You are on page 1of 8
ECEIv OCT O5 208 October 5, 2018 B ee City of Hendersonville Grievance to Evaluation of 10/2/18 of Chip Moore, Public Works Director Mayor, Please let this be known that the time has lapsed for your promised information and review and /or amendment of my evaluation. You had said a couple of days. By the end of business day Thursday, you had provided no information nor spoke with nor contacted me by any means to finish this process. This is, hereby, the grievance in writing as required by Ordinance 1988-6 since this was not resolved informally and | wanted no question to meet the timely manner requirement prescribed by the ordinance. Therefore, this is the statement of the grievance. 1 submit that all of your marks of meeting below standards are false, and inaccurate. | also believe you cannot give an unbiased account to provide a mark to exceeds due to a lack of understanding of my job duties. The requested relief is to provide an accurate, truthful, review of my job performance. Responses to those items in the evaluation: 3. Please provide both situations and how those were resolved insufficient to the organization’s standards. (none provided) 6. | spoke with every Alderman and they had given me their verbal approval. This is a fabrication and lie about the board’s wishes. While you may have been vague and this issue misunderstood, we have met on this and resolved the issue to the fact you did not take disciplinary action but forced me to sign a document restricting communications with Aldermen, which is known to be an illegal action, or suspend me for three days. | admitted a lack of communication and understanding and apologized for any perceived performance issues and then was forced to sign the document relinquishing my rights given me by the State. Additionally, all these monies were budgeted, it was a good addition to providing much needed relief allowing the Finance Department to hire people now that they had a place to put them and assist with their overwhelming workload. | admitted a lack of communication and understanding and apologized for any perceived performance issues and then was forced to sign the document relinquishing my rights given me by the State. 8. Firehall 2. Every aspect about it was public. All the decisions were public and it will stand on its own merit. The Hall had to be torn down, MTAS gave great explanation as to why we could not award as design build and to award a multi-million dollar project to a single bidder is irresponsible. Also, the Wessington Place project was done with a lot of city forces and was a very difficult rebuild. | would like to you cite specific complaints about its construction and costs. 9. Again, described in item 6 11. _I never said there was a requirement. | said the finance director and | spoke and he said he would prefer a million dollars balance. | took that to heart and told him | would do my best. | would like to you also post additional statements you then believe were incorrect. | would like you to post the false reasons and the issue of overstating funds was only since you did not meet with me about the PW budget and | never was able to speak to the issue before the Board voted the budget as | wanted it to come up for discussion. | didn’t know what was in the final budget and to be incorrect on a single line item of six budgets of over 12 million dollars is another reason why we need a better budget proofing system. And please point me to statements there were not corrected once they came to my knowledge if | was incorrect. 12. _ Ihave repeatedly requested a position to help and those are removed from my budget. We cannot get a list prepared by November as we are still paving into November. A list can be generated by February as my engineer's, construction workload is slowed and he can focus on design. You have been given a draft list of over 60 drainage projects. To flawed reasons for paving: Our vendor would not guarantee paving in the conditions when other cities paved. Should that paving fail, we would be on the hook to pave it and thus pay for it again. | was told in July, August, September, to “not spend any money”. Due to the low balance of the general fund. When we spend money on paving, bills are usually 50k to 350k. That would be a substantial hit on the general fund and might not allow us to make payroll. The bond was not available until late October in the City’s bank account. To pave on a hope the money is there is irresponsible and puts us in a position of not being to pay our bills or constantly ask for a month or two extra. Again, a fiscal issue. And | would argue the issue about the state street aid line item as being baseless as half those fund a month go to salaries and if those monies are not there, |am unaware of how they get paid if the general fund cannot pay them. 15. | would like to know whom | did not contact. | am unaware of them not being contacted. |, oftentimes, have a staff member contact them since they will respond to the citizen with their area of expertise. Again the SSA fund is an issue we do not agree on. 20. I would like to know how these could have been handled better with the information that was given. | also, only know of two of these issues. | also believe all have been resolved to the organizations standards. 21. _ Please provide specifics. None have been provided at this time. Remedial activities 1. Ona regular basis | would like Chip to verify information he provides to the mayor, the board, and to the public before providing the information. If necessary, he should delay responding in order to make sure that the