ROCKLAND, Maine — The city paid out about $32,000 as part of a “nuisance settlement” to sever its relations with the community development director to avoid her suing over “meritless” claims, according to a confidential memo obtained by the Bangor Daily News.

An Oct. 10 memo from attorney Sarah Newell of Bangor, who represented City Manager James Smith, states that as part of the settlement, Community Development Director Audrey Lovering was given the opportunity to resign in lieu of being fired.

Lovering made numerous threats regarding potential claims against the city over the past week, the attorney’s memo states.

“Although those claims were meritless, we agreed to provide her a separation package to save the city from legal costs likely exceeding the payout, city staff time spent defending such claims, and unnecessary publicity,” the memo says.

Lovering’s attorney Kristin Collins of Belfast said Wednesday, however, there were claims made on both sides and that her client agreed to the separation package. Under confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, Collins would not provide details about the claims that were made.

The city manager has declined to discuss the reasons for the settlement, saying it is a confidential personnel matter as dictated by state law.

However, there was a disagreement between Smith and Lovering over how to spend state Community Development Block Grant funds on the downtown, one source told the BDN. Part of the dispute was over whether Lovering provided Smith with accurate information on whether the cost of relocating light poles downtown could be covered by a grant the city received to upgrade sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks on Main Street.

TerryAnn Holden with the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development said earlier this month that she had a telephone conversation with Lovering in mid-September concerning whether the relocation of the light poles could be covered by the grant. About two weeks later, City Manager James Smith called Holden and asked the same questions about the grant’s use.

Holden said Smith did not say why he was calling with the same questions. Holden said she told both Lovering and Smith that she would need additional information to answer their questions.

Lovering’s resignation has been a contentious issue in the city with citizens speaking out at council meetings asking for explanations on the spending of city money for the settlement.

Lovering received considerable support with backers saying she had done a great job in her position.

Lovering’s last day of work was Oct. 1. She signed the severance agreement on Oct. 10 and City Manager James Smith signed it Oct. 11.

Lovering was paid three months worth of salary totaling $21,000, health insurance through the end of January that will amount to $2,824, and $2,000 for the cost of her attorney, according to information provided by the city.

The city also paid $3,799 to Newell.

Attorney William Maddox of Rockland, who oversaw a disciplinary hearing, was paid $360, according to the city. The date of the disciplinary hearing has not been confirmed although Maddox’s bill to the city is dated Oct. 3. The hearing lasted nearly two hours.

With payments for Lovering’s unused sick and vacation time, the total cost of the settlement was about $32,000.

The city council was formally informed of Lovering’s resignation and the separation agreement by the city manager on Oct. 10. Councilors discussed the separation that evening during a closed-door session with the city manager.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. Perhaps this revelation will prompt the Council to state whether it:

    1. Has taken action that will reduce the likelihood of this kind of destruction and payout in the future, and describe that action clearly; or

    2. Will take action to reduce the likelihood of this kind of destruction and payout in the future, and describe its intentions on how it will go about this task; or

    3. (and I very much hope that this will not be their choice) Considers the matter finished, and that by inaction it thinks that there is nothing further that needs to be done.

    I am ashamed at the coverup that we, the citizens of Rockland, have been asked to accept for the past month and a half, and how destructive our government has been to our orderly process, and future ability to recruit good people, and to administer them constructively, whatever malfeasance may have occurred.

    Good reporting, Mr. Betts!

    George B, Terrien

  2. Put it to rest and let the council; and Ms Lovering; get on with the business at hand. They BOTH deserve that.

    1. Not certain I understand such a dismissal being suggested. Is not the city of Rockland out a lot of money that’s process has riled many taxpayers? Are there not homeless and hungry folks out there who would have better been served if the city has so much to throw away?

      1. Aha, someone is so smitten w/the way the finances of the city of Rockland are being handled, they fail to comment and at least acknowledge the plight of the homeless and hungry, all I got was a thumbs down?

  3. please dear city council, explain to me what procedures are in place to prevent this from happening again…surely as citizens we can discuss “procedures” can’t we?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *