Inside the Sausage Grinder--Part I

 

Documents that will be imminently released pertaining to a recent legal settlement with a former employee illustrate how contentious some personnel issues can become when board policy is not followed with fidelity

 

A large batch of documents became public late this afternoon.

They are related to a recent settlement that the county made with a former employee, a former paramedic in our EMS department.

I took an interest in this individual's circumstance when he reached out to me in frustration after his due process was violated an he was not treated fairly by staff.  He was left in limbo for months and months on end---before he ever even contacted me.

It was horrific, how badly this employee was treated.  I was disgusted when I peeled the onion and figured out just how badly this individual was treated.  So I took up his cause---and tried desperately to help him get resolution and salvage his career here in Escambia County.

But nobody in administration did the right thing.  One administrator that was leaving didn't have time to close the loop.  The incoming administrator did not fix the issue, saying she was unaware of it.  Once I spoke to her and brought it to her attention--she failed to fix it.  Instead, she doubled down on the bad and incorrect advice of her newly hired HR director and her "mentor" a former state representative who she brought in to "consult."  The new county leadership group failed to fix the issue, and allowed this employee to twist in the wind.  To the point he made a tough decision in absolute anger and frustration.

 He left the county and rebuilt his career in another location.  

But he never wanted it to come to this, and he certainly didn't want to be treated the way he was treated.  The county dropped the ball, staff turnovers exacerbated this situation, and NOBODY wanted to step up and fix the issue.  It was infuriating.

This employee suffered economic losses, and an attorney took the case on contingency.  It was an open and shut case--no wonder the attorney took the case.  Opinions have varied, and some don't see the issues as they unfolded.  But we have now gone through a couple of years and lots of facts and shade meetings since that happened.

Fast forward a couple of years, and we have now settled.  $200K and we're LUCKY it was not more--that's how bad our position was--thanks to staff inattention and feckless handling of the issue.  

I heard, just  today,  that the case is now officially closed.

So several documents will be coming out.  There will be the transcripts of three BCC "shade" litigation

Recent Ruling is an Interesting Read......

Commissioners were just provided with this public record document this past week, in August, that a Federal Judge issued in June.  ?

It revolves around a case that was filed against the county by a former employee.

I was contacted by this employee when he was going through the issues raised in what would eventually become a lawsuit against the county.  I tried as best I could to intervene and ensure our policies were followed with respect to due process rights for this employee.  This is our policy.

Unfortunately--folks did not listen.

And I wish it had not gone this direction, I wish the folks in HR and Emergency Management could have followed policy to the letter and if they had done so-----I do not believe this lawsuit would have happened.

But folks did what they did, we had quite a bit of turnover, folks just "shrugged" their collective shoulders, and and employee's entire career hung in the balance.  Now we are getting a glimpse into which way the legal proceedings are going based upon what the judge said in his written order denying multiple motions to dismiss on several important allegations that have been made against the county and against one particular employee in both this employee's official and personal capacities.

As I said, I was asked to look into this by an exasperated employee and I did.  I discussed it here with multiple posts.  I wish folks would just follow the policies.  Following policy prevents issues like this from erupting like Mt. Vesuvius. Following policy ensures employees--ALL EMPLOYEES--are treated fairly.  Following policies is prudent financially, as it saves taxpayer dollars that otherwise get spent defending lawsuits.  Following policy is what is EXPECTED of us! 

But worse than not simply following policy-------when a policy is not followed and then this conduct is condoned and endorsed after the fact---it only gets worse.

So we will see which way this goes eventually as it concludes in the courts.  I will continue to watch with great interest.  More importantly---when this is settled in the court and a ruling is made--the issue will not end simply with a settlement payout so far as I am concerned.  It may also necessitate additional action by the board based upon our policy NOT being followed.  We will have to see what happens then.

My advice:  Always follow the rules, always.  And NEVER, EVER Double Down on someone's else's bad decisions by embracing such decisions because if you do, you own the consequences.  ALL of them.

Follow our policies with fidelity always.  ALWAYS!

Escambia's Workplace Harassment Policy: The Fix is Coming April 2nd

With all the discussions lately now gravitating toward the spread of the COVID 19/Chinese Novel Coronavirus---many other issues are not being publicized.

Which is why I was somewhat surprised to see an article in today's Pensacola News Journal on the top of the local section discussing our County's update to the Workplace Harassment Policy.

I think the article captured the essence of the board's discussion on this harassment topic that occurred last Thursday amidst the backdrop of the growing COVID 19 Pandemic issue that dominated the board's other conversations.

I look forward to approving the revised policy in April with the board's inputs from Thursday added.

Once approved, all employees will have much more of a voice and a method to appeal any harassment claim decisions rendered (or not even taken up) by the administrator and her staff.

I believe this new policy, once put into place, will prevent the absolute disastrous handling of multiple employee harassment complaints that happened once these complaints were submitted in early 2019 by multiple employees.  These complaints were never handled properly per our county policy.

This is changing now, and this will be fixed.

Because as I also said at the meeting, our policies are not worth the paper they are printed on if they are not followed with fidelity and if we as policymakers and the oversight body in Escambia County allow for the non-implementation of the policies we enact.

Doing What is Right Part III: A Completed HR Report from 6-24-2019 is NOT a Public Record?

How long must an employee suffer and be punished for making a valid, sustained complaint against a supervisory employee?

As I have chronicled in Part I and Part II of this series--there appears to be an issue percolating around an Escambia County employee that filed a harassment complaint against his supervisor.

Ever since his complaint was filed--it appears as if he has been stymied, stigmatized, and deprived of due process rights as mandated in county policy and relevant collective bargaining agreements.

I was contacted by this individual in November after this employee tried over and over to get resolution on his situation utilizing his chain of command with no success--for nearly 6 MONTHS!.

Nobody was listening.

I listened, and I am listening.

I have received a copy of the five page HR investigation summary of this employee's harassment claim against his supervisor.  The report corroborates what this employee claims.  This report was completed, and recommendations were made for resolution, on June 24th of this year.

But then the report was shelved.  Nobody did anything with it, and the employee asked over and over and over for a copy.  He asked over and over and over to get back to his job.  He was stymied.  Nothing was given to him for five months.  Meanwhile, he was prevented from working shifts he traditionally has worked and this has had the net effect of reducing his income by 15-18% over what he has earned in the past.

So upon my receipt of the report, I immediately thought I would publish it--after all, it was inactive and nothing was being done on it.  Jim Little of the PNJ saw part I on my blog and made a public records request for the 5-page report.  So I asked our attorney if it was a public record releasable on my blog and also to the PNJ.

Here is what I asked of our attorney:

"As you know, Jim Little from the PNJ has made a public request of me for the email string below as well as the embedded photographs within what I am forwarding to you in this email—which includes the first five pages of an HR document from June (?) of this year apparently.  Because I want to comply and I always do comply with the state public records statutes—please supply the specific statutory exemption that applies and which precludes me from sending the below string specifically--- to include the photographs embedded-- to Jim Little in answer to his public records request.  Please be specific. 

As you and I discussed, I know this does not comport specifically with county policy—but that in and of itself

Doing What is Right Part II: Stuck in "Purgatory"

How long must an employee suffer and be punished for making a valid, sustained complaint against a supervisory employee?

As I discussed in part I--it appears we have one county employee that is desperately trying to get back to his job, a job he loves to do--but he is being stymied by a bureaucratic gridlock and a lack of action.  This has resulted in reduced pay for this individual as well as continuing stress.  Meanwhile, this employee has gutted it out, been put on a "performance improvement plan" that to the best of my knowledge is not being followed-up on as designed by the staff and supervisors of this employee.  So this employee is stuck on a hamster wheel, stuck in a weird kind of surreal "Purgatory" for the last 6 months.  It is time the story gets told, we MUST break the gridlock on this!

On May 1st of this year, this employee lodged a formal complaint of harassment against a supervisor.

The supervisor was notified on May 1st, the same day the complaint was lodged by the employee, and then again on May 13th via an email (below) and asked again to provide documents and other relevant information--to show their side of the issue.

To which the supervisor, the one who was the subject of the original employee harassment complaint, responded:

To Which the Supervisor's Supervisor immediately responded:

I have added the redactions above in an abundance of caution and to protect the identity of the employee and the supervisor involved.  There was a 5-page written summary document of the investigation of this harassment issue completed on June 24th....5-months ago.  The report  is very favorable to the employee and I wanted to publish it as a part of this story but I have been advised that I cannot release it yet.  The reasons why, and the rationale I was given for not being able to release it will be discussed in part III.

Doing What is Right Part I: Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence

How long must an employee suffer and be punished for making a valid, sustained complaint against a supervisory employee?

I recently spoke with a long-term employee of the county who has been put through the ringer for no fault of his own.  He has endured a financial punishment and been stigmatized at his work site. He and his family have been targeted and hurt financially and this punishment continues to this day. This is NOT right, this will get resolved.

And sadly-- based upon what I have seen thus far, and what has been presented to me thus far from this employee combined with information I have received independently from other sources--it appears as though the blackballing of this employee was done for reasons that appear to be retaliatory in nature.

This individual works in a job of high stress and tremendous importance.  As a matter of fact--we have a hard time hiring enough employee's with the certifications and abilities possessed by this individual.  In spite of this, the hours of work for this individual have been cut, along with his OT hours which in prior years accounted for a large portion of this employee's pay.

From what I have gathered, this individual has worked for us for the last 8 years and has NO adverse employment issues on his record prior to this whole episode erupting like a volcano last spring.  No counseling, no adverse or deficient evaluations, no complaints filed against him.

He was just an employee doing a good and necessary job for his employer-the citizens of Escambia County.

That all changed on May 1st of this year when this individual lodged a job site harassment complaint against a supervisory employee above him on the org chart.  According to this individual, with whom I have now spoken numerous times-"Suddenly the environment became toxic, and I felt I was being singled out because I stood up for myself and for those under me with whom I work."

Within two weeks, our HR department notified the supervisor about the complaint and named the junior employee who made the complaint.   A report was generated by HR that all but affirmed the facts outlined by this employee in his initial complaint, and this report had bullet point recommendations intended for the supervisory employee who was named in the complaint--in order to correct the workplace issues and improve the atmosphere.

It should have ended there, but it didn't.

The HR investigation ended and two days later, on May 16th, and the report was never provided to either of the employees. It was shelved for the past 4 1/2 months. the supervisory employee who was the target of the initial complaint subsequently filed a formal, state-level complaint

This is Why Part II

This email, above, is an actual email actually sent from an actual commissioner to our previous administrator Jack Brown.

Now, some may consider this sort of a written assessment of an administrator's employee to be routine.  I can say from my perspective I do not believe it to be. In my 13 years of elected public service locally I have NEVER sent such an email to either an administrator or a superintendent--presuming to thrust my own opinion upon the executive about the performance of one of his employees. 

The administrator is charged with hiring, firing, and discipline of employees---not commissioners, not board members.

Can we discuss concerns?  Sure.  Can we ask for information?  Of course.  But essentially calling for termination--and then putting it in writing?  It is intimidation of not only this particular employee of the organization--but also of the administrator.  Should 1/5 of the administrator's boss (the full 5-member BCC) have this unilateral ability?

No.

From the email above--one can easily see that this particular commissioner had a huge problem with this particular employee--but apparently the administrator felt differently.

Perhaps the administrator had spoken to the other four commissioners, and perhaps the other four commissioners strongly supported this individual employee?  Who knows--but the fact that this particular employee remained on staff despite one commissioner's continual negative assessment (s) over time points to that as a possibility.

And therein lies the reason why the administrator supervises and controls staff.  The administrator is much more cognizant of an individual employee's level of expertise, value, performance, and work ethic (as well as a particular employee's  "fit" within the team.) The administrator is the hour by hour, day to day, week to week "supervisor" of employees---not individual commissioners.  Do we as commissioners have close working relationships with employees?---of course!   Can we work together?--absolutely!

But negative assessments are strictly in the wheelhouse of the executive, the administrator, for the obvious reasons as stated above and also as they are enumerated in statute.

Otherwise an organization will hemorrhage and talented staff will run for the exits......Sound familiar?  (This is the impetus for my bringing a badly needed Non-Interference Ordinance)

In this particular instance described in the above email--regrettably--the employee in question

This is Why, Part I

This email, above, is an actual email actually sent from one County Commissioner to our former County Administrator Jack Brown.  I have redacted names and other information so that readers will not know which commissioner sent this....and to whom this email refers.

In other words, the point here is not to pinpoint names, etc.  The point is to have readers look at this email and ask themselves if this is a reasonable email.  Is it rational, measured, and professional?

Or is it demeaning and threatening?

And is it overly-heavy-handed to demand an immediate meeting with the administrator with the demand that not only the administrator come, but also HR personnel and Legal Personnel?

If I was the employee on the receiving end of a "demand" email like this one---I'd feel like my job was on the line, on the spot, if I did not do exactly as I was being directed by this one commissioner.

And about the veiled threat of  "I'll start making them famous"  at the bottom of this email...What the hell does that even  mean--is that a threat?  Does that mean these employees will be publicly called out, humiliated, and/or demeaned if they do not immediately acquiesce to the whims of 1/5 of the Board??

I think we are going to have a tough time keeping any Administrator or senior staff if they are