The Ellsworth City Council decided not to take action against one of its members Wednesday night after a public discussion on how complaints about city employees should be handled.
At issue was an email sent Sept. 20 by Councilor Steve O’Halloran to an employee who had resigned her post. O’Halloran copied local news reporters on the email, in which he chastised another city employee.
The council held an emergency meeting Wednesday night to discuss the matter with O’Halloran, who requested that it be held in public session.
Other members of the council told O’Halloran, who had his personal attorney at the meeting, that he is not supposed to disclose complaints about city employees to the public. O’Halloran, who has a history of feuding with council Chairman Dale Hamilton and City Manager Glenn Moshier, said he sent out the email because he wants Ellsworth citizens to be informed about whether or not the city’s government is being well run.
“I believe everyone who is paying the bills here should know what is going on here,” O’Halloran said.
The city’s attorney, John Hamer, told O’Halloran that disclosing complaints about city employees to the public, without the employee’s consent, violates state laws that protect the privacy of governmental employees.
“That’s a laudable attempt, but the employees of the city do have rights,” Hamer said.
Brett Baber, O’Halloran’s attorney, told the council that there was nothing in his client’s email that can be construed as confidential personnel information, and that reprimanding O’Halloran for expressing his opinion could conflict with O’Halloran’s rights to free speech.
“It doesn’t fit in those boxes within the state’s personnel information statute,” Baber said.
Information about which employees mentioned in O’Halloran’s email were not disclosed during the council meeting, which Hamilton made clear would not be allowed because of employee privacy laws. But O’Halloran did say he was concerned about what he called a high amount of turnover and absenteeism among city employees.
Baber also told councilors that one former employee has filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission. Hamer, in response to Baber’s comment, said the city had no information about any such complaint, but that any human rights complaint would be irrelevant to the issue of O’Halloran publicly releasing confidential information about an employee.
Several members of the council told O’Halloran that they’d be willing to not cite him for violating the council’s code of ethics if he assured them he would refrain from contacting the media about complaints about specific employees. The proper venue for deliberating over any complaint about a city employee is in executive session.
Councilor Gene Lyons expressed some skepticism about not formally citing O’Halloran, but eventually agreed not to do so.
“I’m as rough as anybody, but I know well enough not to do certain things,” Lyons said, without addressing O’Halloran directly. “It’s like someone is looking for a big fight. I don’t get it. I don’t think trying to take down the city is part of [being a councilor].”
O’Halloran said he never meant to cause an uproar over employee privacy. He said that while he does not favor executive sessions and thinks there should be more transparency at City Hall, he will be more “accountable going forward.”
Hamilton said that even without formally citing O’Halloran for an ethics violation, he hopes that Wednesday’s hearing would be helpful.
“I think just having this conversation speaks volumes about where we sit as a council,” Hamilton said.