Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 03-25-08 regular agenda — reading text

Mattimore replied the conduct of the investigation is his own that he uses consistently when he does something of this nature. Mr. Hartwell asked if the witnesses were sworn during the process. Mr. Mattimore replied no. Mr. Hartwell asked Mr. Mattimore to explain the impact to the investigation, if there was any that may have biased the investigation after having received an increase in compensation from the City Manager on January 15, 2008. Mr. Mattimore replied absolutely not, that is something that generates from his firm on an annualized basis. He said he has no involvement in that whatsoever, it happens to all their clients across the board. He said that is not something that was done here; it was not something that has anything to do with this report, and he does not even know his hourly rate for the City. He said he is AV rated and he believed he has the highest ethical standards. He has never had a Florida Bar complaint in 28 years, he represents the Governor, and he does not influence his work by a rate of pay. He said the letter generated in January is routine. Mr. Minich stated he had no questions. Mr. Holmes asked Mr. Mattimore who the five key employees that described a hostile work environment report to and are supervised by. Mr. Mattimore replied they are all employees of the Finance Director and identified the Finance Director as having authority over them. Mr. Miller referenced Mr. Mattimore' s statement that he was not aware of any prior problems and asked if he was aware of problems in May 2007 that had to do with written complaints against the Finance Director. Mr. Mattimore replied the first time he met or heard the Finance Director's name, became aware of her, is when he came over for the contract, so he would not have been involved in anything that predated. Mr. Miller asked if anyone on City staff had contacted Mr. Mattimore in May 2007 about consulting because of a personnel problem with the Finance Director. Mr. Mattimore replied no and recalled his first involvement with that was he was contacted by the City Attorney who had a series of communications with the Finance Director and as a result said she thought it best she turn it over to outside labor counsel, and that was the contract. Mr. Reeves asked Mr. Mattimore, even with the five or six key employees directly under the supervisor of the Finance Director, if he felt in his opinion that it leaves the City open to some type of future litigation if they leave the employees under the current administration of their immediate supervision. Mr. Mattimore replied one of the things he is trying to avoid is to recommend any kind of course of action here because he thought that is beyond what has been charged. He thought the City has a legal obligation to provide a retaliatory free work environment, and they have to take all steps to ensure that happens. Mr. Garvie asked Mr. Mattimore in former investigations similar to this if he ever placed witnesses under oath. Mr. Mattimore replied he did not do that, it is not a deposition. He said he audio tapes them, they are aware it is a public record, and he does not promise confidentiality. He said he is not taking sworn depositions as an officer of the court; he is doing an investigation in the work place. Dr. Pullen asked if he had contacted Mr. Mattimore so he could obtain personnel records from the Human Resources Director. Mr. Mattimore replied he and Dr. Pullen have had conversations, and may have had email communications, and a telephone call about public records. Dr. Pullen asked if that was because he was having trouble getting personnel records from Human Resources. Mr. Mattimore believe that was so, the question was the status of documents that may be a complaint pending an investigation and he wanted some clarification on that. Dr. Pullen asked Mr. Mattimore why he did not take depositions when doing an investigation, how else he could arrive at the truth.Mr. Mattimore replied he arrives at the truth by having people come in and speak candidly and honestly on tape so there is a record of what they have to say. He said he has no authority to depose people, it is not a legal proceeding, it is not a matter under the Civil Rules of Florida or Federal Rules of Procedure; it is an investigation authorized by the Mayor. 38 Special Council 3 -11 -08 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS cont. Dr. Pullen asked if the Charter said something about taking depositions or subpoena individuals. Mr. Mattimore believed it said they could subpoena documents or subpoena individuals, but he did not need to do that. Dr. Pullen asked Mr. Mattimore if anyone expressed to him their reluctance to talk because of possible retribution. Mr. Mattimore replied yes, people said to him they were concerned they would be retaliated against if they spoke, but then they spoke. Mr. Hartwell asked Mr. Mattimore his definition of hostile work environment. Mr. Mattimore replied hostile work environment is treatment that is pervasive and severe enough so that it interferes with the ability of the employees to perform their duties. s I Mr. Hartwell referenced the 53 pages of documents sent by the Finance Director indicating harassment from the City Manager and asked Mr. Mattimore if he would define the actions of the City Manager as producing a hostile work environment. Mr. Mattimore replied he did not. He said it is one person' s communications about a series of dialogue between the two of them, but that was not evidence to him sufficient to find a hostile work environment between these two individuals. He said they obviously are not communicating as well as they should, but he did not find it hostile. Mr. Minich asked Mr. Mattimore how many investigations like this he has conducted. Mr. Mattimore replied there have been several this year but he did not have a number over the course of his career. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mattimore if he would say that Ms. Absher works in a hostile work environment. Mr. Mattimore replied he would say no. The Mayor opened the floor for comments from the general public. Maureen Horgan, 187 Rose Marie Lane, expressed disappointment that some Council members have apparently formed an opinion or made a decision before the results of the investigation were known, and voiced those decisions in the media. She commented that city residents want Council members to be open- minded and to make informed decisions based on fact after investigating an issue. She expressed her belief that the issue is not about the relationship between two people but rather the friction and negative work environment within the City that appears to have started about 1 Y2 year ago. She voiced her pride in being a City resident and dislike of anyone speaking negatively about it as she has personally witnessed the Finance Director has done. She mentioned other evidence Council has been given in the past stated the same type of information and expressed that no one, especially a Department Head, should make disparaging and derogatory comments about the City Manager, other Department Heads, and other City employees again and again. She discussed loyalty, loyalty to someone who have given years of excellent, hard professional work and stated she has never known or heard the City Manager say anything negative about City employees, any of the Department Heads and not about the City. She stated the City Manager has always been positive and upbeat, and extremely professional. She discussed loyalty to the City and to its employees who work hard every day and deserve respect and said it is time to listen to the employees, to what they want and what they need, because a wrong decision on Council' s part could be so very wrong. Lee McDonald, 10 Rue de le Roi, asked Mr. Mattimore how long he and the firm have worked for the City. Mr. Mattimore replied he has worked here since the mid 1980' s but did not know how long his firm predates his involvement. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Mattimore if he knew of any other firm that has done this type of work for the City during this interim period. Mr. Mattimore thought Mr. Linn, a labor 1 employment lawyer, does work for the City. Mr. McDonald asked if this investigation is the type of investigation that should be out for bid. The Mayor stated that question is not relevant. Special Council 3 -11 - 08 39 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS cont. Mr. McDonald stated he was interviewed by Mr. Mattimoreis assistant and thought he was very forthcoming; he let him speak his piece. He said he had some things he felt affected the investigation; however, he did not see anything in the report on it. He relayed his main complaint, which he brought to Council before and they completely ignored it. He recalled when he relayed to Council that the Finance Director had not seen the Landmark proposal and parking garage until the day of the Council meeting. He commented that did not stir any reaction from Council and asked if they were listening when the people speak. Daphne Bower, 624 Kenmore Avenue, stated that Lisa Absher is a neighbor and friend, who has been nothing but kind to her family and to her son. She expressed disbelief that a person changes their spots just because they walk in the door of work and she thinks Lisa Absher is a fine upstanding individual. Jeff Main, 75 Waynell Circle SE, stated he is a disgruntled citizen and asked why Council continues to let the Finance Director terrorize the staff. He relayed that the Finance Director told his wife that he should not attend public Council meetings, and remarked that is Council' s employee telling a private citizen that he cannot come to a Council meeting. He said even after several complaints Council did not act and it took the leadership of the Mayor to stand up and take charge, and he felt that was Council' s job. He commented that the Charter is the law; it is not working and needs to be fixed. He expressed that the majority of Council tied the hands of the City Manager and the Human Resource Director in how they dealt with the Finance Director's continual abusive behavior toward City staff. He expressed his belief that Council did not have the political will and courage to say they made a mistake when they hired the Finance Director; it is not a good fit for the City. He said this could have been taken care of one year ago when it was brought up and everyone ignored it. He said by perpetuating the toxic relationship between the City Manager and the Finance Director, people played the two against each other, it was public and made a mockery of Council and continues to make a mockery of Council in the public. He commented it appears about 98% of the employees and Directors have publicly voiced their support for the City Manager. He stated as a citizen that attends Council meetings on a regular basis he felt he is relatively well informed on the issues that face the City, and expressed he has lost complete confidence in the majority of the executive body's ability to conduct business of the City in an intelligent, unbiased and professional manner. He said recent statements to the press by certain Councilmen have reaffirmed that belief. Bill Robinson, 672 Marionette, United Way Director, wished to go on record to recognize