By Tom Coffin, Ph.D.
A curious but perhaps instructive side story to my abrupt firing last July 29 has emerged from responses to my Open Records requests to the City. I will summarize the events here and attach the documents as .pdf files for your consideration. [Moderator's note: PDF files are not attached to this blog.]
Complaint and Investigation
On July 28, 2008 I received a call from an angry homeowner at 199 Douglas St. SE. He said that a tree removal company had started to take down a tree on his property without his permission. I instructed the homeowner to call the police to have the cutting stopped. I promised to visit the site to investigate and assess the damage to the tree.
Soon thereafter I got a call from APD Officer E. Hicks. Officer Hicks said that the tree company had a permit to remove the tree, signed by the city arborist office. The permit was issued for 194 Palatka St. SE. I spoke again to the Douglas St. homeowner, who insisted that the tree was on his property, not that of his neighbor. I asked Officer Hicks to halt the removal temporarily until I could reach the site and investigate the situation.
Upon arrival I was joined by the complaining homeowner and by a couple who said they owned the property at 194 Palatka St. Officer Hicks arrived soon after. We gathered around a 25” diameter pecan on the east side of an abandoned alley separating the backyards between Douglas and Palatka Sts. Well over half of the crown of the tree had been cut.
The Palatka St. homeowners produced a Dead, Dying and Hazardous Tree Removal permit they said was for the tree in question, signed by arborist Michael Franklin on June 30, 2008. The permit, for 194 Palatka St., referenced a 30” diameter pecan at the “REAR OF PROPERTY, BLOCKING DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.”
There was no such tree at the rear of 194 Palatka St. The tree being cut was at least 60’ S of 194 Palatka and on the opposite side of the alley. The tree was marked on its W circumference with an orange-flagged grade stake marked “Prop. Corner.” According to the Douglas St. homeowner the stake marked the SW corner of his property. It was placed during a survey that was done in March, 2008.
Examination of the tree indicated that it had been healthy, stable and free of defects when the permit was issued. Given this evaluation and the property question involved, I posted a Stop Work order on the site and informed all parties that I was putting the tree removal permit on “hold” pending further investigation.
The next morning I reiterated these findings, with photographs, to my supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell. Caldwell called Franklin to his office for questioning. He appeared to be dismayed by Franklin’s explanation of the permit. Caldwell exclaimed at one point, “You have to at least be credible, Michael!”
I left the discussion with Caldwell and Franklin before it was finished in order to attend a pre-scheduled meeting at a construction site miles away. I returned from that meeting at noon on July 29. I was then fired.
Disciplinary Action
At the time of my firing I was pressing Caldwell to allow me to move forward on four separate disciplinary actions against Franklin. 194 Palatka St. would have been number five. Caldwell had full knowledge of all these cases, as well as two additional pending actions against Janell Bazile. Wondering if any motion had occurred on any of these cases, in mid-September I filed an Open Records request for all records of disciplinary actions in the arborist division since my firing.
There was one, and only one, action taken. On July 29, the day I was fired, Caldwell also served Franklin with a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action for a ten-day suspension without pay for his permitting decision at 194 Palatka St. This action is remarkable for several reasons:
There is no indication in the Kiva record of any site visit or other follow-up by Caldwell or anyone else in the arborist division or the Bureau of Buildings. The proposed suspension of Franklin appears to be based solely on my investigation and verbal report. I was fired but not, I can only assume, discredited.
In my experience, any disciplinary action by the City is rare. A five-day suspension is very severe. A ten-day suspension is unheard of.
Most significantly, the action does not follow prescribed disciplinary procedure. Caldwell was certainly aware of this fact. For months, as I pressed for action on a mounting number of cases, Caldwell stressed the need for systematic and step-by-step adherence to procedure. Regardless of the number or the severity of the infractions, I was ordered to proceed through both Oral Admonishments and Written Reprimands before proposing Adverse Actions like suspensions or dismissals.
Franklin appealed the suspension on the above procedural grounds. Beyond his appeal filing, however, there is no record of further investigation, hearings, or other follow-up. On August 15, 2008 – surely a speed record at the City – Franklin received a Notice of Final Adverse Action signed by Steven Cover for the ten-day suspension without pay. He served the suspension during the last week of August and the first week of September.
Suspension cum Vacation
By mid-October I had learned that Franklin had taken his two weeks off. I continued to press for the results of his appeal. A hearing date was set, then postponed. A second hearing was cancelled. In late December I received a “Letter to File Recanting the Suspension for Mr. Michael Franklin,” dated November 3, 2008. Franklin’s suspension was withdrawn and he was granted “back pay for the 10 days out.”
* * *
Lots of irony here. On the very day that I am fired Michael Franklin is suspended…on the basis of my investigation. I am “disciplined” for doing my job, Michael for not doing his. I am fired arbitrarily, with not a shred of due process. Michael is granted due process, which is then botched beyond belief. My case is reviewed in a patently dishonest manner by an “outside” Human Relations investigator. Franklin’s case receives internal “careful deliberation” by the Department of Planning. My firing is cynically and deceitfully upheld. Franklin gets a paid vacation. He remains on the job. He is held accountable for none of his serious violations of law and policy. Indeed, he is rewarded.
Caldwell and Cover are competent administrators and experienced bureaucrats. They had to know the ultimate outcome of this amateurishly conducted disciplinary action. So why? Why the rush to discipline Franklin on July 29, without a complete investigation? Why a stiff suspension instead of a reprimand? Why the insistence that he serve the suspension prior to a hearing on his appeal?
I can only guess. My gut feeling is that the unaccustomed and unprecedented rush to discipline Franklin was to give some cover for my firing: “See how tough we are? We have high standards and enforce discipline!” But not really. Ignore procedure and no harm done. Serve the suspension prior to appeal? Don’t we look tough again. We can always make it up. Vacation pay? Thanks for the help, Michael. Sorry for your trouble. Welcome back.
A curious but perhaps instructive side story to my abrupt firing last July 29 has emerged from responses to my Open Records requests to the City. I will summarize the events here and attach the documents as .pdf files for your consideration. [Moderator's note: PDF files are not attached to this blog.]
Complaint and Investigation
On July 28, 2008 I received a call from an angry homeowner at 199 Douglas St. SE. He said that a tree removal company had started to take down a tree on his property without his permission. I instructed the homeowner to call the police to have the cutting stopped. I promised to visit the site to investigate and assess the damage to the tree.
Soon thereafter I got a call from APD Officer E. Hicks. Officer Hicks said that the tree company had a permit to remove the tree, signed by the city arborist office. The permit was issued for 194 Palatka St. SE. I spoke again to the Douglas St. homeowner, who insisted that the tree was on his property, not that of his neighbor. I asked Officer Hicks to halt the removal temporarily until I could reach the site and investigate the situation.
Upon arrival I was joined by the complaining homeowner and by a couple who said they owned the property at 194 Palatka St. Officer Hicks arrived soon after. We gathered around a 25” diameter pecan on the east side of an abandoned alley separating the backyards between Douglas and Palatka Sts. Well over half of the crown of the tree had been cut.
The Palatka St. homeowners produced a Dead, Dying and Hazardous Tree Removal permit they said was for the tree in question, signed by arborist Michael Franklin on June 30, 2008. The permit, for 194 Palatka St., referenced a 30” diameter pecan at the “REAR OF PROPERTY, BLOCKING DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.”
There was no such tree at the rear of 194 Palatka St. The tree being cut was at least 60’ S of 194 Palatka and on the opposite side of the alley. The tree was marked on its W circumference with an orange-flagged grade stake marked “Prop. Corner.” According to the Douglas St. homeowner the stake marked the SW corner of his property. It was placed during a survey that was done in March, 2008.
Examination of the tree indicated that it had been healthy, stable and free of defects when the permit was issued. Given this evaluation and the property question involved, I posted a Stop Work order on the site and informed all parties that I was putting the tree removal permit on “hold” pending further investigation.
The next morning I reiterated these findings, with photographs, to my supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell. Caldwell called Franklin to his office for questioning. He appeared to be dismayed by Franklin’s explanation of the permit. Caldwell exclaimed at one point, “You have to at least be credible, Michael!”
I left the discussion with Caldwell and Franklin before it was finished in order to attend a pre-scheduled meeting at a construction site miles away. I returned from that meeting at noon on July 29. I was then fired.
Disciplinary Action
At the time of my firing I was pressing Caldwell to allow me to move forward on four separate disciplinary actions against Franklin. 194 Palatka St. would have been number five. Caldwell had full knowledge of all these cases, as well as two additional pending actions against Janell Bazile. Wondering if any motion had occurred on any of these cases, in mid-September I filed an Open Records request for all records of disciplinary actions in the arborist division since my firing.
There was one, and only one, action taken. On July 29, the day I was fired, Caldwell also served Franklin with a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action for a ten-day suspension without pay for his permitting decision at 194 Palatka St. This action is remarkable for several reasons:
There is no indication in the Kiva record of any site visit or other follow-up by Caldwell or anyone else in the arborist division or the Bureau of Buildings. The proposed suspension of Franklin appears to be based solely on my investigation and verbal report. I was fired but not, I can only assume, discredited.
In my experience, any disciplinary action by the City is rare. A five-day suspension is very severe. A ten-day suspension is unheard of.
Most significantly, the action does not follow prescribed disciplinary procedure. Caldwell was certainly aware of this fact. For months, as I pressed for action on a mounting number of cases, Caldwell stressed the need for systematic and step-by-step adherence to procedure. Regardless of the number or the severity of the infractions, I was ordered to proceed through both Oral Admonishments and Written Reprimands before proposing Adverse Actions like suspensions or dismissals.
Franklin appealed the suspension on the above procedural grounds. Beyond his appeal filing, however, there is no record of further investigation, hearings, or other follow-up. On August 15, 2008 – surely a speed record at the City – Franklin received a Notice of Final Adverse Action signed by Steven Cover for the ten-day suspension without pay. He served the suspension during the last week of August and the first week of September.
Suspension cum Vacation
By mid-October I had learned that Franklin had taken his two weeks off. I continued to press for the results of his appeal. A hearing date was set, then postponed. A second hearing was cancelled. In late December I received a “Letter to File Recanting the Suspension for Mr. Michael Franklin,” dated November 3, 2008. Franklin’s suspension was withdrawn and he was granted “back pay for the 10 days out.”
* * *
Lots of irony here. On the very day that I am fired Michael Franklin is suspended…on the basis of my investigation. I am “disciplined” for doing my job, Michael for not doing his. I am fired arbitrarily, with not a shred of due process. Michael is granted due process, which is then botched beyond belief. My case is reviewed in a patently dishonest manner by an “outside” Human Relations investigator. Franklin’s case receives internal “careful deliberation” by the Department of Planning. My firing is cynically and deceitfully upheld. Franklin gets a paid vacation. He remains on the job. He is held accountable for none of his serious violations of law and policy. Indeed, he is rewarded.
Caldwell and Cover are competent administrators and experienced bureaucrats. They had to know the ultimate outcome of this amateurishly conducted disciplinary action. So why? Why the rush to discipline Franklin on July 29, without a complete investigation? Why a stiff suspension instead of a reprimand? Why the insistence that he serve the suspension prior to a hearing on his appeal?
I can only guess. My gut feeling is that the unaccustomed and unprecedented rush to discipline Franklin was to give some cover for my firing: “See how tough we are? We have high standards and enforce discipline!” But not really. Ignore procedure and no harm done. Serve the suspension prior to appeal? Don’t we look tough again. We can always make it up. Vacation pay? Thanks for the help, Michael. Sorry for your trouble. Welcome back.
Comments