A Warning and a Reprimand: Aberdeen Council President Elliott is Scolded in Ethics Violation
Written by Brian · Filed Under Local Ink, The Dirt
February 12, 2008 | Print this post
| Email this post
Updated with response from Council President Elliott
Nine months after it was filed, the results of an ethics investigation initiated by one Aberdeen City Council member against another are in and the ruling is that city councilwoman Ruth Elliott violated provisions of the City Code by divulging the contents of confidential internal emails to the city’s opponents in an ongoing lawsuit.
In short, Elliott, who broke ranks with the city’s former mayor and city council to oppose the proposal to annex the Wetlands Golf Course properties, appears to have forwarded a series of emails, which were originally sent from a city attorney to city manager Doug Miller relating to existing litigation between the city and a group of city taxpayers, to members of the group engaged in the lawsuit with Aberdeen.
The complaint was filed by former city councilman David Yensan in May, about six months before he lost his seat in the city’s November election, but the Aberdeen Ethics Commission didn’t reach its findings until late January. Elliott, who won her re-election bid and currently serves as Aberdeen City Council president, was particularly outraged that Yensan, in one of the privileged emails, refers to a “demented old woman.” Yensan later apologized for his statement, but clarified the comment was not directed toward Elliott.
It’s no secret that Yensan and Elliott despised one another and were the most bitter of enemies while sitting together for two years on the Aberdeen City Council, but it still was eye-opening to actually read the heading of the Ethics Commission report:
Complaint of David Yensen v. Ruth Elliott
According to the report:
“David A. Yensen, the Complainant who at the time of the incident in question was a Council member, filed a complaint with the City Ethics Commission against Council member Ruth Elliott, the Respondent. he Complainant alleges that the Respondent disclosed confidential information contained in an e-mail from an attorney representing the City and thereby violated Section 9-3 A (10) of the Aberdeen Code.”
Section 9-3 A of the City Code reveals that, “The following provisions shall apply to city elected officials, employees, members of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals, and those persons shall not:
(10) Use or disclose confidential information acquired in their official city position for their own benefit or that of others.”
The genesis of Yensan’s complaint comes email sent in regard to a lawsuit Aberdeen was drawn into by a group of city taxpayers who alleged the mayor and city council imposed tax increases without going through the proper procedures or allowing citizens their right to speak on the matter.
Once again, from the Ethics Commission report:
“Lawrence F. Kreis, Jr., an attorney for the City, sent an e-mail to the City Manager regarding existing litigation between the City and a number of City taxpayers. The e-mail contained confidential information regarding the litigation in which the City was a defendant. (”E-mail 1″). The message in E-Mail 1 was followed by a specific written statement at the end of the e-mail text stating as follows:
“The information in this electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the addressee. Any use or disclosure by any other person is unlawful. This information is protected under attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (410.879.2222) and delete this message without making a copy.”
The City Manager, by e-mail (”E-mail 2″), forwarded the message in E-mail 1 to the Council members who were named defendants in the above referenced litigation and for whom the information contained in E-mail 1 was relevant. In doing so the City Manager created an e-mail message “thread” in which both E-mail 1 and E-mail 2 were shown to the recipients of E-mail 2.”
Did you catch all that? Basically, a city attorney sent an update on the lawsuit to city manager Doug Miller, who in turn forwarded it to all the defendants in the litigation - the mayor and city council.
After those emails circulated among the mayor, city council, city manager and city attorney, Yensan fired off a third email to everyone in the email chain with the following text:
“The press release will cite Fred, Mike and me as bad guys and point out that Ron and Ruth tried to do the “right thing”. I strongly suggest that we get an an (sic) release together ASAP that points ut (sic) the actual facts, not the ravings of a demented old woman “
It’s at that point that Elliott allegedly provided Yensan’s email, although still part of the privileged internal email circle, to someone not authorized to receive the information contained in the first email in the chain.
The Ethics Commission, after review of the council minutes and the tape recording of the meeting, determined that Yensan’s email had been provided to a private citizen who had been a plaintiff in the litigation referenced in the first email. Yensan later apologized for the contents of his email when the matter was discussed during a city council meeting.
The Ethics Commission found that, whether intentional or not, Elliott provided the thread of the emails to an outside party who was not an intended recipient of the first email, which contained confidential information relating to ongoing litigation.
Yensan contends that the release of the email thread by Elliott was done for political reasons, which the Ethics Commission took into consideration:
“Whether the transmission of the E-mail was for political reasons or other reasons, it appears that the release of E-mail 3, along with the other two e-mail messages, was not a benign act and was done for a reason which was for the benefit of others.”
The commission found Elliott violated the provisions of the Aberdeen Code, Section 9-3 A (10) by disclosing confidential information contained in the first email message when she divulged the contents of all three emails to a person not entitled to receive the information contained in the original email.
The commission determined that the disclosure of the thread of emails by Elliott was an improper disclosure of confidential information and also determined that nature of the disclosure was such that it was made for the benefit others.
In its findings, the Aberdeen Ethics Commission recommended the following disciplinary action against Elliott:
“The Commission, as a disciplinary action, directs the Director of Human Resources of the City to place this decision in the Respondent’s personnel file as a warning and as a reprimand.”
The Aberdeen Ethics Commission is comprised of Maria Fothergill, Eugene Chandler, Marian DeRosset, Joyce Roberts and Jessie J. Shanks.
By Tuesday evening, Elliott answered questions about the purported ethics violation and accepted responsibility for the commission’s findings.
“There was never a intentional violation of the Aberdeen Code. A citizen asked me for a copy of the E-mail she had heard about citing ‘demented old woman.’ I provided a copy,” Elliott wrote in an email.
“The Confidentiality statement happened to be on a separate page and I didn’t see it. The case in question had been dismissed by the judge sometime before I provided a copy to a concerned citizen who resented the remark ‘demented old woman’,” she continued.
“If I had reported to the Ethics Commission every time I felt some from the previous administration violated our City Charter we would have had to increase our legal fees 3 fold. I did not benefit from releasing this information and as far as I know, no one else did, except the person/persons who resented being referred to as ‘demented old women’ and came to a public meeting to express their displeasure.
I accept the findings of the Ethics Commission and I shall be more observant in the future. This is just another lesson in life and especially in politics. As you well know, ‘Politics is like mixing sausage, it’s not pretty.’
I didn’t ‘go along to just get along’ and this is the only way a few council members could vent their frustrations on the failed annexation, they so desperately wanted.
As long as I am in office I will continue to listen to the people and make my decisions as I feel they would want. Many good people in office are beat down by those who would gain personally. I am not obligated to anyone but the voters, I said that in 1982 and I have not changed,” Elliott wrote.
To view the entire Ethics Commission report in PDF version, click here to download.
Hey Yensan! You’re a [edited by admin - pretty sure that is a personal attack]!
Wow, a letter of reprimand, I wonder if it was a severe reprimand or a harsh reprimand. A reprimand is in her file which would actually mean something if Ruth was going to run for mayor or other public office but she has said that these two years are most likely her last. What becomes of that reprimand then? Absolutely nothing.
For now though, reprimand or ten lashes with a wet noodle or a wedgie for that fact, simply proves what many have stated, Ruth Elliott broke the rules, she violated an ethics code, which would make her unethical. Posters are quick to jump on the board and knock Simmons or Wright or department heads but defend Ruth Elliott to the core, well Mrs. Elliott was found GUILTY of violating the Aberdeen Code. We’re not talking a fact finding mission with the State Prosecutor’s Office (which went poof), we’re not talking a Transition Team Report that reports that more reports are needed to report on the report’s status, we’re talking about an investigation into a specific violation of the Aberdeen Code and what do you know, Ruth Elliott was GUILTY, found in violation, lacking in ethics one could say. She was given a reprimand for her misdeed, it’s even part of her file!
It may be a reprimand, it may be a piece of paper in a file full of blank pieces of paper, but it is a moral victory for the taxpayers and those of us that wish to legally call Ruth Elliott UNETHICAL or worse yet a politician with a hidden agenda.
Wow, all that after the extensive investigation, congrats Dave.
Hypocracy at its best. My recallection is that you Simmons and the Cheif all so firmly behind the annexation and STRONGLY advising the F.O.P. to support Sam Smedley ET AL, in their effort and while proving intmate information and details of the events that were unfolding all the while.
Heck, the Smedley crew were soo desparate for the F.O.P. support, I recall offers to pay officers and or hire female models to walk door to door with them to thwart the ACT Group’s (of the time) efforts.
In the end, I thougt it was truely generous of the Benfields ET AL to contribute soo generously to all your campaign coffers.
How say you man?
Wow, an actual finding from someone other than Punisher. One question. Why is the ethics report not a big deal? I mean all Punisher ever says is how he is out to “fix” everything in the city. Yet he dismisses this report? He can’t even identify himself (ET AL) to back up his claims but is quick to drop names and blame other people.
Get over yourself Rickey.
No personal attack intended. Yensen wanted blood, she got a slap on the wrist. He lost!
observer,
That’s a little nicer way of saying things. Thanks
i thought all this was in regards to the lawsuit about the taxes not the annexation suits. Punisher is the reason you brought up the annexation garbage is because Elliott violated the ethics code then too? You seem to be in the know. The others are gone thankfully but Elliott is still in office. That should be the only concern now and hopefully Elliott will not violate the ethics code again.
Ruth shares an email and Dave has the audacity to call her out on it.
I don’t think I dismissed anything…wrong is wrong!
How about this for a finding…
From:[email address deleted]
[Add to Address Book]
To:”Jason Neidig”, “Beth Boyson” , “Mike Hiob”, “Joe Snee”
Subject:Re: Fwd: Re: phone number in saynoannex ad
Date:Friday, November 24, 2006 5:55:29 PM
Jason et al
I think it could best be brought out as a question: maybe something like “when
I call the posted phone numbers for the pro and anti groups, where is the manned phone located? Write it onto a card for the question period.
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
—–Original Message—–
From: Jason Neidig
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:17:46
To:Beth Boyson, Michael Hiob, David Yensan
Subject: Fwd: Re: phone number in saynoannex ad
Fred,
How do we get this out into the public…what did you have in mind?
Jason
Fred Simmons wrote: Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006
15:52:12 -0500
From: “Fred Simmons”
Subject: Re: phone number in saynoannex ad
To:
Jason,
This needs to come out at our public meeting on Monday.
Fred
—–Original Message—–
From: Jason Neidig
To: [email addresses deleted]
Sent: Fri Nov 24 13:54:50 2006
Subject: Re: phone number in saynoannex ad
HOW INTERESTING!
[email address deleted] wrote:
FYI
Phone Number in the ad in the Record and the Aegis for the saynoannex group is registered to 8 North Parke Street and the New Harford Democratic Club see
below:
* Local Parties
[email address deleted] · New Harford Democratic Club President: John F. Haggerty 8 North Park St. , Aberdeen Maryland 21001 410-272-7139 (main) …
Did you enjoy that? You see Dave ET AL was doing the very same thing…the nerve!
Oh and how about the fact that SIMMONS and YENSEN posted campaign signs aroung the City teh night before the election laws allowed and was reported to Maria Fathergill of the Ethics Commission and that YENSEN had billboard sized signs along RT 22 and Beard Hill Rd. All contrary to election laws and again reported to Fathergill, but nothing seemed to materialize from the Simmons appointee?
The email in the last posting was from Yensen…
Thanks for noticing the idiocy of the nameless faceless [edited by admin - this is going to be a fun night].
sort of a stretch punisher. i don’t think anyone is saying that people can’t email each other. or talk shit for that matter. in aberdeen, it’s not only legal, it’s pretty standard. the reason she was wrong was because…and i pull this from the article…it was privileged information clearly labeled:
“The information in this electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the addressee. Any use or disclosure by any other person is unlawful. This information is protected under attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (410.879.2222) and delete this message without making a copy.”
It would appear that the nameless faceless one has files of irrelevant stuff to throw out to pull guilt and doubt away from him an his.
well…not really - stop making sense! we don’t need the facts!
Rick Denu got [edited by admin - c’mon now].
OK…It was sent to Doug Miller the intended recipient and he chose to forward it around.
That BS (which have never held in court) disclaimer only applies to Miller or someone who recieved it in error. The only time the disclaimer held was in the latter instance.
What did Elliott or the sueing party have to gain since they are not asking for any $$$$$
it’s like grown up (sort of) mad libs!
Isn’t the gain of an electoral win from either side the jist of what both sides did?
Equally wrong I would say.
sure punisher, there’s nothing to gain…except the win. it’s all silly. kind of like you attacking yensen after the fact for the size of signs that promoted an annex proposal that was ultimately defeated anyway. kind of like stealing day planners and creating cartoons. there are some clear friends and foes here, with everyone getting their digs when they can. she messed up–however minor–and those who think she’s a crazy old lady saw a chance to pin her to the wall. it’s not much, but it worked in a pinch.
How about this one too. Only a few a series of exchanges between the developers and certain council persons…
Does it seem as if there was more at stake here?
From:”Rommel Crabtree”
To:”Ron Kupferman”, “Mike Hiob”, “Fred Simmons” , “Dave Yensan”, “Beth Boyson”
Subject:Aberdeen News 2nd Edition
Date:Monday, November 27, 2006 9:50:43 AM
This is a pre-print, going to press as I write this.
(Attachments successfully scanned for viruses.)
Attachment 1: ABER_NEWS_VOL_2.pdf (application/pdf)
How do ya like me now?
In a legal sense, Elliott can’t be held accountable for forwarding a “confidential” email, because of the way the email appears to be formatted. Just sticking a disclaimer in the footer will not hold up in court. If it was at the top, above the message, and it’s confidentiality clearly labeled in the subject, then you would have a case.
However, per Aberdeen Code, the panel still has the right, I believe, to find the action unethical, as they did.
i don’t get it. no one should have a news article before it is printed? you’re cool enough to be getting emails from city hall? was this a privileged email that contained facts concerning litigation in which the city was a defendant? i’m confused.
don’t send confidential emails to Ruth Elliot…or Punisher…
What I want to know is this. If Punisher is posting these emails into the comments, that means, according to his/her last comment, he/she is one of ”Rommel Crabtree”, ”Ron Kupferman”, “Mike Hiob”, “Fred Simmons” , “Dave Yensan”, “Beth Boyson”.
That would be the ethical situation, correct? How else would he/she have access to these emails?
OK,
Yensen and Simmons issues were addressed at the time, but nothing came from that…I guess it’s OK to put signs where ever and whatever size you want…even if it is against election laws. Were we not talking about ethics? Here we have blatent violations, however small or “trivial”
If you’ll bend for the samll stuff, what else would you bend for?
I agree what ever happened to doin the right thing and working in the interests of the citizens who elected you.
Not yourself…developers or other outside interest groups!
i was thinking s/he was probably on a later forward and cut down the thread to the point where it only listed the recipients that s/he wanted to implicate.
oh sorry, i get it now steve…totally.
Come on Dave where are ya?
Yensan
If you would like to talk about ethics. Do you remember a while back, when a fat someone played santa at city hall & was going around looking for nauty girls with the past mayor & let his hug drop a little to low. Two witnesses saw this happen. Do I need to say anymore? ETHICS HA
PUNISHER, I mean Rick…You are putting e-mails out on this website because you are upset, mad, sad, and a disturbed person…Try this one on for size…then please tell us what side or whose side you are on:
—-Original Message—–
From: Harford Cnty Mun FOP Lodge#128 [mailto:hcmfop128@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:56 AM
To: [names deleted by admin]
Subject: “SAYNOANNEX” is not the “grass roots” organization it claims to
be.
“SAYNOANNEX” is not the “grass roots” organization it claims to be.
The Harford County Municipal Lodge 128 had involved it’s self in the
annexation proposal of the Wetlands Golf Course in the interest of
preserving the public safety in Aberdeen. As such, we have helped to
ensure that public safety, among many other issues were addressed in the
developer’s proposal to create and finance the infrastructure needed.
During the course of this process, a group claiming to a “grass roots”
organization better known as “SAYNOANNEX” filed a petition for a
referendum on this issue. Their claims are many citing that Aberdeen
has not planned adequately, when they have at this particular juncture
and that there is potential for as many as eight thousand homes in the
annexed area, which is simply not so.
The F.O.P. having been watching these events closely, began to notice
that the “SAYNOANNEX” group has published and mailed many residential
brochures, newspaper ads, purchased shirts and engaged other forms of
media to spread their message. Familiar with the costs of these
endeavors, the F.O.P. recognized there was more money being spent than
the average “grass roots” organization can afford. Additionally, in the
quest for facts, the F.O.P. obtained a telephone number, which was
published in several of the aforementioned newspaper ads. Upon calling
that telephone number the answering machine clearly stated, ” You have
reached Helton Properties and the “New Harford County Democratic Club”.
Then, just last evening, information from a source close to both groups
revealed to the F.O.P. that the funding for the “SAYNOANNEX” group is
reportedly coming at the requests of Mr. Wallace, one of the group’s
founders, through Mr. Holtzer an attorney for the group who obtains the
money from what is reported to be Stepney L.L.C. which is operated by
the developer Peter Bosworth. Interestingly enough, Mr. Bosworth holds
interests in and around the proposed annexation. That begged the
question why? It seems water is the why. If the Wetlands project moves
forward the City of Aberdeen only has an adequate water supply for the
number of proposed homes and not for any future such proposals until a
newly developed water supply comes on line.
Simple, isn’t it? One developer in its attempt to block another has
taken advantage of genuinely concerned people and fed into their
organization money, people of greed and political allies. This argument
to stop the annexation is no longer of genuine concern for a community,
its untruths at the root of money.
Fraternally,
Richard R. Denu Jr.
Vice President
Harford County Municipal
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 128
What does this have to do with me?
Last time I checked the FOP acts on the VOTE of its membership?
Punisher…It has a lot to do with you. You want to put all this garbage out there. The Wetlands thing was TWO years ago. Leave it alone, move on. Let me guess, you are going to be against Paradise Meadows sub-division. How about Beachtree? Anyway, time to move on.
The issue isn’t the Wetlands “thing”, it was about being ethical and that’s timeless; isn’t it?
Ethics and Rickey don’t belong in the same discussion. Rick is the most un-ethical person I ever had displeasure in meeting. Rumor has it he’s planning to run for mayor in 2009. Boy I can’t wait! Imagine all the ammunition his opponent would have.
Get a grip Rickey. (And a JOB, it would allow you to have another outlet for your pent-up frustration)
Way to go Buck. Now that someone has a great big office (which used to be the Police Departments Conference Room) HMMMMMMMMMM?
Ethics huh?
When Denu was VP of the FOP, the only thing he ever acted on was his own angenda. When the membership out voted him and his buddy Joey, they ignored the member’s wishes and hid behind the state lodge. Too many self-indulgent actions led Rickey to resign and Joey to be fired.
Do you really want an ethics battle Rickey?
It’s funny how Rickey has no problem posting emails (stupid ones at that) on the Dagger. Seeing how it was copies of his emails that eventually led to his demise on the transition team.
Funny, all I recall was Denu stickin his neck out for the lot of us time after time. I’m sure everyone went from 1% a per year of service to a 25 and 50% and from minimum wages to pay equal with the county, protecting health insurance, etc…
All I recall was his name and face out there, fighting for you and I didn’t see him gain anything by it, except being screwed with constantly? Show me where he gained by what he did for the FOP?
Ok, time to let well enough alone. Somehow Joe and Rick are dragged into every discussion on here. They cant be blamed for everything people. Seriously, are they THAT important that you feel like they need to be brought into everything. My word, leave them alone.
As for Yenson/Elliot, I think that Yenson did what he felt was best and that Elliot isnt really sweating it cause it is her last (or close to it) term. The ethics committee did their job. As for ethics of anyone else, who cares??
Once again this thing got twisted where certain posters turn it on Yensan or Simmons or police department. Was Dave Yensan found in violation of an ethics law? NO Was Fred Simmons found in violation? NO Was a criminal charge filed and someone comvicted for the Christmas grope? NO
Getting back on track, was Ruth Elliott found in violation? YES and that’s what this thread is about. She violated the Aberdeen Code, she received a reprimand for it, it happened, it’s documented, she has tarnish. If this was done in a half witted political hack last ditch stunt, well, so be it…….the complaint had weight, it was found that Ruth did a no-no.
I’m just wondering where all the Ruth is Great folks are. No post from her son yet, no post from the poster believed to be Mr. Elliott, not a word from those deep in the UNETHICAL one’s camp.
I suppose it’s OK because Ruth was the only one caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Could it be because those you file complaints with are political appointee’s of the one’s you complain about?
Believe you me…the others had plenty to be guilty for!
“The pot called the kettle black”
Ruth is Great!
Punisher: I don’t doubt the pot calling the kettle black, I’d be living in some Utopia if I believed that, but if you have so much insight and so much first hand knowledge then why have you not stepped forward and sought out the Office of the State Prosecutor (wouldn’t be my first choice), the Office of The Attorney General for The State of Maryland, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Maryland Police Training Commission, or private council. If you are truely an insider, you can be protected under the Whistleblower Act. If you were involved in illegal dealings then you can turn state’s evidence, and through private representation, “strike a deal” through a propher session. If you have indeed stepped forward in any of these venues and provable claims have been swept away, might I suggest a mass media outlet. Make the difference that you boldly claim that you can make. You further state in various postings a greater knowledge of the internal workings within the police department which one could deduce as current or former law enforcement experience. If this is the case, and your knowledge is first hand, not hearsay, then use those law enforcement tools that you have and use that devine spark of investigation ability that you have and make a fact based case with providence.
Whether or not it was sour grapes, the Ruth Elliott case was fact based and allegations were proven within the scope of administrative law. End story, she did wrong and punative (hopefully corrective) measures were taken.
I’am certainly’ in lightened by all these ” ethic’s” issues. I have no intention of calling any ‘ kettle black.
I again I will stand in defense’ of rick denu” he was a very’ good police officer doing a thankless job! I think it’s apparent he stepped on some toes. maybe the officer that was too busy’ eating his chicken.
to respond to a call. the call may very’ well have been a petty call but to the person makeing it it was serious….
I think the man took his job seriously’ he kept him self physically fit setting and example for the men he worked with. & poor ole’ ruth she was the only one who would help get my side walk fixed. good luck ruth. the kettle & skillet boy’s are after you’ too. got to check my skeleton’s, in the closet. make sure there tight as a tick” tighten the lock’s…..they will be after me……
I would have to ditto the comments by RWinger. Where are the facts Punisher insist exsist? Why not a big media blast Punisher? Or at least a Federal invesitgation. Something.
Alot was promised with the report of the transition team, but no “big story” or “conspiracy” ever came to light.
If there are truely misdoings in the Departments of the City, I think EVERYONE would welcome an independant investigation. Come on Punisher, get it started!
Moral of the Story,
Not sure if you’ve kept up on internet laws but there is not such thing as CONFIDENTIAL e-mails. When what you write hits the world wide web it is a “free for all.”
Welcome to the new century bud!
I kinda like the santa clause thing. whats that about and who is sitting in the big office? Punisher wrote, “Way to go Buck. Now that someone has a great big office (which used to be the Police Departments Conference Room) HMMMMMMMMMM?
Ethics huh?
Fill us in Punisher…………what are we missing? Is Yensan in the conference room? I thought he was eliminated from town hall at the last election.
I agree with “In the Know.” I think EVERYONE would welcome an independant investigation. Come on Punisher, get it started!
There has to be a story that hasn’t been told.
Wow.
Obama on the Dag!
O’MalleyWatch is not going to be happy about that…
Josh—-why not
Obama is a man of the new century. He would probably thank me for agreeing with him.
MCain would too! Why not, even Huck and Hillary would
Surety
All I can say is that Santa was the hugger and the employee was the huggee and Santa did not get the office upstairs or returned to city hall after the election. You can come to your own conclusion on that.
Buck;
Are you out on pass again? The Santa incident, which is totally irrelevant to the subject by the way, was just that, if in fact it happened! Do you have photos or videos or sworn documents? If so file a complaint. If not go back, your attendants are waiting with the pretty white coat.
RWinger,
I thought that some of the interested would gain some balls and go asking; I’m tired.
I have to say that it is clear that no one else will cowoy up, so I have made the calls.
cowboy
So much for investigative journalism.
Dave,
Your last posting sounds alot like the demented old lady email. Can’t hold you tongue or your hands; can you.
Once upon a time time Dave Yensen (A City Councilman) was dressed as Santa for the employees Christmas. As he was passing his good will about, he with Simmons and another present, hugged the Director of Personnel. That was fine, but his two hands dropped down to the Directors buttocks and squeezed two handfulls.
When an issue of made of it, pressure mounted on the another and the Director privately negotiated her way into a great salary and from her cubicle office space into the police departments conference room. The only other “office” of this size is one that is shared by the entire council.
Perhaps this trade off was less expensive than the embarrassment and the Sexual Harrassment Suit?
Punisher
I would like to thank you for verifying my statement in more detail. There you go Yensan, I am not the only one that knows of said happinings of the past council member & mayor when the mayor said to her “I hope you where not offended by what dave did just a minute ago” . Yensan you should be the on wearing the straight-jacket not me.
Okay Punisher, one down and several more to go. Shame on the behavior I would have expected better. This unfortunately is something that goes on out in the real world much too often. It is hardly the stuff of a grand investigation, would have made for a nice payday law suit and I’m sure salary and office accomodations were negotiated instead of a nasty law suit.
See that wasn’t so bad Punisher, now out with the rest, remember fact based, not hearsay.
RWinger: You have seemed to be a sensible sort all along. Perhaps you find what those two have said to have some credence. As on of the three people in the room and one of the two being slandered, I can tell you that neither Punisher or Buck have any of the facts. They are both simply out to slander and/or destroy any and all of us.
I will tell the world at large that an attorney has been contacted and slander charges are being put together as we speak. The nameless, faceless cowards are about to learn a serious lesson in anonymity. The actual data can and will be subpoenaed and both of the cowards will have to put up or shut up. As I had said earlier if you have any data, pictures, testimony or anything put it out there. If not you are asking for a load of it.
Bring it on, Dave, we have what we need.
I don’t think the former Mayor, the former City Clerk nor the current Director of Personnel will lie for you now Dave since they’re not beholding to you and didn’t like you to begin with. Remeber you were just Simmons vote and nothing else.
Buck…watch out Yensen has a lawyer?
just a friendly reminder to all to be sure to read our terms of service, which can be found in the footer, or here: http://www.daggerpress.com/terms-of-service/
Have a nice day
As said before the cowards have nothing and never did. The fact of the matter is that they are pointing to something else to divert attention form the actual string. They have bupcus but swagger like they do. If there ever was any substance you can truly believe that the former so called City Clerk, (why did she leave too?) would have filed charges if anything really happened. By the way genius, there is no director of HR in Aberdeen.
Every time i look at this thread i become more amused,COUNCIL PRESIDENT ELLIOTT BROKE THE RULES AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME!Need i remind any of you about the referendum election and the phoney signitures she obtained! She admitted this under oath, not a maybe she admitted it end of story.The problem here is some folks who have an agenda are constantly running interferance everytime her name is mentioned on this blog, and each time any of you stray from the subject matter you feed into thier game.
The good council president will tell you she made a mistake but isn’t the more profound question WHY.Why did council president Elliott feel the need to share it with anyone ,what were her motives behind doing it ! The bigger issue at hand is why a leader of the people continues to play this game ,who is she fighting for or more importantly against. In my opinion she has continued to embarass herself and the residents of aberdeen with her conduct ,she obviously has no moral backbone and continues to use her standing to take advantage of everyone in her path that doesn’t think or belive the way she does. Aberdeen is suffering because of terrible leadership which has been influenced by the needs of a cult like following which the council president is presiding over . I ask all of you a question if council president Elliott is always making these mistakes and admitting to them when shes caught ,how many questionable things is she doing that go without anyones knowledge ,and where does that leave you!
I have to say I haven’t finished reading all the blogs….Had to stop at Bucks comment. How dare you start such a nasty lie! Mr Yensan has been married over 40yrs to his wife and adores her and his family. Ethical is Dave or else alot of people would have been blogged about on this forum. Hm lets see here?…..Rick the Punisher, Buck, and others sit here and tell stories, twist facts, and distort the truth. Yensan says nothing and knows much. I think I trust Yensan.
Sad—I agree with you–we all know much and say nothing. It’s not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent. I would assume that’s why most don’t file law suits. This my friend is what “good” people do.
Anyone at any given moment can scream “slander.” Making false statement about another person could lead to a law suit , which more than likely would place both facing a polygraph.
The ultimate ending — the innocent are no longer protected. So you tell me, who are the winners and who are the losers?
You “think” wrong, DAS (SAD)
Loose the the overcoat, it is so 80’s.
“In the Know”….think you should change that to “really have no clue”
What?
Same question I had to ask….What?
What what?