Senoia vs. Senoia | Part Three: The Pay Study Council Approved — and Later Remembered Differently

Editor’s Note: The City of Senoia is suing former City Manager Harold Simmons, former Mayor Dub Pearman and former Mayor and former Assistant City Manager Jeff Fisher, alleging unauthorized compensation increases and related violations of the city charter. All three deny wrongdoing. Part One examined the two-day official-immunity hearing. Part Two examined the budget process and the sharply different understandings officials gave to the same meetings, votes and salary records.

By 2022, Senoia had a problem.

The city was hiring employees, training them and then watching them leave for better-paying jobs nearby.

Former Mayor Dub Pearman testified that the turnover extended beyond the Police Department to Public Works, water and sewer operations. Senoia was not simply competing with distant governments or larger cities in Atlanta.

“They go right across the street to Peachtree City,” Pearman testified.

The staffing shortage had become a public-safety concern as the city struggled to keep enough police officers. City officials first developed an internal compensation proposal, but council members asked for a broader professional study.

What came back was a new compensation structure for every position in city government, with minimum, midpoint and maximum salaries intended to help Senoia compete for employees and give existing workers room to advance.

The study also showed that then-City Manager Harold Simmons was earning more than $20,000 below the recommended minimum for his position.

The mayor and council voted to implement the study. Simmons was moved to the bottom of the new city manager pay band.

That raise is not among the salary increases the City of Senoia is challenging in its lawsuit against Simmons, Pearman and Fisher.

The City acknowledges that the governing body approved it.

But the pay study still revealed something central to the larger case: Council members were presented with Simmons’ salary, the recommended market range for his job and a citywide compensation proposal requiring approximately $800,000 from reserves.

They voted.

Years later, they did not all describe that vote the same way.

“We were training our competitors’ newest employees”

The City hired the Basco Group to examine Senoia’s compensation system and compare its positions with similar jobs in competing government markets.

Pearman testified that the study was prompted by high employee turnover.

“We were training our competitors’ newest employees because we weren’t paying a competitive rate,” he said.

The study did more than recommend raises. It classified positions throughout the city and established what Pearman called pay bands — a minimum, midpoint and maximum for each job.

“It not only studied all the city employees, but it classified all of the city employees,” Pearman testified. “We had never had that done before.”

Those classifications were also intended to give employees a path forward.

Pearman explained that an employee who reached the top of one pay band could earn certifications or qualifications needed to move into another classification.

“It was also built as an incentive to keep people around and allow them to progress further up the pay scales,” he said.

For a small city, Pearman said, the challenge was competing with governments that had larger budgets and more resources.

“Senoia has to fight above its weight class,” he testified. “We’re competing against larger cities, larger budgets.”

What the study said Simmons should be paid

The study placed the city manager’s annual salary between $152,877 and $235,862.

The midpoint was $194,368.

At the time of the study, Simmons was earning approximately $130,000 — more than $22,000 below the recommended minimum.

Pearman read the city manager range during the hearing.

“Minimum annual pay is $152,877,” he testified. “Mid range is $194,368, and maximum is $235,862.”

The council-approved adjustment moved Simmons to the minimum of that range, approximately $152,877.

It did not move him to the midpoint.

It did not move him to the maximum.

Even after later increases now challenged by the City, Simmons’ documented 2025 salary of $183,635.92 remained $10,732.08 below the study’s midpoint for the city manager position.

That does not answer the legal question at the center of the lawsuit.

The City contends that salary increases could still be unauthorized even if the resulting pay remained within the market range. Its amended complaint alleges that Simmons’ employment agreement required a satisfactory performance review, negotiation and approval by the mayor and council.

The defense argues that the council approved Simmons’ compensation through the annual budget process and had repeated opportunities to review and question his salary.

The study does not settle that dispute.

But it does show that the highest salary Simmons received still did not reach the midpoint recommended by the outside consultant Senoia hired.

The vote

Pearman testified that the study was presented to the mayor and council in 2022 and distributed for review.

He remembered council members speaking favorably about the report before the vote.

Pearman said the council approved not only higher compensation, but the new job classifications, pay bands and retirement changes designed to help Senoia recruit and retain workers.

Asked whether the council approved the study’s minimum salaries for all city employees, Pearman said the vote was unanimous among those present.

“It passed unanimously,” he testified. “I made the motion. Councilman Grover seconded it, and it passed four to zero. I think it would have passed five to zero, if one of the councilmen didn’t have to leave the meeting early for an emergency.”

Pearman also addressed testimony suggesting the council believed it was approving only police raises.

“I can’t get into his head for what he believed he voted on,” Pearman said, “but what he voted on was to enact the pay structure for all of the employees for the City of Senoia.”

During the hearing, Pearman read from a copy of the resolution associated with the study:

“Therefore, be it resolved that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Senoia, Georgia, does hereby accept the classification and compensation study final report of Basco Group LLC, dated August 1, 2022, hereinafter the study. City staff shall proceed to move forward with the implementation of the adjustments to the salaries and hourly wages for all city employees to the annual minimum as set forth in the study, subject to final approval of the mayor and council by the adoption of the necessary ordinance.”

The document presented in court was not the signed copy. The City objected on that basis.

Judge Jephson Bendinger admitted it but said the absence of the signed version could affect the weight he gave it.

An $800,000 decision

The compensation plan required more than a vote on salary ranges.

Fisher testified that approximately $800,000 was moved from the city’s reserves to fund the increases.

“$800,000 was moved from the reserve budget to be able to fund that,” Fisher testified.

He said Simmons told the council that replenishing the reserve could take approximately 12 months.

“It ended up taking him approximately four months to be able to refund that,” Fisher testified.

The reserve transfer adds another dimension to the dispute over what council members knew and understood.

This was not a single salary adjustment buried inside an ordinary annual budget.

According to the testimony, the governing body reviewed a professional study, considered a new compensation structure for the entire city workforce, approved the minimum pay levels and committed approximately $800,000 from reserves to implement it.

Simmons’ salary was part of that decision.

The raise the City does not dispute

Current Mayor Scott Tigchelaar has said the City does not challenge the increase that moved Simmons to the study’s minimum.

“The city does not claim that the salary adjustment Mr. Simmons received at that time was unauthorized by the mayor and council,” Tigchelaar said in an interview after the hearing.

“The pay increase that Harold Simmons received as a result of that pay study, his pay increase to $152,000, was approved by the mayor and council,” he said. “We are not including that raise in our claim against Harold Simmons.”

The City’s position is that approval of the pay-study adjustment does not validate the other increases identified in its amended complaint.

Defense attorney Chuck Boring argues that the study remains important because it showed council members Simmons’ existing compensation and required them to vote on a raise of more than $20,000.

“They gave a $20,000 pay raise based on the pay study,” Boring said in an interview. “And so it destroys the credibility of any of their arguments to say they had no idea what was going on with the salaries.”

That remains the defense position, not a finding by the court.

The City takes the opposite view: The pay-study vote shows what an expressly authorized raise looked like and why the other increases must be evaluated separately.

What council members remembered

Pearman testified that the governing body approved the pay structure for all city employees.

Councilman Dale Reeder described the study differently. He testified that it was informational and said he understood the council to have specifically approved police compensation and retirement improvements.

Councilman Maurice Grover acknowledged that the study came before the council and that its recommendations played a role in compensation decisions, but his testimony was less definitive about whether every minimum was adopted.

Former Councilman Matt Foust gave a different account in an interview with The Citizen.

Foust served on the council for four years, with his term ending in January. He was present during the latter stages of the pay study and its consideration, although he left before the final 4-0 vote because of a medical emergency involving his daughter.

Asked whether he understood that adopting the study would change the city manager’s pay, Foust answered, “Yeah, 100%.”

He said council members received a binder containing proposed pay bands for every city position, including some positions Senoia did not yet have but might need in the future.

“When I say every position in the city, every position in the city,” Foust said.

Foust said he did not know Simmons’ salary when he first joined the council. He learned it through the pay study and said he continued reviewing compensation during the annual budget process.

“I knew how much Harold was being paid each year, generally speaking,” Foust said. “Like to the exact cent, no. I had a good idea.”

According to Foust, the executive portion of the budget was especially straightforward before Senoia created the assistant city manager position because Simmons was the only employee in the department.

“If there’s only one person working in that department, then the salary is clearly their salary,” Foust said.

Once a second employee was added, Foust said council members could ask city staff to separate the figures.

“If you’re really concerned about it, you could just call and say, how much are we paying for this?” he said. “And they’ll answer.”

Foust described a process in which council members received proposed budgets before the workshop and two public readings, giving them several opportunities to examine the numbers and ask questions.

“As a part of the budgetary process, we are given the information,” Foust said. “It’s just, do you choose to dig into it and look at it and ask the questions?”

Foust said he compared the previous year’s budget with the proposed budget and reviewed changes in salaries and other expenses.

He also said city employees repeatedly invited council members to visit City Hall, review the accounting system and request information about individual expenses.

“Pull whatever you want,” Foust said. “Any penny, we can get you any bit of information, or just submit to us a list of questions, and we’ll get it answered.”

Foust said he accepted the invitation and examined the underlying information.

Asked why he and Pearman knew what was in the budget, Foust answered, “Yeah, because we did our jobs.”

Foust’s account does not resolve whether adopting the budget met the charter’s requirements for evaluating and negotiating the city manager’s compensation.

He said he did not have a firm grasp at the time that the charter called for a separate evaluation and negotiation process. He assumed city officials had changed the process sometime in the past without updating the charter.

His account does, however, challenge the idea that council members had no practical way to determine what Simmons was being paid.

“There was no mystery,” Foust said. “It’s not even like, oh, it’s buried down on page 36 on tab 72.”

Foust also rejected the idea that council members could say the information was unavailable merely because understanding a figure required a follow-up question.

“The numbers are in front of you,” Foust said. “You might have to ask somebody an extra question, and like that’s more often than not, that’s life, right? I’ve got almost the total picture. Let me ask a question.”

Those differences mirror the broader dispute that has emerged throughout this case.

The same people attended the same meetings, received the same documents and voted on the same budgets and resolutions.

They did not leave with the same understanding of what those votes accomplished.

The pay study offers one of the clearest examples.

It identified Simmons’ existing compensation. It established a recommended range for his position. It proposed a new minimum more than $20,000 above what he was being paid.

The governing body acted on it.

Yet council members later gave different accounts of the scope and meaning of that action.

What Senoia paid after Simmons

The testimony also placed Simmons’ compensation beside what Senoia paid — or agreed to pay — the people selected to follow him.

After Simmons was terminated in January, the City hired an interim city manager for $20,000 per month.

Tigchelaar testified that the position carried no benefits and was intended to last four to six months.

Annualized, that monthly rate would equal $240,000, although Tigchelaar emphasized that it was never intended to be a full-year appointment.

“He’s on a six-month interim contract,” Tigchelaar testified.

Asked about the annualized figure, Tigchelaar responded that there was “no intention for it to be annual.”

“It was intended to be four to six months,” he said. “By the way, he’s a very qualified executive with management skills, and that was a discounted rate for him.”

The City then selected Chris Hobby for the permanent position at $175,000 per year. Tigchelaar testified that Hobby left within about a week after information emerged that the council believed he had not fully disclosed during the hiring process.

The City later hired Tim Holtz at $174,000 per year.

When Boring asked whether that was “in the ballpark” of what Simmons was earning when the salary controversy began, Tigchelaar agreed.

“Yes,” he testified.

Tigchelaar also said Holtz had approximately 25 years of city-management experience in California and was a city planner, allowing Senoia to fill two needs with one hire.

The comparison does not establish that Simmons’ disputed increases were properly authorized.

It does, however, place the argument over his compensation in a broader context.

Simmons’ documented final salary was $183,635.92.

That was $9,635.92 more than the $174,000 salary paid to Holtz, and $8,635.92 more than the $175,000 offered to Hobby.

It was also still more than $10,000 below the midpoint Senoia’s own compensation study recommended for the position.

The interim city manager was paid at a monthly rate equal to $240,000 annually, though only for a limited appointment without benefits.

Foust said the compensation paid after Simmons’ departure reinforced his view that the dispute was not about whether the position supported compensation in that general range.

“The actions after removing Harold kind of go to show of the it’s not about the pay, because if it is, why is everybody else making the same, if not, you know, in the interim guy’s case, more?” Foust said.

The City’s legal argument is not simply that Simmons was paid too much. It is that the challenged increases were not authorized through the process required by his contract and the charter.

The defense argues that those increases were approved through the city’s budgets and that the amounts were consistent with the market range Senoia itself established.

What the pay study revealed

The study does not decide whether Simmons’ other increases were legally authorized.

It does not decide whether adoption of an annual budget satisfied the requirement that the mayor and council evaluate, negotiate and approve the city manager’s compensation.

It does not prove that every member of council understood the vote the same way.

But it does establish a benchmark.

Simmons was earning approximately $130,000 when the study found that the city manager position should begin at $152,877.

The council approved moving him to that minimum.

His later salary reached $183,635.92 — still below the study’s $194,368 midpoint and far below its $235,862 maximum.

After terminating Simmons, the City paid an interim manager $20,000 per month, offered one permanent candidate $175,000 and ultimately hired another at $174,000.

Those comparisons do not resolve whether the disputed raises followed the charter.

They do make clear that the amount of Simmons’ final compensation and the authority to approve it are two different questions.

One asks what the position was worth.

The other asks whether Senoia followed its own rules in paying it.

That second question remains before the court.

A longer wait

A decision will take longer than first anticipated.

The Citizen was told July 16 by plaintiff’s attorney Steve Greene that the court reporter estimated it would take approximately 40 days to complete the official transcript.

The briefing schedule will begin after the transcript is delivered.

The City will have 30 days to file its brief. The defense will then have 30 days to respond, followed by 15 days for the City’s reply.

That places the briefing process approximately 115 days beyond the hearing before accounting for the time Bendinger will need to review the record and prepare his ruling.

A decision on official immunity is therefore likely four to five months away, provided the transcript is delivered within the estimate, the briefs are filed on schedule and the judge rules relatively soon after the final submission.

The court has not decided whether the challenged increases were authorized, whether any defendant is liable or whether the lawsuit will proceed to a later trial.