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

Lake Chelan Reclamation District

Workplace Investigation

April- June 2010

Report dated June 10,2010

by Gil Sparks, JD, SPIIROGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

1.

j.

C.

1.

2.

a.

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

General Observations 12

Potential Conflicts of Interest 12

Open Communication and Grievance Procedure policy C"Open ComnlunicationPolicy") 12

Managemcl1t Approach '" 13

Mr. Libbey 13

Mr. Christupher 14

Mr. Baker 15

Mr. Rau ·· .. ···· 16

Mr. Lester 16

Mr. Hubbard .. n •••••••• •••••• •••••• .. •••••••• 16

Potential Legal Issues 17

HaraSSrTIC11t 17

DOllble Stanclards 18

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) Introduction 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 1Petition 1, 4

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

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

Exhibit 4Michelle Brooks' August 2007 resignation letter .4

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 9Poeln handed Qut by Kern Carr 4

Exhibit 10Memo 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 ArnoldBaker contacted our office to determin~ if we Illight be able to assist the District in investigatingand 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 respondto 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...mpICillent, 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 issuesand 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, individuallymet with Jim WiSdOlTI, Brock Gibson, Steve Jenkins, Steve Davis, Ryan Coffell, and Mary LouBrooks. On or about April 20, 2010, Rod Anderson also asked to meet with the Board. TheBoard granted his request and rnct with him in executive session.

During the course of the investigation, in addition to interviewing all Board Members andemployees (except Jessica Guadalupe), I received independent requests from Board membersBob Christopher and Rocky Libbey to interview fonner employees Dave Walters and JulieMayhew and a request from Gordon Lester to interview fonner Board members Duane Hubbardand 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 anddocutncnts, 111y conclusions and findings arc as follows:

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

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

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

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

I'age 11

a. The principal harassment clailn focuses on a heated exchange between Mr. Carrand Mr. Winters in October 2009. Mr. Carr acknowledged the inappropriatenessof his actions and Mr. Carr has not been engaged in or displayed any similarconduct since that incident.

b. The principal concern about the use of "double standards" focuses on c01nparingthe degree of discipline imposed on Steve Jenkins to other employees.

c. 'I'he discipline received by employees has been progressive in nature andwarranted based on each employees' documented work history and workperfornlance, and the perception of the use of "double standards" as it relates todisciplinary actions, is primarily based on hearsay, conjecture, and/ormisinfonnation, and is not supported by a review of the doculnented enlployccwork histories and disciplinary actions.

d. Many of the other issues brought up by employees regarding the use orapplication of "double standards" occurred a number of years ago, or are isolatedissues OcculTing over a period of time, or are based on hearsay, conjecture, and/ormisinfonl1ation, which for the lllost part, appear to stem from personality conflictsamong the employees on the field crew.

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

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

7. Mr. Winters has considerable knowledge of the Districts' systeills; however, he has nothad 11111ch supervisory or employee relations training.

lIT. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Board should obtain Cannal training on the appropriate role and protocol for apublic 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 reviewand update Mr. Carr's job description and establish objective, Ineasurableperfonnance standards.

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

5. Board 111clllbcrs should not be allowed to access, without pnor approval by theDistlict\ 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 hecoll1einvolved in day-to-day employee personnel issues.

7. Board mClnbcrs, either related to or using thc volunteer serVIces of Districtemployees, should consult with the District's legal counsel about whether thosel30ard 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 theelnployees.

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

10. Employees should be required to follow existing policies and procedures Inaddressing employee concerns.

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

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

13. The Board should, in consultation with the District's legal counsel, rescind or revisethe change to the Open COlnnlunication and Grievance Procedure pOTlcyadopted bythe 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 theBylaws, 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 201O~

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 thepersonnel 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 theBoard on April 20, 2010) (Exhibit 8);

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

f. FrOlll Robert WillimTIs: several pages from his 2010 daytimer, and copy of apoem 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:

7/27/0111211057/1 0/08

8/221089/3010810/1108

1011/08

10/7/0810113/08

10/17/08

7/31109

9/18/091/21/1 0

] /28/1 02/91102/15/1 0

2/16/1 02/18/103/31/10

Memo from Paul Cross - unsatisfactory job performanceIncident Report, hit post with District vehicleNotice of Suspension, 1 day - Failure to repoli - not serveddue to good work perfonnanceEquipillent or Tool Damage Report - smashed fenceIncident Report - hit signUtility Damage Repoli - daIuaged shop door, prepared byMr. JenkinsEmployee repo11 - hit overhead door, prepared byMr. WintersIncident Report - failure to respondEquipment or Tool Lost or Damaged Report - bent backhoedoorDisciplinary Letter to Steve Jenkins froln Kern Carr, signedby Steve Jenkins on 10/20/08, 3 day suspensionNotice of Suspension, 2 days ,--, Failure to report andcommunicate with supervisorElnployee Injury Report - hit dogNotice of Suspension (indefinite) re: incorrect servIceconnection. Overturned by the Board on 2/4/10Request for Paid Time OffDoctors' notelJndated menlO to Steve Jenkins from Brent Winters withattached job description to provide to doctor, with handwrittennote from doctor that Steve was advised not to perfonncertain functions until 2/16/10Doctors' noteRequest for Paid Time OffDoctors' note

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

B. Interviews

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

April 20, 2010 Rocky Libbey, Boarel MeIuberKen Rau, Board MemberArnold Baker, Board MClnbcr

Page Is

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

April 27 l 2010 Mary Lou Brooks (follow up interview)Rob Davis, llTigation Specialist, hired in 1996JilTI Wisdom, Utility Operator, hired in 1994Rod Anderson, Engineering Technician, hired in 1994Brock Gibson, Industrial Electrician, hired in 2007Gordon Lester, Board President (partial interview)

May 11,2010 Steve Davis, Maintenance Mechanic, hired in 2008Robert Williams, Utility Operator, hired in 2000Duane Hubbard, former Board Member

May 14, 2010 Ryan Coffell, Utility Laborer, hired in 2005Jim 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 2008Brent 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, non­verbatim transcripts werc prepared during each of the interviews by Janna Dengate, a paralegalin my office.

Each interviewee was infonned the Board had requested our assistance and that I considered ourIneeting 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 thecontents of our nlceting with anyone other than Ms. Dengate or Inyself. Each individual agreedto keep the content of their interview confidential. Each individual was also info1111cd that Ireserved 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 withadditional infonnation they wished to share with us. On June 3, 2010, Ms. Dengate received avoicc 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 beingavailable on June 3,2010 to respond to assist Mr. Steve Davis with an after hours call hecause hewas too intoxicated to respond.

On June 7, 2010, Ms. Dengatc received another clnail froin Mr. Carr, indicating he andMr. Winters had scheduled a ll1eeting with Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gibson had requested Mr. Bakersit in on the meeting with him. Mr. Carr related he had called Mr. Baker and told hiln that hisparticipation 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 meetingwith Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters. He related that Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters wanted Mr. Gibson topropose a solution to what he would consider a hlir way to make sure Mr. Gibson could beperiodically available, when he is not on scheduled call, to assist with elnergencies. Mr. Gibsonsaid he would be making a proposal.

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

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

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

The purpose of the call, as stated by Mr. Carr, was to allow Mr. Gibson to feel comfortableproviding input on the memo. Mr. Gibson stated that, based on what he and I discussed duringour initial interview, he had told Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters that he felt uncomfortable talkingabout saIne of the issues. Mr. Gibson was hesitant to have a discussion with Mr. Carr and/orMr. Winters regarding the climate and history that he felt might be relevant to the June 4, 2010111enlO.

During the conference call I explained to Mr. Gibson that I appreciated his attempts to maintainthe confidentiality, but that I wanted him to be comfortable sharing whatever infonnation wasnecessary to respond to the n1emo. Mr. Gibson stated he was preparing a response that heintended to present to Mr. Carr on Wednesday, June 9, 2010. FUlihef, Mr. Gibson stated he hadhad SOlne additional questions during his June 7, 2010 call with Ms. Dengate, which she statedwe would not be able to answer, since he was asking for specific legal advice. I infonned bothMr. 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 alongwith the Distlict's Bylaws and Policies The statues, bylaws, policies and job descriptions that arcrelevant 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 andconduct the business and affairs of the district, to make and execute all necessarycontracts, to ernploy and appoint such agents, officers and employees as may benecessary and prescribe their duties, and to establish equitable bylaws, rules andregulations for the government and rnanagement of the district, ... and generallyto perfonn all such acts as shall be necessary to fully carry out the provisions ofthis chapter .. _

2.as follows:

Board Bylaws The Board Bylaws, which are undated, state, in the relevant part,

Section 1.

Article IIIPOWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

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 nlanagementof 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 theprovisions 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 Secretary­Manager who shall be the Chief Executive Officer and responsible to the Boardfor the eHicient administration of the affairs of the District.

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

The Secretary-Manager may hire and discharge employees as necessary toconduct the operations of the District. (emphasis added.)

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

Responsibilities include:

Develop standards and qualifications for use in recruItIng, en1ploying andpromoting personnel. Responsible for selection, appointment, reassignment andrelease of crnployed personnel. Prepare salary schedules for all employees forapproval 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 thebasis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, Inarital status, veteran'sstatus, physical or lTIcntal disability, sexual preference or any other characteristicprotected by state, federal or local law. Elnployees shall use care and exercisegood judgment when interacting with fellow ernployees, Conduct thatdenlonstratcs n1utual respect is expected of all ctnployecs in the workplace.

Page 19

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

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

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

Any employee who believes that he or she has been subject to objectionableconduct prohibited by this policy must report it imnlediately to the Secretary­Manager or to the President of the Board if the Secretary-Manager isaccused 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 thehemi of good e111ployee relations. Employees should share their concerns, seekinformation, provide input, and resolve work-related issues by professionallydiscussing thern with their supervisors until they arc fully resolved. It may not bepossible to achieve the results the employee wants, but the supervisor shouldattempt to explain in each case why a certain course of action is preferred. If anissue cannot be resolved at this level, the employee is welcome to discuss theissue with the Secretary-Manager. The Lake Chelan Reclamation DistrictBoard is not involved in day-to-day personnel matters for the District andaccordingly, employees must attempt to resolve the issue in the abovemanner. Only if resolution has not been reached in the above manner should theemployee bring the matter to the Board. f;J;yen the Board has reason to believe_~hat clllployee rights arei~' 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 LakeChelan ReclaIllatioll District has set up special procedures to report and addressthose issues. The proper reporting procedures are set forth in the District'sHarassment and Discrimination in the Workplace policy and en1ployees shouldfollow 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 thisinvestigation; however, SOBle of those issues seem to influence or impact SaIne of the actionsbeing undertaken by some of the Board members.

2. Background

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

Over the past couple of years, the Board has apparently been moving forward more aggressivelyto resolve a water overspreading issue, which I understand has resulted in a proposed resolutionwhich potentially would set the appreciated value cost per acre minimum at $8~OOO for the areasof water overspreading. Mr. Libbey has been identified as a landowner who has engaged inwater overspreading. This issue is beyond the scope of this investigation, however, I understandnegotiations 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 decidednot to run for another term on the Board. Mr. Koenig, who had been on the Board forapproximately nine years, did run, but was defeated by Mr. Libbey. Mr. Christopher was electedto fill the position vacated by Mr. Hubbard. There was considerable conjecture that the largestlandowner had decided to support both Mr. Libbey and Mr. Christopher in an effort to begin tocontrol the Board, with the apparent goal of creating a Board more sympathetic to his (and theother 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'sBoard 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 theBoard resolve the water overspreading issue. According to Mr. Lester, Mr. Hubbard, andMr. Libbey, Mr. Carr was effectively lTIoving the District forward on the water overspreadingIssue.

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

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

While the Board has broad powers and authority under RCW 87.03 et. seq., the Board, throughits Bylaws, the Manual and Mr. Can's job description, has delegated the authority to administerthe day-to-day District operations and all personnel matters, except for the approval of salaryschedules, 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 takenpersonally. This has led to a lack of respect among the Board ll1ernbers, and to individual Boardmembers communicating directly with ernployccs and encouraging certain employees to shareth~ir complaints about Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters with the Board without following Districtpolicies.

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

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

b. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Mr. Gibson is Mr. Libbey's nephew. Mr. Jenkins provides volunteer fire tlghting services forMr. 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 potentialconflict of interest, they should seek guidance from the District's legal counsel about whetherthey should consider recusing themselves from any such discussions. This includes anydiscussions impacting employee discipline and/or revisions to the Manual.

c. Open Communication and Grievance Procedure policy ("OpenCommunication Policy")

In the February 9, 2010, Board lneeting, the Board voted to amend the Open Con1municationPolicy by adding the following language:

When the Board has reason to believe that employee rights are in question, theBoard should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board at the nextpossible 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 theBylaws (Article V), which delegates authority to supervise and discipline employees to theSecretary-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 toresolve the issue in the above manner."

There arc a variety of philosophical and practical reasons to require elnployees to resolve theirconcerns with management rather than corne to the Board. further, the newly added languagedoes not define what constitutes "employee rights," or how the Board, as opposed to individualBoard lnernbers, is going to decide it "has a reason to believe... " that such employee rights are inquestion. This policy statement is vague and ambiguous and has the distinct possibility ofinjecting 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 anenlployee be able to bring an issue to the Board. Presently, the Board has enabled employees tobypass 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 reflectits role in the District~s personnel matters, the Board should adhere to the existing policy. Thiswould include rescinding this portion of the policy by eliminating the language added by theBoard in February.

d. Managenlellt Approach

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

Both Mr. Carr and My. Winters indicated these forms are not considered to be disciplinaryactions, rather, the forms are used to document events in case perfonnance or safety issues needto 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 whichshould be addressed.

e. Mr. Libbey

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

In the SUilllner of 2009, Mr. Libbey (who was not a Board member at the time) was apparentlyprovided infoTInation that led hiiTI to approach both Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Koenig regardingconcerns about potential misuse of the District credit card by Mr. Carr. Mr. Libbey did not bringhis 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 Boardmeeting, 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 hadwith 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 inexecutive 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, theBoard should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board at the nextpossible opportunity.

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

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

While My. Libbey acknowledged Mr. Carr had very good technical skills, based on what he hadheard from employees, both prior to the employees' meeting with the Board and during theindividual employee meetings with the Board, he did not believe the situation \vas fixable. Hefelt, based on what he had heard, that it appeared both My. Carr and Mr. Winters lacked goodpeople skills and that the employee trust could not be regained. He also claimed three or fOUfemployees 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 effectivelyCOilllTIUnicate with hilTI as a Board Member.

f. Mr. Christopher

Bob Christopher is a newly elected Board Member. He decided to nln for the Board positionbecause he had a couple ofprior 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 andMr. Winters' management style and the alleged use of double standards in the workplace.Mr. Christopher also reviewed several employee personnel files, apparently without thecrnployees' knowledge or consent. Me Christopher felt some of the employee write-ups wereexaggerated 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 hasreceived fronl the various employees, Mr. Christopher feels Mr. CalT is "arrogant andomnipotent." He also believes that Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters have created a hostile workenvir0111ncnt and a pattern ofuneven treahnent toward select employees.

Mr. Christopher did not bring any of the concerns raised by the employees to either Mr. Carr's orMr. 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 managementproblem?" However, Mr. Christopher indicated he believes Mr. Carr is incapable of changingand that the District would be better off without Mr. Carr.

During his interviews, Me Christopher indicated that Mr. Carr had created an unworkablesituation 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 theSaIne building as the District and rents its space from the District. Me Baker has been on theBoard tor approximately one and a half years. Due to the location of his office, My. Baker isaccessible 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 interactionswith Mr. Winters.

Mr. Baker indicates that he believes that Mr. Carr has strong technical skills; however, based onhis conversations with employees, he believes Me Carr and Me Winters lack effectiveinterpersonal skills. Mr. Baker has not discussed any of the employees' concerns with eitherMr. Carr or Mr. Winters.

Mr. Baker believes Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters do not like Mr. Jenkins and that they areunnecessarily documenting minor performance issues in an effort to terminate Mr. Jenkins. Heindicated that Mr. Jenkins has been with the District for over 14 years and he had been written up15 times in the past two years.

Mr. Baker also believes Me Winters does not treat employees evenhandedly. He indicated thathe believes some employees are treated more leniently than other employees when they committhe 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 thesecomplaints 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 waterdistricts. Mr. Rau feels Mr. Carr has good technical skills and that he has been effective ininlplelnenting and following Board direction. Mr. Rau has never had a customer or enlployeecome to him with any complaints about Mr. CaIT or Mr. Winters. Mr. Ran indicates he has notbeen given any evidence, outside of when the employees spoke to the Board in executivesession, that Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters treat enlployees inappropriately, and feels Mr. Carr needsto 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 compositionof the Board. In his view, the Board was working effectively together until such time asMr. Libbey and Mr. Christopher were elected to the Board. At that time, Mr. Libbey startedbringing concenlS of employee dissatisfaction to the Board, which ultimately led to the employeePetition and request for this investigation. Mr. Lester believes Mr. Carr is a good manager andthat SOllle elllployees are troubled by Mr. Carr's and Mr. Winters' managenlent style andphilosophy. Prior to the elnployee Petition, he had not received any cOlnplaints from eluployeesor 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 issueaffected the election of the Board members in 2010. Mr. Hubbard acknowledged he was one ofthe land owners who had engaged in water overspreading.

Mr. Hubbard indicated he was not aware of the current issues with employees, but identifiedthese employees who had been a problem for the District for quite some time. Those employeesare: 1) Mr. Wisdom (who knows the systems well, but if you do not do it his way he is nothappy; 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 withMr. Jenkins to the Board, but the Board wanted to give him another chance; not a responsibleemployee).

Mr. Hubbard also indicated Mr. Libbey came to hiln in the sunnner of 2009 (Mr. Libbey was noton the Board at the time) and told him that Mr. Gibson was unhappy and to keep a close eye onMr. Carr because Mr. Libbey had been told Mr. Carr had rented a backhoe and paid for it withthe District credit card. He did not ask any questions, but felt that Mr. Libbey had an agenda. Hedid 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 thecOIIlIIlunity. Mr. Hubbard stated he was impressed with Mr. Can- and was felt he was muchbetter than the fOffi1er manager.

c. Potential Legal Issues

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

The first is a harassnlent cOlnplaint by Mr. Wisdom stemming from an intense interactionbetween 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 treatedsubstantially different than other employees engaging in similar or substantially similar workrelated situations. The concerned employees have categorized this as both a form of harassmentand the use of "double standards" in the workplace.

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

1. Harassment

There is no dispute that the incident between Mr. Carr and Mr. Wisdom occurred; however, thereare varying perceptions of the intensity of the event. Mr. Carr has acknowledged the incidentand the fact that his demeanor toward Mr. Wisdom related to this particular interaction wasinappropriate (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 communicationto the employees and the Board... to the extent my communications have beenreceived as too blunt, rude or insensitive, I apologize to anyone that I haveoffended ... 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 Policiesbecause he did not report Mr. Carr's objectionable behavior to the Board President as required bythe 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, sexualpreference or any other characteristic protected by state, federal or local law." Mr. Can has notengaged in any similar conduct since his run-in with Mr. Wisdom. Mr. Carr's interaction withMr. Wisdolll, while inappropriate, was not due to any of the above listed factors and as such, didnot violate this part of the policy.

The HaraSSlllcnt Policy abo states that '- ... cluployees shall use care and exercise good judgtllentwhen 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 thepolicy.

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

In addition to Mr.Wisdoll1's harassll1ent cOlnplaint, both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Anderson alludedto 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' orMr. Anderson's statements.

Additionally, Rod Anderson, in his written statement, raised, among other things, issues of abuseand 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 mistreatmentor harassment was a result of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, age, Inarital status, veteran'sstatus, physical or mental disability, sexual preference or any other characteristic protected bystate, 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, sexualpreference or any other charactelistic protected by state, federal or local law, nor did any of theother employees or former employees Inake any such allegations, I do not find either My. Carr'sor Mr. Winters' conduct violated any state or federal law prohibiting workplace harassment ordi scrimination.

2. Double Standards

3. Introduction

In addition to the harassment concern, the other principal concern raised by employees is a claimthat some employees are being treated more favorably than other employees when it comes tobeing "written up" or disciplined. Several employees also feel that they or their fellowen1ployees have been treated inappropriately, rudely or otherwise intimidated by Mr. Carr orMr. Winters.

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

The allegation of uneven discipline creates a dilemma for n1anagement. Generally, employeediscipline 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 donot have any way of actually kno\ving whether, or to what extent, another employee isdisciplined, 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 avariety of reasons, these issues with other en1ployees.

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

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

Specifically, one concern, which was repeatedly raised, was that Mr. Jenkins was disciplinedn10re severely for backing a forklift into and damaging a garage door than was Mr. Williamswhen his truck slid into and damaged the shop door.

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

In reviewing Mr. Jenkins' personnel file and the information provided by Mr. Jenkins, it appearswhen Mr. Jenkins has received disciplinary action, that the discipline has been progressive innature and, based on his work record, justified. In fact, Mr. Jenkins received a suspension onJuly 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 bothharassment and/or the application of double standards within the workplace (i.e., not being takendown to Wenatchee for a CDL Drivers' test; not being allowed to borrow books to study for aWDM-I test; not being reimbursed for classes previously taken; not being allowed to drive atruck without a CDL when other employees are allowed to do so; some employees getting introuble for calling in late when other employees did not seem to get in trouble; being disciplinedfor 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 ofincidents he brought up occl.lrred up to five to six years ago, which was prior to Mr. Carr beinghired by the District. However, Mr. Wisdom assclicd that the double standard culture had beencreated by Mr. Winters, and therefore he felt it was implicitly supported by Mr. Carr. Whenreviewing 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 disputingMr. vVisdoIUlS alh:gations.

In his personnel file,Mr. Wisdom has one '"'"Employee Report," along with an "EmployeeIncident 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 dohis work until retirement without having to worry about getting belittled or see favoritisln. Healso 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. Wisdollladmitted he often disagrees with Mr. Winters. There is obvious tension between Mr. Winters andMr. 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 tosubstantiate.

c. Brock Gibson

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

Mr. Gibson has been with the District since 2007. Mr. Gibson feels the relationship between themajority of the field crew and Mr. Winters and Mr. Carr is irreparable. He stated he would likeboth 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 toobjectively 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 calIedeven when he is not on call. Mr. Gibson feels Mr. Winters is protecting Mr. Williams and thatMr. 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 orcoming to work vvith the slnell of alcohol on their breath, but not being disciplined for eitherhaving 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 customerregarding 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 thisparticular date. Ultimately, Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters decided not to confront Mr. Gibson aboutthis incident. Instead, Mr. Carr later, during a crew meeting, passed out the District's Alcoholand Drug Policy to the crew. Both Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters indicated they have not receivedany similar custoll1er cans since passing out the policy.

d. Steve Davis

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

Mr. Steve Davis does not want to see anyone lose their jobs over the issues raised; however, hefeels trust needs to be reestablished, but recognizes it may take a long time. He wants to be surethat employees are being treated fairly and equitably. He does not have any issues withMr. 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 frustrationwith Mr. Winters not giving him credit for doing his job, and oftentimes appearing to assumethat a task was performed by Mr. Williams instead of Mr. Coffell. Mr. Coffell indicated hisbelief that Mr. Winters oftentimes did not know who was on call duty. Mr. Coffell stated thatwhen he has been on call and called Mr. Winters for assistance, often Mr. Winters' first questionis whether he had called Mr. Gibson. Mr. Coffell would like to see less favoritism of certainemployees by Mr. Winters, specifically toward Mr. Williams. Mr. Coffell would like moreresponsibility. He would like to be respected and asked for his input and have bettercommunication with and aITIong the crew. Mr. Coffell would like to see Mr. Winters in the fieldmore.

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 forafter hours work because he had been drinking. Mr. Coffell acknowledged that Mr. Williams wasnot on call at the time. When asked ifhe observed Mr. Williams' drinking on the job, he said hehad 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, Thave not attempted to re­contact 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 priorto hls eall to our office.

f. Steve JenJdns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Jenkins has a checkered employment and disciplinary record and from all appearances hasnot been treated as harshly as his perfonnance might otherwise warrant. In terms of legalhabil1ty, 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 regardinghis ability to return to work following a recent foot surgery. Mr. Carr acknowledged that theDistrict is selective in requiring doctors' notes from some employees. Mr. Can indicated theDistrict's decision to require a doctors' note depended on, aIllong other things, e111ployee's sickleave history, position, and responsibilities, and whether management needed assistance inevaluating whether the elnployee could effectively retulll to work with or without restrictions oraccornmodati 011S.

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

Sick Leave

Medical documentation from a health care providerfor absences due to illness orinjury 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 isnecessary. The fact that Mr. Jenkins had been asked for a doctors' note, when other employeesmay 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 withother employees' personnel issues; however, neither one of them raised any substantive issueabout how Mr. Carr was interacting with either of them. Thus, to a large degree, their issues aredifferent from the field crew and appear to be significantly influenced by inC0111plcte orinaccurate infonnation they have received from various members of the field crew, or fromfonner elnployees, or from their own conjecture and conclusions reached from overhearingpartial conversations between Mr. Can and Mr. Winters.

I-Iowever, Ms. Brooks did indicate that one of her responsibilities was to put disciplinary actioninfonnation in employee files. As a result, she has regular access to the personnel files. She alsoclaimed 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 Districttime 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 Districtequipment. However, if the Board has concerns about these allegations, those probably shouldbe 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 issueswhen viewed singularly, but when viewed in their totality, in Mr. Anderson's viewpoint, raisedthe level of concenl. One of the particular issues he brought up included Mr. Winters changingthe radio cull numbers in order to 1110ve Mr. Williams to a higher nurnber and move Mr. Waltersnear the bottom ufthe list. Mr. Anderson stated that while assignnlent OfnUI11bers does not haveany particular inlpoti, it conveyed the message that Mr. Winters was playing favorites withMr. Williams, and that he did not like Mr. Walters. When I asked Mr. Winters about the radiocall llulnbcrs, he explained that under Paul Cross' 111anagement, Mr. Anderson's radio callnumber was I-A. Mr. Winters wanted to assign Mr. Anderson a sequential number, andtherefore shuffled the numbers using the least disruptive manner possible.

Another issue raised by Mr. Anderson was how Mr. Carr and Mr. Winters allegedly treatedMr. WaIters when he approached management with a concern. This was apparently shortly afterMr. Carr began working for the District. According to Mr. Anderson, Mr. WaIters told him thathe (Mf. Walters) had asked for a meeting with Mr. Carr to discuss issues he had withMr. Winters. Mr. Carr arranged for a meeting with Mr. Winters and Mr. Walters. This meetingtook place in Mr. Carr's second week as Secretary-Manager. Mr. Anderson stated he could hearthe 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 problemwas not Mr. Winters', but rather Mr. Walters'. After that incident Mr. Anderson felt he couldnot trust Mr. Carr with any personnel issues.

Mr. Anderson discussed several other minor incidents that affected the field crew, but expressedno specific concerns with Mr. Carr or Mr. Winters that directly affected Mr. Anderson'semploYlnent. In fact, Mr. Anderson stated he has never been treated badly or had a negativereview in his 16 year employment with the District. However, Mr. Anderson feels bothMr. 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 allegeduse of double standards. Both employees have a variety of dOCUl11ented incidents in theirpersonnel files, but accepted responsibility for the actions leading up to those documents beingplaced 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 feelslike an outcast, but is not sure why. Mr. Willianls stated that Mr. Gibson will not speak to himoutside of work. Mr. Williams claims he is unaware of what the issues are, but it is creating adifficult working environment.

Mr. Rob Davis is an irrigation specialist and has been with the District for fourteen years. Thefirst time he learned of the employee complaints was when the Petition was submitted to theBoard. Mr. Rob Davis stated he had no issues with management. He indicated the field crew issplit. 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, andthat Brent Winters had replaced Mr. Choate. rIe indicated that he was still learning to trustMr. Winters. He stated that things have gotten a whole lot better since Mr. Winters had takenover as Pield Supervisor. He alsu stated that since Mr. Carr's hiring the environment has gotten alot safer.

i. Julie Mayhew

Ms. Mayhew worked in the District office for two and a half years under the supervision ofMr. 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 toconduct exit interviews with employees. Mr. Mayhe\v was the first, and to date, only, employeeexit 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 thesole 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, shestated that she voluntarily resigned her emploYment for the sole purpose of opening a sandwichshop with her husband in Wenatchee. Ms. Mayhew did express some minor disagreement withMr. Carr's Clistoluer service skills and luanagement style. Also, Ms. Mayhew stated she oftenheard the field crew complain about how they were being treated, but she herself did not receiveor report any mistreatment by Mr. Carr. She reported that Mr. Carr, while overly critical onoccasion, treated her very fair. She stated she and Mr. Carr got along pretty well and had a goodrelationship.

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 hisjob description, hut was willing to learn. Most of his concerns were very dated and related to hisclaims that he was not adequately trained or mentaTed by Mr. Winters, which led to him notbeing able to satisfactorily perfonn his job.

Mr. Walters stated that during his initial employment interview perfonned by Mr. Cross andMr. Winters, he was assured they would provide- him with adequate training so that he couldcome up to speed on the District systems before handing off the responsibility solely toMr. Walters. He also stated that such training did not occur, and that when Mr. Waltersrequested to attend specific training classes, Mr. Winters would deny that request stating theycould 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 aspecific 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 theunit 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 ite111sas locating water lines that were not properly plotted on any maps, and was further told not toeven C01TIC to the office to check the maps.

Mr. Walters further stated that when he went to Mr. Carr to discuss his perceived issues withMr. 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 thevarious 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, Idid 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 twelveyears. 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 withany issues. He was at the April 8, 2010 Board meeting when the Petition was submitted and itcame as a total surprise to hi1n.

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

On the other hand, Mr. Winters indicated Mr. Carr's style is much more direct. He statedMr. 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 behaviorwithout docul11cntation to support the change. He indicated Mr. Carr has infonned him that theDistrict needs to be fair and that the District cannot treat one individual substantially differentthan another individual, without justification for doing so.

In his view, several employees do not like incidents to be documented and do not want to changetheir 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 inone group, and Mr. Wisdoll1, Mr. Gibson, and -Mr. Coffell in another group, and less soMr. Steve Davis and Mr. Jenkins.

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

Further, he indicated that he does not independently prepare docUlnentation on an employeewithout first reviewing it with Mr. Carr. However, he also indicated there were several timesthat Mr. Carr indicated that they were not going to write up the employees. Mr. Wintersprovided two examples. One example was when a tank overflowed at the C Pumping Plant anddid $3,000 damage. He indicated the employee involved (Mr. Gibson) was not spoken to orwritten up for his involvement in that particular incident.

The second example was when he had smelled alcohol on Mr. Gibson's breath during workinghours. After discussing the situation with Mr. Carr and the District's legal counsel, My. Carr andMr. Winters decided, instead of confronting Mr. Gibson about the incident, they would pass outand 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 havingemployees on call. As the person primarily responsible for the DistrieCs Inaintenance, he hadbeen on call for a number of years. Mr. Winters explained if an individual is on call~ that personcannot be drinking during their on call time. However, there are situations where an after hourscall requires someone to be contacted who is not on call. Mr. Winters believes that whenemployees get off work, that some employees, to avoid being called out, will have a beer or twoin case they may be called, and they would then not have to show up because they might beunder the influence of alcohol. There has been an ongoing problem with getting people to showup for call or~ when they are not on call, to answer their phones to provide backup services forelnergenCIes.

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

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

Mr. Winters indicated that Mr. Carr has been very consistent in that he has been very clear in hisCOilllTIUnications 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 toprotect 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 May26, 2010. During this lneeting, Mr. Winters verified that the "Incident Report'l and "EmployeeIncident Report" in his view are identical documents and that they are infonnational, notdisciplinary. He indicated the same for the "Equipn1ent or Tool Lost or Damaged Report." It ishis communication with the elTIployee on what he sees needs to be corrected, and to trackrepeated problems. He indicated that the documents are more like coaching and counselingrather than disciplinary actions. He indicated over the years the District has had a long history ofequipment 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, hewanted to document when equipment was dmnaged to establish accountability.

During this second interview, Mr. Winters again acknowledged that Mr. Carr and he had notspoken to Mr. Gibson about overflowing the tank at the C Pumping Plant. However, they didtalk to Mr. Gibson about his lifestyle, in an indirect effort to get him to recognize that he neededto make some changes to make himself more available for after hours calls, even when he is notscheduled to be on call.

During this interview, Mr. Winters reiterated he did not believe that the he was using doublestandards in work assignlnents or when documenting elnployee perfonnance or passing outdisciplinary 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 inparticular circumstances.

Mr. Winters also indicated that Mr. Williams had come to hilTI and indicated he feels he wasbeing treated unfairly by other employees. He indicated Mr. Williams said that the otheremployees 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 hecould specifically recall them in the future.

In reviewing Mr. Walters' interview with Mr. Winters, Mr. Winters indicated that Mr. Waltersdid not have the skill set necessary when he was hired, was not putting the effort in to obtain thenecessary training andlor certifications, was struggling with learning equipment, and was notreally learning the overall operation of the District, and when he was operating equipment hewould damage the equipment. He indicated Mr. Walters was in total denial and would notaccept 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 awareof the dissension and distrust within the field crew; however, he generally was not sure how bestto 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 toMr. CalT the authority to manage the District, including handling all day-to-day personnelmatters.

In my initial interview with Mr. Carr, he referred to the letter he had presented the Board onApril 12, 2010, which is included as Exhibit 3 to this report. In addition to the infonnationprovided in the letter, Mr. Carr indicated that for the first three years the Board had been verysupportive, including Mr. Libbey, of how he was managing the District. He stated in December2008, 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 StanBastian, regarding some of the issues that started arising in 2009 and that was part of hismotivation for writing the April 12, 2010, letter.

Mr. Carr explained the water overspreading issue and that he had been directed, at the beginningof 2009, to help resolve the issue and he was told by the Board to go fix it. In the process, heworked with legal counsel, the Bureau of Reclamation and others to come up with a possibleresolution. 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 todiscredit him and rClnove him as the Secretary-Manager. Mr. Carr also stated that, throughout2009, the Board was very supportive of his efforts, and the actions the District took on the wateroverspreading 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. Libbeybecame one of his detractors. He pointed out that Mr. Libbey is on the unauthorized water userslist.

Mr. Carr also indicated that there were issues with three employees that occurred in 2009. Thefirst one, even though it involved no write-ups or discipline, involved Mr. Gibson, who is alsoMr. 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 comeout to help fix the water leak, had a very strong smell of alcohol on his breath. While thecustomer 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 thatdescription 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 hetold Mr. Gibson that the District had received a cOInplaint from a customer about the smell ofalcohol on Mr. Gibson's breath. Mr. Gibson denied it, and Mr. Carr indicated that they justwanted Mr. Gibson to be aware of it and advised him to be sure he was not drinking while oncall.

Mr. CalT also indicated that one of the double standard issues that he expected would CaIne upwas that Mr. Steve Davis had informed Mr. Winters that Mr. Williams had C01l1e to help on a callout when he was obviously dlunk. Mr. CalT indicated that the employees were concerned thatMr. Williams was not written up; however, they were not aware of the fact that Mr. Gibson hadnot 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 deniedthat 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 outthe Drug and Alcohol Policy, rather than Inake any specific allegations toward any particularemployees. Since this policy was passed out, Mr. Winters and Mr. Carr have not received anycustomer 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 crewabout 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, tomake sure two or three employees would be available for call during the SUlnmer months whenthere was high water demand.

Mr. Carr indicated that during the peak summer months, a lot of the on call activity has to dowith resetting pumps and Inotors when they trip, so the electrician (Mr. Gibson) is probablygoing to get more calls than any other employees during the summer months. Mr. Carr indicatedthat when My. Gibson was not on call, he would be called by other employees to assist with anissue, and when it was discovered that he'd been drinking, that the employees would take hiln tothe work site and Mr. Gibson would walk the el11ployees through how to fix it. This raised anissue that some employees were covering for other employees. Mr. Carr indicated he told theeInployces that type of activity had to stop, that if an cl11ployee was drinking, the employeescould 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 wereindividuals saying bad things about Mr. Carr, but Mr. Carr felt the source of those COlnments wasprobably 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 toevaluate Inoralc, Mr. Carr visited with Mr. Koenig and My. Hubbard. At that time is whenMr. Hubbard infonncd Mr. Can about Mr. Libbey raising concen1S about Mr. Carr's credit carduse.

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

In February 2010, Mr. Can confronted Mr. Libbey, in executive session, and told him in nouncertain 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 andMr.Wisdom had gotten into a pretty good yelling match. Mr. Carr acknowledges that he shouldhave modulated his voice; however, the issue they were discussing at the time was somethingthat he had talked to Mr. WisdolTI about on several occasions and Mr. Carr admitted losing hispatience with Mr. Wisdom and engaging in a shouting match, in front of other employees, withMr. Wisdolll.

(6) Bob Christopher

Mr. Carr also acknowledged that he had had some problems with Mr. Christopher priof toMr. Christopher being elected to the Board. Mr. Carr indicates that he had apologized toMr. Christopher in the past; however, he did not believe that Mr. Christopher had accepted hisapology 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 hasgotten involved and has tried to intercede on Mr. Jenkins' behalf for Mr. Carr to be moreconsiderate of Mr. Jenkins and his volunteer fire fighting duties. Essentially, Mr. Carr felt thatMr. Baker was interceding on behalf of Mr. Jenkins because Mr. Jenkins was a volunteer firefighter, 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 historywith the Board and that while he does not particularly want to tenninate Mr. Jenkins, he is notsure how to get Mr. Jenkins to change his behavior in such a way that Mr. Jenkins will worksafer or abide by District policies.

In October 2009, Mr. Carr gave Mr. Jenkins a letter that placed hilTI on a 12-111onth probationperiod. When it was discovered that Mr. Jenkins had inappropriately tapped an irrigation \vatcrline 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 Boardoverturned the disciplinary action on the basis that trlC District did not have a "fail safe writtenpohci' on what Mr. Jenkins should be doing.

Mr. Carr believes that the combination of certain Board IneUlbers ' interactions withMr. WisdOln, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Jenkins, coupled with certain employees' dissatisfaction withmanagement, is sending a signal to other enlployees that those employees need to support thiscomplaint in an effort to establish that managen1ent is not doing its job, or that managelnent isunfairly treating Mr. Jenkins.

(8) Mr. Walters

In discussing Mr. Walters, Mr. Carr indicated when he first came to the District in 2007, heevaluated where the status of the District was, including individual employee performance. Atthe time, Mr. Libbey, who was on the Board, told Mr. Carr he thought that Mr. Walters was abad pick. Mr. Carr checked with Mr. Winters and found out that Mr. Winters was not verypositive on Mr. Walters. Mr. Carr then talked with both Mr. Walters and Mr. Winters. It wasevident that Mr. Walters had a different perspective on how he was doing versus howMr. Winters felt he was doing. At the time, Mr. Carr brought the issue to the Board aboutMr. Walters' performance and said that he and Mr. Winters were going to develop someperformance 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 theperfonnance expectations, and Mr. Carr told Mr. Walters that the District would provideadditional training or help, if necessary.

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

In Mr. Carr's opinion, Mr. Walters had an abundance ofti11le; however, he had a number of otheractivities he enjoyed doing outside of work, which were more important to Mr. Walters thangetting the additional training and/or licenses and certifications. After about a year ofMr. Walters continuing to say he did not have enough time to accomplish all the tasks andcontinuing to make mistakes or have other perfonnance issues, Mr. Carr indicated to Mr. Waltersit did not look like he was willing to meet the performance expectations set out for him or that hehad the ability to do so. Mr. Carr suggested that the District modify his job description to reducehis 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 cOlnplaintsabout him personally, but Mr. Walters did not exhibit the initiative or dlive needed to completethe performance tasks list.

Page 132

-1I,

(9) Sunlnlary

I had a second inteTview with Mr. Carr on May 26, 2010. During that lnterview, we wt.:nt over30rt1C ofthe 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), orthe use of double standards within the District. However, he acknowledges that the field crew isdivided and there is a high level of distrust among the employees. fIe believes several of theBoard members are accepting, at face value, what certain employees are saying without checkingthe 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 notshared with me during the first interview, other than for him to generally deny some of thespecific 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 thechange in the Board composition. However, he recognizes that he needs to work with theexisting 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 haveany substantive issues with management. Interestingly, Mr. Jenkins does not have any issueswith 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 oflnisinformation, conjecture and/or en-oueous perceptions. Several employees, particularlyMr. Anderson, Mr. Wisdolll, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Walters, brought up issues that arose severalyears ago. However, none of these issues were brought to management's attention as requiredby existing policy.

The change of the Board cOlnposition has facilitated these issues surfacing and the Board istaking a more active role in District personnel decisions than is authorized by the Bylaws or theManual or warranted by the circumstances. I have not found a pattern of conduct that wouldjustify 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 styleand/or philosophy. Mr. Carr has been endeavoring to implement a different approach than PaulCross' 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 notfound any substantive evidence of a "'double standard" or unjust uneven treatment occuning.There are instances where managelnent has exercised discretion and employees may have beentreated differently. While several employees disagree with how that management discretion hasbeen exercised, that is not particularly unusual, nor does it seen1 to rise to a level that wouldjustify 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 evenhanded basis, there is no evidence of alleged haraSS111ent in violation of federal, state or locallaw.

Page l34

We the undersigned, wish to request an audience exclusively with theLCRD Board ofDirectors to discuss employer/employee and workenvironment issues.. The purpose of this meeting shall be to seekresolution on these issues and to prevent any and all repercussions bythose 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 andworking 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 whatthey perceived as "double standards in treatment", and also "hostile environment". Theoffice 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 theirtestimony in the order of their appearance.

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

Employee #2 expressed the same concerns regarding unequal distribution of disciplinaryactions, citing the same employees as did #1 to document his argument. In addition, #2was concerned about times he was unable to respond to off-hour call-ins for emergencyrepairs. It was unclear if any disciplinary actions were taken against him for notresponding, 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 saidthey should be subject to more strict discipline. Employees #3 and #4 gave no personalexperience examples to support their argument.

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

Employee #6 was an office worker. She asked if anyone had asked a recently resignedemployee why she was leaving. She seemed disappointed that the employee had notexpressed any dissatisfaction with her work environment as a contributing factor to herdecision to resign. Employee #6 expressed no personal problems with her workenvironment, but felt that the manager had been rude to her coworker.

3

April 12, 2010

To: Board Membf7sFrom: Kern Carr~Re: Employment Issues

During the last 6 to 8 months, I have experienced or been made aware of by othersunusual amounts of negative rumors, accusations and unspecific employee issues orconcerns. The 2007, 2008 and 2009 Board had nothing but positive comments to say tome 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 January2010 Board meeting, a Board Director asked for an executive session and in the executivesession certain Board members wanted to have all employees interviewed by the Board toinvestigate possible morale or other employee issues. The remaining Board membersindicated that they felt this was not appropriate and that specific items of concern couldbe addressed as outlined in the Employee Handbook. The Board members left with aconsensus that following the Handbook procedures was the appropriate method to handleany complaints. The Board President called a special February Board meeting. In theFebruary 4, 2010 meeting, ) mentioned to the Board in executive session that I was madeaware of specific slanderous type of comments made about me that may be influencingthe Board, customers andlor employees. We discussed the proper functions of the Boardand 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 votethat inserted the language, "When the Board has reason to believe that employee rightsare in questionl the Board should request the employee(s) to appear before the Board atthe next possible opportunity."In the same February 9,2010 Board meeting, the Board passed a motion by a 3 to 1 votethat the Board should conduct employee exit interviews. There was in lengthy discussionby Board members that both February 9 actions may be considered as micromanagementby 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 discussemployee items. In the meeting, the Board was presented with a petition by 6 employeesthat wished to discuss allegations ofmanagement setting double standards and creating ahostile environment. After a lot of discussion, the Board eventually went into executivesession to discuss these complaints on an individual basis with all 6 employees.

I had hopes that behaviors by certain Board members would change. Regrettably, thosebehaviors have not changed. It is my opinion that certain Board members haveaggressively pursued any negative comments or opinions that could be attributed tomanagement and supervision. I have heard certain allegations, issues or concernscoming from various people that before the end of 2009 were practically nonexistent. Thefollowing represent categories in which I believe certain allegations fall and my responseto 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 toevaluate District employee strengths and weaknesses so we could work to improveperformance. 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 toaccurately access what areas the District needed to improve Upon and the best way toobtain this goal.

One the first things that I noticed were the lack of documentation or expectations that thesupervisor and employee had to view. In most interviews in 2007, there was a obviousdiscrepancy in what employees perceive as reality and what the supervisor perceived.There was not necessarily a conflict but everyone remembered past events, performancesand expectations somewhat or quite a bit differently. This was one of the main reasonsthat I asked the Field Manager to begin documenting events, accidents and other issuesso 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 tovarious employees. These Uwrite ups" for the vast majority involve equipment damagereports, accident or incident reports or minor infractions involving company policies. As Ihave mentioned to the Board, numerous verbal conversations have occurred with allemployees which have not been written up. As I have mentioned to the Board, my intenton any communication with an employee who has made an error or mistake (which all ofus do), is not to punish but to correct the behavior or event. If the Board evaluates thedocumentation for the last 3 years, the Board will notice that very few incidents rise to thelevel of any type of suspension. Suspensions are usually the result of continued repeatedunacceptable behaviors. Most of those behaviors are ones in which all employees shouldbe able to correct. These type behaviors or basic expectations include the followingexamples: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 verbaldiscussions are held with the employee. It is usually only after several verbal discussionsand written directives that suspension is considered.

In 2009, I discussed with the Board a discipline issue with an employee. At that time, I toldthe Board that the discipline discussion should remain confidential betweenmanagement/Board and the employee. District Board members as well as Districtmanagement and supervision should not discuss with anyone except the employeeinvolved. I remember a Board Director asking me if that meant if he heard inaccuraciesfrom 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 inaccuraciesregarding a confidential matter, there should be no discussion regarding the inaccuracies.

A difference in how employees may be viewed by coworkers is how they communicatewith one another after a write up. The District has some employees who will talk withnumerous people who will listen about the write up, how it is unfair, how it is notappropriate, how someone has it in for them, etc. The District has other employees whoprefer to keep discipline conversations to themselves and the supervisor and not discusswith other employees. We have several employees that believe certain employees are notdisciplined due to the fact that some employees prefer certain items to be private. Thiswould have been very easy for Board members to understand if they had asked the fieldmanager or myself or took the time to review documentation regarding the alleged doublestandard. After recently reviewing file documentation as well as discussing with the FieldManager, I am very comfortable with stating that I do not believe a double standard existsat Lake Chelan Reclamation District. Although I do believe employees are treatedequitably, employees may not be treated in the exact same manner due to the repetition ofthe error, the severity of the specific event or the other variations that surround a specific

circumstance.

That being said I will offer the Board possible options that may improve employee moraleor at least some employees' morale.If the Board wishes that we dispense with write ups for a brief or permanent basis, we cando that. It may help to improve some types of morale problems. Some people do not likeany type of criticism or discipline on any matter. We can adopt a philosophy to theemployee of, (lOa the best you canu with little or no consequence for poor performanceand it will probably improve morale for certain employees.

I have mentioned concerns about certain employees performing some tasks withequipment. 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 usingthe word hostile environment was when I raised my voice to an employee regarding acertain behavior that I witnessed at a work site. I agree that raising one's voice or yellingis not appropriate. My patience was not adequate that day. I would appreciate being toldof any other incidents that were not appropriate behavior by me or others so we can takemeasures to avoid a reoccurrence.

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

1. At the beginning of 2009, the Board set as a major goal for me to help to resolve ormake significant progress toward the resolution of the District irrigation overplantingissues that have been with the District for over 20 years. As a result of my attempts, withBoard approvals, to come into compliance with the District and Bureau of ReclamationContract, State of Washington laws and the Lake Chelan Reclamation District Rules andRegulations, I found myself not viewed in the most favorable light by some of theDistricts' property owners. Property owners that had unauthorized irrigation water usagefor many years were directed by me, with Board approval, to correct this unauthorizedirrigation water use issue. I tried to offer the Board and property owners different optionsto resolve this noncompliance issuee All options and possible resolutions were reviewedby the District attorney. To date, there has been significant progress toward some type ofresolution. I believe that I am still not viewed in a positive way by certain property ownersdue 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 certainliabilities or weaknesses that I felt needed to be corrected. These weaknesses' includesuch examples as the billing software system, irrigation pumping plant maintenance,spare parts inventories for all 3 utilities, and operational liabilities with regard to individualsewer grinder stations. The major weakness that I witnessed was the very limited trainedemployees that could cover routine and call duty operations in all the utilities. The Districtwas depending very heavily on the Field Manager and one to two other employees. Irecommended and the Board agreed to strengthen the number of trained employees tocover day to day but especially after hours operations and calls. To date, this situationhas improved considerably since 2007.

My management style is direct and to the point with regard to communication to theemployees and the Board. I have spent 30 years in the utility business of identifyingproblems and with the help of employees and Boards, fixing the problems. Mycommunications can always be improved and to the extent my communications have beenreceived 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 tobe in a better, stronger position than in the past. During 2009, certain employees receiveddisciplinary actions that ranged from verbal to written communications. Until 2010, I donot recall a Board Director ever questioning my motives, actions or methods of trying tochange inappropriate behavior. This changed in 2010.

Certain Board members have placed themselves between certain employees and Districtmanagement. The actions by some Board members and some employees appear to be acoordinated effort to present a picture of poor management andlor inappropriatesupervision. Although I am a proponent of listening, addressing and correcting legitimateconcerns of employees, it appears to me that Board members with obvious conflicts ofinterests are not only encouraging employees to complain but to some degree instructingthem as to what to complain about and how to complain as a group in a coordinatedmanner. For the last several months, I and other employees have witnessed an apparentbanding together of some employees with the apparent goal to protect an employee or twofrom a perceived mistreatment. Certain Board members have conflicts of interest thatthey ignore. It is my opinion that the following current conflicts exist and exacerbate ourcurrent employee issues:

1. An employee is supervised by a Board member for volunteer duties. This volunteerduty is admirable but most Directors would have distanced themselves from any situationthat would involve employment issues concerning this employee. This Director has beencentral in facilitating numerous employee comments and concerns. While the intentionsmay be good, it is something that has caused great difficulty for me to properly performmy duties as manager. It sends a message to employees, "If you don't like the messagefrom management, I am here to be your advocate." It is my opinion that the relationshipbetween certain Board Directors and employee(s) has progressed much further than isappropriate.2. An employee is a relative of a Board member. While employment of relatives is allowedin the LeRD handbook, most Directors would distance themselves from anycommunications or decisions involving any relative. This Director not only communicatesbut 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 anyevidence of inappropriate behavior by supervision or management.3. Certain Directors have friends that are employees of the District. Obviously, this is notan issue except when friendships influence or appear to influence employee issuesconsidered 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 theunauthorized irrigation water user list. One Board Director is on the unauthorizedirrigation water user list but refuses to recues himself from discussion, decisions andvoting on the overplanting issues. Whether perceived or real, it creates an atmospherethat makes resolution of the unauthorized irrigation water use issues more difficult.

In summary, I accept full responsibility for any inappropriate behavior by me or othersunder my supervision. I would hope that all employees enjoy their work at Lake ChelanBeclamation District. I believe we have good people working for Lake Chelan ReclamationDistrict that have adequate skill sets to perform excellent work for customers. I wouldhope that all customers are proud of their utility company. To the extent this is not thecase, I take that responsibility. If the Board wishes to continue with my employment, I willwork diligently to correct any issues that I am made aware of with appropriate benchmarksto measure. Whether the Board wishes to employ a different manager or not, I wouldsuggest the Board eliminate its improper role in the employee/management relationship aswell as other conflicts that reflect poorly on Lake Chelan Reclamation District.

t:-- f\.,. C__

4

MICHELLE DIANNE BROOKS

August 24, 2007

Board of Directorslake Chelan Reclamation DistrictP.O. Box] * 80 Wapato WayManson, Washington 98831

RE:AND RE:

RESIGNATION DATEMR. KEM CARR, SECRETARY-MANAGER

Dear Board of Directors,

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

Without going into great -detail in this letter concerning past events that havetranspired since Mr. Carr's employment with -Lake Chelan Reclamation District, I willsimply state after yesterdays events/demands while I am still recovering fromsurgery, in addition to Mr. Carr's statement/threat earlier today that he does not wantme to work on September 4, 2007, demanding I either work the whole week or noneat all, I will not be returning to the Lake Chelan Reclamation District office in hispresence. 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 theduress and tension he has placed upon me. His demeanor and actions have caused agreat deal of trauma for me and I do not deserve to be treated the way he hastreated me. It has been recommended and I have concluded that I no longer be insuch 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 daysthat I would have been at the office prior to his surreptitiously changing of securitymeasures at the office thus preventing me from being at my place of employment atmy normal hours and doing my work. His recent actions are also consideredretaliation. 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 leavebased on mental distress as a consequence of his actions and treatment of me. I amtechnically still an employee of the District until September 4, 2007. I expect thatmy 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 previouslystated 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 takingcalls 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 BrentWinters should I be needed for anything.

It is extremely unfortunate that after all I have done for the District and thededication I have shown through the term of my employment that it has concludedthis way. My office keys will either be directly handed to Rocky Libbey at ourscheduled meeting today provided that it is able to happen, or will be left in the dropbox. I have several personal items, including but not limited to my glasses andnotary supplies that I will ha.ve Mary Lou Brooks or Rod Anderson go through mydesk 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 positivefuture. I sincerely enjoyed what I did for the District and the community during myemployment and am thankful for all that my co-workers, customers, Board ofDirectors and previous supervisor have done for me.

Cordially,

Michelle D. Brooks

5

\.I""'(_~" .v........ ...... .... -,""'"

May 21, 2008

.Kern CarrP.O. BoxJManson, WA. 98831

DearKem,

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

This letter is to notify you ofmy j.ntent to resign. I would be willing to stay on for a llmited time toallow for recruitment, training, and the re-distributioo of tho workload.. I'm wUJ ing to continue my on-callduty in this interim tirne~ however, r Uneed to limit it to no more than one week per month. Also, as Iintend to return to the private sector as a licensed and bonded contractor, I'll need to take any sid.ejobs thatcome 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 ofcompensated 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 27th to today (June17). After our discussion today I feel that this is the best way to prevent any furtherdisruption in the work force..

6

....' 86'1f57/281 (J as: 1313·- . 569;;:6979884 "LK CHELAN RECL DIST P,D,GE· 0::;;.'

I (flrr,t,!r!rMprrugn

)NE: 509·687..:3548)JTTY: 1-300-B33-6388

February 10, 2010

Lake Chelan Reclamation DistrictPost OfficE' 'P,oox ]

.MANSON1 WASfllNGTON 98831

BOARD OF DIRECTOz<:.s

GordClU Lester, Prc:>((it'Jl:

Kenyon R<li.t, Vier" J'J'·,,'~·ida:;

Arnold BQ.kcrRoeklund Libb~y

.ROb~T'tCh ri stopher

Kern Carr. P.E.Secretary-ManagerLake Chelan Reclamation DistrictP.O. BoxJManson, WA 98831

RE: Letter of Resignation

Dear Mr. Carr:

Please accept this letter as my official resignation from the Office Billing Clerkposition at the Lake Chelan Reclamation Distric(effective March 9, 2010. Iappreciate the employment opportunity, as well as the valuable work experiencethat rve gained Qverthe past 2 % years with the District. Thank you.

Sincerely,

'r"

~~. .,

'7

-~

4.21.10I Brent Winters have a two year degrce in forestry. I pursued a career in public worksconstruction after graduation at the University Of Minnesota in 1978. Lack of work in thewinter months caused Inc to change careers. I was a reserve police officer for the City OfElk River Minnesota for nine years. I worked security at Northern States Power nuclearpower 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 fiveyears. I received an offer for a position as assistant manager in the Elk River Ford servicedepartment. I accepted the position. The position allowed Ine to work nonnal workinghours. I moved to Manson in 1992 to be closer to family. I accepted a position asassistant manager in the service department at Cascade Auto Center in Wenatchee. Myfather 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 economyat that time hit the local fanners hard, which severely impacted the hardware store. Thefamily had to cut overhead to survive. I was laid off and my father in law returned. Myfather in law lllanaged as best he could with his health condition but the store eventuallyfailed. My work experience has been in very structured environments as well as veryliberal environments. I have many years supervising personnel.

I have bee~ employed with the Lake Chelan Reclamation District since April 1998. Thefull time staff at the time of my employment included Paul Cross. Bob Choate, SteveWarner, Jim Wisdom, Bob Hoots, Steve Jenkins and Rob Davis. At the start of myemployment I was one of three temporary's. Rich Sink has just retired. I was told by mysupervisors that Rich stressed out and quit before he was eligible for full retirement. Paultalked him into staying on staff in a limited capacity until he was eligible for fullretirement. After Rich's retirement Steve Wamer became the Maintenance Supervisorand 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 beganoffering they could call me after hours and I would be available to assist them. At thesame time I took an interest in the water plant that was under construction. I asked forand received books on water plant operation. I was asked if I would be interested intaking duty with Bob and Steve on a rotational basis. I agreed and became part of a threeweek rotation. In May 1999 my Supervisor Steve Warner announced he was leaving totake ajob with a Public Utility District in Spokane. Steve told me he was tired of tryingto deal with all the employee problems and just wanted to go somewhere else and be aworker. I then became the only maintenance mechanic. Bob Choate became the FieldManager. Bob and I started a two luan duty rotation. If we wanted a week vacation, theother duty person was required to perform three weeks duty before a week off. I gotalong well with all field personnel and had no issues. I got along well with all managersand had no issues. I continued my duties in keeping the sewer, water and irrigationsystems in operation. I continued with my home studies and acquired water plantcertification, distribution system certification. waste water certification, backflowassenlbly tester certification, cross connection control certification and a commercialdriver's license. I observed the trials and tribulations as Bob Choate struggled withmanaging Jim Wisdorn, Bob Hoots and Steve Jenkins. He attempted to address issueswith 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'trecall Paul ever wriling someone up. I saw luany cases where it was justified, but neverhappened. Paul did get involved when he learned Jim, Bob Hoots and Steve Jenkinsspend a lot of tinlC driving around and they should be at the job site working. Paul wrotea memo to all field personnel explaining District policy when breaks occur, how lunch istaken and when to report to the shop. Bob Choate was met with resistance fronl lirnWisdom and Jim began to talk with Board members after nonnal working hours. Jim wasfriends with several board members at the time and frequently socialized with them. Jimtold them he is being harassed at work. On November 24th 2003 Steve Jenkins stated tome that Jim 'lchewed on him" and told him that the board members would be talking tohim and he "better teU the truth". I-Ie told Steve they would be "talking to him aboutharassment". Jim told Steve he has already talked to Robert, Rob and Bob Hoots. BoardMembers 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 thatJim and his wife have been researching labor laws on the web and discovered that theReclamation District has to pay employees for lunch. About this time; the board told Paulthat the field morale is at an all time low. He is directed to get it under control and hisannual 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 liaisonbetween them. I agree and on January 14th 2004 Jim presented me with an internetprinted WAC referring to sanitation. The WAC calls for clean tepid fresh water between70-100 degrees, individual hand towels, hand soap and sanitary seat covers. He told mehe wanted these things. I called lims pumping service and ordered it. On February 5th

2004 Jim asked me if he has the power to fire someone. He told me Bob Hoots issuddenly jumping in front of the bucket while he's digging. He talked: to Bob abollt it andnow Bob has an attitude. Jim continued with disruption (complaining--about lack ofsignage, lack of inventory etc.) until spring 2004 when Bob Choate announced he hastaken a position at another water plant. Bob told me he was leaving because of theDistrict 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 gotwhat they wanted". r continued the "hands- off' policy with Jim Wisdom. Bob Hootsretired. During the annual employee evaluations the crew told Paul and I that "things areso much better now that Brent's in charge". The District continued to experience thesame issues with Jim Wisdom and Steve Jenkins, only they went unchecked. I becamethe only "on call" person. This prevented me from leaving the valley for some time. DaveWalters was hired to fill the maintenance mechanic position I had vacated. He was also tobe the second "'on call" person. I was "on call" for about two years as Dave could rarelyhandle anything without assistance. During this time the interceptor replacement projectwas under construction. I continued to train Dave, perform maintenance and operationsInyself, 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 unusuallybusy tilne. In the fall of 2006 Paul announced he had taken a position with RH2Engineering. Paul and I discussed the possibility that the board may COlne to me to fill hisvacated 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 newmanager to start in April. Rocky Libbey remarked to me that he hired someone who wasgoing to run this place like a business. I became the lead water plant operator in additionto my other duties. Dave was to be water plant certified by now but he failed to get thenecessary certifications. Dave continued to provide little relief as he was not interested insetting 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 toparticipate. Jim Wisdom wasn't interested and Steve Jenkins didn't qualify. RobertWilliams, Ryan Coftell, Dave Walters and Rob Davis were placed "on call". All newhires would be required to participate in the Han call" duty. We continued to experiencethe same workplace problems as when Paul was here (equipment damage etc.). Kerndirected me to write up the employee when this happens. This is what Kern is accustomedto and typical of most employers. The write ups started making Jim Wisdom very angryand he would deny responsibility. Steve Jenkins was very understanding. Rob Davis wasvery understanding. Robert Williams was very understanding. Dave Walters wascounseled many times about his need to learn more about his job to function better. Davestruggled with the commitment to learn more, being on duty, and overtime. In May 2008Dave decided to go back to self employment. Monti Wilson was hired to replace DaveWalters. 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 missedher family in Idaho. Monti was counseled several times and always insisted everythingwas fine. We kept hearing from several crew members that Monti was very unhappy andwanted to quit. When Monti was confronted with the rumors he confessed that his wifewas 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 upall his sick leave. When he was questioned about it, he admitted he would call in sickalthough he's not, just to use up his sick time. Kern suggested this would be a good timeto "call it quits". Several incidents of sabotage were discovered after Monti left. Itappeared the planning and execution of the sabotage had taken place over the past severalmonths. The sabotage has continued as of this writing. I have brought the facts of Sj,ecificincidents before the field group and all deny participation in the event. On April3 r 2009I arrived at "B" pumping plant. I was unexpected and found Brock slumped behind thewheel of his truck. Brock was startled when he looked up and saw me. We beganworking together at that location and I noticed the strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Ihad unexpectedly arrived at Brock's work site once before and startled him. I smelled theodor of alcohol on his breath then also. Brock has constantly chewed gum since he startedemployment here. At Kern's request I distributed copies of the District drug and alcoholabuse policy to all field personnel at the April 6th 2009 morning meeting. Brock stoppedchewing gum at work. Throughout the SUlluuer of 2008 and 2009 the "on cal!" personnelreported not being able to reach Brock by cell or home phone after normal workinghours. Occasionally a family member will answer and try to cover up for him. Brock'svehicles were home but he didn't answer either phone. On another Occasion Brockanswered the phone and told the "on call" person he's had too much to drink and can'tdrive. The '~on call" person picked him up in the District vehicle and Brock assisted withthe repair. At 4:05 each work each day I pass Brock at the intersection of Roses andGreen 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 andtakes it home. A customer called during the summer of 2009 and advised Kern that theH on cal]" person responded to his home and had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath.That H on call" person was Brock. Brock has been counseled regarding the lack ofavailability 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 amember and an employee. There is a family relationship between a board member and anemployee and there is a volunteerism relationship between a board member and anemployee. These conflicts coincide with the current discipline issues management haswith Jim Wisdom, Brock Gibson and Steve Jenkins. Attempts by management to correctbehavior of any of the three employees' have resulted in intervention by the boardmembers with special interest. The word usually thrown out is "harassment". Thecorrective techniques used by management are typical of most supervisors and notexcessive or unusual. However, they require change on the employee's part to besuccessful. The conflict of interest and micro management by the board havecreated"harassment" to the management of the District. The harassment has escalated to acustomer making false accusations against management. I believe the customer is beingcoached by a board member. At the April 20th

, 2010 board meeting I witnessed the boardmember directly interacting with the customer in the audience.

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

As of April 21, 2010 I have not been approached by the board or complainants regardingany issues with Kern Carr or me. Robert Williams and Rob Davis state they have notbeen approached. The current issues before the board are a complete surprise to RobertWilliams, Rob Davis and I.

8

April 20, 2010To: Lake Chelan-Reclamation Board of Directors

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

I have a question before I start. What exactly does the board recommendwhen there is a conflict or inequities that cannot be resolved with the supervisoror manager for whatever reason? At what point is the board comfortable gettinginvolved?

I want it known upfront that I have not been instructed what to say by anyboard member or any other person. I want to preface everything I say by tellingyou that I am NOT personally buddies with ANYONE that works for LCRD - Ihave NOT ever gone hunting with, fishing with, drinking with (I don't drinkanyway!), BBQed with ... you get the point. lCRD employees are friends on aprofessional level only. I also want to mention that in 16 years here I have neverhad even a remotely bad yearly review, nor have I ever been written up in anyway, shape, or form.

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

I have personally witnessed employees abused and mistreated whichhas translated to a hostile work environment for me. When I see otherstreated 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 aconference call by Kem with Brent present. Berated to the extent that Steve'swife, who had recently delivered their child, was called a liar and accused ofcovering up for Steve. Marylou can verify this.

Personally I witnessed Dave Walter's mistreatment by both Kem andBrent. Before Kem even came here, but immediately after Paul left, meaningthere was no active manager, Brent was pulling juvenile stunts to get at Dave.Such as changing radio call numbers, which technically mean nothing, but bydoing so, the principle of the act was to tell Dave he wasn't important. It was apower play.

Dave was required to print as-builts of work he had done but told hecouldn't spend time in the office doing so. Michelle bought him a cheap printerfor use at the WTP to accomplish this task and Brent took it away from him. Asfar 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 storefor lunch because it looked bad to have company trucks parked at the store­and yet you can find Brent's vehicle parked there nearly every day - whichaccording to him, is because 'he's management'.

When Kern got here the petty abuses continued including telling Dave hewas to 'figure it out' when he needed help from Brent to solve District equipmentissues rather than pass on his own knowledge and empower the employeesunder his supervision - isn't THAT the point of being a supervisor withknowledge? Dave was trying to read manuals on his own time at home to 'figureit out' and when he asked to take training classes was refused.

Shortly after Kem arrived, Dave was venting to me about the abuses andmistreatment when I encouraged him to just take it to the new manager. I toldhim that from what little I had seen, Kem seemed like he was a reasonable guyand had told all of us that he 'has an open door' for any employee complaints orissues. He had gone so far as to actually tell us that if we thought he was 'full ofcrap' on a particular issue, he was fine with us telling him. WOW - NOT!! Ifound out that he was full of crap. Dave went in and told Kem that he needed tospeak to him regarding issues he was having with Brent. Kem told him to comeback at a particular time. I witnessed Kern call Brent in and they prepared forDave. Dave walked into a complete trap. When Dave tried to tell Kem some ofthe 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 Ihave witnessed and the same mistreatment continues.

At this time I emailed my previous manager, Paul, and asked if he wouldbe willing to visit with me about these issues. We met that evening at Starbucksand I laid out what I was witnessing already under the new management. What Iwanted to know from Paul is whether or not he advised for me to go to a boardmember at that time. Paul said that he felt I ran too great a risk of having itbackfire and putting myself in jeopardy. His feeling was that if I went to a boardmember with my issues and what I had witnessed, that it would immediately getback 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 neverdid and I believe it will not.

I STRONGLY encourage you to interview Dave about his time here and Iam 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 notwhat 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 thecondescending attitude of Kern. He will not let his employees do their job. Hewants to look over shoulders and tell you what you are doing wrong. Juliewould not tell you all that she hated working here but I can tell you that themain reason for her leaVing was because she hated working for Kern andwatching his mistreatment and arrogance in dealing with customers,

contractors, employees, and basically anybody that questioned him or theDistrict.

/2.14.09In talking with Julie this morning about a customer irrigation water excess questiun, shestates that she will cal! the clIstomer later when Kern isn't around because 'he doesn'tlike her to give the customer any information or help them', This is often a commontheme in our office since Kern has been manager. I have witnessed him time and againinstructing 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 allproblems to be the customer's fault andproblem without letting us or ourfield guys try tohelp out a customer in their problem solving.

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

I have watched from my desk repeatedly as Kem has treated customers ina condescending way. Arrogance is a good way to describe Kem's attitude. Thecustomer is always wrong and treated as tho they are lying when bringing acomplaint or disputing a bill. Aren't we a customer service organization? AskMark Pauly, ask Rocky Libbey and there have been others. They had excessbills 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 sewerhookups - and it was only because our manager wouldn't let employees do theirwork - and stepped in to change the 'rules' for one customer without thinking orasking. This was made the Olsen's problem because of the District mistake.

Ask the Gevers how they were treated with their sewer problem and hadto spend their own money to have lakeshore Excavation fix District valvesbecause Kem and Brent wouldn't acknowledge it was our problem.

Ask Tony Medina how he was treated on his water meter hookup­particularly the part where Brent slapped a lock on the meter and told Tony "weown 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 foradditional water rights since the 70's and now the list has been deemed of noconsequence. There are countless times when office staff have witnessed lousycustomer service and arrogance towards our customers.

Ask Marylou how many customers now call and ask specifically to talk tosomeone else - specifically avoiding the manager.

There is a contractor that has never tried to short cut the District and hasbeen someone we did not need to babysit for fear that he would install somethingshoddy. If this contractor has a question about how it should be, he asks Districtpersonnel for direction. I know for a fact that we have, in the past, changed therequirements on him - on HIS dollar - and he still does the install the way wewant 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 hewas only allowed a limited amount of calls to District personnel and then he wasgoing to be charged for it. How does that make sense? A guy who wants to dothe work right is penalized. Not only that, I believe he was billed a finalinspection fee - the only one we have ever billed Qut, to my knowledge.Conversely, there have been two jobs going on recently by contractors that Brentlikes, and Brent visits nearly every day. I have the field reports to prove it. Whythe different treatment?

This leads me into another topic in that I have personally witnessed adouble-standard in the way employees are treated by the manager andsupervisor.

There have been many many instances that I know about amongst thefield crew but I will just keep this to what I have personally witnessed to be true.

02.11.10Steve Jenkins brought a note from his doctor yesterday stating he was not supposed towork 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 doorto 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 Brentcalled Steve and told him he had to get ANOTHER doctor's note regarding his 'jobposition description'. NOBODY else has to even get any doctor's note when taking sickleave. I had surgery in January and took 3 days offand never had a note - let alone asecond note questioning ifI 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 noproblem with Marylou calling me. I have, at times. been late to work over theyears and nothing has ever been said. I make my time up and that's that. Iunderstand that a field crew meeting in the morning is important but why is thereabsolutely zero tolerance for some guys and great tolerance for others? All thatdoes is drives a wedge between co-workers as has happened in a big way in theDistrict.

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 thecontext of the double standard that is prevalent within the District since Kem hasarrived, it is a constant source of irritation.

I have watched Kem retrieve his personal mail while driving his companyrig. 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. Verysimilar to what Kem does when stopping to grab his mail at the PO, one saturdayDave stopped alongside the main drag in Manson to drop off lawn chairs for theparade 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/axfrom Kirkland Fireplace - the wording011 the fax indicates it's a 'shop-online' response - I brought the fax to the attention ofKern and his response was "well Brent's building a house ". So obviously it's okforBrent? What about someone else?

I know that Kern has made numerous long-distance calls on companytime, and on company phones. I have seen the phone bills to prove it. It mayonly be a couple or few each month, but what if Steve did that? Or Jim? OrBrock? I have no clue to the extent of his personal calls on his cell but I can tellyou that his cell rings a lot and he either goes outside or closes his door.Marylou can verify this.

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

03.23.10Kem is printinga lot of personal documents on company time andprinters. MaryLou canverifY.

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

09.23.09Today Jim Harding came in the office for Reclamation business as well as to talk to Kemabout fill dirt he was advertising to get rid of So Kem "went out in the field" to help Jimor load him up. Again this is something that has often taken place with others who havecalled to get fill dirt from Kern. He will receive a phone call, talk to the person aboutobvious personal issues like the jill dirt, and then moments later tell Julie and Mary-Louthat he "is going out in the jield". I have verified with Mary-Lou that he does not takepersonal 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 documenteverything I do to protect myself. I feel that I have to watch my back so that I'mnot '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 otheremployees that feel the same. I KNOW that every guy who works for the Districthas skill sets that are valuable in some way. Every guy has strengths andweaknesses. Management and supervisory responsibility should be to maximizeand illustrate each individuars strengths and not flaunt their weaknesses as theydo over and over again. I KNOW that all of us employees actually liKE our jobsand duties - but - there is a lot of discontent and unhappiness because of who!sin charge. I personally know there are at least 7 out of 10 employees that willleave if a suitable job offer comes along. I started looking for another job soonafter Kem came to town and actually landed a good offer two years ago. I wasallowed to mull it over for a period of 3 months before I decided that I was goingto outlast current management. Now I am not so sure. I have 16 years of heartand soul invested in this district and hate the thought of throwing that knowledgeaway. I can tell you that there is a job opening doing exactly what I'm trained todo for similar, if not slightly better compensation. I have already started theapplication process. If there is ANYBODY who does not think there is a very realproblem 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 boardon April 13th

. I want it noted that I have never been solicited by any boardmember for information nor have I ever been contacted by a board memberinstructing me as to what to say, do, or act in regards to management. Any timethat I have been in contact with the board, it has been out of frustration and asense of helplessness with what I'm witnessing taking place from within thedistrict and I have taken my concerns to them.

I want it noted that 'following the employee handbook' does not take intoconsideration the fact that there is a problem with management. Up until now, Ihave not had any avenue to voice my concerns or share what I've witnessedexcept through going to management. You can see that this has posed a realproblem for me in light of how Dave was treated. I have worked here the last 3years under the cloud of fear of speaking up and under the cloud of ho?tilitytowards those who do. A real 'open door policy' for us to believe in just like Davedid. Kern states that he had 'hoped that behaviors by certain Board memberswould change'. Well, for 3 years I have hoped that the manager and supervisor'sbehavior would change and it has not. In fact, I believe the persecution of certainemployees has been ramped up in the hopes that they will also quit and goaway. Over and over again, office staff have watched Brent and Kem gettogether to map out strategy against employees that they perceive to not betoeing their line. Ask Dave, Michelle, Steve Jenkins, Brock, Jim, Ryan, SteveDavis, Monti, Marylou, Julie, or myself if this is true.

Kpm stntps thAt hpfnrp. thp. p.nd of 2009. 'problems' were virtuallynonexistent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, that up untilnow, we the empoyees have not had an opportunity to speak freely. This

'problem' of hostile work environment and management by fear and intimidationstarted in Kern's first week working here. It was during that first week, that Davewas told lhe was the problem'. That is what I have been working with in thisoffice.

Management has tried to put a 'hush' edict on employees as well as youboard members. In Kern's letter he states that {board members wereencouraged to not discuss employee issues' and he has repeatedly told allemployees the same, even with each other. What this creates is a free-for-all bysupervision and management to pursue and harass certain employees as theydid Dave - with no recourse. Even employees who have not been harassed, aredeeply affected morale-wise by this behavior as I am, Marylou, Ryan, SteveDavis, and Julie was. I will tell you that Julie may have stated she was leaving tostart a sandwich shop, but in reality she told Marylou and I straight out that shecouldn't handle working in this environment anymore. I think that if youcontacted her and asked pointed questions, you would get a better picture of whyshe left. It is in fact the same reason Michelle left 3 years ago. If districtemployees were happy in their jobs, our management and supeNisor wouldnever even have to worry about 'negative things being spread' or 'gossip'. It hasnever been a problem before in my 16 years working here.

For 3 long years, I have been seeking for an opportunity to speak with theboard to voice my concerns and I am glad for this opportunity to get things off mychest. I fUlly believe that you have good people working here, and every singleemployee has positive assets to bring to the table. They just need an opportunityto do so and in an environment where we are not looking over our shoulder incase we might do something or say something that supervision or managementdoesn't like. At this time, I know that our management and supervisor have lostthe respect and trust of 7 out of the 9 employees of the district. You can include4 other employees that are now departed under very strained circumstances.

I thank you again for this opportunity.

Rod AndersonCAD-GIS-EngTechLake Chelan Reclamation District

9

To: EmployeesFrom: KernRe: 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 withage.The more I am quoted, the more I am believed.My victims are helpless. They cannot protectthemselves against me because Ihave no name and no face.To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, themore 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 GibsonFrom: Kern carrl:<-----.Re: After normal work hours expectations

Thursday night, June 3, we exp~rienc8dan incident at irrigation pumping plant C.' Steve.Davis and Brent Winters requested your assistance.. You stated that you were unable toassist due to your consumption of beer after normal work hours. We have had events inthe past wherl! you were unable to respond to afte( hours calls. Those past events and themost 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 stillfilling. At approximately 7:15 pm, Thursday~June 3, I talked with Brent about themaintenance problem at plant C and YQur apparent inability to respond. Due to the factthat th~ irrigation system had b~en down for a considerable time and it was still day light, Ifelt it wag prudent that we try to get the system back up. I met Ste"e Davis and Brent atpumping plant C at approximately 7:45 pm. Irrigation pumping plant C resumed normaloperation 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 thiscame from I do not know. tt is certainly not true.2~ You apparently indicated to Steve Davis that you would prefer checking and fixing plantC the next day instead of Thursday night. This is not your call~ It should be Brent or Imaking 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. Thiswas not applicable '<lst night. Again, the irrigation system had been down for a loog timeand it was still relatively early evening with plenty of daylight.

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

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

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

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

Signature: ~_~~_

!

:1I

11,