Former city official’s removal sparks backlash

WASHINGTON — Months after Washington told its longtime maintenance and construction supervisor to resign or be fired, calls for the city to investigate — or even reverse — JJ Bell’s removal are growing louder.

During a public comment period at Tuesday night’s city council meeting, Washington resident and former Council Member Kerry Janecek suggested Bell was wrongfully ousted.

“I’ve been reminded of what happened by various people around the community, whether it’s at Fareway, Walmart, Ace Hardware, everybody talking about it,” said Janecek, after presenting council members with a petition that called for “a review of the procedure used” to dismiss Bell, and asked council members to “hold accountable those involved in abuse of power.” It also asked the council to convene a special meeting to discuss Bell’s “forced resignation.”

“I don’t believe it is too late to fix what has happened,” he continued. “I believe in our elected officials, and those who serve our community to move forward with this petition … and to make Washington a better place.”

Janecek said the petition had roughly 200 signatures, but The Union was unable to immediately verify the number or authenticity of those signatures. Organizers of the petition said it circulated at local businesses like Unc & Neph's, Washington Lumber and The Wagon Wheel.

Circumstances of Bell’s removal remain hazy

In late June, JJ Bell was told he could resign or be fired from his position at the head of Washington’s maintenance and construction department, in a meeting with City Administrator Joe Gaa and Police Chief Jim Lester. Bell opted to resign.

In interviews afterward, he claimed the city’s explanation had to do with a load of city-owned sand brought to a horseshoe tournament in Coppock, and a half-day golf outing he took with other employees in Cedar Rapids which may have violated a union agreement which implies no more than one public works employee can leave town at the same time.

Bell said he was visited at his home just south of Washington later that week by a police officer, who told him not to contact municipal staff about his resignation, or set foot in city hall without permission.

His removal from office raised eyebrows for a number of reasons. For one, Bell is generally known as an agreeable person and longtime municipal employee, having worked for the city for 29 years and two months, directing its maintenance and construction team since 2010.

Some community members have argued Bell’s removal from the payroll over two fine-print infractions was an overreaction.

“One can only imagine the shock he must have felt,” wrote Washington residents Tom and Linda Lowe in an open letter shared with every council member this week. “No way does either of these two infractions seem egregious enough to warrant casting the loyalty of a twenty-nine-and-a-half-year employee aside, not to mention the invaluable experience that would be lost to the city in doing so.”

  Buy Photo

For another, the city’s finance director and informal human resources official — Kelsey Brown — was out of town on vacation when Bell was told to resign. While personnel hiring and firing decisions are made at the discretion of Washington’s city administrator according to municipal code, Gaa has faced some criticism for his decision to bring in the police chief as a third party instead of Brown.

The follow-up to Bell’s departure has also taken heat, with critics like the Lowe family saying it was unnecessary to send an officer to the former government official’s house.

“JJ hasn’t even been contacted by the HR representative of the city, nor was an HR rep present at the time of his forced resignation, but the police chief was,” claimed Washington resident Sheila Hanson in another open letter to the council. “Is this normal? This alone is a sign that Mr. Gaa knew what he was doing was unreasonable.”

Gaa has defended the move, and in a statement to The Union last month, said Chief Lester, “understands the level of confidentiality of HR matters and has knowledge in local and state policies and laws.” In the same statement, he said advising discharged employees against visiting city facilities was not “a standard procedure, but not uncommon.”

A paperwork snafu has also made for messy optics. Bell said he signed a one-sentence, pre-written resignation letter at the meeting in June. But city officials said they didn’t have a copy of it, due to a clerical error, when The Union asked for one.

“(The city clerk) inadvertently gave JJ the original letter before making a copy,” Gaa said in an email July 14. “When she realized this, she reached out to JJ’s wife letting her know the situation and requesting a copy. To date, we have not received a copy.”

The Bell family, meanwhile, has privately lamented their inability to bring their concerns to the city council. Living roughly half a mile outside city limits, any residents of Bell’s household are barred from speaking during the council’s routine comment period at the start of every meeting. Members of the public can speak for three minutes on virtually any municipal issue, but only if they live or own property in Washington.

While Bell or his family members could be called on to speak without time limits if their complaints appeared on the council’s agenda, no such discussion item has materialized. The council in the past has allowed any item to be placed on its meeting agenda at the request of at least two council members.

City resident Chris Hanson, however, read a statement at Tuesday night’s council meeting on behalf of Lynn Bell, JJ Bell’s wife.

“I would like to ask if anyone here has been fortunate enough to hold just one job for over 29 years,” said her statement. “Mr. Gaa, I’d like you to realize, you didn’t just unnecessarily strip JJ’s career away that day, but you turned our lives upside-down, inside-out, and backward.”

City official responses limited

Following Tuesday night’s public comments, City Attorney Kevin Olson advised other officials not to weigh in on the discussion.

“This is an employee issue, and everybody’s received a letter from an attorney,” he said during the meeting. “My advice on this would be that we will take this under advisement, but … I would advise against making any comments at this time, regarding this matter.”

Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Illa Earnest said the city would “know more later,” during the meeting, but said she couldn’t elaborate when asked afterward.

“Our hands are tied, once you get a lawyer,” she said. “If it’s still possible, we’ll read this (petition), but I don’t know. It’s one of those deals where he’s a nice guy, but it hasn’t ended well.”

Olson and Earnest’s comments suggest Bell may have taken legal action against the city, though The Union was unable to find any court records naming Washington or its former maintenance and construction supervisor as parties in the last two months, as of Wednesday morning. In an early July interview, JJ Bell said he “would like to” hire a lawyer over his removal, but was unsure if he’d do so.

Asked for comments Wednesday morning, Bell said “we have a lawyer,” but wasn’t sure yet about “what’s the next step.”

Roughly two thirds of the crowd left the packed council chambers after Tuesday night’s public comment period ended, some loudly complaining about elected officials’ lack of action on the matter.

Public records complaint in limbo

The city of Washington has not confirmed or denied any of the speculated reasons behind Bell’s removal from office. The Southeast Iowa Union sent three public records requests to municipal officials in Washington in early July, seeking an explanation for his departure from the staff list.

Iowa’s public record codes require government officials to disclose, “the documented reasons and rationale for” any employee’s termination — or resignation in lieu of termination — as well as certain other details about taxpayer-funded employees like their pay, qualifications, position and name.

All three records requests were initially denied by city officials, who said they couldn’t discuss personnel decisions publicly. The last, however, was followed up several hours later with a statement from Washington City Attorney Kevin Olson, saying Bell resigned in lieu of termination, “because of the unauthorized use of city equipment in violation of city policy and the general failure to improve the performance and general work environment for employees in the M/C department.”

On July 8, The Union filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board — a state-funded quasi-judicial group appointed by the governor to enforce Iowa’s public record and public meeting laws, and to mediate disputes about them — arguing Olson’s response was insufficient.

The newspaper cited previous IPIB orders, which required public officials in the Hawkeye State to, “say which law, rule, or policy, if any, they believe the employee violated,” and that such explanations, “should include details, such as the date(s) of alleged behavior, location, and how it was discovered.”

  Buy Photo

On July 14, IPIB Agency Counsel Alexander Lee said Olson had reached out to the board seeking an informal resolution to the dispute, a common response by government officials looking to revise their responses to record requests rather than potentially letting complaints spiral into lengthy legal battles.

Most public record laws in Iowa do not obligate governments to create new documents in response to requests, only to provide copies of those that already exist. But the IPIB has previously directed officials to make an exception for personnel files, in an effort to balance transparency with employee privacy.

Lee said the city’s attorney planned to draft a document that sufficiently disclosed details requested by The Union.

“Once we have approved a statement, it could then be released to you to resolve this complaint,” he wrote in an email. “Any remaining disagreements over disclosure could be discussed and mediated as needed following the release of the second statement.”

While Lee initially said he hoped the informal resolution would quickly settle the issue, he later said the requested records would be delayed.

“Mr. Olson provided a new proposed disclosure two days ago. I replied to him earlier this morning to let him know that (in our non-final, non-official opinion), it still did not meet the requirements,” Lee said in another email on July 24. “We made recommendations for additional language … I can confirm we are actively working on it.”

In a third email exchange on Aug. 4, Lee said IPIB had not yet received a follow-up response from the city. As of Aug. 6, the paper has not received any further updates on its public records complaint.

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com