Zink: "Disclosing more information could open the borough or the individual to litigation, and preventing that is paramount." [Columbia Spy file photo]
At Tuesday's meeting, Borough Council President Heather Zink attempted to clarify the borough's policy on issuing no-trespassing letters to former employees, in response to ongoing questions from the public.
The questions stem from the termination of Columbia Market Manager Chris Vera, who was issued a letter banning him from borough property following his dismissal earlier this year.
Letter of No Trespass sent to Chris Vera
Zink acknowledged that there had been "conflicting messages" regarding no-trespassing letters which made it sound as if all separated employees received those letters. She read a statement explaining that it is standard procedure to issue a "no-trespass" when there are unresolved issues that warrant further investigation.
"In this case, it was done to protect the borough and the separated employee," Zink said. "We cannot speak to what the unresolved issues are, as it is an employment matter. Disclosing more information could open the borough or the individual to litigation, and preventing that is paramount."
Zink said that, going forward, the borough will not answer questions from citizens about employment matters or no-trespassing orders.
Murphy: "Each case has to be looked at on its own merit and individually what makes the most sense. You have to look at each case by its own merit."
Also at the meeting, Mayor Leo Lutz attempted to walk back his March 27th statement in which he said such bans are "standard procedure" that had occurred "quite a few times in the past." When asked by a resident about who had been banned, Lutz responded: "Probably everybody that left, including officers. It's a standard management decision."
However, at Tuesday's meeting, Lutz appeared to trip over his explanation: "I didn't say it was Columbia Borough's standard procedure. I didn't say it was anyone's standard procedure. I said it is a standard procedure." A few minutes later, Lutz said, “Standard procedure in Columbia Borough police department is what I said.”
Lutz also defended Borough Manager Steve Kaufhold's handling of Vera's termination. "I like to err on the side of being safe than sorry," Lutz said. "The borough must protect any evidence or testimony. If not, it could become contaminated and not work in the borough's favor. Our job is to protect the borough. I feel at some time that issue will be lifted."
"In this case, it was done to protect the borough and the separated employee," Zink said. "We cannot speak to what the unresolved issues are, as it is an employment matter. Disclosing more information could open the borough or the individual to litigation, and preventing that is paramount."
Zink said that, going forward, the borough will not answer questions from citizens about employment matters or no-trespassing orders.
Resident Frank Doutrich pressed officials on who authorized the no-trespassing letter to Vera and whether a formal policy exists. He also noted officials' contradictory statements on what the policy is and whether a policy exists.
Doutrich: "We're just trying to get to the bottom of it. When you say something, you're supposed to mean what you say and say what you mean." [Columbia Spy file photo]
"Who authorized that letter to be sent? Who authorized the solicitor to send the letter to begin with?" Doutrich asked. He said that during his years on council, he had never heard of such a policy, and neither did other former council members he spoke with.
"We're just trying to get to the bottom of it," Doutrich said. "When you say something, you're supposed to mean what you say and say what you mean."
Councilman Kelly Murphy said that each termination must be evaluated individually. "Each case has to be looked at on its own merit and individually what makes the most sense," Murphy said. "You have to look at each case by its own merit."
When Doutrich asked when the no-trespassing order on Vera might be rescinded, council members declined to provide specifics.
"I'm not gonna answer it. Pure and simple," Murphy responded. "When that time comes, I'm sure the explanation will be given."
Also at the meeting, Mayor Leo Lutz attempted to walk back his March 27th statement in which he said such bans are "standard procedure" that had occurred "quite a few times in the past." When asked by a resident about who had been banned, Lutz responded: "Probably everybody that left, including officers. It's a standard management decision."
However, at Tuesday's meeting, Lutz appeared to trip over his explanation: "I didn't say it was Columbia Borough's standard procedure. I didn't say it was anyone's standard procedure. I said it is a standard procedure." A few minutes later, Lutz said, “Standard procedure in Columbia Borough police department is what I said.”
Lutz: "I didn't say it was Columbia Borough's standard procedure. I didn't say it was anyone's standard procedure. I said it is a standard procedure." [Columbia Spy file photo]
Lutz's explanation was in response to Councilman Eric Kauffman's statement at a previous meeting that banning is not a standard policy, as Columbia Spy reported HERE. Kauffman had said, “I don't believe that is the policy. That's not a standard policy.”
Lutz also defended Borough Manager Steve Kaufhold's handling of Vera's termination. "I like to err on the side of being safe than sorry," Lutz said. "The borough must protect any evidence or testimony. If not, it could become contaminated and not work in the borough's favor. Our job is to protect the borough. I feel at some time that issue will be lifted."
No comments:
Post a Comment