Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Clerk-treasurer allies uphold complaint over evaluation

Grievance part of union effort to block council review of falsification of records

Jodi Summit
Posted 3/21/19

TOWER- Despite heated objections by committee and council member Steve Abrahamson, the city of Tower’s grievance committee has upheld a complaint filed by Clerk-Treasurer Linda Keith against the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Clerk-treasurer allies uphold complaint over evaluation

Grievance part of union effort to block council review of falsification of records

Posted

TOWER- Despite heated objections by committee and council member Steve Abrahamson, the city of Tower’s grievance committee has upheld a complaint filed by Clerk-Treasurer Linda Keith against the city council. The 2-1 vote, with Steve Altenburg and Brooke Anderson voting in support, came after almost two hours of debate, mostly between Altenburg and Abrahamson.

The grievance is an effort by Keith’s union to call a halt to any investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by the clerk-treasurer, including systematic falsification of city records. The grievance alleges that Mayor Orlyn Kringstad closed a city council meeting to conduct a “performance evaluation” on Keith, but in the closed meeting provided a packet that included a “report of findings” even though the council had not directed Kringstad to conduct an investigation. In doing so, Keith’s union alleges that the council engaged in disparate treatment since no other employee has been subjected to a similar evaluation by the council.

It remains unclear what impact, if any, the decision will have on the city council’s ongoing inquiry into Keith’s performance.

Altenburg chaired the grievance meeting even though he has his own open complaint against Kringstad before the council. Altenburg claims that Kringstad called him “sexist,” although Kringstad’s alleged comment predated his taking office. While Kringstad, since taking office, has repeatedly abstained from voting on matters in which he had an appearance of a personal interest or conflict, Altenburg did not address his own apparent conflict as a member of the grievance committee and both voted and argued vociferously for upholding Keith’s complaint.

Altenburg falsely stated repeatedly throughout the meeting that the committee had requested evidence from the city council and received no response. In fact, Kringstad was not permitted to speak during the grievance committee deliberations, although he did provide a detailed written response that directly addressed the issues raised in the grievance.

“This was in fact a performance evaluation,” Kringstad wrote, noting this was the term proposed by the city of Tower’s attorney when he was informed “about and why the background research was done.” Kringstad noted he could not add additional details because “the essence of the research is referred to in the closed performance appraisal, which was cut short by Mr. Skoog [Keith’s union representative].

Kringstad also noted that this action was not “disparate” given that Keith is the only city employee who is directly supervised by the city council. “All other employees would be given performance appraisals by the City Clerk/Treasurer and the Employee Relations Committee,” noted Kringstad.

Altenburg said he believed that Kringstad had conducted an investigation on his own, without authorization from the council. “The statutes do not allow an individual council member to investigate an employee or terminate employment,” Altenburg said, citing an example from the League of Minnesota Cities of a council member who discovered a municipal liquor store employee doing something illegal on the job and then dismissed the employee without any action from the council.

It was unclear how Altenburg knew what Kringstad had provided, since he was not in the closed session. As of this writing, the council has not indicated any plan to discipline or discharge the clerk-treasurer or undertake an investigation. If an investigation is ordered, that would be public information. The Timberjay has already made a request for confirmation of any investigation and the city has not confirmed such a step.

Altenburg also claimed that any issue that Kringstad might have with the clerk should first have been brought directly to the employee, and then if not resolved, to the city’s employee relations committee. Kringstad, in his response, noted that he has proceeded under the advice of the city attorney.

Abrahamson disputed Altenburg’s interpretation of both city policies and guidance from the League.

“All employees have an obligation to conduct duties in a manner to serve the public interest,” said Abrahamson. “The mayor was gathering information from the public record, and that was serving the public interest. He is upholding the public trust and city resources. I don’t find fault here.”

Abrahamson asked that the committee reject the grievance and let the issue be settled by the city council. “That would serve the public interest,” he said.

Anderson initially appeared to agree with Abrahamson.

But Altenburg pushed to have the committee uphold the grievance.

“The problem is someone can gather information and it all becomes an investigation and bringing charges,” he said.

“We can’t answer the question on what is the proper procedure to present that information to the council,” Abrahamson said. “I have no problem with an individual council person gathering all the information they wish. The issue is how to present that information to the council.”

“Orlyn brought the information to the council [in closed session],” Abrahamson said.

Altenburg claimed there had been a report of findings, a final determination of facts from an investigation that was submitted to the council, although he gave no evidence to support this claim.

Abrahamson said if something is not being done correctly at city hall by employees, that would need to be addressed by the council.

Altenburg then discussed the part of the grievance that stated Keith was being treated differently from any other employee. “Nobody has been singled out and hauled before a public meeting,” Altenburg said, noting this issue has been on three previous agendas, and the last time worded as “employee misconduct.”

After the meeting, Kringstad noted that the change in wording from performance evaluation to employee misconduct was made by the clerk, not at the council or mayor’s request.

“We have never had an issue where there is public information found that there is something going on,” said Abrahamson. “It is critical for the trust in the community that we find this out. We have never had an issue like this before.”

Altenburg falsely claimed that the city attorney was not consulted until the closed meeting took place, and that there would need to be “actually valid misconduct” shown, before bringing the issue to the council. Altenburg, who minutes earlier had argued that council members should not be able to gather information or investigate issues on their own, did not specify how someone could demonstrate “valid misconduct” without gathering information.

A motion by Abrahamson to deny the grievance died for a lack of a second. A motion to uphold the grievance by Altenburg, seconded by Anderson, passed 2-1.

The next step in the process, according to Altenburg, was for the committee to make a recommendation on how to remedy the grievance.

Erik Skoog, responding for the union, asked that the city cease all activities that create disparate treatment of Ms. Keith and have Kringstad send a letter of apology. It would also require the city to expunge all references and materials related to the clerk-treasurer’s alleged wrongdoing from city records and have a letter sent to all local and regional media chastising Kringstad for “disparate” treatment of Keith. Skoog alleges that Kringstad has created a hostile work environment through disparate treatment of Ms. Keith and his continued actions provide the foundation of his disregard for Ms. Keith.

The city’s grievance committee took no action on determining what remedy they would recommend, deciding they needed to get input from an attorney before proceeding.

“Are they saying the city can’t move on [with a performance review]?” asked Abrahamson. “The information that is part of the public record should still be looked at.”

Abrahamson noted that the grievance committee had the option of not approving any remedy.

The timeline on the grievance is supposed to end on March 19. The committee did send a letter to the union requesting additional time.