News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
In the face of an order from District Attorney John Hummel, the Sisters City Council agreed on Monday to release the investigator's report into the conduct of now former city manager Andrew Gorayeb.
Goryayeb had been placed on administrative leave on February 25, after complaints were made by some City employees regarding conduct that was described only as not financial, physical, or sexual in nature. An independent investigation of the complaints took several weeks to complete, followed by lengthy deliberations by the council, which culminated with Gorayeb resigning his post effective April 28, and receiving a severance package amounting to slightly under $114,000.
In agreeing to release the investigator's report, Mayor Chris Frye said, "I felt the majority of citizens wanted answers."
Analysis of the report allows some answers to come clear. Others - particularly why the city chose to provide a large payout to an employee who resigned - remain hard to discern.
Examining the report and its executive summary makes it immediately clear why council deliberations took several weeks. The situation at City Hall was far from clear-cut.
"The majority of employees feel Andrew Gorayeb's leadership has been a positive change for Sisters and explained he has created an atmosphere of empowerment among employees," investigator Ashley O. Driscoll wrote in her executive summary report (see full executive summary below). "These employees appreciate his straightforward, performance-based critiques and value that he addresses employee performance issues.... (E)very employee interviewed noted Sisters is a more productive workplace under Gorayeb's leadership and many employees also commented Gorayeb is exceedingly supportive of them."
And yet...
Driscoll also noted, "Despite the positive changes Gorayeb has implemented at the City, some of his actions have undoubtedly contributed to a negative working environment."
None of those actions, according to Driscoll, rose to the level of violating policies on bullying and harassment. Some did violate the City's "Encouraged Conduct" policy, which urges employees to be "fair and courteous" to co-workers, citizens, employees, elected officials and third parties who do business with the City.
These actions were issues of Gorayeb's comportment, some of which made even supporters uncomfortable - though they put much less weight on them than other employees. Complicating the matter was the perception among some City employees that "those who have issues with Gorayeb's management style have failed to meet the new, higher standard at the City."
Driscoll reports, "During the interviews, this set of employees was more concerned (that) those who filed complaints would have job security because any employment action taken against them - no matter how justified - could be interpreted as retaliatory."
Driscoll's investigation established that Gorayeb disparaged past employees and gave derogatory nicknames to them and to members of the community. He also reportedly made unprofessional comments about them. She found that Gorayeb "developed nicknames - 'Nurse Ratched,' 'Wicked Witch,' 'Medusa' and 'Broomhilda' - for former employees, councilors, and others in the community for whom he had little regard." In her report Driscoll said, "I find Gorayeb used the nicknames both openly and frequently."
She found that on one occasion, he publicly disparaged an employee's work product. Several employees, including supporters, found that inappropriate.
Driscoll also found that Gorayeb contributed to a negative environment by asking employees to "thank him" for "managing out" a former employee and "throwing a celebratory party to commemorate an employee leaving."
Gorayeb's memory and interpretation of some of these events is at odds with that of several staff members.
Gorayeb acknowledged that he "commented that a former employee may have used a tack on an office wall to hang himself," which Driscoll found "served no purpose other than to demean (a former employee) and make others in the room uncomfortable." In his interview with Driscoll, Gorayeb recognized that this was "a stupid remark." He attributed the inappropriate comment to being "a byproduct of stress related to his relationship with a few members of Council." He reported that one councilor had "given him scathing reviews and (redacted) had called him a liar. Gorayeb stated that this situation has caused him a great deal of stress, and as a result he has made some inappropriate comments."
Driscoll also found it "problematic" - but not a violation of policy - that Gorayeb was "chilling employees from expressing views about the City Manager or the City."
An area where findings were ambiguous was in how Gorayeb approached a situation that had potential for conflict of interest concerns. Driscoll found no wrongdoing or inappropriate conduct - but there did appear to be a lack of sensitivity as to how employees might interpret the situation. The circumstances involved permits for the Saddlestone development, for which Gorayeb's wife serves as a real estate agent. Gorayeb told Driscoll that he is "'meticulous' about separating his wife's work from his own." He also indicated that it was "common for him to ask for timelines for some - but not all - permits and that he has asked for timelines on the Saddlestone project."
Driscoll reported, "I find Gorayeb did not directly mandate the staff to process the permits for his wife's clients any faster or differently than other permit. That being said, it is reasonable for employees in the planning staff to feel implicit pressure when the City Manager asks about a project that may impact his or her personal financial situation. Gorayeb should have recognized that his involvement, even if only done as a matter of inquiry, would likely result in the staff treating those permits with a higher priority. I find Gorayeb's conduct resulted in the staff feeling compelled to treat Saddlestone permits more favorably."
It is clear from the report and the executive summary that the City Council had no grounds to dismiss Gorayeb for cause. Allegations of bullying and harassment were not sustained. Further, as Gorayeb stated in his letter of resignation, "Prior to this investigation, I have never been notified or warned about deficiencies in my performance or workplace conduct." With no prior documentation, correction or disciplinary action in his personnel file, the Council had no means of dismissing Gorayeb for the conduct that was found in the report.
Though Gorayeb was an at-will employee and could theoretically have been dismissed for "no cause" at any time, doing so in these circumstances would have meant walking into a legal minefield. Gorayeb could have argued plausibly that, given the existence of the report, a "no cause" termination was a sham, a "for cause" firing in disguise. That could have been grounds for legal action.
Given that a majority of employees were satisfied with Gorayeb's management and felt the City was more productive and effective under his leadership, it seems that the Council could have come to terms with Gorayeb on some form of discipline to correct objectionable behavior. The discipline the Council did propose - on April 26, very late in their deliberations - was unacceptable to Gorayeb, and all five councilors voted to accept his resignation without protest.
Clearly, the Council was unwilling to retain Gorayeb as the chief executive of the City of Sisters when his conduct included "open and frequent" use of disparaging terms for councilors and community members and other conduct that was not "fair and courteous."
The council was, in fact, willing to pay a substantial severance package to ensure that Gorayeb would resign and depart without legal entanglements. Nothing in the report gives a clear picture as to why the Council felt so exposed to litigation, other than the fact that none of the conduct was an offense that justified termination. But Gorayeb resigned. So, why a $114,000 payout?
Councilor David Asson said that the council's action, which he voted against, was motivated by "excess concern regarding the possibility of reprisal litigation."
The Council was strongly motivated to protect the confidentiality of the investigator's report, which ultimately was released. They were concerned about the potential impact of employees' statements about other employees.
Asson said the confidentiality of the report "was a major factor in all our deliberations. All five of us (councilors) were very concerned about this."
The report that was released late on Monday was redacted by the office of City Attorney Steve Bryant to protect the identity of employees other than Gorayeb. However, the report was not thoroughly redacted; the names of numerous staff members appeared in the report. A second version, with additional redactions, was released later, but the original report has already been widely disseminated.
The City of Sisters is expected Thursday to formally hire Rick Allen as a limited duration city manager, as the City moves on.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF SISTERS
Bullying/Intimidation/Harassment Complaints
Investigation
March 28, 2016
Ashley O. Driscoll, J.D.
Beery, Elsner & Hammond, LLP
INTRODUCTION
The Mayor of the City of Sisters ("City"), Christopher Frye, contacted me February 26, 2016 to discuss three complaints the City received regarding Andrew Gorayeb, the City's current City Manager. Mayor Frye characterized the conduct underlying the complaints as bullying, intimidation and harassment. Frye asked me to conduct an impartial investigation into the allegations.
I conducted interviews at City Hall on Wednesday, March 2 and Thursday, March 3. I interviewed Gorayeb at his home on Friday, March 4. I interviewed one former employee (redacted), via the telephone on Tuesday, March 8, 2016. (Redacted) and I spoke again on March 18, 2016. In total, I conducted 15 interviews of current and former employees.1
1 I met briefly with employee (redacted) but quickly determined he did not have pertinent information because he recently began his employment with the City. I did not add our conversation to this report.
The scope of my investigative report is limited to if the alleged conduct occurred, and if it did, whether the conduct violated any of the City of Sisters' personnel policies. In addition, where appropriate, I have attempted to identify behaviors of Mr. Gorayeb that may be problematic, but which do not necessarily violate current City policy.
I. POLICIES AT ISSUE
(1) No Harassment Policy
The City of Sisters prohibits harassment of any kind in the workplace, or harassment
outside of the workplace that violates its employees' right to work in a harassment free workplace. This policy applies to and prohibits sexual or other forms of harassment that occur during working hours, during City of Sisters' related or sponsored trips (such as conferences or work related travel), and during off-hours when that off-duty conduct creates an unlawful hostile work environment for any of City employees. Such harassment is prohibited whether committed by City of Sisters' employees or by non-employees, such as elected officials, members of the community, and vendors.
(2) Bullying
The City of Sisters strives to promote a positive, professional work environment free of physical or verbal harassment, "bullying," or discriminatory conduct of any kind. The City of Sisters, therefore, prohibits employees from bullying one another, or engaging in any conduct that is disrespectful, insubordinate, or that creates a hostile work environment for another employee for any reason. For purposes of this policy,
"bullying" refers to repeated, unreasonable actions of individuals (or a group) directed towards an individual or a group of employees, which is intended to intimidate and that creates a risk to the health and safety of the employee(s).
Examples of bullying include:
1. Verbal Bullying: slandering, ridiculing or maligning a person or his/her family; persistent name calling which is hurtful, insulting or humiliating; using a person as butt of jokes; abusive and offensive remarks.
2. Physical Bullying: pushing; shoving; kicking; poking; tripping; assault, or threat of physical assault; damage to a person's work area or property.
3. Gesture Bullying: non-verbal threatening gestures, glances which can convey threatening messages.
4. Exclusion: socially or physically excluding or disregarding a person in work-related activities.
(3) Encouraged Conduct
Always be fair and courteous to co-workers, the citizens we serve, the City of Sisters' employees and elected officials, and suppliers and third parties who do business with the City . . .
II. General Findings of Fact
The majority of employees feel Andrew Gorayeb's leadership has been a positive change for Sisters and explained he has created an atmosphere of empowerment among employees. These employees appreciate his straightforward, performance-based critiques and value that he addresses employee performance issues. It bears mentioning that every employee interviewed noted Sisters is a more productive workplace under Gorayeb's leadership and many employees also commented Gorayeb is exceedingly supportive of them.
Some employees believe those who have issues with Gorayeb's management style have failed to meet the new, higher standard at the City. During the interviews, this set of employee was more concerned those who filed complaints would have job security because any employment action taken against them-no matter how justified - could be interpreted as retaliatory.
Despite the positive changes Gorayeb has implemented at the City, some of his actions have undoubtedly contributed to a negative working environment. I base this finding, in part, on Gorayeb:
(1) publicly disparaging past employees and community members by giving them derogatory nicknames and making unprofessional comments about them;
(2) publicly disparaging an employee's work-product;
(3) asking employees to "thank him" for removing a former employee; and
(4) throwing a celebratory party to commemorate an employee leaving.
Based on the above conduct, it is reasonable that current employees-especially those who feel their employment is in jeopardy-would fear they would suffer the same fate as victims of the above conduct, thus creating an insecure working environment. That being said, I do not find this conduct is necessarily directed at any one employee or group of employees or is intended to intimidate.
Although it may be perfectly reasonable for a city manager to have private meetings with department heads to discuss employee-related issues, these meetings - in light of the above described atmosphere - may then tend to exacerbate employees' feelings of unease.
Because of these feelings of insecurity, employees at City Hall discuss Goreyab and his behavior frequently.
Many (if not most) of the examples of harassment and intimidation I learned of during the employee interviews were not the result of firsthand interactions but rather were second, third or fourth-hand accounts of what the interviewee heard transpired.
Given that reality, it is understandable that involved employees may dispute the contextual accuracy of the reported conduct.
Although employees may be justified in believing City Hall can be at times a difficult environment to work in, many employees have contributed to the negative environment by sharing rumors and thereby promoting dissatisfaction in other employees.
Employees also expressed concern about retaliation from supervisory staff for making the complaints and/or for participating in the investigative interviews. I share these concerns inasmuch as I found an employee had been counseled for speaking negatively about the City and/or Gorayeb in the past and, in addition, during my interview with Gorayeb, he attempted to discern which employees gave me what information and shared that he believed certain employees and councilors were "orchestrating" the complaints against him.
III. SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS & POLICY VIOLATIONS
Much of the substance from the interviews is conflicting and contradictory. As a result, I made specific factual findings and corresponding policy findings only where multiple sources could corroborate the conduct or event.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb publicly disparaged a former employee by having employees "thank him" for ending the former employee's employment with the City.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged.
Policy Violation: Encouraged Conduct
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb publicly disparaged a former employee by referring to her as "Nurse Ratched" and hosting a "celebration" on the year anniversary of her separation from employment.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged.
Policy Violation: Encouraged Conduct.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb commented that a former employee may have used a tack on an office wall to hang himself.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged.
Policy Violation: Encouraged Conduct
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb got into a current employee's personal space and threatened her that she "better know where her loyalties lie."
Factual finding: Did not occur as alleged.
No policy violation.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb threatened two current employees that he would "shoot them."
Factual finding: Did not occur as alleged.
No policy violation.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb used disparaging nicknames to refer to members of the Sisters' community.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged.
Policy Violation: Encouraged Conduct
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb publicly disparaged employees' work product.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged on one occasion.
Policy Violation: Encouraged Conduct.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb intentionally ignores and encourages others to ignore a current employee.
Factual finding: Did not occur as alleged.
No policy violation.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb unreasonably targeted two current employees by making them the subject of closed door meetings with their managers.
Factual finding: Did not occur as alleged.
No policy violation.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb pressured his staff to give his wife special treatment.
Factual finding: Although staff felt implicit pressure, Gorayeb did not take overt action to provide his wife special treatment.
No policy violation.
•••
Allegation: Gorayeb counseled employees because they spoke negatively about him or the City.
Factual finding: Did occur as alleged.
No policy violation.
IV. NON-POLICY VIOLATIONS
There are several areas where I have made findings of fact without an accompany policy violation. The scope of this report is limited to any potential violations of the City of Sisters Personnel Policies. Some of the factual findings may be problematic, but are not technical violations of the policies. These factual findings are:
• City manager chilling employees from expressing views about the City Manager or the City; and
• Employees felt pressure to treat his wife's projects more favorably.
Although I find this behavior problematic, I do not find that it technically violates the City of Sisters' policies.
Jim Cornelius is editor in chief of The Nugget and author of “Warriors of the Wildlands: True Tales of the Frontier Partisans.” A history buff, he explores frontier history across three centuries and several continents on his podcast, The Frontier Partisans. For more information visit www.frontierpartisans.com.
Reader Comments(0)