County Commissioners On Harassment Hot Seat; UPDATED
Mecklenburg County commissioners are slated to meet in closed session today to discuss a personnel matter that is linked to a new harassment policy the board is being asked to adopt later tonight at its regularly scheduled meeting, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The personnel matter to be discussed behind closed doors centers on allegations of harassment that multiple staffers in the county manager’s office have lodged against a county commissioner, a county source said.
“There have been numerous complaints about a commissioner making unreasonable demands of staff, particularly members of the clerk’s [to the board] staff, using abusive and offensive language,” the source said. “A number of employee complaints have been brought to Harry’s [County Manager Harry Jones] attention.”
The source declined to identify which commissioner is the alleged subject of harassment complaints.
UPDATE: Behind closed doors on Tuesday night, commissioners did not discuss any specific allegation of harassment or a particular personnel matter, according to multiple sources that took part in the closed-door meeting. But a discussion the board held in open session – specifically an exchange between Commissioner Bill James and Commissioners Chairman Jennifer Roberts – gave an indication that allegations of harassment have recently been lodged against a county commissioner by a county employee or employees.
James started with the observation that, “The minute an item goes on the agenda that says there’s a policy on harassment, especially after everything we went through with commissioner (sic) Turner [Charlotte City Council member Warren Turner], the public, and I think the media, is going to turn around and say, ‘Hmmm, which one of us did it,’ the same way that [city councilmember] Pat Cannon asked that question and Mayor Foxx asked that question.”
Responded Roberts: “I want to make it very clear that this is not related to an incident. This is a policy that has been a long time in the making and it is only applicable for anything going forward from today, if we do vote to pass it.”
“True,” said James, “and as it was discussed, we’re not allowed to talk about and we didn’t talk about any particular incidents involving anyone. But it’s not inappropriate to also say that Harry (county manager Harry Jones) has confirmed that incidents have happened – recently.
“So the point is that while we can’t talk about it, and while we have had no discussion about who it is, he (the county manager) did confirm that it happened,” James said. “Therefore it’s up to the media and the public to determine what they want to do about that, much the same way it was in regard to Warren Turner.
“I don’t know who it is,” James continued. “But I know that when asked a direct question about it (allegations of harassment being lodged against a commissioner) that is the answer he gave. Which means there’s something there, even if it’s not directly related to this policy.”
Countered Roberts: “Commissioner James, I think we’ve made it very clear that this is not related to a specific incident or incidents. It’s a policy going forward and it gives our manager a tool.”
The board of commissioners unanimously approved the proposed harassment policy.
Commissioners are set tonight to discuss and vote on “a policy and protocol for managing investigations and sanctions regarding employee complaints of harassment by a member of the Board of County Commissioners or a member of a board or commission appointed by the Board of County Commissioners,” according the board’s agenda.
The policy item was placed on the agenda by Commissioners Chairman Jennifer Roberts, apparently the result of a months-long collaboration with Jones.
“In August, 2011 County Manager Harry Jones asked me for assistance in working with the Board on a policy and protocol for managing investigations and remedies regarding employee complaints of harassment by a member of the Board of County Commissioners or a member of a board or commission appointed by the Board of County Commissioners,” Roberts writes in her justification for the agenda item.
Ironically, and perhaps tellingly, Roberts’ justification for placing the item on the board’s agenda specifically references potential problems with closed-door discussions of personnel matters when it involves an elected official.
“This situation is complicated by confidentiality and open meetings laws,” Roberts writes. “For example, laws associated with personnel records prohibit the release of certain employee information to protect the employee’s rights.
“However, these laws do not apply to members of the Board,” Roberts continues. “Therefore, while the Board can discuss personnel matters in closed session, the behavior of Board members must be discussed in open session. As a result, any discussion of a situation involving a Board member and an employee requires considerable precision to ensure compliance with all laws, including protecting the confidentiality of the employee.”
In addition to establishing a protocol for investigating employee complaints of harassment lodged against a commissioner, the proposed policy also speaks to possible sanctions the county board could seek if the allegations are substantiated.
Sanctions include “the adoption of a Resolution of Censure, removal of the member from the board or commission to which they were appointed, and any other lawful sanction within the authority of the Board of County Commissioners,” according to the proposed policy.
If adopted, the new measure would fill a gap that exists in Mecklenburg County’s current Human Resources policy, which authorizes the county manager to take action with regard to meting out disciplinary measures for employees, in response to substantiated allegations of harassment. The existing policy, however, does not provide authority for the county manager to address or take actions concerning the behavior of board members.
Similarly, the board of commissioners has a policy that prohibits workplace harassment as it applies to county employees, but no existing policy prohibiting harassment of employees by members of the board of commissioners or members of board boards or commissions appointed by commissioners.
The county board also currently does not have an established protocol for investigating employee complaints of harassment, or for board remedies and sanctions if harassment allegations are substantiated.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=7442
