According to minutes from an Aug. 26 McComb city board meeting that selectmen approved on Tuesday, the board approved payment of $10,000 less in bills than was on the original agenda that night.
That had some selectmen claiming Wednesday that the board never approved a $10,000 payment that was on the Aug. 26 claims docket for “general release of all claims” to former fire chief Jean Frye, who resigned Aug. 31.
Other selectmen supported an account of events highlighted by Mayor Zach Patterson in his “mayor’s chat” Tuesday.
Patterson said the payment — tied to Frye’s resignation effective Aug. 31 — was approved by selectmen, both in executive session and on the claims docket.
Selectman Melvin Joe Johnson agreed with that position and deferred to the mayor’s comments when asked about the payment.
Selectman Robert Earl Smith said Wednesday the mayor and city administrator’s office should have better informed selectmen about the legal status of the payment following advice in the form of a memo from City Attorney John H. “Bubber” White that indicated a severance package would violate the state Constitution.
Smith said Wednesday that he didn’t remember seeing the payment on the claims docket, and he couldn’t confirm whether it was there.
But Smith also said the payment for general release of all claims matched the board’s intent in the executive session votes mentioned by Patterson.
Selectmen Wade Lamb and E.C. Nobles, though, said Wednesday that the board never approved a payment for a release of claims, and that they considered the idea of a severance package dead after the board received White’s memo.
Selectman Bob Maddox said Wednesday he couldn’t remember seeing the item on the claims docket, nor was it his understanding that a check had been handed out. Maddox said since it was a matter stemming from an executive session, he didn’t want to comment.
White declined comment this morning.
This much is undisputed: Executive session minutes show the city board on July 8 unanimously authorized the mayor to offer Frye an opportunity to resign or be terminated, and to develop a severance package, if needed.
Frye’s qualifications had been repeatedly questioned since her hiring in October 2007, with frequent sharp exchanges at city board meetings about errors in the process through which she was hired. At one point, the city Civil Service Commission said she was unqualified for the job.
Throughout, Patterson criticized the “tone and tenor” of the discussion and said the Civil Service Commission was conducting an unauthorized and harassing investigation.
Minutes show that in a July 22 executive session, the board unanimously voted to define a date of resignation “not to exceed Aug. 31” and “to prepare a severance package not to exceed a payment of $10,000.”
At an Aug. 12 meeting, minutes show, the mayor informed the board of Frye’s resignation and acceptance of a severance package.
An Aug. 21 memo from White to City Administrator Jim Storer offered an opinion that a severance package would violate the state Constitution. An Aug. 25 memo from White repeated that position.
However, the claims docket for the city board’s Aug. 25 work session included a $10,000 check to Frye, under the description “general release of all claims.”
Minutes from the following night’s regular board meeting, approved by the city board this week, indicate the board approved payment of the city’s bills, including the claims docket, for $2,619,226. The accounts payable report from Chief Financial Officer Mary Adams lists $348,301 of that sum as manual paid bills.
The claims docket, however, which is timestamped “16:49” on Aug. 25 — 4:49 p.m. the day of the city board’s work session — includes the $10,000 check. It states a total of $358,301 in manual paid bills — $10,000 more than listed on Adams’ accounts payable report.
The original agenda for the Aug. 26 board meeting lists $2,629,226 in bills.
What all of that means garnered different opinions around the board room table.
Patterson charged selectmen with waiting for him to execute an illegal order that they themselves had approved in multiple votes.
“That’s entrapment,” he said, adding that an attorney general’s opinion allowed payment in such a case if it would prevent a lawsuit against the city.
Patterson said that was an obvious likelihood if the city forced out an employee who had not misrepresented herself in acquiring her position.
But Nobles said the claims docket vote didn’t include Frye’s check, and that the severance package had been nullified by White’s memo, so approval of a different form of payment was required to come before the board on its own. The alteration to a general release of all claims was not a semantic difference, Nobles said, but a legal matter that required documents drawn up by the city attorney.
“If (Patterson) felt that it was a trap that he was about to step into, why didn’t he ask for a special called meeting?” Nobles asked.
“This check shows that the severance was illegal,” Nobles said, “because it was brought in as a claim. And we know that we have not released her from any claim against the City of McComb, because no such claim exists. … She never asked for a severance, and no selectmen were involved in the negotiation process of a severance.”
Lamb asked why the check needed to be written on Aug. 25 — the same day as a work session and without any discussion — if Frye wasn’t leaving until Aug. 31.
“We did not agree to settle claims, therefore the manner in which she was paid was not approved by the board,” Lamb said, referring to the provision of the city charter requiring that the mayor “make known to the board of selectmen the wants and necessities of the city.”
Smith, though, said the votes on the severance package idea established the will of the board to make such a payment happen, saying he didn’t see why a different format, such as a general release of claims, would change that desire.
“The chief had not done anything wrong,” Smith said. “In my opinion, the city, and frankly the (former) city administrator (Sam Mims) during that time, dropped the ball on carrying out what they needed to carry out. … She was hired out of good faith. She had not broken the law. … Was it her fault or the city’s fault? If it was not her fault and we terminated her, would she have legal recourse?”
Smith said he was satisfied with the ultimate resolution of the check’s payment to Frye for that reason.
“The chief had not done anything herself to be dismissed,” he said.
