ABSTRACT: At the 3 November 2009 City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, precisely for Building Official John Hanson. Despite questions from Carmelites, City Council Members did not explain how, why or who was responsible for the sending of a September 2009 letter to Building Official John Hanson advising Hanson his pay differential would cease in November 2009 and his medical benefits would cease December 31, 2009. A TIMELINE of relevant events and confusing and contradictory statements by Mayor Sue McCloud is presented. COMMENTS are made, including the proposition that the letter was sent intentionally as retaliation for John Hanson’s deposition in Jane Miller’s lawsuit against the City alleging retaliation, discrimination and harassment.
While the City Council unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, precisely for Building Official John Hanson, at the 3 November 2009 City Council meeting, City Council Members did not respond to questions from Carmelites regarding how, why, and who was responsible for the September 2009 letter from Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch to John Hanson advising Hanson his pay differential would cease in November 2009 and his medical benefits would cease December 31, 2009.
TIMELINE:
• April 8, 2009: Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 2009: John Hanson gave a deposition regarding on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace; City Administrator Rich Guillen was present.
• July 31, 2009: Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• Prior to August 3, 2009: “Before John left, [city administrator Rich Guillen] and Heidi said they were going to continue to take care of the medical and make up the difference in pay like last time, and not to worry about a thing,” Annette Hanson said. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 14, 2009: Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 2009: Certified Letter from Carmel Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch advised the paychecks would stop after Hanson’s month of vacation time ended in November, 2009, and his medical benefits, through which Hanson, his wife and their two college going kids are insured, would cease Dec. 31, 2009. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 24, 2009: Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009: After hearing about Hanson’s impending loss of pay differential in November 2009 and medical benefits for his family on December 31, 2009, Colonel Eric B. Grimm, U.S. Army 40th Infantry Division Agribusiness Development Team, sent a letter to City Administrator Rich Guillen requesting “all agreements made between the City and John Hanson be continued.” He assured Guillen Hanson’s mobilization was involuntary and said he had been chosen for the assignment because of his engineering background. (Letter from Eric B. Grimm, Colonel, Field Artillery, Commanding, to City Administrator Rich Guillen, dated 8 October 2009 & Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• October 23, 2009: Mayor Sue McCloud said she was not familiar with the situation and did not even know where Hanson had been sent. Col. Grimm’s letter listed her as a recipient, but she said she had not seen a copy. “The city council doesn’t have anything to do with it. I don’t know any of the particulars, but I gather something is going on,” she said. “Those things we don’t get involved in, unless there’s a policy issue.” (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• November 2009: At first she (Mayor Sue McCloud) told me she didn’t know anything about the controversy, even though she was sent a copy of this letter in early October from First Sergeant Hanson’s Commanding Officer Colonel Eric Grimm. It asked that all agreements between the City and John Hanson be continued. Today she told me she couldn’t speak then because lawyers were involved. She said the matter is resolved.
“We amended the agenda on Saturday, and moved it forward from December to tomorrow night’s agenda.”
She said the benefits letter could have added one important bit of information. “What it maybe should have said, would have been, the next line, and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done
previously. We want to clear up any misunderstanding that there is and to move forward, you know, in a positive way.”
“Our track record is, I feel, excellent as far as patriotism, support to John, support to the military, and support to our veterans.”
And yet the Hanson’s family is still waiting to hear from City Hall about the letter and the resolution. (Cheryl Jennings, ABC7 News)
• November 3, 2009: The Mayor blamed city staff for sending the letter not knowing the council planned to extend Hanson’s benefits in early December before they ran out. (Lisa Amin Gulezian, ABC7 News)
COMMENTS:
• Without John Hanson’s wife, Annette Hanson, sharing the City’s September 2009 letter with the media and print and television media informing the public about John Hanson’s plight, a Resolution would not have been written, Mayor Sue McCloud would not have seen to the placement of the Resolution on the 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda and the City Council would not have voted on the Resolution.
• There is no evidence in the record to support Mayor Sue McCloud's contention that a Resolution was planned on being placed on the December 2009 City Council Agenda. In fact, his pay differential was to expire in November 2009, prior to the December City Council meeting. Therefore, a Resolution, if intended, should have been placed on a much earlier City Council Agenda.
• The record shows that Building Official John Hanson, a 20-year employee with the City, gave a deposition for on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace, where City Administrator Rich Guillen was present, in July 2009. Given Jane Miller’s credible claims of age-based discrimination and retaliation and corroboration of her claims by several former city employees, it is reasonable to assume that the letter was sent intentionally as retaliation for his deposition; Mayor Sue McCloud’s claims that this was just a “misunderstanding” and the letter should have read “and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done previously,” appear to be after the fact damage control.
• Finally, leadership is taking responsibility for actions, not blaming other individuals. Yet, Mayor Sue McCloud blamed city staff for sending the letter even though the contents of the letter represented a change in policy and the Mayor sets policy for the City. Moreover, the City Administrator does not act without the knowledge and approval of the Mayor, ever.
ADDENDUM (including Sources):
Afghanistan duty costs city worker his paycheck, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, October 23, 2009)
Benefits lost after husband deployed overseas, ABC7 News
Cheryl Jennings (3:45)
Carmel restores Nat'l Guard's benefits, ABC7 News
Lisa Amin Gulezian (1:56)
Sex Plot
Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international.
Oct. 29, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Called Out
Carmel changes tune on benefits for employees deployed to military service November 03, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Agenda Item Summary, L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch, November 3, 2009
2 comments:
Let me get this straight. Sue said she did not know anything about it, although she knew something was going on before she categorically said she did not know anything about it. Then she said she could not say anything about it then because lawyers were involved. And then she blames city staff before she calls it just a misunderstanding. Good luck explaining "take it out of town," etc., to a Jane Miller jury with that kind of double talk or should I say bald-faced lies.
Keep up the much needed and good work of this blog. Here I find information critical to understanding Carmel that is not covered and ignored by most of the local traditional media. If more Carmelites were better informed we might not have all the lawsuits and unnecessary bitterness and contentiouness between residents and neighbors.
Post a Comment