Town Analyst still investigating Tomlinson – since the Ethics Comm dropped this perhaps it was something else Pam Did


Karin Fleischhaker-Griffin
Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:06 PM
to helenbmiller, Joe

Pam advised Joe that they are able to pay Kenny by reason that it is allowed in the personnel manual, which they must have referred to.

Under 2. page -28- Duration of leave – It states Annual Leave shall be limited to thirty (30) consecutive calendar days unless approved in ADVANCE by the Town Manager.

1) It may discuss leave but it does not say we pay his medical
2) There is no contract and I am not certain that this was approved in “advance”
3) A prudent individual would not anticipate being paid for two years nor would a prudent manager feel that it would be correct to pay someone for not working.

I always knew this statement was made; however, who pays someone for two years without notifying the council and making it a council decision for this long a duration; plus the medical insurance. I do not believe the intent was to pay him indefinitely for two years but this is ambiguous and there has to be a court case somewhere…or again White Springs does something no one else would ever consider.

Helen Miller
Aug 22, 2018, 8:46 AM
to me, Joe

Did Pam provide Stacy’s advance approval documentation? Let’s see it.
How would she know the length of the leave? Any leave over an extra
month or so would exceed Stacy’s financial limit re what she can approve
on her own, i.e., the $2,500 limit. When she “knew” the leave would
cost the town over $2,500, she needed to bring the issue to the
council. Of course, it was never the intent to allow 2 yr or 1 yr paid
leave, since the town has limits on annual leave and sick leave defined
by the 240 hour rule.

NOW THE tOWN IS LOOKING INTO THE MONEY PROBLEMS BUT EVEN WITH THE LOFT SITUATION, JOE AND I COULD NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUT ANY OFFICIAL COULD CALL FDLE AND THEY WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED. FURTHERMORE OUR PRIOR CPA COULD HAVE BEEN SUED BECAUSE HE PROVIDED THE WRONG ADVICE IN WRITING. THERE WERE NO SUCH RULES ABOUT TAKING 25% AND USING IT ON SOMETHING NOT RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. IF IT WERE THE GRIFFINS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUED, BUT THE TOWN STILL FAVORS PEOPLE THEY SHOULD NOT FAVOR WHEN MONEY IS MISAPPROPRIATED. EVEN MONTFORD LIED ABOUT THE MISSPENDING TO SAVE RHETT BULLARD….BUT IN ALL HONESTY, THE REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE DID NOTHING AS WELL.

HELEN MILLER HAS ALL THE TIME SHEETS AND MATERIAL IN THIS CASE IF THE TOWN DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE ELECTED OFFICIALS ONLY.

Leave a Reply