ROCKLAND, Maine — The Rockland City Council rejected Wednesday night a request by one councilor to investigate the circumstances surrounding the unexpected resignation last month of Community Development Director Audrey Lovering.
The vote came despite another round of questions and criticisms raised by the public at the start of the meeting.
Councilor Eric Hebert noted that there is so much interest in the matter because the director was very visible in the community. He said, however, that the state prevents the council from providing details.
“The reality is that we just can’t tell you,” Hebert said.
Mayor Brian Harden said that councilors went into a closed-door executive session on Oct. 10 and asked questions that were answered by the city manager. He said Councilor Elizabeth Dickerson decided to leave that meeting and she is now asking for another meeting to ask the questions that already have been answered.
Dickerson said she left that meeting because things were said in the executive session that were illegal. She said the council only heard from one side. Dickerson said the action was borderline unconscionable.
Councilor Larry Pritchett said an improper issue was raised by one councilor but that it stopped before there was any discussion. He said he emphatically rejected the idea that the meeting crossed the line.
Dickerson said a councilor raised the issue of an employee’s behavior at a public meeting and that state law required that the employee should have been given the opportunity to be present when she was being discussed.
City Attorney Kevin Beal said that was the case only if that employee was being reviewed by the council.
Dickerson maintained, however, after the vote that Maine law states that “any person charged or investigated must be permitted to be present at an executive session if that person so desires.”
Several residents spoke out at the council meeting, asking that more information be released.
Former Community Development Director Rodney Lynch said he cannot go anywhere without being asked what happened with Lovering.
“It’s not really a personnel issue, it’s a taxpayer issue,” Lynch said, referring to the settlement agreement that the city manager signed with Lovering on Oct. 11 in which she was paid $21,000 as four months severance, a few thousand dollars in unused vacation and sick time, $2,000 for Lovering’s attorney, and health insurance premiums through January.
Lynch said that Lovering’s resignation has set back the city’s economic development efforts by two years.
He noted that Camden, Thomaston and Belfast are aggressive in their economic development efforts. He said the city will fall further behind these communities if the city does not act.
City Manager James Smith said the job will be advertised next week and he expects someone will be hired by the end of the year.
In other action Wednesday night, the council voted 4-1, with Dickerson opposed, to grant 2.5 percent raises to Smith as well as City Attorney Kevin Beal and City Clerk Stuart Sylvester. Dickerson said she could not support granting a raise to the city manager.
The council also voted 4-1, with Dickerson opposed, to approve a three-year labor contract with the Teamsters union that grants raises of 2.75 percent this year and 3 percent in both of the next two years. The contract also requires that employees pay a larger share of their health insurance premiums, from the current 15 percent last year to 20 percent by the final year of the contract. The contract covers police, public works and clerical workers.
this city council is unbelieveable…EVERYTHING appears to be “executive session” now-a-days. the good mayor has made it an art form…and to grant raises while telling the taxpayers all information is none of our business is …well, i can’t post the phrase that comes to mind.
A little over an hour ago, I e-mailed the following message to the members of the Rockland Council:
Dear members of the Rockland City Council,
I hope to maintain my belief that at least collectively, you are guided by decent principles of behavior and responsibility, and that you serve the interests of the City before your own. In this hope, I plead that you bring the Lovering incident to a better conclusion than that which I witnessed at your meeting last night. Your debate on Resolution 64 suggested that you thought that it was time simply to move on.
Perhaps unlike some of you, I hope that the citizens of Rockland do not simply tire of the issue and allow it to die to our disgrace, and without benefit at least for our future.
I do recognize from the statements made last night that you perceive yourselves constrained among requirements you characterized as imposed by Maine law, Rockland policy, and the non-disclosure agreement. You may also be trying to avoid a larger problem, if not to yourselves officially or personally, to our employees, past and present.
Be these as they may, and particularly if you think the issue resolved, I repeat the suggestion that I made last night: identify and describe what measures the City has taken or will take to prevent repetition of the expense of such a termination under circumstances similar to those that led to the conclusion of the employment of Ms. Lovering.
And I also encourage you to discard the argument made by Mayor Harden, which, if I understood it correctly I would consider as specious as any I have read in Kafka: that he opposed Resolution 64 because Councilor Dickerson had not requested an investigation earlier. Surely you do not think that the lapse of a few days should limit analysis of responsibility, or at least the pursuit of information.
I hope that this plea will be sufficient to bring you to address the suggestion I posed above. If not, there are many more arguments I will advance, each I consider as powerful as the ones I express above, one or two at a time for as long as it takes to obtain fair resolution.
George B. Terrien
It is agregious on behalf of the Council that the City Manager was given tenure and a raise in the midst of a lot of unanswered questions in the minds of residents and taxpayers. The saddest part of all of this is that many residents who are upset do not dare speak out or show up at the meetings for fear of reprisal. The Chamber of Commerce and other local organizations run this city in great part. The new manager disposed of at least one other employee shortly after arriving and there is rumor of another who is a member of the teamsters union on the list of those to go. While the council cannot discuss Ms. Lovering, they can discuss the procedure employed. Who was the first to call her in “for a chat” and place a document in front of her which she would not sign. Had she any other infractions on her record before being asked to leave. If her infraction was so severe, why did we have to pay her to leave? Lets stop talking about the $21,000 and let the taxpayers know what it really cost to be rid of her. Again rumor places that figure closer to $33,000. There were two other attorney fees and from the talk at the meeting of 11/14 it seems they have all been coached in what to say and what not to say so perhaps legal council is still being paid for. If this case was handled according to the Charter then perhaps the residents should call for a change in the charter and take the duties of personnel manager away from the Manager. There is talk of other residents being bullied by this manager that seems quite legitimate but yet people are afraid to go public with their concerns. At this time there should be a public outcry for the truth of the personnel matter, the reason James Smith was given tenure and a raise in the midst of such controversy and Ms. Dickerson should be able to speak her truth. To fault her as the reason there will be no further discussion on the matter STINKS to the high heavens. A change within the council next week will not change the way business is being done either. The taxpayers are being severely shortchanged with regard to all these closed door executive sessions. One councilor could not quote something from the previous meeting as he left it home in his previous weeks packet that they all receive! This was an important meeting for all of Rockland. The speakers spoke clearly of their frustration and what the residents of Rockland should be able to legally expect of those serving us. It is time for change whether the public recalls any councilors or there be a call to fire the current manager. It is fair to say that it seems this is about the last straw taxpayers of Rockland wish to see. Time to put the truth out there by explaining the sequence of events, those involved at the onset and who orchestrated the debacle at the onset. Even Councilor Pritchet admitted the discussion came close to being illegal. So if Councilor Dickenson walked out, I say BRAVO to her. No one wants the nitty gritty details of Ms. Lovering. We want the facts of how a personnel matter was handled so poorly that it cost us over $30,000!
These are some of the concerns and questions I presented to the city council:
If you spell Rockland wrong on the computer, spell check wants to change Rockland to Roadblock. Interesting that this should happen now as there is no doubt Rockland has hit just one more roadblock. The most recent roadblock is not receiving answers from the council regarding the Lovering resignation. These non answers are couched with the excuse
of executive session and personnel issues. If the city received a dollar every
time council used this excuse for a non-answer the payout of $21,000 easily
would have been put back in the taxpayers coffers. That said, We Taxpayers are
not asking specifics about the individual that resigned. We are asking about
the full price and the process to us as taxpayers.
Here are some of the concerns that the public
has expressed.
The city council states that they were unaware of the resignation until October 10. Yet the employee finished work on October 1. Are we to understand that council for 2 weeks were in the dark that a high profile employee, a head of a department no less, was no longer working for the city?
This makes no sense as the council is in charge of the city manager. Yet
this is the story we are asked to believe.
Are we to understand an attorney needed to be hired for the city manager
and an attorney needed to be hired to run the hearing, that makes a total of 3
outside attorneys, and council was
unaware of this as well?
Councilor Pritchett suggests we need a Human Resource position. Under the city charter the city manager also serves as human resources. Is this one of the areas where the process broke down?
Councilor Dickerson says she left executive session because the talk went beyond what it should have in discussing this employee. Are we to understand that Councilor Dickerson “misheard” what was being said or was her leaving the meeting appropriate and justified? This allegation should be fully investigated as I do not see Councilor Dickerson saying this unless it has merit.
Mayor Harden stated that the city attorney was
not involved in this personnel matter. Further it
has been stated that the city attorney works for the council. If this is the case, who then did the city manager receive legal advice from? Clearly this severance package falls under the purview of a legal matter. If the manager did not receive legal advice from the city attorney are we to understand that he went rogue and made the personnel decisions on his own or was other legal counsel involved? If so who foot the bill? If not why was no legal counsel sought? This does not make sense. Is the communication between the city manager and council so busted that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing? Two weeks go by and the council reports knowing nothing about the severance package. If this is the case there are far bigger problems that will easily cost us much more than $21,000 when all is said and done as whatever process is occurring between council and the city manger it is not working for the taxpayers of Rockland.
Here are the questions that council and the city manager owe the taxpayers answers to:
· How many checks to Lovering were cut
and what was the total of these checks?
· What is the total in insurance benefits,
sick and comp time paid out to the employee?
· In light of this unresolved problem
have you extended tenure to the city manager and given him a raise?
· How much did the taxpayers pay for
the city manager’s attorney?
· How much did the taxpayers pay for
another attorney to moderate this hearing?
· Did the city’s insurance pay for any
of these fees if not why not?
· Is it city policy to compensate
employees who are let go for cause?
These are our questions. Taxpayers are requesting the full financial tally for this
fiasco. Please, no longer hide behind executive session or privileged information. It is time to tell us how this expensive process broke down. The ultimate price was paid because taxpayers lost a fabulous employee in Audrey Lovering. Our loss will ultimately be someone else’s gain.
Council,
just tell us what went wrong with this process? We deserve these answers and
have paid the price to know. It is time to take down this roadblock or you can
expect a continued traffic jam from taxpayers.
The Manager better step carefully as cow chips in the Rockland streets are recognized by their smell. Too often managers and councils forget there are ordinances and laws they need to follow. It may be over for them but the stench will linger in the noses of the public.