My Stolen Text Messages Are Irrelevant in Rayme Edler's Case

Even though the PNJ, with another ominous sounding headline on their front page edition this morning, wants my stolen text messages to be the center of their "story" on a former employee's qui-tam, harassment case against the county--the fact of the matter is that my text messages are irrelevant to this case.  

The PNJ's article conspicuously neglects to mention the fact that I am not an operational employee of the county, I am a member of the legislative.  I have no day to day management oversight of staff that bill for EMS services, nor do I have any power to direct, discipline, or control county employees.  Commissioners are legislative employees.  We only supervise, as a body, our attorney and administrator and individually our office assistants and interns.  The administrator and his staff do the day to day supervision and management of employees.  So the idea that my private thoughts and those of other citizens to whom I may have spoken to on a raft of issues, to include this former employee (who was a disaster in the opinion of many), has any bearing on this case is laughable.  It's a joke. 

Of course, PNJ knows this but doesn't report it. That would make a boring article, that's why.

The other fatal flaw with their front page piece and this directed attack on me purported to be news is that somehow my text messages are a part of the former employee's case of "harassment."  This argument, too, fails.  It fails because this former employee also made herself a public figure with public appearances, statements, and assertions to the board over and over about  her perceived issues in the EMS department.  She made herself a public official when she sued a local private citizen for speaking out against her and cost that citizen hundreds of thousands in legal fees.  This former employee made herself a public figure with her statements in the press and other places with wild allegations--the vast majority of which were extreme exaggerations or outright lies.  When you are a public figure, you are succeptible to unflattering critique--someone should wake her up and tell her this.  Comes with the territory and if the kitchen is too hot, one should consider leaving. She didn't.  That said-- Being an elected official and member of the commission, I have the right to ask any questions I want and speak my mind on any topic  I want related to county business, including disagreening with an employee's mistreatment of other employees and her dangerous, reckless disregard for due-process rights for county employees which cost the county taxpayers more than $300,000.00 thus far, and counting.  I can say and do this  according to recent rulings that describe such speech by a sitting commissioner as enjoying absolute immunity under state law.  Absolute, unqualified immunity.  (Just look up Judge Pitre's ruling in the Underhill case which was also per-curium affirmed at the DCA) Someone should show these rulings to Ryan and Steven Andrews, too.....absolute, unqualified immunity is what we have in these sorts of discussions and comments.

PNJ knows this, too, but they don't bother mentioning it.  They want to lionize this former employee,

Fascinating View Inside Insurance Company Lawyer's Legal Strategy for their "Client" in the Selover Suit

Ever wonder how an insurance company's lawyer, attempting to minimize her client's exposure, would advise a County that was exercising said insurance company's policy?  Read this post and attached document and you will know.  And it's fascinating. 

Although it appears this document (memo) from the County's Insurance Comapany's Law Firm was sent to our County Attorney's office on January 27th---I just got a copy of it late yesterday afternoon.  It is a detailed, behind the scenes legal analysis of the case against the county brought by Matt Selover for multiple egregious violations of his due process rights and the shameful way he was treated. This is the kind of document the public rarely gets to see, however because we are a public entity subject to the open records laws and because the litigation in this case is concluded---it now becomes a public record and open for release.  Heck, I never even knew this document existed I only was made aware of it by a source unaffiliated with the county who actually called me and asked me "What I thought about the memo?"

Well, I didn't, because I hadn't, because I'd not seen it.  

But apparently others had seen it -------and this was probably the genesis of some late night calls between our former HR director and a bean-counter insurance bureaucrat last month.... oh well.

So, now being aware of its existence--I called the county attorney late yesterday afternoon and got it in 5 minutes flat.  And I spent hours last night reading it.  

But why was this memo never shared with myself and my counterparts at our June shade session, though?  Why were some staffers and apparently at least one other commissioner provided this document---but not the rest of us?  Who leaked this memo unlawfully to outside entities before the lawsuit was settled and this document was actually subject to release?

I will get answers to these questions, I have already asked.  I do have idea, though.  And thankfully, that individual is no longer employed with the county.  Let's put it that way.

Meanwhile-this document will make it's way to the written press very soon--- and I am fairly certain portions and snippets will be cut and pasted into an article that will purport to make me the "bad guy" of this case.  "That guy Bergosh supported Selover and would not go along with our defense strategy!!" will be the flavor.

So be it.  

The facts are clear, though: we wronged this first responder, disciplined him inappropriately, denied him due process, retaliated against him after he filed a harrassment complaint against his medical director, bungled that complaint and subsequently damaged him emotionally and physically--all the while stomping all over his rights and abandoning county policy and past practice.  That's why we settled with him, and the insurance company (not Escambia taxpayers) paid him a $200,000.00 settlement. 

Here are some "low"lights from this insurance company lawyer's memo--illustrating just how weak her case was and why:

"Critically, one of our biggest weaknesses is the fact that between April 23, 2019 and May 1, 2019, there is no documentation whatsoever supporting the Board's alleged decision to 1) restrict Selover's clinical privileges and 2) that Dr. Edler decided to report Selover to the-Department of Health."

"After he [Selover] filed the complaint, he testified that he worked without any issue for 22 or 23 days until he was advised his clinical privileges were restricted on May 15, 2019. He testified John Dosh and Leon Salter advised him that Dr. Edler restricted his job duties on May 13, 2019. Notably, as noted above, this is a significant weakness in our case as this occurred over three weeks after the QA/QI meeting."

"Dr. Edler told the [April 23, 2019 QA/QI] board to write up their thoughts and she would decide what to do. He [William Hopkins] recalls her telling him to write up the meeting and their observations, but it seems like they did not decide what actions to take regarding Selover at the meeting. They did not discuss reprimand or about limiting his ability to practice or do certain procedures.   They also did not talk about reporting him to the FDOH." 

"We believe Plaintiff may be able to establish that Plaintiff through high-ranking officials­ ratified the alleged due process violations allegedly committed by Dr. Edler because it did not reverse her actions despite having reason to do so based on Peppler's legal memorandum and Spainhower's report. Accordingly, should this court determine that Selover's due process rights were violated, the County may be subject to municipal liabili ty."

"..there is a chance that the Court will find that his [Selover's] position change from paramedic to EMT-regardless of no pay change-constituted disciplinary action or adverse employment action since be was perceived by his peers to only be an EMT, his ability to work overtime as a paramedic was limited, and his pay was essentially reduced. We have highlighted in depositions that the policies and procedures define "demotion" as having your pay rate decreased-which did not happen to Selover. However, Bergosh's deposition highlights the

The Next ECFR Fire Chief Hiring Status: Lots of Issues to Fix and 60 Names on a List.......

According to staff the process for hiring the Fire Chief is underway and the eventual  successful candidate will be hired sometime shortly after the new year.  This is good news as solid leadership is DESPERATELY NEEDED!

One of the county positions for which I have advocated the loudest and for which others have as well is the Escambia Fire Chief position. We currently have this position filled with an interim, temporary placeholder. In fact, it's been going on two years since our last permanent Fire Chief, Rusty Nail, left the job shortly after taking the job in the first place after a lengthy search the county conducted. 

 And since this time, this has been the position I believe we most desperately need filled. I've stated the fact bluntly--stated it publicly at meetings and privately to staff: There is a total and complete lack of leadership in that department right now---in part I believe this is due to the lack of a fire chief, a leader.

We need strong, competent leadership in that role and this has been absent for many years now. Too long. And in the meantime--unprofessional conduct has been tolerated. And what is tolerated is condoned. What is tolerated and condoned becomes behavior and culture that is embraced. 

 But this is going to get corrected, and this is going to get fixed. 

Eventual 3rd place finisher, 
BCC candidate signs were
found in ECFR station 6
in August--in violation of
county ordinance-resulting in
a letter of reprimand for one
ECFR Battalion Chief....

 --We will fix the unprofessional and deliberate violation of County Policy regarding political signs on Public Properties and in Public Fire Houses. 

 --We will fix the unprofessional and deliberate efforts to "run-off" well-trained and perfectly capable volunteers--several blatant instances of which are being investigated as I write this. 

Imagine the fantasy world where an
employee is asked a direct question for
which he knows the answer
regarding an investigation and such an
employee responds by saying to his boss
"I know the answer, but I won't tell you!"

 --We will fix the unprofessional, despicable, and unacceptable conduct by those in fire who put out deliberately inaccurate misinformation on social media immediately after a tragic loss of life fire where certain personnel attempted to leverage this tragedy (totally disregarding the victims' families in the process) for union negotiations and bargaining. (when asked which employee it was that posted inappropriate, misleading, and false information online regarding a fire at which a citizen died-- the only three employees that had administrative posting rights and "access" to this site actually told their supervisor when queried "We don't have to tell you who posted it-and we will NOT tell you!" [picture here the image of man holding his thumb to his nose while simultaneously wiggling his other four fingers vigorously while looking at you in the face, laughing while telling you  "na, na, na, na, na, naaaaa--I'm not going to tell you!"]) 

--We will fix the rampant abuse of sick leave by the practice (of which I have been appraised) where 24 hour employees (who accrue sick leave at a high rate) and who legitimately become disabled subsequently have been allowed to "transfer" to a 9-hour billet during their period of disability in order to burn 9 hours of sick leave for each day missed--instead of 24 hours--saving themselves big money on eventual sick leave payouts upon separation. This practice is ending immediately, by the way. (But the fact that it was allowed to happen at all DISGUSTS ME!)

--We will fix the shift-swapping buddy-buddy histrionics which allow some personnel to accumulate long shifts at the overtime rate--maximizing their personal salaries to the detriment of other employees

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.

Why an Independent Appeal Process to the BCC Makes Sense Part III: Do We Already Have One??

There are compelling reasons to consider enacting a stand-alone, independent process for employee appeal of a workplace harassment decision directly to the Board of County Commissioners---but do we already have one if we want it?

Although I'm told there has been some fictional propaganda put out on social media by Commissioner Underhill to the contrary--the fact of the matter is that we, the full BCC, will be discussing the idea of a stand alone appeal process to the full BCC for County Administrator final decisions on harassment complaints.

I believe this is a necessary discussion because our very prescriptive anti-harassment policy has not been followed in a half-dozen instances over the last year and employees have been treated very poorly as a result and costly lawsuits have ensued.

So YES---we will be having this deep dive discussion at our Committee of the Whole in March.  This scheduling of this discussion came out of our meeting on Tuesday, and the direction was crystal clear and unambiguous to Janice--so I have no idea where any notion to the contrary might have come from or where anyone with a brain could state "Jeff had no support for the discussion of an appeal process for harassment."  I guess some people simply live in their own fantasy world.....

Nevertheless, during the discussions on Tuesday I deliberately asked some very specific questions about what it is we could compel our administrator to do if the full board was to vote to ask for a particular harassment decision to be re-investigated.  Somewhat surprisingly, the answer from our attorney is/was that YES we could compel the re-opening of an employee harassment investigation that was/is decided/concluded.  Now, this is not exactly an appeal to the full board for us to make the final determination--but it is a mechanism that apparently exists that would force a new look.

Which is precisely what is needed in several "decided" harassment complaints that were not conducted properly over the last 12 months and where our policy was not followed.

Once an investigation is closed and decided--the information becomes a public record, as is the case of the Selover harassment complaint, thus the continuing discussion.

But knowing the full board could remand a particular case back to the administrator to conduct a new investigation is powerful.

my question on this topic:

"Alison-

This morning when I asked your opinion about IF the board could vote to compel the administrator to open a new investigation into Matt Selover’s harassment—you said “yes”.

Is that still your opinion, I mean if there were three votes to request this?

Her response:

"Yes, you can.  You shouldn’t dictate a disciplinary action, but that’s different than directing her to reopen an investigation. " 

Why an Independent Appeal Process to the BCC Makes Sense Part II: What do Employees Do When there is no Satisfactory Resolution?

There are compelling reasons to consider enacting a stand-alone, independent process for employee appeal of a workplace harassment decision directly to the Board of County Commissioners

At our March Committee of the Whole, the Escambia Board of County Commissioners will discuss a potential stand-alone appeal process for handling employee workplace harassment complaints.

This sort of a process would allow for a direct appeal to the BCC of a "final" ruling by the county administrator.

Some recent issues in one of our departments and the seemingly choppy, sloppy and deficient manner in which workplace harassment complaints have been handled is the impetus for this discussion.

I'm not sure how the discussion in March will go--but I do know what happens if we don't give employees multiple avenues for the appeal for harassment complaints that are not resolved properly:

1.)  Morale suffers throughout the organization
2.)  We hemorrhage staff (resignations and early retirements) as folks become disillusioned
3.)  The workplace becomes more toxic if the issue is not handled fairly
4.)   Employees can/will sue their employer
5.)  Taxpayers spend more money on lawyers than should be necessary

In one case in particular, where a good, long-term employee tried and tried to get a fair resolution to what appears to be his horrific treatment by admin and HR staff for months and months-------#4 is the option that this particular employee has  now chosen --- per this email (below) all commissioners received last night during the meeting.



Sadly, I do not believe it had to come to this---if ONLY our policy had been followed with integrity and fidelity.  But to me it appears our policy was not followed, so here comes another lawsuit.............

Why an Independent Appeal Process to the BCC Makes Sense Part I: What Happened in 2018?

There are compelling reasons to consider enacting a stand-alone, independent process for employee appeal of a workplace harassment decision directly to the Board of County Commissioners

Yesterday morning during the BCC's agenda review--I made the case for the BCC's development of an independent appeal process for employees to utilize if such employees failed to get appropriate resolution to their harassment complaint (s) through our current, existing process.

I brought this for a couple of reasons:

In the spring of 2018, the BCC settled a messy, ugly harassment complaint in Public Safety.  At that point, we enacted a strict and very prescriptive anti-harassment policy with an admonition to staff that it be followed with fidelity to hopefully prevent further issues or at a minimum to allow for the swift action on future complaints.

I did not know it at that time  (I found out subsequently)---but just three short months later, in June/July of 2018----- a series of scathing harassment complaints were filed in the public safety office.  With a brand-spanking new anti-harassment policy on the books from just three months earlier put in place by the BCC---this should have been a great test of the new policy, right?

But it wasn't--it instead turned into the rocket exploding on the launchpad......Something deeply disturbing happened to these  complaints:  They were not followed up on and worked as dictated by the policy. Our policy was not followed, and eventually, these complaints were just swept under the rug.

Within a few short months of these complaints being buried-----something even more sinister and disturbing occurred.  Several of the employees that filed these complaints had very serious allegations leveled against them by an employee of public safety. Ironically (or not, depending upon one's perspective) the supervisor that filed the new, very serious and very onerous state-level complaint against these same employees---was the very supervisor that the initial complaints named as the harasser!  Imagine that,  right??

Subsequent to all that drama--several employees of that department resigned under duress, many quit, and several supervisors left as well.  The Public safety director resigned, as did the HR director and eventually the County Administrator.

To the best of my knowledge--no commissioners were made aware of the initial complaints that were made in the summer of 2018. I just found out about them recently from some current and former employees who gave me information about these complaints that were not worked, the ones where our existing policy was not followed.

Yes, yes------we were all told about the subsequent state investigation, however.

Yes, we got a thorough debrief about that issue. Ooooh yes we did.

But nothing about what glaringly appears to have been the pretext to the state charges, the initial harassment complaints that were ignored and subsequently buried by administration.  Seems fishy to me..........

But What IF??

What if these same employees knew there was a mechanism for an immediate appeal to the BCC for the lack of follow-through on their initial harassment complaints?   Imagine how differently the last 18 months could have been?

We would have looked at it, we would have acted, and/or the administration would have acted--I'm confident of this.  Otherwise---administrative staff in the county would have known that we, the BCC, would possibly get a crack at these complaints out in the open on the dais-------which would be messy.  And they would not want that.

So a stand alone policy like this makes sense in two ways:

1.) an extra layer of protection for employees
2.) an additional inducement for staff to follow existing policy dutifully and with fidelity

More about this in part II.

"Answers" to Questions that will Elicit More Questions......

As a public employer, we have to do what is right by all employees  and follow board policy faithfully.  We must do it exclusively and do it consistently.

I have taken a significant interest in the case of an employee that has endured what I believe to be retaliation and harassment for making a complaint against one of his supervisors.  Retribution and/or retaliation for making a complaint against another employee is a violation of our BCC Workplace Harassment Policy--and this is the reason I have taken an interest in this issue.  I am NOT trying to micromanage or meddle in staff affairs, I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of why one of our policies was not followed properly and why one of our policies has been violated with no appropriate recourse yet given to the affected employee.  I have reviewed reams of documents and spoken to dozens of current and former employees intimately familiar with the EMS department.

Once the County adopted their "final word" on Matt Selover's harassment complaint----I was left with more questions which I submitted in writing to the HR director and County Administrator.

I received the answers to the questions late yesterday afternoon. They are pictured below.  The answers to these questions will most certainly elicit more probing questions from me because in some instances--I do not believe the answers are completely factual.

Some other answers are actually non-answers.  Here's what I mean by that:

Any answer (s) to any question (s) that I have posed to our Administrator and her staff that come back to me as (paraphrased) "This answer is not known and the relevant county employee should be asked."  Yeah, uh, that is not an answer I will accept.  That's lazy, weak, and feckless.

Believe me, they don't want me asking these questions of employees directly, nor should I have to.

I get it, a lot of this all happened before our most recent administrator and her newly hired staff was brought aboard.  A lot of it was inherited.

But once she accepted the job, she now officially owns it all.  All of it. I empathize about the difficulty--but that does not change the fact that she owns it.  And I do appreciate her hard work and I have high hopes and great expectations for what she will do as our administrator.

But that does not change the fact that she and her current staff have to own it.

Just as we, the elected commissioners, OWN all problems, issues, poor planning decisions, and historical mistakes made before our arrival as members of the BCC.  We can't sidestep tough, probing questions--we have to own them.

Imagine if I told the residents who are losing their back yards to a stormwater ditch that is swallowing their property "Yeah, you'll have to go ask the county engineer who is no longer here why that property was permitted to be platted that way!"  Just imagine how that would play?!?

....NO, we can't give weak answers and deflect blame.

Neither can our well-compensated staff.  So this list of "answers" I got yesterday will generate more questions and I will insist on complete answers to the questions I have posed, not "Go ask her" answers.  More on this to follow.

The Timing of this Email is Problematic.....Let's Look at the Timeline of Events

Coming on the heels of the recent "final word" disposition paper regarding an employee harassment case that was dismissed--this new email I received, below, is concerning.

The timing of this email is problematic to me, so I will continue asking questions about this issue until I get satisfaction that county policy was followed.

Right now I am not convinced it was.  I believe one of our employees has faced continuing retaliation and retribution as a result of his filing a workplace harassment complaint against a supervisor.

I don't buy the conclusions reached in the 12/12 "final word" letter.  The 6-24 investigation summary is much more thorough and makes much more sense to me given the timeline and the circumstances.

So I requested documents supporting this "final word" disposition letter and I met with HR staff and the administrator yesterday after the VAB meeting to get this information.

Staff was unable to provide me any of the documentation I requested.  They had copies of documents I already possess.

I left them with a list of 6 specific questions I want answers to regarding the way this process was handled in this case specifically, and I will be pressing for those answers because they should be easy to provide as the County has released their "final word" on the employee harassment case.

But so far as I can tell, and based upon what I have been given, here is what the timeline was as it relates to this matter:


On April 23rd, a QA/QI Board was held and Paramedic Matt Selover (an 8-year county employee with no disciplinary marks in his HR file, a well-regarded employee who had been promoted to a supervisory role due to his experience and work history) was asked to participate in a QA review  board and have several of his calls reviewed spanning nearly a year's time worth of cases.  The participants who sat on the board abruptly changed from the normal Board participants, and Selover felt uneasy because he had had previous negative interactions with two of the "newly seated" QA board panelists.  He had also seen several employees be subjected to enhanced scrutiny for what he felt were arbitrary reasons after these boards--which had historically been utilized as learning experiences, collaborative and instructive for the purpose of improving patient care and service to the community--not punitive and disciplinary as these boards had recently become.  Selover participated reluctantly, with a witness of his choosing,  and had his cases reviewed.   He disagreed with many of the conclusions.  At the end of the board session, which to him felt disciplinary and punitive in nature, he continued to work his normal shifts, unrestrained and unfettered as a paramedic, for the next 21 days.  He received no additional feedback for the next 21 days on the matter.   But even though he received no immediate notice of any negative consequences due to his board--he felt he was unfairly targeted and bullied.  He decided he would file a harassment complaint against medical director Edler which is within his right to do.

On May 1st at approximately 2:00 PM--Paramedic Selover, after having the complaint he prepared looked at for accuracy by a witness to the board whom he, Selover, had chosen to attend, submitted this workplace harassment complaint to HR employee Ed Spainhower.

On May 1st at approximately 4:00 PM--Spainhower notified the medical director that she was going to be the subject of a workplace harassment claim related to the 4-23-2019 Board.  Spainhower requested general and specific documentation from the April 23rd QA/QI board and any other data that would illustrate her (Edler's)  side of the situation.

On May 1st at 5:24 PM  Edler sent an email (below) to an April 23rd, QA/QI Board participant -informing this participant that Selover had filed a complaint against her and informing this Board participant that she needed his notes, comments, and recommendations because she was going to send all the information to HR and to the State Department of Health. (Documents I have now related to the Selover QA/QI board were/are dated on or after April 23rd--but prior to May 1st---so why did these have to be requested again by the medical director?  Shouldn't she have had these?  Who had these records?)

On May 7th-  Edler had staff push out a revised policy/procedure via the below email ("policy" purportedly re-written in March of 2019) for QA/QI Boards specifying potential negative employment outcomes for employees based upon these reviews if such reviews are not favorable to the employee.  The new policy has multiple disclaimers stating "It is the intent of clinical review to improve patient care and clinical operations, not to discipline the employee" (Was this "policy"

County's Final Harassment Complaint Disposition Letter Released----Which Will Lead to More Questions

I received a copy of the County's updated final disposition letter in the Matt Selover harassment complaint against Dr. Rayme Edler issue from May 1st of this year.  The initial investigation led to a report which urged Selover be returned to duty as soon as possible.  This earlier report also described other troubling issues with the way Mr. Selover was treated.

This latest final letter reverses much of the opinion of the first report from 6-24.

This report, below, is the county's final word on that complaint.  It will lead to many more questions from me and others--particularly as it pertains to the timeline of the events from 4-23-2019 through 5-13-2019.  Specifically and importantly I'll be asking for all the information about both complaints that were filed--because I do not believe the timeframe presented below and that events unfolded the way they are described in this final letter.  More on that in follow-on posts......

Why Does this Complaint from May Still Have No Resolution for the Employee?

The below report was completed and submitted on June 24th of this year.  But the employee who made the claim has had to push to get any movement on his complaint.   Why?

Investigating and Acting upon Harassment Complaints--What if our Own Policy is not Followed?

If a board policy is not followed with fidelity, it is not worth the paper it is written on....

The Board of County Commissioners has a robust policy that details employee rights, responsibilities and avenues for reporting harassment, misconduct, and/or sexual harassment.

You can read the full, updated policy here.

The critical question for me is this though:  What happens if our own policy is not followed?

There has been a simmering complaint that was investigated last spring and into early summer.

A final disposition letter was written by our HR department on June 24th.

But then that report was shelved and the employee who made the complaint was never given any closure.  It appears to me that this employee has suffered retaliation in the wake of his complaint against a higher-up.

After I first found out about this whole nasty issue in early November---I asked about it!

The "investigation" was suddenly pulled from the shelf and re-started.  That was the rationale given to me at that time for the document I had by then acquired still being classified as "confidential."  I was told that in short order it would be releasable.

The timeframe for the final word/disposition of this long running harassment complaint that stopped and started in fits and spurts was yesterday at COB. 

In communicating just this morning with the employee who made the complaint this past spring----he still has received no final word on the status of his complaint.

I asked all last week for the status of this matter from Administrator Gilley and our County Attorney.  I thought the ten-day period for final disposition ended Thursday.  I was told it ended Friday.

Friday was yesterday.

As of this morning, no final determination has been made so far as I can tell.  The only assumption I can make is that because the employee that made the complaint was not given any answers at the completion of the timeframe, and because I have not been given any answers about the disposition of this complaint (which I have requested)-------- the final disposition is that no additional action will be taken.

At a minimum, whatever action is to be taken should have been memorialized in writing as our policy dictates.  This has not happened and this is disappointing.  Sure, there has been lots of staff turnover, and sure, we have as a county had lots of burning issues with which to contend.

But that does not relieve leadership and staff of their duty to follow our policy with fidelity and to communicate to us in those instances where (and why) these policies may not be followed completely and in timely fashion.

Meanwhile, I will be releasing the document today because it is now a bona fide public record that has been requested of me by the media.

This report was investigated and completed on June 24th.  It should have been handled then, not now.

But it wasn't.

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