The Grievance Committee met Thursday at 10 a.m. to hear the grievance of former police chief Blair Shaffer. After being voted in as chairperson of the Grievance Committee, Jason Montgomery offered opening remarks.
“As city employees, we endeavor to perform our duties and conduct ourselves in a manner that reflects the high level of professionalism and courteousness. It is incumbent upon us as city employees that we, at all times, serve the best interests of the city. This proceeding is being conducted under the provisions of the City of Manning’s Personnel Policy,” said Montgomery. “As to the proceedings today, we are here to afford Mr. Blair Shaffer a hearing under the City’s grievance policy.” William Johnson was there as atty for the City and advised on procedural matters during the hearing.
James Pringle and Manning City Fire Chief Mitch McElveen were recused for conflict of interest, as McElveen is also under the purview of the Public Safety Committee and Pringle is a reserve officer for the Manning City Police Department.
The proceeding opened with City Administrator Scott Tanner. He had up to an hour to present the City’s case, although he summed up in under 12 minutes. He began by reading the termination letter hand delivered by Tanner to Shaffer on July 11.
“This letter is to follow up on the July 11, 2018, meeting of the Public Safety Committee wherein we discussed concerns regarding performance of your duties as police chief. As more fully described below, we believe your performance and conduct do not reflect the City of Manning’s expectations of professionalism for a department head nor serve the best interests of the City. Accordingly, pursuant to the city’s at will employment policy, you are hereby notified that your employment with the City is terminated, effective immediately,” read Tanner.
The letter went on to discuss three major concerns brought up during the mentioned meeting. The first concern regarded Shaffer allegedly yelling and speaking in a harsh tone to a city councilmember during a public meeting. Tanner stated Shaffer admitted the words were heated.
Tanner also stated Shaffer had raised his voice at a judicial official in an argumentative and aggressive tone. Because of this, the judicial official believes there has been a strained relationship between the department’s administration and the judicial staff and offices.
The second concern regarded Shaffer not following City policy with regard to promotion opportunities within the police department. These positions were not advertised for ten days, announced via departmental email and posted on a board outside the patrol room. He also stated all promotions had to be approved by City Council prior to the promotion, and they were not approved.
The third concern regarded a departmental process wherein officers were required to come to Shaffer with any questions only he could answer, rather than going to others within the department. Those who broke this process were subject to disciplinary action. The City felt this was Shaffer setting policy without Council approval. Tanner stated the City was concerned that the directive restricted officers’ abilities to complain about employment practices, which could raise First Amendment concerns and could leave the City liable.
“Based on these reasons, the Public Safety Committee felt it was in the City’s best interests to terminate Chief Shaffer’s employment,” said Tanner.
Shaffer opened his case, addressing Tanner’s statements. He first addressed the “public” meeting in which he had heated words with a Councilmember. It was not a public meeting. It was a private meeting of the Public Safety Committee.
Next he addressed the statement that he had failed to follow policy regarding the promotions within the police department. He asserted he had never stated he had failed to follow policy with promotions. He read from the last page of the policy manual.
“When it is deemed to be in the best interest of the police department and the community, the chief of police, along with the city administrator, may waive any portion of this general order and the prescribed guidelines therein, except those portions which are required by the United States or the State of South Carolina, South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, the City of Manning or other legal authority,” read Shaffer.
He pointed out that it states the police chief and the city administrator approved all promotions, not the Council. He stated Tanner, as the city administrator, had been presented with each of the promotions and approved each one.
Shaffer referenced the March 9 meeting regarding the directive in which he stated officers must come to him with things only he could answer.
“This was a directive that was just for the police department. As police chief, on a daily basis I could come up with different directives, procedure changes within our department. I would on a daily basis come up with different procedures of how to run the police department. It’s not feasible to run and get approval for every little change for what I feel needs to be done within the police department. Clearly this was not a policy I was attempting to change,” said Shaffer.
He went on to state the disciplinary measures in the directive were in line with the disciplinary policy already set by the City. Shaffer also asserted there are certain issues only he can approve within the police department, such as deviation in use for City vehicles. He insisted it was not an attempt to subvert the First Amendment rights of the officers in any way, nor keep them from having the option to complain about employment issues.
Shaffer stated at no time after any of the instances of any of the mentioned issues did Tanner, who was at that time still in authority over the police chief, come to Shaffer and discuss concerns, write him up, or tell him in any way that there was a problem, even with the promotional issues, which Tanner signed off on.
Shaffer is requesting his benefits, retirement and pay lost during the termination and grievance process be reinstated and reimbursed to him and that he receive his job back.
Next, Shaffer provided the Committee with portions of the City of Manning Employee Handbook. In the first sentence on page 29, it states, “Employees are subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge when the Administrator determines that such action is necessary for the good of the City.” Shaffer again stressed that the “action is necessary for the good of the City.”
He next read from the Grievance Procedures, page 41, section 2.7. “The department must demonstrate the disciplinary action is for the good of the City.”
Blair discussed that he was terminated because he was an at-will employee. In the latter half of the letter it mentioned items that went into the decision to terminate, but the reason stated was because he was at-will.
He then presented the Manning Times article, which discussed the press release from the City of Manning regarding the termination. He quoted from the article.
“After reviewing the Public Safety Programs, the Public Safety Committee voted for the termination, effective immediately,” read Shaffer. “The safety of our residents, guests and community is of utmost importance to the City of Manning.”
Shaffer provided a report showing violent crimes have decreased 38% since 2009 when Shaffer became chief of police. Property crimes have decreased almost 10% and overall crime has decreased over 14%. Shaffer also discussed a review by the Municipal Association in February which rated Shaffer’s department with a 100% score regarding processes, procedures and policies.
“That directly contradicts the Mayor’s initial statement that I was terminated based on my performance as police chief,” said Shaffer.
Shaffer next addressed the legality of Ordinance 2018-04. A budget workshop was held on June 5 with the City Council, Tanner and department heads, including Shaffer. During the meeting, as Tanner went over the $8.2 Million, Mayor Julia Nelson received a phone call, left the room and walked downstairs. Not long after, Councilmember Clayton Pack also received a call and went downstairs.
Tanner continued to go over the budget, and Pack returned after a time. When Tanner concluded, the Council had to wait until Nelson returned before they could make a motion to go into executive session to discuss two items on the agenda. One dealt with a budgetary personnel issue, and the other dealt with Chapter 2, section 2-86, which dealt with the duties of the city administrator.
All department heads were released except for Shaffer, who was asked to wait in the conference room while Council held executive session. Three hours later, Tanner let Shaffer know the meeting was over and Shaffer could leave, stating he, Tanner, would lock up and they would see each other the next day.
The agenda did not mention the first reading of Ordinance 2018-04, nor was it added to the agenda before the agenda was approved. Shaffer provided the City of Manning’s Rules of Procedure Guide. Rule 25 on page 18 shows the requirements to create an ordinance. Included in this is the requirement that a reading of an ordinance, both first and second reading, must be on the agenda. The first reading must be under the heading “New Business.” On the June 5 agenda, there was no new business.
With a first reading, Tanner will give a brief explanation of the ordinance and there is a brief discussion. In the minutes of the June 5 budget workshop, there is no mention of reading or discussing the ordinance. It simply states they voted to approve the first reading.
Shaffer then referenced the Manning Times article “Shaffer Termination: Legal or Not.” He quoted the comments of Councilman Ervin Davis. Davis stated he was present for the June 5, but not the June 18, Council meeting. He was present for the alleged first reading. At a first reading, by state law, the ordinance must be in it’s complete and final form. Davis stated he later was given a copy of the ordinance, and he had never seen it before. Shaffer also referenced the article’s section where Tanner stated the readings must be public readings.
The next evidence was a Sumter Item article, “Breaking SCPA: Manning City Council violated Open Meeting Law.” In this article, William Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, stated it was not legal for them to have discussed an ordinance in executive session at all. To do so is not legal under the Freedom of Information Act.
Shaffer challenged the legality of the formation of this ordinance, questioning why it was created.
“In short, this was done in retaliation by the Mayor against me,” said Shaffer.
Shaffer outlined a series of events leading to his termination he felt showed the Mayor was intentionally intending to find ways to get rid of him. He first discussed a situation which occurred between May 17 and 23. An officer was dishonest and insubordinate and dishonest to a supervisor, making false statements to other officers, accessing a video program using another officer’s username and password without permission and lying to Shaffer several times about said usage.
However, when he brought this information to the City Administrator and the Public Safety Committee, he was not allowed to terminate the employee, even though the employee finally admitted the conduct to Shaffer.
Shaffer next met with the Public Safety Committee on May 29, which began with an issue with a different officer. Shaffer had investigated the incident and found that the officer had done nothing wrong. Nelson presented Shaffer with a statement from an individual and asked what Shaffer thought about it. Shaffer wanted to look into the statement and verify its validity. Nelson told him to “stand down.”
The Committee continued to discuss it, and Councilman Clayton Pack suggested Shaffer look into it. Nelson responded with “Whatever y’all think.” Upon subsequent investigation, it was shown that the person had not written the statement, nor did he agree with what the statement said, and the statement was written by someone else (later to be shown to be his mother). He had simply signed it without reading it.
Also on May 29, they again discussed the May 17-23 incident. Shaffer felt Nelson seemed unconcerned with the officer’s dishonesty and misconduct. Nelson informed Shaffer she had received a written statement from the officer in question but refused to allow Shaffer to read it. Shaffer was then told several officers had come to Nelson with concerns about his behavior. Allegedly they were scared of Shaffer, frightened he would fire or write them up if they didn’t go along with what he wanted.
Shaffer asked which officers, and again Nelson would not tell him, nor would she tell Shaffer any specific incidences. He was simply told to fix it. Pack also claimed several officers had come not only to him but to all of the other members of the council as well. It was at this point, through his distress at not being told what the accusations were or by whom they were made, but simply being told to fix it, that Shaffer states he raised his voice.
Nelson then stated that she could tell by the look on his face that there were discrepancies in what he was saying. Shaffer questioned whether she was calling him a liar. She denied this, and Pack also denied that was her intent. Shaffer then requested an outside person investigate and speak with all of his officers about the accusations.
The City hired Boykin and Davis, a law firm, to proceed with the requested investigation. Between June 15 and 19, all officers were interviewed while Shaffer was told to take the time off until the 19th when he was interviewed. To date, he has not been allowed to see what the results of the investigation were, and the investigation was not mentioned in his termination. This leads him to believe the investigation showed no wrongdoing on his part.
On June 22, Shaffer received information about a new law which was enacted on May 18. This law required Shaffer to report the misconduct of the officer that happened up to May 23 to the Academy within 15 days of the misconduct. When he became aware of the law, he set a meeting with Tanner to inform him about the law. At that time, although the Public Safety Committee was now in authority over Shaffer rather than Tanner, Shaffer was not told of this change.
A meeting was set up during the first week of July with the Public Safety Committee and the attorneys from Boykin and Davis. During the meeting’s opening, it was stated that the media had been notified of the meeting. However, it was then cancelled, because Nelson stated the media had not been notified. She asked if there were any questions.
Shaffer mentioned his requirement about complying with the new law, and Nelson requested they go into executive session. Tanner and Shaffer waited in the conference room. In less than 10 minutes, the attorney’s joined them. The Committee members left without speaking again to Shaffer. However, Shaffer did speak to the attorneys about the law, providing them with a copy of the law. Shaffer was promised they would look into it.
Another meeting with the Public Safety Committee was called on July 11, and attorneys Kenneth Davis and Ms. Dukes of Boykin and Davis were also present. Shaffer attended with the understanding he would hear the results of the requested investigation into his department. Once again, he was asked to step out while the Committee spoke to the attorneys for half an hour. Shaffer was informed they wished to speak to him, and they asked him about the accusations in the termination letter.
At this time, Shaffer also discussed another misconduct situation with another officer involving “serious violations of city policy” which he would also, by law, have to report. Nelson then told Shaffer he could leave. Outside, Shaffer and Tanner briefly discussed the requirement to report the misconducts with Davis, asking if Shaffer should proceed with the reports. Shaffer asserts that Davis stated they were done, but he wasn’t sure if the Council wanted to do anything else with it.
An hour later, Shaffer was called back to the Council chambers and was terminated. Tanner immediately removed Shaffer’s computer. Shaffer was left feeling like his termination was to prevent him from following through with the new law which mandated reporting the misconducts of the two officers.
During the four and a half years Tanner has been city administrator and Shaffer’s supervisor, Shaffer was never counseled, written up or suspended for anything, nor had he received a writeup or suspension during his 25 ½ years with the police department.
In closing, he again questioned whether his termination was “necessary” or “good for the city.” Shaffer feels it was not. He strongly feels it was an effort to get rid of him because he raised questions and tried to follow the law, even though it went against the wishes of Nelson.
Tanner then had ten minutes to rebut anything Shaffer had said. Tanner simply reiterated what was in the termination letter. He did confirm he had signed off on the promotions as Administrator. However, he claims, after over four years as administrator, he was unaware of the promotion policy steps. He then stated he felt it was up to attorneys in a courtroom to decide if the ordinance was legal or not.
The Grievance Committee then went into executive session to deliberate. After almost half an hour, the Committee returned and stated they would delay their decision to give them time to read the large amount of paperwork Shaffer had provided. The Committee will reconvene at 4 p.m. on Monday at City Hall.
Councilman Ervin Davis stated he wished to attend the Grievance Committee meeting but was told by the attorney for the City that he should leave. He was told if he stayed, he would be required to recuse himself when it came before Council. However, Nelson was present for the entire Grievance Committee meeting. The question arises as to whether she will now be required to recuse herself from voting when the case comes before the full City Council.
“I feel good that I was finally able to get my story out. My story is actually not complete. But I know there were a lot of questions about why the police chief was actually terminated immediately,” said Shaffer. “Now with the law about the misconduct of the officers, that was why I was terminated. I couldn’t say that until today. I am glad part of my story was able to come out. There are other things that need to be brought out, and hopefully I’ll be able to address those with Council. I just ran out of time today. I have confidence that everything will work out the best way it should. I’m at peace.”
