The Inquiry.
Below is the text of a memorandum I delivered to Mr. Johnson and the BOMA this week. I anticipate an answer next week.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jay Johnson
FROM: Dana C. McLendon III
CC: Board of Mayor and Aldermen
DATE: 20 September 2005
RE: Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor
A recent newspaper story included the following:
"It's clear the officers [Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor] were suspended. It's clear the city paid them more than $80,500 while they were suspended. And it's clear both officers were allowed to retire. What isn't clear is why the disciplinary issues that prompted the suspensions have never been resolved, and why the officers were allowed to retire."
As far as I know, the foregoing is a fair synopsis of the situation.
I deliberately did not inquire of the status of the suspensions during the suspensions because I believed it would have been inappropriate for an alderman to participate in the process at that time. As you know, had the matters taken a different course I could have been called upon as an alderman to adjudicate an employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action. It would clearly have been inappropriate to have acquired any knowledge outside of the appeal process.
Now, however, it appears I will not be called upon to adjudicate any appeal from Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor. I have a few questions that I believe should be posed and answered publicly. I ask that you respond to this memorandum as you believe is appropriate.
1. In the case of Lt. Taylor, I understand he was on leave for as much as three of the eight months he was suspended. That leaves at least five months of suspension under allegations including domestic abuse, disgraceful personal conduct, disobeying orders, and unlawful harassment. I understand that Lt. Taylor was, perhaps, unavailable as a result of his medical leave, but by the time he took medical leave, he had been on leave for perhaps 60 days or more. Why did the investigation require at least five months and as much as eight months?
2. In the case of Lt. Anderson, it is much less clear to me why he was suspended, but it has been reported that, “Shirley Harmon, Franklin's human resources director, and [Police Chief] Moore said Anderson's file is confidential under the state's drug-free workplace law.” Why did Lt. Anderson’s case take eight months to investigate?
3. At the time of their respective retirements, was either investigation complete? When might hearings have been scheduled?
4. Of the over $80,000 in payments made to Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor during the eight months they were suspended, was any part of the money paid to them money that they would have been entitled to regardless of the outcome of a disciplinary hearing? In other words, would either of them be entitled to some or all of the $80,000+ even if they had been terminated following a disciplinary hearing? If so, how much?
I am troubled by several things in this matter. First, two long-time city employees – indeed, long-time law enforcement officers – were suspended for a long time under apparently very serious accusations. If either of these gentlemen were guilty, the citizens of this community deserved swift action to separate them from the Franklin Police Department. If, on the other hand, they were not guilty of the allegations, these gentlemen deserved to be cleared and restored to their positions promptly. It is hard to see, based upon what I know at this time, how the city or Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor were well-served by the extended investigations.
Second, many thousands of dollars of wages were paid to employees who might, or might not, have deserved to be fired. The city presumably also had a ripple effect in wages (did the city not have to pay other officers to do the job the suspended officers were not doing?) It troubles me that if the allegations were accurate, that the city perhaps nonetheless paid tens of thousands of dollars that should not have been paid.
Third, I am concerned that there is or could be an appearance that employees under suspicion of wrongdoing who are near retirement can expect to be allowed to retire in good standing. Is there a city policy regarding the relationship between suspensions and retirement eligibility? It seems to me that we should consider whether a city employee on suspension suspected of wrongdoing should be allowed to accumulate additional retirement eligibility pending resolution of the allegations. I know the city couldn’t have changed the rules with respect to Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor, but I remain troubled by the result in these cases.
I await your reply.
I deliberately did not inquire of the status of the suspensions during the suspensions because I believed it would have been inappropriate for an alderman to participate in the process at that time. As you know, had the matters taken a different course I could have been called upon as an alderman to adjudicate an employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action. It would clearly have been inappropriate to have acquired any knowledge outside of the appeal process.
Now, however, it appears I will not be called upon to adjudicate any appeal from Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor. I have a few questions that I believe should be posed and answered publicly. I ask that you respond to this memorandum as you believe is appropriate.
1. In the case of Lt. Taylor, I understand he was on leave for as much as three of the eight months he was suspended. That leaves at least five months of suspension under allegations including domestic abuse, disgraceful personal conduct, disobeying orders, and unlawful harassment. I understand that Lt. Taylor was, perhaps, unavailable as a result of his medical leave, but by the time he took medical leave, he had been on leave for perhaps 60 days or more. Why did the investigation require at least five months and as much as eight months?
2. In the case of Lt. Anderson, it is much less clear to me why he was suspended, but it has been reported that, “Shirley Harmon, Franklin's human resources director, and [Police Chief] Moore said Anderson's file is confidential under the state's drug-free workplace law.” Why did Lt. Anderson’s case take eight months to investigate?
3. At the time of their respective retirements, was either investigation complete? When might hearings have been scheduled?
4. Of the over $80,000 in payments made to Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor during the eight months they were suspended, was any part of the money paid to them money that they would have been entitled to regardless of the outcome of a disciplinary hearing? In other words, would either of them be entitled to some or all of the $80,000+ even if they had been terminated following a disciplinary hearing? If so, how much?
I am troubled by several things in this matter. First, two long-time city employees – indeed, long-time law enforcement officers – were suspended for a long time under apparently very serious accusations. If either of these gentlemen were guilty, the citizens of this community deserved swift action to separate them from the Franklin Police Department. If, on the other hand, they were not guilty of the allegations, these gentlemen deserved to be cleared and restored to their positions promptly. It is hard to see, based upon what I know at this time, how the city or Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor were well-served by the extended investigations.
Second, many thousands of dollars of wages were paid to employees who might, or might not, have deserved to be fired. The city presumably also had a ripple effect in wages (did the city not have to pay other officers to do the job the suspended officers were not doing?) It troubles me that if the allegations were accurate, that the city perhaps nonetheless paid tens of thousands of dollars that should not have been paid.
Third, I am concerned that there is or could be an appearance that employees under suspicion of wrongdoing who are near retirement can expect to be allowed to retire in good standing. Is there a city policy regarding the relationship between suspensions and retirement eligibility? It seems to me that we should consider whether a city employee on suspension suspected of wrongdoing should be allowed to accumulate additional retirement eligibility pending resolution of the allegations. I know the city couldn’t have changed the rules with respect to Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor, but I remain troubled by the result in these cases.
I await your reply.
posted by Alderman Dana McLendon at 8:28 AM
4 Comments:
Alderman McLendon, Now I understand that the BOMA has the oppurtunity to sit down with His Honor and get the run down on what happened with these suspentions/retirements. I also read that you were uninterested in this offer as you felt it should come to light in the public forum.
Thank You, I'm becoming a bigger fan every day. Are we ever going to be informed or is this going to vanish in front of our very eyes. I am less interested in what caused these suspensions, than why the City continued to pay these people for eight months.
Please continue your work toward a transparent government, and allowing those that pay to know.
This is another cover up from our illustrious Jay Johnson. I can't believe this goes on and on and on. I believe he and Jackie Moore have something to hide. We may never find out what happened. Our government will NEVER be transparent while Jay is the administrator. Everything crooked trickles down from him.
It is my intent to publish here on the blog anything I am given in writing in response to my inquiry; likely a newspaper article will follow. I will not accept
getting no answer to my inquiry. I do not want the Mayor or anyone else to tell me something that is, by law, prohibited from public disclosure because I am a member, and servant, of the public. This will not vanish because I will not allow it to vanish.
Sure, but what is it that they're waiting for? Why can they not answer until Monday? It's like this, Dana: Someone broke a lamp. So you ask, "how did this lamp brake?" The answer is, "I'll let you know next week."
Why must there be a time allowed in order to tell you what ALREADY happened?
These are my suspicions: I think they are making up a story - running it through all those involved so they all stick to the same one - and checking it out with their 'lawyer' to see if they can get in trouble for how they answer your questions.
CLASSIC!
Post a Comment
<< Home