Ms. Tebo clearly did not believe that the rules associated with the employment of mere mortals applied to he



I was appalled by Stacy Tebo’s complaints against Dr. Helen Miller.  It is obvious that when Ms. Tebo dislikes someone she will take every means to stomp them into the dirt whether the accusations are true or not.


Now everyone knows that our background with Dr. Miller was extremely tumultuous. She ruined our reputation as if we were criminals when technically everything we told was the truth.  Yet, Joe Griffin and I believe in fairness and we do not believe anyone should go through the hell we went through due to then Manager Farley, the Council, and the Police Department.


They call Dr. Miller a rogue council member; yet notice, it was Ms Tebo making the complaint because Mayor Rhett Bullard doesn’t have the backbone to discuss the matters with Dr. Miller.   And what good would it do?  Mr. Bullard personally dislikes Dr. Miller himself and will stick up for Ms. Tebo vehemently whether she is right or wrong.


The complaints against Dr. Miller are ridiculous. Dr. Miller has worked with the HOPE program for years and believes in providing benefit to the children in White Springs.   If the Council did not wish to have Dr. Miller handle the HOPE program, they should have told her.  Furthermore it has never been a secret that Dr. Miller would have tried to do all she could to help the Children.  In the meetings I have attended, it is noted that Dr. Miller asks for permission from the council before setting out to handle any matter at hand. So who was not listening?


Now the fact that Dr. Miller directed the public works staff to set up tables and chairs in the Tourism Center to get ready for the dinner and banquet is NOT an excuse to attack Dr. Miller.  Yes, the charter states the Town Manager has the power to direct staff (but remember EXCEPT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT) ,  The fact that Dr. Miller used staff for one instance is not against the Charter. Please note what the DeBary attorney stated:


  • This single event was certainly not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment test.Gilliard v Georgia Department of Corrections, 500 Fed. Appx 860.876, (11th  2012)




Furthermore, with Ms. Tebo’s schedule, she is not there in the office from Friday Afternoon until Monday and if she is in the office, she closes her door so she is not bothered.  What she does in that office, God only knows.   Ms. Tebo is not a person of action and to make such comments that Dr. Miller used her staff is absurd, especially when Ms. Tebo has no internal controls for staff.  Furthermore, this entire thing was drummed up by Rhett Bullard, Willie Jefferson and Tonja Brown because they could not look as though they would do anything to hurt Mrs. Miller so Tebo would take the fall.   


And let’s discuss the admin, Anita Rivers.  Ms. Rivers is the only one that answers phones and greets citizens at the desk.  Not only that but Ms. Rivers had a huge workload; but I suppose Ms. Rivers was fired because she was efficient, because Ms. Tebo and Ms. Tomlinson certainly are not.


Please let me reiterate an excerpt relating to an Attorney’s response to Ms. Tebo’s complaint about another manager in DeBary:



  • These complaints regarding Mr. Fletcher, even if true, are unrelated to any protected class, in that these complaints are from both  men and women and relate to allegations that Mr. Fletcher was a bad manager. Where a supervisor engages in the same sorts of boorish behavior toward male employees as toward female, the hostile work environment claim fails because the conduct was not because of sex. 


  • Though for a time Ms. Tebo was in charge of Human Resources, she apparently was unaware of the difference between allegations of poor management and of discriminatory management. Title VII prohibits discrimination not poor management.  The Courts are not super-personnel departments.  The employer’s business practices regardless of the wisdom of same, is irrelevant as long as they are not made with a discriminatory motivation, Alvarez v Royal AH Developers, Inc. 610 F 3d 1253, 1266 (11th  2010).  Given this lack of understanding, it should be no surprise that Ms. Tebo’s supervison over Human Resources was eventually removed.



Ms. Tebo complained that Dr. Miller called the police Chief and directly instructed her to be available by phone.   Again Ms. Tebo is not in charge of the Police Department, only the Council is.  Dr. Miller is a member of the council.  The fact that the administrative assistant was called who left an e-mail for Ms. Tebo to attend a meeting the following morning at Hamilton High was certainly not a problem.  As Rhett Bullard apprised everyone in a meeting, Ms. Tebo has taken Mondays off since she started with White Springs because of Doctors’ appointments.  Why did Ms. Tebo not read her e-mails promptly, especially when most importantly she is not in the office and when in the office, her door is shut to not only staff but to citizens.


In her complaint that Dr. Miller had communications with HCSB that she did not share with Ms. Tebo, again Ms. Tebo inconsistently stated that Dr. Miller “only told me that the HCSB would be handling the HOPE PROGRAM AND WOULD BE THE FISCAL AGENT”.   So obviously Dr. Miller did state what was transpiring and because HCSB had not processed the payroll, was not Dr. Miller’s fault.  Complaining that the employees were not sure who they were working for, nor did Ms. Tebo, is Ms. Tebo’s fault for not taking an interest in a program which has been in White Springs for years, under the direction of Dr. Miller..   If Dr. Miller apprised Ms. Tebo at every point, Ms. Tebo should have taken further review.  However, it is obvious to me that Ms. Tebo will not under the guidance of Rhett Bullard, do anything for the Children or those who are employed to handle the HOPE program.  It is a shame.


Note this paragraph from the DeBary attorney:


  • The Affidavit, a 20 page narrative, is filled minutia, is largely irrelevant and frequently internally inconsistent.  The exhibits in support thereof are likewise largely irrelevant, often bewilderingly so, and almost entirely inadmissible.   In an effort to avoid burdening the Agency with a like amount of Affidavits and exhibits, counsel will attempt to address the most telling portions of the charging party’s submission.


I blame Ms. Tebo not Dr. Miller because if Ms. Tebo would have taken an interest in the Children of White Springs, specifically with the HOPE program, I am certain Dr. Miller would have worked with her.  Yet the council would like to blame Dr. Miller for everything because obviously this council and its manager could give a damned about the Children in White Springs or the programs we have entertained for years.   Ms. Tebo doesn’t talk about the money she has cost the town at the approval alone of Rhett Bullard.  That is some $11,000 of lost time because Tebo is not in her office for the time in which her contract so stipulates.  That is a breach of contract. That does not include the thousands of dollars we spent to protect Stacy Tebo so that she didn’t look bad when discriminating against both Rivers and Miller.


I would rather have someone like Dr. Helen Miller having an intent on getting what she wanted on behalf of the Citizens and their children than have to wait around for Ms. Tebo to do something.   Ms. Tebo has a sense of her own importance even though she is responsible to the council.  And rather than making all these statements against Dr. Miller, why didn’t Council Members or Ms. Tebo bring up their complaints to Dr. Miller rather than besmirching her name one sided-ly in the newspaper and a public meeting.  


You state Dr. Miller made false statements on her facebook page regarding the facts surrounding the DJJ Invest in Children Program grant award and tried to tarnish some of the Council Members’ images as well as Ms. Tebo’s.  Yet is that not what you have done all along from the time Rhett Bullard became Mayor, but to tarnish Dr. Miller without giving her an opportunity to respond.   What have you done Ms. Tebo except take time out for your various lawsuits against DeBary; never seeing citizens; not talking to citizens; not taking an interest in the town but certainly you have done your job as you did in DeBary by keeping notes on every incident which transpired.  Too bad you lack in Communications and honesty.  I guess they are not part of your MPA.


The inconsistencies of Ms. Tebo are great and obviously she has found three council members who have her temperament.  None care about what the Citizens of Whites Springs want or need and rather than blame the Town’s Accountant or the Town Manager herself, they choose to blame Dr. Miller for actually doing something for the town. 


Is money was requested from Pam Tomlinson, Ms. Tomlinson should have taken the requisition directly to the Manager Tebo to see whether such could be covered.  Ms. Tomlinson has not only been inefficient in her performance of her job as bookkeeper and Town Clerk but has been rewarded for her poor performance.   I believe the reason all the grant money has been messed up in the past is mainly due to the fact that Ms. Tomlinson did not keep separate accounts and Town Managers did not stick to the budgets; so if Dr. Miller was given funds that were not rightly budgeted or from the General Fund, it was because of no internal controls which were discussed but never implemented in White Springs.


I choose Dr. Helen Miller as being the only person that has any consideration for the Citizens or the Children of White Springs.  Obviously the two council members who vote with Mayor Bullard do not care about any of you and a third councilman is so ignorant in what he questions or states, I am shocked.  


So after condemning Dr. Miller in the newspaper as well as in the public meeting, you cannot blame her if she no longer is willing or able to assist the Children in White Springs.   You have a Manager and a Mayor who do not care about anything but their own agendas.



Let’s also discuss the complaint Ms. Tebo had against her City Manager, when Ms. Tebo, herself, does not abide by her employment contract relative to living issues:




  • She also alleges that the City Manager had lunch in Mt. Dora, a town 26 miles away from DeBary.  She asks the question“What if the City had a catastrophe in the 3 hours he was out of the City having lunch?”  Though I have not consulted with City personnel, I assume the answer is that he would be contacted on his mobile phone. (Written by Debary’s attorney.)


  • In her EEOC complaintshe admitted giving Dan Parrott dirty looks and she likewise admitted that she ignored his requests to not go directly to the City Council Tebo hated Parrott and she would have done anything to have him fired. She felt that her credentials as an MPA made her better than him


  • One page..of her Affidavit,she writes that she told Mr. Parrott that just because he saw her talking to Council Members “doesn’t mean it had anything to do with him or work.”  Yet ….she writes of complaints about him to Council Members Carlson and Hunt.   …She writes of her complaints regarding Mr. Parrott to former Council Member Koval….she acknowledges speaking with City Mayor Johnson regarding terminating Mr. Parrott.



  • Tebo reports chiding Mr. Parrott about being “paranoid” regarding his accusing her of going behind his back to complain to City Council Members about him. Again, apparently oblivious to the inconsistency, …Ms. Tebo claims that Mr. Parrott’s actions are to “get back at (her) for making him lose his job….


  • (The fact that she had the highest percentage salary increase will, the City is certain, mean nothing to the charging party.  She will assert that she deserved her raises and more, while Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Parrott did not)  Ms. Tebo received the largest percentage increase of the three.


  • Despite all evidence to the contrary, Ms. Tebo continues to argue that she was the victim of salary discrimination.  On page 3 of her Affidavit, where she complains thatshe “felt underpaid and overworked,” she rather feebly attempts to explain away the fact that the City Manager increased her salary some $5,000 at her request.  She writes that in the “summer of 2012” she asked Mr. Parrott to have a salary survey doneOn “October 31, 2012” she wrote the City Manager and asked for a salary “adjustment for myself…”.  On December 3, 2012, 33 days later, Ms. Tebo writes “he finally gave a salary adjustment because I kept reminding him of my request. (In Ms. Tebo’s world asking for a raise and getting $5,000 raise 33 days later does not merit a “thank you.”   Instead, she sees it as evidence of sex discrimination)
  • Tebo in support of her claims that Mr. Parrott discriminates against women, is comprised of a number of complaints in which he is named stemming from his prior employment as a City Manager in Oklahoma and Missouri.  It appears that Ms. Tebo did not read the complaints she submitted.   The Oklahoma federal complaint is an environmental whistle-blower complaining.  The Hayes Oklahoma complaint is a USERRA complaint.  The Missouri complaints, in the extent they can be understood, appear to have something to do with workers’ compensation.  The outcome of these cases is not revealed in her submission, likely because no judgment was ever entered against Mr. Parrott on any of those cases.  Also attached are some documents related to the audit of the City of Mexico, Missouri in 2003.
  • Though for a time Ms. Tebo was in charge of Human Resources, she apparently was unaware of the difference between allegations of poor management and of discriminatory management.  Title VII prohibits discrimination not poor management.  The Courts are not super-personnel departments.  The employer’s business practices regardless of the wisdom of same, is irrelevant as long as they are not made with a discriminatory motivation, Alvarez v Royal AH Developers, Inc. 610 F 3d 1253, 1266 (11th  2010).  


Ms. Tebo clearly did not believe that the rules associated with the employment of mere mortals applied to her.  She believes that despite disobeying direct orders from her supervisor, going behind his back to complain about him, and seeking his termination of employment, which she claims to have accomplished, her termination was not justified, but was instead discriminatory.  This belief is not merely wrong, it boarders on delusional.




Leave a Reply