for any political reason.
These distinctions matter when evaluating what actually occurred.
02 · The Sequence of EventsThe Timeline
The city manager received a formal evaluation from the City Council. The evaluation was generally positive, and he received a salary increase.
Election campaigns ran for mayor and three council seats. Campaign literature distributed by candidates contained no concerns about the city manager's performance. The issue was, by all available record, absent from the public conversation.
The mayor called an unscheduled special City Council meeting for Friday, December 19. Five council members were informed of the meeting's purpose: to evaluate, and possibly terminate, the city manager. Two council members were not initially informed of the purpose. The city manager himself was not initially informed; he learned of it later through the city attorney, at which point he secured personal legal representation.
The meeting did not take place. Not all council members could attend on short notice, and it was rescheduled.
The rescheduled special meeting was held — a Wednesday, a date not typically used for City Council business.
What Happened Behind Closed Doors
The Council convened in open session, took roll, and adjourned to executive session — closed to public view under executive privilege.
In that closed room, the city manager asked whether his personal attorney could be present to advise him during a discussion of his own potential termination. The mayor and Council declined. The city attorney remained in the room, advising the Council. The result was unequal legal representation in a decision of significant professional and financial consequence.
After a protracted period, the Council returned to public session and announced the outcome: by a 4-to-3 vote, they would accept the city manager's resignation, effective February 2026. The vote was not unanimous — and a 4-to-3 split on a decision of this weight is itself worth noting.
04 · The AgreementThe Separation Agreement
The separation agreement is a public document, available to any resident through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to the City Clerk's office.
| Unused vacation pay | typical |
| Unused sick leave | typical |
| One full year of additional salary | atypical |
| One year of family health insurance — full COBRA cost | atypical |
| Payment of the city manager's attorney's fees | atypical |
When a city manager resigns to take another position, the standard package generally covers unused leave and the right to continue COBRA at the employee's own expense. The additional year of salary, fully covered family health insurance, and reimbursed legal fees are not characteristic of a routine resignation. The structure of the payout speaks for itself: cities do not typically pay an extra year of salary and legal fees to someone who has done something wrong.
The agreement also contained a non-disclosure provision: neither the city manager, nor the mayor, nor any member of the City Council may make negative comments about the other party. The reason for the separation is sealed from public record.
The March 9 Proclamation
On March 9, 2026, the mayor issued a formal Proclamation of Appreciation thanking the departing city manager for his service to the citizens and government of Farmington Hills.
A proclamation of appreciation, issued after signing a non-disclosure agreement that prevents either party from speaking critically of the other, raises a reasonable question: if the work merited public commendation, what justified the separation? And if there were reasons that justified the separation, why is the public commendation appropriate?
This is conjecture, and it is offered as such — but the structure of the agreement, combined with the proclamation, suggests the decision was political rather than performance-based.
06 · The IronyThe Irony of February 9
On the evening of February 9, 2026, the Farmington Hills City Council met for its regular session. Two items appeared on the same agenda. Item #2 was a Proclamation recognizing February 20, 2026 as Government Communicators Day. Item #4 was the formal approval of the Separation Agreement between the City and the departing city manager.
The Government Communicators Day proclamation, read aloud that evening, included the following "whereas" clauses:
Sources: February 9, 2026 City Council Agenda · Meeting Packet (full proclamation text) · Approved Minutes · Meeting Video.
These statements are about openness, trust, and including people in critical decisions. They were read into the public record on the same night, at the same meeting, that the City Council formally approved a Separation Agreement containing a non-disclosure provision — an agreement that legally forecloses the public's ability to understand a major personnel decision involving $350,000 of their own money.
That juxtaposition — both items on the same agenda, the same evening — is what makes the February 9 proclamation worth reading carefully.
07 · The AnalysisNDAs, Ethics, and Transparency
Three questions are worth separating clearly.
Non-disclosure agreements in public employee separations are permissible under Michigan law.
Public officials are stewards of taxpayer resources. When the reasons for a $350,000 settlement are sealed, residents lose the ability to evaluate the leadership they elected.
Transparency requires that the public can know what happened and why. An NDA forecloses that possibility by design.
Legal does not always mean ethical. And ethical does not always mean transparent.
08 · The Path ForwardWhat Are Our Obligations as Citizens?
The honest answer is: the NDA is in place. We may never know the formal reasons for this separation. What we can do is what informed citizens have always done — show up, ask questions, and stay engaged.
- Attend City Council meetings. Watch the votes. Notice the patterns.
- Read the minutes. They are public.
- Attend board and commission meetings. Much of what shapes a city happens there, not at the dais.
- Know your council members. Build a relationship before you have a question, not after.
- Write letters. Ask for written responses. A documented record matters.
- Speak at public comment. Three minutes, on the record, is more powerful than most people realize.
I have called this elsewhere on this site "being a ferret" — a citizen who is curious, persistent, and unwilling to be discouraged by walls. Non-disclosure agreements may put up walls, but the ferret keeps looking for the way through.
Informed citizens are the foundation of accountable local government. That responsibility does not transfer. It belongs to each of us.
Reference · Visual Materials