Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11092018 City Council Laydown-Griswold Citizen Comments 2 (I echos C41 ieols t ee i7s ("vi 10-22-18 Laydown: Report on investigation requested by City Council, File No. 5099-0001 Attorney William Evans of Seder, Wendlandt, Evans, Filippi 04-6t-S) Questions and comments by Carol Griswold, in italics `��'�` I find this report extremely biased in favor of the finance director and against the council member. The finance director's claims are unsubstantiated, and defamation did occur. The report summary is not supported by facts provided in the report, and many troubling additional issues are raised that must be addressed. I urge City Council to read the report and my comments, and refute the conclusions of the report that clears the finance director of defamation. I urge City Council to direct the Interim City Manager to investigate the concerns raised in this report re: workplace bullying and harassment, breach of confidentiality and privacy of personnel, and missing personnel files.Also direct the Interim City Manager to initiate an external, non-biased investigation of all city personnel policies and practices; to proceed with an updated Professional Code of Ethics policy;and to delay the destruction of all files from the Hunt administration. Further, I urge the Council to enforce SCC 2.10.075(b) City Council Decorum: "Any person making personal, impertinent, threatening or slanderous remarks...shall be forthwith, by the presiding officer, barred from further audience at the meeting before council, unless permission to continue to be granted by a majority vote of the council." If the mayor does not choose to use the gavel, any council member should object, and stop any further violations of this code whether in work sessions or meetings. Thank you, Carol Griswold Comments and Questions Note: The investigation discovered that many relevant documents were missing from the Personnel files or perhaps never existed;ST's entire Personnel file was inexplicably missing from the city's files. Summary Page 2 1. Did comments by KE constitute defamation, an unprivileged oral or written publication of a false statement of fact? "The key issue is whether or not KE's comments about 'having filed a complaint against ST for fraud' is a false statement of fact." This claim is unsubstantiated. According to a recent interview by the attorney, Hunt recalled that KE did complain to him at the time (years ago), but informally, as no written file of any complaint was referenced, recalled, or found. KE's comments about having filed a complaint is 1 a false statement of fact. No formal, written complaint was found. ST was unaware of the complaint until she was accused of fraud in public at the August 22, 2018 meeting. Neither Mr. Hunt or ST were aware of any corrective action noted or taken. There are no files in ST's personnel file of the complaints or of any corrective action taken at the time. Indeed, ST's entire personnel file had disappeared, which is another disturbing issue. But, this is not the key issue. KE, a city administrator obviously privy to confidential personnel files, defamed ST in public, during citizen's comments at the City Council August 22 Special Meeting, by stating she filed a complaint against her(ST)for fraud when she worked for the city several years ago. SCC 2.10.075 (b) City Council Decorum "Any person making personal, impertinent, threatening or slanderous remarks...shall be forthwith, by the presiding officer, barred from further audience at the meeting before council, unless permission to continue to be granted by a majority vote of the council." The Mayor should have gaveled KE down immediately. But he didn't. KE's unsupported defamatory statements accusing ST of fraud exposed ST to hatred, contempt, ridicule, subjected her to loss of good will and confidence of others, and harmed her reputation. Note negative comments on social media. The report purposefully misconstrued and avoided the actual key issue. The public accusation of unsubstantiated fraud several years after the alleged filing of a complaint can only be interpreted as an attempt to discredit, defame, and harass the accused. The correct answer is YES, KE violated the City Defamation, Verbal Assault, and Harassment Policy in all three areas. 2. Did comments by KE breach any confidentiality or personnel rules? The correct answer is YES. Since when are city administrators and city employees permitted to disclose confidential personnel information to the public? The Mayor should have gaveled down and halted any further speech that referenced confidential, privileged, personnel information. Why was the 2014 seat belt issue/workplace violence incident made public by KE and the attorney, and why is it part of this report? Why is the two-week suspension noted in the attorney's report missing in the personnel files?It should have been placed in a confidential envelope in the employee's personnel file as per SCC Personnel 3.30.050(b) Disciplinary action procedure. Why is the Finance Director allowed access to confidential personnel files, and allowed to share personnel information with the public? Why was another finance department employee allowed to speak publicly to the press (Seward Journal)about this confidential information?Are other city administrators or other city employees permitted to have this access and breach privacy rights?SCC Personnel 3.01.015 (5) "proper regard for the individual's privacy"was violated. This is highly irregular and should not be allowed. 3. Was there credible evidence that ST committed fraud?The correct answer is NO. 2 The complaint was largely based on the observations of city employees in another department (Finance) who were not privy to either ST's schedule or any scheduling agreement with her boss, Mr. Hunt. No investigation occurred at the time the complaints were made, no formal complaint was filed at the time, ST was never reprimanded or disciplined for any conduct by her boss, ST was unaware of these complaints, and it is not possible to reconstruct the time sheets to determine if the complaints had merit. ST's entire personnel record was missing. Where is the credible evidence??? Report Page 2 Footnote 5: repeated instances of alleged defamation and/or harassment committed by KE should be noted and investigated. Page 3 "KE took the floor during the public comment period to address an on-going dispute between her and ST. KE indicated there was 'bad blood' between her and ST, attributed to having filed a complaint against her for fraud." A city administrator/city employee cannot be allowed to disclose private, confidential personnel information to the public whether speaking in an official capacity or as a member of the public, and regardless of whether or not the employee is named. This clarification must be noted in the city policies. ST was not even aware of this complaint, having heard it for the first time at this meeting. So how could the "bad blood"be attributed to KE filling the complaint? Footnote 6: "Because the alleged fraudulent events occurred more than three years ago, it is not possible to determine at this time whether or not ST actually engaged in fraudulent activity at that time." Why was this issue brought forward now instead of going through the correct procedures at the time? Why especially, when the answer is impossible to determine? Doesn't the city keep records for 7 years?ST worked as Executive Liaison from 2009-2015. The 2011-2015 records should be available. Page 4 The key issue, therefore, is whether KE's comments about 'having filed a complaint against ST for fraud' is a "false statement of fact." WHAT? That is not the key issue at all. The key issue is KE violating confidential personnel policies and publicly accusing ST of fraud. Footnote 12: "Suggesting someone engaged in fraud would substantively be considered defamatory and likely to result in a damaged reputation and loss of good will in the community." This is true even if the claim was later proven to be false. The harm is done and can't be undone. 3 Footnote 13: "KE cannot claim the defense of truth in saying she had previously filed a complaint of fraud against ST if the underlying complaint was wholly unfounded and unsupported by credible evidence." There is no credible evidence. Footnote 19: KE said she filed a complaint, ie filed a document, but apparently she only complained to Mr. Hunt and did not actually file a paper document in a formal complaint. "The damaging content of the statement is that ST was accused of fraud." Yes. That is the key issue; the accusation is defamatory. Page 5 Footnote 14 No one in Finance could determine if ST was working off-site. No proof Footnote 16 "ST felt harassed by the Finance Department personnel." More harassment! Page 6 "Mr Hunt did not provide any explanation for ST's conduct or in any manner indicate that she was permitted to work extensively outside of the office." Nor, apparently did Hunt indicate that was wasn't permitted to work extensively outside of the office."No proof of anything here. Why is the ASCHR Determination letter closing ST's sex discrimination letter public?This is confidential personnel information. SCC3.75.010 "...all such complaint will be treated in the strictest confidence." Again, the observations were made by employees of another department who were not privy to ST's schedule or arrangements with her boss. The Finance Director, also not privy to that information, reported it to the city manager who was ST's boss, but did not file a formal complaint. There is no evidence that these comments were brought to ST's attention at the time. This seems more like hearsay than documented evidence, and only serves to further defame ST, and constitutes defamatory conduct in violation of the City's Defamation policy. Footnote 17: "subjected to rude, derogatory remarks and attempts to discredit her professionally" ...threatened by...throwing objects at me and creating a hostile work environment." Why was this behavior and hostile work environment allowed? Page 7 The fact that KE made a statement complaining of fraud is not the issue. The public accusation of fraud is, and does, constitute defamatory conduct in violation of the City's Defamation policy. "...there does not exist any reference to the complaints or any subsequent corrective action in ST's personnel file." Footnote 20 In fact, ST's entire personnel file is missing. Why? This should be investigated. "Mr. Hunt believed ST personnel file was in some manner cleaned of any of the reprimands he provided which he feels should exist in her file." Who did this and why? This should be investigated. 4 Page 8 "It is therefore, not surprising that Ms.Towsley would believe Ms Erchinger's comments on August 22 to be both false and defamatory as there is no evidence that she had previously been made aware of the complaints being lodged against her." TRUE. This unsubstantiated accusation was a total surprise to ST and violation of her rights to privacy. "Did the comments of KE breach any confidentiality or personnel rules of the City of Seward? No." Who determines which records are public and would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy?I think all of the Finance Department's comments breached confidentiality and invaded personnel privacy. Page 9 The "so-called 'workplace violence'issue occurring in 2014"should likewise be confidential. Apparently, the issue was serious enough to result in a two-week suspension which was not mentioned in KE's interpretation of the incident. Records pertaining to juveniles are protected from disclosure and KE should not have referred to this issue in public. "The comments made by KE during the August 22 meeting do not appear to violate any confidentiality of personnel rules." What?Can any administrator or city employee speak publicly without impunity about damaging confidential personnel matters whether true or false? "It is important to note that no personnel records exist regarding this incident. Although an investigation took place and a two-week suspension was administered, no current official of personnel records exist documenting the incident." Again, why are these 2014 records missing? "The comments made by KE, however, do not appear to be necessarily derived from any personnel or confidential record."Apparently, the files do not exist, so what kind of conclusion is that?How is she so intimately aware of the details of the seat belt incident and what those involved said? Why is she allowed to speak about it in public, including the name of the supervisor involved? "The information she provided is consistent in kind with other information regarding the incident circulating in the public and on social media. Accordingly, her comments, even if deemed to involve a long-closed personnel matter, do not appear to disclose information that 'would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.' And as such do not appear to be protected or confidential." Wow. So confidential personnel information that constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy can be exposed in public by a city administrator or city employee if someone leaks it to the social media?This is totally unacceptable, against SCC, and should be specifically addressed in the City Personnel Policies. 5 Footnote 28:Juvenile indicated he was not the victim of a workplace violence incident. Yet the supervisor was disciplined and received a two-week suspension. KE apparently had a different interpretation of the serious nature of the incident. Footnote 28: "KE did not mention the juvenile's name during her comments."In a small town, not naming the person does not protect their privacy and preserve confidentiality. KE has done this repeatedly at work sessions, citizen's comments during council meetings, and at council meetings speaking as an administrator. This breach of confidentiality should also be addressed;personnel issues should not be addressed in public by a city administrator or city employee whether speaking as a city official or as a private citizen. Page 10 As noted previously, ST as Executive Liaison, was not under the Finance Department control and her hours and time sheet were not their responsibility. Why did KE allow a finance department employee to waste her time tracking ST when it was Mr Hunt's responsibility?Mr Hunt agreed to accommodate ST's schedule; it did not constitute a significant amount of time; end of issue. Page 11 ST tried to avoid having to work in the office as much as possible, especially when the CM and ACM were out of the office to avoid the harassment she experienced from the staff in the Finance Department. More harassment. This is very troubling especially in light of the abrupt resignation of a valued, long-time Finance Department employee who quit due to harassment in 2018. Harassment is continuing in the Finance Department; this must be addressed and stopped. "Accordingly, KE was presented with credible evidence that ST did not appear to be at work for significant periods of time for which her timesheets claimed she was working." What credible evidence?Evidence gathered by a finance department employee who was not privy to ST schedule or Hunt's accommodation of her schedule? Footnote 29: "...Code...permits deviations from the normal work hours as permitted by the City Manager." The complaint was largely based on the observations of city employees in another department who were not privy to either ST's schedule or agreement with her boss, Mr. Hunt. No investigation occurred at the time the complaints were made, no formal complaint was filed at the time, ST was never reprimanded or disciplined for any conduct by her boss, Mr Hunt, ST was unaware of these complaints, and it is not possible to reconstruct the time sheets to determine if the complaints had merit. ST's entire personnel record is missing. How can this report conclude that "KE had credible documented information on which to base her complaint to Mr. Hunt?" I find her comments false, not based on any evidence, and thus defamatory. "It appears that both Ms Towsley and Ms Erchinger were ill-served by the failure of the City to conduct a timely investigation into Ms. Erchinger's complaints." The employees and the public 6 are ill-served by the failure of the City to keep track of personnel records; the apparent failure of KE to follow policy procedures to file a timely,formal complaint; the failure of then city manager Hunt to protect his employee from harassment and to discipline the Finance Department employees for harassment; the failure of city policies that permit disclosure of private, confidential personnel information; and the failure of this report to provide accurate conclusions supported by facts. I totally agree with the following social media comment made in reponse to the September 1, 2018 Seward Journal article "Finance Director accuses Towsley of past fraud: "This is either: 1. A clear-cut violation of employee/HR confidentiality that would be cause for discipline for the person sharing information about internal employee matters in public and with the press, in just about every workplace. 2. A vindictive and false accusation that cannot be refuted by the person accused in any way since the records are confidential. 3. An example of a professional who intentionally overlooked another employee malfeasance until it became politically expedient for them to admit incorrectly using city funds when they say they had just cause to believe there was impropriety occurring and failed to hold up to their responsibility as the controller of city resource. One, two, or all three of the behaviors described by the article by professionals working for our city government in the article stink to 'you know where'and the vindictive nature says more about the workplace environment than all of the back and forth we have heard recently." Or all three. Thank you, Carol Griswold Seward 7