City Upholds Firing; City Manager Resigns
The Monticello City Council voted 3-2 Tuesday not to reinstate Roger Minter who appealed his termination at the regular Monticello City Council meeting on September 11.
Mayor Pro Tem Bobby Jacobs made the motion to deny the appeal and therefore uphold Mr. Minter’s termination. Council woman Katherine Alexander seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and Councilmen Randy Strozier and Cornell Williams voted against the motion, and Mr. Jacobs, Mrs. Alexander, and Councilman Larry Thurman voted for the motion, upholding the termination.
The only other business at Tuesday’s special called meeting was to review the advertisement and job description for city manager, as the current manager, Bob Schwartz, announced his resignation last week, effective October 12.
Last week’s appeal hearing lasted some four and a half hours. After brief discussion in closed session, Council agreed to postpone the vote.
The city was represented by Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) attorney Douglas Duerr and Mr. Minter was represented by Mollie Pompey and Jacqueline Bell.
Both sides had the opportunity for opening and closing arguments and to present evidence and question witnesses. Mr. Duerr set the parameters for the hearing.
{{more}}
In Mr. Duerr’s opening statements, he said, “We’re here because Mr. Minter is appealing his termination. As mentioned by Ms. Bell and is admitted by Mr. Minter, he engaged in misconduct that resulted in his termination.
“So the hearing today is not to determine whether he engaged in misconduct, deliberate misconduct. Instead we are here to determine whether in fact if termination is the proper outcome of this misconduct. The issue is whether Mayor and Council followed their own written procedures and policies that they put in place just a year ago.
“Those policies provide that an employee shall be terminated when that employee deliberately damages equipment of the city. In this case that is exactly what occurred. Mr. Minter has admitted on several occasions that he in fact spread mud and wrote his name, etched it into a piece of equipment, that the city just purchased that is worth $45,000.
“What makes his conduct even worse is that he is a supervisor. He sets an example for employees to follow, for his subordinates. Including subordinates who watched him, who warned him of the consequences of his conduct with this very expensive piece of equipment.
“And the City Manager and Mr. Waymon Cody followed exactly what the mayor and council said should happen when that occurs, and that is the employee shall be terminated.“It is important to know that this was also an application of progressive discipline. Mr. Minter had been disciplined not that long before. Suspended as a matter of fact, for having used city equipment, city employees on city property to go bury a deer on the property of his church.
“He was the supervisor. He was told in April 2011, he was reminded to set an example for all of the city employees to follow.
“And I can go through and show how he was disciplined before for failure to follow instructions. Progressive discipline: written warning, reprimand, and then in accordance to the policies adopted he was terminated for deliberately damaging city equipment.
“Now he’ll say, ‘this is not fair,’ it’s not fair. Others have caused damage, and you know that he’s right. What he fails to tell you is all of the times he damaged city equipment and was not disciplined. There were thousands of dollars of damage caused, and it was determined that it was an accident. And guess what? He wasn’t disciplined.
“So in fact, he has been treated fairly, and treated just as he should be. Policy was followed and he shall be terminated for misconduct. You’ll hear the witnesses testify this evening of his misconduct, they’ll testify of the progressive discipline he received, and you will hear that Bob Schwartz considered that lesser punishment was appropriate, yet with the city’s current policy, termination was the only option.”
{{more}}
* * *
Ms. Pompey then gave the opening statement for Mr. Minter saying, “Good afternoon everybody, first I’d like to thank you for allowing us to be here, and to represent Mr. Minter based on what has been going on.
“Even though Mr. Duerr stated all of the different things that Mr. Minter has done, I came to stand up here and show you that all these things Mr. Minter has done has been a total witch-hunt.
“I plan to show you that lies have been told based on a tape I have. I plan to show you where, like Mr. Duerr say, this employee totaled a truck and nothing happened. I will show you where the superintendent did the same, but there is still no punishment.
“I plan on showing you guys that this is a total witch-hunt on Mr. Minter. Thank you.”
Mr. Duerr called Waymon Cody as his first witness.
Mayor Standifer then asked if the witnesses in the room should be sequestered, and Mrs. Pompey said yes.
After Mr. Cody was sworn in, he was questioned by Mr. Duerr about his position.
Mr. Cody said he is the Monticello Water and Sewer Superintendent, and strated work on July 1, 2010. “I oversee water works, distribution crew, and both sewer plants—and their operating efficiently.”
Mr. Duerr asked if he was successful.
Mr. Cody said “Yes. Since I’ve been there we’ve surpassed any goals set. There is a 81 percent pass rate for the first time in years.”
He said he works for the sewer side with Jordan Engineering to avoid problems with the EPD.
Mr. Duerr asked, “In your job duties, do you oversee Mr. Minter?”
“I do.”
“Did you see Mr. Minter’s request for appeal of this termination?”
“I did.”
“Did you see in there that there was an allegation that you had broken a water main without being disciplined? Did you see that?”
“I did.”
Mr. Cody described the day of the water main break as it progressed beginning in December 2011 with calling an inspector for correction and getting the proposed septic tank approved in accordance with an EPD inspector. Upon approval of the septic tank, Jordan Engineering contracted the job to Elliott Septic who arrived on March 22 and aided in keeping sewage out of the creek by installing the septic tank.
They discussed which lines tied into the main and once that line was uncovered the line they thought was running into the creek, but found it was not getting any water, so after six hours Mr. Cody asked for a recommendation for fixing the problem and Elliott recommended replacement.
“At this point I told them that I had to do my samples, waste water samples. We have to do a sample everyday for the EPD, said Mr. Cody, otherwise we would’ve waited. While I did those samples, I called Henry Greene to order the pipe line, and 308 feet were delivered the same day to the water plant at which point I had Roger Minter call and put in a locate (dig) permit. I had my samples finished at 12:45, and at 2:30 roughly we began the dig.
Henry Greene began at one end and I dug on the other, the top end, to expedite the process.”
“You had a dig ticket at that time?”
“At 1:48:17 on March 22, we were working on a ¾ inch service line that was under what used to be a water plant in the 1940s. We pulled up a service line between 3-4 p.m. and started to stop the water. After that Elliott Septic completed the job.”
“So you did have a dig permit at that time?” asked Mr. Duerr.
Mr. Duerr then introduced an exhibit of the dig ticket permit which consisted of two tickets, one that read emergency, and the other a final version that was reissued later. Mr. Cody explained the two dig tickets and the differences.
“So Mr. Minter did get the dig ticket?”
“He did.”
“He was disciplined for getting this dig ticket?”
“No, he wasn’t.”
“So with that 1940’s pipe, you did have a dig ticket?”
“Yes.”
He then asked Mr. Cody about the damage to the excavator, the incident that gave rise to Mr. Minter’s termination.
“Were you present at the site when Mr. Minter damaged the excavator?”
“I was.”
“Tell me about that.”
Mr. Cody said that “it was a long time dig, taking longer than we expected. An AT&T line had been cut that was not properly marked. When the guys were coming out of the hole, I was at my truck across the street—about 30 yards away. I was on the phone talking to AT&T and saw Mr. Minter making gestures on the excavator as he walked around the excavator.”
“He was putting mud on the excavator?”
“He was rubbing mud on the sides and once at the front, he scoops up mud and starts to write. I was flabbergasted.”
“Was this a new excavator?”
“It was.”
“And how much did this new excavator cost?”
“About $45,000.”
“Once we get to the truck, I say ‘hey Greene what’s going on? Why are ya’ll doing this to the excavator?’ “And he said, ‘I told him to stop, but he’s my supervisor what am I supposed to do?”
“When I asked Mr. Minter, I said Roger what’s going on with the excavator, and he laughed.”
“He laughed?”
I went around to all of the guys to try to get to the bottom of this. First I went to Joseph McElheney, I said, ‘Joseph, did you do this?’ He said ‘no my nickname is little man.”
I went to Henry Greene and I asked if he did it. He said, ‘no, my nickname is HG.”
“So then I asked again, ‘Roger did you do this?’”
And he acted as if I’d told a joke and continued to laugh. At which point I told my guys that you can’t do this.
“Did you report this?”
“I did.”
“Why?”
“Because it was misconduct.”
“This is pretty serious isn’t it?”
“It is.”
“You ever see anybody else spread mud on an excavator?”
“I haven’t.”
“Have you ever seen a supervisor do it before?”
“I haven’t.”
“Do you think that it sets a bad example?”
“I do.”
“Did you write up Mr. Minter?”
“I did.”
Mr. Duerr then introduced a letter that Mr. Cody wrote to Bob [Schwartz] that day to let him know what happened.
Mr. Cody met with Mr. Schwartz and reviewed policy and the two of them determined that Mr. Minter be disciplined.
Mr. Duerr then introduced the Personnel Policy and referred to pages 18 and 21, which said an employee shall be dismissed for deliberate misuse, destruction, or damage of city property.
Mr. Duerr said, “he tagged it—it had his name on it, like it’s his. He should be a good example. It was not the first time he was disciplined. In April he was warned for using the city truck as his personal truck.”
Mr. Duerr then introduced a written warning, signed April 4, which indicated that Mr. Minter was verbally warned in March. Mr. Minter had taken the city truck home, and it was in an accident. According to the report, Mr. Minter wasn’t written up for the damage to the vehicle, just for taking the vehicle home.
Mr. Duerr then introduced exhibit 4 which was a memo to Mr. Minter from Bob Schwartz stating that he was suspended for one week without pay due to job performance.
Attached to this memo was a letter from Mr. Cody as to Mr. Minter’s actions of taking his truck home for personnel use, and for burying a deer on private property at St. James Church.
Mr. Duerr asked about burying the deer.
“Mr. Minter instructed Mr. Greene and Mr. McElheney to bury a deer on church grounds. When Mr. Greene asked Mr. Minter about the dig, he replies ‘I got this.’ Mr. Greene then called me and told me what was going on. Before I could get to the church they were already finished burying the deer.
“I had a meeting with Roger on April 11, and when I asked Roger about the deer, he replied “I already know that Henry was the one that told you.” He became very irritated at Henry Greene and I heard him raising his voice at Henry and threatened Henry with his job.
As a result of this Mr. Minter was suspended for one week without pay, however Mrs. Pompey said that you were engaged in a witch-hunt, said Mr. Duerr. He then went through a list of examples that Mr. Minter was not punished for, including equipment inspection sheets, accidently breaking the windows out of the John Deere tractor—Mr. Minter did not file a damage report, as stated in the policy, and was not disciplined. There was a vehicle inspection in which there was a red mark and an actual dent in the F-350 Super Duty. Mr. Minter was not punished or fired for either of those, said Mr. Duerr.
Twelve days later, there was an incident with another vehicle inspection where while on the property of the beauty shop at the road leading to the industrial park Mr. Minter hit a pole with a truck. “All three employees told Mr. Minter that he was going to hit the pole,” said Mr. Cody. “He didn’t stop and he did hit the pole causing damage—all of the guys said ‘we told you.’ Mr. Minter wasn’t written up or punished for that incident.”
Exhibit 13, a list of things that had been damaged by Mr. Minter, and what it would’ve cost the city had they all been repaired.
There were several instances that were deemed accidents and written as all part of the job—no discipline given for these.
There was a pre-termination hearing which was recorded and present were Bob Schwartz, Mr. Minter and Mr. Cody. A typed manuscript of that hearing was printed and included in the exhibits.
Mr. Duerr then asked Mr. Cody “Since Mr. Minter’s termination has there been much or any damage to equipment?”
Mr. Cody said, “one incident, maybe.”
Mr. Duerr asked, “Will this reinstatement affect you?”
“Yes.”
“How?”
“It will make it hard. I followed the policies and the progressive discipline policy, I gave him warnings and basically it will be hard because if I ask him to do something I don’t feel like he will respect my authority.”
Mr. Minter’s representative, Mrs. Pompey, questioned Mr. Cody.
“Mr. Cody you’ve already stated how long you’ve worked for the city. We’re going to start with the deer incident. We already know how you found out about that, by Mr. Greene,” said Mrs. Pompey.
“Okay, what is the first step to perform a dig? What’s the first step before you dig? The first basic step?”
“I would have to know what type of dig it is.”
“Ah, dealing with the church and the burying of a deer. What’s the first basic step?”
“We would never dig at a church.”
“That’s not the question.”
“Okay, we know that he did wrong.”
“Okay.”
“What is the first basic step?”
“He didn’t get a dig permit. Let’s start there.”
“How many people were on that crew with him that day?”
“3, Greene, McElheney and Roger Minter.”
“Based on the facts, Isn’t it the responsibility for every employee to protect the city? Yes or no? Shouldn’t it have been their responsibility to request a dig permit?”
“They shouldn’t have dug on private property.”
“In other words if Mr. Greene was aware that there wasn’t a dig permit, isn’t it his responsibility to obtain one?”
“Mr. Greene, didn’t he know right from wrong?”
Mr. Cody replied “That’s something that you’ll have to ask Mr. Greene.”
Mr. Duerr then objected that Mrs. Pompey’s statement was argumentative.
Jacqueline Smith interrupted stating that “Mrs. Pompey doesn’t know to object. This hearing is unfair to Mr. Minter. She said that Mrs. Pompey listened while Mr. Duerr questioned Mr. Cody. Mrs. Pompey is not an attorney and didn’t know that she could state an objection.”
“That is one of the reasons that I was not understanding. He is not facilitating. He is representing this city as an attorney for the City Manager. That is unfair for Mr. Minter who does not have the money to get an attorney, because you guys have fired him. Now that is not right. He is not here to facilitate. I know what a facilitator does and so does everybody up there. He is not facilitating, he is representing the City Manager in a legal capacity.
“Now if Mrs. Pompey doesn’t know to object that is not right and everybody sitting there knows that is not right. And I understand that maybe I’m out of order but I think not, since I’m over here on this side with them. So if you’re going to have a GMA trained attorney to represent Mr. Minter who’s appealing his termination, for all intensive purposes he is still an employee of the city; that is not right and everybody sitting there knows it. The council should not allow that to happen. It does not take a rocket scientist to ask questions of Mr. Minter, of Mr. Cody…everybody up there is capable of listening to questions and taking them to formulate an opinion.
“This hearing is unfair when you have someone up there that you say is a facilitator, and you and I both know that is not what he is doing.”
At this point the Mayor gaveled down Ms. Smith, and Councilman Randy Strozier stated, “That’s why I asked the initial question of the GMA. Is he a facilitator or an attorney?”
Mrs. Pompey asked Mr. Cody, “Did they know that they needed a dig permit?”
He replied, “I don’t know their training.”
If Roger is not there, do you know that everyone should get a dig permit? Mr. Minter should’ve done that?
Mr. Duerr then said that the cross examination could be more beneficial by putting the tape in discussion out for an exhibit that the council can hear in open meeting.
Councilman Cornell Williams then stated, “She did not interrupt you when you were talking. I see you over there with a smirk on your face and judging what her questions are. We should just call for the vote.”
Councilman Strozier then said “the decision is on the council and I’m ready to vote. I don’t need to hear anymore.”
Mayor Standifer clarified that to “settle” now both parties have to agree to end any further discussion.
No one could decide to end all discussions, so the Mayor then asked “Have you produced all of your evidence?”
“No.” Mrs. Pompey said.
“Then proceed.”
Mrs. Pompey asked Mr. Cody. “Why were you compelled to write this after Mr. Minter was terminated?” She asked about Exhibit 13, the incidents since 2010.
She said the first incident was an accident—2010. The two incidents in 2011 with the trucks there was no date or time written. The incident with the limb—that was an accident and Mrs. Pompey asked why had it not been repaired. The 2012 incident was deemed an accident, and the red mark was seen by Mr. Cody, however Mr. Minter was not seen driving the truck.
There was also a question from Mrs. Pompey about Exhibits 5 and 6, which were incident reports that Mr. Cody had written on. She argued the fact that some of the things did not happen as they were documented, and the documentation was not complete.
Henry Greene was the next witness called and he recounted the events as he remembered them. Monte Roper also testified that Mr. Minter worked under him for some time upon his return from medical leave. He said that it was so some things could “cool down,” but didn’t know what those things were.
Joseph McElheney was also asked to take the stand and he rehashed the same incidences as Mr. Cody and Mr. Greene. He was questioned as to the working conditions now that Mr. Minter was gone, and Councilman Williams asked if it was easier work now? Mr. McElheney replied that things were smoother now.
During each testimony Mayor Pro-tem Bobby Jacobs asked each witness if they had been approached as to the hearing and asked not to be a part of it. He also asked Mr. McElheney if there was an incident where a police report was filed. He asked Mr. Jacobs to restate the question and Mrs. Pompey objected stating that “that refers to me, and we can handle that at another time.…”
Mr. Duerr asked Mr. McElheney if Mrs. Pompey came to his house. His response was “yes.” Mr. Duerr then asked if a police report was filed as a result, and Mr. McElheney then replied, “yes.”
All of the witnesses stated that they had known Mr. Minter for years. The employees under Mr. Minter both said there was fear of retaliation in their jobs for testifying at the hearing.
Mr. Minter took the stand next to last and was asked a series of questions by Mr. Duerr. Those questions and his responses are listed below
“What is your job title?”
“Water and Sewer Superintendent.”
“Are you a supervisor?”
“Yes.”
“Who do you oversee?”
“Greene, Barron, and McElheney.”
“Did you meet with Mr. Schwartz on 6/11/2012?”
“I did.”
“Did you draw on the excavator?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Is that a yes? This is a civil hearing and you can only plead the fifth in a criminal court. Pleading the fifth here constitutes as a yes.”
“In the hearing you admitted to defacing the excavator.”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Did you do it?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Did you bury the deer?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Do you also admit to taking your truck home for personal use?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Do you recognize Exhibit 15?”
“I do.”
“Did you receive that document?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Did you file an appeal?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Did you have that hearing?”
“I plead the fifth.”
“Mr. Minter, did you deface the excavator?”
“I plead the fifth.”
Mr. Schwartz then testified as to the progressive discipline. He said that a lesser discipline was considered and discussed with Mr. Cody and termination was the final decision. He said that after a week’s suspension without pay, there wasn’t much else.
Ms. Smith made the closing statement for Mr. Minter. She said that throughout the hearing she heard it all and that it was “biased and completely unfair. The City Manager had the benefit of a GMA attorney, and she was appalled at the unequal treatment of Mr. Minter.”
She placed the blame on the City Manager for not being accountable for his employees, and noted that they did wrongdoings daily. She questioned the intimidation of the witnesses noting that they had all testified that Mr. Minter had never been violent.
She closed with the statement “I will submit that this hearing has been biased and unjust. When this council makes it’s decision, I hope that it is in the best interest of this city.”
Mr. Duerr closed by saying that many employees don’t have an attorney, and the defendant had an opportunity to speak on his own behalf.
He said that Mr. Minter deliberately damaged property and the city responded with progressive discipline. As a supervisor he didn’t set a good example.
He asked that the council uphold the termination as was issued by the City Manager. He closed by saying, “He did it, he admitted it, and that affects everybody.”
