Holding Atlanta City Government Accountable

Architects Eye Stricter Protection for Trees

2009-07-02T01:07:00.004-04:00

The Daily Report recently published a fascinating account of what two Atlanta land developers -- architects Mary Clare DeReuil and Carlos Tardio -- are doing to protect the trees on their own property. Because of their lack of faith in the city to enforce its own tree laws, DeReuil and Tardio are seeking to apply a "tree preservation easement" to their properties so that the trees on their lots will be protected regardless of who owns the property down the road.

The article below has been reprinted with permission from the publisher.

Architects Eye Stricter Protection for Trees
Lawyer helps draft preservation easement to go beyond city's rules

By Andy Peters
Monday, June 22, 2009
Daily Report

With steel-framed, floor-to-ceiling windows that swing open like doors, or upward like awnings, to let in breezes and sunlight, an Ormewood Park house is designed to take advantage of the lush tree cover on its lot. The house is raised on concrete piers, so as to not disturb the extensive tree roots underground.

Conceived and built by architects Mary Clare DeReuil and Carlos Tardio, the modern-style house is surrounded by more than two dozen mature oak, hickory and elm trees. Although the house, which isn't quite finished, will have central air conditioning, it was designed to leverage the natural shade and cool air that comes from being located under a thick canopy. Lifting the house on stilts heightens the sense of being enveloped by the foliage.

“Our houses are really about making magical spaces, about being able to experience the views, the trees, the leaves, the birds,” DeReuil said. “You are in the city, but it feels like you are in the North Georgia mountains.”

Atlanta is considered to have some of the toughest tree-protection laws in the country. But the architects have taken little comfort that the city would preserve the arborial atmosphere created by their house and others envisioned on five contiguous lots, which border the proposed BeltLine network of bike paths, walking trails and streetcars.

They said that Atlanta's enforcement of its tree laws, which require permission to remove trees that are bigger than 6 inches in diameter, is spotty. DeReuil said she's witnessed developers and homebuilders ignore the ordinance and cut down large trees without being penalized, saving them thousands of dollars but diminishing the legally protected natural environment. (DeReuil on Friday interrupted a Daily Report photo shoot at her house to scold the driver of a bulldozer on a neighboring property because, she said, it was getting too close to the roots of trees on that property and on hers.)

The architects are not alone in their complaints. Some Buckhead residents this month formed a volunteer advocacy group, called The Tree Next Door, to halt what they see as the rapid disappearance of the city's tree canopy. Tom Coffin, a former Atlanta city arborist, recently sued the city, saying it wrongfully fired him because he attempted to enforce the tree protection ordinance.

The city's attorneys declined to comment on the Coffin case, pending in Fulton County Superior Court.

Hiring a Lawyer

Given their doubts in the city's enforcement of its tree laws, DeReuil and Tardio decided to seek an additional layer of legal protection for the trees on their lots. Through a referral from their real estate closing attorney, they found William D. Montgomery, a commercial real estate partner at Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin.

Montgomery's typical clients are development companies, but he understood the architects' concerns.

“Tree cover is one of Atlanta's delights, but how do you go about addressing that?” he said. “The city's regulation has ranged from overzealous exercise [of its tree ordinance], to being too lax and letting developers getting away with murder.”

After multiple sessions with DeReuil and Tardio, Montgomery drafted a legal document, titled a “tree preservation easement,” that he believes is groundbreaking.

“They wanted to create this rather unique scenario to preserve and protect the aesthetics of their property,” Montgomery said. “Their goal was to come up with a higher standard than what the city might impose.”

After his initial conversation with the two architects, Montgomery said it wasn't clear that his final work product would be an easement. DeReuil and Tardio's main concern was to be able to “self-govern” themselves, Montgomery said.

“When we got into the details, they began to realize that once you try to create a governance regime through an easement, there are all sorts of things you can run afoul of,” Montgomery said. “Folks don't necessarily want people to tell them what they can or cannot do with their property.”

But, to protect the tree cover, DeReuil said that she and Tardio, a part-time lecturer at Georgia Tech's College of Architecture, wanted to establish rules for other people who would eventually live on the site.

“We know and understand the benefits of trees. If we are developing a building, we would work around the trees, whether it was required by the authorities or not,” DeReuil said. “But once we decided to sell the lots, we knew the only way to protect the trees was to create some sort of easement that would remain bound to the land, regardless of who the owner was.

“We hope we never have to use the easement,” she said. “Even though we can sell the lots to whomever we want, we won't necessarily trust them. They could end up selling the lot to someone else, or there's a divorce and the lot is conveyed to someone else.”

The Details

Although the legal agreement he was drafting would apply to multiple property owners, Montgomery knew that a condominium declaration would not be appropriate for DeReuil and Tardio's self-governance goals because their lot would have six houses or fewer. A condominium agreement is suitable for developments with a much larger number of households. Plus, DeReuil and Tardio's property isn't large enough that the types of legal issues associated with a condominium declaration would arise.

“The property is so tight,” Montgomery said. “It's primarily the shared back yard of these five lots. When the property is that small, everyone wants to landscape and maintain his own property, as opposed to having it done to a common scheme.”

It was never their intent, DeReuil said, to create a common area as in a townhome community. Nor did they want to impose mandatory maintenance duties or architectural requirements on the other property owners. “Each lot owner owns and controls his or her property, and they are free to install benches, ponds, sheds, fire-pits, fencing, whatever they want,” she said.

Although a traditional conservation easement was not the best fit for DeReuil and Tardio's needs, some type of easement seemed to be the best solution, Montgomery said.

In a conservation easement, a property owner voluntarily transfers his land into an easement. In exchange for a perpetual promise to never develop that land, the property owner derives limited state tax benefits. However, conservation easements typically designate a nonprofit group as the beneficiary of the easement's tax benefits. That didn't apply to DeReuil and Tardio's situation. A conservation easement also rarely applies to multiple property owners.

Montgomery eventually wrote a document that was neither conservation easement, nor condominium declaration. The “tree preservation easement,” as it's titled, is designed to “operate in concert” with the city's tree protection ordinance, Chapter 158, Article II, Secs. 158-26 through 158-110.

Among its many features, the tree preservation easement provides legal definitions for the trees' trunk areas, root save areas and structural root plates. It defines the boundaries of the property to be set aside as the “conservation area.” It creates a committee from among the property owners to monitor how construction would affect the trees. It establishes a financial penalty, the amount of which would be determined by the committee, for failing to follow the easement.

The tree preservation easement also produces a litany of items that cannot be built without first obtaining consent from the monitoring committee, as well as from a private arborist, that the new construction won't damage the trees: “impervious surfaces, drives, walkways, playground equipment … picnic tables, benches, walls, gazebos, fences, terraces, ponds, water courses or features, gardens … storage materials, fill dirt.”

If an owner builds with arborist approval, but tree roots are still damaged, the owner would be assessed a fine. The fine proceeds will be used to maintain the other trees.

A private arborist shall also be hired, according to the easement, to determine a plan of action for a tree that's been damaged by wind, lightning or disease.

The easement, according to the text of the document, is “designed to insure that no one will Destroy any tree protected by this Easement Agreement, and that all development or construction of improvements within or outside of the Buildable Area located upon any BeltLine Lot shall not Destroy any such tree.”

DeReuil and Tardio, who have built homes in the city since 1994, thought Montgomery's bill, which they said was several thousand dollars, was worth the money.

“I have witnessed countless majestic and ancient trees be destroyed in my neighborhood,” she said. “There are great guidelines set up, methods to follow to protect the trees during the construction process, but I have never seen them followed properly.”

Claims That the Law is Flouted

DeReuil said she and Tardio often see the city's tree ordinance flouted. One such example they've seen repeatedly: builders erecting a required fence around a tree to protect its root zone, only to remove the fence later to allow graders to move closer to the tree, thus damaging the roots. The fences are erected as a ruse, to make it appear the homebuilder is following the ordinance, she said.

The city has failed to take seriously its own ordinance, said Coffin, the arborist who is suing the city.

Coffin had been one of eight field arborists who toured the city to examine lots where homebuilders proposed to cut trees. As the senior arborist, Coffin supervised the other field arborists and he filed numerous requests to reprimand other arborists for not enforcing the code. Coffin said he was fired in July 2008 in retaliation for his acts. (He is represented by Smith, White, Sharma & Halpern attorney G. Brian Spears and civil rights lawyer Gerald R. Weber Jr.)

The city has denied Coffin's allegations, but its attorneys declined additional comment on the suit, according to city spokeswoman Catherine Woodling.

While Coffin said he wants his job back, he also filed the suit to make the city enforce the tree laws. Coffin, who holds a doctorate in forestry, said the law was passed in 2003 after numerous interest groups, including Trees Atlanta, community activists, environmental groups and some city employees, realized Atlanta was losing its tree canopy.

One provision requires a permit to cut down any tree that's at least 6 inches in diameter—whether the tree is living or dead. Although that provision has been on the city's books since the mid-1960s, Coffin said it has “seldom” been enforced.

In the hopes that the permit provision would be enforced, and with the goal of expanding the ordinance, a group of community activists started to pressure the city in the 1990s to establish a commission to study the preservation of trees. By 1999, the city was persuaded into expanding its department of arborists. The city ordinance was later revised and expanded, with the establishment of a system of “recompense” forming the teeth of the law, Coffin said.

In the recompense formula, a developer, homebuilder or homeowner can cut down a living tree, for the purpose of building a home or landscaping, if the builder obtains a permit and pays a fee of $100 plus $30 for each diameter-inch of the tree. The tree-removal fee, which Coffin said was bitterly opposed by developers, survived a 2001 legal challenge filed by Atlanta developer Louis Reynaud.

“That was probably the first time in the U.S. that people were charged to cut down trees on their own property,” Coffin said. “It puts a value on trees. The developer has to look at trees as a resource.”

As for unhealthy trees that a property owner wants to remove, a developer can apply for a permit classifying a tree as legitimately dead, dying, diseased or hazardous. With that permit, a tree can be cut down without being required to pay the fee or to replant another tree elsewhere.

The replanting feature of Atlanta's ordinance may be unique in the U.S., Coffin said. It's designed to help the city recoup the loss of trees that are removed for construction or landscaping. If a tree is removed, the builder must plant a replacement “in-kind” tree, subject to specific minimum requirements, elsewhere in the city.

A builder who replants cannot cut corners, according to Coffin's reading of the ordinance. If a homebuilder chops down a 100-year-old oak, he can't replant a Bradford pear tree seedling to make up for it. The seedling to be replanted must be on the city's list of “desirable” tree species and must have achieved a minimum height and diameter prior to planting.

One of the most extensive examples of the replanting option, Coffin said, is Pulte Homes' Princeton Lakes housing development in southwest Atlanta. Although Pulte “clear cut” the trees in the area where they built houses, he said, the company set aside a significant area of existing forest land and also replanted trees in another housing development as required by the city ordinance.

The recompense fees can become a financial burden on developers, said Seyfarth Shaw partner Carl E. Westmoreland Jr.

“If you have a large tract of land, the fees are such a huge portion of the development costs,” said Westmoreland, who advises developers on land-use and zoning issues.

As senior arborist, Coffin said he repeatedly filed complaints with the city's tree commission that other arborists under his supervision weren't doing their jobs. They were shirking their responsibilities because the permit-granting system allows for corruption, he said, granting permits to remove dead, dying, diseased or hazardous trees too loosely. If a developer obtains a dead, dying, diseased or hazardous permit to cut down a healthy, 30-inch-diameter tree, the permit could save him about $1,000, Coffin said.

For large homes or large developments, fines can reach the tens of thousands of dollars, said Coffin.

Developers also have concerns about the ordinance's rules for taking down trees that are not located in a specifically designated buildable area, Seyfarth Shaw's Westmoreland said. Only healthy trees located inside a buildable area can be taken down, if the developer also replants another tree elsewhere or pays the recompense fee. If a tree is outside the buildable area, and the developer wants to remove it, he must obtain a dead, dying, diseased or hazardous permit, “which is always difficult,” Westmoreland said. Violators are fined and for a large development, that savings can add up.

For the largest homes and properties, the fines can add up. Coffin said he once assessed a $68,000 fine against Atlanta filmmaker Tyler Perry for illegally removing dozens of trees in a creek bed at his property in Buckhead.

A $21,714 Tree

For DeReuil and Tardio, the 30 trees on their lot serve many purposes. They're decorative. They create a peaceful atmosphere. They offer a home for birds. They provide shade and, therefore, lower utility bills.

“The tree canopy prevents us from having to install a huge air-conditioning unit,” DeReuil said. “Everyone expects that you want your house to be 70 degress all the time, but you have to use some kind of mechanical equipment to do that. We didn't want to turn the house into an icebox, we wanted it to breathe.”

DeReuil and Tardio went to great lengths to analyze the trees on their property. They mapped the roots of the major trees and designated the root areas as land on which nothing can be built. Tree roots dictated the architectural style of the home. Concrete piers, which serve as the building's foundation, were installed in places where they wouldn't touch the roots. That design that required DeReuil and Tardio to buy taller steel beams, in order to support the weight of the building.

DeReuil and Tardio also identified, with the help of a private arborist, each healthy tree on the lot and assigned each a dollar value, based on its size, species, age and condition. Two oak trees, each with a 4-foot diameter near its base, are each valued at $21,714. A 42-inch-round oak is valued at $16,623, and a 32-inch poplar is valued at $9,651. The 30 trees on the lots are valued at a total of $204,624.

It's not necessary that the other property owners on the lot build in the same modern style as DeReuil and Tardio's home, she said. Keeping the trees intact is what matters.

“Our work is considered 'modern' and that's what we prefer to build,” she said. “But I would much rather see a small well done Craftsman Bungalow house, placed delicately on the site, than a huge modern house with a garage and tons of paving.”

Partly because the homes are unlike anything private contractors ever build, and partly to save money, DeReuil and Tardio perform all the work themselves. That includes welding, plumbing, concrete work, tile work and glazing.

Some of the savings were applied to hiring their lawyer. But the easement has cost DeReuil and Tardio in other ways. It will be harder to sell the remaining parcels because of the enhanced restrictions created by the tree preservation easement, she said. Instead of a 15-foot buffer between the home and the rear of the property line, for example, there is a 50-foot buffer. That might scare off potential homebuilders who want to design a house of a minimum size.

Then there is the fact that the easement has reduced the value of their property by about $40,000, according to a recent appraisal, DeReuil said.

“The appraiser said that, although the tree preservation easement adds value to a property that already has a building, it detracts value for a builder, because he must build a smaller house,” DeReuil said.

The reduction in the property's value is a necessary evil, she said. “We wanted to be able to provide a guarantee to ourselves and to the other lot owners,” she said, “that the views, shade and privacy that the trees offer will be there permanently.”

Staff Reporter Andy Peters can be reached at Andy.Peters@IncisiveMedia.com

Tree Next Door Plots Advocacy

2009-06-14T10:27:00.004-04:00

From the Buckhead Reporter...

Tree Next Door plots advocacy
by Michael Jacobs
write the author

June 12, 2009

The new Buckhead-centered tree-protection organization in Atlanta has finalized its name: The Tree Next Door. The group had tentatively adopted the name Canopy Keepers Atlanta but voted overwhelmingly for the name change at a meeting of 14 members June 1.

Shel Schlegman, who chaired the Atlanta Tree Protection Commission for 2½ years, pushed the new name and prepared stationery with a disappearing-tree logo for the group.

"Everybody who came before the tree commission got involved because of the tree next door," he said in explaining the name.

Patty Jenkins, who is chairing the group, expressed doubts about the clarity of the new name, but others appreciated the vagueness.

"We don't want to scare people off" with a name that's "too Greenpeacey" or militant, Debbie Moscato said.

The name comes with a tag line: "An organization of neighbors dedicated to protecting Atlanta's tree canopy."... more

Atlanta Progressive News Sums It Up

2009-06-12T17:54:00.004-04:00

This just in from Atlanta Progressive News… although it doesn't say much more about the City's response than what has already been posted in this blog, this article is an excellent synopsis of the saga of Tom Coffin and how the current City Administration has quashed our city’s tree ordinance.

City Responds in Fired Arborist Lawsuit

By Alice Gordon, Staff Writer, The Atlanta Progressive News (June 12, 2009)
http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0469.html

Also, comment at our blog: http://et.ratepoint.com/lt/4789a665f19623753d18e59db16e4a3e/a829e35a51d44c04aa73a460e86f494d

(APN) ATLANTA -- The City of Atlanta has responded in a lawsuit brought by Tom Coffin, Ph.D, the former Chief Arborist for the City of Atlanta who was fired in July of 2008.

As previously reported by several outlets including the New York Times newspaper last year, Coffin produced evidence to the City in July 2008 that, while he had cited 70 violations of the tree code--a code which he had helped write--since the start of the year, his subordinates altogether had only cited 12 violations. When he prepared to discipline his subordinates for not enforcing the City Code he was abruptly dismissed on July 29, 2008.

The City denied his assertions of being fired for doing his job. In their rebuttal, obtained by Atlanta Progressive News, they presented the tree laws as a guideline rather than policy. The City presented him in their written response as making numerous groundless accusations against his subordinates, generating "his own tables" showing the other Arborists were not enforcing the Tree Protection Ordinance. They asked the case be dismissed.

"I was really pressuring my subordinates to enforce the law, there was no law enforcement going on; instead of doing that they fired me," Coffin told APN in an interview. "To me the law is very important. It was working but it has to be enforced. Things are sliding back tremendously now with the reemergence of arborists with a pick up truck and a chain saw doing whatever they want."

Mr. Coffin began his career in Atlanta at Emory University a graduate student in English in 1967. He became radicalized by the War in Vietnam and went into organizing drilling crews. He was a crew operator for 11 years. In addition, Tom and his wife, Stephanie Coffin, were two of the original co-founders of the Great Speckled Bird newspaper, which predated Creative Loafing and was Atlanta's essential alternative publication from the 1960s through the 1980s.

Coffin began climbing trees in 1986. He went to University of Georgia and got his PhD in 1995 in Forestry and Sociology. In 2000 after teaching, he became a Field Arborist. In 2006 he became a Senior Field Arborist.

Tom Coffin was responsible, along with others, for writing the City's current Tree Protection Ordinance.

The 1990s reversed two decades of declining population in the City of Atlanta. As developers from the suburbs began to build, Coffin and others became concerned that they would clear cut land.

"Metro Atlanta is 17 counties and you can see the difference when you fly over and see the red clay instead of trees in areas which are unregulated," Coffin said. In 1997 Coffin was invited to join the Tree Conservation Committee and devised the Tree Protection Ordinance. This was adopted in 1999 and in 2000 the city got four new arborists to enforce the code.

"If you are going to remove trees... you can get one of three permits, dead, dying, and hazardous trees removed and those permits are free. Then you have building and landscaping permits. If these are healthy trees, the builder must pay a recompense to the City. Recompense is defined as the loss of public value."

The new law made it very expensive to take down a tree that was not a hazard nor dying. Developers previously had haphazardly stamped trees around their plans, not noting the location or size of the real trees which they intended to bulldoze, Coffin said. After being fined they began to note the trees that were present as well as their size and location, Coffin said. Cost is a major issue in reforming the behavior of contractors. With the new law, plans had to be approved and after a few fines, suddenly builders were 90% correct on the size and location of trees, according to Coffin.

Coffin began issuing quarterly reports in 2006. He became aware some arborists were not doing their jobs. "Builders do not want special favors, they want fairness," Coffin said. "They want transparency, accountability, efficiency, and protection from corruption."

When Steven Cover became Commissioner of Planning in 2006, he hired Ibrahim Maslimani, who brought 20 people with him, Coffin said. In the opinion of Coffin, Maslimani had no interest in the tree law because he felt it hampered building.

"The Bureau of Buildings says they have taken a stand of accommodation toward contractors. They are pretending they are enforcing the law," Coffin told APN.

In the meantime, Coffin claims he was assured by his superior that he was correct and the discipline process he had proposed against the arborists would go forward. Instead he was fired.

On July 31, 2008, Coffin wrote a letter with data on that year to Mayor Shirley Franklin, City Council Members and concerned citizens on his firing and enforcement in the city.

On August 18, 2008, Council Member and current Mayoral candidate, Mary Norwood, presses for an investigation of Coffin's firing.

On August 26, 2008, Gregory J. Giornelli, Chief Operating Officer, wrote a letter to the investigating team stating that Tom Coffin was tired for not being a team player. On August 28, Coffin writes back a rebuttal in which he states the letter is covering up problems at the Division.

On October 10, 2008, the City completed their internal investigation, concluding Tom Coffin is not a team player, that he used fines instead of negotiation, and that he can be fired "at will."

As previously reported on APN's blog, Coffin announced intent to file suit against the City, using the whistleblower statute, in December 2008. The City had 30 days to respond affirmatively to Coffin's letter.

Then, Coffin filed suit in January 2009.

At present the lawsuit is in the discovery phase. Coffin’s lawyers put in a long list for documents and some interrogatories. The City has asked for an extension until June 21, 2009. Coffin says he thinks they are going to stall it out as long as they can.

About the author:

Alice Gordon is a Staff Writer for the Atlanta Progressive News and is reachable at alice@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

New Tree Group Organizes

2009-05-18T11:54:00.007-04:00

Tree advocates are joining together to demand that the City of Atlanta enforce the Tree Ordinance.

From the Buckhead Reporter...

New Group Supports Atlanta's Tree Canopy From Grass Roots Up
by John F. Schaffner
May 15, 2009

Canopy Keepers Atlanta might not survive as the name for a new grass-roots group organizing to protect Atlanta's trees — thus its tree canopy — by insisting the city's tree protection ordinance be enforced as intended, fairly, consistently and without exception.

The name was what the group of about 15 people — several longtime activists for trees — came up with for the organization at the end of a two-hour meeting May 11 at the home of Dr. Jeri Breiner on Woodhaven Road in Buckhead.

But the vote was not unanimous, and all agreed to consider it again at the next meeting, June 1 at the same location. Several in the group preferred the name The Tree Next Door.

While the group was not able to decide on a permanent name or a mission statement — those items were sent to committee for consideration at the next meeting — all of the participants understood they were there because they want to protect Atlanta's healthy trees from being cut down willy-nilly.

During remarks welcoming the group to her home, Breiner said: "This is not just about reinstating Tom Coffin (Atlanta's former chief field arborist, who was fired by the city last year), although that is part of it.

"Tom got squashed because he tried to help us save the trees."

Breiner, who said her father was a developer and she is not what is thought of as a "tree hugger," said: "House by house, we are losing our trees. Development by development, we are losing our trees."... more

Although it could stand some improvements, the Tree Ordinance in Atlanta is perhaps the strongest and most rational tree law in the nation. However, Atlanta's Bureau of Buildings has arbitrarily overturned the ordinance by firing the only city arborist who was enforcing the law without prejudice. You may recall the letter issued from the City last fall which explained that Tom Coffin was fired because he was unwilling to bend the law for some lawbreakers. The letter, signed by Alfred Elder, Human Resources Director of the City of Atlanta, said in part:

You [Tom Coffin] chose to enforce the Tree Ordinance primarily by issuing citations. Your supervisor and subordinates considered this approach extreme and elected to work with citizens in a more collaborative/non-confrontational manner.

Collaborating with citizens is a politically correct way of saying that Tom should have let developers cut down healthy trees without requiring them to pay recompense. Non-confrontational means Tom should have looked the other way when a developer refused to comply with the Tree Ordinance.

Talk about a city government that thinks it's above the law!

The City's Response

2009-04-19T22:01:00.009-04:00

The City Attorney has responded to the Whistleblower lawsuit filed by Tom Coffin in the Fulton County Superior Court. In summary, the City’s response is to deny all allegations and call for dismissal of the suit. I hesitate to post the city’s entire response here as it is lengthy and repetitious ("Defendant denies, denies, denies…"), but in Tom’s desire for continuing openness and transparency, I have posted the City’s response in its entirety below.

The suit has now entered the "discovery" phase, with the first set of "Request to Produce" demands delivered to the City this week. Tom’s legal team will soon be taking depositions in preparation for a court trail by jury.

In an email Tom issued his supporters Friday, Tom says,

I greatly appreciate your continued interest in this case, the importance of which extends far beyond me. In a cynical end-around of the many individuals and groups who worked for years to rationalize and strengthen the law, City policy is now to not enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance while proclaiming otherwise. This is a major setback to both environmentally aware and concerned citizens and to developers and builders who seek the legal protection of a "level playing field" not subject to the cronyism and arbitrary decision-making characteristic of past -- and again present -- practice of the Bureau of Buildings.

Here is Tom Coffin's Complaint against the City of Atlanta in italics, followed by the City’s Answer in regular text. It is slightly abridged by the elimination of nine boiler plate “affirmative defenses” that precede the answer below.

Please remember that donations to the Tom Coffin Legal Fund can be made payable to Tom Coffin, at 1021 Highland View NE, Atlanta, GA 30306. (Please indicate "Legal Fund" on the "Memo" or "For" line on your check.)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action arising under O.C.G.A. §§ 45-1-4(d), and Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9 of the Georgia Constitution.

Defendants assert that the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose or imply liability upon Defendants by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph I, said allegations are denied.

2. Venue is proper because the Defendant, City of Atlanta, is located in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia which is located in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit.

Defendants assert that the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose or imply liability upon Defendants by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2, said allegations are denied.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Thomas Coffin is a resident of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of the City of Atlanta and served as Senior Arborist. He was a public employee of a local governmental entity that receives funds from the State of Georgia and state agencies.

Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained In Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant City of Atlanta, employed Plaintiff, and terminated him as a result of his raising concerns about the failure of several arborists to enforce Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Defendant receives funds from the State of Georgia and its agencies.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Defendant admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Tom Coffin served as an arborist for the City of Atlanta for the years 2000 to 2008. Over this time, Coffin witnessed disproportionate enforcement of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Some arborists enforced the ordinance, and protected trees under the ordinance, while other often failed to follow and enforce the legal requirements of the ordinance.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. In the summer of 2007, Dr. Coffin applied for the newly created position of Arborist Senior.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7. When interviewed, he urged that the arborist division of the department needed effective operational and performance standards and needed implementation of employee accountability of those standards.

Defendant asserts that there are no allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose or imply liability upon Defendant by asserting the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, said allegations are denied.

8. Dr. Coffin informed the interviewers that if hired he would anticipate holding himself and his subordinates accountable to the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Atlanta, and to the established Standards of Practice.

Defendant asserts that there are no allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose or imply liability upon Defendant by asserting the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, said allegations are denied.

9. In late September of 2007, Dr. Coffin was promoted to the position of Senior Arborist, and was thereby assigned supervisory duties over other arborists in the division.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. According to the rating system used to rate Dr. Coffin’s job performance, one of Dr. Coffin’s “critical job elements” was to “follow and ensure that arborist [sic] follow the Standards of Practice as required.”

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. When Dr. Coffin was promoted, the day to day operations of the arborist division were to be conducted by the staff of the division in accordance with the Standards of Practice which had been promulgated for such purposes prior to February of 2006.

Defendant admits only that the Standard of Practices provided guidelines for general work procedures within the City of Atlanta Arborist Division.

12. In April of 2008, Ainsley Caldwell, Arborcultural Manager of the Arborist Division of the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Atlanta re-released “Standards of Practice” to the Division.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Although Caldwell’s transmittal memo in April of 2008 characterized the Standards as having been “revised and updated,” the Standards of Practice re-released by Caldwell were the same set of Standards which had been previously in place for the Arborist Division.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

14. Said Standards of Practice provided guidelines by which to ensure that the staff of the Arborist Division complied with the requirements of the City of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance.

Defendant admits only that the Standard of Practices provided guidelines for compliance with general work procedures within the City of Atlanta Arborist Division.

15. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth is a true and correct copy of the Caldwell memo described above. Said memo directed that “staff shall adhere to the Standards of Practice.”

Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. Defendant asserts that the referenced letter speaks for itself. Defendant specifically denies that the second sentence of Paragraph 15 is stated in its entirety. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose or imply liability upon Defendant by asserting the allegations contained in second sentence of Paragraph 15, said allegations are denied as stated.

16. Training of the arborists was instituted by Mr. Caldwell.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint as stated.

17. Both before and after the promulgation of the memo from Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Coffin engaged in conduct which constituted the reporting by him to his supervisors of actions being taken by other arborists employed by the City of Atlanta which were in violation of or noncompliance with the laws, rules or regulations of the City of Atlanta.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff engaged in a habitual process of accusing and reporting others for alleged violations. Defendant asserts that the majority of the alleged violations were unfounded.

18. On or about May 1, 2008, Paul Lewkowicz was working as an arborist for the City of Atlanta. Mr. Lewkowicz was issued an Oral Admonishment for an improper “Preliminary Posting” in violation or noncompliance with the ruled and regulations of the Division. A “Preliminary Posting” references the placing of a sign on property that is subject to a building permit application requiring the removal of threes. When a property is “posted” such action indicates that the submitted site plan matches the site and is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

Defendant admits the first two sentences contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. Defendant asserts that there are no allegations contained in remainder of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and therefore require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose or imply liability upon Defendant by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18, said allegations are denied.

19. In late May of 2008, Mr. Michael Franklin met with Dr. Coffin and Mr. Caldwell. The meeting was conducted as a result of reports by Mr. Coffin to Mr. Caldwell to the effect that Mr. Franklin had engaged in conduct which was in violation of or constituted noncompliance with a law, rule or regulation of the City of Atlanta including, but not limited to, the Standards of Practice, the Department of Planning and Community Development’s Code of Code of Conduct, and the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff accused Michael Franklin of an alleged violation. However, the City of Atlanta Civil Service Board found no violation.

20. Following the May, 2008 report by Coffin, Dr. Coffin reported additional breaches of the Standards of Practice on Mr. Franklin’s part to Mr. Caldwell in late June of 2008. Mr. Franklin received a verbal reprimand for failure to follow City procedures. Other deficiencies in Franklin’s adherence to the laws and regulations of the City were reported by Dr. Coffin to Mr. Caldwell.

Defendant admits only the Plaintiff made additional accusations of Michael Franklin's alleged violations and deficiencies. Defendant further admits that Michael Franklin received a verbal reprimand.

21. In late April of 2008, Dr. Coffin reported conduct on the part of arborist Janelle Bazile which he believed to constitute a violation of or non-compliance with the laws, rules or regulations of the City of Atlanta, including the Standards of Practice. Dr. Coffin reported both the facts of Ms. Bazile’s conduct and her refusal to cooperate with his inquiry as to her conduct, despite his capacity as her supervisor, and despite Department of Planning and Community Development’s Code of Conduct mandating employees to cooperate with requests for information from their supervisors. Dr. Coffin’s efforts to obtain explanations from Ms. Bazile as to her actions which were the subject of Dr. Coffin’s reports to his supervisors were rebuffed.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff accused Janelle Bazile of an alleged violation. The allegations of Janelle Bazile were not substantiated.

22. In the course of reporting the violations of the Standards of Practice on the part of other arborists, Dr. Coffin recommended that admonishments be issued to other members of the staff of the department.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff made numerous and constant recommendations for admonishments to be issued to other members of the staff.

23. Dr. Coffin recommended admonishments of other arborist division employees for mis-classifying trees to permit their removal, which constituted a direct violation of the Division’s Standards of Practice.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff made numerous and constant recommendations for admonishments to be issued to other members of the staff. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint as stated.

24. On or about July 14, 2008, Dr. Coffin submitted a report to his supervisor, Mr. Caldwell, in which Dr. Coffin pointed out that a survey of the performance on the part of the staff of the Arborist Division reflected that Dr. Coffin was the only field arborist engaged in systematic enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance through application of and compliance with the Standards of Practice. The survey reflected that other staff routinely failed to enforce the tree protection ordinance and sanctioned removal of trees that should have been protected under the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff submitted a self-generated report. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint as stated.

25. On or about July 11, 2008, Dr. Coffin sought to obtain a meeting with Mr. Caldwell to discuss the possibility of discipline to be imposed on Division employees. On July 14, 2008, Dr. Coffin met with Mr. Caldwell and provided him with an analysis of arborist production and enforcement activities. On July 18, 2008, Dr. Coffin again made a request to Mr. Caldwell for a meeting to be attended by Caldwell, Bazile and Franklin.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

26. On July 21, 2008, Mr. Caldwell responded to Dr. Coffin that Bazile and Franklin had asked to meet with Mr. Maslamani.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. On July 25, 2008, Dr. Coffin again asked for a meeting with Mr. Caldwell to which he could submit additional proposed oral admonishments to Bazile and Franklin.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. After Dr. Coffin’s reporting of such violations of the Standards of Practice to his supervisors, the three staff members of the arborists department about whom Dr. Coffin had complained met with Mr. Caldwell and with Mr. Maslamani, Mr. Caldwell’s supervisor.

Defendant admits only that Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Maslarnani met with individuals whom Plaintiff had reported.

29. Mr. Maslamani received the reports that Dr. Coffin had been reporting non-compliance with the City’s Standards of Practice and Tree Protection Ordinance on the part of the other three staff members of the arborists department.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

30. Mr. Maslamani decided to terminate Dr. Coffin as a direct result of Mr. Maslamani’s receipt of the reports from other staff that Dr. Coffin had been reporting violations of, and non-compliance with, the laws and regulations of the City of Atlanta.

Defendant admits only that Plaintiff was terminated. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Dr. Coffin was terminated despite the fact that the rating of Dr. Coffin’s job performance conducted closest in time to his eventual termination rated him as “effective” in his job performance.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was terminated. Defendant further admits that Plaintiffs last performance rating was "effective".

32. Dr. Coffin was terminated despite the fact that he had not engaged in conduct which constituted the violation of, or non-compliance with, the Standards of Practice established and promulgated for the operations of the Arborist Division.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF -
VIOLATION OF O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4

33. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

34. Section 45-1-4(d) of the Georgia Code provides that “[n]o action against any public employee shall be taken or threatened by any public employer who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to the public employer . . . . ” The Section 45-1-4 (c)(2) provides as well that “No public employer shall retaliate against a public employee for disclosing a violation of or noncompliance with a law, rule, or regulation to either a supervisor or a government agency, unless the disclosure was made with knowledge that the disclosure was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.”

Defendants assert that the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose or imply liability upon Defendants by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34, said allegations are denied.

35. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe a violation of or non-compliance with a law, rule, or regulation: He reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance. In doing so, he disclosed violations of or noncompliance with a laws, rules, or regulations to his supervisor and government agencies.

Defendants assert that the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose or imply liability upon Defendants by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35, said allegations are denied.

36. On information and belief, Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s identity as a provider of information, without the written consent of Plaintiff, and such disclosure was not necessary and unavoidable during the course of a investigation. Plaintiff was not notified in writing at least seven days prior to such disclosure.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37. Defendant terminated Plaintiff from his position as Senior Arborist after Plaintiff reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint as stated.

38. Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff was in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

39. As a result of Defendant’s retaliatory actions, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from his position as Senior Arborist, and lost wages and all benefits that he had accrued up until the time of his termination, including sick time, compensatory time and accumulated pension vesting time.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
UNDER THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION

40. The foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

41. Plaintiff reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

42. Plaintiff’s statements regarding the failure to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance were a matter of public concern and protected speech under Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9.

Defendants assert that the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and require no response from Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to impose or imply liability upon Defendants by asserting the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 42, said allegations are denied.

43. Plaintiff’s speech was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff from his position as Senior Arborist.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44. The Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff constitutes violation of the Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45. The Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff was done with malice and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Defendants’ actions were intentional and taken in bad faith.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46. As a result of the Defendant’s retaliatory actions against Plaintiff for exercising his constitutional rights, Plaintiff has suffered monetary loss, loss of reputation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants as follows:
a. Reinstatement to his position as Senior Arborist, or a comparable position;
b. Reinstatement of all benefits that Plaintiff accrued up until his wrongful termination and would have accrued had he not been terminated, including lost wages, dental health insurance, retirement benefits, all fringe benefits and seniority status;
c. Compensatory damages against the Defendant in an amount reasonable and commensurate with the loss of reputation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life imposed upon him by the Defendants’ unlawful acts;
d. An injunction restraining violations of O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4;
e. Trial by jury;
f. Reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses; and
g. Such other relief that this Court deems proper and just.

WHEREFORE, having answered within the time provided by law, Defendant respectfully prays that:
1) all Plaintiff's claims be dismissed;
2) Plaintiff's Complaint be denied in its entirety;
3) all Plaintiff's prayers for relief (a) through (g) be denied;
4) judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; and
5) all costs incurred by Defendant to defend this action be assessed against Plaintiff.

Where Did All The Appeals Go?

2009-03-06T11:24:00.003-05:00

“I see a Bureau of Buildings and a Department of Planning elevating unrestricted development above all other considerations, including adherence to law.” -- Tom Coffin

Tom’s statement above is made in regard to his most recent analysis of the appeals that were heard during 2008, the full text which can be found below. Not surprisingly, 5 of the 7 appeals still outstanding at the time of Tom’s firing were subsequently withdrawn or deferred/dismissed; whereas only 2 of the 16 appeals filed against Tom’s decisions prior to his firing were withdrawn or deferred/dismissed.

As Tom explains, withdrawals typically occur when the appellant and the city arborist resolve their differences prior to the hearing whereas a deferral/dismissal means the case was deferred or dismissed without a ruling by the commission. The fact that the majority of Tom’s appeals were never heard before the Tree Commission after his firing raises doubts as to how well the city arborists are adhering to the law.

Tom’s analysis below shows that the number of appeals filed against the city arborists’ decisions correlates with the number of citations issued – those arborists who issue more citations tend to engender more appeals. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Tom, being the most vigilant employee on the job, had the most number of appeals by an overwhelming margin.

The question is: Where did all Tom's appeals go after he was fired?

Appeals to the Tree Conservation Commission, 2008

2009-03-06T08:46:00.019-05:00

Appeals to the Tree Conservation Commission, 2008

By Tom Coffin, Ph.D.

Appeals to the Tree Conservation Commission are, by design, an integral part of the Tree Protection Ordinance. Like most laws, the TPO is a relatively blunt instrument. Though reasonable and effective most of the time, it does not cover all situations all the time, nor is it fair to all parties all the time.

Appeals to the TCC provide an administrative means to resolve disputes. Unlike a Municipal Court hearing – also possible under the ordinance -- where decisions are usually based on the “letter of the law,” appeal hearings before the TCC often allow for some bending of the law as written to encompass a specific situation.

At its best, the TCC acts as the “conscience of the community” in its decision-making. Both the commission and the appeal process have matured. After more than eight years of use and testing, both work rather admirably when allowed to do so.

Under the Tree Protection Ordinance, every decision (save one) that a City arborist makes is subject to appeal. A City arborist makes hundreds of decisions that could be appealed every month. If the arborist is implementing and enforcing the law according to accepted Standards of Practice, he or she will be appealed. It is important to bear in mind, counter-intuitively to some in the Bureau of Buildings, that appeals are positive, not negative, events. Appeals reflect the robustness of the law and the effectiveness of its implementation and enforcement system. Appeal decisions help set parameters for the scope of the law and the expectations of the public.

The brief study that follows was prompted by a chance conversation I had with a member of the Tree Conservation Commission at a social gathering. I asked if the current economic climate had impacted the number of appeal hearings. He said no, he didn’t think so, then laughed: “Of course, it seems like most of the appeals are still your cases.”

Since my firing last July I have produced several studies of productivity and enforcement in the field operation of the Arborist Division. These studies, available on the independent blog http://holdingcitygovernmentaccountable.blogspot.com/, indicate extremely low levels of enforcement activity on the part of several field arborists. I wondered if the appeal record would reflect the enforcement record.

The data used in this study was garnered from an examination of the TCC appeal files for 2008, obtained under an Open Records request. I thank Planning Commissioner James Shelby and the Arborist Division for their assistance and cooperation.

I like numbers. I particularly like graphical depictions of numbers for their visual clarity and informational density. Please bear with me.

Chart 1: Total Arborist Division Appeals
There were 80 appeals recorded in 2008. Five are eliminated in the chart above: Four addressed to Parks Department arborists, one of unknown source or outcome. The Arborist initials stand for Ainsley Caldwell, Arboricultural Manager; David Zaparanick and Frank Mobley, Sr. Arborists for plan review; Janell Bazile, Michael Franklin, Paul Lewkowicz and Stan Domengeaux, Field Arborists; and myself, Sr. Field Arborist through the end of July 2008.

Chart 2: Percent Distribution of Arborist Division Appeals
The office based Arboricultural Manager and the two Plan Reviewers account for 36 percent of the 75 appeals. The 64 percent share of the field arborist staff is split almost equally between me (31%) and the other four field arborists (33%). Lewkowicz contributes more than half of the appeals handled by the four field arborists.

There were five types of appeals in 2008: Building plan approval, building plan denial, amount of recompense charged for tree removal, illegal removal or destruction charges, and denials of dead, dying or hazardous tree removal permits. Their distribution by arborist is as follows:

Chart 3: Types of Appeals

City arborists have twin responsibilities under the Tree Protection Ordinance: Implementation of the law and enforcement of the law. Appeals referencing plan approval, plan denial, recompense and tree permit denials result from the implementation of the ordinance. Appeals from charges of illegal removal or destruction result from enforcement activities. Chart 3 shows that all of the appeals of decisions made by the plan review specialists result from implementation. The one appeal of a decision made by the Arboricultural Manager is an appeal of an enforcement action.

Henceforth I focus only on the appeals by field arborists. The distribution between implementation and enforcement appeals is shown in chart 4 below.

Chart 4: Implementation and enforcement by field arborists

Chart 4 indicates that Bazile and Domengeaux had no appeals resulting from their enforcement activities (and Domengeaux had none from implementation either). The majority of appeals for both Lewkowicz (64%) and me (70%) were for enforcement. The case of Franklin is a bit murkier. Illegal destruction charges on at least two of the sites under appeal,156 Howell Dr SW and 187 Palatka St SE, resulted from my intervention. The same may be true of other sites, but my memory is unclear. Without accounting for those circumstances, 64% of Franklin’s appeals were from enforcement actions.

There were 48 total appeals of decisions made by field arborists. Their distribution by field arborists is indicated in the next chart.

Chart 5: Distribution of Appeals by Field Arborist

Since this study was prompted by a comment on the holdover effect of appeals of my decisions I looked at the data from the seven months before and the five months after my firing at the end of July 2008.

Chart 6: Pre- and Post-firing Appeals by Field Arborists

Chart 7: Percentage of Pre-firing Appeals by Arborist

Chart 8: Percentage of Post-firing Appeals by Arborist

The numbers are far too small to define a new trend, but at least there was an uptick in appeals handled by three of the four field arborists in the latter period. My “share” dropped in half from the pre-firing period, from 2/3 to 1/3 of the cases. Lewkowicz adds another third in the August- December period. Bazile, unrepresented before August, and Franklin account for the final third of the cases in the second time period. Domengeaux is unrepresented in either period.

Let’s look again at the types of appeals, focusing on field arborists:

Chart 9: Types of Field Arborist Appeals

As seen before, there were three types of appeals of field arborist decisions. Charges of illegal destruction account for 60% of the total cases, denials of dead, dying or hazardous tree permits 37%. There was one appeal of recompense (3%).

Again it might be interesting to compare the period before I was fired and the period after.

Chart 10: Pre-firing Types of Appeals

Chart 11: Post-firing Types of Appeals

As indicated in Charts 10 and 11 and the aforementioned caveat on Franklin’s record, the suggested “uptick” in appeals by Bazile and Franklin is almost entirely limited to appeals of denials of tree permit applications. Illegal destruction appeals double for Lewkowicz in the latter period. Mine are cut by 40%. Domengeaux does not appear.

Chart 12: Type of Appellant

Home or property owners are the dominant appellant type, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the cases. Building contractors account for another one-fourth of the total, with the remainder split between tree service companies and concerned citizens (“Other”). As indicated above, no tree service company and only a single building contractor appealed a decision of the three least represented field arborists, Bazile, Franklin and Domengeaux. It was an appeal of a denied tree permit application, not an illegal destruction.

Let’s look now at the outcomes of these appeals.

Chart 13: Appeal Decisions

In theory an appeal is “upheld” if the tree commission finds that the arborist has made an error in application of the law or in the facts of the case. The appeal is “denied” if no such error in law or fact is found.

It is not so cut-and-dried in practice, given the “conscience of the community” character of the commission and given that the specific wording of similar appeals may prompt one case to be “denied” and the other “upheld” despite an identical ruling on the part of the commission.

With this important caveat in mind, it is apparent that the majority of the cases brought by Bazile and Franklin resulted in the appeal being “upheld,” the majority of Lewkowicz’ cases being “denied,” and a dead heat between appeals “upheld” and appeals “denied” in my cases.

“Withdrawals” usually signify that an accord was reached between the appellant and the arborist office prior to a hearing. The “other” cases represent either dismissal or deferral without a ruling by the commission.

I was a bit surprised by the number of withdrawals and deferrals attached to my cases, so I again broke the data down into the pre- and post-firing time periods.

Chart 14: Pre-firing Appeal Decisions

Chart 15: Post-firing Appeal Decisions

In the pre-firing time period I handled my own appeals. In this period one appeal was withdrawn and one deferred, accounting for 12% of my cases. In the post-firing period, with someone else handling my appeals, 71% were either withdrawn or deferred. All of the withdrawn or deferred appeals in the latter period were over charges of illegal destruction. At present I do not know why they were withdrawn or deferred or what the outcomes of the cases were.

Conclusions

There are two obvious conclusions to this study. (1) The perception by the tree conservation commissioner that most of the appeals were mine in the post-firing period was erroneous. In fact, most of my appeals after July were either withdrawn or deferred. (2) The appeal record overall closely mimics and reflects the implementation and enforcement data I have reviewed previously. Before I was fired I did much more than my share of implementation fieldwork and virtually all the enforcement actions in the division, with some assistance from Lewkowicz. Now Lewkowicz leads in enforcement, with little if any support from his peers.

The second conclusion is not surprising: As stated earlier, if the law is implemented and enforced in a manner consistent with accepted legal and arboricultural standards, appeals are inevitable and their effects positive. On the other hand, if arborists make decisions not based on law or science but simply on the desires of homeowners or to accommodate the plans of builders and developers while turning a blind eye to illegal tree removals and destruction, appeals are extremely unlikely. What’s to appeal? Who’s to appeal?

Personal Note

What I see in this and my earlier studies provides me some vindication, certainly, but no pleasure. What I see are overlapping and expanding circles of failure and lost opportunity. I see young arborists performing far below potential, denying their legal and ethical responsibilities, compromising their reputations and weakening their chosen profession. I see an Arborist Division sacrificing hard-earned gains in implementation and enforcement of the law that created it, willingly reducing its role in development and its voice in urban forest preservation and environmental protection. I see a Bureau of Buildings and a Department of Planning elevating unrestricted development above all other considerations, including adherence to law. I see a city administration that has lost its way, preferring hidden agendas over transparency, lame excuses over accountability, waste and fraud over efficiency and honesty.

The people of Atlanta are short-changed by these developments. Taxpayers are cheated of their money. The many individuals and organizations that have given so much time and energy over the last decade to create a strong and viable Tree Protection Ordinance are ignored and disrespected.

We have a right to expect better. We have a right to demand more. We need to find our voice and make it heard. Is that not the challenge so inspiringly articulated by President Barack Obama?

___________________________________________________________
A note from the Moderator:

Um… not quite. As for me personally, the moderator of this clearly independent blog, I was confused, not inspired, by what specific “challenge” Obama was articulating to the American people prior to his election. Now it appears that the challenge is for us to willingly go along with Big Government as it tries to spend our way out of the recession we've been spending our way into for the last 8 years -- so much for CHANGE, but I digress… this blog is about holding the City of Atlanta accountable, not the federal government.

On all fronts – city, state and federal – we have the right to expect better stewardship of the funds that we pay to the government. We should expect not just “better” or “more”, but actual, measurable results that show we are getting what we pay for.

Tom is providing the measurable results for the City Arborist Division. These results show that we are NOT getting what we pay for.

Support Tom Coffin's Legal Fund

2009-02-19T11:22:00.001-05:00

Appeal for Support

By Tom Coffin

In numerous papers written since I was fired from my position as Senior Arborist for the City of Atlanta last July, all of which are available on an independent blog at http://holdingcitygovernmentaccountable.blogspot.com, I have demonstrated that Atlanta’s landmark Tree Protection Ordinance was not and is not being enforced in any systematic manner by the field arborists hired for that task. Without enforcement the law is meaningless. It is a sham.

The Bureau of Buildings, which hired my replacement in December, now pays five field arborists to accommodate builders and developers, to look the other way if illegal destruction is apparent or suspected, to stonewall citizen complaints, to make excuses for their failures – in short, to not enforce the ordinance. This would be indefensible in the best of times. It is outrageous and unconscionable in an economic climate that has forced hundreds of city employees to lose important jobs that they were actually doing.

The non-enforcement policy adopted by the City is a slap in the face to the many people and organizations that literally spent years in highly contentious debate to forge a law that made arboricultural sense and was acceptable to all parties – from the building and development community to environmental groups and neighborhood organizations to city staff members. The Tree Protection Ordinance, including its strong enforcement and stiff penalty provisions, achieved consensus among this diverse and representative group. The current ordinance, with minor revisions in 2006, was signed into law by Mayor Shirley Franklin in 2003. It has been tested and found to be fair and effective.

The Tree Protection Ordinance was violated by my firing. The consensus behind the law was breached by my firing. The trust achieved between government and citizenry was betrayed by my firing. The law is now a shell, mere lip service for the City: “Look at what a strong law we have to protect our trees, to protect our environment!” Ask Mayor Franklin. See what she says.

My firing was cynical, malicious and illegal. I have sued the city for reinstatement and damages. Given the cost of litigation, I am essentially committing my life savings to the legal battle. I fight not just for my job, but for the Tree Protection Ordinance itself. This fight should not be mine alone. I ask for your help.

I will appreciate donations of any amount to a legal fund in my name. Strict records of all donations will be kept. If I win the suit and am awarded sufficient legal fees and damages to cover expenses I will repay the donations, with interest if possible, on a pro rated basis if not. I will “make” no money on your generosity.

I also welcome any suggestions for fund-raising possibilities. I have received an offer to hold a tree climbing event for kids from 5 to 95 sometime this spring. There have been offers of possible benefit concerts. I will be glad to speak at neighborhood meetings. We can have fun together, learn together, support the trees together.

Please make donations out to Tom Coffin with “Legal Fund” on the “For” line. Checks may be sent directly to me at 1021 Highland View NE, Atlanta, GA 30306, or to my attorney, Brian Spears, at 1126 Ponce de Leon Ave NE, Atlanta, GA 30306. Either way, all donations will be deposited in an escrow account in my name that will be managed by Mr. Spears.

Accompanying this appeal is a letter signed by five past Chairpersons of Atlanta’s Tree Conservation Commission. I have worked closely with all of them. They are all true warriors. I greatly value and appreciate their support.

2009-02-19T11:20:00.000-05:00

Support the Tree Protection Ordinance
Support the Legal Fund

By former chairs of the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission

The Tree Protection Ordinance was established under the stewardship of Mayor Maynard Jackson to ensure future generations of Atlantans the many benefits derived from living in an Urban Forest. Trees clean our air, shade our homes and streets and prevent storm water runoff from spoiling our creeks and rivers. To ensure the protection of those benefits the Tree Protection Ordinance was written to ensure “No net loss of trees” in the city. Subsequent amendments to the ordinance were added to provide the city with strong enforcement powers to prevent wanton destruction of trees and ensure that funds are available for replenishing this forest.

Tom Coffin, Ph.D., has served this city admirably, first as a member of the initial Tree Conservation Commission and later as a city arborist where he helped citizens develop improvements to the ordinance for tree replenishment and ordinance enforcement.
The Tree Trust Fund is an example of such an improvement that as recently as September 2008 provided 2.4 million dollars to Trees Atlanta for planting of street trees throughout our city.

Tom was diligent in enforcing the Tree Protection Ordinance, issuing citations to owners, developers and tree cutters for destroying trees in violation of our ordinance. His level of work is evidenced in the official Arborists records. His performance alone was significantly more then all the other arborists combined. For these efforts Tom was fired by the city for bringing to the attention of his supervisors the nearly total lack of enforcement on the part of his subordinates.

It should be noted that his superiors had conceived a “Plan” which allowed the city to fire him without cause. Tom Coffin has every right as an American citizen to have his day in court. He is entitled to have the truth come out to restore his good name and provide him with the job which he so admirably performed in protecting Atlanta’s trees.

Tom needs your financial support in his lawsuit against the City of Atlanta. Please contribute generously to his legal support fund. Future generations need your help so they may enjoy the legacy of living in an Urban Forest.

Very truly yours,

Sheldon Schlegman, Mary Catherine Martin, Sarah Mock, Tom Kowalski, Jackie Echols

The former Chairs of Atlanta’s Tree Conservation Commission

City Officials Redefine the Meaning of "Work"

2009-02-17T16:29:00.004-05:00

A brief article (below) in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution states that "City officials said Coffin was dismissed because of his “inability to work (italics mine) in a team environment.'"

I wish the AJC would do a story on what constitutes "work" in the City of Atlanta. Because whatever it is, I'm pretty sure Tom Coffin wasn't doing it.

Fired Arborist Files Suit to Reclaim Job
by Eric Sturgis
February 17, 2009

An arborist fired last year by Atlanta is suing to get his job back.

Thomas Coffin filed a lawsuit Friday in Fulton County Superior Court claiming he was let go in violation of the state’s “whistle-blower” act, which prohibits government workers from being fired as a reprisal for making a public complaint about an employee or government to the employer.

Coffin, a senior arborist, believes he was fired because he complained to supervisors that some arborists were not following the city’s tree ordinance.
City officials said Coffin was dismissed because of his “inability to work in a team environment.”

Coffin is asking for his job back and unspecified compensatory damages.

Tom Coffin's Legal Team

2009-02-17T16:20:00.000-05:00

According to an article in Creative Loafing's blog Fresh Loaf, Tom Coffin is being represented by Brian Spears and Gerry Weber, former legal director of the Georgia American Civil Liberties Union.

Fired Arborist Files Whistle-blower Suit

2009-02-16T12:39:00.002-05:00

Tom Coffin issued the following press release today:

Fired Arborist Files Whistle-blower Suit Against the City of Atlanta

Tom Coffin, whose sudden unexplained firing from his position as Senior Arborist for the City of Atlanta in July 2008 sparked a wave of citizen protest and media coverage, filed suit against the City in Fulton County Superior Court on February 13, 2009. Coffin’s suit charges the City with violations of the Georgia “Whistle-blower” statute and his right to free speech under the Georgia Constitution.

Coffin, 65, was one of the first field arborists hired by the City in 2000 to implement a re-written Tree Protection Ordinance. He was elevated to a newly created post of Arborist, Sr. in October 2007, with supervisory responsibility for the field arborist operation. He was fired after presenting evidence to his superiors of lack of enforcement of the ordinance by other field arborists and while trying to initiate disciplinary actions against two of his subordinates who had failed to enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Coffin states that he is dismayed by the need to go to court against the city. “The City Council passed and the Mayor signed the Tree Protection Ordinance in recognition of how important trees are to the health and well-being of the city. I was hired to enforce the law and to ensure that my colleagues did so as well. My firing leaves the city with a broken ordinance and a mockery of enforcement. It is outrageous that I should have to sue for my job while the City, in the midst of a severe economic crisis, pays five field arborists to ‘look the other way’ and make excuses for their lack of performance and accountability to the law.”

Below is a copy of the complaint filed in Superior Court. For further information contact attorneys Brian Spears at 404 872-7086 or Gerry Weber at 404 932-5845.

TOM COFFIN vs. CITY OF ATLANTA

2009-02-16T11:35:00.008-05:00

Tom Coffin filed suit against the City of Atlanta on Friday. Here is the text of his complaint in its entirety:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

THOMAS COFFIN, Plaintiff

vs.

CITY OF ATLANTA, Defendant.

Civil Action

File No.:

Jury Trial Demanded

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

This is a whistle-blower case arising from the termination of Dr. Thomas Coffin, Plaintiff, as Senior Arborist for the City of Atlanta, after he raised concerns about the failure of several arborists to enforce Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. By and through counsel, he hereby shows this Honorable Court the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action arising under O.C.G.A. §§ 45-1-4(d), and Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9 of the Georgia Constitution.
2. Venue is proper because the Defendant, City of Atlanta, is located in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia which is located in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Thomas Coffin is a resident of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of the City of Atlanta and served as Senior Arborist. He was a public employee of a local governmental entity that receives funds from the State of Georgia and state agencies.
4. Defendant City of Atlanta, employed Plaintiff, and terminated him as a result of his raising concerns about the failure of several arborists to enforce Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Defendant receives funds from the State of Georgia and its agencies.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Tom Coffin served as an arborist for the City of Atlanta for the years 2000 to 2008. Over this time, Coffin witnessed disproportionate enforcement of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Some arborists enforced the ordinance, and protected trees under the ordinance, while other often failed to follow and enforce the legal requirements of the ordinance.
6. In the summer of 2007, Dr. Coffin applied for the newly created position of Arborist Senior.
7. When interviewed, he urged that the arborist division of the department needed effective operational and performance standards and needed implementation of employee accountability of those standards.
8. Dr. Coffin informed the interviewers that if hired he would anticipate holding himself and his subordinates accountable to the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Atlanta, and to the established Standards of Practice.
9. In late September of 2007, Dr. Coffin was promoted to the position of Senior Arborist, and was thereby assigned supervisory duties over other arborists in the division.

10. According to the rating system used to rate Dr. Coffin’s job performance, one of Dr. Coffin’s “critical job elements” was to “follow and ensure that arborist [sic] follow the Standards of Practice as required.”
11. When Dr. Coffin was promoted, the day to day operations of the arborist division were to be conducted by the staff of the division in accordance with the Standards of Practice which had been promulgated for such purposes prior to February of 2006.
12. In April of 2008, Ainsley Caldwell, Arborcultural Manager of the Arborist Division of the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Atlanta re-released “Standards of Practice” to the Division.
13. Although Caldwell’s transmittal memo in April of 2008 characterized the Standards as having been “revised and updated,” the Standards of Practice re-released by Caldwell were the same set of Standards which had been previously in place for the Arborist Division.
14. Said Standards of Practice provided guidelines by which to ensure that the staff of the Arborist Division complied with the requirements of the City of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
15. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth is a true and correct copy of the Caldwell memo described above. Said memo directed that “staff shall adhere to the Standards of Practice.”
16. Training of the arborists was instituted by Mr. Caldwell.
17. Both before and after the promulgation of the memo from Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Coffin engaged in conduct which constituted the reporting by him to his supervisors of actions being taken by other arborists employed by the City of Atlanta which were in violation of or noncompliance with the laws, rules or regulations of the City of Atlanta.
18. On or about May 1, 2008, Paul Lewkowicz was working as an arborist for the City of Atlanta. Mr. Lewkowicz was issued an Oral Admonishment for an improper “Preliminary Posting” in violation or noncompliance with the ruled and regulations of the Division. A “Preliminary Posting” references the placing of a sign on property that is subject to a building permit application requiring the removal of threes. When a property is “posted” such action indicates that the submitted site plan matches the site and is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.
19. In late May of 2008, Mr. Michael Franklin met with Dr. Coffin and Mr. Caldwell. The meeting was conducted as a result of reports by Mr. Coffin to Mr. Caldwell to the effect that Mr. Franklin had engaged in conduct which was in violation of or constituted noncompliance with a law, rule or regulation of the City of Atlanta including, but not limited to, the Standards of Practice, the Department of Planning and Community Development’s Code of Code of Conduct, and the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances.
20. Following the May, 2008 report by Coffin, Dr. Coffin reported additional breaches of the Standards of Practice on Mr. Franklin’s part to Mr. Caldwell in late June of 2008. Mr. Franklin received a verbal reprimand for failure to follow City procedures. Other deficiencies in Franklin’s adherence to the laws and regulations of the City were reported by Dr. Coffin to Mr. Caldwell.
21. In late April of 2008, Dr. Coffin reported conduct on the part of arborist Janelle Bazile which he believed to constitute a violation of or non-compliance with the laws, rules or regulations of the City of Atlanta, including the Standards of Practice. Dr. Coffin reported both the facts of Ms. Bazile’s conduct and her refusal to cooperate with his inquiry as to her conduct, despite his capacity as her supervisor, and despite Department of Planning and Community Development’s Code of Conduct mandating employees to cooperate with requests for information from their supervisors. Dr. Coffin’s efforts to obtain explanations from Ms. Bazile as to her actions which were the subject of Dr. Coffin’s reports to his supervisors were rebuffed.
22. In the course of reporting the violations of the Standards of Practice on the part of other arborists, Dr. Coffin recommended that admonishments be issued to other members of the staff of the department.
23. Dr. Coffin recommended admonishments of other arborist division employees for mis-classifying trees to permit their removal, which constituted a direct violation of the Division’s Standards of Practice.
24. On or about July 14, 2008, Dr. Coffin submitted a report to his supervisor, Mr. Caldwell, in which Dr. Coffin pointed out that a survey of the performance on the part of the staff of the Arborist Division reflected that Dr. Coffin was the only field arborist engaged in systematic enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance through application of and compliance with the Standards of Practice. The survey reflected that other staff routinely failed to enforce the tree protection ordinance and sanctioned removal of trees that should have been protected under the Tree Protection Ordinance.
25. On or about July 11, 2008, Dr. Coffin sought to obtain a meeting with Mr. Caldwell to discuss the possibility of discipline to be imposed on Division employees. On July 14, 2008, Dr. Coffin met with Mr. Caldwell and provided him with an analysis of arborist production and enforcement activities. On July 18, 2008, Dr. Coffin again made a request to Mr. Caldwell for a meeting to be attended by Caldwell, Bazile and Franklin.
26. On July 21, 2008, Mr. Caldwell responded to Dr. Coffin that Bazile and Franklin had asked to meet with Mr. Maslamani.
27. On July 25, 2008, Dr. Coffin again asked for a meeting with Mr. Caldwell to which he could submit additional proposed oral admonishments to Bazile and Franklin.
28. After Dr. Coffin’s reporting of such violations of the Standards of Practice to his supervisors, the three staff members of the arborists department about whom Dr. Coffin had complained met with Mr. Caldwell and with Mr. Maslamani, Mr. Caldwell’s supervisor.
29. Mr. Maslamani received the reports that Dr. Coffin had been reporting non-compliance with the City’s Standards of Practice and Tree Protection Ordinance on the part of the other three staff members of the arborists department.
30. Mr. Maslamani decided to terminate Dr. Coffin as a direct result of Mr. Maslamani’s receipt of the reports from other staff that Dr. Coffin had been reporting violations of, and non-compliance with, the laws and regulations of the City of Atlanta.
31. Dr. Coffin was terminated despite the fact that the rating of Dr. Coffin’s job performance conducted closest in time to his eventual termination rated him as “effective” in his job performance.
32. Dr. Coffin was terminated despite the fact that he had not engaged in conduct which constituted the violation of, or non-compliance with, the Standards of Practice established and promulgated for the operations of the Arborist Division.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF -
VIOLATION OF O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4

33. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
34. Section 45-1-4(d) of the Georgia Code provides that “[n]o action against any public employee shall be taken or threatened by any public employer who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to the public employer . . . . ” The Section 45-1-4 (c)(2) provides as well that “No public employer shall retaliate against a public employee for disclosing a violation of or noncompliance with a law, rule, or regulation to either a supervisor or a government agency, unless the disclosure was made with knowledge that the disclosure was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.”
35. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe a violation of or non-compliance with a law, rule, or regulation: He reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance. In doing so, he disclosed violations of or noncompliance with a laws, rules, or regulations to his supervisor and government agencies.
36. On information and belief, Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s identity as a provider of information, without the written consent of Plaintiff, and such disclosure was not necessary and unavoidable during the course of a investigation. Plaintiff was not notified in writing at least seven days prior to such disclosure.
37. Defendant terminated Plaintiff from his position as Senior Arborist after Plaintiff reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.
38. Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff was in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.
39. As a result of Defendant’s retaliatory actions, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from his position as Senior Arborist, and lost wages and all benefits that he had accrued up until the time of his termination, including sick time, compensatory time and accumulated pension vesting time.

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
UNDER THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION

40. The foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
41. Plaintiff reported that arborists employed by the City of Atlanta were failing to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance.
42. Plaintiff’s statements regarding the failure to enforce the Atlanta Tree Protection Ordinance were a matter of public concern and protected speech under Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9.
43. Plaintiff’s speech was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff from his position as Senior Arborist.
44. The Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff constitutes violation of the Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, paragraphs 3, 5 and 9.
45. The Defendant’s action of terminating Plaintiff was done with malice and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Defendants’ actions were intentional and taken in bad faith.
46. As a result of the Defendant’s retaliatory actions against Plaintiff for exercising his constitutional rights, Plaintiff has suffered monetary loss, loss of reputation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants as follows:
a. Reinstatement to his position as Senior Arborist, or a comparable position;
b. Reinstatement of all benefits that Plaintiff accrued up until his wrongful termination and would have accrued had he not been terminated, including lost wages, dental health insurance, retirement benefits, all fringe benefits and seniority status;
c. Compensatory damages against the Defendant in an amount reasonable and commensurate with the loss of reputation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life imposed upon him by the Defendants’ unlawful acts;
d. An injunction restraining violations of O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4;
e. Trial by jury;
f. Reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses; and
g. Such other relief that this Court deems proper and just.

______________________________
Gerald Weber
Georgia Bar No. 744878
Post Office Box 5391
Atlanta, Georgia 31107
Phone: (404) 522-0507
wgerryweber@gmail.com

____________________________
Brian Spears
Georgia Bar No. 670122
1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 872-7086
bspears@mindspring.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Adding Insult to Outrage

2009-01-31T00:01:00.002-05:00

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.

Fired Atlanta Arborist Wants His Job Back

2009-01-26T13:19:00.001-05:00

From Creative Loafing:

"Tom Coffin, the Atlanta senior field arborist whose firing last summer sparked a firestorm of controversy, says he’s mulling legal options if the city doesn’t rehire him.

In mid-December, his attorney told the city — in the form of an ante litum notice — that he planned to sue to under the city’s “whistleblower” statute. Coffin has maintained he was fired because he alerted superiors about alleged lax enforcement by his colleagues of the tree ordinance — an eco-minded yet controversial law that forces homeowners or businesses to meet criteria before cutting down trees. Coffin, whom we cheekily referred to as a real-life Lorax, helped write the ordinance, and has earned both praise and scorn from residents and developers for keeping a watchful eye on its enforcement." ... more

Missed Arborist Fights for Job

2009-01-23T23:33:00.000-05:00

From the Buckhead Reporter...

"Fired Atlanta senior arborist Tom Coffin is preparing for a hearing that could help win him his job back even as incidents of tree destruction continue to make Buckhead residents long for the days when he was defending the city's tree canopy.

One recent trees-vs.-development case involves a $2.9 million house being built at 705 Fairfield Road. The clearing of the lot for the construction involved the destruction of 84 trees, a plan that received a tree-removal permit April 16, 2007, according to the records of the city's arborist office.

But Neighborhood Planning Unit A (NPU-A) board member Debra Fowler spotted more trees cut down just before Christmas."... more

City Council: "Do the Right Thing!"

2009-01-19T23:56:00.003-05:00

Below is an email Sheldon Schlegman sent this morning to City Council members in regard to the City Council's Public Safety Committee’s consideration to reinstate Tom Coffin. I’d encourage everyone to write these committee members as well - their contact info is below.

From: sheldon schlegman
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 9:00 AM
To: anne fauver; kwanza hall; c.t. martin; joyce sheperd; h.lamar willis; cleta winslow
Subject: Tom Coffins firing.

Atlanta City Council Members:

Please use your office to rehire Tom Coffin. He is the only Arborist who understands the law and enforces it. Unfortunately his boss felt it was necessary to “Shoot the messenger” when Mr. Coffin presented to him the facts that the other Arborists were not enforcing the law.

We the citizens of Atlanta rely upon protection under the law. I notice the furor being raised by the Council when police are laid off. I can understand that; our lives are precious, so are our trees. Our trees are too valuable an asset to disregard.

If this case goes to court we will be faced with paying a huge amount of money to settle the case. I think our money can be spent more wisely protecting our Urban Forest.

Do the right thing! Hire Tom Coffin back.

Sheldon Schlegman
Atlanta, GA

Here is the Public Safety Committee's contact information. Please write them today -- thanks!

Anne Fauver afauver@atlantaga.gov
Kwanza Hall khall@atlantaga.gov
C.T. Martin cmartin@atlantaga.gov
Joyce Sheppard jmsheperd@atlantaga.gov
H. Lamar Willis hlwillis@atlantaga.gov
Cleta Winslow cwinslow@atlantaga.gov

"He Was Our Shining Knight."

2009-01-16T14:38:00.007-05:00

Last week the Buckhead Reporter quoted Ainsley Caldwell stating at the NPU-A January meeting: "...the city's tree protection ordinance gives police the task of responding to tree emergencies, but... police don't know the ordinance and won't answer tree calls anyway in this time of city furloughs and other budget cuts."

The Buckhead Reporter further noted that Ray Mock, NPU-A chairman, and others present at the meeting said, "the illegal cutting of trees happens at night and on the weekends, precisely when the arborist office is unavailable."

So, given that the police won't/can't respond and the City Arborist Office is closed at night and on the weekends, the NPU meeting attendees asked for Ainsley Caldwell's home telephone number. He refused to give it to them. That made them mad.

Why?

Because we used to have Tom Coffin's home phone number, that's why.

Although Tom encouraged us to call the police first after business hours -- back when the police responded to illegal tree cutting complaints -- you could also call Tom at home or on his cell phone. I'm not saying that Tom enjoyed having his evenings or weekends disturbed, but his passion for defending the Tree Ordinance was evident when he came out early on a Saturday morning to investigate a neighbor's complaint of chainsaws buzzing with no proof of permit. I personally called the Coffin residence as early as 8am on a Saturday or as late as 10:30pm at night, sometimes not even over a tree being cut down but my suspicion that a tree was about to be cut down. I could have understood had Tom gotten just a wee bit annoyed or impatient with me -- particularly when I called him with a false alarm, but he always responded with the utmost professionalism.

Tom defied all the stereotypes you hear about government workers being lazy or clock punchers, or having "an attitude". Which is probably why the Atlanta City Government didn't want him. He didn't fit the mold. His commitment to his job must have royally embarrassed his superiors; it most certainly irked his subordinates. He even had the ladies of North Atlanta swooning over him, calling him "our shining knight"... a metaphor not commonly associated with city workers. See the Buckhead Reporter article below:

Arborist hears pleas for trees
by Michael Jacobs

January 09, 2009

The head of Atlanta's arborist office learned firsthand Jan. 6 how passionate Buckhead residents are about trees and how much they miss fired senior arborist Tom Coffin.
Making an unscheduled appearance at the monthly meeting of Neighborhood Planning Unit A (NPU-A), arboricultural manager Ainsley Caldwell faced a succession of questions, complaints, requests and fond reminiscences of the days before Coffin was abruptly fired during the summer.
"We all had his cell phone number. You called him, and he was there," NPU-A's secretary, Linda Trower, said about Coffin. "He was our shining knight."... more.

City Council May Reinstate Tom Coffin

2009-01-15T14:34:00.003-05:00

Tom Coffin recently learned that the City’s Public Safety Committee, in response to his intent to sue the City, is considering reinstating Coffin to his position of Senior Arborist. This is the position Tom held before he was fired, presumably for disclosing to his management data about under-performance in the City Arborist Department. This data would have never been made public had the management in the Bureau of Buildings addressed the shortcomings disclosed. Rather, they shot the messenger, accusing Mr. Coffin of not being a team player and not playing nice.

City Council now has the opportunity to say, “Enough. We are not going to let our city government have the almighty power to sit back and collect property taxes and not deliver. Furthermore, we are not going to allow the few remaining performers in city government live in fear of retribution if they complain they are doing their job… and all of their co-workers’ jobs, too.”

One sign of a performer is his or her eagerness to get the job done, period. Tom has been through an incredible amount of pain, anguish and humiliation these past six months for doing the right thing, and yet, the only thing he’s asking for is to restore everything back to the way it was the day before he was fired. He wants no compensation other than back pay for the time he lost at work and his out of pocket legal expenses. His legal team must be squirming that he’s been so gosh darn NICE to the City and seemingly willing to let bygones be bygones.

If the City Council members addressed below don’t take Tom up on his offer and meet the extremely modest requests in his letter below, then they will be putting us taxpayers on the hook for paying the legal expenses to fight and lose a court case with Tom Coffin.

Here’s my open letter to City Council: "I don’t care what you think of Tom Coffin – love him or hate him. All I ask is that you focus on the money here and be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. Even if you mistakenly think that Tom Coffin will lose a lawsuit against the City, it will cost us taxpayers more money to go to court than it will to just give him back his job with compensation for the time he lost at work.

Do the math. Save us money. Rehire Tom. And give him back his northeast region to manage. A few Buckhead developers might have quarreled with his unwillingness let them slash and burn everything in sight, but we homeowners loved him.

Tom Coffin’s letter:

Dear Ms. Winslow, Ms. Fauver, Mr. Hall, Mr. Martin, Ms. Sheperd and Mr. Willis:

As an unexpected result of my ante litem notice of intent to sue the city under the state’s “whistleblower” statute, I find that the Public Safety Committee will soon be asked to consider my demand for reinstatement to my position as Sr. Arborist for the City of Atlanta (Claim No. 08L1031). I welcome your participation. I hope and trust that you will act in the interests of the City and of the people you were elected to represent.

The facts in this case are clear. I was fired for informing my superiors of the near total lack of enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance by my subordinates and for trying to initiate disciplinary actions against two of them for clear violations of established standards in the arborist office. I strongly believe that I can prove my case in court.

Nonetheless I prefer not to litigate this matter. Instead I seek reinstatement to the Sr. Arborist position that I won through merit and lost through deceit. I wish to continue my nearly 12 years of service to the city in formulating, implementing and enforcing one of its signature environmental laws. I seek my job back. I ask for compensation for lost salary and benefits, and for the legal costs incurred by me since my firing in July 2008. These demands are reasonable and minimal. I ask that the Committee recommend this result to Council in the interest of justice, fairness and economy.

I am confident in my ability to resume the responsibilities of Sr. Arborist in the Bureau of Buildings. I seek the earliest return possible to employment with the city. I will gladly answer, privately or in public, any questions you may have concerning me or the conditions I experienced in the Arborist Division. My phone number is 404 874-0523.

I will attach a copy of the ante litem notice sent to the mayor. Most of the other documents related to my case may be found on an independent blog found at http://holdingcitygovernmentaccountable.blogspot.com.

Yours truly,

Dr. Tom Coffin

“The City of Atlanta shall promote the right of the people to clean air, pure water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic qualities of the environment.” From the Bill of Rights, Charter for the City of Atlanta.

"Free Pass... To Act Like Potted Plants" Claims Intent-to-Sue Press Release

2008-12-16T23:59:00.007-05:00

Press release issued today:

December 15, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ATLANTA ARBORIST FILES WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM

Former City of Atlanta Senior Arborist Tom Coffin today filed an “intent to sue” letter with the city for wrongful dismissal under the State of Georgia's Whistleblower Act.” Dr. Coffin asserts that he was fired for raising concerns about failure to enforce Atlanta's tree preservation laws while serving as field supervisor of the Arborist Division in Atlanta's Bureau of Buildings.

Field arborists are hired as degreed professionals explicitly to implement and enforce Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance. In the weeks prior to his abrupt dismissal in July Dr. Coffin was pressing his supervisor, Arboricultural Manager Ainsley Caldwell, to accept disciplinary charges he was making against two subordinate field arborists for official decisions they had made that violated the Code of Conduct of the city and the Standard Operating Procedures of the division. On July 14, 2008, Dr. Coffin also gave Mr. Caldwell an analysis of six months of field arborist activity that demonstrated a nearly total lack of enforcement activity on the part of his subordinates. In the wake of these events and despite his recent elevation to the supervisor position, Dr. Coffin was fired without warning or explanation on July 29.

“It is deeply disturbing that I am forced into court for trying to do my job,” Dr. Coffin said. “I was mistreated by an unjust and illegal firing. More importantly, however, the citizens of Atlanta are being mistreated and short-changed by the Arborist Division and the Bureau of Buildings. Atlanta's Tree Protection Ordinance is now a dead letter. The law is not being enforced. The City has given a free pass to field arborists to act like potted plants, doing nothing to enforce the law that they were hired to implement.”

Dr. Coffin served on the initial Tree Conservation Commission of the city, formed in 1997. He chaired the ordinance re-write committee that wrote the basic legislation that transformed the Arborist Division by the hiring of four field arborists in 2000. Dr. Coffin accepted one of the field arborist positions at that time. He was hired in the newly created Senior Arborist position in October 2007. His firing at the end of July spawned several weeks of citizen protest and news coverage, both local and national, in August and September.

If affirmative response from the city is not forthcoming within the mandatory 30-day waiting period, Dr. Coffin will initiate suit in January 2009.

Attached is the ante litem notice to the City. Also attached is a letter of support for Dr. Coffin signed by former chairpersons of the Tree Conservation Commission of the City of Atlanta.

I do not have the ante litem in a format that can be uploaded to this blog, nor do I have a copy of the letter of support signed by the former chairpersons of the Tree Conservation Commission.

DPCD to Cut Hours of Service

2008-12-05T22:02:00.007-05:00

The Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) announced today that it is planning to switch to a four day work week to save on expenses. This shortened work week is expected to increase the time it takes to get a permit by 10% (which already makes me question how it is that hours worked will be cut by 20% but actual production will suffer only 10%.... hmm). The shortened work week will also make it more inconvenient for you to get a permit to do general work on your home.

It probably won’t help the trees too much, though. Sounds like the Arborist Department is perfectly happy with nothing more than “photos showing the structural failure” of your tree to allow you to remove it “immediately”. Anyone with a copy of Photoshop should be able to make the most robust tree look like it’s about to fall down.

Below is the letter issued today from James E. Shelby, Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Community Development:

December 5, 2008

Dear DPCD Stakeholder,

Due to the rapidly declining economy, revenues are down by approximately 12.6% and the City of Atlanta projects a $50-60 million shortfall for the fiscal 2009 year.

To address these challenges, the City announced three cost-saving measures to reduce expenses and close the projected shortfall including a hiring freeze, a weekly furlough of employees and a commitment of a portion of the City’s reserves. Collectively, the measures will close approximately $37-42 million of the projected shortfall.

In order to close the remaining shortfall, an additional $13.9 million in reductions were identified, including $1 million in the Department of Planning and Community Development. Below is a summary of the most noticeable impacts within the Department:

The Department of Planning and Community Development will implement an abbreviated work schedule as well as reductions to staff, supply and training costs. The Department will implement a 4-day work schedule effective December 11, 2008. Primary operating hours will be Monday – Thursday, 8:15 am – 6:00 pm with few exceptions.

Bureau of Planning

The Board of Zoning Adjustments Conducts Public hearings on the 1st and 3rd Friday of the Month at 1:00 p.m. The hearing date will move to the 1st and 3rd Thursday at 12 p.m. The Zoning Review Board meets on the 1st and 2nd Thursday of each month at 6 p.m.

Bureau of Buildings

Homeowners Clinic - Homeowners will be able to address permitting issues throughout the week. Homeowner hours will be 4:00pm until 6:00pm Monday thru Thursday for residential general repairs, small additions (no pools), alterations and chain link/privacy fences.

While Friday’s are usually busy days for applicants requesting final inspections to accommodate weekend closing and move-ins, developers and contractors will have to request final inspections Monday through Thursday from 7:00am until 4:45pm.

Bureau of Code Compliance

The Neighborhood Deputies Program is eliminated. We are retooling the program to allow citizens to continue to report code violations.

For your reference, I have attached [below] some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) developed specifically to provide information about service delivery impacts within the Department. Additional information and updates are available on the Department of Planning’s webpage http://www.atlantaga.gov/Government/Planning.aspx.

In these tough economic times, we will continue to look for ways to improve efficiency and streamline processes throughout the Department. We remain committed to providing excellent service to Atlanta’s citizens, businesses and visitors and look forward to working with you to improve the quality of life in our great city.

Thank you for your continued cooperation and support.

Sincerely,

James E. Shelby,
Commissioner

Department of Planning & Community Development
Fact Sheet & Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Regarding Furlough/Budget Reduction Impact

The Department of Planning and Community Development is comprised of bureaus including Buildings, Code Compliance, Housing and Planning. Each bureau will move to a four‐day work week.

Bureau of Buildings

• How will the overall time to permit be affected?

Time to permit will increase by 10%

• Will permit payment processing time be affected?

Permits must be processed and paid for by 5:00pm. Any permits processed after 5:00pm must be paid on the following business day.

• How will the processing time for inspection requests be affected?

Inspections requests submitted after 3:00pm will be processed the following business day. Online technology is available via the City’s website to request final inspections.

• Will the issuance of Final Inspections and Certificates of Occupancy (CO) be affected?

While Friday’s are usually busy days for applicants requesting final inspections to accommodate weekend closing and move‐ins, developers and contractors will have to request final inspections Monday through Thursday from 7:00am until 4:45pm.

• How will Homeowners Day be affected by the furloughs?

Homeowners will now be able to address permitting issues throughout the week. Homeowner hours will be 4:00pm until 6:00pm Monday thru Thursday for residential general repairs, small additions (no pools), alterations and chain link/privacy fences.

• How will emergency tree removal permits for eminently dangerous trees be handled?

The property owner and tree cutter are required to leave a voice message with Ainsley Caldwell, Arboricultural Manager at (404) 330‐6076 prior to cutting down the tree. Information given is property owner name, tree removal company name, phone numbers, tree location and problem with tree, photos showing the structural failure are to be mailed the following day to:

Ainsley Caldwell, Arboricultural Manager
City of Atlanta, Bureau of Buildings, Arborist Division
55 Trinity Avenue, S.W., Suite 3800
Atlanta, GA 30303‐0309
Photos must be received within 5 days and may also be sent via email to mailto:acaldwell@atlantaga.gov or fmobley@atlantaga.gov. The structurally unsound tree can be immediately removed.
Bureau of Code Compliance

• Will initial housing code inspection response time change?

Yes. The furlough will reduce the Bureau’s ability to conduct initial inspections within 3 business days.

• Will housing code inspections occur on Friday’s?

No, inspections will occur Monday through Thursday.

• What if highly hazardous conditions exist?

The Bureau ensures ongoing coordination with Atlanta Police Department Zone Commanders. Residents may report open vacant structures online. If trespassing or other criminal activity is observed, residents should contact the police department.

• How will education of Atlanta’s residents on Code violations be affected?

The elimination of the Neighborhood Deputies Program will reduce the Bureau’s capacity to educate residents about code violations. However, we encourage citizens to report any code violations by calling 404.330.6190 or via email at mailto:codesrequests@atlantaga.gov.

Bureau of Housing

• How will the Bureau’s service to customers and partner agencies be affected?

The Bureau of Housing manages contracts and provides ongoing technical assistance to residents and non‐profit development agencies. The furloughs will increase the Bureau’s response time for inquiries and payment processing requests.

Bureau of Planning

• Will Planning staff continue to attend NPU meetings?

Planners will attend NPU meetings, as necessary to present key departmental legislation, monitor the by‐law approval process and the election of officers. There will no longer be an assigned planner for each NPU.

• How will Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) hearings be affected?

BZA hearings will occur on Thursdays. The start time of the hearing will change from 1:00 pm to 12:00 pm. In an effort to maximize staff time in meeting setup and management, the Bureau is reviewing changing the meeting dates from the 1st and 3rd week to the 1st and 2nd week, to coincide with the public hearing day for the Zoning Review Board.

• How will the Urban Design Commission (UDC) be impacted?

Preservation planners assigned to the UDC section will not be available to the public for assistance on the days of the UDC public hearings‐the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 4:00 pm. This will allow the planners time to fully prepare for the hearing as well as set up for the conduct of the hearing.

The UDC will continue to have the expertise of professional planners with expertise in historic preservation, architectural history or a closely related field, however there will be changes to the organizational structure of the staff.

• How will the Bureau’s service to customers be affected?

The Bureau of Planning maintains a Planning Information Desk to provide technical assistance and general planning information to residents, developers, etc. The reduction in hours will increase the Bureau’s response time for inquiries and requests.

Coffin's Legal Offense Committee

2008-10-23T11:58:00.005-04:00

In anticipation of the numerous depositions alone that will be required as a result of the lawsuit Tom Coffin intends to file against the City of Atlanta, Coffin is hoping to establish a legal offense committee to help with his legal expenses. He would like to structure the committee in a way that would allow continued and broadened scrutiny of practices in the Arborist Division as well as be expandable to include other city departments and other issues of accountability, transparency, efficiency, etc.

People with experience in fundraising and/or hosting benefits to raise money are particularly needed for his effort, even if all you can do is offer advice. However, those with no experience are needed as well, so please don't hesitate to get involved. (Getting the word out is the most important thing you can do.)

If you would like to volunteer for this effort or want more information, please contact Tom Coffin or me directly, that is, if you know how. I'm not posting our personal contact information here to avoid Web crawlers that collect personal data off Web sites, but soon I will be posting a public contact source and other information related to the legal offense committee. Stay tuned.

Coffin To File Whistleblower Lawsuit

2008-10-23T11:06:00.005-04:00

I'm not sure that City Council has even begun their audit, but Tom Coffin already has all the evidence he needs just by the charts below. The City's attempt to portray Coffin as an overbearing but ineffective employee because he didn't use kinder, gentler methods of enforcing the Tree Ordinance is belied by the data Coffin recently received via Open Records.

Yesterday, in an email to his supporters, Tom stated that:

I will soon be filing suit against the City under the State "Whistleblower" statute (O.C.G.A. 45-1-4 (2008).

Up until last year, the state's whistleblower law didn't even apply to city and county employees, but due to a recently passed bill by State Representative Rich Golick of Smyrna, Coffin can now file suit under this stature.

Field Arborist “Collaboration"

2008-10-22T16:53:00.007-04:00

By Tom Coffin, Ph.D.

Many people protested my July 29 firing at the first meeting of the City Council in August. There were also a few detractors, among them my former colleague and subordinate, Janell Bazile. Rank-and-file employees of the Bureau of Buildings are prohibited from speaking in public without the consent of management. Ms. Bazile was speaking for Arboricultural Manager Ainsley Caldwell, Bureau of Buildings Director Ibrahim Maslamani, Department of Planning Commissioner Steven Cover, and perhaps even Chief Operating Officer Greg Giornelli.

Ms. Bazile assured the council that my published evidence of “near total abdication of enforcement of the tree protection ordinance” was inaccurate. She argued that there were other important enforcement measures short of citations that can be used under the ordinance. She implied, without evidence, that such activities were the actual mainstay of all the field arborists but me.

This collaboration theory was accepted whole in the post-firing investigation ordered by the Mayor. It is also presented without evidence:

“Arborists may elect to use any of the following tools when working with citizens to preserve trees: stop work orders, imposition of tree protection fencing, posting of corrective notices, prescriptions for silvicultural treatments, requirements for 5-year survivability reports and issuance of citations.
You chose to enforce the Tree Ordinance primarily by issuing citations. Your supervisor and subordinates considered this approach extreme and elected to work with citizens in a more collaborative/non-confrontational manner.”

(Letter to me by HR Investigator Alfred Elder, 9/29/08. This and nearly all other documents related to my firing are available at http://holdingcitygovernmentaccountable.blogspot.com/).

To test this notion I made an Open Records request for documentation of all such “collaborative/non-confrontational” activities by all field arborists for the two months prior to and the two months after my dismissal. Evidence of such activities appeared in 15 records. Each activity was tabulated separately.

The charts on the following page graph the results. As a person trained in both natural and social science, I tend to be very suspicious when someone claims that “the data speaks for itself.” In this case, however, the data virtually screams:

TC*: Fired July 29
SD**: Stan Domengeaux apparently resumed field arborist duties in August

Let me also update, through September, the illegal removal/destruction citations recorded by field arborists:

TC*: Jan-July 2008
SD**: Aug-Sep 2008

We need to remember that the reason field arborists are hired is to enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance. The real tragedy of my firing is that there is now no enforcement, of any kind, in three-fourths of the city. And there is no supervisor – not Ainsley Caldwell and certainly not Ibrahim Maslamani – who will hold people accountable, either for what they do or, as in this case, what they do not do.

Many people, including me, have invested much time and effort crafting, refining and trying to make the Tree Protection Ordinance work. I was fired for trying to hold my subordinates responsible for and accountable to the law. My firing vindicates the sham practice of most of the current field arborists. I think my firing is criminal, both morally and legally. It will be a bigger crime if the City gets away with it.

Notes on Data

Each field arborist activity is recorded daily on one of three types of “permits.” Numbered “ADDH” permits record all individual tree evaluations. Numbered “ACRC” permits record all citations for illegal removals and destructions. Everything else is recorded on numbered “AREQ” permits, including final CO inspections. In the June-September time period there were 49 AREQ’s listed as something other than “FCO Inspection.” In addition to the 15 permits considered above, one requested permit was not given to me, one was “closed” without apparent resolution, five were “closed” without comment, 19 were neutral site visits without adverse action, and three were attributed to Ainsley Caldwell (one Stop Work order, two neutral site visits). Three permits (one by Paul Lewkowitz, two by Michael Franklin) indicated illegal removals in the Comments section. None of these alleged illegal removals have corresponding “ACRC” permits.

Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation's Luncheon Cancelled

2008-10-20T15:43:00.001-04:00

From the 10/20/08 Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation E-letter:

Dear Members and Supporters,

On October 29th, the same day that we planned our next luncheon, City Council will be meeting at 1:00 to discuss, among other items, the $850,000 expenditure for a redundant turnaround plan.

We feel this meeting is so important that we have canceled the luncheon so we may attend this meeting.

In addition, we will be submitting a proposal calling for a full audit of the City, as we are concerned that many more inconsistencies exist, including the under funded Pension Funds.

We urge you to attend this meeting!

If you can not attend, please email City Council, urging them to take action on a full city audit as well as rethinking a $850,000 expenditure we can not afford!

Sincerely,

Barbara Payne
Executive Director

Order Tickets for Tom Coffin Luncheon Now

2008-10-16T20:20:00.008-04:00

Updated October 20, 2008: Please note, this luncheon has been cancelled.

From the 10/16/08 Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation E-Letter:

Dear Members and Supporters,

The City of Atlanta needs a front overhaul!

One way to demand accountability from all City employees is to implement performance metrics! While Georgia is a Right To Work state, this should not mean that City employees escape the need for reviews and being held to a higher standard of job performance!

Tickets are on sale for our October luncheon with Tom Coffin, who will be discussing the need for performance metrics and telling his story of his experience as a City employee.

Unlike our last luncheon, we will NOT be allowing walk-up, so get your tickets early!

Sincerely,

John S. Sherman, President

Barbara Payne, Executive Director

Click here to reserve your ticket(s).

All Illegal Tree Cutting Miraculously Halted

2008-10-11T17:20:00.004-04:00

Attachment to a broadcast email from Tom Coffin:

Citation Abuse

In his September 29, 2008 letter justifying my firing as Senior Arborist for the City of Atlanta, HR Investigator Al Elder castigates me for supposed overuse of citations to enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance. He states that “Your supervisor and subordinates considered this approach extreme and elected to work with citizens in a more collaborative/non-confrontational manner.” He does not explain how these measures, which he identifies as “stop work orders, imposition of tree protection fencing, posting of corrective notices, prescriptions for silvicultural treatments, [and] requirements for 5-year survivability reports,” apply to trees removed or destroyed without a permit.

He is perhaps correct, however, as the following chart may indicate. The data is official, provided me as part of an Open Records request:

Another month has gone by since my dismissal on July 29. Quite miraculously all illegal tree removal and destruction in the city has either halted or is being dealt with by these collaborative/non-confrontational means.

We will see: I have repeated my Open Records request for access to the records of all such collaborative/non-confrontational activities by all field arborists, myself included, for June, July, August and September of 2008. I will tabulate and share the results with you as soon as I receive the records.

Tom Coffin
October 11, 2008

Caldwell Changes Inspection Report

2008-10-05T15:58:00.007-04:00

From The Buckhead Reporter...

"We find it curious that our neighbor, who works for the government, could just make a few calls and have the decisions overturned — especially since he has had many trees removed in the past two years that were perfectly healthy."

-- says Jim Kercher, Atlanta resident, who was served an arrest citation for failing to remove a perfectly healthy tree after Ainsley Caldwell, head of the city's Arborist Division, changed the inspection report of arborist Stanley Domengeaux to approve a previously determined "healthy" tree as "healthy but hazardous".

So, is this the kind of "team environment" that Tom Coffin was fired for not upholding? I can't help but to wonder if when Mr. Coffin "failed to satisfactorily respond to the constructive criticism of supervisors", as Alfred Elder accused him of doing in his September 29 letter , was it because Coffin refused to let Caldwell change his reports?

Here is an excerpt from The Buckhead Reporter article:

This latest incident involving the city's arborists division began Sept. 2 when the Kerchers received a certified letter from [Travis] Vance, who lives with [Todd] Hall at 2020 Walthall Drive. The letter was titled "formal notice of dangerous tree hazards and conditions."
Vance and Hall wanted the Kerchers to cut down a pine tree that is on the Kerchers' property. Following proper procedures, Heather Kercher submitted an online application for evaluation by a city arborist of all trees on the property.
She met with city arborist Domengeaux on Sept. 11, and he informed her the tree removal permit would be denied, noting the tree was "perfectly healthy." The arborist reportedly responded to a second online application by Hall. She made sure Hall spoke with the arborist and understood his decision.
Domengeaux filed his report with Caldwell the following day, stating he inspected "and denied a perfectly healthy 26-inch pine tree in the rear corner of 510 Collier Road."
"It was his professional opinion "the tree should not be approved for removal."
The Kerchers say their neighbors "were unhappy and apparently made calls to Caldwell and Shelby. Somehow, that decision was overturned."
In response, Caldwell wrote that he had visited 510 Collier Road to "provide an independent second opinion. The tree is healthy but hazardous."
He changed the decision of the report [italics mine] to state the tree is healthy but hazardous and it was approved for removal. ...more

Heather Kercher immediately contacted tree removal companies once she received the arrest citation. She reports that they all asked the same question, "Why do you want to remove a perfectly healthy tree?"

Here is a timeline of the events that occurred between the time her neighbors notified her that they wanted her to remove her pine tree and the time she was served the arrest warrant.

Meanwhile, Coffin, who waited for over two months to find out why he was fired, told The Buckhead Reporter that "he would be meeting with his attorneys to file suit against the city." The Buckhead Reporter also reports that:

... an audit of the arborist section of the Bureau of Buildings and the Department of Planning and Community Development, which was authorized last month by City Council, reportedly has been completed and is being reviewed by the administration. The results of that audit have not been released.

A Mayoral Controlled Sham

2008-10-03T13:00:00.004-04:00

From: Linda Trower
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:13:36

Dear Mayor Franklin -- your HR investigator committed to and then reneged on investigating the Cover, Maslamani, Borrero "plan" and interviewing Luz Borrero. At that point the investigation became a mayoral controlled sham. Tom Coffin was promoted to a nonclassified position where he could be and was fired without cause or recourse. That was the "plan," the end result being the weakening of the Tree Ordinance and a rejoicing by developers.

Hopefully, Atlanta's next Mayor will be "green" and the Council's investigation and the Coffin lawsuit will get Tom rehired. Atlanta's status as a "green" city does not come from roof top gardens and city employees not using styrofoam cups, it comes from Atlanta's preservation of its precious tree canopy. I only hope that canopy can survive until the next Mayor is elected and the Tree Ordinance is once again enforced.

Linda Trower,
Concerned Citizen

Mayor Says No Evidence of Impropriety

2008-10-03T12:51:00.004-04:00

Email response from Mayor Franklin in response to Shel Schlegman's October 2 email claiming that "Mayor (Franklin) and her cronies are just doing business as usual, padding their pockets."

From: "Franklin, Shirley" SFranklin@AtlantaGa.Gov
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:04:32

Sheldon,

The revew was independently and professionally conducted. While you might disagree with the conclusions you should acknowledge this. Additionally you have no evidence to lead you to the conclusion that I have "cronies" or that I, the Council or the city's staff have acted impromperly. In fact when it comes to the investment in sustainability and the environment whether parks, trees, air or water there has been no more committed admiinistration or Mayor in decades. Your allegations are unfounded. It is is one thing to disagree and another to lie. S Franklin

Atlanta's Questionable HR Policies

2008-10-03T00:36:00.005-04:00

From the October 2008 newsletter of the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation:

Atlanta’s Questionable HR Policies: A Need for Enforceable Performance Metrics
By Tom Coffin, fired Sr. Arborist for the City of Atlanta

Background

On July 29, I was summoned to a noon meeting with Ibrahim Maslamani, Director of the Bureau of Buildings in the City of Atlanta. This was the first meeting we had had since Mr. Maslamani promoted me in October 2007 to a newly-created position of Senior Arborist in charge of field operations in the Arborist Division.

It was also our last meeting. Without warning, without explanation, without cause, without a shred of due process, Mr. Maslamani fired me.

News travels fast in the internet age. Within hours phone calls and email messages of concern, despair and outrage were piling up in the offices of the Mayor and City Council. Within a day Channels 2 and 11 presented on-air interviews with me and others. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Creative Loafing, the Buckhead Reporter and other media soon reported
on the event. The New York Times lead with the story, including photographs, in its National section on August 6. The Associated Press distributed a report to its affiliates. Internet blogs too numerous to count weighed in. Even the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation demanded an explanation after more than 50 of its members protested vehemently to its president, John Sherman." ... more

City Follows Greenbacks, Loses Trees

2008-10-02T19:07:00.004-04:00

From: sheldon schlegman
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:26 AM
To: tom wheatley; editor@reporternewspapers.net; Alan Judd; diana davis
Subject: City follows greenbacks. loses trees

It’s business as usual at City Hall. Developers 1 - Citizens 0.

It looks like the development community has won another battle for the almighty dollar. As you notice more trees going down in your neighborhood, DON’T BE SURPRISED. The Mayor and her cronies are just doing business as usual, padding their pockets.

Remember we have a CITY election coming up.Let’s all find a Mayor and Council who will care about our city and the environment we live in.

Shel Schlegman
Atlanta

Cover’s Parting Shot?

2008-10-02T19:00:00.002-04:00

A document sent by broadcast email earlier today:

Cover’s Parting Shot?

By Tom Coffin

On September 29, after a five-week “investigation” and a three-week “executive review,” the Human Resources department upheld my firing as Sr. Arborist for the City of Atlanta. The decision itself is not a surprise. It was telegraphed weeks ago in an utterly inappropriate and prejudicial letter to the City Council by COO Gregory Giornelli. (A complete set of documents on my firing, including Mr. Giornelli’s letter, can be found at http://holdingcitygovernmentaccountable.blogspot.com/.)

The attached investigative report (Moderator's note: click here to get to the attached letter) by Alfred Elder, however, is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. Rather than conducting an independent investigation and writing a comprehensive and nuanced report, Elder employs one-sided evidence and known inaccuracies to justify a pre-ordained conclusion. This practice is usually called a “rubber stamp.”

As just one example of one-sided and disingenuous “evidence” please consider the following paragraph by Elder:

“On November 8, 2007, you were cautioned by your supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell, about making unfounded assertions against subordinates. Evidence indicates that in the three weeks preceding your separation, you alleged inspection improprieties on the part of arborists. It also indicates that Mr. Caldwell determined that the allegations were without merit and criticized you as follows, ‘Let me caution you, such unfounded assertions are disruptive, time consuming, counter productive, and create a divisive working environment among your peers and subordinates; in the future, be very careful as to making accusations.’”

Mr. Elder here conflates two time periods, “November 8, 2007” and “three weeks preceding your separation.” He then implies, by both word choice and sentence position within the paragraph, that the allegations made in the “three weeks preceding” “were without merit” and subject to the italicized harsh criticism. This criticism, however, was levied in the “November 8, 2007” incident. In the “three weeks preceding” situation, Mr. Caldwell knew all the details of the allegations I was making. I was pressing him for action on them. The allegations were certainly part of the context of my firing, but they had never been determined to be “without merit” regardless of Mr. Elder’s attempted sleight of hand.

Equally disingenuous is the one-sided selection of evidence in the November 8, 2007 criticism itself. I received the message in an email from Caldwell that states in advance of the criticism quoted above:

“Within the past few weeks, you have brought three inspections to my attention alleging impropriety on the part of staff: 1) Arborist Final Certificate of Occupancy sign-off – 2629 Oakdale (Frank) 2) Arborist Final Certificate of Occupancy sign-off – 2639 Oakdale (Stan) 3) DDH approval – 3457 Roxboro (Janell).

In all three cases, there were no reasons to support your assertion that there was impropriety on the part of arborists plan reviewers.”

I answered Caldwell by return email:

“I beg to differ, Ainsley. I have an extensive file to back up my ‘allegations’ on 2629 and 2639 Oakdale. I have photographs on the 3475 Roxboro Rd allegations. All have been brought to you prior to my making ‘allegations.’ I am certainly prepared to discuss these situations further with you and Mr. Maslamani, as I believe that I am ‘very careful’ in my actions.”

I discussed this email exchange with Mr. Elder in the post-dismissal interview I had with him. He asked me, “What happened then?” I answered, “Nothing. It came to an end.”

Or so I thought.

I now suspect that my firing was virtually preordained at the time I was hired as Sr. Arborist – part of the “plan” that Planning Commissioner Steven Cover alluded to in his email to Bureau of Buildings Director Ibrahmi Maslamani (see blog cited above). I think that unfounded criticisms such as that above and others alluded to in the HR report were meant to set the stage for my dismissal. Mr. Elder’s use of such “evidence” in such a transparently one-sided and incomplete manner tends to confirm my suspicions.

More important than the defamation and misrepresentation directed at me personally in Mr. Elder’s report, however, is the suggestion that all is well in the Arborist Division and that my dismissal will only improve matters. Mr. Elder states:

“Evidence indicates that arborists are allowed the flexibility to make independent decisions about the manner in which they choose to enforce provisions of the City’s Tree Ordinance. Arborists may elect to use any of the following tools when working with citizens to preserve trees: stop work orders, imposition of tree protection fencing, posting of corrective notices, prescriptions for silvicultural treatments, requirements for 5-year survivability reports and issuance of citations.

You chose to enforce the Tree Ordinance primarily by issuing citations. Your supervisor and subordinates considered this approach extreme and elected to work with citizens in a more collaborative/non-confrontational manner….”

What nonsense. I believe that I am the only field arborist who consistently used all the tools listed above in my daily work. I have submitted an Open Records request for the data that will either demonstrate that belief or not. In the meantime I think I have demonstrated fairly conclusively with both data and graphs (available on the blog cited above) that I alone consistently enforce the law against illegal destruction of trees by issuing citations. I think it is fair to ask my “supervisor and subordinates” how they issue a correction notice or impose tree protection fencing or require a 5-year survivability report on a tree that has been illegally removed or destroyed? What collaboration is possible? Non-confrontation in such a case can only mean: “Let’s ignore it.”

“Independent decisions” by field arborists are not problematic if those decisions are made in accordance with approved Standards of Practice. Far too often, however, the “independent decisions” of my subordinates are merely arbitrary decisions, without regard for either the ordinance or the standards. Such “independent decisions,” accompanied as they are by neither accountability nor transparency, are simply an invitation to favoritism, cronyism and corruption. They lead to unequal enforcement and unequal protection of the law, not good government.

There is one positive in the report: I have finally been given a reason for being fired. Elder states: “Evidence indicates that you were terminated as a result of an unwillingness or inability to work in a team environment.”

In over 40 years of work, in many jobs with many people in many “team environments,” this charge against me is unique and brand new. It may have some truth to it, however. I believe that I was hired to implement and enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance of the city. I guess I do balk at being part of the Cover-up team that would rather not.

Atlanta Goes Ahead with Firing of Arborist

2008-10-02T18:27:00.004-04:00

Sorry I didn't post this article earlier, but it was only brought to my attention today. I'm impressed that the AJC got this story out more quickly than it did the one on Steve Cover's unexpected resignation.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

Atlanta Goes Ahead with Firing of Arborist
Coffin says other city employees didn’t follow tree ordinance

By ERIC STIRGUS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Atlanta officials said Tuesday they were justified in firing a senior arborist in July, despite his claims that other city arborists were lax in following the city’s tree ordinance.

City human resources officials – upon the request of Mayor Shirley Franklin – conducted an inquiry into Tom Coffin’s firing after receiving scores of telephone calls and e-mails from some tree preservationists, residents and City Hall critics who questioned why he was let go.

On Monday, the city’s human resources director wrote a letter to Coffin that said he was fired by the city’s Planning and Community Development department “as a result of an unwillingness or inability to work in a team environment.” The three-page letter says Coffin reinspected properties checked out by co-workers without his supervisor’s approval, unnecessarily issued “punitive citations” as the primary means of tree conservation and that he too frequently sought reprimands against his subordinates instead of trying to mentor them.

Coffin denied each of the findings and said he plans to sue the city for wrongful termination.

“It’s not a real surprise,” Coffin said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “The Human Resources department rubber-stamped a decision made by [Planning and Community Development Commissioner] Steve Cover.” ... more

HR Letter Reveals the Truth About City Government

2008-10-02T14:36:00.001-04:00

Below is a letter that I was just forwarded via email: it's from Alfred Elder, Human Resources Director of the City of Atlanta.

Before anyone dashes off a seething reply to Mr. Elder's letter -- which at first seems to scold Tom Coffin for a curmudgeonly management style -- take a look at what his letter really says.

Elder's letter admits that Mr. Coffin first started criticizing the city arborists' lack of enforcement practices on November 8, 2007, almost a year ago. He states that "the statistics you presented were fairly accurate and support the need for changes in the division's distribution of work."

But if the enforcement inequity Coffin cited was simply a matter of needing to change work distribution, why was the work not redistributed so that Coffin would have been unable to run the report he did in July 2008?

Elder also shows us what happens to a city employee who won't back down from doing the right thing. Even though Elder acknowledges that Coffin provided accurate data to support his allegations, Elder's letter describes how Coffin's manager, Ainsley Caldwell, determined that Coffin's allegations were "without merit" and how Coffin was warned in a rather chilling way to keep silent in the future:

Mr. Caldwell determined that the allegations were without merit and criticized you as follows, "Let me caution you, such unfounded assertions are disruptive, time consuming, counter productive, and create a divisive working environment among your peers and subordinates; in the future, be very careful as to making such accusations."

Elder also points out that when city employees do not like being verbally criticized for their lack of performance, all they have to do is take it up a level and things will be taken care of. Elder explains to Coffin how it works:

In May/June 2008, you issued Oral Admonishments to all three of your subordinate staff members. The following month, you indicated your intent to issue a second Oral Admonishment to two of the three subordinate staff. In response, the entire subordinate staff requested and was granted a meeting with Mr. Maslamani. Subsequently, management decided to terminate your services.

Elder concludes his rather lengthy reproach of Mr. Coffin's performance by saying that:

Whether intentional or unintentional, you failed to satisfactorily respond to the constructive criticism of supervisors, promote a harmonious work environment for subordinates, and interface in a non-abrasive manner with citizens who objected to our practices.

So, there you have it. Mr. Elder has clearly explained how one can hold onto a management job in Atlanta City Government -- it's as easy as 1-2-3:

Always accept criticism from your supervisor, even when he ignores the facts.
Refrain from taking any corrective action against your unproductive subordinates.
Do not upset any citizens who object to your practice of enforcing the law.

Next time I get pulled over for a speeding ticket, I think I'll call Police Chief Richard Pennington and tell him that I wholeheartedly object to the practice of his officers issuing tickets to enforce the speed limit. Like Elder's letter suggests Coffin should have done, the police officer only needs to ask me in a non-abrasive manner to, "Ple-e-ease slow down, oh, pretty please?"

Here's Mr. Elder's letter:

September 29, 2008

Mr. Thomas Coffin
(address withheld)

Dear Mr. Coffin:

The Department of Planning and Community Development, Arborist Division terminated your employment with the City of Atlanta on July 29, 2008. Subsequently, you filed a complaint with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) alleging wrongful termination. The following paragraphs restate the two allegations you cited in support of your claim and provide corresponding responses to same.

Allegation I: "... I was summarily fired from my position as Sr. Field Arhorist for the City of Atlanta. I have heard no complaint about my work from my supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell. The only meeting I have had with Bureau of Building Director Ibrahim Maslamani since I was hired was the one in which I was fired, without cause, without explanation, without a semblance of the process. "

Response: The investigation revealed several documents that identified inappropriate conduct and management's efforts to correct this behavior. In addition to written reprimands in 2004, 2006 (intended) and 2007, and a written warning in 2006, evidence indicates that you received similar feedback on at least three occasions during the last nine months of your employment. The latter is highlighted below and reflects management's efforts to correct apparent communication deficiencies on your part in dealing with your subordinates.

On November 8, 2007, you were cautioned by your supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell, about making unfounded assertions against subordinates. Evidence indicates that in the three weeks preceding your separation, you alleged inspection improprieties on the part of arborists. It also indicates that Mr. Caldwell determined that the allegations were without merit and criticized you as follows, "Let me caution you, such unfounded assertions are disruptive, time consuming, counter productive, and create a divisive working environment among your peers and subordinates; in the future, be very careful as to making such accusations."

On February 5, 2008, Mr. Caldwell criticized your communication style regarding a complaint registered against you by your subordinate, Paul Lewkowicz. Mr. Caldwell counseled you as follows, "I know the role of supervisor is new to you, the tone of this [your] email is not conducive to a harmonious and productive work environment."

On February 11, 2008/March 10, 2008, Mr. Caldwell issued a "Written Warning" to you regarding the manner in which you communicated with another of your subordinates, Michael Franklin. You had criticized Mr. Franklin's work products pertaining to the following addresses: 190 Vanira, [sic] Avenue SE and 156 Howell Street, S W. Mr. Caldwell followed up by inspecting the site and concurred with the initial assessment of Mr. Franklin. Subsequently, he counseled you as follows, " ... I met with you on February 6 and visited the above referenced site (156 Howell Street, SW) on February 8, 2008. ...Mr. Coffin, whenever there are concerns with an inspection or employee, please discuss them with the employee, and if unresolved, bring them to my attention. On previous occasions I have advised you to refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations or statement that negatively point to the character or integrity of staff; consider this memo a written warning to you."

With regard to your meeting with Director Ibrahim Maslamani, you reported directly to the Division Manager (Mr. Caldwell) and would not normally have interacted with Mr. Maslamani. However, on October 19, 2006, Mr. Maslamani objected to you overstepping the boundaries of your authority in issuing peers (other arborists) work assignments. In an e-mail of the same date, he directed you to cease such activities and refer the issues to Mr. Caldwell.

In May/June 2008, you issued Oral Admonishments to all three of your subordinate staff members. The following month, you indicated your intent to issue a second Oral Admonishment to two of the three subordinate staff. In response, the entire subordinate staff requested and was granted a meeting with Mr. Maslamani. Subsequently, management decided to terminate your services.

Allegation II: "Though I know no specifics of my firing, I do know the context. I have been attempting to address (l) the lack of accountability to the tree protection ordinance and building permit postings, and (2) the near total abdication of enforcement of the tree protection ordinance by my colleagues in the more dfficult areas of correction notices on construction sites and the imposition of recompense and penalties for the illegal destruction of trees on either construction sites or private residences."

Response: Evidence indicates that arborists are allowed the flexibility to make independent decisions about the manner in which they choose to enforce provisions of the City's Tree Ordinance. Arborists may elect to use any of the following tools when working with citizens to preserve trees: stop work orders, imposition of tree protection fencing, posting of corrective notices, prescriptions for silvicultural treatments, requirements for 5-year survivability reports and issuance of citations.

You chose to enforce the Tree Ordinance primarily by issuing citations. Your supervisor and subordinates considered this approach extreme and elected to work with citizens in a more collaborative/non-confrontational manner. This point of disagreement, along with your repeated criticism of subordinates, gave rise to recurring conflicts between you and your staff. Ultimately, these conflicts prompted the above referenced meeting between your staff and Mr. Maslamani.

In conclusion, the investigation revealed that your termination had nothing to do with your technical competence and ability to enforce provisions of the Tree Ordinance. To the contrary, supervisors, subordinates and members of the Tree Commission all acknowledged your technical competence. In fact, the statistics you presented were fairly accurate and support the need for changes in the division's distribution of work.

Evidence indicates that you were terminated as a result of an unwillingness or inability to work in a team environment. Whether receiving a directive from a superior, issuing a directive to a subordinate or simply giving a citation to a citizen, you were consistently inflexible in your response to these situations. Specific examples include: challenging your Commissioner's decision to install a new database system by requesting that the Mayor overrule his position; fostering mistrust with your peers by re-inspecting their properties without their knowledge or management's authorization; imposing adverse actions on subordinates as the principal catalyst for change and improvement instead of embracing training and mentoring to cultivate a successful team; and introducing citizens to the City's arboreal initiative by issuing punitive citations as the primary means of tree conservation. Whether intentional or unintentional, you failed to satisfactorily respond to the constructive criticism of supervisors, promote a harmonious work environment for subordinates, and interface in a non-abrasive manner with citizens who objected to your practices.

You were an "At Will" employee and served at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Evidence indicates that your interaction with managers, subordinates and citizens was deficient and warranted correction. Management chose to sever your employment which was within the bounds of discretion granted an appointing authority. Your employment and disciplinary histories failed to justify overturning this decision. Consequently, your termination stands as issued.

This correspondence serves to conclude all investigative and administrative efforts associated with this complaint. A copy of the investigation and executive summary will be forwarded to you at no charge within three business days. Should you desire additional copies, they will be made available at a cost to be determined.

Sincerely,

Alfred Elder, HR Director

c: Gregory J. Giornelli, Chief Operating Officer
Luz Borrero, Deputy Chief Operating Officer
Benita C . Ransom, Commissioner DHR
Steven Cover, Commissioner - DPCD
Ibrahim Maslamani, Bureau Director
Ainsley Caldwell, Arboricultural Manager

Cover Takes Cover

2008-09-25T14:09:00.005-04:00

It took the Atlanta Journal Constitution (as well as its online counterpart, ajc.com) two days longer than it took Creative Loafing to publish the following story. Today's edition of the AJC tells us of Steve Cover's resignation -- which happened two days ago -- while glossing over the "real" story in the line I have bolded below. Conversely, Creative Loafing didn't shy away from admitting that "Cover’s department has been at the center of an unlikely controversy... ".

Anyone wonder why the AJC's subscription rates are down?

Here's today's AJC article:

"Atlanta Planning and Community Development Commissioner Steve Cover is leaving to work at a leading planning and design firm in the city.

Cover will join the HOK Planning Group, where he will be a vice president and senior member of its global planning, urban design and landscape architecture practice.

Cover, whose current annual salary is about $151,000, joined the city in January 2006. He led the ongoing effort to create a long-term transportation for the city and reducing the time it takes to get permits. Department officials have said it needs to improve how they respond to code enforcement complaints."... more

More Policy Wonks Needed to Improve Atlanta's Ranking

2008-09-23T23:13:00.007-04:00

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

"Atlanta ranked 19th on a list of sustainable cities by an environmental Web site, up from 38.

SustainLane Media gave Atlanta credit for leading the Southeast in energy-efficient buildings and a “no net loss” policy for trees. "....more

Whoa, stop right there! Do environmental organizations like SustainLane Media now rank cities based on policies alone? Does it not matter that these policies are not enforced? Does it not matter that regardless of policy, we are suffering a net LOSS in trees every day in the city of Atlanta due to illegal tree cutting? Does it not matter that our City Arborist Division is not enforcing the Tree Ordinance?

Or, is all that's needed to be GREEN is to have "green" policies? If so, let's light a fire under our city's policy writers so that we can be the #1 sustainable city next year!

Sheldon Schlegman fired off this note to SustainLane Media this morning...

From: sheldon schlegman
To: feedback@sustainlane.com
Cc: sshelton@ajc.com ; deLille Anthony; Franklin, Shirley
Sent: Tue Sep 23 07:24:46 2008
Subject: Atlanta

Apparently policy counts with you. Implementation doesn’t count! Atlanta has a “No net loss of trees” policy yet they fire the only arborist who enforces the law. The Beltway is a great idea yet will take decades to implement. Don’t be to quick to give Atlanta a high rating when in fact they lose acres of trees each month.

Sheldon Schlegman
Former Chairman Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission

Mayor Franklin did not see that she was only copied on this email and thought Shel's comments were directed at her. She responded:

From: "Franklin, Shirley" SFranklin@AtlantaGa.Gov
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:51:30 -0400

Apparently you don't know me or the administration at all. SF

To which Shel replied:

From: sheldon schlegman
To: Franklin, Shirley
Sent: Tue Sep 23 08:38:35 2008

Mayor Franklin: This email was addressed to Sustain Lane. I do know you and your administration. What I don’t know is why you fired Tom Coffin. Why has the city not made a decision on his dismissal?

Is the audit of the Arborist Division nearing completion?

Shel

Mayor Franklin's response - (note that she did not answer the question about the status of the audit of the Arborist Division):

From: "Franklin, Shirley" SFranklin@AtlantaGa.Gov
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:04:57 -0400

I didn't fire him nor did I hire him. As is common business practice the departtment head not the CEO manages personnel including the hiring and firing of personnel. Upon hearing from Mr. Coffrin I called for a comprehensive review of the action to determine its appropriateness. This personnel matter whichever way it is viewed reflects the City and my administration's commitment to the Tree Ordinance. We like you are concerned about protecting the environment and tree cover and reaching balance between development and tree preservation. Thanks for input. SF

Tom Coffin to Speak at Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation's Luncheon

2008-09-23T22:10:00.007-04:00

From the 9/23/08 Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation E-Letter:

"Dear Members and Supporters,

Since the firing of Tom Coffin, there have been numerous reports of trees being removed all over Atlanta. It is unclear whether the permits are valid or if the companies that remove these trees are insured and bonded.

If this is happening in your neighborhood, we urge you to contact City Council. Some of you have already done so and it is now on their radar.

Which brings us to the issue of performance metrics for all City employees. How can any business function without performance evaluations for their employees? How could you determine if the work is being done up to standard?

Why won't Mayor Franklin's office adopt performance metrics?

Isn't the Mayor interested in who is doing what and how?

WE ARE....

Our next luncheon will be held on October 29th at 103 West, noon to 1:30pm. Our keynote speaker will be Tom Coffin, former Senior Arborist for the City of Atlanta. He will be discussing the need for performance metrics for all city employees and the lack of accountability that runs rampant in Atlanta.

Buy your tickets today!

Sincerely,

Barbara Payne
Executive Director"

Click here to register for the luncheon.

Atlanta Planning Commissioner Resigns

2008-09-23T21:47:00.001-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

"City of Atlanta Planning Commissioner Steve Cover has resigned. According to a department spokeswoman, he submitted his written resignation this morning. He’ll officially leave the department on Oct. 3, after which he’ll join HOK Planning Group.

Deputy Commissioner James Shelby will be acting commissioner.

Cover’s department has been at the center of an unlikely controversy involving the firing of Tom Coffin, a senior field arborist with the city. City Hall’s kept mum as to why the arborist was dropped off the payroll — which in itself isn’t too strange, as commenting could lead to a lawsuit. Nonetheless, that silence has helped fuel speculation that Coffin was edged out to appease the development community."...more

Steve Cover Resigns!

2008-09-23T18:11:00.001-04:00

This news just in from an email I received from Tom Coffin at 6:03PM this evening:

"A short while ago I got a phone call from Frank Mobley saying that he had gotten an email at 5 min to 5 p.m. in which Planning Commissioner Steven Cover announced his resignation, apparently effectively immediately."

I don't have any more information about this resignation. However, a rather testy email exchange occurred this afternoon between a couple of community advocates and Mayor Franklin, and she copied Steve Cover on her replies. So, as of this afternoon, I suppose he was still "in".

Things happen fast.

Stay tuned... I have to go cook dinner for the kids and other real life stuff right now, but I'll be back online tonight.

Fired Atlanta Arborist Investigation Complete

2008-09-14T20:39:00.000-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

The real-life Lorax sent word this morning that the city’s investigation into his termination is now complete:

"I received word from HR investigator Al Elder that his investigation is complete and is now undergoing executive review. I assume that “executive review” means that the report is now on the mayor’s desk, though Mr. Elder declined to clarify who is doing the review. I have been given no time frame for a decision and don’t know if the review will take days or weeks or months.".... more

Council Calls for Audits of Building and Arborist Units

2008-09-05T23:18:00.001-04:00

From the Buckhead Reporter...

"The Community Development/Human Resources Committee of the Atlanta City Council added a dimension to the abrupt firing of the city's senior arborist, Tom Coffin, by approving unanimously Aug. 26 a resolution authorizing an independent audit of the Arborist Division of the Bureau of Buildings.

That action took place amid an atmosphere in which the mayor's chief operating officer, Gregory Giornelli, and the top leadership of the Department of Planning and Development and its Bureau of Buildings maneuvered to try to stop the action by the committee." ...more

Audit Receives Unanimous Approval In Council Vote

2008-09-03T16:37:00.000-04:00

From: Linda Trower
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:37 PM

The council vote for the audit of the Arborist Division was unanimous 14-0. We owe our councilmembers, especially Mary Norwood, a big thank you. Any news from the HR (sham) investigation?

Linda

"No Trees Impacted" Exemption Streamlines Illegal Tree Cutting

2008-08-28T22:29:00.000-04:00

From: Linda Trower
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:29:14 -0400
To: acaldwell@atlantaga.gov
Cc: "Maslamani, Ibrahim", mnorwood , sheldon schlegman
Subject: "no trees impacted" exception

Dear Mr. Caldwell:

On June 16, 2008 a building permit (#BB200802851) was issued to 125 Blackland Rd. for the construction of a fence. The application was streamlined using the "no trees impacted" exception.

On or about July 18, 2008 this property was cited for the destruction of 14 trees. It appears the "no trees impacted" exception was not valid. Would you please explain how this happened?

Thank you,

Linda Trower
Concerned Citizen

City's Efforts To "Streamline" the Permitting Process

2008-08-28T21:36:00.000-04:00

From a broadcast email sent by Mercy Wright on August 28, 2008:

I came across an interesting announcement on City of Atlanta Online (the Official Website for the City of Atlanta) datelined August 19, 2008, but it is much older. I printed it, in case it gets taken down. I don't have a scanner, so I'll retype pertinent parts of the message titled NEW LEADERSHIP FORWARDS CHANGE IN CITY'S PERMITTING PROCESS:

Last April, the City launched its Permitting Improvement Project to decrease the time it takes to issue a permit by 50 percent by 2007.

Development opportunities in Atlanta are on an upswing, new residential permit applications have increased by 11 percent and new commercial applications have increased 95 percent in the past year. "With Atlanta's population expected to double in the next 25 years it is critical we meet the demand", says new BOB director Ibrahim Maslamani.

The recent hire of four executive-level professionals in the Bureau of Buildings (BOB) and a new Public Information Officer for the Departmnet of Planning and Community Development is a critical step in making the process of obtaining permits easier for homeowners and Atlanta's development community. During the next 90 days, new BOB director Ibrahim Maslamani will focus on several strategies to reduce permitting time. Maslamani will implement a concurrent review process with the Zoning division; schedule standard pre-development meetings; restore open business hours on Tuesdays, and separate complex projects requiring a review for land disturbance. Maslami will also increase the BOB staff by 30 percent in 2006. To reach Ibrahim Maslamani, email him at imaslamani@atlantaga.gov.

In May, Anthony Carter assumed the helm as assistant director of the newly created Permiktting Services division. Carter has assembled a "residential special projects team" comprised of intake, plan review and zoning specialists. This team will serve as a one/stop/shop, significantly decreasing wait times for residential permits. To reach Anthony Carter, email him at acarter@atlantaga.gov.

Technology is the first order of business for Raoul Newman, the new assistant director of Inspection Services. Newman has equipped all City inspectors with Nextel cell phones and is planning to install computers in each inspector vehicle for real/time results. With this new technology, inspectors will soon be able to print inspection results on the spot. To reach Raoul Newman, email him at mewman@atlantaga.gov.

Ainsley Caldwell, the City's new arboricultural manager, has created a "no trees impacted" exception that will speed up a plan review for certain developments. Caldwell is working to get is entire department ISA-certified (International Society of Arboriculture) and he recently launched a public information campaign related to the City's tree ordinance. To reach Ainsley Caldwell, email him at acaldwell@atlantaga.goc.

Highlights are mine.

Mr. Maslamani couldn't be more accomodationg to builders, could he?

Mercy S. Wright

Linda Trower responded:

From: Linda Trower
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:39 PM

Having stood in line at the Bureau of Buildings too long to get a permit, I agree the process needed to be streamlined. That being said, an arborist should be required to inspect the property and make sure no trees are involved before a permit stating "no trees involved" is issued. But then the process wouldn't be "streamlined" would it?

To take a contractor or home owners word that "no trees are involved" is naïve unless you don't care if trees are involved. And that just may be the case in the Department of Buildings. The Cover, Maslamani, Borrero "plan" at work!

thank you,

Linda Trower

... and Jack White responded to Linda:

From: Jack White
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:04 PM

Linda's 2 paragraphs (above) are worth emphasizing in discussions of this issue. The City's building permitting processes have been torturous on many levels. In my view (based on listening to many variance appeals over the last few years in VaHi and NPU-F), the Arborist division was the absolute least of those problems. As Tom's graphs have shown, in many areas of the City they weren't likely to be much of a factor at all (because of indifferent and erratic arborist performance); in Tom's area, compliance with the law was required, but at least he was efficient and prompt and didn't cause delays, other than revision of poorly drawn plans.

One of the City's tactics has been to conflate anger with their own generally poor processes with the resistance of (a few) builders and (even fewer) homeowners to the Tree Ordinance and lump them all together as one big bureaucratic nightmare that needs "streamlining." Marcy's summary of how this happened is well-written and persuasive, and I would add to it that the revisions to the Tree Ordinance in 2005 that tightened the time frame and limited who has standing to appeal makes the need for Arborists' validating plans even more critical.

Linda's careful distinction between legitimate citizen/builder anger over poor process in general and abandoning the Tree Ordinance helps those who have been victimized by poor process understand that improvements in efficiency don't require sacrificing trees.

Jack

... and Linda replied:

From: Linda Trower
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:36 PM

All:

I am hoping Ainsley Caldwell will respond. It would seem that giving anyone applying for a building permit the opportunity to "streamline" the process by claiming the "no trees impacted" exception not only weakens the tree ordinance but in some cases takes it completely out of play.

I hope others will question Mr.Caldwell(acaldwell@atlantaga.gov) and Mr. Maslamani(imaslamani@atlantaga.gov) with copies to Commissioner Steven Cover(scover@atlantaga.gov) and Mary Norwood (mnorwood@atlantaga.gov) and any other council members you choose about this "no trees impacted" exception.

The property at 125 Blackland Rd. (permit#BB200802851) is an excellent example to cite. The permit read "no trees impacted" and by the time Tom Coffin got to the scene a backhoe had destroyed 14 trees. This was the property featured on the news. Sad to say, I drove by there today and the fence is in progress. They paid the fine and drove on.

We need to establish an email record for the auditors to look at. This "no trees impacted" exception is a red flag. It is an exception that should not exist. I can't say that the exception must be verified by a COA arborist, because I have my doubts that any arborist other than Tom would dispute the exception.

Please flood the above email boxes above questioning the 125 Blackland Rd. permit and the "no trees involved" exception.

FYI Luz Borrero, Steven Cover and Ibrahim Maslamani were the committee that streamlined the permitting process.

Thank you,

Linda Trower

and Debbie Fowler responded to Linda....

From: Debra R. Fowler
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:02 AM

FYI we had a personal experience with Mr. Caldwell regarding tree removal from a development in progress directly behind us. Tom Coffin and other maybe Frank Mobley also approved NOT to remove trees as the site plans from the developer were vague at best. It also impacted the life of our trees on our property which back up to the one I am referring to. The blue sign was posted and Mr. Caldwell over rode the field (Tom Coffin) stating the plans met the tree ordinance when in fact they did not. Perhaps this is just our dealings with Caldwell but he appears to be on the same page as the others.

Implied Correlation Simply Not There

2008-08-28T17:29:00.000-04:00

Email from Tom Coffin:

August 28, 2008

Gregory J. Giornelli
Chief Operating Officer
City of Atlanta
55 Trinity Ave SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Mr. Giornelli:

I write in response to your August 26 letter to the City Council posted on the mayor’s website (http://www.atlantaga.gov/). I do not know why you, as Chief Operating Officer of the city, feel compelled to speak for the Arborist Division and to deny its problems. Whatever the reason, your letter appears as an official communiqué from the mayor’s office. As such it prejudices the ongoing and supposedly independent investigation by the HR department into my still unexplained firing, compromising the investigation and reducing the possibility of an objective evaluation and judgment by the HR investigator.

You complain of “misinformation circling that has obscured our track record,” one that makes the Arborist Division “one of the City’s bigger success stories.” I certainly do not deny the significant changes wrought by the Tree Protection Ordinance since year 2000. I helped guide and push those changes. It is not “misinformation,” however, to point out the central problems in the Arborist Division that prevent further advance – the unequal and inconsistent application and, in particular, the lack of enforcement of the ordinance by the field arborist staff. These are problems that need to be addressed, not papered over with vague and dishonest claims of “misinformation.”

I documented the lack of enforcement in my July 30 letter to the mayor, which I will also attach to this message. I here add material from the productivity analysis that I submitted to Arboricultural Manager Ainsley Caldwell shortly before my firing. The data is official, abstracted from monthly “Inspections Completed By” reports generated from the Bureau of Buildings’ KIVA database.

In your letter to council you state, with no evidence, that the Northwest section of the city has the greatest amount of development and thus the greatest amount of inspection activity. Could be, but the statistic, if true, is meaningless. My assigned territory encompassed part of the NW and part of the NE quadrants, with the lion’s share of each quadrant assigned to Janell Bazile (NW) and Paul Lewkowicz (NE). Michael Franklin was assigned to the SE and SW.

The chart below reflects “development” in the areas assigned to each field arborist. “Yellow postings” refer to the color of the sign that is posted for five business days on sites that have received preliminary arborist approval for tree removal in construction:

The second chart below graphs this data as percentages, giving some idea of relative development pressure in each arborist’s assigned territory:

If, as you imply, the amount of development is probably correlated with the amount of illegal destruction, it is logical to assume that if 36% of the construction is going on in the “TC” area, roughly 36% of enforcement activities should be expected in that area. Likewise for the other arborists: Construction practice being equal across the city, if each arborist followed standard enforcement practice we should expect relative parity in enforcement activity with development activity. The pie chart on enforcement should look much like the one above.

Such is not the case, however. In the chart below, “ACRC Inspections” refer to illegal destruction citations entered into KIVA. It is the only indicator available to track illegal destruction charges. It is the only measure available of enforcement activity in the Arborist Division. The chart is stunning:

I’m sorry, Mr. Giornelli, but without enforcement the Tree Protection Ordinance is a dead letter, and the only arborist engaged in enforcement has been fired. Ignoring and denying the enforcement problem makes your declaration of an Arborist Division “success story” a sham and a shame. The city deserves more than a Cover-up from you and the mayor’s office.

Tom Coffin

Atlanta City Arborist Firing May Lead to Audit

2008-08-27T23:03:00.000-04:00

From NeighborhoodNewspapers.com...

"Because of the much-publicized firing last month of the city’s senior arborist, Tom Coffin, the arborist division may get scrutinized and some policies may be up for change." ...more

CD/HR Committee Approves Audit Request

2008-08-27T00:18:00.000-04:00

A broadcast email sent from Tom Coffin on August 26, 2008:

The Community Development/Human Resources committee of the City Council today added a new dimension to the response to my firing as Sr. Arborist. In a unanimous vote the committee approved a resolution co-sponsored by Councilmembers Mary Norwood, Anne Fauver, C.T. Martin, Joyce M. Sheperd, Ivory L. Young, Jr., Cleta Winslow, Ceasar C. Mitchell and H. Lamar Willis to “request and authorize the City Auditor through the Audit Committee to conduct an independent audit of the Arborist Division of the Bureau of Buildings, Department of Planning and Community Development.”

Not without a bit of farce, however. Ibrahim Maslamani, Director of the Bureau of Buildings, wrote the committee chair, Jim Maddox, saying “Due to the ongoing investigation by HR, we would like to postpone any public presentations on this issue until such investigation is completed.” Joyce Sheperd made the distinction between the “employment issue” of my firing before the HR department and the much broader “audit issue” before the committee.

City Attorney Robin Shahar was consulted on ground rules. She said that the request for an audit was a policy decision, not a legal decision. She suggested that given the on-going HR investigation it would not be prudent for council members to comment on my firing.
They could listen, however, and the public could say anything they wanted to say.

Several people spoke, supporting the audit and protesting my dismissal, including Sheldon Schlegman, Linda Trower and Charlotte Gillis. Leigh Bielenberg gave an emotional account of the recent destruction of her massive S. red oak to an infill developer that I had earlier stopped. I am so sorry.

There was a bit of comedy too. City Hall regular Carrie Duncan voiced his demand that I be rehired, “and he doesn’t even agree with me politically! I’m a Bush supporter and he’s a Bush basher! But he does his job, every day, every time.” I appreciate your support, Carrie.

I have asked Al Elder, the HR investigator, for an update on his two-week long (and counting) investigation. No response as yet. Mayor Shirley Franklin is at the Democratic convention this week, so I expect no decision until next week at the earliest. I am exploring legal action either if the investigation drags on too much longer or if the recommendation and decision are negative. I will keep you posted.

Tom Coffin

Clair Muller "Very Upset"

2008-08-25T21:47:00.000-04:00

From: Linda Trower [mailto:lindat01@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:47 PM
Subject: Meeting with Clair Muller

All -

Councilmember Clair Muller met with my neighborhood this afternoon. She is very upset with Tom's firing and feels there is a lot of explaining to do. She said she will speak personally with Jim Maddox (he wasn't at the August 18 council meeting) and pass on the injustice done to Tom, the sham investigation being done by the Mayor, the "plan," etc. I felt very encouraged.

Shel Schlegman is back from Miami. Shel and I will be at the CD/HR meeting tomorrow. I don't think we can speak, but if we can we are ready. Hope others will be able to attend.

Thank you,
Linda Trower
Concerned Citizen

"Open Records" Sent into the Stratosphere?

2008-08-25T12:48:00.000-04:00

From: Linda Trower
To: mnorwood ; Clair Muller
Cc: sheldon schlegman ; jmaddox@atlantaga.gov ; jsheperd@atlantaga.gov ; ccmitchell@atlantaga.gov ; hlwillis@atlantaga.gov ; ilyoung@atlantaga.gov
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:48 AM

Dear CD/HR Committee Members:

Tom Coffin's firing becomes more insidious by the day. As you can see by the enclosed article, the Mayor's office put a lid on things from the beginning.

Tom requested and was billed for 577 pages of email and after the request was "sent upstairs" received only 134. Tom has a legal right to see all 577 pages.

Mr. Elder, the HR Investigator, promised to look into the "plan" and include Luz Borrero in his interview schedule. A few minutes later he recalled the earlier message. He will do neither.

The investigation will go nowhere as long as it is being handled by HR (the Mayor). I implore the council to do a thorough investigation of Tom Coffin's firing without cause or recourse, the "plan" (including Luz Borrero's involvement) and the lack of enforcement of the Tree Ordinance in the Arborist Division.

Thank you,

Linda Trower
Concerned Citizen

City Council Overrides Mayor's Veto

2008-08-23T02:13:00.001-04:00

From the Buckhead Reporter:

"During its first meeting back from recess Monday, Aug. 18, the Atlanta City Council overrode Mayor Shirley Franklin's veto of legislation that restores council oversight of city personnel matters such as promotions, firings and raises. The council overrode the veto by a vote of 13-1."...more

Arborist Firing Still a Mystery; Supporters Rally

2008-08-23T01:00:00.001-04:00

From the Buckhead Reporter...

"Speakers lined up in the Atlanta City Council chambers Aug. 18 to offer their protests over the sudden and unexplained firing July 29 of the city's senior field arborist, Tom Coffin.

Councilwoman Mary Norwood put forth a council resolution to request and authorize 'an independent audit of the arborist division of the Bureau of Buildings, Department of Planning and Community Development.'

E-mail messages exchanged between Bureau of Buildings director Ibrahim Maslamani and his boss, Steven Cover, in which Cover directs Maslamani to 'stick with our plan' and 'give Luz (Borrero, deputy chief operating officer for the city) a heads up,' emerged as part of the drama surrounding Coffin's firing." ...more

How to Lie With Statistics

2008-08-21T15:07:00.000-04:00

A broadcast email sent from Tom Coffin on August 21, 2008:

Thanks to all who attended and all who spoke at the city council meeting on Monday. The city needs to know that people are concerned and are watching. Mary Norwood did introduce her resolution to investigate my firing and the arborist division. I hope the investigation is extended to the Department of Planning where the problem originates. The council voted to give the issue to the human relations and community affairs committee, which meets on Tuesday, 8/26, I believe at 1 p.m.

The final speaker at Monday’s council meeting was Janelle Bazile, my erstwhile colleague and subordinate. She spoke about how "sad" it was that her supervisor – me --was implying that she and the other field arborists were not doing their jobs. She submitted a document to the council that I assume was meant to counter that impression. I will attach her document here:

DJ Anthony's note: Due to file format incompatibility, I am presently unable to attach the image here that Tom included in his email. However, the document simply shows that between January and July 2007, when Janell Bazile managed the region between I-75 and I-85, that she performed more site inspections than Tom Coffin did in the same region during the same months period in 2008. Sound suspicious? Tom thought so, too, and explains why:

The field arborist positions were created in 2000 with two overlapping responsibilities – to administer and to enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance. Administration is customer service driven. The field arborists respond to requests from contractors for site postings and final arborist inspections and from homeowners and tree service companies for individual tree evaluations. Enforcement – in the form of correction notices, stop work orders and citations – results in part from customer service requests for investigations, but mostly from the diligence and initiative of the individual arborist being willing to confront instances of ordinance violations found in the course of daily work.

Ms. Bazile’s chart conflates these responsibilities into a single category, “Inspections,” then proceeds to measure apples v. oranges, site visits made in 2007 by her v. those made in 2008 by me. This is a silly statistic in itself, but it is also compounded by hidden dishonesty: (1) Her numbers in 2007 include final arborist inspections, which now are the province of a single arborist, Stan Domengeaux, who does nothing but final inspections; (2) The territories covered are also different: In 2007 she covered the entire “wedge” between I-85 on the east and I-75 on the west. In 2008 my territory stopped at Northside Dr. on the west; (3) Types of inspections also changed. The economic downturn of the last half of 2007 resulted in far fewer postings for new construction. Total inspections did not drop much, however, because of a fairly dramatic increase in individual tree evaluation requests.

The key question remains the enforcement issue, which Ms. Bazile ignores. She easily could have contrasted her enforcement activities in 2007 with mine in 2008 had she chosen to do so. That would at least have been a more honest statistic and certainly more revealing.

The Department of Planning and the Bureau of Buildings continue to stonewall the issue of due process in my dismissal, refusing to give any reason whatsoever. Commissioner Cover’s cover is that my firing results from a “sensitive personnel issue.” “Sensitive” to whom, and “sensitive” why? My actions are and have been open and transparent. I have no objection to airing these “sensitive” issues in whatever forum is available.

Tom Coffin

Urban Forest Fiasco

2008-08-20T21:50:00.000-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

"Tom Coffin loves trees. And when we say he loves trees, he reaaally loves trees.

The unfamiliar face – who was the city's senior arborist until he was fired July 29 – is the epicenter of the latest scandal to emanate from already embattled City Hall.

The city's failure to specify why Coffin was fired (or who called for it) has led many to speculate about the cause – and jump to the conclusion that developers saw him as a threat. Even the New York Times took notice – and questioned whether Atlanta's development machine had chalked a win over the environmental community." ... more

Service Level Expectations to Remain the Same?

2008-08-20T02:47:00.000-04:00

An email sent from the Office of Howard Shook in response to my email correspondence of August 11, 2008. Note that Howard Shook's office had sent it's first inquiry about this property eight days earlier and had received no response.

From: Shook, Howard
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:35 AM
To: 'deLille Anthony'; 'David Robertson'; Franklin, Shirley; Norwood, Mary; Caldwell, Ainsley; Cover, Steven; Bazile, Janell
Cc: 'Clair Muller'; Muller, Clair
Subject: RE: OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees began this past weekend

Ainsley,

Can you give us an update on your findings regarding these properties? Thanks for your help.

Denis Taylor
Office of Councilperson Howard Shook
404-330-6050

Jannel Bazile responded immediately:

From: Bazile, Janell [mailto:jbazile@AtlantaGa.Gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:48 AM
To: Shook, Howard; deLille Anthony; David Robertson; Franklin, Shirley; Norwood, Mary; Caldwell, Ainsley; Cover, Steven
Cc: Clair Muller; Muller, Clair
Subject: RE: OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees began this past weekend

The site has been inspected and a 40” lost tree (located at the rear end of both properties) has been removed, but recompense has been paid. However, there will be charges for a 22” and 12” tree that was removed from the front yard of both lots. Please send me a fax number so I can fax the charges to you. The information will be faxed to the builder and their expeditor (Monica Woods). I’ll keep you posted on the status.

If you have any further comments, questions and/or concerns, please let me know.

Janell S. Bazile
ISA Certified Arborist
City of Atlanta - Arborist Division
404-330-6071 (office)
404-330-6977 (fax)
"have a TREEmendous day!"

... to which I replied with the following email to Janell Bazile's management team:

From: deLille Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:07 PM
To: 'Cover, Steven'; 'Caldwell, Ainsley'
Cc: (email addresses withheld)
Subject: Service level expectations to remain the same?

Dear Commissioner Cover and Mr. Caldwell,

On behalf of the Garden Hills neighborhood group I have copied here, I’d like to know what we can expect to be the turn-around time on inquiries to investigate illegally destroyed trees. Our neighborhood received same day service, or at most, service within 24 hours, when Tom Coffin served as our arborist. This request below took six days from the time Ms. Bazille received the initial request from Ainsley Caldwell to the time she issued a response.

I realize that Ms. Bazille may be in transition between two territories right now; therefore, this question is not for her but for her management team: how you will ensure that our neighborhood will not suffer a drop in quality of service due to the personnel changes you have made?

Thank you,

deLille Anthony
(street address deleted)
Atlanta, GA 30305

I did not receive a response to this email, so I assume that the City is unwilling to make any committments to how long we should expect to wait to have a site investigated when illegal tree cutting occurs. Unfortunately, if it takes a week or more to follow up, as it did in this case, developers will have plenty of time to cover up their misdeeds.

Was Coffin "Promoted" Just to Get Fired?

2008-08-19T17:10:00.000-04:00

This email below arrived with an attachment I can't upload here because it is in an incompatible format. However, the attachment included an Open Records request filed by Christopher Trower on August 5 "to inspect and copy all public records of the City of Atlanta related to the policies and procedures for termination of City of Atlanta employees working in the Department of Planning and Community Development". The letter also stated that "My understanding is that these records must be made available within three business days of the date of this request."

On August 18, thirteen days later, not three as required by law, a response was received from Joan Hudson, Business Manager with the City of Atlanta, which stated that the policies governing employees performing in a classified position can be found on the City's Web site but that these policies do not apply to unclassified employees who serve as employees-at-will.

With that understanding, Tom Coffin's recent promotion to an unclassified position now appears to be a highly calculated one, and possibly not in compliance with the City's standard HR job grading procedures, as Linda Trower notes below:

From: Linda Trower
To: Mary Norwood
Cc: jmaddox@atlantaga.gov ; khall@atlantaga.gov ; ccmitchell@atlantaga.gov ; hlwillis@atlantaga.gov ; jsheperd@atlantaga.gov ; ilyoung@atlantaga.gov
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Subject: Fw: Emailing: Open Records Law Request

Dear Mary--- thanks for getting the Tom Coffin firing/Tree Ordinance enforcement investigation to the CD/HR Committee. It's a start.

My open records request was finally answered. It appears Commissioner Cover and Director Maslamani considered Tom to be an unclassified employee. If that were the case, none of the above provisions would apply. I hope the CD/HR Committee will challenge this assertion.

I have reviewed the material in Code of Ordinance City of Atlanta, Georgia sec. 114-84 (definition of an unclassified position) and it would appear that neither the field arborist or senior arborist position would fall into that category.

Thank you,

Linda Trower
Concerned Citizen

Support Investigation of Comm. Cover

2008-08-19T02:52:00.000-04:00

From: kathryn kolb
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: support investigation of Comm. Cover

Dear Members of Atlanta City Council,

I am very concerned about Comm. Cover and his subordinate, Mr. Maslamani's, actions in firing the City's top arborist Tom Coffin. A memo obtained through the freedom of information act shows that Cover, Maslamani and perhaps at least one high level member of the Mayors' staff apparently conspired for some time with a "plan" to get rid of the most knowledgeable and experienced City Arborist because he actually did his job in correctly administering the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. In the email, Mr. Maslamani tells Mr. Cover that many members of the public are beginning to speak out against Tom's reasonless firing, and Comm. Cover responds that he should not worry but should "hang in there and stick to our plan." This is quite simply disgusting.

Tom's firing is an unconstitutional act - it is clear that Comm. Cover does not support the City's tree ordinance and wanted to further weaken it by making sure the staff of arborists (which are indirectly under his authority within the Bureau of Buildings) did not enforce the code. Should members of the Mayor's administration feel free to fire city staff for upholding laws passed City Council just because they don't happen to like those particular laws? Cover's action in firing Tom was an abuse of power that disrespects and violates the relationship between the legislative and executive arms of City government.

Unfortunately, Cover's action was indeed consistent with other of his actions that clearly illustrate he is no friend to the City's tree ordinance (or its's trees). I have personally watched him on several occasions present inaccurate or "skewed" information about the administration of the tree ordinance or about tree "facts" to council members at committee meetings (including tactics I believe were geared to suggest racism!) in order to try to sway council members to weaken, undercut and reverse protection to trees outlined in the ordinance.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about trees, and all are free to contact their legislative representatives to enact or change the City's laws - but once those laws are passed, it is the duty of city staff at all levels to enforce those laws, not to conspire with other staff members to erode a law's effectiveness. Tom Coffin was doing his job, Comm. Cover was not doing his!

Please support Councilmember Mary Norwood's call for a full investigation into this unfortunate situation, which I believe may well, and appropriately, lead to a call for Comm. Cover's resignation.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and please feel free to contact me anytime.

Kathryn Kolb
(personal contact information withheld)

My Statement to City Council

2008-08-18T22:55:00.000-04:00

The City Council meeting in which speakers were allowed to comment on Tom Coffin's firing was held this afternoon. While some speakers focused on the unfairness of his firing, most speakers stressed that they felt that firing practices were being used by the City Arborist Division as a way to wriggle out of having to enforce the Tree Ordinance.

My speech (limited to two minutes) was as follows:

“My name is deLille Anthony and I live at (address withheld). As a resident of North Atlanta, I am here to ask what kind of message does it send when (according to Tom Coffin’s report) the city arborist who filed 70 illegal tree removal cases during the first half of this year and conducted MORE site inspections than any other city arborist is replaced with a city arborist who filed only 1 illegal tree removal case during the first half of this year and conducted the FEWEST site inspections of all the city arborists?

I’ll tell you what message it sends. It says that all developers on the North side of Atlanta now have a free ticket to cut down any tree they want to with NO repercussions. THE TREE ORDINANCE WILL NOT BE ENFORCED.

Wow! What did the developers have to do to get THAT favor? I hope the investigation Mary Norwood is calling for “un-Covers”, excuse me, uncovers that information.”

After I spoke, Janell Bazile was called to speak. She is the arborist who replaced Tom Coffin and I refer to above. Janell spoke about her education in the field of forestry services, and said that the reason she had fewer cases than Tom Coffin was because Tom was assigned to the most active development region in the city. She also said that if you compare her record from last year while she served in the north region that Tom just most recently covered (and Janell covered before Tom replaced her), you would find that their records were very similar. She said if anyone wanted that information -- and she held a document in the air -- all they had to do was ask her.

Well, of course, I asked Janell for this information as soon as she finished speaking. She replied that she had to get back to her job and that I could “get it from the media”. I told her that I wanted to get this information from her because I wanted to understand the full picture, and that so far I was making my assessment based solely on the information provided by Tom Coffin. She said that the information was available and I could get it myself.

"Hmm… that's odd," I thought. If someone had just accused me of not doing my job in front of the entire City Council, and I had data to prove that person wrong, why would I not be more forthcoming with that data?

The Fired Arborist, The Silent City, and Now ‘The Plan’

2008-08-18T14:38:00.000-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

"The controversy swirling around the firing of city arborist Tom Coffin is now being discussed on Daily Kos. A member on the left-leaning website posted a PDF of a e-mail communication between city Planning Commissioner Steve Cover and Ibrahim Maslamani, the director of the city’s bureau of buildings and Coffin’s former boss.

In it, Maslamani asks for marching orders after support for the former arborist started pouring into City Hall. In his response, Cover tells Maslamani to 'stick to our plan' and to 'give Luz a heads up.'" (Click here to read the e-mail thread.) ... more

August 16 Update from Tom Coffin

2008-08-16T17:47:00.000-04:00

A broadcast email sent from Tom Coffin on August 16, 2008:

Friends:

I again give you my heartfelt thanks for your continuing support. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic at this point. Much depends on the independence and integrity of the HR officer assigned to the case, Al Elder. He appears to be conducting a thorough investigation. He has agreed to look into the “plan” referenced by Commissioner Cover in his email to Mr. Maslamani, as well as to include Luz Borrero in his interview schedule. I don’t know when (or even if) he will issue a report or, if he does, whether it will be available to either the public or to me. Mr. Elder’s suggestion of a meeting between Cover, Maslamani, my supervisor Ainsley Caldwell and me has not materialized.

There is continued media interest in the case. Ch. 2 scheduled another interview last week, only to cancel so the reporter could cover the molestation case in Clayton County. Both the AJC and Creative Loafing have stories in the pipeline. The AJC article is scheduled to appear on Monday. I don’t know what CL’s publication schedule is like. The Buckhead Reporter says that they intend to continue coverage.

Both the AJC and CL have access to the documents I requested under the Open Records law and have questioned me extensively about their contents. They have also put in OR requests for documents related to the “plan,” as have I. I have also asked for additional access to documents – when the city responded to my original request they sent me a bill for 577 pages. When I went to review them the first time I was told that they had been “sent upstairs” for further review. The next day I was allowed to view 134 pages. I have asked them to produce the other 423 documents.

Mary Norwood has said that she intends to introduce a resolution for an independent investigation at the City Council meeting at 1 p.m. Monday 8/18. Interested citizens are being asked to attend. I believe that there is time allotted for input from the audience. I will include the link to the DailyKos site calling for participation. The link also includes most of the press reports to date. It is

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/185720/594/441/568072

Thanks again,

Tom Coffin

Open Records Law Violation

2008-08-14T23:41:00.000-04:00

From: Linda Trower
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 8:41 AM
To: (private citizens email addresses withheld)

On 8/5/08 my attorney submitted an open records to the City of Atlanta (Mayor Franklin, Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources Benita Ransom and City Attorney Beth Chandler) for policies and procedures governing the termination of employees. It is ten days later and the request which by law must be answered in 3 days has not been answered.

It appears that the Franklin administration has no regard for legalities when it comes to employee termination or responding to opens records requests.

Linda Trower,
Concerned Citizen

Internal City Email, Atlanta Take Action for Trees

2008-08-14T19:38:00.000-04:00

From the Daily Kos....

"If you are on the side of protecting urban tree canopy and the upholding of the Atlanta Tree Ordinance then come to the City Council Meeting on Monday 8/18/08 at 1:00 pm at City Hall. Support Mary Norwood (Council Member at large and mayoral candidate) while she presses for an investigation into the firing of Senior Arborist Tom Coffin. He was fired for no cause and with no due process. This reprehensible action is a step in a plan unknown to the citizens of Atlanta on the part of Ibrahim Maslamani (Director of Bureau of Buildings), Steven Cover (head of Dept of Planning and Urban Development), and Luz Borrero( Deputy Chief Operating Officer)." ... more

What's the Plan?

2008-08-14T00:30:00.000-04:00

Internal emails obtained via Open Records Request, sent as an attachment to a broadcast email from Tom Coffin on August 13, 2008:

From: Cover, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Maslamani, Ibrahim
Subject: Re: firing of arborist Tom Coffin

Hang in there and stick with our plan. Give Luz a heads up.

From: Maslamani, Ibrahim
To: Cover, Steven
Sent: Wed Jul 30 08:16:39 2008
Subject: FW: firing of arborist Tom Coffin

The emails and phone calls started yesterday.

Ibrahim K. Maslamani
Director, Bureau of Buildings

City of Atlanta
55 Trinity Avenue,SW
Suite 3900
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Office 404-330-6152
Fax 4O4-494-1979

From: Linda Trower (email address deleted)
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:34 AM
To: Maslamani, Ibrahim
Cc: Franklin, Shirley; Mobley, Frank
Subject: firing of arborist Tom Coffin

Dear Mr. Maslamani--- as a resident of NPU-A I am saddened and puzzled by your firing of Tom Coffin. Tom is the best arborist our area of town (Buckhead) has had. It appears Tom was fired for doing his job, enforcing the tree ordinance. Please consider rehiring Tom Coffin.

Regards,

Linda Trower
Secretary, NPU-A

8/1/2008

Without Enforcement, There is No Law

2008-08-13T20:56:00.000-04:00

From: Barbara Baggerman
To: info@green-law.org
Cc: Charlotte Gillis, mnorwood@atlantaga.gov
Subject: Environmental Heroes Celebration
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:56:21 +0000

Dear GreenLaw,

Why is Shirley Franklin being honored as an environmental hero when her administration has become increasingly corrupt in terms of lack of enforcement of tree ordinances, stream buffer requirements, etc?

Developers hire lawyers to find loopholes, demand variances to laws, and threaten lawsuits based on "economic hardship" if they are not accommodated, so city and county officials cave to their demands. Or they routinely break the laws and then blithely pay the (obviously inadequate) fines as a cost of business.

Community groups protest, but their requests for enforcement are dismissed unless they have the money to also hire lawyers, which most don't, because they are volunteer organizations and are working for free.

It is increasingly impossible to get any action out of city or county government without a lawyer, so the average citizens trying to look out for their communities are helpless.

If GreenLaw is truly interested in enforcement of environmental law, they will create a mechanism for community groups to obtain legal assistance without charge (either through pro bono work or setting up some kind of foundation for funding). Legal assistance is desperately needed and can't come too soon.

Current environmental laws are not being enforced. Trees are illegally cut. Stream buffer variances are granted. Storm water runoff damage is not rectified.

In DeKalb County, the Planning Director is allowed to issue development variances at will, with no public notification or input, no sign postings, nothing. This is not a democracy; it's a dictatorship. Will GreenLaw look into this and work to get this loophole closed?

Most of all, will GreenLaw find ways to provide legal assistance to community groups at no charge? Without enforcement, there is no law.

Thank you for your consideration,

Barbara Baggerman
President, Rock Creek Watershed Alliance

NPU-F Parks Chair Weighs In

2008-08-13T07:24:00.000-04:00

From: Rob Glancy
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:24 PM
To: sfranklin@AtlantaGa.GovCc: 'Anne Fauver at Bellsouth'; 'Anne Fauver'; mnorwood@AtlantaGa.Gov; 'Dianne Olansky'; 'Pamela Papner'; 'Papner, Pamela'; 'Gillett, Ken'
Subject: Disappointment regarding Tom Coffin's Dismissal

Dear Madame Mayor:

I am writing you to express my personal disappointment at the dismissal of Tom Coffin. I know you are hearing a lot of this lately, and I know it is being investigated, but I think it is important to hear this from a wide range of parties who have worked with him over the years.

I have been the Parks Chair of NPU-F since 2004 and I have been the Parks Chair for The Virginia-Highland Civic Association since 2001. In these capacities, I have worked with Mr. Coffin and have always found him to be extremely professional, unbiased, effective and tireless in his work as an arborist for the city.

Moreover, I believe his dismissal confirms the lack of interest and commitment to the Tree Ordinance, which I believe is so important to the city for us and for future generations. Everyone says it, and I will say it again:

Atlanta’s most important natural resource is its trees. We don’t have the lakes, harbors or oceans of Chicago, Boston, New York and Miami nor the mountains of Denver and Seattle, but we have our trees, and they are critical to our quality of life. Mr. Coffin is a staunch supporter of trees and an individual who is not afraid to do his job, and as such, he is a critical person to have on staff in the Arborist’s office.

I hope there will be a reversal of this decision, and furthermore I hope this situation leads to a revitalized commitment to the enforcement and management of the city’s Tree Ordinance.

Sincere regards,

Rob Glancy
Parks Chair, NPU-F
Parks Chair, Virginia-Highland Civic Association

Mary Norwood Requests Investigation

2008-08-13T02:24:00.000-04:00

A broadcast email from Mary Norwood sent on August 12, 2008:

Good morning,

At next week’s council meeting, I will introduce a resolution calling for investigation of the termination of Tom Coffin and broader questions regarding accountability for all city employees as well as their fulfilling their duties and tasks assigned. All of our employees must be accountable for the fair and impartial enforcement of all city rules and regulations and for the diligent and efficient performance of their jobs. Whether obtaining a building permit, paying a water bill, removing a tree, or having a street repaired, all citizens need to feel assured that our city is acting fairly and conscientiously as well as cost-effectively and fulfilling committed to making our city work again. The termination of Tom Coffin needs to be investigated and the arborist division as a whole reviewed. It is my understanding that the Mayor has asked for such an investigation and if so, I concur that this step is an important one for the City of Atlanta to take. Our tree canopy of is a defining attribute of our city and one that all of our citizens feel strongly about. It is important that we, as elected officials, make certain that we are protecting our citizens’ quality of life and the environment of our city. We also want to be sure that City employees do the jobs we pay them to do. This is a time and a place to make sure that fairness and efficiency both prevail. This is how we make our City work again.

Sincerely,
Mary

Why was Atlanta Arborist Tom Coffin Fired?

2008-08-12T13:59:00.000-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

"That’s a damn good question.

On one hand, you have an outspoken arborist who churned out more citations and inspections than his colleagues combined, holds a Ph.D in forestry from the University of Georgia, and by all standards and definitions, committed what may be the ultimate sin in municipal government: He actually — gasp — did his job. On the other, there’s…uhm. Well, no one really knows. Coffin says the firing was out of the blue and the city’s said it was not related to the $140 million budget shortfall. Surely there’d be a paper trail, right?

So I stopped by City Hall yesterday to review his personnel file.

Coffin, one of the founders of Atlanta’s legendary alt-weekly, the Great Speckled Bird, joined the arborist’s office in June 2000 and — save for a brief period in 2002 when he was laid off because of a budget crunch — looks on paper as if he was an exemplary employee."... more

OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees...

2008-08-11T19:56:00.001-04:00

An email I sent Mayor Franklin, Mary Norwood and Howard Shook:

From: deLille Anthony
Sent: Aug 11, 2008 12:32 PM
To: sfranklin@atlantaga.gov, mnorwood@atlantaga.gov, hshook@atlantaga.gov
Subject: OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees began this past weekend

Dear Mayor Franklin,

With Tom Coffin out of the developers’ way, OPEN SEASON on Buckhead’s trees began this past weekend. A beautiful 22” magnolia tree was removed by R. Tree Service at 2668 Ellwood Drive, NE this past Saturday, in the Garden Hills neighborhood just blocks from my house. No posting was ever noticed by the neighbors who called to report this tree to me, and the tree appeared very healthy before its destruction. One neighbor asked R. Tree Service for a permit to cut the tree and the tree service was unable to produce one.

I understand that Tom Coffin has already fined the owner of this property for cutting down trees illegally when the property was undergoing site preparation for an infill home. However, I can’t tell you who owns this property because this property is not recorded in the Fulton County property tax database. (Does this mean that the developer/owner isn’t paying property taxes like the rest of us?)

Meanwhile, a second neighbor has been dialing the City Arborist office this morning to inquire about this magnolia, and he can’t get anything but recorded messages.

What are we supposed to be doing now? We have no arborist assigned to our neighborhood, the city won’t pick up the phone and all we’ve heard is that we have to wait for an HR investigation to discover why Tom Coffin was fired. The City Arborist Division employees should be doing their jobs NOW, regardless of whatever is decided about Tom Coffin’s job.

Meanwhile, while we sit and wait on HR, the developers are firing up their chain saws knowing that no one is going to stop them.

deLille Anthony
Atlanta, GA

... and a response from the Office of Howard Shook:

From: Shook, Howard [mailto:hshook@AtlantaGa.Gov]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:41 PM
To: David Robertson; deLille Anthony; Franklin, Shirley; Norwood, Mary; Caldwell, Ainsley
Cc: Clair Muller; Muller, Clair
Subject: RE: OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees began this past weekend

Ainsley,

Do you have information regarding the tree at this property? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thanks for your help.

Denis Taylor
Office of Councilperson Howard Shook
404-330-6050

... followed by a clarification from me:

From: deLille Anthony
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:54 PM
To: Shook, Howard; 'David Robertson'; Franklin, Shirley; Norwood, Mary; Caldwell, Ainsley
Cc: 'Clair Muller'; Muller, Clair
Subject: RE: OPEN SEASON on Buckhead trees began this past weekend

Thank you very much for following up on this! I just learned that the original lot is 2672 Ellwood, but has been subdivided into two lots, with the new lot being 2668 Ellwood. Might be helpful to know in looking up the permit history (or lack thereof…).

deLille Anthony

Fulton County Taxpayers Demand Accountability

2008-08-11T16:56:00.000-04:00

From the 8/11/08 Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation E-Letter:

Dear Members and Supporters,

Last week, Senior Arborist Tom Coffin was fired without explanation.The story was so poignant, that the New York Times picked it up, as well as the Associated Press, Discover Magazine (Blog), Huffington Post, Fort Mill (SC) Times, Columbus (Ga) Ledger-Enquirer and The Examiner.com. See the link to the left for the NYTimes article.

Please see the comprehensive letter written by Coffin to the Mayor and City Council below.

I feel that the letter from the recently fired Tom Coffin, Senior Field Arborist for the City of Atlanta, to the Mayor and City Council, is a "must" read for every taxpayer. Here are a few questions of concern:

1. What has influenced the summary firing of Tom Coffin? The developers? His co-workers who have performed with a 'total lack of enforcement'?

2. What other City departments have similar cases?

3. Where is an accounting of the money collected from the millions of dollars raised under the tree ordinance paid for the replanting or care of trees as required by law?

Too long Atlantans have had to put up with corruption in government! Demand more accountability from those in office!

We urge you to email Mayor Franklin, calling for a full investigation into Coffin's dismissal. The FCTF will pass on more information as we receive it.

Sincerely,
John S. Sherman
President

City Pay Raises Seen as Bid to Slide by Council

2008-08-09T00:55:00.002-04:00

There is something rather unsettling about the department charged with conducting the investigation of Tom Coffin's firing having just given themselves the most number of raises before City Council resumes greater oversight over pay raises, in addition to other matters such as reclassifying jobs.

From the Buckhead Reporter...

"City of Atlanta department heads have doled out at least $332,811 in raises to 69 employees in recent weeks in what appears to be an effort to reward certain workers before the City Council resumes greater oversight of personnel matters, including the granting of raises. ...The largest number of raises went to employees in the departments of Watershed Management and Human Resources."... more

Supporters Fear Arborist Was Fired for his Stout Defense of Trees

2008-08-08T20:38:00.001-04:00

From the Buckhead Reporter...

"Buckhead and northeast Atlanta neighborhood leaders and environmentally concerned residents are unhappy about the sudden firing of Tom Coffin, the senior field arborist for the city of Atlanta.Some question whether the only "cause" that could be cited in the firing would be that Coffin did his job too well in enforcing the city's tree protection ordinance, likely levying significant penalties on established developers and well-placed residents."... more

A Plea to "Change a Terrible Wrong"

2008-08-07T23:24:00.000-04:00

From a broadcast email sent by Dr. Jeri Breiner...

dear mayor, having worked for dhr years ago, i do appreciate the constraints you must operate under. i know your power is restricted and has a path that we probably cannot understand. please do understand that our pleas are only personal because we believe you are our only hope to change a terrible wrong. Not just to reverse tom coffins firing, but to make sure that the fines he was about to impose are followed through by the arborist department and to make sure that department is not being told by the director of the bureau of buildings or his direct superiors to not carry out their jobs. although i know you are ending your term, i still hope the passion you have always shown still exists. there is a big problem in tree protection for your city, my city. developers know, as do home owners and contractors, that penalties after the fact are rarely followed through on, if they occur at all, when it comes to the tree ordinance. the same goes for soil and erosion enforcement. i truly hope that our requests energize you to push the people that do have power to do their jobs... to make our city remain the city of hardwoods and maples and streams. we are asking you to go out of your box, to help us correct a disease in our city government. i do not believe that the intention is to give you bad press; rather, to give you more power to do what only a mayor can do for her city. please revisit this issue. it is=2 0not unwarranted and is backed by data.

thank you so much for any time you spend on correcting this issue. sincerely, jeri breiner, ph.d.

Who is the Greedy Once-ler?

2008-08-07T21:46:00.000-04:00

Linda Trower sent the following email to Mayor Shirley Franklin with this attachment....

From: Linda Trower
To: Franklin, Shirley
Sent: Thu Aug 07 18:04:14 2008
Subject: Emailing: The Lorax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Mayor Franklin --- If Tom Coffin is the Lorax, who do you think is the greedy Once-ler? How much more bad press before you do what is right, rehire Tom Coffin and investigate the disparities in tree code enforcement?

Thank you,
Linda Trower,
Concerned Citizen

Mayor Franklin responded...

From: Franklin, Shirley
To: Linda Trower
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Emailing: The Lorax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ms. Thrower, press coverage is an important source of some of the information, but in my 30 years of public service I've learned to rely on a combination a combination of sources before drawing conclusions. Popularity isn't on the list of reasons I ran for office. In this case I have taken action to discern the facts and will be lead by the outcome of the review I have directed. My previous email said as much to you. I do appreciate your passion especially as some refer to my to commitment to public service as passion. Thanks for your input. S Franklin

Linda forwarded Franklin's message with her thoughts...

From: Linda Trower
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:46 PM
To: (priave citizens email addresses withheld)
Fw: Emailing: The Lorax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another buzz off!

Who Fired Our Lorax?

2008-08-07T20:49:00.000-04:00

From: sheldon schlegman
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:49 PM
To: mayor franklin
Subject: Who fired our Lorax

Open below

Shel

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6650219631867189375

Fulton County Taxpayers Question Coffin's Firing

2008-08-07T19:34:00.000-04:00

From the 8/7/08 Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation E-Letter:

Dear Members and Supporters,

Last week, Senior Arborist Tom Coffin was fired without explanation.The story was so poignant, that the New York Times picked it up, as well as the Associated Press, Discover Magazine (Blog), Huffington Post, Fort Mill (SC) Times, Columbus (Ga) Ledger-Enquirer and The Examiner.com.

See the link to the left for the NYTimes article. According to sources, the battle has developers and builders on one side and Atlanta's trees on the other. Coffin cited over 70 violations of illegal tree removal from developers during his tenure. As of today, Coffin has not been told the specific reason for his firing.

Couple this with developers wanting to use TAD funds for projects (on the ballot this November) and the blatant mismanagement of the City, we must wonder what is really happening and why a loyal, City worker was fired with no explanation.

We urge you to email Mayor Franklin, calling for a full investigation into Coffin's dismissal. The FCTF will pass on more information as we receive it.

Sincerely,

Barbara Payne
Executive Director

Huffington Post Comments

2008-08-07T18:49:00.000-04:00

The Huffington Post picked up the New York Times story as soon as it was published. Here is a comment to the article from their Web site:

"well it's nice to hear that at least someone was doing their job because when I drive through this city the question that repeatedly comes to my mind is: why does atlanta even have a tree ordinance? the developers here still clear-cut old large trees then replant saplings - and given the stress that these trees are under it is highly doubtful they will ever reach the size of the ones that are being cut down.I've lived here for almost 2 decades and I continue to be appalled at what the city allows developers to get away with here. we're running out of water and they still keep handing out the building permits. we're losing our oldest and largest tress to greed and the city just keeps handing out the permits. truely this city is f-ed at this point. so I guess given that developers always get their way in this place it comes as no surprise that the one person who seemed to be doing his job to protect the trees was fired. developers will not be satisfied until every tree is gone and every corner of the city is covered with concrete. these people blinded by their own greed are foolish to think they are going to be given a pass for what they are doing - the universe will not accept the "I needed a job" excuse as a reason for so much destruction." - by RememberTheAlamo

"....One can see each and every night on the weather report the effect that Atlanta's heat island has on North Georgia's climate. Storms advance from the west and dry up at the Alabama line only to reform again once passed the metro area. This radically exacerbates the almost consistent state of drought that we have all been suffering from the past few years. Tree cover protects the commons of ground water resources which, in turn, provide the surface waters three million people here depend upon. Urban sprawl has, in actuality, altered the climate that North Georgia used to possess. This puts every one of our infrastructural elements to an unnecessary strain that developers are rarely ever held to account for. The tree ordinance the article discusses are more than just an aesthetic device, they are one of the things that make life in the south endurable." - by Nippersdad

Other City Arborists' Competence Questioned

2008-08-07T15:35:00.000-04:00

From an broadcast email sent by Kathryn Kolb...

Dear Mayor Franklin,

I was shocked to hear of Atlanta Arborist Tom Coffin's reasonless firing from the City's Arborist Dept. What on earth prompted this? Instead of firing him, the city should have him train the other arborists -- he is the most knowledgeable person in that department on both tree health and on how the tree ordinance actually functions, and he has a great deal of experience, having done field work in accordance with all the various tree ordinance revisions for the last several years.

If the City, or the administrator within the Bureau of Buildings was purposefully trying to reduce protection and oversight for trees in Atlanta, then firing Tom would be a good way to start that process. By firing the staff that enforces the ordinance, the administrative wing of City government conveniently side-steps the legislative process and the City Council Members who spent so much time and energy in helping to create the ordinance we now have. Please tell me that this is not what occurred, and that Tom's firing was just a mistake by an overzealous manager who did not understand Tom's expertise within the Arborist Dept. - and that you, personally, will see that the situation is corrected, and that Tom is reinstated.

I have worked with Tom in the past with trees in my neighborhood, and I will tell you that it is a relief to find a City employee as knowledgeable, helpful, and as genuinely interested in doing a good job as Tom Coffin.

I don't mean to disparage other arborists that work for the City but I will relate two experiences I had with two of the City's other arborists:

1) One guy basically just didn't feel like walking through a property near my house that was overgrown but had very large trees, most of which were scheduled to be cut down. In just glancing at the site plan, I could see numerous mistakes related to the trees, so I filed an appeal. When the site engineer and I (and finally the arborist) walked just a few hundred feet into the site, the engineer said the developer's survey was all wrong, that the entire property had to be re-surveyed, and a few large hardwoods that had been marked to be removed on the original did not in fact have to be cut down at all! How many trees do you suppose we lose every day just because someone did not take the time and care to see that the plan on paper actually matches the work being done in the field? I had to go to the trouble to file an appeal on my own personal time just to see that the job was done right - something the City's Arborist should have done.

2) On another occasion I wished to cut down trees in my yard and a different City arborist showed up at my house. He was walking around my yard without first knocking on the door, and then when I came to the door he did not introduce himself or explain what he was doing, the first words he said were simply "Is that the tree?" (Since I had also called tree service people to look at the tree I wasn't sure who this guy was so I had to ask him if he was indeed from he City.) Then, because he didn't know very much about trees and shrubs, he mis-labled a large invasive shrub as a tree and I had to then go to the Tree Commission to get permission to cut it down because the arborist didn't know that the species was not a tree!

I say keep Tom and let him develop some practical field protocol for the rest of the Arborist Department.

It appears to me, and to many, that Tom was fired because he was doing a good job, and for some reason his superiors did not want him to do his job. If your administrators don't like the City's Tree Ordinance, then they are free to work through the correct legislative process in order to change the law, just firing people for enforcing the law sends a rather chilling message to our City's legislators, citizens, and indeed other hardworking staff in all departments -- please use the power of your office to rectify this unfortunate situation and protect your work and legacy of being the Mayor working toward a "green" Atlanta.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Kolb
Atlanta, GA

Real-Life Lorax Unceremoniously Fired

2008-08-06T21:14:00.000-04:00

From Discover Magazine blog...

"The New York Times has a strangely touching story on this hippie guy whose job (until he got canned) was to speak for Atlanta's trees.... It's hard to imagine a worse PR move for a city whose most widely known non-peachtree features are Outkast and the headquarters of Coca-Cola. Especially because Coffin actually looks exactly like the Lorax. Fluffy beard and sad, paternal eyes and everything."... more.

Atlanta Tree Lovers See Victory for Developers in Arborist’s Firing

2008-08-06T10:35:00.000-04:00

From the New York Times...

"ATLANTA — So proud are Atlantans of their sprawling canopy of dogwoods, magnolias and pines — and, of course, peach trees — that builders must pay hundreds of dollars for every tree they uproot, even with the city’s permission.

Tom Coffin was fired last week without explanation as Atlanta’s senior arborist.
The penalty for violators is far heftier: One developer was recently fined $24,000 for illegal tree clearance, and Tyler Perry, the movie actor and director, was penalized $177,000 for unauthorized deforestation on his property.

But in the contest between trees and the area’s rampant development, the bulldozers have often won. That may explain why many tree lovers were upset last week when Tom Coffin, 64, the city’s senior arborist, was fired without explanation."...more

Coffin's Hands Were Tied From Above?

2008-08-03T18:56:00.000-04:00

From: Debra R. Fowler
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 3:56 PM
To: (private citizens' email addresses withheld); 'C. Claire'
Cc: Mary Norwood
Subject: Tom Coffin

To All,

I share each of your feelings regarding Tom Coffin, Bureau of Planning, Arborist etc-we can collectively in our neighborhoods by joining together be heard an make a difference—along with helping ensure Mary is our next Mayor-it is our only hope!!

As an FYI, we have had personal experience with Tom Coffin. He is one of the FEW who cares, knows trees, enforces the ordinances in entirety and is not in collusion with any developer or homeowner only doing what is right for green, the law and environment, and City of Atlanta. He is honest, above board and operates with complete integrity. In our situation, we found blue signs were changed to yellow against the field advice (Tom Coffin) and this was done by Ansley Caldwell who is above Frank Mobley. It appears to me, it is the SAME city behavior as Campbell and Caldwell to the Commissioner level are all in cahoots together.

Just wanted to share this additional name with each of you, as in our situation, when we had our issues we contacted Mr. Coffin he advised us his hands were tied as he was over ruled by above. When I contacted Frank Mobley he was shocked to find this out and thus it was apparent Ansley Caldwell was the one who made decisions-thus Frank Mobley is a good man and by the way knowledgeable as well-the department in my opinion is run by inept people for the commissioner down!!!

Willing to help and sharing frustration!!

Debra

Rehire Tom Coffin

2008-08-03T01:01:00.000-04:00

From: Deborah Moscato
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:01 PM
To: 'SFranklin@AtlantaGa.Gov'Cc: 'mary@marynorwood.com'; cmuller@atlantaga.gov
Subject: Rehire Tom Coffin

Dear Mayor Franklin:

I am outraged at the firing of one of the best advocates we have in the city of Atlanta for our tree canopy. If anyone should be fired, it should be the manager who fired him or some of the other arborists who are not doing their job in enforcing our Tree Ordinance. For years, I have had frustrating experiences with the city of Atlanta and as well as careless contractors, including being involved in the appeal process only to lose to the developers & contractors. The trees are one of the MAIN reasons I moved to Atlanta from the suburbs 20 years ago. We need to stop the bleeding! Between this issue and the illegal alien problems we have right here in our neighborhood, I may choose to leave Atlanta if things don’t improve.

Atlanta's tree canopy is invaluable and needs to be protected and preserved by strict enforcement, usually in the form of heavy fines and stop work orders, by the COA arborists. If the climate at the Bureau of Buildings and Permits is such that arborists fear that enforcement will result in the loss of their jobs, the climate needs to be changed.

Please rehire Tom Coffin and see that all COA arborists can and do enforce the COA Tree Ordinance as Tom has done.
Best regards,

Debbie Moscato
Atlanta, GA

Atlanta Arborist Fired For Doing Job Too Well

2008-08-02T15:00:00.000-04:00

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

"Tom Coffin thought his bosses wanted to talk about the possible malfeasance he had discovered in the agency that enforces the city of Atlanta's tree ordinance.

Instead, they fired him.

Coffin lost his $50,700-a-year job as the city's senior field arborist on Tuesday after filing complaints against other employees.

He alleged they looked the other way when developers and homeowners illegally removed healthy trees, approved construction sites when violations were obvious, and failed to regularly impose fines even after blatant disregard of the law." more....

11Alive News Report: Atlanta Ignoring Tree Protection Law

2008-08-02T02:46:00.000-04:00

Click here to be taken to the video news report Channel 11 aired on Tom Coffin's firing. (Click on the video screen to the right of the text article to view the video.)

Atlanta Arborist Claims Department is Shirking Duties

2008-08-01T17:05:00.001-04:00

From Creative Loafing...

"Tom Coffin, a senior field arborist for the city of Atlanta, was fired on July 29 and has released a letter in which he outlines his concerns for the program that has both generated controversy and praise for its efforts to maintain Atlanta’s green canopy.

In a letter addressed to Mayor Shirley Franklin, the Atlanta City Council, the Tree Conservation Commission and citizens at large, Coffin says he was fired after he raised questions about the lack of accountability expected of the arborists and lack of enforcement of the tree ordinance on certain properties.

He also displays graphs that show he was one of the hardest workers the department had. Compared to his colleagues, Coffin conducted nearly double the number of property inspections. And according to graphs produced with information from the agency, his jurisdiction in the northeast quadrant of the city showed the highest number of ordinance enforcement and activities."... more

Morningside Civic Association/NPU-F Weighs In

2008-07-31T16:35:00.001-04:00

Attachment to a broadcast email sent by Charlotte Gillis, Board Member for MLPA and NPU-F :

July 31, 2008

Dear Mayor Franklin,

I understand that Mr. Tom Coffin, Senior Arborist and one of our most valuable city employees (from the perspective of tax-paying citizens who want their trees protected), was fired on July 29, 2008 by Mr. Ibraham Maslamani. Based on information I have received, there was no appropriate process by which a supervisor (Mr. Maslamani) informs an employee (Mr. Coffin) of performance problems and advises that employee of the required changes necessary to keep the job. I have worked with Mr. Coffin for over six years in my capacity as the Chair of the Environmental Affairs Committee for Morningside Lenox Park Association (MLPA) and as the Chair of the Tree Committee for NPU-F. I am fearful that the efforts of Mr. Coffin to bring the Arborist Division and its staff into compliance with the City Tree Protection Ordinance led to his dismissal. Please see the attached file with data regarding the performance of the Arborist Division.

Mr. Coffin was the City Arborist assigned to my Morningside neighborhood for several years, until this last year when he was transferred to the Buckhead neighborhood. During that time I had many occasions to work with Mr. Coffin on various tree protection issues involving residential and commercial locations. I do not exaggerate when I tell you that I have not seen more exemplary service from a city employee. Mr. Coffin is extremely responsive, knowledgeable and fair, even when his “fairness” has not always been in my favor. Mr. Coffin always upholds the Tree Ordinance, letting neither his personal interest in protecting the trees nor the pressure of the development community influence his decisions.

The level of respect and trust that Mr. Coffin has built among the many citizens of Atlanta who want to protect the environmental quality of their neighborhoods makes me curious as to the true cause for his firing. The City of Atlanta, and especially your administration, has worked very hard to obtain qualified staff to make this city world class in all respects. Your commitment to environmental issues and the quality of our air and water –which are directly linked to our tree canopy--convinces me that you would support an employee as conscientious and hard working as Mr. Coffin.

I hope you will be able to correct this matter as soon as possible. I do not see this firing as being of any benefit to the city, our environmental quality or our neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Charlotte Gillis
Board Member for MLPA and NPU-F

Fired for Doing His Job?

2008-07-31T14:25:00.000-04:00

Attachment to a broadcast email from Tom Coffin on July 31, 2008:

To Mayor Shirley Franklin, City Council members, Tree Conservation Commissioners and concerned citizens:

On July 29 I was summarily fired from my position as Sr. Field Arborist for the City of Atlanta. I have heard no complaints about my work from my supervisor, Ainsley Caldwell. The only meeting I have had with Bureau of Buildings Director Ibrahim Maslamani since I was hired was the one in which I was fired, without cause, without explanation, without a semblance of due process.

Though I know no specifics of my firing, I do know the context. I have been attempting to address (1) the lack of accountability to the tree protection ordinance expected of my field arborist colleagues in their day-to-day work of hazard tree evaluations and building permit postings, and (2) the near total abdication of enforcement of the tree protection ordinance by my colleagues in the more difficult areas of correction notices on construction sites and the imposition of recompense and penalties for the illegal destruction of trees on either construction sites or private residences.

Let me briefly illustrate this second point with a series of charts that I gave Mr. Caldwell on July 21. The data is official, generated from the bureau’s Kiva database. The charts depict, by arborist and quadrant, the sum total of illegal removal cases brought in the arborist division for the first half of this year.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this chart, besides the extreme disparity between me (“TC”) and my colleagues (“PL”, “JB” and “MF”) is that Mr. Caldwell (“AC”), who spends just a small portion of his time in the field, registers more cases than the sum total of the field arborists if my cases are eliminated. The chart also indicates a rather extreme geographical disparity in enforcement actions between the northern and southern halves of the city. This aspect is the focus of the second chart below:

My assigned area of the city encompasses part of the NE quadrant (N and W of I-85) and part of the NW quadrant (N and E of I-75 and E of Northside Dr.). This small slice of the city is the only area in which any semblance of systematic enforcement occurs.

The impact of my firing on the level of enforcement in the city should be even more apparent in this third chart:

And, of course, in addition to enforcement activities I handle one-third of the total field workload in the arborist division. My firing will not increase either the efficiency or the effectiveness of service to the city. Both are likely to plummet.

My job is certainly important, especially to me. The greater question, however, is the impact of my dismissal on the urban forest that defines Atlanta and greatly enhances the quality of our lives. If the Bureau of Buildings succeeds in this attempt to silence the demands I have been making for accountability to and enforcement of the law, the Tree Protection Ordinance becomes a dead letter, suitable for framing.

This letter is a brief introduction to the serious problems in the field operations of the arborist division. I will be glad to discuss them more fully with anyone who is interested. My phone number is 404 XXX-XXXX, email address (email address deleted).

Thank you for your interest and attention.

Tom Coffin
7/31/08

North Buckhead Civic Association Weighs In

2008-07-30T17:23:00.000-04:00

An email from Gordon Certain, President of the North Buckhead Civic Association:

From: Gordon Certain
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:23 PM
To: sfranklin@AtlantaGa.gov
Subject: Arborist Tom Coffin

Dear Mayor Franklin,

I understand that City Arborist Tom Coffin was dismissed yesterday.

I have known and worked with Tom since 1998, when he was serving on the Tree Conservation Commission. He later became an arborist with the City and I have had the pleasure of working with him on a number of occasions.

Sheldon Schlegman (first chair of the Tree Conservation Commission) and I worked to represent residential interests in numerous meetings of several tree protection ordinance task forces over the last ten years. Tom frequently attended those meetings and was always an authoritative resource on what was best for the City’s trees, what was practical to enforce, and what would be fair to both property owners and environmental interests. I was impressed by Tom’s integrity – he politely told people what he thought was right, not necessarily what they wanted to hear. His advice was among the best the task forces got.

I have no idea what precipitated Tom’s dismissal, but believe that the City will be a much poorer place if it is denied his expertise. Certainly we all make mistakes – if he made a mistake (and I hope he didn’t), I think it is important that it not judged in too narrow a context. Tom has brought distinction to a city that he obviously cares for deeply. I hope the City distinguishes itself by going the extra mile to treat him with the appreciation and respect that he clearly deserves. We need all the competent city employees we can get (and keep).

Sincerely,

Gordon Certain
President
North Buckhead Civic Association

My Letter to the Mayor

2008-07-30T02:52:00.000-04:00

From: deLille Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:52 PM
To: 'sfranklin@atlantaga.gov'Cc: 'hshook@atlantaga.gov'; 'mnorwood@atlantaga.gov'
Subject: Tom Coffin's firing

Dear Mayor Franklin,

I understand that Tom Coffin, one of our most valuable city employees (from the perspective of tax-paying citizens), was fired today by Ibraham Maslamani. Please look into this and see what can be done to reverse the decision to fire Mr. Coffin. I understand that he was given no explanation for his dismissal which is inexcusable given his years of outstanding performance.

Mr. Coffin has been the City Arborist assigned to my Buckhead neighborhood for the past year, and during that year I have not seen more exemplary service from a city employee. Prior to his work in Buckhead, he handled the east section of Atlanta in which I own rental property. I have had several dealings with Mr. Coffin, and in each situation I have found Mr. Coffin to be extremely responsive, knowledgeable and fair, even when his “fairness” has not always been in my favor. Mr. Coffin has always played by the book in upholding the Tree Ordinance, letting neither his personal interest in protecting the trees nor the pressure of the development community influence his decisions.

The level of respect and trust that Mr. Coffin has built among the citizens of Atlanta makes his firing seem highly suspect. Well-run companies do not fire their star performers with outstanding customer satisfaction ratings, even during times of budget cuts. (Rather, those employees often receive retention bonuses.)

I hope you will be able to correct this matter as soon as possible. If not, the person who replaces Mr. Coffin will have a very tough time convincing my neighborhood that he/she is as good as what we just lost.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

deLille Anthony
Atlanta, GA

Tom Coffin Fired!

2008-07-29T21:10:00.000-04:00

From: sheldon schlegman
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:10 PM
To: mayor franklin
Subject: Tom Coffin fired!

Mayor Franklin:

I was Atlanta's first chairman of the Tree Conservation Commission (TCC). It was a difficult job because Mayor Campbell, who had not appointed a single commissioner his 1st term, did not want a Tree Commission. It interfered with his questionable relationships with developers. After getting the TCC operational and serving as Chairman for 2 1/2 years I was not reappointed for another term. It was obvious to all that I was interfering with the Mayors cronies usual method of doing business with the city.

History is unfortunately repeating itself. Tom Coffin arborist supervisor, was relieved of his responsibilities today by Ibraham Maslamani without explanation. I have known Mr. Coffin since our days as Commissioners on the 1st TCC. He served admirably in that position and was later hired as an arborist. His knowledge of the Ordinance and application of it to protect
Atlanta's trees was extraordinary. He was invaluable to a committee I served on for 18 months rewriting the Tree Protection Ordinance at the request of Michael Dobbins. It was during that re-write that the Tree Trust Fund was established. It has provided the City with many millions of dollars to replant Atlanta's diminishing forest.

Please do what you can to see that this egregious error is corrected. I have already received numerous calls and email from friends and concerned citizens throughout Atlanta expressing their disbelief that such a dedicated employee has been let go.

Please keep the good ones!

Sheldon Schlegman
Atlanta, GA