Harrison Thorp 2:06 p.m.
Monday, February 9, 2026 2:02 pm
|
ROCHESTER - Questions swirling around the propriety of a Feb. 3 nonmeeting called by the Rochester city manager are coming to the fore after one city council member walked out of the meeting when city officials began discussing the upcoming lawsuit against former Rochester Schools Superintendent Annie Azarloza.
City Councilor Susan Rice, who left the meeting shortly after the discussion began, did not mention Azarloza's name in a statement sent to The Rochester Voice earlier today, but Rochester Mayor Chuck Grassie confirmed later today that the discussion centered around upcoming litigation against Azarloza.
Two days after the Feb. 3 nonmeeting the City of Rochester announced that they were suing Azarloza for alleged breach of her separation agreement signed last June.
The agreement paid off the former school chief's two-year contract paying her $240,000 after just eight months on the job. According to the agreement, she also got another $17,000 toward retirement funding, about $12,500 in annual and sick leave and fully paid medical insurance through June.
Rice, in her statement released to The Rochester Voice, said, ""following the adjournment of the Rochester City Council's regular meeting, the councilors retired to the city manager's office. This gathering was described at the time as a nonmeeting.
"Once it became apparent that the discussion involved matters related to active litigation, I removed myself immediately. I did not participate in any deliberation, did not receive information, and did not take part in any decision making or direction."
Reached by phone, Grassie admitted that he could see how Rochester residents might feel they have a right to know what went on at the Feb. 3 nonmeeting inside City Manager Katie Ambrose's office at City Hall.
" I don't disagree the public has a right to know about things like this, but the concern we have is that the investigation (into Azarloza's actions) impacts a lot of people in the school system, and we did approve the agreement to pay Annie for her full contract."
Grassie said the substance of the nonmeeting included Ambrose giving councilors a heads-up on the planned lawsuit against Azarloza, and if any councilors were concerned or had objections.
"None of the councilors had any problem with the city moving forward with the lawsuit," Grassie noted, "But there was no vote."
Grassie added that he wants nothing more than to put this issue behind him, given that the investigation, separation agreement and contract buyout all happened with the previous administration.
"Part of that pact included nondisclosure; she violated it and we just want to move this forward," he said.
Meanwhile, Rice is also in litigation with the city regarding accusations that allege improper, nontransparent handling of the investigation into the former superintendent.
Former State rep and advocate for Right to Know and Open Meeting laws Cliff Newton called the nonmeeting at odds with transparency of government.
"I never liked the nonmeeting," he said today. "It seemed to give an opportunity to try to conduct public business outside the public view. And it seemed odd for an administration that is touting transparency and then putting in a nonmeeting. They should tell you why they do it."
No reason for the Feb. 3 nonmeeting was offered in public session.
Below is the full transcript of City Councilor Susan Rice statement
"I want to clarify my role regarding a matter that has recently become public.
On February 3, 2026, following the adjournment of the Rochester City Council's regular meeting, the councilors retired to the City Manager's office. This gathering was described at the time as a non-meeting.
I was present briefly. Once it became apparent that the discussion involved matters related to active litigation, I removed myself immediately. I did not participate in any deliberation, did not receive information, and did not take part in any decision-making or direction.
I was not notified of any subsequent action through official channels. I became aware of the filing only after it was publicly posted by the City.
I take seriously my obligations under the Open Meeting Law and my responsibility to maintain appropriate boundaries as a public official. My actions were guided by those principles."