Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

According to the papers we are now down to three final candidates for the Pickerington City Manager?’s position. I understand that a commission was set up to do this search and maybe there was one that slipped through the cracks.

I have cut and pasted a couple of letters that were sent in response to a Manchester Missouri Police Detective given a written reprimand by the City Administrator Barbara Burns-Mathews.

I recall the firing of a former city public information officer here in Pickerington and the dirt that our former city manager made public prior to firing her. The applicant Ms Burns-Mathews appears to have some of the very same traits as the former Pickerington City Manager when it comes to discipline of city employees. Please read the two letters below and see if you all get the same impression as I did.

I think hiring Barbara Burns-Matthews as Pickerington City Manager would put us right back into the same position the city was in before Mayor Shaver was elected. The city employees scared to act and a Manager who is a micro manager demanding it her way or you are fired. If you disobey you are not only fired but you are ridiculed publicly.

Manchester Missouri has online their Aldermen meetings. In these meetings you get the sense that the City Administrator is withholding information from the Aldermen that oppose her. I know this sounds very similar to our former Manager. In contrast to the meetings from Trotwood and Centerville where there appears to be a more open discussion and position are debated without the underlying what is missing question.

I know the Mayor can?’t make a decision based on this one letter but it does point out some very poor thought process on the part of Barbara Burns-Matthews. Even if most of what the detective?’s attorney says is in error why was the reprimand withdrawn?


''Manchester Police Officer Reprimanded by City Manager for
Exercise of Free Speech''.

(# 1 of 2 Articles)
September 12, 2002
Ms. Barbara Burns Matthews
City Administrator
City of Manchester
14318 Manchester Rd.
Manchester, MO 63011

Re: Howard Levinson

Dear Ms. Burns Matthews:

This is written on behalf of my client, Detective Howard Levinson, of the Manchester Police Department. It is written in regards to the written reprimand you assessed against him dated August 30, 2002, in which memorandum you also threatened him with further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of his employment.







By Mike Springs

Burns-Matthews cont.

This Det. Levinson, you could have counseled him or issued a verbal reprimand.

It is worthy of note that you assessed this discipline against Det. Levinson on your own. It did not emanate from the Police Department.

Your action, in terms of the level of punishment assessed, and your failure letter is an attempt to resolve this matter by means of your withdrawal of this reprimand, before the matter is taken before the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.

The facts of the matter are that the city of Manchester has had an ?“Employee Committee?” which pre-dates your appointment as City Administrator. The Committee?’s purpose has been to facilitate communication between the City?’s employees and the City?’s administration, on a wide range of issues, including, but not limited to, employee compensation.

The Committee meets once a month at City Hall. You chair these meetings. Minutes are kept which you prepare. Sgt. Jerry Johnson is the Police Department?’s representative. He has designated Det. Levinson as his stand-in when he cannot attend. Det. Levinson attended the meeting on June 26, 2002, in place of Sgt. Johnson. The minutes of this meeting mention Det. Levinson was present in this capacity. They also mention you were present. They further demonstrate Det. Levinson actively participated in discussion on a number of employee compensation issues.

On July 12, 2002, following that meeting, Det. Levinson sent an e-mail of a page and a half in length, to all City employees on the City?’s e-mail list, communicating what had transpired, including his opinions on the employee compensation issues which had been discussed. You received a copy. You have not reprimanded Det. Levinson for this e-mail.

By the way, the forwarding of such an e-mail was nothing new, as it had been Sgt. Johnson?’s practice to send similar e-mails following Employee Committee meetings. He, too, did these while on duty. In fact, these e-mails were a part of his duties as they were of Detective Levinson?’s.

On August 30, 2002, Det. Levinson forwarded another e-mail of a page and a half in length. Its content was very similar to his first one. It was authored while he was on duty. It was disseminated to the same people including yourself. Det. Levinson wrote this memo in his capacity as the Department?’s designated stand-in on the Employee Committee.

That same day, you saw fit to issue him a written reprimand for ?“extended use of city resources, which detracted from the performance of your law enforcement duties.?” You did not speak or otherwise communicate with Det. Levinson about this matter before you called him to your office and handed him this reprimand. Aside from other objections to your action, you made no attempt to determine how much time Det. Levinson devoted to writing and sending this e-mail, before disciplining him.

Your Personnel Manual provides for progressive discipline. It states, ?“The intent of this procedure is to use the minimum amount of discipline necessary to remediate unacceptable action or behavior.?” In the case of to adhere to the Progressive Discipline policy, was unfair and unreasonable.



By Mike Springs

Burns-Matthews Cont #2

Aside from this, your action was not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the City?’s ?“E-mail?” Policy, which allows employees use of the City?’s computer resources for ?“city-related business.?” It further allows ?“incidental personal use provided it does not interfere with, or conflict with, business use.?”

It is quite obvious that Det. Levinson?’s use of the City?’s e-mail resources on August 30, 2002, concerning the work of the Employee Committee, was entirely appropriate under the policy, as was his prior use on July 12, 2002, as is Sgt. Johnson?’s, as are those disseminated by other members of the Employee Committee.

Even if his use is categorized as ?“personal,?” there is no indication whatsoever it interfered with or conflicted with business use. As you know, before handing him his reprimand, you did not even ask Det. Levinson how long it had taken him to prepare and send it, or conduct an inquiry into whether it had interfered with his duties, which it did not.

It is also quite obvious that your reprimand was done for the purpose of chilling Det. Levinson?’s first amendment rights, and those of other employees who might be intimidated by your treatment of him. He spoke out in a legitimate and appropriate forum, in a courteous manner, about a matter of public concern, namely employee compensation. He did so in his capacity as a stand-in member of a Committee created by the City for the purpose of fostering dialogue between and among its employees and with the City?’s Administration.

By this correspondence, we are insisting your discipline against Det. Levinson be immediately withdrawn. Failure to do so will result in a matter being brought before the City?’s Board of Aldermen by Lodge 15 of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Your very prompt reply is requested.

Sincerely,



RICK BARRY

RB/mcm
cc: Howard Levinson
cc: Pat Gunn, City Attorney
cc: Chief John Quinn


By Mike Springs

Burns-Matthews Cont #3





(Article #2)
October 1, 2002

Mr. Curtis Calloway
Attorney at Law
500 N. Broadway, #2000
St. Louis, MO 63102

Via Facsimile: 241-6056

Re: Howard Levinson

Dear Curt:

Thank you for your call last week on behalf of Ms. Barbara Burns, the City Manager for the City of Manchester. Although I had expected the city?’s response to come from the City?’s attorney, Pat Gunn, it is my understanding you have authority from Ms. Burns to resolve this matter.

Lodge 15 of the Fraternal Order of Police has reminded me to contact you regarding what action your client, Ms. Burns, intends to take regarding my letter to her of September 12, 2002 on behalf of Detective Levinson.

By this letter, we are requesting the courtesy of a prompt response so that the Lodge can know how to further proceed in this matter.

Please be reminded that it is our position Ms. Burns had no authority to directly discipline Detective Levinson. In doing so, she violated the Department and City?’s chain of command, as his discipline did not come through the Department.

Moreover, Detective Levinson was engaging in protected free speech. The language of his memos was polite and the subject consistent with matters of compelling concern. Under the
circumstances, discipline was totally unwarranted. Ms. Burns?’ conduct also represented a complete departure from the city?’s past practice of encouraging constructive employee comment concerning employee benefit proposals.

Sincerely,



RICK BARRY

RB/mcm
cc: Det. Howard Levinson
cc: Pat Gunn, City Attorney
Reprimand is withdrawn








By Mike Springs