= = = =..

~===================================j]

Lake Chelan Reclamation District

Workplace Investigation

April- June 2010

Report dated June 10,2010

by Gil Sparks, JD, SPIIR

OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. fNTRODUC1'[ON .. ,.,."., 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy 1
III. RECOMMENDATIONS 2
IV. BACKGROUND .. 3
A. Document Review 3
B. Interviews ; n 5
C. Additional Contacts 6
V. DISCUSSION 8
A. Background Documents : 8
1. Revised Code of Washington 8
2. Board Bylaws 8
3. Keln Carr's job description 9
B. Board Role and Protocol 11
1. Introduction 11
2. Background n 11
3. Board Role 12
a. General Observations 12
b. Potential Conflicts of Interest 12
c. Open Communication and Grievance Procedure policy C"Open Comnlunication
Policy") 12
d. Managemcl1t Approach '" 13
e. Mr. Libbey 13
f. Mr. Christupher 14
g. Mr. Baker 15
h. Mr. Rau .. 16
1. Mr. Lester 16
j. Mr. Hubbard .. n .. 16
C. Potential Legal Issues 17
1. HaraSSrTIC11t 17
2. DOllble Stanclards 18
a. I11trodll cti{J.n. '" 18

- 1-
 b. Jil11 Wisdorn 19
c. Brock Crihson , , " 20
d. Steve Davis 21
c. Ryan Coffell 2]
f. Steve Jenkins 22
g. Mary Lou Brooks and Rod Anderson 23
h. Robert Williams and Rob Davis 24
1. Jlllie Mayhew 25
J. Dave Walters 25
k. Brellt Winters 26
1. Kell1 Carr u 29
(1) Introducti on 29
(2) Issues Related to Einployee Alcohol COl1sll1nption 29
(3) On-Call Issues 30
(4) Credit Card Use Allegation 31
(5) Interaction with Jim WisdoITI 31
(6) Bob Christopher 31
(7) Mr. Jenkins n 31
(8) Mr. Walters 32
(9) Summary 33
VI. SUMMARY 33

- 11 -
 INDEX TO EXHlBTTS

Exhibit 1
Petition 1, 4

Exhibit 2
Gordon Lester April 8, 2010 summary notes .4

Exhibit 3
Kern Carr's April 12, 2010 letter to the Board .4, 17, 29

Exhibit 4
Michelle Brooks' August 2007 resignation letter .4

Exhibit 5
Dave Walters' May 21, 2008, resignation letter .4

Exhibit 6
Julie Mayhew's February 10, 2010 resignation letter. .4

Exhibit 7
Brent Winters' Position Statement. .4, 27

Exhibit 8
Rod Anderson Apri120, 2010 letter to the Board .4

Exhibit 9
Poeln handed Qut by Kern Carr 4

Exhibit 10
Memo to Brock Gibson dated June 7, 2010 on 5, 7

-111-
1
 I. INTItODUCTION

On April 19, 2010, Lake Chelan RcclaIllution District (thc "District") Board Mcrnbcr Arnold
Baker contacted our office to determin~ if we Illight be able to assist the District in investigating
and evaluating SOI11e concerns raised by several enlployees in a Petition (the "Petition~')
presented to the Board of Directors ("Board") on April 8, 2010. (Exhibit 1).

On April 20, 20 10, the Board retained our office and requested that we: 1) analyze and respond
to employee ,conceals and cOlllplaints; 2) independently interview all Bo~mernbers~
SPlployees to' detcnnine if there are any significant potential legal issue~ 3) identify and
.j...mpI Cillent, if necessary, Board and/or employee coaching or training; 4) e~tablish appropriate
"l11casurable performance standards for the Secretary-Manager; 5) l11ake rccominendatio~r
~oping a mutually respectful and rofesslonal work environment; and 6) ~andle Qi.her
, personne Issues that rna arise as a result of the interviews with the Board and/or emplo ees.
The Board alsOl-equested we review the Board's role in dealing WIt District personnel issues
and the actions undertaken to date by the Board and/or individual Board members.

After the- Petition was submitted, the Board on April 8, 2010, in executive session, individually
met with Jim WiSdOlTI, Brock Gibson, Steve Jenkins, Steve Davis, Ryan Coffell, and Mary Lou
Brooks. On or about April 20, 2010, Rod Anderson also asked to meet with the Board. The
Board granted his request and rnct with him in executive session.

During the course of the investigation, in addition to interviewing all Board Members and
employees (except Jessica Guadalupe), I received independent requests from Board members
Bob Christopher and Rocky Libbey to interview fonner employees Dave Walters and Julie
Mayhew and a request from Gordon Lester to interview fonner Board members Duane Hubbard
and Jim ,Koenig. Mr. Baker also suggested I interview Jessica Guadalupe.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the course of the investigation and after extensively reVIewIng the interviews and
docutncnts, 111y conclusions and findings arc as follows:

1. There are significant difterences of opinion on the Board, which has led to individual
Board Inembcrs acting independently and contrary to District policy.

2. Contrary to District Bylaws and policies, several Board members are involving
themselves in the District's day-to-day pcrsOnnCllTIatters.

3. At least onc Board member was providcd access to employee files without the
employees' knowledge or consent.

4. The principal concerns raised by employees concerning harassment or the usc of double
standards involve issues ofnlanagement philosophy and managcnIcnt style and arc not in
violation of any federal, state, or local laws.

I'age 11
 a. The principal harassment clailn focuses on a heated exchange between Mr. Carr
and Mr. Winters in October 2009. Mr. Carr acknowledged the inappropriateness
of his actions and Mr. Carr has not been engaged in or displayed any similar
conduct since that incident.

b. The principal concern about the use of "double standards" focuses on c01nparing
the degree of discipline imposed on Steve Jenkins to other employees.

c. 'I'he discipline received by employees has been progressive in nature and

warranted based on each employees' documented work history and work
perfornlance, and the perception of the use of "double standards" as it relates to
disciplinary actions, is primarily based on hearsay, conjecture, and/or
misinfonnation, and is not supported by a review of the doculnented enlploycc
work histories and disciplinary actions.

d. Many of the other issues brought up by employees regarding the use or

application of "double standards" occurred a number of years ago, or are isolated
issues OcculTing over a period of time, or are based on hearsay, conjecture, and/or
misinfonl1ation, which for the lllost part, appear to stem from personality conflicts
among the employees on the field crew.

5. The field crew is divided and there is a significant lack of trust and cohesiveness among
the field crew.

6. Due to the District's liITIited manpower, the District's need to have sonlcone on call 24/7
is creating difficulties in having qualified individuals on call when necessary, which is
exacerbating the tensions among the field crew.

7. Mr. Winters has considerable knowledge of the Districts' systeills; however, he has not
had 11111ch supervisory or employee relations training.

lIT. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Board should obtain Cannal training on the appropriate role and protocol for a
public sector Board and its individual Board members.

2. The Board should become familiar with and adhere to the District's Bylaws, policies,
and job descriptions, or revise them accordingly.

3. The Board, with the assistance of a HU111an Resources professional, should review
and update Mr. Carr's job description and establish objective, Ineasurable
perfonnance standards.

4. The BO(lTCl should periodically fonnally reVIew and docUll1ent Mr. Carr's
perfonnancc.

5. Board 111clllbcrs should not be allowed to access, without pnor approval by the
Distlict\ legal counsel~ individual employee files.

Page 12
 6. The Board should not, without prior consultation with the District's legal counsel,
ovcrturn cluploycc discipline, conduct en1ployec exit interviews, or otherwise hecoll1e
involved in day-to-day employee personnel issues.

7. Board mClnbcrs, either related to or using thc volunteer serVIces of District

employees, should consult with the District's legal counsel about whether those
l30ard members need to recuse themselves from discussions or decisions involving,
directly or indirectly, relatives or volunteers.
t/
8. District management should explain the need for and use of "Employee Incident
Report," Incident Report," or "Equipment Or Tool Lost or Dan1aged Report" to the
elnployees.

9./rhe District should retain a professional Hunu1l1 Resources facilitator to assist District
managelnent in addressing and dealing with the dissension and distrust among the
field crew. -

10. Employees should be required to follow existing policies and procedures In

addressing employee concerns.

1k-Thc District should provide some fonnal supervisory and clnployee relations training
for Mr. Winters.

12. The District should create a separate medical tIle for each en1ployee, and all
etuployee medical information placed in such files, which should be kept in a separate
locked file with access lilllitcd to only those individuals with a legitimate need to
know.

13. The Board should, in consultation with the District's legal counsel, rescind or revise
the change to the Open COlnnlunication and Grievance Procedure pOTlcyadopted by
the Board on February 9, 2010.

14. The Board should consider, after consulting with the District's legal counsel,
rescinding its decision to conduct clnployee exit interviews.

15. The Board, in conjunction with the District's legal counsel, should reVIew the
Bylaws, and future versions should be dated.

IV. BACKGROUND

A. Document Review

During the course of the investigation, I reviewed the following dOClllnents and files:

1. RCW 87.03, et. seq. "Irrigation";

2. The District Bylaws ("Bylaws~');

Page 13
 3. Eillploycc Manual (<<Manual") dated March 20 1O~

4. Special Meeting Board of Directors minutes, Dccelnber 14,2009;

5. Board of Directors minutes dated February 4,2010;

6. Board of Directors minutes dated February 9, 2010;

7. En1ployee Petition dated April 2, 2010 (Exhibit 1);

8. Gordon Lester's summary of the Board's meeting with etuployees on April 8, 2010
(Exhibit 2);

9. K.. em Carr's letter to the Board dated April 12, 2010 (Exhibit 3);

10. Most employee personnel files, with the exception of Jessica Guadalupe, along with the
personnel files offonner employees Dave Walters and Julie Mayhew;

11. Michelle Brooks' resignation letter dated August 2007 (Exhibit 4);

12. Dave Walters' resignation letter dated May 21,2008, with an1cndll1cnt datcd June 17,
2008 (Exhibit 5);

13. ]ulle Mayhew's resignation letter dated February 10, 201 0 (Exhibi t 6);

14. The following documents provided by en1ployees:

a. Fronl JilTI Wisdom: handwritten notes of issues/concerns dated 3-8-10;

b. From Mary Lou Brooks: Kern Carr's Septen1ber 2009 tinle sheet with post it note;

c. From Brent Winters: position statenlent dated 4-21-10 (Exhibit 7);

d. Fronl Rod Anderson: typewritten statement (which I understand he read to the

Board on April 20, 2010) (Exhibit 8);

e. From Brock Gibson: handwritten undated notes, and several pages fron1 his 2009
daytimer;

f. Robert WillimTIs: several pages from his 2010 daytimer, and copy of a
FrOlll
poem handed out by I(eUl Can on May 5~ 2010 (Exhibit 9);

g. From Ryan Coffell: undated handwritten notes;

Pagc]4
 h. Franl Steve Jenkins:

7/27/01 Memo from Paul Cross - unsatisfactory job performance

1121105 Incident Report, hit post with District vehicle
7/1 0/08 Notice of Suspension, 1 day - Failure to repoli - not served
due to good work perfonnance
8/22108 Equipillent or Tool Damage Report - smashed fence
9/30108 Incident Report - hit sign
10/1108 Utility Damage Repoli - daIuaged shop door, prepared by
Mr. Jenkins
1011/08 Employee repo11 - hit overhead door, prepared by
Mr. Winters
10/7/08 Incident Report - failure to respond
10113/08 Equipment or Tool Lost or Damaged Report - bent backhoe
door
10/17/08 Disciplinary Letter to Steve Jenkins froln Kern Carr, signed
by Steve Jenkins on 10/20/08, 3 day suspension
7/31109 Notice of Suspension, 2 days ,--, Failure to report and
communicate with supervisor
9/18/09 Elnployee Injury Report - hit dog
1/21/1 0 Notice of Suspension (indefinite) re: incorrect servIce
connection. Overturned by the Board on 2/4/10
] /28/1 0 Request for Paid Time Off
2/9110 Doctors' note
2/15/1 0 lJndated menlO to Steve Jenkins from Brent Winters with
attached job description to provide to doctor, with handwritten
note from doctor that Steve was advised not to perfonn
certain functions until 2/16/10
2/16/1 0 Doctors' note
2/18/10 Request for Paid Time Off
3/31/10 Doctors' note

1. Fax fron1 Brock Gibson, received on June 7, 2010, of nlCl110 he received fronl
Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters (Exhibit 10);

B. Interviews

In addition to reviewing the above dOCulllents, I interviewed the follo\ving individuals on the
dates indicated:

April 20, 2010 Rocky Libbey, Boarel MeIuber

Ken Rau, Board Member
Arnold Baker, Board MClnbcr

Page Is
 April 26, 2010 Bob Christopher, Boaru Member
Brent Winters, Field Supervisor, hired in 1998, pronl0ted to Supervisor in 2005
Mary I,ou Brooks, Bookkeeper, hired in 2006
KeTn Carr, Secretary-Manager, hired in 2007

April 27 l 2010 Mary Lou Brooks (follow up interview)

Rob Davis, llTigation Specialist, hired in 1996
JilTI Wisdom, Utility Operator, hired in 1994
Rod Anderson, Engineering Technician, hired in 1994
Brock Gibson, Industrial Electrician, hired in 2007
Gordon Lester, Board President (partial interview)

May 11,2010 Steve Davis, Maintenance Mechanic, hired in 2008

Robert Williams, Utility Operator, hired in 2000
Duane Hubbard, former Board Member

May 14, 2010 Ryan Coffell, Utility Laborer, hired in 2005

Jim Wisdom (supplemental interview at his request)
Steve Jenkins, Utility Laborer, hired in 1996

May 24, 2010 Julie Mayhew, fonner Office/Billing Clerk, eInployed 2007 to 2010

May 26,2010 Dave Walters, fanner Maintenance Mechanic, eInployed 2005 to 2008
Brent Winters (follow up interview)
KetTI Carr (follow up interview)
Gordon Lester (follow up interview)

Fonner board member Jil11 Koenig declined to be interviewed.

With the exception of the interviews with Rocky Libbey, Ken Rau, and Arnold Baker, non-
verbatim transcripts werc prepared during each of the interviews by Janna Dengate, a paralegal
in my office.

Each interviewee was infonned the Board had requested our assistance and that I considered our
Ineeting Lo be a confldentlal inlerview. I requested that each individual be open, honest, tnlthful,
and provide us with c01l1plete information. Each person was also asked to not discuss the
contents of our nlceting with anyone other than Ms. Dengate or Inyself. Each individual agreed
to keep the content of their interview confidential. Each individual was also info1111cd that I
reserved the right to share any or all of the infonnation I received with the Board.

C. Additional Contacts

On May 5, 2010, Ms. Dcngate received phone calls [raIn both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Wisc101TI with
additional infonnation they wished to share with us. On June 3, 2010, Ms. Dengate received a
voicc Inail ll1cssage fronl Ryan Coffell with additional inionnation he wished to share. Ms.
Dengate look notes of each phone call and transcribed Mr. CofTelr s voice 111ail 111essage.

Pagel6
On June 4, 2010, Ms. Dengate received an email froln Mr. Carr regarding Mr. Gihson not being
available on June 3,2010 to respond to assist Mr. Steve Davis with an after hours call hecause he
was too intoxicated to respond.

On June 7, 2010, Ms. Dengatc received another clnail froin Mr. Carr, indicating he and
Mr. Winters had scheduled a ll1eeting with Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gibson had requested Mr. Baker
sit in on the meeting with him. Mr. Carr related he had called Mr. Baker and told hiln that his
participation would be highly ilnproper. Mr. Baker decided not to attend.

On June 7, 2010, Mr. Gibson called Ms. Dengate and left a voice mail regarding his meeting
with Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters. He related that Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters wanted Mr. Gibson to
propose a solution to what he would consider a hlir way to make sure Mr. Gibson could be
periodically available, when he is not on scheduled call, to assist with elnergencies. Mr. Gibson
said he would be making a proposal.

Mr. Gibson faxed us a copy of the memo received from Mr. Carr regarding after nonnal "vork
hours expectations (Exhibit 10).

On June 8, 2010, Ms. Dengate and I received a phone call from Mr. Carr, inquiring ifMr. Gibson
had contacted our office. I informed My. CaIT that Mr. Gibson had called Ms. Dengate, and had
additionally faxed us a copy of Mr. Carr's June 4,2010, memo to him. Mr. Carr indicated that
Mr. Gibson had told him that he (Mf. Gibson) could not discuss several issues with Mr. Carr and
Mr. Winters based on what T had told him about confidentiality during our interview. We
agreed to have a telephone conference call with Mr. Gibson to avoid a possible misunderstanding
oflny comlnents.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Carr and Mr. Gibson called back. Ms. Dengate was also present during
this call and took non-verbatim notes.

The purpose of the call, as stated by Mr. Carr, was to allow Mr. Gibson to feel comfortable
providing input on the memo. Mr. Gibson stated that, based on what he and I discussed during
our initial interview, he had told Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters that he felt uncomfortable talking
about saIne of the issues. Mr. Gibson was hesitant to have a discussion with Mr. Carr and/or
Mr. Winters regarding the climate and history that he felt might be relevant to the June 4, 2010
111enlO.

During the conference call I explained to Mr. Gibson that I appreciated his attempts to maintain
the confidentiality, but that I wanted him to be comfortable sharing whatever infonnation was
necessary to respond to the n1emo. Mr. Gibson stated he was preparing a response that he
intended to present to Mr. Carr on Wednesday, June 9, 2010. FUlihef, Mr. Gibson stated he had
had SOlne additional questions during his June 7, 2010 call with Ms. Dengate, which she stated
we would not be able to answer, since he was asking for specific legal advice. I infonned both
Mr. Gibson and Mr. Carr that I have been hired hy the Board to look into the workplace issues,
and as such, that I aIl1 not able to provide any legal advice for District employees.

Mr. Gibson agreed to provide a written response to Mr. Carr on Wednesday, June 9,2010.

Page 17
V. DISCUSSION

A. Bacl<ground DOCUIllClltS.

The operations of the District are governed, in part, by the Revised Code of Washington along
with the Distlict's Bylaws and Policies The statues, bylaws, policies and job descriptions that arc
relevant to this investigation include the following:

1. Revised Code of Washington RCW 87.03.115 states as follows:

The board shall have the power, and it shall be its duty, ' .. to manage and
conduct the business and affairs of the district, to make and execute all necessary
contracts, to ernploy and appoint such agents, officers and employees as may be
necessary and prescribe their duties, and to establish equitable bylaws, rules and
regulations for the government and rnanagement of the district, ... and generally
to perfonn all such acts as shall be necessary to fully carry out the provisions of
this chapter.. _

2. Board Bylaws The Board Bylaws, which are undated, state, in the relevant part,
as follows:

Article III
POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. STATUTORY POWERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

1. To adopt a seal of the Di strict.

2. To Inanagc and conduct the business and affairs of the District.

3. To make and execute all necessary contracts.

4. To employ and appoint such agents, officers and employees as Inay be necessary,
and to prescribe their duties and salaries.

5. To establish equitable rules and regulations for the govcnuTIcnt and nlanagement
of the District that best serve the needs and interests of the local community.

6. Generally, to perfonn all such acts as shall be necessary to fully carry out the
provisions ofRCW 87.03, and have all powers granted by said RCW 87.03.

Page 18
 Aliic1e V

SECRETARY-MANAGER

Section 1. POWERS AND DUTIES: The Board shall appoint a Secretary-

Manager who shall be the Chief Executive Officer and responsible to the Board
for the eHicient administration of the affairs of the District.

The Secretary-Manager shall do all things necessary to carry out and execute the
policies and orders of the Board. The Secretary-Manager shall endeavor to keep
the Board fully advised as to the financial conditions and needs of the District,
properly supervise all employees pursuant to the rules and regulations as
established by the Board, and perform such other duties as may be required by
resolution of the Board.

The Secretary-Manager may hire and discharge employees as necessary to

conduct the operations of the District. (emphasis added.)

3. Kern Carr's job description. Mr. Carr's job description states, in the relevant
part, as follows:

Responsibilities include:

Develop standards and qualifications for use in recruItIng, en1ploying and

promoting personnel. Responsible for selection, appointment, reassignment and
release of crnployed personnel. Prepare salary schedules for all employees for
approval of the Board of Directors.

Etnploycc Manual.

The Manual states, in relevant parts, as follows:

VI. WORK RULES

Harassment and Discrimination in the "Vorkplace

The District will not tolerate harassment or discrimination in the workplace on the
basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, Inarital status, veteran's
status, physical or lTIcntal disability, sexual preference or any other characteristic
protected by state, federal or local law. Elnployees shall use care and exercise
good judgment when interacting with fellow ernployees, Conduct that
denlonstratcs n1utual respect is expected of all ctnployecs in the workplace.

Page 19
 Retaliation against any person who eonlplains of harassment or discrimination in
good faith, or who pmiicipates in an investigation in good faith, is also prohibited.

Aggrieved employees shall follow the procedure outlined below when faced with
this concern. Steps in the procedure luay be skipped jf in the mutual opinion of
the aggrieved and 11lanagement that this step may further aggravate the problem.

Any elnployee who believes that he or she has been subjected to objectionable
conduct prohibited by this policy is encouraged (but not required) to let the
offending person know immediately and firmly that the behavior is offensive.

Any employee who believes that he or she has been subject to objectionable
conduct prohibited by this policy must report it imnlediately to the Secretary-
Manager or to the President of the Board if the Secretary-Manager is
accused of the objectionable behavior. (emphasis added).

Manual, Page 15-16.

Open Communication and Grievance Procedure:

At the Lake Chelan RcclaIllation District, we believe that COlTIIllUnication is at the

hemi of good e111ployee relations. Employees should share their concerns, seek
information, provide input, and resolve work-related issues by professionally
discussing thern with their supervisors until they arc fully resolved. It may not be
possible to achieve the results the employee wants, but the supervisor should
attempt to explain in each case why a certain course of action is preferred. If an
issue cannot be resolved at this level, the employee is welcome to discuss the
issue with the Secretary-Manager. The Lake Chelan Reclamation District
Board is not involved in day-to-day personnel matters for the District and
accordingly, employees must attempt to resolve the issue in the above
manner. Only if resolution has not been reached in the above manner should the
employee bring the matter to the Board. f;J;yen the Board has reason to believe
_~hat clllployee rights are i ~ ' d should re uest t1?e cl2!Eloyee( 81 tg.
appear berore the Board at the next possible opportunity. (emphasis added.)
-- ._-----------------
If an employee has a concern about discrilnination and/or harassment, the Lake
Chelan ReclaIllatioll District has set up special procedures to report and address
those issues. The proper reporting procedures are set forth in the District's
Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace policy and en1ployees should
follow those procedures for those type of cOlllplaints or concerns.

Manual, Pages 16-17.

Page 110
 B. Board Role and Protocol

1. Introduction

There are Inultiple issues confronting the Board~ most of which are beyond the scope of this
investigation; however, SOBle of those issues seem to influence or impact SaIne of the actions
being undertaken by some of the Board members.

2. Background

The Board is elected by weighted vote. Board tenus are staggered and elections are held
annually, and the largest landowner controls the lnajority of the votes.

Over the past couple of years, the Board has apparently been moving forward more aggressively
to resolve a water overspreading issue, which I understand has resulted in a proposed resolution
which potentially would set the appreciated value cost per acre minimum at $8~OOO for the areas
of water overspreading. Mr. Libbey has been identified as a landowner who has engaged in
water overspreading. This issue is beyond the scope of this investigation, however, I understand
negotiations aTe ongoing in an effort to achieve a lTIutually agreeable resolution.

Both Mr. Hubbard's and Mr. Koenig's seats were up for election in 2009. Mr. Hubbard decided
not to run for another term on the Board. Mr. Koenig, who had been on the Board for
approximately nine years, did run, but was defeated by Mr. Libbey. Mr. Christopher was elected
to fill the position vacated by Mr. Hubbard. There was considerable conjecture that the largest
landowner had decided to support both Mr. Libbey and Mr. Christopher in an effort to begin to
control the Board, with the apparent goal of creating a Board more sympathetic to his (and the
other landowners involved in the water overspreading issue) position.

Mr. Carr was hired in 2007. Mr. Libbey was President of the Board at that time. Mr. Libbey's
Board term ended in December 2008 and at the time he decided not to run for another term.

Once hired, Mr. Carr was instructed by the Board to diligently move forward on helping the
Board resolve the water overspreading issue. According to Mr. Lester, Mr. Hubbard, and
Mr. Libbey, Mr. Carr was effectively lTIoving the District forward on the water overspreading
Issue.

Prior to January 2010, the Board felt Mr. Carr was perfonning his job as instructed and none of
the enlployees or fonner employees had approached any Board member with any concerns about
how they were being treated by Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters.

The addition of Mr. Libbey and Mr. Chlistopher to the Board significantly changed the Board
dynmnics as explained in nl0re detail below.

While the Board has broad powers and authority under RCW 87.03 et. seq., the Board, through
its Bylaws, the Manual and Mr. Can's job description, has delegated the authority to administer
the day-to-day District operations and all personnel matters, except for the approval of salary
schedules, to Mr. Carr (See Bylaws, Article V, Manual Page 16, and Mr. Carr's job descliption).

Page III
 J. Board Role

a. General Observations

There are significant differences of opinion on the Board, which appears to be being taken
personally. This has led to a lack of respect among the Board ll1ernbers, and to individual Board
members communicating directly with ernployccs and encouraging certain employees to share
th~ir complaints about Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters with the Board without following District
policies.

If the Board is interested in and willing to address how to operate effectively, particularly when
confronted with contentious or difficult issues, then the Board should consider obtaining some
fonnal training with a professional facilitator on the proper functioning and role of public sector
Board lnembers.

Several Board Members (Mr. Libbey, Mr. Christopher, and Mr. Baker) have received
information from various employees, particularly Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Gibson, and
Mr. Wisdom. These Board members have accepted that infonnation as factual, and seemingly
passed judgment without any appreciable effort, prior to this investigation, to give Mr. Carr or
Mr. Winters a chance to respond.

b. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Mr. Gibson is Mr. Libbey's nephew. Mr. Jenkins provides volunteer fire tlghting services for
Mr. Baker. Before either Mr. Libbey or Mr. Baker become involved in any issues that could,
directly or indirectly, involve either of these employees, or create the appearance of a potential
conflict of interest, they should seek guidance from the District's legal counsel about whether
they should consider recusing themselves from any such discussions. This includes any
discussions impacting employee discipline and/or revisions to the Manual.

c. Open Communication and Grievance Procedure policy ("Open

Communication Policy")

In the February 9, 2010, Board lneeting, the Board voted to amend the Open Con1munication
Policy by adding the following language:

When the Board has reason to believe that employee rights are in question, the
Board should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board at the next
possible opportunity.

This policy already provided an option for employees to bring unresolved issues to the Board.

The Board's Bylaws and Manual delegate the responsibility to manage the District to Mr. Carr,
the Secretary-Manager. By adding this language, the Board created a conflict between the
Bylaws (Article V), which delegates authority to supervise and discipline employees to the
Secretary-Managcr~ and the Open Communication Policy, which explicitly states the "Board is

Page [ 12
 not involved in day-tn-day personnel rnalters and accordingly, enlployccs Illust attempt to
resolve the issue in the above manner."

There arc a variety of philosophical and practical reasons to require elnployees to resolve their
concerns with management rather than corne to the Board. further, the newly added language
does not define what constitutes "employee rights," or how the Board, as opposed to individual
Board lnernbers, is going to decide it "has a reason to believe... " that such employee rights are in
question. This policy statement is vague and ambiguous and has the distinct possibility of
injecting the Board squarely into the day-to-day personnel matters, contrary to the policy.

The Manual requires enlployees to attenlpt to resolve work related issues with their supervisor.
This step is ll1andatory. Thus, only if resolution has not been reached in this manner should an
enlployee be able to bring an issue to the Board. Presently, the Board has enabled employees to
bypass managetnent by allowing employees to bring their concerns directly to the Board.

Thus, unless the Board revises its Bylaws, the Manual and Mr. Carr~s job description to reflect
its role in the District~s personnel matters, the Board should adhere to the existing policy. This
would include rescinding this portion of the policy by eliminating the language added by the
Board in February.

d. Managenlellt Approach

Mr. Carr was hired approximately three years ago and has a different management style than the
fanner manager, Paul Cross. For example, Mr. Carr has instituted a practice of asking
Mr. Winters to doCUll1ent particular perfonnance issues or events. Most frequently, this
documentation has been in the fonn of preparing an "Employee Incident Report," "Incident
Report," or "Equipment Or Tool Lost or Damaged Report.~~

Both Mr. Carr and My. Winters indicated these forms are not considered to be disciplinary
actions, rather, the forms are used to document events in case perfonnance or safety issues need
to be addressed in the future. On the other hand, it appears some employees view these forms as
"write-ups" or the equivalent of SOine fonn of discipline. This is a cOilllTIunication issue which
should be addressed.

e. Mr. Libbey

My. Libbey had served on the Board for approximately eight years, until he left the Board at the
end of 2008. During that period he was President of the Board and was instrumental in hiring
Mr. Carr.

In the SUilllner of 2009, Mr. Libbey (who was not a Board member at the time) was apparently
provided infoTInation that led hiiTI to approach both Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Koenig regarding
concerns about potential misuse of the District credit card by Mr. Carr. Mr. Libbey did not bring
his concern to Mr. Carr. The concerns raised by Mr. Libbey proved to be unfounded.

Following his election to the 2010 Board, Mr. Libbey asked the Board, 111 his initial Board
meeting, to conduct a survey to evaluate employee morale. From the infonnation gathered, it

Page 113
appears the 111otivation for this request came about based on several discussions Mr. Libbey had
with at least Mr. Gibson (Mr. Libbey's nephew), and Mr. Wisdotn.

On Febluary 4, 2010, the Board held a special tneeting, which resulted, after a discussion in
executive session, in a 3- I vote (Baker, Christopher & Libbey in favor; Rau opposed),
overtunling a January 2010 suspension that My. Winters had given to Mr. Jenkins.

On Febnmry 9, 2010, the Board voted 3-1 (Baker, Christopher & Libbey in favor, Rau opposed)
to alnend the Open Communication and Grievance Procedure to add the following sentence:

When the Board has reason to believe that employee rights are in question, the
Board should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board at the next
possible opportunity.

During the same meeting, the Board voted 3-1 (Baker, Christopher & Libbey in favor, Ran
opposed) to conduct employee exit interviews.

Prior to returning to the Board, Mr. Libbey also had discussions with Mr. Gibson regarding
My. Gibson's concerns about the frequency he (Mr. Gibson) needed to be available for after-
hours call-outs. Mr. Libbey also acknowledged that he continued to hear from Mr. Gibson and
other en1ployees regarding concen1S about Mr. Winters' luanagement style and Mr. Carr's
managelnent philosophy. Mr. Libbey did not bring any of these concerns to either Mr. Carr's or
Mr. Winters' attention.

While My. Libbey acknowledged Mr. Carr had very good technical skills, based on what he had
heard from employees, both prior to the employees' meeting with the Board and during the
individual employee meetings with the Board, he did not believe the situation \vas fixable. He
felt, based on what he had heard, that it appeared both My. Carr and Mr. Winters lacked good
people skills and that the employee trust could not be regained. He also claimed three or fOUf
employees had left the District because of Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters.

Mr. Libbey also indicated Mr. Lester does not return his phone calls and fails to effectively
COilllTIUnicate with hilTI as a Board Member.

f. Mr. Christopher

Bob Christopher is a newly elected Board Member. He decided to nln for the Board position
because he had a couple of prior unsatisfactory interactions with Mr. Carr.

Mr. Christopher indicated he had talked with several employees, particularly Mr. Steve Davis,
Mr. Gibson, Mr. Wisdom, My. Jenkins, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Brooks, regarding Mr. Can's and
Mr. Winters' management style and the alleged use of double standards in the workplace.
Mr. Christopher also reviewed several employee personnel files, apparently without the
crnployees' knowledge or consent. Me Christopher felt some of the employee write-ups were
exaggerated and petty, particularly as it applied to Mr. Jenkins.

Page 114
 As a result of his prior interactions with Mr. Carr, cuupled with the unverified infonnation he has
received fronl the various employees, Mr. Christopher feels Mr. CalT is "arrogant and
omnipotent." He also believes that Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters have created a hostile work
envir0111ncnt and a pattern of uneven treahnent toward select employees.

Mr. Christopher did not bring any of the concerns raised by the employees to either Mr. Carr's or
Mr. Winters' attention.

Mr. Christopher indicated he wanted an objective, third party evaluation to help dctcnnine if
"we have a Board trying to micro Inanagc" or does "the District have a significant management
problem?" However, Mr. Christopher indicated he believes Mr. Carr is incapable of changing
and that the District would be better off without Mr. Carr.

During his interviews, Me Christopher indicated that Mr. Carr had created an unworkable
situation with the Board by presenting them with his April 12, 2010, letter.

g. Mr. Baker

Me Baker is the Fire Chief for Chelan County Fire District #5. The Fire District is located in the
SaIne building as the District and rents its space from the District. Me Baker has been on the
Board tor approximately one and a half years. Due to the location of his office, My. Baker is
accessible to employees and stated that, from time to time, employees, particularly Mr. Jenkins,
who also serves as a volunteer fire fighter, talk to him about the District and their interactions
with Mr. Winters.

Mr. Baker indicates that he believes that Mr. Carr has strong technical skills; however, based on
his conversations with employees, he believes Me Carr and Me Winters lack effective
interpersonal skills. Mr. Baker has not discussed any of the employees' concerns with either
Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters.

Mr. Baker believes Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters do not like Mr. Jenkins and that they are
unnecessarily documenting minor performance issues in an effort to terminate Mr. Jenkins. He
indicated that Mr. Jenkins has been with the District for over 14 years and he had been written up
15 times in the past two years.

Mr. Baker also believes Me Winters does not treat employees evenhandedly. He indicated that
he believes some employees are treated more leniently than other employees when they commit
the same or substantially similar policy violations or are involved in workplace absences.

Mr. Baker indicates he has received cOlllplaints, from both employees and the District customers,
regarding Mr. Carr's interactions; however, he acknowledged he has not brought any of these
complaints to Mr. CalT's attention.

Me Baker also indicated Mr. Lester does not answer or return his calls.

Page 115
 h. Mr. Ran

ICen Rau has been on the Board for three years and has prior experience managing small water
districts. Mr. Rau feels Mr. Carr has good technical skills and that he has been effective in
inlplelnenting and following Board direction. Mr. Rau has never had a customer or enlployee
come to him with any complaints about Mr. CaIT or Mr. Winters. Mr. Ran indicates he has not
been given any evidence, outside of when the employees spoke to the Board in executive
session, that Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters treat enlployees inappropriately, and feels Mr. Carr needs
to be allowed to Inanagc the District.

i. Mr. Lester

Gordon Lester has been on the Board for over three years and is the current Board President.

Mr. Lester believes the water overspreading issue had a significant influence on the composition
of the Board. In his view, the Board was working effectively together until such time as
Mr. Libbey and Mr. Christopher were elected to the Board. At that time, Mr. Libbey started
bringing concenlS of employee dissatisfaction to the Board, which ultimately led to the employee
Petition and request for this investigation. Mr. Lester believes Mr. Carr is a good manager and
that SOllle elllployees are troubled by Mr. Carr's and Mr. Winters' managenlent style and
philosophy. Prior to the elnployee Petition, he had not received any cOlnplaints from eluployees
or District customers.

j. Mr. Hubbard

Mr. Hubbard had been on the Board for 16 years and chose not to rerun in 2010.

Mr. Hubbard provided SaIne Board history and his views of how the water overspreading issue
affected the election of the Board members in 2010. Mr. Hubbard acknowledged he was one of
the land owners who had engaged in water overspreading.

Mr. Hubbard indicated he was not aware of the current issues with employees, but identified
these employees who had been a problem for the District for quite some time. Those employees
are: 1) Mr. Wisdom (who knows the systems well, but if you do not do it his way he is not
happy; good employee, but bull-headed); 2) Mr. Gibson (does not like being on call); and 3)
Mr. Jenkins (long-tenn history of perfonnance issues; Mr. Cross had brought problems with
Mr. Jenkins to the Board, but the Board wanted to give him another chance; not a responsible
employee).

Mr. Hubbard also indicated Mr. Libbey came to hiln in the sunnner of 2009 (Mr. Libbey was not
on the Board at the time) and told him that Mr. Gibson was unhappy and to keep a close eye on
Mr. Carr because Mr. Libbey had been told Mr. Carr had rented a backhoe and paid for it with
the District credit card. He did not ask any questions, but felt that Mr. Libbey had an agenda. He
did not tell Mr. Carr about this conversation with Mr. Libbey.

Pagell6
:NIr. Huhbard stated Mr. CalT is an excellent Inunuger, but not particularly involved in the
cOIIlIIlunity. Mr. Hubbard stated he was impressed with Mr. Can- and was felt he was much
better than the fOffi1er manager.

c. Potential Legal Issues

The concerns raised by the Petition and the clTIployce intervicws with the Board generally fall
into two categories.

The first is a harassnlent cOlnplaint by Mr. Wisdom stemming from an intense interaction
between Mr. Carr and My. Wisdom at a worksite in October, 2009.

The second is a concern that some enlployees perceive they are being or have been treated
substantially different than other employees engaging in similar or substantially similar work
related situations. The concerned employees have categorized this as both a form of harassment
and the use of "double standards" in the workplace.

After reviewing the totality of the CirCUlTIstances, I do not find that either the harassment or
double standard issues raise any particular legal concerns.

1. Harassment

There is no dispute that the incident between Mr. Carr and Mr. Wisdom occurred; however, there
are varying perceptions of the intensity of the event. Mr. Carr has acknowledged the incident
and the fact that his demeanor toward Mr. Wisdom related to this particular interaction was
inappropriate (see Kern Can' s letter dated 4/12/1 0, Exhibit 3).

Further, Mr. Carr made a general apology in his letter to the Board, stating in relevant part:

" ... my management style is direct and to the point with regard to communication
to the employees and the Board... to the extent my communications have been
received as too blunt, rude or insensitive, I apologize to anyone that I have
offended ... 1 accept full responsibility for any inappropriate behavior by me ... "

I-Iowever, My. Carr apparently did not apologize directly to Mr. Wisdom. On the other hand,
Mr. Wisdoln also failed to follow the District's Harassment and Open Comn1unication Policies
because he did not report Mr. Carr's objectionable behavior to the Board President as required by
the policy.

The District's Harassnlent Policy prohibits harassment on the basis of "race, color, creed, sex,
national origin, age, lTIarital status, veteran's status, physicalor mental disability, sexual
preference or any other characteristic protected by state, federal or local law." Mr. Can has not
engaged in any similar conduct since his run-in with Mr. Wisdom. Mr. Carr's interaction with
Mr. Wisdolll, while inappropriate, was not due to any of the above listed factors and as such, did
not violate this part of the policy.

The HaraSSlllcnt Policy abo states that '- ... cluployees shall use care and exercise good judgtllent
when interacting with fellow employees. Conduct that demonstrates mutual respect is expected

Page 117
 of all en1ployees in t1le workplace." Mr. Carr's conduct did not adhere to this aspect of the
policy.

Additionally, vvhile SOJlle of tlle other elllployees also characterized SOine of their interactions
with either Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters as harassment, for the most part, these claims related to the
perceived use of Udouble standards" in the application of discipline, work assignnlcnts or
handling of various workplace issues. However, none of the employees claim any of these
actions occurred because of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, rnarital
status, veteran's status, physical or Inental disability, sexual preference or any other
characteristic protected by state, federal or local law .

In addition to Mr.Wisdoll1's harassll1ent cOlnplaint, both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson alluded
to how other fanner female employees were allegedly inappropriately treated by Mr. Carr.
However, when I interviewed Ms. Mayhew, she did not substantiate either Ms. Brooks' or
Mr. Anderson's statements.

Additionally, Rod Anderson, in his written statement, raised, among other things, issues of abuse
and mistreatment which Mr. Anderson indicated created a hostile work environment for him.
However, the issues raised by Mr. Anderson do not allege that any of the perceived mistreatment
or harassment was a result of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, Inarital status, veteran's
status, physical or mental disability, sexual preference or any other characteristic protected by
state, federal or local law.

Thus, because Mr. Carr's interaction with Mr. Wisdom was not based on race, color, creed, sex,
national origin, age, marital status, veteran's status, physical or mental disability, sexual
preference or any other charactelistic protected by state, federal or local law, nor did any of the
other employees or former employees Inake any such allegations, I do not find either My. Carr's
or Mr. Winters' conduct violated any state or federal law prohibiting workplace harassment or
di scrimination.

2. Double Standards

3. Introduction

In addition to the harassment concern, the other principal concern raised by employees is a claim
that some employees are being treated more favorably than other employees when it comes to
being "written up" or disciplined. Several employees also feel that they or their fellow
en1ployees have been treated inappropriately, rudely or otherwise intimidated by Mr. Carr or
Mr. Winters.

There is considerable distrust and lack of respect within the field crew.

The allegation of uneven discipline creates a dilemma for n1anagement. Generally, employee
discipline is a private matter, which management should not discuss with other employees.
Thus, unless a particular etnployee wants to discuss his/her discipline, the other employees do
not have any way of actually kno\ving whether, or to what extent, another employee is
disciplined, nor do they have any right to know.

Page 118
 A significant patt of the concern about a "double standard" being applied is based on hearsay,
conjecture and/or l11isinfonnatioll because celiain employees are unwilling to discuss, for a
variety of reasons, these issues with other en1ployees.

Additionally, it is often appropriate and reco111111ended that lllanageinent take inlo account an
employee's work record and prior disciplinary history when imposing discipline. Thus, one
employee wlth a good pcrfonnance record justifiably may not he d1sc1plined as harshly as an
employee with a poor perfonnance or disciplinary history.

There is a strong perception particularly by Mr. Wisdom and Mr. Gibson, and to a lesser extent
by Mr. Steve Davis, Mr. Coffell and Mr. Jenkins, that Mr. Williams and Mr. Rob Davis are
treated n10re favorably than Mr. Jenkins and the other elllployees. The reasons are varied, but
one reason is a belief, in part, that Mr. Jenkins is treated and/or disciplined more harshly than
either Mr. WillimTIs orMr. Davis for what are perceived to be substantially similar safety
infractions.

Specifically, one concern, which was repeatedly raised, was that Mr. Jenkins was disciplined
n10re severely for backing a forklift into and damaging a garage door than was Mr. Williams
when his truck slid into and damaged the shop door.

After interviewing the various employees and reviewing the various personnel files, it is evident
that the concern about double standards, at least in the application of discipline, is substantially
based on inaccurate and incorrect infonnation being shared repeatedly among the employees and
with certain Board members. Apparently, there are several employees and Board members who
like Mr. Jenkins, and as a result, are questioning the appropriateness and severity of the
discipline he has received.

In reviewing Mr. Jenkins' personnel file and the information provided by Mr. Jenkins, it appears
when Mr. Jenkins has received disciplinary action, that the discipline has been progressive in
nature and, based on his work record, justified. In fact, Mr. Jenkins received a suspension on
July 10,2008, which was never implemented because of his subsequent good work perfonnance.

b. Jim Wisdom

During his interview, Mr. Wisdom raised a number of other issues, which he categorized as both
harassment and/or the application of double standards within the workplace (i.e., not being taken
down to Wenatchee for a CDL Drivers' test; not being allowed to borrow books to study for a
WDM-I test; not being reimbursed for classes previously taken; not being allowed to drive a
truck without a CDL when other employees are allowed to do so; some employees getting in
trouble for calling in late when other employees did not seem to get in trouble; being disciplined
for giving false and Inisleading information when other employees are not disciplined).

Mr. Wisdolll has been with the District for approxin1ately 16 years. He admitted a nUlllber of
incidents he brought up occl.lrred up to five to six years ago, which was prior to Mr. Carr being
hired by the District. However, Mr. Wisdom assclicd that the double standard culture had been
created by Mr. Winters, and therefore he felt it was implicitly supported by Mr. Carr. When
reviewing Mr. Wisdoln's claims with both Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters, they either could not recall

Page 119
 the particular incident Mr. Wisdom was referring to or provided infoI1nation disputing
Mr. vVisdoIUlS alh:gations.

In his personnel file,Mr. Wisdom has one '"'"Employee Report," along with an "Employee
Incident Rep0l1" for giving false and 1111sleading info1111ation, and two IneITIOS regarding attitude.
Mr. Wisdom feels Mr. Winters does not trust him. Mr. Wisdom stated he would like to just do
his work until retirement without having to worry about getting belittled or see favoritisln. He
also stated both Mr. Libbey and Mr. Christopher told hin1 they want to see Mr. Carr terminated.

According to Mr. Winters, Mr. Wisdon1 has a patten1 of openly questioning Mr. linters'
decisions, judgrncnt and instructions, particularly in Mr. Winters' absence. Mr. Wisdolll
admitted he often disagrees with Mr. Winters. There is obvious tension between Mr. Winters and
Mr. Wisdom.

According to Mr. Wisdom, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Steve Davis and Mr. Jenkins, Mr.Winters'
approach and style have contributed to the growing en1ployee dissatisfaction.

Mr. Winters acknowledged he has not had much supervisory or employee relations training.

I found the information provided by Mr. Wisdom the least credible and the most difficult to
substantiate.

c. Brock Gibson

During his interview Mr. Gibson provided some examples of his concerns about "double
standards;~ including, but not limited to, not allowing Mr. Wisdom to replace the tires on his
truck when other employees were allowed to do so; one employee being asked to document
interactions with another employee when Mr. Gibson was not asked to document his interactions
with other employees in what Mr. Gibson considered to be a similar situation; and the handling
of on-call situations among employees.

Mr. Gibson has been with the District since 2007. Mr. Gibson feels the relationship between the
majority of the field crew and Mr. Winters and Mr. Carr is irreparable. He stated he would like
both Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters gone and does not see how the trust can ever be rebuilt.

It seems very likely that Mr. Gibson's opinions have influenced Mr. Libbey's ability to
objectively view either Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters.

Mr. Gibson's main issues seem to revolve around his being on calI 24/7 and still being calIed
even when he is not on call. Mr. Gibson feels Mr. Winters is protecting Mr. Williams and that
Mr. Williams is dishonest in his dealings with Mr. Winters and the other crew employees.

During the interviews, several allegations arose about employees either drinking on the job or
coming to work vvith the slnell of alcohol on their breath, but not being disciplined for either
having reported to work under the influence of alcohol or drinking while on the job.

For example, both Mr. Can and My. Winters indicated that they received calls from a customer
regarding an employee who was responding to after-hours calls with the smell of alcohol on his

Pagej20
 breath. Mr. Carr anu Mr. Winters detennined that Mr. Gibson was the employee on call on this
particular date. Ultimately, Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters decided not to confront Mr. Gibson about
this incident. Instead, Mr. Carr later, during a crew meeting, passed out the District's Alcohol
and Drug Policy to the crew. Both Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters indicated they have not received
any similar custoll1er cans since passing out the policy.

d. Steve Davis

.During his interview, Mr. Davis nlentioned, in addition to the concern abollt employees being
disciplined differently, how Mr. Jenkins was treated when he dmnaged the garage door versus
when My. Williams damaged the shop door. He also felt My. Jenkins was disciplined more
harshly in October 2008 when Mr. Jenkins was driving a bulldozer with the front door open and
damaged the door followed by Mr. Jenkins getting a backhoe stuck a couple of days later and
receiving a two week suspension. Mr. Steve Davis compared how that situation was handled to
when Mr. Williams tipped over a backhoe earlier this year. After speaking with Mr. Jenkins, it
turned out that Mr. Davis' understanding of these events and the discipline received by
Mr. Jenkins was not accurate.

Mr. Steve Davis does not want to see anyone lose their jobs over the issues raised; however, he
feels trust needs to be reestablished, but recognizes it may take a long time. He wants to be sure
that employees are being treated fairly and equitably. He does not have any issues with
Mr. Carr; however, he felt the pOC111 Mr. Carr handed out on May 5,2010, was inappropriate.

e. Ryan Coffell

My. Coffell did not voice any direct concerns with Mr. Winters, but did express some frustration
with Mr. Winters not giving him credit for doing his job, and oftentimes appearing to assume
that a task was performed by Mr. Williams instead of Mr. Coffell. Mr. Coffell indicated his
belief that Mr. Winters oftentimes did not know who was on call duty. Mr. Coffell stated that
when he has been on call and called Mr. Winters for assistance, often Mr. Winters' first question
is whether he had called Mr. Gibson. Mr. Coffell would like to see less favoritism of certain
employees by Mr. Winters, specifically toward Mr. Williams. Mr. Coffell would like more
responsibility. He would like to be respected and asked for his input and have better
communication with and aITIong the crew. Mr. Coffell would like to see Mr. Winters in the field
more.

Mr. Coffell did not voice any issues with Mr. Carr.

During his interview, My. Coffell referred to how Mr. Williams would not be able to show up for
after hours work because he had been drinking. Mr. Coffell acknowledged that Mr. Williams was
not on call at the time. When asked ifhe observed Mr. Williams' drinking on the job, he said he
had not, just that he would show up in the morning and it was "'more like a hangover slnelI."

On June 3, 2010, Mr. CofTell called and left a Inessage for Ms. Dengate claiming that "I have
"ritnessed Robert drinking flllite :1 hit on the job ... " At this point, T have not attempted to re-
contact Mr. Coffell to ask any further questions about this assertion or why he did not mention

Page 121
 this to lue during the interview, OT why he has not brought this clailll to anyone's attention prior
to hls eall to our office.

f. Steve JenJdns

Mr. Jenkins has been with the District since 1996. During Paul Cross' tenure as Secretary-
Manager, Mr. Jenkins had several pertonnance evaluatlons where he was rated "unsatisfactory"
or "In arginal', on a variety of work perfolmance issues, including, but not limited to, safety
cOlnpliancc.
---~-----~

Mr. Jenkins has a substantial history of careless or negligent behavior resulting in ongoing
damage to the District property or equipInent and damage to non-District property. In his
personnel file, there are performance concerns raised about Mr. Jenkins' ability to work in a safe
manner dating back to 1998.

In fact, between July 2008 and October 2008, Me Jenkins had SIX instances related to
unacceptable job performance relating to safety.

In October 2008, Mr. Jenkins was suspended for three (3) days for backing a forklift and striking
an overhead door causing approximately $1,700 in damages. He was also suspended from
operating a forklift. Prior to this incident, he had at least three other recent incidents where he
had exhibited careless or negligent actions causing damage to property, along with several
written perfonnance evaluations with unsatisfactory ratings regarding, among other things, his
unsafe work practices, failing to adequately report incidents in a timely Inanner, and failing to
report to emergency calls or messages. Mr. Jenkins did not dispute any of the circumstances
leading to this suspension.

In December 2009, a written incident report was prepared when Mr. Williams' truck rolled back
and hit the shop door. However, the damage was minimal and easily repairable. Prior to this
incident, there is no documentation in Mr. Williams' personnel file noting any prior performance
issues.

The fact that Mr. Jeokins received a 3-day suspension in 2008 for six incidents in a 3-4 month
period does not support a conclusion that there is a double standard for discipline being imposed
bymanagement. Given Mr. Jenkins' prior disciplinary history and work perfonnance record, the
difference in the discipline imposed on Mr. Jenkins versus Mr. Williams for these two incidents
appears justified.

Since the 2008 suspension, Mr. Jenkins has had two other suspensions for failing to repoli or call
in. On October 13, 2009, he was placed on a one-year probationary period. A subsequent
suspension on January 12, 2010, was overturned by the Board.

Mr. Jenkins has a checkered employment and disciplinary record and from all appearances has
not been treated as harshly as his perfonnance might otherwise warrant. In terms of legal
habil1ty, if the District does not deal with Mr. Jenkins' safet infractions ~_~]JproEriats_
manner iKar could result in some enhance lability for either the District and/or individual -..
---------- - - - - - - - -
, . ~----------------
- --------J
\

Page 122
~~~J,.J.J."-4J.JL.J..I..I",:l...y-~ Mr. Jenkins is involved 111 an accident, 111 the future, resulting in senous
~~..v--U"*l-t"TUgeor injury to others.

Another issue raised was lnanagclllcnt requiring Mr. Jenkins to ohtain doctors' notes regarding
his ability to return to work following a recent foot surgery. Mr. Carr acknowledged that the
District is selective in requiring doctors' notes from some employees. Mr. Can indicated the
District's decision to require a doctors' note depended on, aIllong other things, e111ployee's sick
leave history, position, and responsibilities, and whether management needed assistance in
evaluating whether the elnployee could effectively retulll to work with or without restrictions or
accornmodati 011S.

Tn this regard the Manual states, in the relevant parts, as follows:

Sick Leave

Medical documentation from a health care provider for absences due to illness or
injury may be required for verification at the sale discretion of the District.
(emphasis added).

Manual, Page 10.

This policy provides management the discretion to decide when medical verification is
necessary. The fact that Mr. Jenkins had been asked for a doctors' note, when other employees
may not have been asked, is within management's discretion.

g. Mary Lou Brooks and Rod Anderson

Both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson have issues with how they perceive Mr. Carr deals with
other employees' personnel issues; however, neither one of them raised any substantive issue
about how Mr. Carr was interacting with either of them. Thus, to a large degree, their issues are
different from the field crew and appear to be significantly influenced by inC0111plcte or
inaccurate infonnation they have received from various members of the field crew, or from
fonner elnployees, or from their own conjecture and conclusions reached from overhearing
partial conversations between Mr. Can and Mr. Winters.

I-Iowever, Ms. Brooks did indicate that one of her responsibilities was to put disciplinary action
infonnation in employee files. As a result, she has regular access to the personnel files. She also
claimed that she had personally reviewed employees' personnel files, without the elnployees'
knowledge or consent, to determine who had or had 110t been disciplined.

Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson also raised issues about Mr. Carr's alleged abuses of the District
time and resources. The investigation of those allegations is beyond the scope of this report.
Interestingly, Mr. Anderson admitted preparing his report on District time and with District
equipment. However, if the Board has concerns about these allegations, those probably should
be turned over to the State Auditor for further review.

Page \ 23
 Mr. Anderson adrIllUed that the lnajority of his concenlS appeared to be petty or Ininor issues
when viewed singularly, but when viewed in their totality, in Mr. Anderson's viewpoint, raised
the level of concenl. One of the particular issues he brought up included Mr. Winters changing
the radio cull numbers in order to 1110ve Mr. Williams to a higher nurnber and move Mr. Walters
near the bottom ufthe list. Mr. Anderson stated that while assignnlent OfnUI11bers does not have
any particular inlpoti, it conveyed the message that Mr. Winters was playing favorites with
Mr. Williams, and that he did not like Mr. Walters. When I asked Mr. Winters about the radio
call llulnbcrs, he explained that under Paul Cross' 111anagement, Mr. Anderson's radio call
number was I-A. Mr. Winters wanted to assign Mr. Anderson a sequential number, and
therefore shuffled the numbers using the least disruptive manner possible.

Another issue raised by Mr. Anderson was how Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters allegedly treated
Mr. WaIters when he approached management with a concern. This was apparently shortly after
Mr. Carr began working for the District. According to Mr. Anderson, Mr. WaIters told him that
he (Mf. Walters) had asked for a meeting with Mr. Carr to discuss issues he had with
Mr. Winters. Mr. Carr arranged for a meeting with Mr. Winters and Mr. Walters. This meeting
took place in Mr. Carr's second week as Secretary-Manager. Mr. Anderson stated he could hear
the meeting through Mr. Carr's closed door and that it appeared to him that Mr. Walters was
"dressed down" by nlanagement. According to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Carr stated that the problem
was not Mr. Winters', but rather Mr. Walters'. After that incident Mr. Anderson felt he could
not trust Mr. Carr with any personnel issues.

Mr. Anderson discussed several other minor incidents that affected the field crew, but expressed
no specific concerns with Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters that directly affected Mr. Anderson's
emploYlnent. In fact, Mr. Anderson stated he has never been treated badly or had a negative
review in his 16 year employment with the District. However, Mr. Anderson feels both
Mr. Winters and Mr. Carr should be tenninated.

h. Robert Williams and Rob Davis.

Neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. Rob Davis voiced any concerns about harassment or the alleged
use of double standards. Both employees have a variety of dOCUl11ented incidents in their
personnel files, but accepted responsibility for the actions leading up to those documents being
placed in their files. Both individuals recognize that there is a division within the field crew.

Mr. Willimns is a utility operator and has been with the District for ten years. He stated he feels
like an outcast, but is not sure why. Mr. Willianls stated that Mr. Gibson will not speak to him
outside of work. Mr. Williams claims he is unaware of what the issues are, but it is creating a
difficult working environment.

Mr. Rob Davis is an irrigation specialist and has been with the District for fourteen years. The
first time he learned of the employee complaints was when the Petition was submitted to the
Board. Mr. Rob Davis stated he had no issues with management. He indicated the field crew is
split. He is not sure what the issues are with him. He did acknowledge that he had issues with
I'v1r. Gibson.

Page 1 24
 Mr. Rob Davis indicated he also had issues with Bob Choate, the fanner Field Supervisor, and
that Brent Winters had replaced Mr. Choate. rIe indicated that he was still learning to trust
Mr. Winters. He stated that things have gotten a whole lot better since Mr. Winters had taken
over as Pield Supervisor. He alsu stated that since Mr. Carr's hiring the environment has gotten a
lot safer.

i. Julie Mayhew

Ms. Mayhew worked in the District office for two and a half years under the supervision of
Mr. Carr. .In March 2010, Ms. Mayhew resigned to open a sandwich shop in Wenatchee.

Because of infonnation a couple of Board members received from employees, the Board voted to
conduct exit interviews with employees. Mr. Mayhe\v was the first, and to date, only, employee
exit interview conducted by the Board.

As I understand it, Ms. Mayhew did not raise any substantive issues during her exit interview.

During my interviews with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson, I was consistently infonned that the
sole reason Ms. Mayhew left the District was due to Mr. Carr's management style. However,
contrary to Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson's allegations, when I interviewed Ms. Mayhew, she
stated that she voluntarily resigned her emploYment for the sole purpose of opening a sandwich
shop with her husband in Wenatchee. Ms. Mayhew did express some minor disagreement with
Mr. Carr's Clistoluer service skills and luanagement style. Also, Ms. Mayhew stated she often
heard the field crew complain about how they were being treated, but she herself did not receive
or report any mistreatment by Mr. Carr. She reported that Mr. Carr, while overly critical on
occasion, treated her very fair. She stated she and Mr. Carr got along pretty well and had a good
relationship.

j. Dave Walters

Mr. Walters was eluployed by the District from early-200S until he resigned in 2008.

Mr. Walters acknowledged that when he was hired he did not have all the skills necessary for his
job description, hut was willing to learn. Most of his concerns were very dated and related to his
claims that he was not adequately trained or mentaTed by Mr. Winters, which led to him not
being able to satisfactorily perfonn his job.

Mr. Walters stated that during his initial employment interview perfonned by Mr. Cross and
Mr. Winters, he was assured they would provide- him with adequate training so that he could
come up to speed on the District systems before handing off the responsibility solely to
Mr. Walters. He also stated that such training did not occur, and that when Mr. Walters
requested to attend specific training classes, Mr. Winters would deny that request stating they
could not afford for Mr. Walters to be away from work.

Mr. Walters stated that Mr. Winters would not train him on the District systems, and relayed a
specific incident that took place at the C pumping plant during his first summer on the job.
Apparently a component broke down over the weekend and Mr. Walters did not know how to

Pagel25
 properly fix the unit. Rather than teach Mr. WaltL;Ts how Lo fix the unit, Mr. Winters fixed the
unit himself without explaining or showing Mr. Walters what to do to perfonn the repair.
According to Mr. Walters, this was not an isolated io<:i<1ent.

Mr. Walters statr;:d that he was oat allowed to ask other ernployees for assistance with such ite111s
as locating water lines that were not properly plotted on any maps, and was further told not to
even C01TIC to the office to check the maps.

Mr. Walters further stated that when he went to Mr. Carr to discuss his perceived issues with
Mr. Winters, that Mr. Carr told him he was not to come in and cOlnplain about Mr. Winters.
Mr. Walters stated that after that meeting he started receiving write-ups to his personnel file.

A review of Mr. Walters' personnel file shows documentation regarding job performance,
including one I-day suspension.

The documentation in Mr. Walters' file indicates he was given multiple opportunities to learn the
various aspects of his job and that he was not consistently perfonning his work satisfactorily.

While it was obvious he strongly disagreed with how he was treated during his employment, I
did not find his infonnation particularly useful or credible.

k. Brent Winters

Brent Winters is the Field Supervisor and has been with the District for approximately twelve
years. He has been the Field Supervisor for five years and replaced the former Field Supervisor,
Bob Choate.

Mr. Winters indicated that, prior to lny interview, none of the employees had come to him with
any issues. He was at the April 8, 2010 Board meeting when the Petition was submitted and it
came as a total surprise to hi1n.

He indicated Mr. Carr's management style is totally different than that of Paul Cross', the fonner
Secretary-Manager. He indicated that Mr. Cross avoided confrontation at all costs. He related
several instances where Mr. Jenkins was observed sleeping on the job, or damaging District
vehicles, and that Mr. Cross would not document or let hilTI deal with those instances. He
indicated Mr. Cross was totally hands-off.

On the other hand, Mr. Winters indicated Mr. Carr's style is much more direct. He stated
Mr. Carr expected employees to be accountable for their actions and that if incidents occurred,
that those incidents needed to be documented and that the District could not change behavior
without docul11cntation to support the change. He indicated Mr. Carr has infonned him that the
District needs to be fair and that the District cannot treat one individual substantially different
than another individual, without justification for doing so.

In his view, several employees do not like incidents to be documented and do not want to change
their behavior so they are lashing out in an attempt to discredit Mr. Carr.

Page 126
 Mr. Winters recognizes there is a division on the crew with Robert Willian1s and Rob Davis in
one group, and Mr. Wisdoll1, Mr. Gibson, and -Mr. Coffell in another group, and less so
Mr. Steve Davis and Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Winters did not think there is the use of a double standard in the application of discipline
andlor work rules.

Further, he indicated that he does not independently prepare docUlnentation on an employee

without first reviewing it with Mr. Carr. However, he also indicated there were several times
that Mr. Carr indicated that they were not going to write up the employees. Mr. Winters
provided two examples. One example was when a tank overflowed at the C Pumping Plant and
did $3,000 damage. He indicated the employee involved (Mr. Gibson) was not spoken to or
written up for his involvement in that particular incident.

The second example was when he had smelled alcohol on Mr. Gibson's breath during working
hours. After discussing the situation with Mr. Carr and the District's legal counsel, My. Carr and
Mr. Winters decided, instead of confronting Mr. Gibson about the incident, they would pass out
and explain the District's Drug and Alcohol Policy to the field crew at the next morning meeting.

Mr. Winters also indicated there has been a long tcnn issue about how to handle having
employees on call. As the person primarily responsible for the DistrieCs Inaintenance, he had
been on call for a number of years. Mr. Winters explained if an individual is on call~ that person
cannot be drinking during their on call time. However, there are situations where an after hours
call requires someone to be contacted who is not on call. Mr. Winters believes that when
employees get off work, that some employees, to avoid being called out, will have a beer or two
in case they may be called, and they would then not have to show up because they might be
under the influence of alcohol. There has been an ongoing problem with getting people to show
up for call or~ when they are not on call, to answer their phones to provide backup services for
elnergen CI es.

After Mr. Winters became the Field Supervisor, the District hired Dave Walters to handle the
DistricCs maintenance issues. Mr. Winters indicated that Mr. Walters did not have the
experience necessary to do the job, which was requiring Mr. Winters to be constantly going out
on call, even though Mr. Walters was on call and supposed to be able to handle the issues that
came up during call.

Mr. Winters indicated that he has had problems with Mr. Wisdom because he is generally very
negative and tries to manipulate employees. He indicates Mr. Wisdom generally has a negative
view of managenlent and does not like to work very hard. During his interview, Mr. Winters
provided a four page statement outlining his emp10ytnent with the District, which is attached as
Exhibit 7 to this report.

Mr. Winters indicated that Mr. Carr has been very consistent in that he has been very clear in his
COilllTIUnications with field crew.

Page \ 27
JIe feels that Mr. Curr has been inappropriately "'bushwhacked" by the employee Petition and,
given Mr. Carr's management style, that the accusations are unfounded and are in an effort to
protect employees who do not \vant to make the changes that Mr. Carr is asking theln to Inake.

After interviewing the other employees, I had a follow up interview with Mr. Winters on May
26, 2010. During this lneeting, Mr. Winters verified that the "Incident Report'l and "Employee
Incident Report" in his view are identical documents and that they are infonnational, not
disciplinary. He indicated the same for the "Equipn1ent or Tool Lost or Damaged Report." It is
his communication with the elTIployee on what he sees needs to be corrected, and to track
repeated problems. He indicated that the documents are more like coaching and counseling
rather than disciplinary actions. He indicated over the years the District has had a long history of
equipment being damaged and that employees generally deny it. During Paul Cross' tenure,
Mr. Cross would not to confront the issue. On the other hand, during Mr. Carr's tenure, he
wanted to document when equipment was dmnaged to establish accountability.

During this second interview, Mr. Winters again acknowledged that Mr. Carr and he had not
spoken to Mr. Gibson about overflowing the tank at the C Pumping Plant. However, they did
talk to Mr. Gibson about his lifestyle, in an indirect effort to get him to recognize that he needed
to make some changes to make himself more available for after hours calls, even when he is not
scheduled to be on call.

During this interview, Mr. Winters reiterated he did not believe that the he was using double
standards in work assignlnents or when documenting elnployee perfonnance or passing out
disciplinary action. In reviewing the various allegations raised by the other employees,
Mr. Winters either provided justifications for utilizing a different approach in different situations,
or denied that employees had been treated differently or were treated more favorably in
particular circumstances.

Mr. Winters also indicated that Mr. Williams had come to hilTI and indicated he feels he was
being treated unfairly by other employees. He indicated Mr. Williams said that the other
employees were causing a hostile environment between Mr. Willimns and the other employees.
Mr. Winters acknowledged he advised Mr. Williams to start writing the incidents down so he
could specifically recall them in the future.

In reviewing Mr. Walters' interview with Mr. Winters, Mr. Winters indicated that Mr. Walters
did not have the skill set necessary when he was hired, was not putting the effort in to obtain the
necessary training andlor certifications, was struggling with learning equipment, and was not
really learning the overall operation of the District, and when he was operating equipment he
would damage the equipment. He indicated Mr. Walters was in total denial and would not
accept that he was not putting in enough effoli or that he didn't understand what was going all,
and that ultin1ate1y it was Mr. Walters' decision to resign his position.

In summary, through the course of both interviews with Mr. Winters, I found that he was aware
of the dissension and distrust within the field crew; however, he generally was not sure how best
to deal with the issues.

Page \28
 1. Kern Carr

(1) Introduction

I(em Carr is the Secretary-Manager and has been with the District a little over three years.

According to the District bylaws, the Manual, and his job description, the Board has delegated to
Mr. CalT the authority to manage the District, including handling all day-to-day personnel
matters.

In my initial interview with Mr. Carr, he referred to the letter he had presented the Board on
April 12, 2010, which is included as Exhibit 3 to this report. In addition to the infonnation
provided in the letter, Mr. Carr indicated that for the first three years the Board had been very
supportive, including Mr. Libbey, of how he was managing the District. He stated in December
2008, the Board performed an informal evaluation and he did not receive a single criticism frOll1
any Board member, including Mr. Libbey.

Mr. Carr indicated he has had discussions with the District's legal counsel, David Sonn and Stan
Bastian, regarding some of the issues that started arising in 2009 and that was part of his
motivation for writing the April 12, 2010, letter.

Mr. Carr explained the water overspreading issue and that he had been directed, at the beginning
of 2009, to help resolve the issue and he was told by the Board to go fix it. In the process, he
worked with legal counsel, the Bureau of Reclamation and others to come up with a possible
resolution. However, that resolution would cost the large landowners SaIne additional money,
which those landowners objected to. Mr. Carr believes that was the beginning of the effort to
discredit him and rClnove him as the Secretary-Manager. Mr. Carr also stated that, throughout
2009, the Board was very supportive of his efforts, and the actions the District took on the water
overspreading issue were pre-approved by the Board and the District's legal counsel.

Mr. Carr found it curious that that Me Libbey supported him through December 2008; however,
in 2009, when the Board starting moving forward on the water overspreading issue, Mr. Libbey
became one of his detractors. He pointed out that Mr. Libbey is on the unauthorized water users
list.

Mr. Carr also indicated that there were issues with three employees that occurred in 2009. The
first one, even though it involved no write-ups or discipline, involved Mr. Gibson, who is also
Mr. Libbey's nephew.

(2) Issues Related to Employee Alcohol Consulllption

In 2009, Me Carr received a call from a customer that the on-call duty employee, who had come
out to help fix the water leak, had a very strong smell of alcohol on his breath. While the
customer did not know who the individual was, he provided a physical description and later,
working with Mr. Winters, Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters detennined that the person who met that
description was Mr. Gibson, who was also on call at the tilue.

Page \ 29
Mr. Carr inuicatec1 that he bad a Ineeting with M.L Gibson and Mr. Winters and indicated that he
told Mr. Gibson that the District had received a cOInplaint from a customer about the smell of
alcohol on Mr. Gibson's breath. Mr. Gibson denied it, and Mr. Carr indicated that they just
wanted Mr. Gibson to be aware of it and advised him to be sure he was not drinking while on
call.

Mr. CalT also indicated that one of the double standard issues that he expected would CaIne up
was that Mr. Steve Davis had informed Mr. Winters that Mr. Williams had C01l1e to help on a call
out when he was obviously dlunk. Mr. CalT indicated that the employees were concerned that
Mr. Williams was not written up; however, they were not aware of the fact that Mr. Gibson had
not been written up for a substantially similar allegation a couple of weeks prior.

Mr. Carr indicated that when Mr. Winters and he spoke with Mr. Williams, Mr. Willimns denied
that he showed up to assist after he had been drinking.

Some time later, Mr. Winters again came to Mr. Carr and infonned him that he thought he had,
in fact, smelled alcohol on Mr. Gibson's breath during working hours.

Based on these three jncidents, Mr. Carr reviewed the District's Drug and Alcohol Policy,
contacted the District's legal counsel, and decided that the best course of action was to pass out
the Drug and Alcohol Policy, rather than Inake any specific allegations toward any particular
employees. Since this policy was passed out, Mr. Winters and Mr. Carr have not received any
customer or employee complaints about employees smelling of alcohol while at work.

(3) On-Call Issues

My. Carr indicated that there was some discussion in the summer of 2009 with the field crew
about putting more individuals on call with pay and restricting them from drinking while on call.
The field crew indicated they did not want to do that and instead opted, among themselves, to
make sure two or three employees would be available for call during the SUlnmer months when
there was high water demand.

Mr. Carr indicated that during the peak summer months, a lot of the on call activity has to do
with resetting pumps and Inotors when they trip, so the electrician (Mr. Gibson) is probably
going to get more calls than any other employees during the summer months. Mr. Carr indicated
that when My. Gibson was not on call, he would be called by other employees to assist with an
issue, and when it was discovered that he'd been drinking, that the employees would take hiln to
the work site and Mr. Gibson would walk the el11ployees through how to fix it. This raised an
issue that some employees were covering for other employees. Mr. Carr indicated he told the
eInployces that type of activity had to stop, that if an cl11ployee was drinking, the employees
could not take the employee, who had been drinking, to the work site.

Mr. Carr also recalls Mr. Hubbard talking to him mid-2009, indicating that there were
individuals saying bad things about Mr. Carr, but Mr. Carr felt the source of those COlnments was
probably venting from the ongoing alcohol discussion and did not follow up with Mr. Hubbard.

Page 130
 (4) Credit Card Use Allegation

In January 2010 when Mr. Libbey came on the Board and asked for an clnployee survey to
evaluate Inoralc, Mr. Carr visited with Mr. Koenig and My. Hubbard. At that time is when
Mr. Hubbard infonncd Mr. Can about Mr. Libbey raising concen1S about Mr. Carr's credit card
use.

At the tin1e, Mr. Carr asked both Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Koenig why they did 110t bring this issue
to him. According to Mr. CalT, Mr. Koenig told him he had contacted the State Auditor
regarding the allegations to check to see if there was any Inisusc, and that the State Auditor had
reviewed and determined there was no Inisuse.

In February 2010, Mr. Can confronted Mr. Libbey, in executive session, and told him in no
uncertain terms, that Mr. Libbey was spreading false infonnation about him.

(5) Interaction with Jim Wisdom

Mr. Carr did acknowledge the interaction with Mr. Wisdom and indicated that he and
Mr.Wisdom had gotten into a pretty good yelling match. Mr. Carr acknowledges that he should
have modulated his voice; however, the issue they were discussing at the time was something
that he had talked to Mr. WisdolTI about on several occasions and Mr. Carr admitted losing his
patience with Mr. Wisdom and engaging in a shouting match, in front of other employees, with
Mr. Wisdolll.

(6) Bob Christopher

Mr. Carr also acknowledged that he had had some problems with Mr. Christopher priof to
Mr. Christopher being elected to the Board. Mr. Carr indicates that he had apologized to
Mr. Christopher in the past; however, he did not believe that Mr. Christopher had accepted his
apology and still held a grudge toward him regarding their prior interactions.

(7) Mr. Jenkins

Mr. Carr also indicated that when the District has written up Mr. Jenkins, that Mr. Baker has
gotten involved and has tried to intercede on Mr. Jenkins' behalf for Mr. Carr to be more
considerate of Mr. Jenkins and his volunteer fire fighting duties. Essentially, Mr. Carr felt that
Mr. Baker was interceding on behalf of Mr. Jenkins because Mr. Jenkins was a volunteer fire
fighter, which he believes placed Mr. Baker in an obvious conflict of interest.

Mr. Carr related that he has reviewed Mr. Jenkins work perfOTIllanCe and disciplinary history
with the Board and that while he does not particularly want to tenninate Mr. Jenkins, he is not
sure how to get Mr. Jenkins to change his behavior in such a way that Mr. Jenkins will work
safer or abide by District policies.

In October 2009, Mr. Carr gave Mr. Jenkins a letter that placed hilTI on a 12-111onth probation
period. When it was discovered that Mr. Jenkins had inappropriately tapped an irrigation \vatcr
line with a d0111estic potable water line, Mr. Carr placed Mr. Jenkins 011 an indefinite suspension

Page \ 31
until he could figure out if Mr. Jenkins could work safely for the District. However, the Board
overturned the disciplinary action on the basis that trlC District did not have a "fail safe written
pohci' on what Mr. Jenkins should be doing.

Mr. Carr believes that the combination of certain Board In eUlbers ' interactions with
Mr. WisdOln, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Jenkins, coupled with certain employees' dissatisfaction with
management, is sending a signal to other enlployees that those employees need to support this
complaint in an effort to establish that managen1ent is not doing its job, or that managelnent is
unfairly treating Mr. Jenkins.

(8) Mr. Walters

In discussing Mr. Walters, Mr. Carr indicated when he first came to the District in 2007, he
evaluated where the status of the District was, including individual employee performance. At
the time, Mr. Libbey, who was on the Board, told Mr. Carr he thought that Mr. Walters was a
bad pick. Mr. Carr checked with Mr. Winters and found out that Mr. Winters was not very
positive on Mr. Walters. Mr. Carr then talked with both Mr. Walters and Mr. Winters. It was
evident that Mr. Walters had a different perspective on how he was doing versus how
Mr. Winters felt he was doing. At the time, Mr. Carr brought the issue to the Board about
Mr. Walters' performance and said that he and Mr. Winters were going to develop some
performance guidelines. Those guidelines were endorsed by the Board, including Mr. Libbey.
Mr. Carr then had a Ineeting with Mr. Walters and Mr. Winters, they all agreed upon the
perfonnance expectations, and Mr. Carr told Mr. Walters that the District would provide
additional training or help, if necessary.

After a couple of ll10nths, Mr. Carr visited with Mr. Walters and Mr. Winters again and asked
how things were progressing. Mr. Walters indicated that he had not had time to follow up on
additional training or meet some other perfannance expectations, for example, obtaining his
CDL.

In Mr. Carr's opinion, Mr. Walters had an abundance ofti11le; however, he had a number of other
activities he enjoyed doing outside of work, which were more important to Mr. Walters than
getting the additional training and/or licenses and certifications. After about a year of
Mr. Walters continuing to say he did not have enough time to accomplish all the tasks and
continuing to make mistakes or have other perfonnance issues, Mr. Carr indicated to Mr. Walters
it did not look like he was willing to meet the performance expectations set out for him or that he
had the ability to do so. Mr. Carr suggested that the District modify his job description to reduce
his responsibilities and pay commensurate with the reduced responsibilities. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Walters resigned and went into business for himself.

Mr. Carr stated Mr. Walters was a very personable individual and that he had no cOlnplaints
about him personally, but Mr. Walters did not exhibit the initiative or dlive needed to complete
the performance tasks list.

Page 132
-1
,
I

(9) S unlnlary

I had a second inteTview with Mr. Carr on May 26, 2010. During that lnterview, we wt.:nt over
30rt1Cofthe 1lIk?,llfton:s thilt hdJ bl;l;ll brvughl up duriug the previous interviews.

Mr. Carr denied any misuse of District property, inappropriate treatment of employees,
haraSSlllent of other employees (other than the shouting n1atch between he andMr. WisdOlU), or
the use of double standards within the District. However, he acknowledges that the field crew is
divided and there is a high level of distrust among the employees. fIe believes several of the
Board members are accepting, at face value, what certain employees are saying without checking
the facts with either Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters before passing judgment.

During the second interview, I did not learn any additional infonnation that Mr. Carr had not
shared with me during the first interview, other than for him to generally deny some of the
specific allegations brought up by the employees during the course of my other interviews.
Mr. Carr reiterated that he felt most of the issues would not have surfaced had it not been for the
change in the Board composition. However, he recognizes that he needs to work with the
existing Board to make sure that their issues are appropriately addressed.

VI. SUMMARY

The employees are divided. As to the field crew, Mr. Rob Davis and Mr. Williams do not have
any substantive issues with management. Interestingly, Mr. Jenkins does not have any issues
with Mr. Carr. On the other hand, Mr. Jenkins does not like Mr. Winters.

There is a substantial level of distrust which appears to arise from a high degree of
lnisinformation, conjecture and/or en-oueous perceptions. Several employees, particularly
Mr. Anderson, Mr. Wisdolll, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Walters, brought up issues that arose several
years ago. However, none of these issues were brought to management's attention as required
by existing policy.

The change of the Board cOlnposition has facilitated these issues surfacing and the Board is
taking a more active role in District personnel decisions than is authorized by the Bylaws or the
Manual or warranted by the circumstances. I have not found a pattern of conduct that would
justify the Board involving itself in this type of persormel issues.

At this point, many of the issues appear to be an issue of or concern over management style
and/or philosophy. Mr. Carr has been endeavoring to implement a different approach than Paul
Cross' management style. As such, he is asking for luore documentation and to hold employees,
particularly Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Wisdom, accountable for their actions .

. As a result of the interviews and review of personnel files and related doculnents, I have not
found any substantive evidence of a "'double standard" or unjust uneven treatment occuning.
There are instances where managelnent has exercised discretion and employees may have been
treated differently. While several employees disagree with how that management discretion has
been exercised, that is not particularly unusual, nor does it seen1 to rise to a level that would
justify the Board attempting to intervene in the District's personnel issues.

Page 1 33
Thus, while it is apparent some en1ployees feel they are not treated with respect, or on an even
handed basis, there is no evidence of alleged haraSS111ent in violation of federal, state or local
law.

Page l34
 We the undersigned, wish to request an audience exclusively with the
LCRD Board of Directors to discuss employer/employee and work
environment issues.. The purpose of this meeting shall be to seek
resolution on these issues and to prevent any and all repercussions by
those involved.

Lj-1-/0

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
2
 Notes on special meeting of Lake Chelan Reclamation board 4/8/10.

A total of 6 employees addressed the board to express concerns about management and
working conditions. Five of the six were field employees, and one was an office worker.
The complaints fell into two categories. The field employees were concerned with what
they perceived as "double standards in treatment", and also "hostile environment". The
office worker made no direct complaints but her comments related to the ~'hostile
environment" issue.

I wilJ not identify any of the employees to preserve confidentiality, but I will discuss their
testimony in the order of their appearance.

Employee # 1 was concerned about what he felt was unequal treatment of workers. He
felt that a co-worker was singled out for punishment while others went unpunished for
the same type of behavior. He gave us a write-up describing an incident, which I believe
was intended to document one such incident. He also described an incident involving
himself and another LCRD employee and two contractor personnel who were laying pipe
when the manager became dissatisfied with the amount of progress and stopped the work.
The manager proceeded to express his dissatisfaction in a loud and unprofessional
manner in the presence of the other personnel. This employee also expressed his concern
with the lack of formal training to help him advance. The need of training to obtain a
CDL was noted.

Employee #2 expressed the same concerns regarding unequal distribution of disciplinary

actions, citing the same employees as did #1 to document his argument. In addition, #2
was concerned about times he was unable to respond to off-hour call-ins for emergency
repairs. It was unclear if any disciplinary actions were taken against him for not
responding, but he seemed to feel that such actions may have put his job in jeopardy.

Employees#3 and #4 gave a near word for word repeat of the "double standard"
argument described by # 1 and #2. In each case, the ~'picked on" employee was the same,
as were the two employees listed as receiving better treatment. None of the four said
they should be subject to more strict discipline. Employees #3 and #4 gave no personal
experience examples to support their argument.

Employee #5 was the person identified by the first four as the one who received
mistreatment from management. He confinned that he understood he was on disciplinary
probation and that the jobs he was allowed to perform were limited due to management's
perception of his reliability. He expressed his desire to return to the full scope of work he
had performed before he was put on restricted duty.

Employee #6 was an office worker. She asked if anyone had asked a recently resigned
employee why she was leaving. She seemed disappointed that the employee had not
expressed any dissatisfaction with her work environment as a contributing factor to her
decision to resign. Employee #6 expressed no personal problems with her work
environment, but felt that the manager had been rude to her coworker.
3
 April 12, 2010

To: Board Membf7s

From: Kern Carr ~
Re: Employment Issues

During the last 6 to 8 months, I have experienced or been made aware of by others
unusual amounts of negative rumors, accusations and unspecific employee issues or
concerns. The 2007, 2008 and 2009 Board had nothing but positive comments to say to
me about the status of the District as well as my job periormance.
In January 2010, the Board consisted of two new Board members. In the first January
2010 Board meeting, a Board Director asked for an executive session and in the executive
session certain Board members wanted to have all employees interviewed by the Board to
investigate possible morale or other employee issues. The remaining Board members
indicated that they felt this was not appropriate and that specific items of concern could
be addressed as outlined in the Employee Handbook. The Board members left with a
consensus that following the Handbook procedures was the appropriate method to handle
any complaints. The Board President called a special February Board meeting. In the
February 4, 2010 meeting, ) mentioned to the Board in executive session that I was made
aware of specific slanderous type of comments made about me that may be influencing
the Board, customers andlor employees. We discussed the proper functions of the Board
and its role with regard to management and District employees.
In the February 9, 2010, the Board passed an amendment to the Handbook by a 3 to 1 vote
that inserted the language, "When the Board has reason to believe that employee rights
are in question l the Board should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board at
the next possible opportunity."
In the same February 9,2010 Board meeting, the Board passed a motion by a 3 to 1 vote
that the Board should conduct employee exit interviews. There was in lengthy discussion
by Board members that both February 9 actions may be considered as micromanagement
by the Board and whether it was appropriate forthe Board to perform such actions.
Three Board members called a special Board meeting on April 8-,2010 to discuss
employee items. In the meeting, the Board was presented with a petition by 6 employees
that wished to discuss allegations of management setting double standards and creating a
hostile environment. After a lot of discussion, the Board eventually went into executive
session to discuss these complaints on an individual basis with all 6 employees.

I had hopes that behaviors by certain Board members would change. Regrettably, those
behaviors have not changed. It is my opinion that certain Board members have
aggressively pursued any negative comments or opinions that could be attributed to
management and supervision. I have heard certain allegations, issues or concerns
coming from various people that before the end of 2009 were practically nonexistent. The
following represent categories in which I believe certain allegations fall and my response
to them:

1. Employees that believe there is a double standard being applied to different individuals.

When I began working for the District in 2007, the Board at that time and I wanted to
evaluate District employee strengths and weaknesses so we could work to improve
performance. It was not and never has been a vehicle to try to terminate someone's job.
In fact, it was and is the exact opposite. I met with all employees with the desire to
accurately access what areas the District needed to improve Upon and the best way to
obtain this goal.
 One the first things that I noticed were the lack of documentation or expectations that the
supervisor and employee had to view. In most interviews in 2007, there was a obvious
discrepancy in what employees perceive as reality and what the supervisor perceived.
There was not necessarily a conflict but everyone remembered past events, performances
and expectations somewhat or quite a bit differently. This was one of the main reasons
that I asked the Field Manager to begin documenting events, accidents and other issues
so the employee and supervisor were at least aware of each other's perceptionc

The Board will notice if they review the files that numerous "write ups" have, been given to
various employees. These Uwrite ups" for the vast majority involve equipment damage
reports, accident or incident reports or minor infractions involving company policies. As I
have mentioned to the Board, numerous verbal conversations have occurred with all
employees which have not been written up. As I have mentioned to the Board, my intent
on any communication with an employee who has made an error or mistake (which all of
us do), is not to punish but to correct the behavior or event. If the Board evaluates the
documentation for the last 3 years, the Board will notice that very few incidents rise to the
level of any type of suspension. Suspensions are usually the result of continued repeated
unacceptable behaviors. Most of those behaviors are ones in which all employees should
be able to correct. These type behaviors or basic expectations include the following
examples:
1. Report to work.
2. If you are unable to report to work, notify your supervisor.
3. Don't use alcohol or illegal drugs during work hours for the District.
4. Report vehicle, equipment or safety incidents or accidents to your supervisor.
5. Tell the truth.
6. Do,not create or spread negative or inaccurate comments. Do not gossip.

Even most of these types of basic expectations usually are not written up until verbal
discussions are held with the employee. It is usually only after several verbal discussions
and written directives that suspension is considered.

In 2009, I discussed with the Board a discipline issue with an employee. At that time, I told
the Board that the discipline discussion should remain confidential between
management/Board and the employee. District Board members as well as District
management and supervision should not discuss with anyone except the employee
involved. I remember a Board Director asking me if that meant if he heard inaccuracies
from people as to why an employee had been disciplined, did he need to just stay quiet?
told him that is exactly what it meant. If Board members or managers hear inaccuracies
regarding a confidential matter, there should be no discussion regarding the inaccuracies.

A difference in how employees may be viewed by coworkers is how they communicate

with one another after a write up. The District has some employees who will talk with
numerous people who will listen about the write up, how it is unfair, how it is not
appropriate, how someone has it in for them, etc. The District has other employees who
prefer to keep discipline conversations to themselves and the supervisor and not discuss
with other employees. We have several employees that believe certain employees are not
disciplined due to the fact that some employees prefer certain items to be private. This
would have been very easy for Board members to understand if they had asked the field
manager or myself or took the time to review documentation regarding the alleged double
standard. After recently reviewing file documentation as well as discussing with the Field
Manager, I am very comfortable with stating that I do not believe a double standard exists
at Lake Chelan Reclamation District. Although I do believe employees are treated
equitably, employees may not be treated in the exact same manner due to the repetition of
the error, the severity of the specific event or the other variations that surround a specific
circu mstance.
 That being said I will offer the Board possible options that may improve employee morale
or at least some employees' morale.
If the Board wishes that we dispense with write ups for a brief or permanent basis, we can
do that. It may help to improve some types of morale problems. Some people do not like
any type of criticism or discipline on any matter. We can adopt a philosophy to the
u
employee of, (lOa the best you can with little or no consequence for poor performance
and it will probably improve morale for certain employees.

I have mentioned concerns about certain employees performing some tasks with
equipment. If the Board wishes to lessen or eliminate those restrictions, we can do that.
The Board and management can reevaluate these tasks functions at a later time.

2. Hostile work environment.

This one is somewhat of a mystery. The only incident that I can recall an employee using
the word hostile environment was when I raised my voice to an employee regarding a
certain behavior that I witnessed at a work site. I agree that raising one's voice or yelling
is not appropriate. My patience was not adequate that day. I would appreciate being told
of any other incidents that were not appropriate behavior by me or others so we can take
measures to avoid a reoccurrence.

After reflecting on the last 12 months, it is my belief that a few events have occurred that
significantly affect the issues that we are currently discussing. I would like for the Board
to consider the following:

1. At the beginning of 2009, the Board set as a major goal for me to help to resolve or
make significant progress toward the resolution of the District irrigation overplanting
issues that have been with the District for over 20 years. As a result of my attempts, with
Board approvals, to come into compliance with the District and Bureau of Reclamation
Contract, State of Washington laws and the Lake Chelan Reclamation District Rules and
Regulations, I found myself not viewed in the most favorable light by some of the
Districts' property owners. Property owners that had unauthorized irrigation water usage
for many years were directed by me, with Board approval, to correct this unauthorized
irrigation water use issue. I tried to offer the Board and property owners different options
to resolve this noncompliance issuee All options and possible resolutions were reviewed
by the District attorney. To date, there has been significant progress toward some type of
resolution. I believe that I am still not viewed in a positive way by certain property owners
due to the fact that resolution of the issues may result in a cost to those property owners.
It is my belief that this is one possible source of criticisms leveled at me.

2. Since my employment began in 2007, I have made the District Board aware of certain
liabilities or weaknesses that I felt needed to be corrected. These weaknesses' include
such examples as the billing software system, irrigation pumping plant maintenance,
spare parts inventories for all 3 utilities, and operational liabilities with regard to individual
sewer grinder stations. The major weakness that I witnessed was the very limited trained
employees that could cover routine and call duty operations in all the utilities. The District
was depending very heavily on the Field Manager and one to two other employees. I
recommended and the Board agreed to strengthen the number of trained employees to
cover day to day but especially after hours operations and calls. To date, this situation
has improved considerably since 2007.

My management style is direct and to the point with regard to communication to the
employees and the Board. I have spent 30 years in the utility business of identifying
problems and with the help of employees and Boards, fixing the problems. My
communications can always be improved and to the extent my communications have been
received as too btunt, rude or insensitive, I apologize to anyone that I have offended. The
 intent has always been to help the employees, customers in the District and the Board to
be in a better, stronger position than in the past. During 2009, certain employees received
disciplinary actions that ranged from verbal to written communications. Until 2010, I do
not recall a Board Director ever questioning my motives, actions or methods of trying to
change inappropriate behavior. This changed in 2010.

Certain Board members have placed themselves between certain employees and District
management. The actions by some Board members and some employees appear to be a
coordinated effort to present a picture of poor management andlor inappropriate
supervision. Although I am a proponent of listening, addressing and correcting legitimate
concerns of employees, it appears to me that Board members with obvious conflicts of
interests are not only encouraging employees to complain but to some degree instructing
them as to what to complain about and how to complain as a group in a coordinated
manner. For the last several months, I and other employees have witnessed an apparent
banding together of some employees with the apparent goal to protect an employee or two
from a perceived mistreatment. Certain Board members have conflicts of interest that
they ignore. It is my opinion that the following current conflicts exist and exacerbate our
current employee issues:

1. An employee is supervised by a Board member for volunteer duties. This volunteer

duty is admirable but most Directors would have distanced themselves from any situation
that would involve employment issues concerning this employee. This Director has been
central in facilitating numerous employee comments and concerns. While the intentions
may be good, it is something that has caused great difficulty for me to properly perform
my duties as manager. It sends a message to employees, "If you don't like the message
from management, I am here to be your advocate." It is my opinion that the relationship
between certain Board Directors and employee(s) has progressed much further than is
appropriate.
2. An employee is a relative of a Board member. While employment of relatives is allowed
in the LeRD handbook, most Directors would distance themselves from any
communications or decisions involving any relative. This Director not only communicates
but appears to advise several employees at the District as to different employment issues,
how they should proceed with complaints and to solicit employees to provide any
evidence of inappropriate behavior by supervision or management.
3. Certain Directors have friends that are employees of the District. Obviously, this is not
an issue except when friendships influence or appear to influence employee issues
considered by the Board. This is the situation that exists today, either real or perceived.
4. Certain Directors have friendships with various property owners that are on the
unauthorized irrigation water user list. One Board Director is on the unauthorized
irrigation water user list but refuses to recues himself from discussion, decisions and
voting on the overplanting issues. Whether perceived or real, it creates an atmosphere
that makes resolution of the unauthorized irrigation water use issues more difficult.

In summary, I accept full responsibility for any inappropriate behavior by me or others

under my supervision. I would hope that all employees enjoy their work at Lake Chelan
Beclamation District. I believe we have good people working for Lake Chelan Reclamation
District that have adequate skill sets to perform excellent work for customers. I would
hope that all customers are proud of their utility company. To the extent this is not the
case, I take that responsibility. If the Board wishes to continue with my employment, I will
work diligently to correct any issues that I am made aware of with appropriate benchmarks
to measure. Whether the Board wishes to employ a different manager or not, I would
suggest the Board eliminate its improper role in the employee/management relationship as
well as other conflicts that reflect poorly on Lake Chelan Reclamation District.

t:-- f\.,. C_ _
4
 MICHELLE DIANNE BROOKS

August 24, 2007

Board of Directors
lake Chelan Reclamation District
P.O. Box] * 80 Wapato Way
Manson, Washington 98831

RE: RESIGNATION DATE

AND RE: MR. KEM CARR, SECRETARY-MANAGER

Dear Board of Directors,

On August 10, 2007 I submitted a letter of resignation which stated that my last
day of employment was to be September 4, 2007. The purpose of said date was to
ensure that the July-August billing cycle be completed, as well as to provide general
training on the customized billing software. Rather than giving a standard two-week
notice on August 10th with my last day being today I chose to extend said date
because I had a previously scheduled surgery requiring my being out of the office for
recovery up to 14 days and I realize the need to train another individual on the
aforementioned software in addition to reviewing other various tasks I have become
responsible for over my five years of employment.

Without going into great -detail in this letter concerning past events that have
transpired since Mr. Carr's employment with -Lake Chelan Reclamation District, I will
simply state after yesterdays events/demands while I am still recovering from
surgery, in addition to Mr. Carr's statement/threat earlier today that he does not want
me to work on September 4, 2007, demanding I either work the whole week or none
at all, I will not be returning to the Lake Chelan Reclamation District office in his
presence. I am no longer comfortable working in the same environment as Mr. Carr,
nor do I think I can adequately train another individual in his presence due to the
duress and tension he has placed upon me. His demeanor and actions have caused a
great deal of trauma for me and I do not deserve to be treated the way he has
treated me. It has been recommended and I have concluded that I no longer be in
such a hostile environment.

I request that I be paid from August 14-17 and 20-24 with my accrued sick leave
(which was scheduled prior to my August 10th letter), as well as the remaining days
that I would have been at the office prior to his surreptitiously changing of security
measures at the office thus preventing me from being at my place of employment at
my normal hours and doing my work. His recent actions are also considered
retaliation. Those dates are August 27-31 and September 3-4, with September 3 rd
being a paid holiday and the balance of the dates taken from my accrued sick leave
based on mental distress as a consequence of his actions and treatment of me. I am
technically still an employee of the District until September 4, 2007. I expect that
my vacation leave be paid as per policy and included in August's payroll as well.

I continue to be and am more than willing to offer my assistance, as previously

stated in my letter of August 10 th , to any of my co-workers, the new billing clerk,
customers and to the Board of Director's any time, however I will no longer be taking
calls or any correspondence from Mr. Carr and request no contact from him. I will

342 NORTH SIlOn.E COURT #A, MANSON, \1{iA 98831

,.

-2- August 24. 2007

leave my forwarding information with Rod Anderson, Mary Lou Brooks and Brent
Winters should I be needed for anything.

It is extremely unfortunate that after all I have done for the District and the
dedication I have shown through the term of my employment that it has concluded
this way. My office keys will either be directly handed to Rocky Libbey at our
scheduled meeting today provided that it is able to happen, or will be left in the drop
box. I have several personal items, including but not limited to my glasses and
notary supplies that I will ha.ve Mary Lou Brooks or Rod Anderson go through my
desk and put together for an individual to pick up this afternoon.

Thank you for your time, and again, I do wish the District well and a positive
future. I sincerely enjoyed what I did for the District and the community during my
employment and am thankful for all that my co-workers, customers, Board of
Directors and previous supervisor have done for me.

Cordially,

Michelle D. Brooks
5
\.I""'(_~" .v........ . . . .... -,""'"

~I~ 'or " / : . ~.' ~_ -; :t.r;..-_ ' .' 't .~_ '.' _ I: : . . . . \"", .,., I . _.,~_" .'n' .":.'" , .' .~:

May 21, 2008

.Kern Carr
P.O. BoxJ
Manson, WA. 98831

DearKem,

This letter is to notify you of my j.ntent to resign. I would be willing to stay on for a llmited time to
allow for recruitment, training, and the re-distributioo of tho workload.. I'm wUJ ing to continue my on-call
duty in this interim tirne~ however, r U need to limit it to no more than one week per month. Also, as I
intend to return to the private sector as a licensed and bonded contractor, I'll need to take any sid.ejobs that
come my way to begin rebuilding my clientele.

Our very different perception afmy initiative, on~dut:y and overtime de:mands) last fall)s pay-cut. loss of
compensated over-time,. and threat of"reduce:d health benefits, outweigh the rewards. I've been honoreo to
,work with the crew these Tast four years. I would Jike to work-together to ease this transition.

. .. J . I ,
.
.
.
' ,. I " " ~- I \
 <JU~700( ;:1004 LK;'CH~LAN I'-<I=.CL DIST PAGE ()2-'

To: Kern Carr, Secretary Manager LCRD

From: David Walters, Crewman

I wish to formally amend my final day here at the District from June 27 th to today (June
17). After our discussion today I feel that this is the best way to prevent any further
disruption in the work force..
6
. . ' 8 6'1f57/281 (J as: 1313- . 569;;:6979884 "LK CHELAN RECL DIST P,D,GE 0::;;.'

I (flrr BOARD OF DIRECTOz<:.s

,t,!r!rMprrugn GordClU Lester, Prc:>((it'Jl:
Lake Chelan Reclamation District Kenyon R<li.t, Vier" J'J',,'~ida:;
Post OfficE' 'P,oox ] Arnold BQ.kcr
.MANSON1 WASfllNGTON 98831 Roeklund Libb~y
)NE: 509687..:3548
.ROb~T't Ch ri stopher
)JTTY: 1-300-B33-6388

February 10, 2010

Kern Carr. P.E.

Secretary-Ma nager
Lake Chelan Reclamation District
P.O. BoxJ
Manson, WA 98831

RE: Letter of Resignation

Dear Mr. Carr:

Please accept this letter as my official resignation from the Office Billing Clerk
position at the Lake Chelan Reclamation Distric(effective March 9, 2010. I
appreciate the employment opportunity, as well as the valuable work experience
that rve gained Qverthe past 2 % years with the District. Thank you. 'r"
Sincerely, ~~. .,
'7
-~

4.21.10
I Brent Winters have a two year degrce in forestry. I pursued a career in public works
construction after graduation at the University Of Minnesota in 1978. Lack of work in the
winter months caused Inc to change careers. I was a reserve police officer for the City Of
Elk River Minnesota for nine years. I worked security at Northern States Power nuclear
power plant for five years. I received many performance awards during my employment.
I never had a derogatory comment in my personnel file. I worked rotating shifts for five
years. I received an offer for a position as assistant manager in the Elk River Ford service
department. I accepted the position. The position allowed Ine to work nonnal working
hours. I moved to Manson in 1992 to be closer to family. I accepted a position as
assistant manager in the service department at Cascade Auto Center in Wenatchee. My
father in law had a heart attack and was not able to manage his hardware store in Manson.
I left Cascade Auto Center to fill the position at the family hardware store. The economy
at that time hit the local fanners hard, which severely impacted the hardware store. The
family had to cut overhead to survive. I was laid off and my father in law returned. My
father in law lllanaged as best he could with his health condition but the store eventually
failed. My work experience has been in very structured environments as well as very
liberal environments. I have many years supervising personnel.

I have bee~ employed with the Lake Chelan Reclamation District since April 1998. The
full time staff at the time of my employment included Paul Cross. Bob Choate, Steve
Warner, Jim Wisdom, Bob Hoots, Steve Jenkins and Rob Davis. At the start of my
employment I was one of three temporary's. Rich Sink has just retired. I was told by my
supervisors that Rich stressed out and quit before he was eligible for full retirement. Paul
talked him into staying on staff in a limited capacity until he was eligible for full
retirement. After Rich's retirement Steve Wamer became the Maintenance Supervisor
and Bob Choate the Operations Supervisor. The water plant was under construction.
Steve and Bob were pulling all of the on call duty. Seeing the need for help I began
offering they could call me after hours and I would be available to assist them. At the
same time I took an interest in the water plant that was under construction. I asked for
and received books on water plant operation. I was asked if I would be interested in
taking duty with Bob and Steve on a rotational basis. I agreed and became part of a three
week rotation. In May 1999 my Supervisor Steve Warner announced he was leaving to
take ajob with a Public Utility District in Spokane. Steve told me he was tired of trying
to deal with all the employee problems and just wanted to go somewhere else and be a
worker. I then became the only maintenance mechanic. Bob Choate became the Field
Manager. Bob and I started a two luan duty rotation. If we wanted a week vacation, the
other duty person was required to perform three weeks duty before a week off. I got
along well with all field personnel and had no issues. I got along well with all managers
and had no issues. I continued my duties in keeping the sewer, water and irrigation
systems in operation. I continued with my home studies and acquired water plant
certification, distribution system certification. waste water certification, backflow
assenlbly tester certification, cross connection control certification and a commercial
driver's license. I observed the trials and tribulations as Bob Choate struggled with
managing Jim Wisdorn, Bob Hoots and Steve Jenkins. He attempted to address issues
with damage &. theft to District equiplncIlt, safety clothing, road signs, tardiness and lack
 of performance. While Paul is supportive of Bob, he doesn't get directly involved. I don't
recall Paul ever wriling someone up. I saw luany cases where it was justified, but never
happened. Paul did get involved when he learned Jim, Bob Hoots and Steve Jenkins
spend a lot of tinlC driving around and they should be at the job site working. Paul wrote
a memo to all field personnel explaining District policy when breaks occur, how lunch is
taken and when to report to the shop. Bob Choate was met with resistance fronl lirn
Wisdom and Jim began to talk with Board members after nonnal working hours. Jim was
friends with several board members at the time and frequently socialized with them. Jim
told them he is being harassed at work. On November 24th 2003 Steve Jenkins stated to
me that Jim 'lchewed on him" and told him that the board members would be talking to
him and he "better teU the truth". I-Ie told Steve they would be "talking to him about
harassment". Jim told Steve he has already talked to Robert, Rob and Bob Hoots. Board
Members Rocky Libbey and Jim Koenig visited with Steve later that day. On January 1st
2004 Steve Jenkins reported to me that Jim came to the shop to tell Steve and Rob that
Jim and his wife have been researching labor laws on the web and discovered that the
Reclamation District has to pay employees for lunch. About this time; the board told Paul
that the field morale is at an all time low. He is directed to get it under control and his
annual pay increase is being withheld until the board sees an improvement in morale.
Paul told Bob Choate to stay away from Jim Wisdom and asked me to be the liaison
th
between them. I agree and on January 14 2004 Jim presented me with an internet
printed WAC referring to sanitation. The WAC calls for clean tepid fresh water between
70-100 degrees, individual hand towels, hand soap and sanitary seat covers. He told me
he wanted these things. I called lims pumping service and ordered it. On February 5 th
2004 Jim asked me if he has the power to fire someone. He told me Bob Hoots is
suddenly jumping in front of the bucket while he's digging. He talked: to Bob abollt it and
now Bob has an attitude. Jim continued with disruption (complaining--about lack of
signage, lack of inventory etc.) until spring 2004 when Bob Choate announced he has
taken a position at another water plant. Bob told me he was leaving because of the
District Board interaction with Jim Wisdom and he couldn't stop what was happening.
Paul promoted me to the Field Manager position and told me that he "hoped they got
what they wanted". r continued the "hands- off' policy with Jim Wisdom. Bob Hoots
retired. During the annual employee evaluations the crew told Paul and I that "things are
so much better now that Brent's in charge". The District continued to experience the
same issues with Jim Wisdom and Steve Jenkins, only they went unchecked. I became
the only "on call" person. This prevented me from leaving the valley for some time. Dave
Walters was hired to fill the maintenance mechanic position I had vacated. He was also to
be the second "'on call" person. I was "on call" for about two years as Dave could rarely
handle anything without assistance. During this time the interceptor replacement project
was under construction. I continued to train Dave, perform maintenance and operations
Inyself, and inspect the interceptor project. The contractor worked lnany days until dark
(10:00 p.m.). This required me to work until midnight to be sure pay roll would be done.
I would then make it horne only to be called out during the night by the SCADA system.
The board wrote a letter thanking field personnel for the hard work during an unusually
busy tilne. In the fall of 2006 Paul announced he had taken a position with RH2
Engineering. Paul and I discussed the possibility that the board may COlne to me to fill his
vacated position. Paul reCOllllUended r not take the position, if offered, because it would
 be putting a target on my back. Paul departed in January and the board hired a new
manager to start in April. Rocky Libbey remarked to me that he hired someone who was
going to run this place like a business. I became the lead water plant operator in addition
to my other duties. Dave was to be water plant certified by now but he failed to get the
necessary certifications. Dave continued to provide little relief as he was not interested in
setting aside tilue away from work to study. Kern Carr started as Manager in April 2007.
Ken] split up the "on call" duty among those who were qualified and wanted to
participate. Jim Wisdom wasn't interested and Steve Jenkins didn't qualify. Robert
Williams, Ryan Coftell, Dave Walters and Rob Davis were placed "on call". All new
hires would be required to participate in the Han call" duty. We continued to experience
the same workplace problems as when Paul was here (equipment damage etc.). Kern
directed me to write up the employee when this happens. This is what Kern is accustomed
to and typical of most employers. The write ups started making Jim Wisdom very angry
and he would deny responsibility. Steve Jenkins was very understanding. Rob Davis was
very understanding. Robert Williams was very understanding. Dave Walters was
counseled many times about his need to learn more about his job to function better. Dave
struggled with the commitment to learn more, being on duty, and overtime. In May 2008
Dave decided to go back to self employment. Monti Wilson was hired to replace Dave
Walters. Brock Gibson was hired at the same time, adding an electrician to the field crew.
During Monti's employment he struggled with affordable housing and a wife that missed
her family in Idaho. Monti was counseled several times and always insisted everything
was fine. We kept hearing from several crew members that Monti was very unhappy and
wanted to quit. When Monti was confronted with the rumors he confessed that his wife
was very unhappy and wanted to move home. He said he had to quit to save his marriage.
He gave six weeks written notice. Two weeks before his departure he decided to use up
all his sick leave. When he was questioned about it, he admitted he would call in sick
although he's not, just to use up his sick time. Kern suggested this would be a good time
to "call it quits". Several incidents of sabotage were discovered after Monti left. It
appeared the planning and execution of the sabotage had taken place over the past several
months. The sabotage has continued as of this writing. I have brought the facts of Sj,ecific
incidents before the field group and all deny participation in the event. On April3 r 2009
I arrived at "B" pumping plant. I was unexpected and found Brock slumped behind the
wheel of his truck. Brock was startled when he looked up and saw me. We began
working together at that location and I noticed the strong odor of alcohol on his breath. I
had unexpectedly arrived at Brock's work site once before and startled him. I smelled the
odor of alcohol on his breath then also. Brock has constantly chewed gum since he started
employment here. At Kern's request I distributed copies of the District drug and alcohol
abuse policy to all field personnel at the April 6 th 2009 morning meeting. Brock stopped
chewing gum at work. Throughout the SUlluuer of 2008 and 2009 the "on cal!" personnel
reported not being able to reach Brock by cell or home phone after normal working
hours. Occasionally a family member will answer and try to cover up for him. Brock's
vehicles were home but he didn't answer either phone. On another Occasion Brock
answered the phone and told the "on call" person he's had too much to drink and can't
drive. The '~on call" person picked him up in the District vehicle and Brock assisted with
the repair. At 4:05 each work each day I pass Brock at the intersection of Roses and
Green Ave. He travels directly froln work to Jacks IHarket. I happened to be at Jacks
 111arket inunediately after work one day and found that Brock buys a six pack of beer and
takes it home. A customer called during the summer of 2009 and advised Kern that the
Hon cal]" person responded to his home and had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath.
That on call" person was Brock. Brock has been counseled regarding the lack of
H

availability after hours. lIe was very defensive and suggested that he~s very stressed out.
He admitted to possibly drinking too much.

The current board has several conflicts of interest. There is a strong friendship between a
member and an employee. There is a family relationship between a board member and an
employee and there is a volunteerism relationship between a board member and an
employee. These conflicts coincide with the current discipline issues management has
with Jim Wisdom, Brock Gibson and Steve Jenkins. Attempts by management to correct
behavior of any of the three employees' have resulted in intervention by the board
members with special interest. The word usually thrown out is "harassment". The
corrective techniques used by management are typical of most supervisors and not
excessive or unusual. However, they require change on the employee's part to be
successful. The conflict of interest and micro management by the board have
created"harassment" to the management of the District. The harassment has escalated to a
customer making false accusations against management. I believe the customer is being
coached by a board member. At the April 20 th , 2010 board meeting I witnessed the board
member directly interacting with the customer in the audience.

The District has many tasks with few field personnel. The tasks would be difficult to
accomplish with even the most proficient personnel. The better the staff, the better the
public service. There are some whose priority is themselves. And some who's priority is
the customer. The District continues to function only because some employees give so
much of themselves that they make up for the shortcomings of those who only care about
themselves. The customers of the District have provided the employees a favorable wage
and an unusually good benefit package. I think they deserve more than they are getting in
return from some employees.

As of April 21, 2010 I have not been approached by the board or complainants regarding
any issues with Kern Carr or me. Robert Williams and Rob Davis state they have not
been approached. The current issues before the board are a complete surprise to Robert
Williams, Rob Davis and I.
8
 April 20, 2010
To: Lake Chelan-Reclamation Board of Directors

First of alii want the Board to assure me that what is said in executive
session stays there.

I have a question before I start. What exactly does the board recommend
when there is a conflict or inequities that cannot be resolved with the supervisor
or manager for whatever reason? At what point is the board comfortable getting
involved?

I want it known upfront that I have not been instructed what to say by any
board member or any other person. I want to preface everything I say by telling
you that I am NOT personally buddies with ANYONE that works for LCRD - I
have NOT ever gone hunting with, fishing with, drinking with (I don't drink
anyway!), BBQed with ... you get the point. lCRD employees are friends on a
professional level only. I also want to mention that in 16 years here I have never
had even a remotely bad yearly review, nor have I ever been written up in any
way, shape, or form.

In 16 years of service I have seen some ups and downs just as there are
in any company. But I can assure you that I have never seen employee morale
anywhere near the depths they are in this District right now. We do not trust the
current manager or supervisor and feel like we are constantly being watched for
a screw-up. The change in morale began 3 years ago. I will try to illustrate some
of the issues I have personally witnessed that have contributed to this problem.

I have personally witnessed employees abused and mistreated which

has translated to a hostile work environment for me. When I see others
treated in this way, I know it could be me next - manage by fear and intimidation.
Personally I have heard Steve Jenkins and his wife berated on a
conference call by Kem with Brent present. Berated to the extent that Steve's
wife, who had recently delivered their child, was called a liar and accused of
covering up for Steve. Marylou can verify this.
Personally I witnessed Dave Walter's mistreatment by both Kem and
Brent. Before Kem even came here, but immediately after Paul left, meaning
there was no active manager, Brent was pulling juvenile stunts to get at Dave.
Such as changing radio call numbers, which technically mean nothing, but by
doing so, the principle of the act was to tell Dave he wasn't important. It was a
power play.
Dave was required to print as-builts of work he had done but told he
couldn't spend time in the office doing so. Michelle bought him a cheap printer
for use at the WTP to accomplish this task and Brent took it away from him. As
far as I know, that little printer still sits on Brent's desk.
 Dave, and other employees have been told that they can't go' to the store
for lunch because it looked bad to have company trucks parked at the store-
and yet you can find Brent's vehicle parked there nearly every day - which
according to him, is because 'he's management'.
When Kern got here the petty abuses continued including telling Dave he
was to 'figure it out' when he needed help from Brent to solve District equipment
issues rather than pass on his own knowledge and empower the employees
under his supervision - isn't THAT the point of being a supervisor with
knowledge? Dave was trying to read manuals on his own time at home to 'figure
it out' and when he asked to take training classes was refused.
Shortly after Kem arrived, Dave was venting to me about the abuses and
mistreatment when I encouraged him to just take it to the new manager. I told
him that from what little I had seen, Kem seemed like he was a reasonable guy
and had told all of us that he 'has an open door' for any employee complaints or
issues. He had gone so far as to actually tell us that if we thought he was 'full of
crap' on a particular issue, he was fine with us telling him. WOW - NOT!! I
found out that he was full of crap. Dave went in and told Kem that he needed to
speak to him regarding issues he was having with Brent. Kem told him to come
back at a particular time. I witnessed Kern call Brent in and they prepared for
Dave. Dave walked into a complete trap. When Dave tried to tell Kem some of
the issues he was cut off by Kern and told to 'keep Brent out of it' and that 'he,
Dave, was the problem, not Brent'. THAT is the open door policy here at lCRD.
That single incident proved to be just the start of the hostile work environment I
have witnessed and the same mistreatment continues.
At this time I emailed my previous manager, Paul, and asked if he would
be willing to visit with me about these issues. We met that evening at Starbucks
and I laid out what I was witnessing already under the new management. What I
wanted to know from Paul is whether or not he advised for me to go to a board
member at that time. Paul said that he felt I ran too great a risk of having it
backfire and putting myself in jeopardy. His feeling was that if I went to a board
member with my issues and what I had witnessed, that it would immediately get
back to management and I would be 'blacklisted' along with others already there.
He advised me to keep quiet and see if it resolved itself and got better. It never
did and I believe it will not.
I STRONGLY encourage you to interview Dave about his time here and I
am sure you will hear far more inequities and abuses than I even know about.
By all rights he should have had an attorney and sued the District. But that is not
what Dave believes in. He has said that he would talk to the Board if asked.
This can all be verified by Dave, Michelle, and Marylou.
Speaking of Michelle, she lasted only a couple of months because of the
condescending attitude of Kern. He will not let his employees do their job. He
wants to look over shoulders and tell you what you are doing wrong. Julie
would not tell you all that she hated working here but I can tell you that the
main reason for her leaVing was because she hated working for Kern and
watching his mistreatment and arrogance in dealing with customers,
 contractors, employees, and basically anybody that questioned him or the
District.

/2.14.09
In talking with Julie this morning about a customer irrigation water excess questiun, she
states that she will cal! the clIstomer later when Kern isn't around because 'he doesn't
like her to give the customer any information or help them', This is often a common
theme in our office since Kern has been manager. I have witnessed him time and again
instructing Julie or Mary Lou that they 'don't need to share' information with customers.
By information I am meaning, meter reads, past use history, current use, and any 'help'
we might offer them in answering 'why' they might have over-use on a bill. He wants all
problems to be the customer's fault andproblem without letting us or ourfield guys try to
help out a customer in their problem solving.

Over and over I heard Julie comment that she has never seen a utility run
this way. Marylou can verify that.

I have watched from my desk repeatedly as Kem has treated customers in

a condescending way. Arrogance is a good way to describe Kem's attitude. The
customer is always wrong and treated as tho they are lying when bringing a
complaint or disputing a bill. Aren't we a customer service organization? Ask
Mark Pauly, ask Rocky Libbey and there have been others. They had excess
bills that were 'their problem' ... and it was calculated incorrectly by the District.
This was acknowledged only after numerous go-arounds with the customer.
Ask the Olsen's about how Kem treated them with their water and sewer
hookups - and it was only because our manager wouldn't let employees do their
work - and stepped in to change the 'rules' for one customer without thinking or
asking. This was made the Olsen's problem because of the District mistake.
Ask the Gevers how they were treated with their sewer problem and had
to spend their own money to have lakeshore Excavation fix District valves
because Kem and Brent wouldn't acknowledge it was our problem.
Ask Tony Medina how he was treated on his water meter hookup-
particularly the part where Brent slapped a lock on the meter and told Tony "we
own your water" - another power play in how he deals with a customer.
Ask Larry Hibbard about how he has been on the infamous waiting list for
additional water rights since the 70's and now the list has been deemed of no
consequence. There are countless times when office staff have witnessed lousy
customer service and arrogance towards our customers.
Ask Marylou how many customers now call and ask specifically to talk to
someone else - specifically avoiding the manager.
There is a contractor that has never tried to short cut the District and has
been someone we did not need to babysit for fear that he would install something
shoddy. If this contractor has a question about how it should be, he asks District
personnel for direction. I know for a fact that we have, in the past, changed the
requirements on him - on HIS dollar - and he still does the install the way we
want it Recently he has somehow fallen out of favor with Brent and so now he is
 black-listed. The District implemented a new,policy for this contractor in that he
was only allowed a limited amount of calls to District personnel and then he was
going to be charged for it. How does that make sense? A guy who wants to do
the work right is penalized. Not only that, I believe he was billed a final
inspection fee - the only one we have ever billed Qut, to my knowledge.
Conversely, there have been two jobs going on recently by contractors that Brent
likes, and Brent visits nearly every day. I have the field reports to prove it. Why
the different treatment?

This leads me into another topic in that I have personally witnessed a

double-standard in the way employees are treated by the manager and
supervisor.
There have been many many instances that I know about amongst the
field crew but I will just keep this to what I have personally witnessed to be true.

02.11.10
Steve Jenkins brought a note from his doctor yesterday stating he was not supposed to
work until the following Tuesday, due to a foot injury. All the crew was witness to this.
Yesterday afternoon MaryLou witnessed Kern and Brent discussing it with an open door
to Kern's office. Kem's instruction to Brent was to take Steve's job position description'
and see if the doctor thought he could still come to work and do some tasks. Today Brent
called Steve and told him he had to get ANOTHER doctor's note regarding his 'job
position description'. NOBODY else has to even get any doctor's note when taking sick
leave. I had surgery in January and took 3 days offand never had a note - let alone a
second note questioning if I could accomplish SOAfE ofmy duties.

last week Marylou called in to tell me she was going to be late to work.
know Steve has been reprimanded for not calling the supervisor. Kem had no
problem with Marylou calling me. I have, at times. been late to work over the
years and nothing has ever been said. I make my time up and that's that. I
understand that a field crew meeting in the morning is important but why is there
absolutely zero tolerance for some guys and great tolerance for others? All that
does is drives a wedge between co-workers as has happened in a big way in the
District.

I have personally witnessed abuses of company resources by Kern.

None of what I'm going to tell you next is a big deal at all. But, taken in the
context of the double standard that is prevalent within the District since Kem has
arrived, it is a constant source of irritation.
I have watched Kem retrieve his personal mail while driving his company
rig. If one of the field guys on the 'black list' were to ever try something like that,
they would be reprimanded. I will give you an actual happening to prove it. Very
similar to what Kem does when stopping to grab his mail at the PO, one saturday
Dave stopped alongside the main drag in Manson to drop off lawn chairs for the
parade on his way to the office as duty man for the weekend, and Brent saw him.
Dave was written up for it. But it's ok for Kem to do the same?
 10.29.08
on the fax machine this morning is a personal/ax from Kirkland Fireplace - the wording
011the fax indicates it's a 'shop-online' response - I brought the fax to the attention of
Kern and his response was "well Brent's building a house ". So obviously it's ok for
Brent? What about someone else?

I know that Kern has made numerous long-distance calls on company

time, and on company phones. I have seen the phone bills to prove it. It may
only be a couple or few each month, but what if Steve did that? Or Jim? Or
Brock? I have no clue to the extent of his personal calls on his cell but I can tell
you that his cell rings a lot and he either goes outside or closes his door.
Marylou can verify this.

09.22.09
it has been brought to my attention that our Mel bills show a significant number of long-
distance calls to Decatur Alabama. There are also many other calls that I would
consider personal calls made on company time at company expense by Kem. It has long
been observed by myself. Mary-Lou. and Julie, that Kem conducts a lot a/personal
business, during working hours, over the phone in regards to his lot purchase earlier this
year, and his ongoing house project. During his lot purchase, he sent and receivedfaxes
often and one time had me sign as a 'witness' on a purchase agreement. I am thinking
Mary~Lou likely has been asked to notorizedpersonal documents as well.

03.23.10
Kem is printinga lot of personal documents on company time and printers. MaryLou can
verifY.

I know that when Kern was working on his property last summer that he
took his jeep numerous times to his jobsite. Verify this with Brock and Steve
Davis. He placed an ad for people to come and haul away fill from his site and
then took the calls at work. Again, not a real big deal but think about what would
happen if other employees tried something like that - particularly one on the
'black list'.

09.23.09
Today Jim Harding came in the office for Reclamation business as well as to talk to Kem
about fill dirt he was advertising to get rid of So Kem "went out in the field" to help Jim
or load him up. Again this is something that has often taken place with others who have
called to get fill dirt from Kern. He will receive a phone call, talk to the person about
obvious personal issues like the jill dirt, and then moments later tell Julie and Mary-Lou
that he "is going out in the jield". I have verified with Mary-Lou that he does not take
personal time/or this on his timesheets. Jim Harding and MaryLou can verify.

Marylou and Julie can verify all of this.

 To summarize, in today's work environment, I feel the need to document
everything I do to protect myself. I feel that I have to watch my back so that I'm
not 'set up' for failure! and this isn't a productive way to come to work every day.
I also know that I am not alone in these feelings as there are no less than 6 other
employees that feel the same. I KNOW that every guy who works for the District
has skill sets that are valuable in some way. Every guy has strengths and
weaknesses. Management and supervisory responsibility should be to maximize
and illustrate each individuars strengths and not flaunt their weaknesses as they
do over and over again. I KNOW that all of us employees actually liKE our jobs
and duties - but - there is a lot of discontent and unhappiness because of who!s
in charge. I personally know there are at least 7 out of 10 employees that will
leave if a suitable job offer comes along. I started looking for another job soon
after Kem came to town and actually landed a good offer two years ago. I was
allowed to mull it over for a period of 3 months before I decided that I was going
to outlast current management. Now I am not so sure. I have 16 years of heart
and soul invested in this district and hate the thought of throwing that knowledge
away. I can tell you that there is a job opening doing exactly what I'm trained to
do for similar, if not slightly better compensation. I have already started the
application process. If there is ANYBODY who does not think there is a very real
problem here at the District, they are not opening their eyes. Period.

I would also like the opportunity to comment on Kem's letter to the board
on April 13th . I want it noted that I have never been solicited by any board
member for information nor have I ever been contacted by a board member
instructing me as to what to say, do, or act in regards to management. Any time
that I have been in contact with the board, it has been out of frustration and a
sense of helplessness with what I'm witnessing taking place from within the
district and I have taken my concerns to them.
I want it noted that 'following the employee handbook' does not take into
consideration the fact that there is a problem with management. Up until now, I
have not had any avenue to voice my concerns or share what I've witnessed
except through going to management. You can see that this has posed a real
problem for me in light of how Dave was treated. I have worked here the last 3
years under the cloud of fear of speaking up and under the cloud of ho?tility
towards those who do. A real 'open door policy' for us to believe in just like Dave
did. Kern states that he had 'hoped that behaviors by certain Board members
would change'. Well, for 3 years I have hoped that the manager and supervisor's
behavior would change and it has not. In fact, I believe the persecution of certain
employees has been ramped up in the hopes that they will also quit and go
away. Over and over again, office staff have watched Brent and Kem get
together to map out strategy against employees that they perceive to not be
toeing their line. Ask Dave, Michelle, Steve Jenkins, Brock, Jim, Ryan, Steve
Davis, Monti, Marylou, Julie, or myself if this is true.
Kpm stntps thAt hpfnrp. thp. p.nd of 2009. 'problems' were virtually
nonexistent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, that up until
now, we the empoyees have not had an opportunity to speak freely. This
 'problem' of hostile work environment and management by fear and intimidation
started in Kern's first week working here. It was during that first week, that Dave
was told lhe was the problem'. That is what I have been working with in this
office.
Management has tried to put a 'hush' edict on employees as well as you
board members. In Kern's letter he states that {board members were
encouraged to not discuss employee issues' and he has repeatedly told all
employees the same, even with each other. What this creates is a free-for-all by
supervision and management to pursue and harass certain employees as they
did Dave - with no recourse. Even employees who have not been harassed, are
deeply affected morale-wise by this behavior as I am, Marylou, Ryan, Steve
Davis, and Julie was. I will tell you that Julie may have stated she was leaving to
start a sandwich shop, but in reality she told Marylou and I straight out that she
couldn't handle working in this environment anymore. I think that if you
contacted her and asked pointed questions, you would get a better picture of why
she left. It is in fact the same reason Michelle left 3 years ago. If district
employees were happy in their jobs, our management and supeNisor would
never even have to worry about 'negative things being spread' or 'gossip'. It has
never been a problem before in my 16 years working here.
For 3 long years, I have been seeking for an opportunity to speak with the
board to voice my concerns and I am glad for this opportunity to get things off my
chest. I fUlly believe that you have good people working here, and every single
employee has positive assets to bring to the table. They just need an opportunity
to do so and in an environment where we are not looking over our shoulder in
case we might do something or say something that supervision or management
doesn't like. At this time, I know that our management and supervisor have lost
the respect and trust of 7 out of the 9 employees of the district. You can include
4 other employees that are now departed under very strained circumstances.
I thank you again for this opportunity.

Rod Anderson
CAD-GIS-EngTech
Lake Chelan Reclamation District
9
To: Employees
From: Kern
Re: Poem

I have attached a poem that I find appropriate for us. Just food for thought.
 My name is Gossip.
I am a direct descendant of the father of lies.
I have no respect for justice.
I maim without killing.
I break hearts and ruin lives.
I am cunning and malicious and I gather strength with
age.
The more I am quoted, the more I am believed.
My victims are helpless. They cannot protect
themselves against me because I
have no name and no face.
To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, the
more elusive I become.
I am nobody's friend.
Once I tarnish a reputation, it is never the same.
I topple governments and wreck marriages.
I ruin careers and cause sleepless nights, heartaches,
and indigestion.
I make innocent people cry in their pillows.
I make headlines and headaches.
Even my name hisses. I am called Gossip.
Before you repeat a story, ask yourself:
Is it true?
Is it harmless?
Is it necessary?
If it isn't, why repeat it?
10
 Jone 4,2010

To: Brock Gibson

From: Kern carrl:<-----.
Re: After normal work hours expectations

Thursday night, June 3, we exp~rienc8d an incident at irrigation pumping plant C.' Steve.
Davis and Brent Winters requested your assistance.. You stated that you were unable to
assist due to your consumption of beer after normal work hours. We have had events in
the past wherl! you were unable to respond to afte( hours calls. Those past events and the
most recent eVlI!!nt occurred when you were not on call.
As you are aw~re, we had the irrigation system turned off from approximately 4:00 pm,
Wednesday, June 2 and started turning the system on at approximately 11:00 am,
Thursday, June 3. At 4:00 pm, Thursday, June 3, the upper elevation systems were still
filling. At approximately 7:15 pm, Thursday~ June 3, I talked with Brent about the
maintenance problem at plant C and YQur apparent inability to respond. Due to the fact
that th~ irrigation system had b~en down for a considerable time and it was still day light, I
felt it wag prudent that we try to get the system back up. I met Ste"e Davis and Brent at
pumping plant C at approximately 7:45 pm. Irrigation pumping plant C resumed normal
operation at apPl'oximately 9:15 pm.

It is my understanding that the following comments were made:

1. You indicated to Brent that you thoughtthat we were out to get rid of you. Where this
came from I do not know. tt is certainly not true.
2~ You apparently indicated to Steve Davis that you would prefer checking and fixing plant
C the next day instead of Thursday night. This is not your call~ It should be Brent or I
making that call. A person on call during certain circumstances (Le. very late at night,
very involved repair, etc.) may decide it prudent that they wait until the next morning. This
was not applicable '<lst night. Again, the irrigation system had been down for a loog time
and it was still relatively early evening with plenty of daylight.

Although your personnel business after work is not my business, your job requires the
ability to response to emergency and unscheduled work calls from time to time. Based on
previous discussions with you and past e,,~nt-9, it appears that your ability to r-espond to
after normal work hours calls is affected by your consumption of alcohol after normal
work hours. Your jOb position does not require on call status 24 hours a day for 7 days a
week~ It is my understanding that unscheduled after hours calls have been infrequent for
the last 6 months~ My expectation is that the District has a reasonable "chance to receive
unscheduled after hours call responses from its employees when needed. Your position
has more potential for these types of calls. If you are consuming alcohol on a frequent
basis, the ean resp0J;lse for your job position is not very reliable~ Please give a written
response to the following: "

1. What is your expectation as to being available for emergency type caliS? (Le. Is it only
on standby dUty week? Some weekdays plus standby week? Other?)
!

:1
I

2~ What is the frequency of your alcohol consumption as it (ela.tes to being unavailable for
after hours calts?

11,
3, Is there a schedule in, which we could be confident that you eould receive after hours
calls if needed?

Signature: ~_~~_