A

City Attorney Stephen Worsham will continue to be the city attorney after the Board of Mayor and Alderman renewed his contract by majority vote.

Worsham is extending a 46-year-long career with the city with the recent renewal of his contract. City Administrator Jason Quick introduced Worsham’s renewal contract in the agenda in BoMA’s first February meeting.

“One of the things Mr. Worsham brings (to the job) is his historic knowledge of how things have occurred in Tullahoma throughout the years,” he said.

Quick said that another service that Worsham provided was his accessibility. Quick spoke of Worsham’s willingness to come to his office, or for him to welcome at Worsham’s office. Quick added that “the board and its needs have continued to grow” throughout the years. In the contract, Worsham’s agreement extended to other members of his law firm.

“We’re going to be receiving really the work of four attorneys versus one,” said Quick in reference to the extension agreement.

Quick added that Worsham had not asked for an increase in his hourly rate despite inflation possibly necessitating such a raise during his last contract renewal in 2021.

“This year, he’s asking for a raise from $165 to $195 an hour, and a retainer from $2,200 to $2,500,” he said. “From a market perspective, that’s really a great rate for us, compared to what I had seen from others.”

He ended by strongly encouraging the board to consider renewing Worsham’s contract. Worsham was asked by Mayor Ray Knowis to speak regarding the contract renewal and his service as city attorney.

“I have been the city attorney of Tullahoma for over 40 years, and I maintained the tradition of our law firm to represent the city,” said Worsham.

He said his law firm started representing the city in the 1930s, and showed a copy of the 1939 city code, which was a small paper bound volume. He then picked up two larger binders to show the board as they contained Tullahoma’s code today.

“These are the codes incorporated by reference into it: the building code, the electrical code, the gas code, the housing code, the moving buildings code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code, the residential code, the energy code, the conservation code, the existing buildings code and the life safety code,” he said. “Those are the codes that we work with on a regular basis. I’ve been city attorney for a long time, and my duties have expanded considerably since I first began. I love that. I love this town, I love these people. My family came here when I was child and we, none of us, ever left.”

He spoke further on the changes since he started, about his expectations for his firm partners and for the future of his role as city attorney.

Alderman Daniel Berry praised Worsham for his work and said he was reassured by the inclusion of the rest of Worsham’s firm so that he might help with his caseload. Berry asked for more particulars about the extension agreement.

Mayor Pro Tem Jenna Amacher said Worsham already had the extension agreement in his last renewal. Worsham explained that the agreement for the 2024-2027 contract allowed for “continuity and the succession” because he planned to “phase out a little bit” from duties, though he had no intention of retiring.

Alderman Jerry Mathis said he’s contacted Worsham for “certain personal things in my life, and you’ve always accommodated me,” and expressed his appreciation to Worsham for being a confidante as well as a servant of the city.

Knowis asked if there were any other questions about the contract, and Amacher stated she had concerns.

“There’s this air of ‘I want to phase out, I’m not really interested in learning anymore, I want to give more to my law partners’ and I think we’re in agreement that’s what you’re saying here,” she said. “And the problem that I really have is you were kinda saying that you were overwhelmed and burdened at times with all that we were throwing at you. But in your former contract, it says that your law partners can be delegated that work. So there should never have been an issue.”

She asked Worsham what was going to change from the former contract to the current one, as far as the rest of his firm is concerned. Worsham told her that when the first contract including his firm was drawn up, he didn’t have all the partners he has now, which is what the change was for. She then said her other concern she had regarded litigation as she saw a conflict of interest when it’s in relation to litigation involving board members.

“I think we need to make it more clear, and I’m not prepared to vote on it tonight, because of this very issue, on whether Steve Worsham and his firm represent the board members and the city or whether he has an allegiance to the city and its employees in litigation because as many of the citizens well know, we have some lawsuits and litigation that have conflicting issues,” Amacher said.

She said she thought litigation involving staff personnel or board members would put him in a “precarious position.”

She said the language in the contract was “very strong” to “say that you direct all city litigation and you ‘work and monitor the defense and provide assistance as requested by insurance carrier attorneys.’ What if those attorneys are representing competing interests, and how can you possibly do due diligence and not violate any conflicts of interest, if you’re giving advice to both sides, when they have competing agendas?”

Worsham responded saying “As you know, Ms. Amacher, we attorneys–licensed to practice law–are governed by the code of professional conduct, and I will always follow the code of professional conduct. So, I will deal with conflicts of interest as they arise. I represent the city of Tullahoma, who are represented by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. I do not represent individual aldermen in any capacity, and I will not. I think there are certain matters that have arisen in the past year or two that present problems for the people of this town when we have litigation by the board members against the city, and in a sense, against themselves. But I’ll address those things according to the code of professional responsibility, of which I’m sure you’re aware,” he said.

Amacher said that Worsham was also lumping this board in with the city.

“This board is separate from the city of Tullahoma,” she said. “This board is the representative of the citizens, and the check on the government that is the city of Tullahoma. We up here are not bureaucracy, we are elected representatives. I feel like we have to start clearing up those lines, because they have been blurred and we can lay blame and point fingers, but that’s what I’m here to do is point anything at you. In fact, I’m trying to make it easier for you to do your job, by clearing the lines in the contract so that you know specifically” how to handle situations like she’d talked about as they arise.

Amacher had several other concerns about the language in the contract, like a paragraph that said that Worsham could employ any other attorneys to assist with specific issues as long as he had direction from the mayor or city administrator. She said she felt like it gave the city administrator a way to select legal counsel for different issues that “bypasses the board and its processes.”

“I don’t like that provision,” she said, and stated that she felt it put Quick in a precarious position.

She said she would vote “no” to approve the contract that night, until the changes in the contract she suggested could be made. She said she’d also be interested in comparing Worsham’s contract with other Request for Quotes (RFQs) from other attorneys to see “what they might provide differently.”

She then made a motion to postpone the decision until the next meeting. Alderman Bobbie Wilson seconded the motion, saying she’d like to “complete a comprehensive and merit-based search for an attorney,” and Alderman Kurt Glick agreed.

He said he’d also like to have an RFQ search, though “in all likelihood it would be Mr. Worsham, and I have no doubt in his ability.”

Knowis said if they failed to approve the contract that night, “I’m not sure Attorney Worsham would bid on another contract.”

Berry added to the discussion of postponement, saying “When I added the next item on the agenda–” an item which detailed a suggestion for process in the event of Worsham’s three contract ending– “I didn’t know that this item was going to be on the agenda. I’ll vote no to postponing, I’m ready to vote on this contract.”

“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” added Alderman Jerry Mathis. “Why are we sitting here and picking, when the man that I know and as far as our lawyer, has done an outstanding job?”

Wilson asked “If that’s the case, why do we ever go through that process” with anyone the city hires?

Amacher said “Jerry, I love you dearly, but ‘If it’s not broke don’t fix it’–honey, we have tons of litigation against the city right now.”

“And I don’t blame Mr. Worsham for that at all, but I don’t see that slacking up until we get some things cleaned up,” she added.

She said she is “worried” about Mr. Worsham and his job load, “and I worry that it’s gonna be too much for him.”

Worsham assured that he “understood from [her] social media post” that she’d “alleged the fact that I’m old and not capable anymore.” He said he wasn’t old and incapable, and that he had people to help him in his firm, so he was not concerned about his work load. His response was met with claps from some of the members of the board.

Wilson spoke up again about the selection process for city attorney and her concern that they were not going about the process fairly.

“This is why we find ourselves in so many messes, with people suing,” she said.

“The people suing are sitting up here,” said Berry. “And one of the other lawsuits we have is because of people sitting up here.”

“That’s not true,” said Amacher.

Berry said that as far as lawsuits were concerned, Worsham’s record’s pretty good. He added that they’d recently won a case against a former city employee.

“People can sue for anything,” said Berry. “So we can keep saying that hey, we’re getting sued over this, we’re getting sued over that. Two of our lawsuits are sitting up here.”

Wilson continued to discuss the hiring process, and then Knowis said “The mess we’re in is not any reflection on the city attorney.”

“I didn’t say it was,” said Amacher, and Wilson said she wasn’t saying so either.

Knowis then called the vote for postponement, which failed in a three to four vote, with Amacher, Wilson and Glick voting in favor of postponement. The original contract was then put to a vote, with Alderman Derek Mann motioning and Berry seconding. The original motion passed four to three, with Berry, Mann, Knowis and Mathis voting in favor of approving Worsham’s contract renewal.