BOWDOINHAM, Maine — The town will pay former employee Alison Pepin $200,000 per the terms of a settlement agreement forged as a result of her civil rights violation complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
The settlement, signed by Pepin and dated May 18, compensates Pepin for lost wages; emotional distress, pain and suffering; punitive damages; and attorney’s fees.
According to a copy of the recent settlement agreement provided by the town to The Times Record as the result of a Maine Freedom of Access Act request, Pepin will be paid $25,050 for her claimed damages for lost wages (less income tax deductions and her FICA responsibility) and $174,950 on account of her claimed damages for violation of civil rights, emotional distress, pain and suffering, punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Of the $174,950, $33,000 is to be paid to Johnson & Webbert LLP in attorney’s fees and disbursements.
Asked about the cost to the town, Town Manager William Post wrote in an email to The Times Record that Bowdoinham’s insurance company negotiated and paid the entire settlement.
“The only expense to the town was our $5,000 insurance deductible and $1,916 in FICA and Medicare taxes for the portion of the settlement that was determined to be back wages,” Post wrote. “Both of these amounts were covered in the regular operating budget.”
The settlement agreement stipulates that Pepin now permanently releases the town and its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Co., “along with their officials, agents, servants, officers, insurers, attorneys and employees … of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, and demands,” arising from her employment with the town.
Through terms of the settlement, the town has “denied liability as a whole, and the payment acknowledged in this release was made without admission of liability which is expressly denied.”
The town also agreed to respond to requests for employment references for Pepin with a prepared letter of reference. That letter states that Pepin was hired in January 2008 as the deputy town clerk and, “because of her initiative and a strong dedication, she moved up the ranks quickly. After six months, she was elevated to the position of deputy treasurer and General Assistance administrator.”
The letter of recommendation concludes that Pepin “is a person who takes her work seriously, has a positive attitude complemented by her drive and energy, and is both a team player and a professional who wins the respect of others through her hard work, commitment and integrity.”
Also as a term of the settlement, Pepin agreed not to disclose the fact that she has entered into a settlement agreement with the town, or any of the terms of the settlement agreement, with the exception of immediate family, tax advisers and her personal attorney, or in response to administrative or judicial proceedings or when otherwise required by law.
The controversy that prompted her complaint arose after a Feb. 2, 2010, special election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen.
In a Maine attorney general’s office investigator’s report on the handling of absentee ballots for that election, obtained by The Times Record through a Maine Freedom of Access Act request, Pepin alleges that other municipal staff became aware of how she voted by absentee ballot, which resulted in a hostile work environment.
The attorney general’s office report indicates that Town Clerk Pam Ross disclosed Pepin’s vote to then-Town Manager Kathy Durgin-Leighton. Soon thereafter, Pepin took a leave of absence from her job.
Seeking public records of Pepin’s allegations related to the conditions that spurred her to file the complaint that resulted in the May 18 settlement, The Times Record requested the investigator’s report from the Maine Human Rights Commission, but it was not available by press time.
Ross pleaded no contest in October 2010 to a charge that she violated state election law related to the handling of absentee ballots. The court fined her $250 and the Bowdoinham Board of Selectmen suspended her without pay for 30 days.
In November 2010, the Board of Selectmen discussed holding a special town meeting to let voters consider appropriating $50,000 from the town’s undesignated fund balance to settle the matter with Pepin. That agreement would have capped the town’s liability for damages, costs and attorney fees at $50,000 and “result in a complete and final release of the town, and its officials and employees, without implying any admission of liability,” according to the proposed warrant explanation.
The proposal ignited a heated debate among selectmen and audience members, and ultimately the matter was tabled.
Loose lips sink ships……hope the Town Clerk now realizes that absentee ballots are still secret
Something tells me that more of this goes on around the state than anyone knows. It is too easy to “lose” ballots that don’t contain the votes for the “right” person.
Her violation of ethics was egregious. I would not vote for her again, if I lived in Bowdoinham.
And people wonder why same day registration and voting is so badly needed. B-ham should be looking over it’s shoulder since their settlement, now public record, clearly shows that the public’s Voting Right’s were violated, with the Town’s knowledge, and that because of that knowledge they took action. Any way you cut it, and it’s hard to look at it any other way, B-ham is now prime territory for a Federal Voting Right’s investigation. Somehow I get the feeling that Charlie Summers isin’t going to be campaigning in B-ham this time. Politician’s and balloon’s are identical in 1 key aspect. A single ‘prickly’ question pop’s open a lot more than anyone want’s.
And with this comes another nasty question as well. If B-ham has problem’s like this, and this is a simple one, how many other Town’s are suspect ? Voting right’s, and the entire process, is now open to question. The Deputy SOS had better get on this ‘horse’ and start, now, ‘riding it’ with the local Election Official’s or Maine is gonna be joining Florida in getting it’s voting practices under a legal microscope. Michigan, just the other day, finally got smart and dropped all of those insane ‘Voting qualification criteria’. Can Maine prove as smart or are we, as a State, gonna have to hauled to the Courthouse’s ‘woodshed’ for a legal ‘tanning’ ? Time and common sense will tell ………
So, what does this have to do with same day voter registration? If you registered on the same day, your vote couldn’t be tampered with???
Glad somebody else was thinking the same thing.
Suppressing the vote whether by setting up obstacles to registration or manipulating the counts are both illegal ways to influence the outcome of elections and have been used in the past – the 2000 Selection being a recent case in point.
Teapublicans being led by Karl Rove, Grover Nordquist, and the Koch brothers etc with their padded Super Pacs have already calculated that they only need to suppress 1% of the Democrat/Independent vote in nine so called ‘battle ground’ states to beat Obama thereby denying him from a second term. This is and has been THE Number One GOP objective for three years – not jobs NOR improving the economy
They don’t care about you, the average voter -only the 1% which is why Romney is unfit for public office.
Obama 2012.
Oh, yes. Those individuals really care about what happens in jerkwater Maine. The dems had 40 years to improve the economy in Maine. How did they do?
Do Florida and ‘hanging chad’ ring a familiar bell ? That’s why the ballot needs to be simple and filled out sufficient to indicate the voter’s choice, be it with a ‘check’, an ‘X’ or an ‘O’ and not waste time on these ‘moosepoop’ temper tantrum’s. It also requires the ballot to be put into the ballot box, or reader for those Govt’s using the ‘reader’s’, by the voter themselves. This eliminates any possibility of this type B-ham manipulating. Clearly B-ham has learned. The payout from the insurance company is going to make that clear beyond belief when the next Town Budget comes up and the Town’s Municipal Insurance rate is seen.
If the Town Manager truly believes the town’s insurance carrier is picking up the tab for this with the exception of a $5,000 deductible then either he is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes or he is not suited for his position. While this may be the case immediately, anyone familiar with insurance premiums knows these costs will significantly increase as a result of this loss. Although the Town may bring in another carrier next year, any one quoting insurance for the Town will consider the prior loss ratios and price accordingly.
This is particularity the case since it appears they have kept the law breaker, Town Clerk Pam Ross, who caused the whole thing on their payroll and left her in charge of elections.
Why on earth is this woman still employed by the town. Confidentiality of every citizen’s vote is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the job.
Yes, if it’s true that Ross improperly disclosed Pepin’s vote, why doesn’t the town fire her and sue her for damages because of the $5,000 deductible and increased future insurance costs?
I believe she’s an elected official. If Bowdoinham has a town charter, it would set forth the criteria for her removal from office. This offense may not have risen to that level. She could resign. Perhaps now the details have been revealed, she will do so.
Good point. I think Town Clerks are elected, so removing her might be complicated. Her misconduct seems serious, though, since it involves the secrecy of a ballot and was bad enough to warrant a 200k settlement.
“Also as a term of the settlement, Pepin agreed not to disclose the fact that she has entered into a settlement agreement with the town, or any of the terms of the settlement agreement, with the exception of immediate family, tax advisers and her personal attorney, or in response to administrative or judicial proceedings or when otherwise required by law.”
This artical kind of blows this requirement all to h*ll ………………. or did I miss something!!
“According to a copy of the recent settlement agreement provided by the
town to The Times Record as the result of a Maine Freedom of Access Act
request.” It was that pesky otherwise required by law phrase…
Thank you, I had to go back and re-read, must have over looked that.
The Times Record must do more in depth digging then most other paper because most times you will just see something like, terms of settlement not made public.
Ross didn’t disclose the information. She didn’t breach her agreement.
I think my right to expect the newspaper article I read will in fact be edited has been violated. This piece is a trainwreck.
hmm now if this was the state they would fight it.. I know there is an ex MSP employee going for a $100k settlement in back pay while being on unpaid admin leave. he was allowed to return to work, but they would’nt pay the back pay + interest for over a year of unpaid leave… good luck with that….
$200k…. so who now is going to hire this guy now?? I sure hope this person learns to use hte money wisely, and not waste it, and go looking for more lawsuits.