Lawyer demands reinstatement of Hopewell’s former city manager due to ‘improper motion’

HOPEWELL, Va. (WRIC) -- A lawyer is demanding the reinstatement of the former city manager in what he calls "an improper motion" following the contentious termination of both her and the former city clerk in early May.

In a detailed letter sent on June 9, Richard Hawkins, a lawyer from The Hawkins Law Firm who is representing former city manager Concetta Manker, wrote to Anthony Bessette, the city attorney of Hopewell, demanding the reinstatement of Manker by June 30. However, he warned that if the city does not respond by June 20, Manker will take legal action.

This comes after both former city clerk Brittani Williams and Manker were terminated in a 4 to 3 council vote on Thursday, May 1, sparking significant conversations regarding “matters of racism” during another Hopewell city council meeting. They were terminated "without cause" during that May 1 meeting.

Before that, during a city council meeting on Feb. 12, they voted 3 to 3 on whether to terminate Manker. Three months later on May 1, a city council meeting ended with her termination.

During city council proceedings on Tuesday, May 27, interim city manager Michael Rogers announced Stacey Jordan as Hopewell’s new deputy city manager.

According to Hawkins' letter, the city council previously voted in favor of a previous motion to terminate Manker in February 2025 and then voted to terminate her employment during the city council meeting on May 1. He laid out the illegality of the city's attempt to terminate, which he said is "at least, threefold."

Allegation 1: The May 1 motion was untimely

The initial termination of Manker's employment, which was to be reconsidered in May, was made on Feb. 12 during city council proceedings. Due to Manker's termination "without cause," Hawkins said, "it failed."

He underlined Section 37.8 of Robert's Rules of Order, which "governs the Council's actions," and "must be moved either on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held."

Due to the nearly three-month gap -- Feb. 12 to May 1 -- between motions, Hawkins highlighted that these motions were not followed during either meeting in February.

"No such reconsideration motions, however, were made at either of those times," Hawkins wrote in his letter, referencing Feb. 12, and then the following city council meeting on Feb. 19. "Instead, the motion was made almost three months later. This delay nullifies the May 1 motion on its face, and it renders the Council's subsequent termination vote wholly invalid."

Hawkins calls the city council proceedings on May 1 that resulted in the 4 to 3 vote "an obviously improper motion" and "the kind of abusive circumstance that the timeliness requirement is required to protect."

Bessette said the motion to terminate the city manager's employment contract is still effective.

Allegation 2: Councilor Ellis did not have legal standing to make said motion

In Hawkins' letter, he explained that City Battalion Chief Ronnie Ellis, who assumed a city council seat in January, did not have "legal standing to make the motion" to terminate Manker.

He highlights section 37:10 of Roberts Rules of Order, which states a motion to reconsider "can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was lost."

However, Hawkins said that Ellis did not vote at all on Feb. 12, during the initial motion to terminate Manker, and emphasizes that "he neither voted for nor against the initial termination motion."

He adds that Ellis's action to be the person who made the May 1 motion to reconsider "nullifies the motion" and as a result, nullifies his vote to terminate Manker.

According to Hawkins, what he calls "various persons" that Ellis "technically voted on the prevailing side of the initial motion," so he was allowed to make the motion to reconsider. This is because his absent vote is treated like a "No" vote. However, Hawkins said this is false.

Allegation 3: Ellis is a conflict of interest to Manker

Hawkins continues in his third and final request for her reinstatement by saying that Ellis was not eligible to vote on any direct matters related to Manker because "he has a conflict of interest that prevents him from doing so."

Using Virginia's State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Hawkins said Ellis is one of her subordinate employees and he has "personal interests" in votes.

He explained that, even if the motion was timely or had been raised correctly, Ellis was still "illegally prohibited from voting on the motion to terminate Dr. Manker's employment as City Manager."

Hawkins wrote that Ellis was required to disqualify himself from voting on Manker's employment, but he failed to do so.

In his final comments, Hawkins demands Manker's immediate reinstatement as Hopewell's city manager and that her reinstatement should be no later than June 30. However, he warns that if the city does not respond to this demand by June 20, Manker will "pursue a claim for wrongful termination."