Did Mike Parry's treatment of a former Waseca City employee trigger fears of a lawsuit? Did those fears prompt a large severance package-and was the episode yet another reason voters ended Parry's career on the city council after one term?
Did Parry's deletion of emails in which city business was conducted skirt state laws?
By now, the story of Mike Parry's politically incorrect misadventures with tweeting and scrubbing are both cautionary tale and touchstone for his campaign for the open seat in Senate District 26, the sort of thing that generates headlines like today's TPM item, Pawlenty Campaigning For State Senate Candidate Who Called Obama 'Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man.'
For Bluestem Prairie, how, the incident isn't isolated, but rather serves as a metaphor for the Republican candidate's leadership style and character.
Parry wrote and posted offensive material, boasted about his willingness to be politically incorrect, scrubbed the posts when progressive social media types noticed the troublesome material, denied that, and then finally apologized.
This latest episode in his political career complements two earlier episodes in Parry's political career. The first was chronicled here earlier this month, the story of Parry's proposed resolution to sell Waseca's historic and beloved Maplewood Park, first noted in From Waseca's back pages: Mike Parry and Maplewood Park and Update on Maplewood Park story: more Mike Parry backtracking.
In a nutshell the Maplewood Park story is this: Parry talked to developers, offered a resolution to request proposals for the sale and development of the park, then spun his actions as intended only to call attention to the park's future when hundreds of Waseca residents raised their voices against the "plan."
The final episode that illustrates Parry's record as an elected official is the resignation of former Waseca city Community Development Director Mark Leiferman after tensions with Parry and other council members boiled over.
Leiferman's severance ended up costing the City of Waseca $51,000. Parry's penchant for using his delete key also plays a role in this final episode, and this first post will focus on his deletion of what informed opinion suggests are public records.
On October 1, 2008, the Waseca County News reported in E-mails reveal council action on Leiferman,
At 8:24 a.m. Monday, Aug. 25, the person who answers the phone at Waseca City Hall was asking what she should tell people who called for Community Development Director Mark Leiferman and where she should direct his calls.
The Friday before, Leiferman had returned from vacation for a two-hour meeting with City Manager Crystal Prentice. He did not come back to his job again.
While officials are still not saying exactly why he resigned after 10 years with the city or why he was awarded a $51,000 severance package, e-mails and other material obtained by the Waseca County News through the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act shed some light on his departure.
Council members John Clemons and Mike Parry both said they had deleted any e-mails they may have had on the subject, but e-mails to and from Mayor Roy Srp*, councilman Matt Johanson and Prentice were submitted in response to the request by the County News.
Should elected officials delete emails in which public business is conducted?
In trainings and advisories, the League of Minnesota Cities recommends against doing so. First, electronic communications between council members such as that described in the Waseca County News article are likely to fall under the state's open meeting law as "serial meetings." A LMC memo [pdf here] outlines the issue:
Although not an obvious meeting, serial meetings also create an open meeting concern if city business was discussed by a quorum. To understand how a serial meeting occurs, imagine that council member A talks to council member B about a city issue, B talks to council member C about that issue, and C talks to A. Serial meetings also can occur through written correspondence, or telephone conference calls. Any of these scenarios could give rise to an open meeting law violation. . . .
Electronic communication makes a serial meeting easier by allowing council or committee members to forward messages from one person to the next, to respond to one another via blog comments, or to chat via social media vehicles such as Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. Imagine one council member e-mailing another to suggest the pros and cons of a particular city decision. The recipient forwards the e-mail to another council member, along with his or her own comments and interpretations.
Even if the last council member to receive the e-mail doesn’t reply to the originator or the council member who forwarded the message, the three members have still discussed city business outside a public forum.
The memo also recommends a model policy for retaining emails on page five:
Classification and Retention of electronic communications
• Regardless of whether electronic communication by a council member is taking place on a city-provided computer, home computer or other computer system, classification of information as public, private or other is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Chapt. 13) and should be treated accordingly.
• Council members should retain electronic communications in keeping with city policies and procedures, whether such communication takes place on a city-provided computer, home computer or other computer system.
Parry wasn't happy with Leiferman's performance according to the Waseca County News story:
Parry said the city’s community development department is specifically designed to set goals for the Economic Development Authority, the growth of the city and for the growth of economic development.
“I have not seen any of that in my three and one-half years on the council,” he said.
“However Crystal decides to continue the department, I would hope that would be part of what she asks for,” he added.
As to why Leiferman was given a severance package, Parry said there are two ways to offer severance; either the employee has done a “darn good job or if you don’t want the employee to come back.”
“Crystal made up her mind she was going to offer severance,” he said.
Prentice said Leiferman’s resignation was the culmination of 10 years of history, most of which she was not privy to because she was hired in 2008.
Leiferman was offered a severance package, she said, because it was a mutual parting of the ways and he resigned contingent on a severance package.
“He didn’t do anything wrong,” Prentice said.
Indeed, Leiferman performance was such that he was hired as Planning and Zoning Administrator by the Waseca County board late in 2008, after severing his employment with the City of Waseca in August.
The Waseca County News wrote in Editorial: Leiferman hire is good for county at the time:
No one would have guessed it a few months ago, but Mark Leiferman, former Waseca Community Development director, is now working across town in the county annex building.
Leiferman, as you may recall, left his job with the city of Waseca in August with a $51,493 settlement agreement.
What led to his departure was not made public, but Leiferman’s position became a contentious issue during November’s election. A County News Data Privacy Act request revealed e-mails to and from Waseca city council members and Waseca’s mayor that showed there was certainly tension surrounding Leiferman.
That tension need not follow him to the county.
Mr. Leiferman is able to separate his past experience with city politics in Waseca enough to take on a job in the same town. For that, he should be commended.
As county government officials and staff familiarize themselves with Leiferman as the new Planning and Zoning Administrator, it is expected that they convey the same level of respect.
Surely, Mr. Leiferman has a history in this city. His history, however, stretches far beyond his dealings with a few city council members. Leiferman’s affect on Waseca stretches from our historic downtown to our industrial park.
In the coming months and probably even years, our local government officials are going to need to do a lot of collaboration to complete the projects our area needs to grow and prosper. Mr. Leiferman’s experience with the city of Waseca can only strengthen the partnership between the county and the city.
Welcome back, Mark.
Afternaming and praising his accomplishments, the editorial board had suggested in an earlier, August editorial that the Leiferman resignation would play a role in the coming November 2008 election:
. . .While Mayor Srp would only go as far as to say there was some dissatisfaction among Leiferman and some of the city council members, voters in Waseca need to read between the lines.
Someone on city council didn’t like Leiferman and didn’t want him in his position. That much is clear. Who and why, however, may not be known for awhile.
It’s ironic that during the same week that filing opens for mayor and three council seats in Waseca, we hear that the third high-ranking city employee in less than two years has left his position.
A city council is only as effective as its city employees. Council members need to keep that in mind when looking to fill Leiferman’s position. And voters need to keep that in mind when casting ballots in November. . . .
In the 2008 city council elections, voters in Waseca gave Mike Parry his walking papers. In the next parts of "Waseca Confidential" I'll look more at why my informed opinion has come to be that the tensions between Parry and Leiferman ended up costing Waseca residents--and that the alternative was a lawsuit. Stay tuned.
*After the Faribault candidate forum, I mentioned the Waseca County News story to Mayor Srp, now running for the open Senate District 26 seat. While he refrained from direct comment about a personnel agreement covered by confidentiality agreements, Srp did note that he hadn't deleted any of his city emails, then laughed.
Up next: part II
NEW IMAGE: Tild's photoshop reveals Waseca Confidential
You rock Sally Jo!
Posted by: Mr. Liz | Jan 21, 2010 at 02:40 PM