ATTORNEYS AT LAWJohn T. Batson, Jr. 3 WAT 5ON ROACH ; Robert 1-1.Watson, Jr, (1945-2014)

Benjamin K. Laucierback

Hanson R. Tipton _ AlsoMember:Reid A- 5PaUidinE' WATSON. ROACH, BATSON & LAUDERBACK.l’.I..C. ;

‘ ’“‘'"°i5 33'

D3” RAPllklngton ; +Certified as a Specialist inEmily C. Taylor 5 1500 RWERVIEWTOWER / 900 SOUTHGAYSTREET 3 Civil Pretrial Practice Advocacy

CW,-may E. Read'

POST OFFICEBOX131 / KNOXVILLE,TENNFSSEE37901-0131 5 by the National Board ofBrian R. Bibb 3 365_637‘17(]Q / 3655251514 (FAX) 3 CivilPretrial Practice Advocacy

3 E and Civil Trial Advocacy by the. Reach, of counsel+ Z w w w . w a t s o n r o a c h .c 0 m 5 National Boardof Trial Advocacy

REPORT. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACTREGARDING ROGER DAVIS’ “FORMAL COMPLAINT RE: CITY MANAGER — MR.PETERSON” AND “UPDATED FORMAL COMPLAINT RE: CITY MANAGER — MR

PETERSON”

CONFIDENTIAL - PRIVILEGED

December 21, 2020

K. Erickson HerrinI-lerrin & McPeak515 E. Unaka AvenuePO. Box 629Johnson City, TN 37605-0629

Mr. Herrin:

Per your request of October 21, 2020, below you will ?nd my report, ?ndings of fact andoverall conclusions as it relates to the complaint lodged by Fire Prevention Of?cer Roger Davisagainst City Manager Mr. “Pete” Peterson. My investigation focused on the issues raised in theformal complaint ?led by Mr. Davis on September 17, 2020 and his updated complaint filed onSeptember 23, 2020. In addition, I was asked to review and report on Mr. Peterson’s managerialstyle. To accomplish these goals, it was necessary to expand my investigation beyond theboundaries of Davis’ complaints in order to provide the reviewing body of this report with greaterclarity and context. During the course of the many interviews, I learned of other complaints. Tothe extent they were relevant to Mr. Davis’ complaint, I explored them. To the extent they werenot, I, by necessity in terms of limited time and the boundaries of why I was to investigate, did notexplore them.

I interviewed twenty current employees of the City. I also interviewed former employeesof the City and several individuals who have not worked for the City. Additionally, I reviewed anumber of documents provided to me by various sources. The ones I found most relevant to thisreport are attached as exhibits. As you know, I lacked subpoena power during this investigation.Therefore, I was unable to require any person to respond to questions. Likewise, I was unable togather documents if they were not voluntarily provided. To the credit of the many City witnessesI interviewed, this was not an issue. I did attempt to speak with several persons not affiliated withthe City who did not wish to participate for unknown reasons.

It needs to be noted that prior to being contacted by you, I had not met nor, to the best ofmy recollection, spoken with any of the witnesses I interviewed. This includes Mr. Davis and Mr.Peterson, both of whom I found to be cordial, professional and forthcoming. It is important to notethat I found each employee I spoke with to be a willing participant. Each provided me with answersto the questions I raised. All of the witnesses I spoke with were transparent and open with theircomments to me. I found Mayor Brock to be a helpful guide and useful source of information.From the beginning, she made it known the City was an open book. Her background in humanresources was welcomed. Human Resources Director Steve Willis has provided considerableassistance. He and the Mayor left me to handle the investigation as I deemed fit. Both wereinstrumental in making sure that I had access to the information I requested and to all witnesseswith whom I needed to speak. Both Mayor Brock and Mr. Willis are to be commended for theirefforts in this regard and in dealing with this dif?cult matter. To put it bluntly, if I had a questionor a request, my communications were returned promptly and I found that every effort was madeby the City of Johnson City to provide me with all the information I needed to help facilitate a fairand unbiased review of the complaint ?led by Mr. Davis.

As part of my investigation, I interviewed the current Codes Enforcement of?cers, thecurrent Fire Prevention officers, including Roger Davis, the current trades inspectors/buildinginspectors, the City Attorney, Mayor Brock, Mr. Willis, Fire Chief Stables, Mr. Peterson and otherpersonnel within the Development Services Department. Each witness was allowed theopportunity to take as much time as they needed to tell me their thoughts and provide answers tothe questions I asked. Further, I gave each employee the option of calling me after the fact to letme know of any other information that they may have thought of after our interview. Several tookme up on my offer. It needs to be noted that when I use the phrase “codes enforcement” or “codesofficials” I am referring to ?re prevention, trades/building inspectors and code enforcementof?cers as a single group of employees.

Though I was not told to rush my investigation, I was asked to try and have my report toyou by the end of the year. In light of the speci?cs of what I was asked to investigate, I felt this tohave been an adequate amount of time to investigate those issues. I have broken my report intoseven sections. Should there be an expressed desire to expand my investigation beyond the limitsnoted above, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss that further.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

To the extent it may be helpful to you or any others who may ultimately review this report,I want to provide some background information on both Mr. Davis and Mr. Peterson, as well as,the circumstances facing the City during the relevant timeframe. Mr. Davis has over thirty yearsof experience in public service in his capacity as a member of various ?re departments. Uponleaving high school he attended ?re?ghting school in Florida, and he has attended EMT school.During his career, he has served in various positions for different entities including, but not limitedto, serving as a ?re?ghter and as a district chief and shift supervisor for an entity in Florida. Heworked with Fire Chief Stables for a good part of his career in Florida before retiring in 2015.After retiring, he became interested in the ?re prevention side of things and began his training inthat area of specialization in approximately 2017. Maintaining his contacts with Chief Stables, hebecame aware ofan open position with Johnson City for a fire prevention of?cer and applied. He

Ix.)

was hired by the City and is in his second year. He is currently certi?ed in the State of Tennesseeas a ?re prevention of?cer and he also has his ?re cause and origin certi?cation.

Mr. Peterson received both his undergraduate and Masters’ degrees from ETSU. While inschool he gained experience in the construction?eld as he workedon residentialbuildings. Duringthat process, he became familiar with the nuances of construction including sewer, water and theuse of heavy equipment. In 1991, he was hired by Johnson City to serve in the Public WorksDepartment. In February of 1995, he became the Assistant City Manager. In late 2004, he becamethe Interim City Manager before the interim tag was removed in 2005. He is coming up on histhirty—year anniversary as an employee of the City of Johnson City. He is responsible foroverseeing the operations of one of the larger municipalities in Tennessee with approximately1,000 employees, depending on the season.

Needless to say, 2020 has been a dif?cult year for many. In addition to the multiple issuesa municipality faces on an annual basis in a “typical” year, Johnson City was not immune to theunique and vast challenges caused by the COVID—l9pandemic or the social and civil unrestfollowing the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Johnson City was required to face and dealwith the many protests that followed that tragic incident in the summer months, which placedburdens on the City it had not dealt with during Mr. Peterson’s tenure. This caused the need forsigni?cant hours to be spent this summer by Mr. Peterson and many other City officials planningand preparing for events that could have resulted in civil unrest. It is not necessary for me to gointo the far—reachingeffects the pandemic has had on a local scale, but the challenges caused by itfor municipalities, such as Johnson City, are historical and distinctive. For example, the City andMr. Peterson faced and were required to accommodate states of emergency issued by theGovernor's office and the County Mayor, neither of which had occurred before in this century. Itis with this background in mind, that events occurred that would ultimately result in an exchangeof e—mailson August 14 and 15, 2020 and, eventually, the complaints raised by Mr. Davis againstMr. Peterson.

One complex issue that Washington County and Johnson City were forced to deal with asit related to the COVID—l9 pandemic was how to assist the homeless population who were testingpositive for COVID—l9. Certainly, the thought of that portion of the population becomingspreaders of the disease around the City absent a place for them to recover was not acceptable. Inan effort to come up with a solution to provide aid to this particular portion of Johnson Citycitizens, the Director of the Emergency Management Agency (EMA) for Washington County,Rusty Sells, Mr. Peterson and a representative of Washington County communicated and conferredfor many months, often multiple times a day. A plan was formulated initially to house thisparticular population under a large tent setting with access to restroom facilities and meals throughthe nearby Salvation Army. Unfortunately, this turned out not to be a feasible solution due tosummer storms and other weather events. The number of COVID cases also began to decline.However, as the summer progressed, the number of positive cases began to rise yet again. Morediscussions took place and eventually plans were made to house that particular population in alocal hotel. After many hours spent organizing this, the hotel backed out of the agreement causingthe EMA, the City and the County to look for a new solution. Again, Mr. Peterson, Rusty Sellsand, often, County Mayor Grandy would confer and discuss searching for a solution to aid thehomeless population. Many hours were again spent between these individuals in an effort to

resolve that issue. Mr. Sells came up with the idea that the old “911 building” on Ash Street, alsoknown as the “old courthouse" and “old post office” could be a viable solution. Much work, effortand time went into coordinating efforts to potentially house homeless individuals who had testedpositive for COVID-19 at this building. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Sells remained in dailycommunication about this issue. It is important to note that Rusty Sells has a background with theJohnson City Fire Department having served for thirteen years as a ?re?ghter, as an engineer andas a training director. When it became clear in August 2020 that the old 911 building would beable to house such patients, Mr. Sells coordinated with the Johnson City Fire Department for thepurpose of it providing safety equipment, such as ?re and smoke detectors, to make sure they wereplaced inside the building before patients arrived. This occurred the week of August 14. Mr.Peterson remained involved and was aware of most of these communicationsand knew of the plan.

On August 14, 2020, the first patient from Ballad Health was due to arrive at the facility.Mr. Sells knew that the building was generally considered to have been “abandoned.” Given hisbackground with the Fire Department, he anticipated the tactics that ?re?ghters take when ?ghtinga tire in an abandoned facility. Those “tactics” generally are to control the fire and “defensively”let it burn itself out without allowing it to spread. That “defensive ?re” mentality of ?re?ghting isnot to be implemented when individuals are known to be inside of a building. Therefore, Mr. Sellscontacted the Johnson City Fire Department to notify them that there would now bepersons locatedinside that building if a tire were to break out. The lieutenant who Rusty Sells contacted thenappropriately sent out an e—mailto all ?re department personnel notifying them of thisdevelopment. So far, the plan to be implemented following many hours of planning was goingsmoothly. Good communication between the involved participants signi?cantly contributed tothis. In a matter of hours, however, poor communication, both in terms of information and tone,ultimately lead to this current situation.

11. THE E-MAILS OF AUGUST 14, 2020 AND AUGUST 15. 2020

The first e—mailwent out to fire department personnel from the aforementioned lieutenanton August 14, 2020 at 5:02 p.m. That same evening, Fire Chief Stables sent out an e—mailat 8:32p.m. to speci?c individuals, including Roger Davis, Development Services Director PrestonMitchell, Development Services Manager and Interim Chief Building Of?cial, Dave McClelland.Mr. Peterson was copied on that e—mail.Mr. McClelland responded that evening to questions raisedby Chief Stables. The next day was a Saturday. That morning, at 9:21 a.m., Roger Davis respondedto Chief Stables’ questions. In that e—mailhe used the sentence “I can forward (sic) copy of this toState Fire Marshal.” He also added the State Fire Marshal to the e—mailstring. Up to that point, theState Fire Marshal had not been involved in the hours and days spent planning on this issue. Thatmorning Mr. Peterson was spending time with his family when he saw the e—mailexchange for thefirst time. Again, Mr. Peterson was fully aware and advised of the situation with the old91 1/courthouse building, and knew of the substantial amount of time and resources that had beenutilized to facilitate a plan on where to host COVID—l9 positive homeless patients. Upon seeingMr. Davis’ e—mailto involve the State Fire Marshal, Mr. Peterson was frustrated, to use his ownphrase. He sent his own e—mailwherein he explained the basis for housing homeless COVIDpositive patients in the old 91 1 building. Seeing that Mr. Davis had included the State Fire Marshal

for the first time in the 9:21 a.m. e-mail despite advising that he “can forward a copy of this to thestate fire marshall (sic)”, Mr. Peterson made a point to advise Mr, Davis that it was not necessaryand the City did “NOT NEED TO GET STATE FIRE MARSHALL (sic) involved!” One minutelater. at l l :22 a.m..Mr. Peterson sent an e-mail solely to Chief Stables wherein he instructedChiefStables to “tell Roger he is on my shit list!!!” along with a statement that there was no need to getthe State involved.

It is necessary to note here that the City had years earlier exempted itself from state buildingcodes. This occurred in 2014. It is presumed by this writer that Mr. Davis is aware that the Cityexempted itself from state building codes before he began working at the City. It is unclear whyMr. Davis felt the need to add the State Fire Marshal’s of?ce to this string other than as it relatedto the jurisdictional issues that were first raised in an e-mail from the night before.

At ll:50 a.m., also on August 15, Mr. Peterson sent an e-mail only to Roger Davis andChief Stables that indicated as follows:

“What do you mean you CAN send to State? You already sent him thedamn email. You need to get all the facts and make contact withappropriate local officials and property owners BEFORE getting overlybureaucratic! Terrible customer service! !!! I have no need for employeeswho create problems. Pete.”

III. MR. DAVIS’ COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE E—MAILS HE FEELSWERE “BERATING” TO HIM AND “THREATENING” TO HISCURRENT EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY

The l 1:21 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. e—mailsare attached as Exhibit A as are all the e—mailsofAugust 14 and 15 referenced by Mr. Davis in his complaint. I have attached the September17. 2020 complaint as Exhibit B, and I have attached the September 23, 2020 updatedcomplaint as Exhibit C. Before getting to the speci?cs of the complaint. even a cursory reviewof these documents raises the question of what happened in the one-month time—periodbetween the August string of e—mailsand the ?rst complaint being filed. As can be seen fromthe complaints, Mr. Davis feels the e—mails from Mr. Peterson were. to paraphrase,unprofessional, personally berating of him and directly threatened his employment.

Mr. Davis has advised me that he knew the weekend of August 15, 2020 that he wasgoing to make a formal complaint. He discussed the issue with his fire chief whoacknowledged his right to do so. He then appropriately had a meeting with Steve Willis onAugust 17.2020 and advised Mr. Willis that he would like to have an opportunity to sit downwith the City Manager to talk to him to give him an opportunity to explain what had happened.Mr. Willis advised he would have to research the issue and speak to the City Attorney aboutthe matter. It was determined the City’s grievance policy, H.R. 149, does not have a formalprocess as it relates to employee grievance complaints ?led against the City Manager’sposition. Between the time of the e—mailsat issue and the formal complaint being filed. areview was conducted to deteirnine the proper process, the Labor Day weekend holiday came

and went, an annual evaluation period for police officers was being conducted thatsubstantially garnered the attention of Mr. Willis, and two meetings between Mr. Davis andMr. Peterson (and others) were planned and canceled. On September 1l, an attempt was madebetween Roger Davis, the City Manager and others to have a meeting. That initial meetingwas scheduled for 9:00 a.m., however, Mr. Peterson was unable to attend. It was unknown atthe time why, and a second meeting was scheduled for September 15. On both occasions, Mr.Davis was present along with Chief Stables and Steve Willis. Again, Mr. Peterson did notappear. It was again unknown why. It turned out Mr. Peterson was not able to meet due to hisbeing quarantined for COVID reasons. The unfortunate part about this is Mr. Peterson did notreach out to Mr. Davis or Mr. Willis to advise that he would not be able to attend thosemeetings. Mr. Peterson does not have a speci?c explanation why communications were notmade with Mr. Davis as to the cancellations, beyond that he was not in the office and typicallyhis secretary is the one responsible for contacting personnel to advise if he is out ofthe office.Glaringly, yet another communication breakdown sent this issue speeding downhill.

Having now had two attempts to meet canceled, Mr. Davis advised Mr. Willis that hewas going to call the Mayor directly. Mr. Davis did so. He advised the Mayor generally of thesituation but did not give her any speci?cs. He also advised her that he could send her theformal complaint at that time. According to Mr. Davis, the Mayor gave him her e—mailaddressfor him to do so. On September l8, Mr. Davis submitted his formal complaint (datedSeptember 17, 2020) to Mr. Willis. On September 21, Mr. Willis advised Mr. Davis that theCity Manager and both Assistant City Managers had been notified of the Complaint.

The updated complaint by Mr. Davis is dated September 23, 2020 and indicates that“Today I was ordered to a meeting with the City Manager....” However, based on recordsfrom Mr. Peterson, the meeting actually took place on September 22, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.Nonetheless, by all accounts, the meeting did not start off on a good foot and was ineffective.Mr. Davis brought a union representative with him. Mr. Peterson advised that union rep hewas not welcome to participate in that meeting because the State of Tennessee does notrecognize unions. Mr. Davis believed he was at this meeting under duress and at the order ofMr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson denies that and maintains that Mr. Davis was free not to attend themeeting and was free to get up and leave at any time. Mr. Peterson recalls the meeting asbeing one where he was conciliatory and apologetic. Mr. Davis did not interpret Mr.Peterson’s actions in the same manner. He does not believe Mr. Peterson’s effort at thatmeeting amounted to an apology for his actions, but, rather, was simply an attempt to justifyhis actions in August.

This concludes the timeline and background into one of the two major issues raised inthe complaints. The following two questions are now pending: (1) Did Pete Peterson uselanguage in his August 15 e—mailsthat a reasonable person would perceive as berating ofRoger Davis in his capacity as a fire prevention officer/employee of the City of Johnson City‘?and (2) Did Pete Peterson threaten the current and future employment of Roger Davis? Myinvestigation has determined that as to the ?rst question, yes, the tone and language used byMr. Peterson addressing Mr. Davis as a subordinate employee would be considered by a

reasonable person to have been “berating” under the facts and in the context of this situation.Even the e-mail from Mr. Peterson sent only to Chief Stables containsan order to be given toMr. Davis in an unprofessional and coarse manner. That order was, essentially, for Mr. Davisto do his job better. If one had, in fact, not performed one’s job duties effectively as isinsinuated by Mr. Peterson, one could reasonably expect some direction beyond what wasconveyed. This is further magni?ed by the fact that Mr. Davis had never been disciplined bythe City at any time prior to the incident at issue. Certainly, it appears true that Mr. Petersonand Mr. Davis had not communicated on any matter of signi?cance since Mr. Davis hadstarted working for the City. As with almost all employment-related grievances, they do notoccur in a vacuum. Facts, circumstances, and context all play a role. When considering eachhere. Mr. Peterson overstepped his bounds and treated Mr. Davis in an overly harsh andunnecessarily berating manner.

Mr. Peterson has acknowledged to me that he made a mistake by including Mr. Davisin any of his e—mails. Be that as it may, he did use unprofessional language that wasunnecessary under the circumstances. He failed to acknowledge his shortcomings on this issuein a timely fashion. Simply put, he failed to apologize for unnecessarily berating an employeewho by all accounts was just trying to do his job on a Saturday morning. It is not my role tomandate punishment for this clear lack of professionalism and decorum, but I will note theCity could put itself at some future risk if such activity by supervisory personnel is viewedwith a blind eye.

The answer to the second question above is more dif?cult to answer. As to Mr. Davis’complaint that he found the e—mailsto be directly threatening to his current and futureemployment with the City, it is easy to see how he would have felt that way. However. afterreviewing all the facts, it is my opinion that a reasonable person reviewing all the facts wouldnot ?nd that Mr. Peterson intended to threaten the employment of Roger Davis. As notedabove. Mr. Peterson had limited to no contact with l\/Ir. Davis, either directly or indirectly,during his tenure with the City until the e—mailsat issue. The e-mail on August 15, 2020 at11:22 a.m. sent from Mr. Peterson only to Chief Stables, when viewed in the context of Mr.Peterson’s point of view, strikes me as being more venting out of frustration due to Mr.Peterson“s knowledge of all the effort that had gone into securing a place to house homelessCOVlD—positivc patients. Read in context with Mr. Peterson’s e-mail of 11:21 a.m. on August15, that certainly seems to be the case. Likewise, Iread the August 15, 11:50 a.m. e-mail fromMr. Peterson to only Mr. Davis and Chief Stables also as one sent more out of frustration thanin a manner that legitimately threatened Mr. Davis’ employment. The first sentence of that e-mail certainly expresses frustration with Mr. Davis’ previous e-mail, which indicated that “hecan send" (something to the State Fire Marshal) as opposed to has already sent (which Mr.Davis did when he added the State Fire Marshal to the e-mail string). Mr. Peterson was alsoaware at that time that Johnson City had exempted itself out of the state building codes in2014, some three years before Mr. Davis became employed with the City. The comment madeby Mr. Peterson about “getting overly bureaucratic”, relates to that knowledge. Johnson Citymaintains its own set of codes, was required to follow them and was not required to followthe state codes because the City’s codes were as stringent, if not more so. Involving an entire

7

set of new, irrelevant codes would reasonably lead to a conclusion that an unnecessarilybureaucratic situation was being introduced.

The phrase Mr. Peterson used “terrible customer service” was a common theme. Uponinterviewing Mr. Peterson, it was clear he believes that Johnson City exists to serve its citizensand to provide its citizens with as much lawful customer service as possible. This wouldinclude, but not be limited to, homeless citizens living within the con?nes of the City. It wouldalso include other citizens who might come into contact with a positive homeless citizen.Under the circumstances of this matter, Mr. Peterson had a situation under control based on aplan that was good for all. Tearing down that plan, even if through good intention, which iswhat it appears Mr. Davis was doing, would not help that goal. Providing an option for theCOVID-l 9 positive homeless population was a service for all citizens.

Lastly, the statement by Mr. Peterson “I have no need for employees who createproblems” is problematic and, again, I can see why Mr. Davis felt this to be threatening to hisemployment. Knowing all the circumstances, I do not find, however, it was Mr. Peterson"sintent to threaten Mr. Davis’ job with any of the e—mailsexchanged on August 15, 2020. Italso strikes me that the above quoted statement was sent out of ?ustration as opposed to onethat was sent with the intent of telling an employee that their job was injeopardy. Evidenceis lacking that it was actually Mr. Peterson’s intent to threaten Mr. Davis’ job.

Again, context is important. Mr. Peterson spent months and many hours and daysworking with County of?cials in an effort to secure a location to house homeless COVIDpatients should the need arise. The need had arisen, and the plan was implemented. Neithermaliciously or negligently, some employees of the City of Johnson City, including Mr. Davis,were not in the loop and expressed their thoughts when asked. There is no dispute that bettercollaboration and communication was needed, and that the lack of communication more thananything else culminated in the e~mail strings and the e-mail ofAugust 15, 2020 at l 1:50 a.m.That did not justify the use of language used by Mr. Peterson, but neither did it mean he wasor will be out to end Mr. Davis’ employment with the City.

It should be noted that an effort was made by Mr. Peterson to meet for a second timewith Mr. Davis. Perhaps understandably, Mr. Davis advised he was not interested in doing soby an e-mail sent on October 19, 2020 sent directly to Mr. Peterson. To the best of myknowledge, there have been no additional communications between Mr. Peterson and Mr.Davis other than a follow—up e-mail by Mr. Peterson on October 20, 2020 wherein heapologized for the current situation. I am unaware of any other occasion since August 2020where Mr. Davis felt his job was threatened. The e-mail exchange between Mr. Davis and Mr.Peterson on October 19-20, 2020 is attached as Exhibit D.

Having stated all the above, my investigation revealed this was not the first time Mr.Peterson has used a similar phrase regarding his perception of an employee’s shortcomings.He seems to occasionally make reference to “needs to be looking for a new job", or words tothat affect, as it relates to his subordinates. Several witnesses told me of occasions where Mr.

8

Peterson either made similar comments to an employee while they were present or to themdirectly. These comments were taken to mean the employee’s job duties were at serious risk.Such statements exhibit poor leadership qualities unless they can be supported with actualevidence and written documentation as to Why such a statement would be warranted. Absentthat, using such phrases is destructive for morale and inappropriate. In other words, using suchstatements as merely a motivational tool should be stopped immediately.

Before getting to the second primary issue of “undue in?uence” and my ?nalconclusions, there are matters that need to be addressed as they repeatedly came up fromvarious witnesses with whom I spoke. I heard these comments from both current and formeremployees. The next section concerns these issues.

IV. THE EXPECTATIONS OF MR. PETERSON FOR CODES OFFICIALSAND THE EXPECTATIONS OF CITY COMMISSION FOR MR.PETERSON

Johnson City adopted the International Building Code (IBC) and rati?ed it throughOrdinance No. 4905-13 in 2014. As noted above, upon doing so, it exempted itself from statecode requirements. The City has three different departments which enforce various codes.Two of these are under the Development Services division. One of those is codes enforcementand it has three employees. The other is trades inspectors/building inspectors, which has ?veemployees. In the Fire Department, there are four employees who enforce codes as ?reprevention of?cers. Not surprisingly, these employees focus on ?re codes and ?re prevention.For reasons I am unable to put my ?nger on most seem to agree there is a lack of cohesiveness,collaboration and communication between the code employees in Development Services andthe code employees under the Fire Department. Among these twelve employees, some havejob duties that do not necessarily involve “life and safety” issues, such as enforcing the“beautification” of properties through citations when a given citizen may violate code byleaving vehicles in yards, fail to provide upkeep to land, etc. Other code enforcement of?cials,such as those in ?re prevention and some trades inspector/building inspectors who deal withelectrical or mechanical matters, encounter “life/safety” issues on a routine basis.

During the course of my investigation, I heard about citizens and developerscomplaining of the unforgiving, uncompromising and negative attitudes of the employees infire prevention and, to a lesser extent, the codes enforcement officers in the DevelopmentServices division. As I heard these complaints about how in?exible the ?re prevention of?cerswere, it struck me that the employees of the City in charge of enforcing these codes do notoften have the ability to be ?exible. Their jobs are literally to create as safe of an environmentas the codes the City decided to adopt in 2014 will allow. When a builder or contractor doesnot meet the code requirements, these employees are required in many circumstances to say“no“' before a certi?cate of occupancy can be issued. If they do not enforce the code the Cityhas adopted, they could, arguably, be personally liable should a tragic event occur. Certainly,the City would be liable if such a failure occurred. Perhaps I am somewhat biased based onmy twenty years of defending municipal liability lawsuits, but ignoring code or waiving code

requirements the City has adopted would potentially put the City on a dangerous precipice.Put more succinctly, it seems one of the most important job duties of these trades inspectors,codes enforcement officers and ?re prevention officers is to say “no” if in fact code has notbeen met by developers and contractors. Frankly, that does not seem overly complicated. Thecomplications seem to arise when after being told “no”, contractors, business developers andbusiness owners go to air their grievances to City Commissioners and, though not asfrequently, Mr. Peterson. City Commissioners, it would appear, then turn around and putpressure on Mr. Peterson because of a perception given to them by the contractors anddevelopers that Johnson City is not “business development” or “builder” friendly and its codesofficials are unyielding and unwilling to compromise. Complications arise when employeeshired to enforce code do not go further to expound upon or aid in helping to explain thereasoning behind their determinations. Several codes employees did not see that as part oftheir role. It is unclear to me why they do not. Mr. Peterson seems to be caught in the middleof these two opposite sides.

As noted above, Mr. Peterson has a lengthy history and career in construction, planningand overseeing various codes officials and departments. I repeatedly heard the phrase“customer service” as a necessity utilized by Mr. Peterson, as well as others in the City. Thatphrase seems to mean different things to different people, at least insofar as who the“customer“ is. Though perhaps not across the board, most of the codes of?cials, be it in ?re,trades or the codes enforcement divisions, View the customer as being the occupants of thebuilding. not the builders or contractors. It would appear some on the Commission view thecustomer as the contractor or developer. While neither are necessarily wrong, Mr. Petersonfinds himself in the middle of a sort of tug-of—war between his bosses on the Commission andhis employees. To Mr. Peterson’s credit, ll can state with reasonable certainty that he viewsthe phrase “customer service” as an all-encompassing phrase meaning that the “customer”should include those who will be occupying the spaces, and also those who are creating thosespaces, which, in turn, developsjobs and business and growth for the City of Johnson City.

To this extent, Mr. Peterson has what this investigator views as a reasonable andlegitimate expectation of his code employees. That is, enforce code yes, but do not simply seeit as a “black and white” issue. Mr. Peterson expects his code employees to aid the developerand contractor or their engineers or architects, in as promptly and professionally a fashion aspossible, to understand why the “no” decision was rendered, so it can be quickly remedied,code can be complied with, and both sides of the “customer service” equation are satisfied.Of course, there are unscrupulous developers and contractors out there who want to cutcorners and code to save a few bucks. Under no such circumstance have I found evidence thatMr. Peterson has sided against the code of?cials or issued an order for them to waive or ignorecode.

Regarding evidence of the expectations City Commission has of Mr. Peterson, oneonly has to look so far as the most recent evaluations of Mr. Peterson. For the reviewer"sconvenience. I have attached a four—page document marked as Exhibit E, which is the 2017City Manager Evaluation Rating Summary. The ?rst page of Exhibit E indicates that new

10

objectives for the City Manager would be available later that October, however, I have notbeen provided with that document. Attached as Exhibit F is a separate document, I have beenadvised is part of the April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 evaluation. Exhibit F sets outobjectives I understand are for the City Manager to focus on and meet for the calendar yearof 2019 into 2020. Under Objective #1 in Exhibit F, there is reference to supporting “newbusiness or residential development.” Under Objective #2, there is reference to “benchmarkother cities and determine what building codes are absolutely essential.” Also, underObjective #2, there is a note from the Commission to the City Manager that he should establish“Builder/Developer Advisory Council”; “Set standards, train employees role model incustomer friendly service”; and “Increase building permits in the City.” Under Objective #3,there’s an indication that the City Manager is expected to help establish “Customer friendly”issues as it relates to making Johnson City a “favored Special Event destination.” UnderObjective #5, there is a note indicating the need to have “Redevelopment of Walnut Street —expedite.” Obviously, the City Commission has made it known to its City Manager that itwants him to establish customer service, focus on business development, the redevelopmentof speci?c areas, and to focus on “building codes.” Perhaps the many other departments inthe City are functioning up to expectations based on the noticeable lack of reference to them,but the numerous references to the issues addressed in this report are obvious. Clearly, theCity Commission has made it known to Mr. Peterson that it expects him to spend a great dealof his time and effort developing business, reviewing and making changes to existing buildingcode and establishing an understood mandate for City employees to maintain a certain levelof customer service. Mr. Peterson then must balance those expectations of him with hisawareness of the codes, his ultimate responsibility to provide “customer service” and supporthis own employees who are tasked with enforcing code. While these expectations by theCommission are not necessarily unreasonable, it does seem they come with a general lack ofawareness about the importance and signi?cance of the codes of?cials and theirjob duties.

V. HAS MR. PETERSON ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE UNDUEINFLUENCE OVER ANY EMPLOYEE WITH A RESPONSIBILITY TOENFORCE CODE OR THE SUPERVISOR OF AN EMPLOYEEREQUIRED TO ENFORCE CODE BY SEEKING TO HAVE THEMIGNORE, WAIVE, OR DELIBERATELY CIRCUMVENT ANY CODEREQUIREMENT?

It is with the above in mind that I progress into the second primary issue raised by Mr.Davis in his complaint. Has Mr. Peterson attempted to “intervene and unduly in?uence ?reprevention activities?" Explaining his meaning behind this complaint. Mr. Davis hasspeci?cally complained against Mr. Peterson that “He has attempted to exert undue in?uenceon plans review, construction approvals, ?re prevention activities and ?re code enforcementto the point where the two senior ?re prevention of?cers are hesitant to make the necessaryand appropriate decisions for fear of ridicule, retribution or retaliation from the City Manageror his subordinates.” I ?nd these allegations to be extremely serious and, frankly, I spent alarge amount of my investigatory time asking pointed questions on this subject to eachwitness. This included, but was not limited to, my asking each whether they had any speci?c

ll

knowledge, information or exhibits they could provide me that would link Mr. Peterson to aneffort meant to exercise undue in?uence on plans review, construction approvals, ?reprevention activities, or ?re code enforcement or any City adopted code. Taking it evenfurther, I attempted to discover whether Mr. Peterson has at any time ordered any codesenforcement of?cial, trades inspector, or ?re prevention of?cial to ignore code, circumventcode, or ?at out disregard code in an effort to aid any business person, contractor, or businessdeveloper in the course and scope of building development in Johnson City, be it residentialor commercial in nature.

Despite Mr. Davis’ claims that Mr. Peterson “has attempted to exert undue in?uenceon plans review, construction approval on ?re prevention activities and on ?re codeenforcement,” I have found the record to be devoid of evidence supporting that claim. Nowitness I spoke with would support that claim. Mr. Davis has been with the City for less thantwo years. He acknowledged to me his information was based on hearsay. Nonetheless, Ipursued his leads. He gave me the names of several persons he believed would support hisclaim. He advised me ofseveral projects where he had been told by others that such actionsby Mr. Peterson occurred. None of the witnesses I was directed to would support such a claimagainst Mr. Peterson. I did not ?nd the lack of forthcoming information was due to areluctance based on any fear of retaliation. Rather, I found each witness to be frank and willingrespondents. Several witnesses did tell me that they had heard from other employees and thirdparties that this was taking place. I, again, followed up with each person I was directed to whomay have knowledge and information about this. I ran into a dead-end on every path I took.

Let it be clearly stated, during the course of my months long investigation I found noevidence to support a claim that Mr. Peterson has ever attempted to unduly in?uence anyJohnson City employee with a responsibility to enforce code to a degree where he orderedthat they ignore code, circumvent code, disregard code or fail to enforce code. I did speakwith several witnesses who indicated they felt that Mr. Peterson unnecessarily becameinvolved in certain construction projects. However, that involvement did not rise to the levelwhere Mr. Peterson ordered, told or requested any City employee to waive or ignore coderequirements in order to get a certain construction project underway, continued or ?nalized.

During the course of my investigation, I was advised of several different constructionprojects where the interviewee believed that someone else might have knowledge orinformation to support Mr. Davis’ claim. Again, when I would follow—upwith that “someoneelse”, I would either ?nd a ?at—out denial from that person that they had any knowledge, orthe very limited amount of knowledge they had did not implicate Mr. Peterson in anywrongdoing. Though the following list of construction projects is not all—encompassing interms ofwhat I spoke with witnesses about, it will give you a good overview.

The Johnson City Housing Authority (JCHA), through its executive director, began aproject known as the “Dunbar Apartments” project in approximately early 2019. Thisconstruction project was to be concluded in late 20} 9. The project plans were signed off onby a ?re prevention of?cer when the project ?rst started. Those initial plans did not include

the need for seismic sleeves on the main water line in the various apartment buildings. Seismicsleeves are just what one might expect, they exist in the event of a seismic event to provide abit of leeway to the pipes but still keep them intact and prevent them from rupturing under the_strain of a signi?cant seismic event. Because they were not in the original plans, theconstruction project proceeded without them being put in place by the contractor hired by theJCHA. Early on in the project, Roger Davis noted this lack of seismic sleeves and noti?ed theExecutive Director of the JCI-IA and the construction superintendent on site of the missingseismic sleeves. This occurred on several occasions. When it came time for the finalinspection before the certi?cate of occupancy (“CO”) could be issued to allow persons tomove in, the fire prevention of?cer refused to issue that “CO”. The Executive Director of theJCI-IA advised the ?re prevention of?cer that he previously had discussions with Mr. Petersonand Mr. Peterson, according to the JCHA Director, said that since the seismic sleeves werenot referenced in the initial plans, and since the construction project had gone beyond thestage where the seismic sleeves could be placed without signi?cant costs, lost time and asignificant ?nancial loss well into the millions of dollars, it would be unreasonable toretroactively require the seismic sleeves be put in place at that time.

The JCl-IA Director sent an e—mailto Mr. Peterson on November 13, 2019 wherein henoted these prior comments, as he recalled them, by Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did notrespond to that e—mailbut did reach out via e—mailto Fire Chief Stables, who supervised the?re prevention of?cers. That e—mailwas sent on November 14, 2019 at 10:27 a.m. In his e-mail. Mr. Peterson speci?cally noted “I didn’t state that we would arbitrarily waive therequirement for the sleeves. I did say I would look into the requirement.” Chief Stables had ameeting later that same day, November 14, 2019, with his fire prevention officers. Followinghis meeting with fire prevention of?cers, Chief Stables sent an e—mailback to Mr. Petersonnoting what I have found to be a fairly common theme between ?re prevention andDevelopment Services’ staff, which is that “apparently misunderstanding exists." This e—mailstring is attached as Exhibit G and speaks for itself. (highlighting in original provided duringinvestigation).

Ultimately, a CO was issued. I questioned why and, more importantly to myinvestigation, what role Mr. Peterson playedin that decision. It turned out that when Mr.Peterson said he would look into the requirement, he did just that but no more. He spoke tothe chiefbuilding officer for clari?cation and then left the matter to the chiefbuilding officer.Per the then-chief building of?cer whose role it was to issue “CO‘s"’, Mr. Peterson played norole in the decision to issue the “CO”. That decision was based on a specific and directdetermination by the then-chief building of?cer. That former chief building of?cer advisedme speci?cally that Mr. Peterson played no role in his decision to issue the CO. He furthertold me that during his multi-year tenure as the chief building of?cer, he had never knownMr. Peterson to offer any instruction or an order on waiving or ignoring code requirements tohim or anyone else he knew.

It is also important to note that in the November l4, 2019 e—mailfrom Chief Stables toMr. Peterson, Chief Stables speci?cally took time to note "that oftentimes a customer that is

unhappy or dissatis?ed with the response from an inspector will attempt to wield undueinfluence or apply political pressure by dropping names and threatening tones and comments,contacting you [Mr. Peterson] or others and sharing only their side of the story, attempting tomanipulate the situation to get their way.” This comment goes straight to the heart of a primaryissue. There is a clear perception from ?re prevention, and several trades inspectors, that whiletheir job is to say “no” when code is not met, they are repeatedly told by contractors andbusiness developers that they will get around the “no” by speaking with others, includingCommissioners and Mr. Peterson. I liken this to a police of?cer who writes a ticket and is toldby the recipient that they “know” someone at a given City who will “?x it.” The differencehere is that if contractors were truly allowed to get a “fix” regarding their codes violation,tragic consequences could result. Along those lines, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Petersontakes that "political pressure” either placed on his shoulders by a contractor, developer or bya City Commissioner and goes the next step to order a trades inspector or ?re preventionof?cer to ignore code in order to circumvent what is required.

Continuing on with the Dunbar project at issue, ultimately the chief building of?cer,not Mr. Peterson or any other official with the City, issued the “CO”. He did so after hestepped into the middle of the debate between the JCHA executive director, the constructionsuperintendent and Fire Prevention Of?cer Davis in order to come up with a practical solution.That solution was for the construction company to issue a bond to pay for the costs of goingback and adding the seismic sleeves to the water lines at issue in the event the seismic sleeveswere not put on retroactively. Roger Davis agreed to this solution and signed off on it. Mr.Peterson was not involved. The relevant e—mailsand Roger Davis’ inspection note are attachedas cumulative Exhibit H. (highlighting in original provided during investigation).

Another project repeatedly referenced as being one where Mr. Peterson exercisedundue in?uence was a remodeling project with the Crown Labs business complex. In an effortto update and enlarge its manufacturing process for the purpose of developing hand sanitizerin light of the COVID—l9 pandemic, Crown Labs desired to engage in a remodeling thatwould, ultimately, result in a larger facility, a faster manufacturing process and theemployment of many additional persons. For obvious reasons, this was a very importantproject. I was advised early-on in the investigation by witnesses not associated with it that Mr.Peterson told the ?re prevention of?cer involved in that process, as well as the DevelopmentServices‘ employees involved in that process, that the project was going to get done no matterwhat. The perception I was given by Mr. Davis and a few others was that the statement“[w]e’re gonna get this done” made by Mr. Peterson in an e—mailwas made in spite of andnot in accordance with applicable codes. However, after interviewing the individuals actuallyinvolved in the process, I learned that simply was not the case. In fact, the persons involvedin that project noted the stressful aspects of the need for expediency, but praised the work ofeach other. noted that Mr. Peterson did not order anyone to ignore applicable code provisions,and said that the project itself was a good example of communication and collaborationbetween all the City departments. It seems that particular project was a sound example of whatcan happen when these departments get along and work together. I was also advised that theproject engineer for Crown Labs communicated that he felt a recommendation for the Fire

l4

Prevention Officer, Mike Hill, and the Development Services Interim Chief Building Officer.Dave McClelland, who both worked diligently to help get that project completed waswarranted.

Other projects were mentioned by a witness here and there. No evidence supported theconclusory claims based on hearsay against Mr. Peterson. However, one other matter wasmentioned by more than one witness. These issues dealt with T.C. Lewis & Company-ownedproperties. This was in reference to certain properties that were dilapidated in nature, and thisparticular issue goes back to 2017, before Roger Daivs’ time. Several advised that they had“hearsay" information that Mr. Peterson gave orders to codes enforcement not to issuecitations to the property owner for a six—monthperiod. However, my discussions with thecodes enforcement officers, and at least one former codes enforcement officer who wasemployed in 2017, failed to reveal any support for a claim that Mr. Peterson advised codesenforcement not to enforce code for the ?rst six-month period. Further, I was advised thatafter that six—month period code enforcement took that developer straight to the Board ofDwelling and Standard Review. I learned that Mr. Peterson never stepped in to ask thatprocess be stopped, delayed or that code be ignored.

I was advised that some time ago, around 2016, a development services managerordered trades inspectors not to communicate with state investigators. After following up, itwas clear Mr. Peterson played no role in this. Further, it appeared clear to me that whileperhaps that manager could have explained his basis for that order, justification existed for it.

VI. MANAGEMENT STYLE OF MR. PETERSON

This section is included at the request of City Commission. It should be noted,however, that the focus of this investigation was the Roger Davis complaint and, further, asomewhat expedited schedule was requested. As such, this section deals with Mr. Petersorfs“management style” as it relates only to certain departments within certain divisions of theCity; a “thumbnail”, if you will. It would be unfair to all involved to treat this as an all-encompassing investigation of his “management style” without taking time to review eachCity department. a process that would take many more months.

Having now addressed the information and exhibits received as it relates to the alleged“undue influence” exercised by Mr. Peterson, focus is now placed on the e—mailstrings andthe general management style of Mr. Peterson. Though it is clear that Roger Davis did not?nd Mr. Peterson to be apologetic, repentant or professional during their meeting onSeptember 22, 2020, I found the opposite to be true during Mr. Peterson’s interview. Heregretted and was sorry to have to be speaking with me during the course of this investigation.He was also sincere when he advised he regretted the phraseology he used in his e-mails withRoger Davis, with the language he used to Chief Stables as it related to Roger Davis, and asnoted previously, that he included Roger Davis in the e—mailstring. He admitted that he madea mistake in how he handled himself in the e-mails he sent out on August 15, 2020. He

admitted he made a mistake by speci?cally addressing Roger Davis rather than going throughhis department head and letting the department head handle matters.

There is a dichotomy in claims between many of the multiple witnesses. Some makethe claim that Mr. Peterson micromanages and ignores his department heads and occasionallyand directly addresses a subordinate employee on key matters. His doing so ignores anestablished chain of command. This frustrates department heads who want or need to beincluded. It frustrates the subordinate who may have received a different order from theirimmediate supervisor. Other employees have advised me they have had very little, if any,contact with Mr. Peterson over the years of their employment and, at the most, may have seenhim in the hallway or when addressing a large crowd. They have not seen the ‘micro-managing’ referenced by some others. If Mr. Peterson skips over a department head forefficiency sake, which given certain circumstances may be needed, that department headshould. at the very least, be included in the process even if through a foll0w—upcall or e-mail.An example would be the e-mail Mr. Peterson sent to Dave McClelland on August 15, 2020at 6:14 p.m., a copy of which is attached. (See Exhibit I). In it he copied Mr. McCle1land’ssupervisor and department head.

It is ofno coincidence that Exhibit I is attached. The phrase “overly bureaucratic anddraconian” Mr. Peterson relates to the ?re of?cials highlights that there are issues with theFire Department that go well beyond this particular issue and even back to the last coupledecades. These are issues that are outside the realm of my investigation, but continue to be aburr under the saddle of the City and Fire Department. These issues, perhaps through aseparate independent investigation, need to be vetted and addressed. I am not in a position,nor do I have a suf?cient amount of information, to make any recommendations in that regard.

Having said that and touching on an issue that is relevant here, it strikes thisinvestigator that it makes little sense to house ?re prevention of?cers who interpret andadminister code adopted by the City and trades inspectors/building inspectors and codesenforcement of?cers who also interpret and apply the code adopted by the City in separatedepartments with separate supervisors. Codes, like many laws, can be debated, and often aresubject to interpretation. It was made clear to me by multiple witnesses that there are repeatedoccasions where the interpretation of code by one employee in one department can differ fromthat of another employee in another department. For example, a contractor on one project mayget the go—ahcad with one code decision while on another project get a “no” even though itdeals with the same code. The only difference being the different City employees interpretingthe code. This, in turn, causes delay, complication, C01’1fU.SlO1'1and frustration among thecitizens who are relying on these officials/employees to aid, instruct and guide them in theirprocess ofmeeting the requirements of the established Johnson City code. Repeatedly, I wasadvised of the “territorial nature” of these departments, with that phrase being used not onlyby those inside the City, but also by those outside the City. I do not have an explanation forthis as it makes little sense to me why one department would want to find that a given speci?ccode has been met while another would not. I was not given speci?c examples, but was toldthis was a repeated theme.

16

There has not been a chief building of?cial in the City since the end of 2019. Almosteveryone I spoke with agreed that this is a very important position that should have been ?lledmonths ago. I understand that there have been efforts made to ?ll that position, but the Cityand its citizens are not well served while that position remains vacant. It is not my role toserve as a “headhunter” for that position, but I would be remiss if I did not note that Mr.Peterson is ultimately in charge of making sure that his various departments are properlystaffed and adequately supervised. Though it is not necessarily a vacant position, due to the‘interim’ nature of a current employee in that role, I noted at least one potential candidatealready employed. I question why the Fire Chief directly oversees fire prevention officials.Again, perhaps this could all be resolved if these various codes of?cials were placed underone department along with a ?lll-tI1'I'1€ chief building official or perhaps a ?re marshal.

Getting back to the central issue of Mr. Peterson’s management style, it is not lost onthis investigator that there is a time and a place for almost everything and that the use ofcertain phrases or language in context with one group may be acceptable while with anotheraudience it may be entirely outdated, unnecessary and unprofessional. I did hear from multiplewitnesses that Mr. Peterson’s management style can and does cross the border of profane anddemeaning. I have been told by multiple witnesses that while they may have not been thesubject of a “tirade” by Mr. Peterson, they had observed him demean other subordinates,including, but not limited to, department heads. Some have no problems with this type ofdirect and to the point frankness. It seems the intent behind these occasions is to motivate.The impact, however, is demoralizing for the particular employee who is subjected to thetirade and it is embarrassing and affects the morale of those who have to View it. This ‘intentv. impact‘ seems to be lost on Mr. Peterson. Based on information I have been provided byvarious witnesses during my interviews, this is an ongoing issue with Mr. Peterson. ThoughMr. Davis had never been subjected to this type of behavior before or since the incident hebrought to light in his complaint, and though I have not been made aware of any otheremployee who has ?led a formal complaint against Mr. Peterson in his thirty years with theCity, that this type of behavior should not be condoned by the City Commission. Theevaluations presented to Mr. Peterson by the City Commission reveal it to be accepting andgenerally pleased with the work product exhibited by Mr. Peterson. However, the sameCommission should look itself in the eye to determine if the ends justify the means in thatregard. Acceptance of this type of ‘management’ will logically result in a trickle—downeffectto department heads, etc. Again, this works in certain situations, but in most it does not andcan eventually lead to unwanted litigation.

VII. CONCLUSION

Originally, I was tasked with investigating the complaint ?led by Roger Davis, theissues contained therein and interview as many witnesses and gather evidence to support my?ndings. My report speaks for itself in that regard. I was also asked to look into themanagement style of Mr. Peterson during the course of this investigation and in the contextof the Davis complaint. Lastly, I was asked to offer recommendations regarding whether

17

action needed to be taken to update the City Charter to allow for a grievance process to beimplemented when the subject of the complaint is the City Manager.

Taking the latter of those subjects first, it is clear such a policy is needed as soon aspossible. It is my understanding that the City Attorney has already taken the bull by the hornsin that regard and is currently working on such a suggested grievance policy along with theHuman Resources Director. During the course of this matter, I have been very impressed withboth the City Attorney and the Human Resources Director and have the utmost con?dencethat they will be able to present such a proposal to the Commission in the near future.

With regard to the questions about Mr. Peterson’s management style, it is againimportant to note my investigation was limited only to the departments of the City dealingwith fire prevention under the Fire Department and trades inspectors and codes enforcementunder Development Services. That is to say, I did not have the time or the opportunity to delveinto the management style of Mr. Peterson in a larger and more encompassing area. From thatstandpoint, it would perhaps be unfair to speci?cally acknowledge any managementshortcomings by Mr. Peterson. However, and as noted herein, it seems clear that Mr. Petersondocs utilize language and a temperament that many would consider to be unprofessional,overbearing and, perhaps even, “bullying”, if I may be forgiven for utilizing an overusedphrase these days. I see no reason, however, why that could not change with ample directionand perhaps additional training. To the extent the Commission desires to act to condemn thattype of behavior and language by Mr. Peterson, be it as it relates to the Roger Davis complaintor otherwise, I think such a course of action would be appropriate. That could include, but notbe limited to, a public censure or adrnonishrnent of his actions. Certainly, training for himwould be a reasonable requirement. Perhaps the most logical place to start would be to see ifa situation has arisen in the past where a supervisory employee was disciplined for usingunprofessional or berating language on a subordinate. If so, consistency is of the utmostimportance.

Lastly, going back to the crux of this investigation, with regard to Roger Davis, I havehad several witnesses from outside the City speak regarding their dealings with Mr. Davis. Ihave been advised of his being overbearing, obstructive, unprofessional and unwilling tocompromise, under the context of his duties. However, I found him to be a person who istrying to do the job he has been assigned to do in the best manner he knows how. I applaudthe Commission for listening to his complaint and allowing for a full and unbiasedinvestigation to commence. I trust Mr. Davis will move forward with a better understandingof what Mr. Peterson means by customer service. There is a clear lack of communication inthe chain—of—command about what that phrase means and why it is so important.Undisputedly, enforcing code is of the utmost importance. Communicating a message tocitizens as to why their particular project may not be passed during an inspection is alsoimportant. Enforcement combined with offering i_nf0rrnation as to what the citizen can do tocorrect any shortcomings in the future seems reasonable. This ‘customer service‘ is animportant part of any city employee’s function, whether they work in codes or any otherdepartment.

18

Again, thank you for reaching out to me to assist. I trust I have adequately addressedthe subject matter you requested. Should you need any additional information, please do nothesitate to ask.

Very truly yours,

kg 0Benjamin . Lauderback

BKL: tco

Enclosures

I9

E—MailsCopied for Reference

—----— Original message ---—~——

From: "Light, Anthony"

ownership represents a branch of State ownership, it would fall outside of our jurisdictions “exempt"status from the State Fire Marshal's Office. The BuildingDivision is not authorized to regulate any stateowned properties.

if we find that the structure is withinour jurisdiction,my secondary concern is tied to our current §ta_@_9_femergency. Because this specific structure the former home of Emergency Management, I would not besurprised if whomever was involved with making the decision to use this facilitywas knowledgeable ofsome nuance of the Tennessee Emergency Management Plan that would allow for such a temporary usewithout having to meet typical requirements of the buildingcode. When not in a state of emergency,temporary use of any structure must conform to buildingcode in the same manner as any permeant useor occupancy (See ’12 IBC sec 108.2).

Iwillneed to learn more about TEMP in order to speak to its allowances more accurately.

I willreach out to Rusty Sells to see if he is more knowledgeable any related aspect of TEMP, as well asto the State Fire Marshal's Office to inquire to the jurisdiction of County owned properties.

These are my current thoughts. Iwill share what l learn as more information becomes available.

Dave Mcclelland, Associate AIA

Development Services Manager, Department of Development Services

City of JohnsonCity, Tennessee423.434.6055 0. /423.483-5792 c. I www?ohnsoncitganorg

Original message ———

From: "Stables.James" Date: 8/15/20 08:22 (GMT»O5:O0)To: "Mcclelland, Dave" Cc: "Peterson, Pete" Subject: RE: 401 Ashe St_Oid 911 building on wainut street

Thank you for your insight Dave.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-—-—- Original message ~—————

From:"Davis, Roger" , "Mitchell, Preston"

Date: 6311512011:21 (GMT-05:00)

To: "Davis, Roger" , "Stables, James"

From: "Peterson, Pete" Date: 811512011:50 (GMT-05:00)To: "Davis, Roger" , "Stables, James"

MEMO T0: Human Resources Director-SteveWillis

FROM: Fire Prevention Officer-Roger Davis /5

DATE: September 17, 2020

SUBJECT: Formal Complaint re: City Manager-Mr. Peterson

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 City Manager Pete Peterson sent emailsto ChiefStables?rst,and then Chief Stables and 1,directly beratingme and threateningmy current and futureemployment with the City, for nothing more than performing my due diligence and requiredduty, by responding to the Fire Chiefs questions and concerns that he shared in an email.Due to Mr. Peterson’s personally threatening behavior and actionstoward me, and his previous

attempts to intervene and unduly in?uence ?re prevention activities, I am duty-bound to submitthis formal complaint. With the recent and pervasive City and Fire Department history ofharassing and bullying behavior the gravity of this situationis magni?ed in the fact that everyoneis well aware that this type of behavior is unacceptable.

Please allow me to provide some background information,and summarizethe email threads,that I believe highlight the crux of this situation,and clearly defines conduct unbecoming of anymanager or leader in municipal government, but most certainlythe City Manager.

0 On Friday, August 14, 2020, Johnson City Fire Station 3 receiveda call from WC/JCEMA Director Rusty Sells advising that “they are currently housing positive COVIDpatients” in the old 9-1-1 Building on Ashe Street—Downtown.Lieutenant Light sent anemail out to all FD personnel at 5:02 p.m.

0 At 8:31 p.rn., Friday, August 14, 2020, Chief Stables sent an FYI email with questions toPreston Mitchell,Dave McClelland and me, with a co to the City Manager. Chief Stablesexpressed “concern whether this is acceptable and safe under the building and ?recodes,” and also asked “whether anyone was aware, or in the loop on this plarmedaction?”

0 At 9:39 pm., Friday, August 14,2020, Dave McClelland responded that he was unawareof the action involving this structure, and offered some comments and opinions. He alsodiscussed reaching out to the State Fire Marshal’s Office for clarity of jurisdictionalauthority and other items.

0 At 9:21 a.m., Saturday, August 15, 2020, I responded to Chief Stables a.ndthe others thatwere included in the original email.At this time I also forwarded the email thread to Mr.Joseph Strong of the State Fire Marshal’sOffice for his insight.

0 At 11:21 a.m., Saturday, August 15,2020, Mr. Peterson sent a response to everyoneincluding Mr. Strong of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, referencing the “temporary usemeeting an extraordinary cimumstancecreated by the COVID pandemic,” and hisdirectives and orders. Furthermore,he stated “We DO NOT NEED TO GET STATEFIRE MARSHALL involved!”

EXHIBI

0 At ll:22 a.m., Saturday, August 15,2020, Mr. Peterson sent a response directly to ChiefStables,for him to “Tell Roger he is on my shit list!!!” and “No need to get Stateinvolved and copy him on an email.”

0 At 11:50 a.m., Saturday, August 15,2020, Mr. Peterson sent another response to ChiefStables and me, berating me and criticizingmy initiative to answer the Chief s concerns,getting the State Fire Marshal’s Of?ce involved and ?nally threatening my employmentwith the City, by stating “I have no need for employees who create problems.”

Since I joined the City I have been professionally engaged and diligent in executing myduties to the best of my abilities, and in this speci?c instance I did not respond in a mannerthat warrantedor justi?ed Mr. Peterson’s inappropriate and unprofessionalresponses.

Additionally, during my relatively short time with the City as a certi?ed Fire PreventionOfficer, I and all others in the fue prevention sectionhave been subjected to this type ofridiculeand attack by Mr. Peterson. He has attempted to exert undue in?uence on plansreview, constructionapprovals, ?re prevention activities and ?re codeenforcementto thepoint where the two senior fire prevention of?cers are hesitantto make the necessary andappropriate decisions for fear of ridicule, retributionor retaliationfrom the City Manager orhis subordinates.

Under Chief Stables leadership the ?re prevention section has been encouraged to beeducatorsfirst, not enforcers and every one of the Fire Prevention Officers ful?lls theirobligation of ensuring public safety through education, engineeringand enforcement. Weattempt to build bridges towards solutions for customers, instead of painting a bleak picturefor success. Sometimes we must say no, which is neither popular nor readily accepted, but isabsolutely necessary and required to ensure continuedproactive public safety. As certi?ed?re inspectors we are legally obligated to address ?re code violations, and carry a personaland professional liability into each and every ?re inspection we conduct.

As a long-term public sewant, with an unblemishedemployment record, I am extremelyembarrassed and disappointed that we are here, and my professional integrity has beenquestioned. After serving as a supervisor, manager and leader for many years I have neverencountered such egregious and unprofessional behavior by someone who is responsibleforthe overall leadership of a municipality. Mr. Peterson’s bullying and threatening behaviorinthis situation is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. It is my understanding that the Cityhas experienced a similar situation with the previous Fire Chief, and in reviewing print mediaI am truly disappointed that Mr. Peterson has not learned from the past, of which he wasintimately involved. The quotes attributedto Mr. Peterson in print media as he managedChief Scott’s bullying and harassing behavior demonstrates a shameful lack of awareness inwhat is acceptable behavior and what true leadership looks like!

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 3 pm., I was scheduled to meet with Mr. Peterson,Human Resources Director Willis and Chief Stables. This meeting was rescheduled by HRDWillis at the behest of the City Manager to Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9 am., where Ionce again attempted to meet with Mr. Peterson and staff regarding my complaint

summarized above. Mr. Peterson did not show up for this meeting, nor did he make anyattempt to contact anyone from staff to explain he would be unable to attend. It appearsfromthis most recent action of disrespect, that Mr. Petersondoes not take my complaint regardinghis actions and behavior seriously.I ?nd it quiteoffensive that the City Manager wouldbehave in such an inappropriate manner in the first place, and then perpetuate it with hisfailure to meet and discuss the merits of the situation in a timely manner with me. His lack ofawareness that his actions and behavior are unacceptable, and his failure to meet and discussthis situation leaves me with an uneasy feeling of disappointment,anxiety, and fear ofretaliationfrom Mr. Peterson for speaking up about this situation. All of my personal effortsto address this situation have been to minimizeany discreditto the City, or bring unfavorableattention to the City and the Fire Department, with another leadership scandalcreating apublic debacle.

It has been just over one (1) month sinceMr. Peterson’s initial email, and he has notrecognized the volatility of this situation,nor his personalresponsibility for the situation, andhis continued unwillingness to give this issue the proper attention causes me great concern.Mr. Peterson provides insincere and non-speci?c platitudes regarding the pandemic response,but his true feelings regarding me and the other ?re prevention of?ceis is clear from hisactions and behavior. To date he has not attemptedor initiateda single contact or expressionof remorse for his actions or behaviors.Therefore,I am requesting to meet with the Mayorand City Commissioners in person to discuss this situation,and Mr. Peterson’s absoluteleadership failure in this instance. Please let me know how this request may be accomplishedwithin the rules of public of?cials before the requested action below of an independentspecial investigation is undertaken.

In closing, I respect?illy request that the City seek an independent special investigator fromoutside the City to thoroughly review this situation, and investigate the issues and concernsand other situations discussed in my complaint, or any additional information that isdiscovered or alleged through this investigation. I have copied, pasted and highlighted Mr.Peterson’s threats in the emailmessages. Also, I have ordered the messages from the firstcommunication through the last in the thread, for ease of reference.

Please know that I remain professionallyengaged in my duties and responsibilities, and askthat Mr. Peterson’s bullying and threatening of me, andmy co-workers be condemnedandstopped immediately. I remain personally available for any follow-up conversations orinterviews subsequent to the requested actions.

MEMO TO: Human Resources Director-Steve Willis

FROM: Fire Prevention Officer-Roger Davis

DATE: September 23, 2020

SUBJECT: Updated Formal Complaint re: City Manager—Mr.Peterson

Please accept this as an update to my original complaint.

Today, I was ordered to a meeting with the City Manager, Human Resources Directorand theFire Chief. As I was not provided much informationregardingthis meeting, I assumedit wasregarding my complaint. I attempted to bring a witness/representative (Charlie Ihle) with me, butmy witness/representative was denied by the City Manager, and I was ordered to stay for themeeting, which I did.

The discussion and meeting were not productive in my opinion,as I was there under duress, andMr. Peterson instead of offering an apology or remorse for his actions in this incidentonce againhis continuedcontempt for ?re prevention was on display. He reiterated his personal thoughts onhow this should have been handled, and that he basically did nothing wrong. Communicationthroughout this situation has been the problem, and from Mr. Peterson’s behavior and actionstoday it does not appear that improvement is possible. If his intention for this meeting was toresolve my complaint, or to make me feel less threatened, it was a monumental failure. Heshowed no empathy or understanding from my perspective. He was argumentative and aloof. Itappeared that he was more focused on justifying his actions and reinforcing his point, thenunderstanding my valid concerns and complaints. During the discussion he sought to explainaway the fact that it has taken over a month to meet in person about this situation, and hebasically blamed me and the Fire Chief for not addressing this situation with him sooner. Thisshows an incredible lack of situational awareness for someone who is responsible for the overallleadership of the City. Furthermore, he stated that he never threatened my job. However, hiswords are written and crystal clear, and he solely maintains the ability and authority to act uponhis threat that “I have no use for employees who create problems.” I stand by my commentduring the meeting that “99% of the workforce would considerthat a threat.”

My resolve of this situation remains the same. I am requesting to meet with the Mayor and CityCommissioners in person to discuss this situation, and Mr. Peterson’s absolute leadership failurein this instance. Also, I respectfully request that the City seek an independent special investigatorfrom outside the City to thoroughly review this situation, and investigate the issues and concernsand other situations discussed in my complaint, or any additional information that is discoveredor alleged through this investigation.

I remain personally available for any follow—upconversations or interviews subsequent to the

EXHIBT

. Crequested actions.

Peterson; Pete

From: Peterson, PeteSent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:14 PMTo: Davis, RogerCc: Stables, James; Willis,SteveSubject: RE: Meeting request

Mr. Davis,

Thank you for the response. Again, my apologies for the current situation, and l look forward to resolution of the matterand moving forward in a positive manner as we serve the citizens oflohnson City.

Pete Peterson

From: Davis, Roger Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:57 AMTo: Peterson, Pete Cc: Stables, James ; Willis,Steve Subject: Meeting request

Mr. Peterson,I received your message from 8 PM, Friday, Oct. 16 on my of?ce phone. From your message, it appears that you havemore explanations and/orjustifications for your behavior and actions in this situation. At this time, Iwould like topolitely decline meeting with you again. Our first meeting was not productive and made matters worse in my opinion. Iwill allow the facts in my complaint to stand going fon/vard, and hope that the process already undenivay to address thisvery dif?cult and uncomfortable situation for me is successful and prevents any future issues or occurrences.Thank you for your consideration.

Roger DavisFire Prevention Officer, Fire DepartmentCity oflohnson City, Tennessee423.975.2840 / www.'ohnsoncitytn.org

Think green: Only print this e—mailand any attachment if necessary.

EXHII

Please note: The City Commission is in the midst of a multi~stepprocess to produce a singleperformance review for City Manager Pete Peterson. What you are receiving today is simply acompilation of individualevaluations prepared by Commissioners along with the evaluation datasummary prepared by Human Resources.

Each Commissioner rated the City Manager using the Likert Scale and supported their ratings withcomments. The ratings are based on a 5-point LikertScale ranging from "DoesNot Meet Expectations”to "Outstanding Performance.” A "3" rating is de?ned as "Meeting Expectations."

The individual evaluations were turned in to Director of Human Resources Steve Willis who compiled theindividualevaluations and presented this informationto Mr. Peterson and the City Commission duringthe Commission's agenda review meeting this week.

The Commission is now reviewing the evaluations in an effort to compose a single summaryperformance review letter including 2017-2018 objectives for the City Manager. We anticipate theperformance review being finalized, and available, in late October.

EXHIIT

City Manager Evaluation 2017Commissioner's Rating Summary

Van ‘iAvei-ageAVETEEE

ITEM ' Fowler: Vwse iTomita Brock } Per RatingPer\V

B kI‘n i .mc ‘Attribute Category

1. Ability to ManageExhibits competence In pianning, urganixlng, and fui]aw- 1khreush 1 3 3 J 2 3 2.4Maintains corm-nicifthe argiriization 3 3 3 Q 2 i 4 3 3. . .erawsgaua undemandlng oi employee reiazions

‘

3 3 2 i 2 2 2.4 iPrepares weii befnre giving instructions ‘ 3 4 i 3 I 3 3 I 3.2 flueiegarcs as apprapriaieco ailow?me for Strategic i T ' iLeadership 5 2 3 2 1 3 I 2.2 iAverage/Commissioner 2.4 3.2 2.6 2 3

‘

Difference from Average -0.2 0.6 0.0 -0.6 0.4 :2, ‘ : i i 1'i I I i 1 i

2. Ability to Lead I 2.91Esmblisius clear expeczariens and gpalstci staffand ‘

cummisslaners i 2 4 = 2 j 2 3 2.5 _invaivesothers In decision makingprocess while | i ‘ 1rnainresnnimgrespansibilizy for final decision 3 i 4 i 3 2 3 3.0 3Gains the con?dence si dzvemployees 2 i 3 2 2 2 2.2 §Exhibitsintegrity in andealings 3 4 3 3 3 ; 3 3.2 ‘

i - 4Exhibitsgenuine cnncem forthe empluvees 3 4 i 2 i 3 3 E. i , 1earns: acan ence an respect ecurru-nunicy 3

L3 4 1 2 3 3

' in M a ufth 1

Cundum selfwith a irigndegree orprciessionarrsrn 3 4 3"

3 3 3 2Resists pressure i-rcrnansources retake actions I-re/she

’ ’ ’ ””” ” ’ ’

consider: not inmebest interest ciempievees orExpayers 7 3 4 ‘ 3 3 4 3.4

: r ——is appropriately pciicicalor non~po||t[cai 3 ‘ 3 * 3 E Z i 3 2.8

Average/Commissioner 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.3 3.0Difference from Average -0.1 0.8 O -0.5 0.1

I i i J3. Ahllltyta Cammunlrate

ccrnrnunicaces eiearivand thoroughly 2 4 ‘ 3 3 _3__ _

W

_ 2.5 _Exhibit:adeuuateverbal ab?ity 4 4 3 i 3 4 3.6. _ . .

g

,Use: apprupriale Illustnfans and exlmpias 4 V 4 3 i 3 ; 4 3.5____ _. . _ .,_A.,. ,.e, ,V_ __ _ ___._ ___._.

_‘ 1,

Shows communicative adaptability to diverse populations 3 4 1 A‘

at K 3 4 3.8Recognizes aanwerisai cummunimticns 3 ’ 4 i 3 3 4 3.4. .. ., -,, . ,, ,. , .neveiacssqecreisgenswiancnernesiis

I H

‘ 3_ V4_ _ _ 72” _7__2_' ‘i 4 3 .

Permls a free newoflnforma?an sciCamrnisslan mernbers F ‘frarn the Clty Managers office when cummlsslon members ; 3need nomake decisions. 1 2 I

;Average/Commissioner 3.1Difference from Average -0.1

4. Ability to Make Declslons

Culiectsidequi?e lnfcrma?an be??e making decisions.

Uses reilable sourcesvi lnfarmatlon.Do}: not deiay irripei-iarrcdecisiansnur allow pressure touuse hastvdecisions. ‘

Explains reasons fur decisions to persons affected.

,‘ruusr~.-4aJ>

Delegates declslun makingwherever apprvprlate.

Undersmrids the impo?anca of?rning so decision making. ‘

selects the bes’. candldates varpasluans.

LUNN

usesauthority wiselyand equizaaiy.

Page 1

City Manager Evaluation 2017Commissioner's Rating Summary

l _i r

Va"1 - Average Average

ITEM _ V Fowler Wise r Tomita Brock r Per Rating PerBrocklin i r . ,i ; Attribute Category

‘ rAmerripts ti: rnelnrein an objective Viewwhen solving ‘V 1Drublerris, 3 i 3 3 1 3 3 ‘r 3Has a working knmvledge ofTennessee Municipal laws and ,‘eooiiesit in decision making. 4 ; 4 4 4 4 r’ 4Seeks and{allows ihe ndvi:/2brineCity Amrnevand

’

I ' 'Commission when differencu nfnpinioii exist regarding , 3 ‘Important deizlslnns. i 3 I 4 i 3 4 3 4 _ 3 4Give: eniplrryersan opporivninno differ wiih his/her

‘

iproposals 1nd to submltalternatlves. . 2 3 2 ; 3 2.5Decision rnolrlngisirarrsparemwith siari acceuntabiiitv ; ‘ 1‘

' j fdearly defined. i 2 I 3 i 2 r 2 2.3

Average/Commission er 2.8 3.5 2.9 2.6 1.8Difference from Average -0.1 0.6 0.0 —0.3 -0.1 _

i * 2 I'

5. Responsiveness to Othersbrhlbits empathy when deeiing wlth ulhers. I 3 3 3 3 3 1 3Inclined oewaropraising erners. 3 3

V 7

27

i ; 2 ‘ 2,4ireeere nornisxeireswirh patience. § 3 3 3

_

3 3 3career: individuals in privaie. i 3 3 i 1 2 2 2.5

minded in rrreenngsrmeeene 1 3K

4 l 3 I 3 4 3.4rneereeerrenereeleereeinevhaer ‘ ' " ' " " ' i

‘' *

severe crirloisrn.I

i § I 3 3 i 3 3 3Cnaperates well wltfl staff. \ 3 ‘ 3 , 3 2 3 2.8Eioiiriaius, honorable arEiWrTdE|Ti?g‘wi?iT'

‘"

I’

" 7%" " '

i‘

subordinates. [ 2 , 3 i 2 Z 3 2.4is fair in his/herdeslings wirh emplovees and ‘their ‘ 1representatives. 2 4 i r 2 2 2.5Does angive special rre-iniéntiio some managers while 3 i i’

’ ’

ignoringothers. [ 2 1 3 , 1 2 2 2 3Average/Commissioner 2.7 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.7

_

Difference from Avera e 0 0.5 0 -0.3 OS, . .

i i l, .5.Effem've Work climate ‘ 2.9. 4iarornooes good i-norlvarleneioeehniqves. 3

>

4 3 72 1 3 2.4 _5{"’_°‘?E"i’_”?’.’S""*'?i""“"““1'“E"’ __ r, _ 4 , .s’_ 4 i 3 ' 3

s

4 = 3-6 '

Rezoznlzesthe an-ilevernenes ufemplaveex. ; 3 4 2 2__

>“Z?_ 2.6 J

Recognizes the inroor-reneeaf Ieal-nirlgopportunities. 4 ‘I 3 ‘ 3 2 3 3 ‘Prnrnutes and ethical working erivlrcni-nel-icfree lrom

’

cori?lcts orinrerese‘

4 3 i 3‘ 3

_

3 3.2r i 1Encourages an am-iospbere eondvslve in praducriviiy. . 2 3 I 3 2 3 , 2.6 'Average/Commissioner 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.2 3.0 _

7

T‘Differencefrom Average 0.4 0.4 -0.2 -0.7 0.1

. . 1I i , 27. Crea?v M

VDeriionsi-rageslmaglneuonIn st?‘I_\'i‘1'i§problems. _

7

_4 l 3.4 1Exhibit: resourcefulness and ingenuity.

> I

4 3.4 Qghewsiiexlbinzvwithgixtlasiiigdireorion.

7’

‘

__4 3 ?

Encourages creetlvltvbi/staff. i 2 2.2‘ J7

Average/Commissioner 3.5 5Difference from Average 0.5 j. r r l8. implemem Commission PoliciesandProcedure: 3.4Knaws Cltvpoiiclis and iinpiemems ?iem atiiie best level ‘ '

possible. . 4 4 3 ___3 4 3 6 \Assuniesre§E:§iEiE?i€vfdrredues!ing cherries’.-:s'heee?vi

'”

" " " "'"" ‘ '“ r‘ "' _ ; Iin pollcles and prneedures. 4 4 3 1 2 i 4 I 3.4zxoressesopinions on oolimneiring aiiorooriereiy. 4 i 4 3 I‘ 2 4 3'4

'

3 47

4"V

3 i 2 4 T 3.4

Page 2

City Manager Evaluation 2017Commissioner's Rating Summary

V

‘

Average Averagen l .

ITEM Bm:k"n‘ Fowler ‘ Wise Tomita K Brock I Per Ratlng Per‘ ‘ ‘ . Attribute Category.?espems mepallcy-making authority and responslbilltv crf

‘ ‘

the Cnmrrllsiun. 4 1 3 2 1 :1 . 5 3Average/Commissioner 4 3.8 2.8 2 4.2Difference from Average 0.6 0.4 -0.6 -1.4 0.8

i9. supervision StaffDev.Encouravgesthe professional growth ofstaff.

‘3 3 2 I 2 i 3 i 2.6

Assists am:In selling elaleerlmand in achieving these i l’ 1 1angecllyes. l 2 3 l 2 3 ,1 2.5Urldeliinnds merelationship 91‘aaalsetting up imprcve 1 . i i EPelfurrrlanu-_

’ 2 l 4 3 __ L__3___ 3 v 2.3usesevaluatiall (aols appropriately. 3 .5 3 3 I 2 3 2.8éisws irpnassy In evsiuatlcns lay idenrlsylng areas a; : _' ' ’weakness as well as areas orswengm. 3 V 3 3 i 2 . 3 2.8axl~.lla'r.sinaeresr in welfare of individuals. ; 3 4 3 i 2 3 3suppans aampacenrararilarpramn?an whenever '

’ ’

apprupnvta._

2_ 3_ _ i ___2_ 2 2 2.2

lzeaagnlaes the Importance ofgand emplayee marale. 37

3 2 1 2 i 2.2Givesall ernplavees opportunlry ior recognition. ;‘ 3 4 2 2 i 2 E 2.5Average/Commissioner 2.7 3.3 2.5 1.9 2.7Difference from Average 0.1 0.7 -0.1 -0.7 0.1

: 110. Physical E FlnanclulResounes

Carefully prepares anybudget. 5 5 S I 4.8K

canrmls budsettc maxlmlzethe use prrespu?c7es" '

'

available. 5 5 3 4.2 lCeardinates objectives and prlorlties With reseurce 1allocation. L 5‘ _

»

4 3_.8W 7

_

undersrands ?scal situalinrls generally. 5 5 5 4.4‘

Requests appropriate prevenlatlve maintenance andV

building renewal plans. 2 3 l 3 2 3 l 2.6ManagesriarieiiTerr.iyelyin msinmning pubiic buiidings i ‘ _andgrcunds. 2 3 3 3 2 __ 3 2.6 ySets a gnod example uf ?scal renzaint. j 5 4 4 3 4 4 y 4.2snawsa zepacllvflar knalllvlrlgwhere funds should lse ’ ' ’ : " ' " ' ’ ’ ’allameel. 5 4 § 4 3 5 42Prepare: a realistic budgetand keepsspending Ilmits

‘ ' ‘ ' ' ’

within mebudget. 1 5 5 4 3 5 4.4

Average/Commissioner 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.0 4.3

Difference from Average 0.4 0.1 0 -0.9 0.4_ _ _

; E ‘OVERALLAVERAGE 3.1 3.5 2.9 2.4 3.3

Difference from Average 0.1 0.5 -0.1