Memorandum

TO: Village of Whitehouse Council

FROM: James P. Silk, Jr.

DATE: September 27, 2023

RE: Report of Investigation

I. Overview of Investigation

On March 26, 2023, Whitehouse Village Council met in an executive session in

which Council members expressed to former Mayor, Donald Atkinson, concerns about
his behavior and conduct in public meetings. Mr. Atkinson denied any issues.

On August 8, 2023, Council met in an executive session to discuss continuing

complaints and concerns regarding Mr. Atkinson’s conduct.

On August 15, 2023, Council members met in an executive session during a

Council meeting to discuss how to proceed with investigating previously-discussed
concerns with Mr. Atkinson. Spengler Nathanson PLL was engaged to conduct an
impartial investigation as to Mr. Atkinson’s conduct in office. Specifically, Spengler
Nathanson was requested to investigate whether Mr. Atkinson conducted Village
business while intoxicated, whether Mr. Atkinson mistreated Village employees, and/or
misused public resources. Spengler Nathanson was requested to provide a
recommendation as to whether the any of Council’s concerns rose to the level of Council
removing Mr. Atkinson from office. James Silk (the “investigator”) proceeded to
conduct the investigation.

On August 17, 2023, Mr. Atkinson resigned from office. On September 5, 2023,
Council met in an executive session to discuss the status of the investigation. Council
requested that Spengler Nathanson complete the investigation in the interest of
transparency and public disclosure.

II. Witnesses Interviewed

The investigator interviewed the six Council members, two employees of the
Village administration, and the Village Law Director. The investigator also discussed the
Council’s concerns with Mr. Atkinson and provided him an opportunity to respond. Mr.
Atkinson also submitted a written response addressing the concerns. Lastly, the
investigator observed video recordings of selected Council meetings.
III. Findings

A. Intoxication Concerns

Council was concerned that Mr. Atkinson attended Village meetings intoxicated
and that he would conduct Village business after hours while intoxicated. The majority
of witnesses interviewed believed that Mr. Atkinson was intoxicated at Village meetings.
Witnesses noted that, when in proximity of Mr. Atkinson at meetings, they detected the
smell of alcohol. Witnesses also observed that, at Village meetings, Mr. Atkinson had
slurred speech and would act erratically. Witnesses observed that Mr. Atkinson would
lose track of where he was on the agenda and belittle staff or Council members.
Witnesses noted that members of the public had commented on Mr. Atkinson’s
intoxication at meetings.

Some witnesses did not observe Mr. Atkinson intoxicated at meetings. Mr.
Atkinson also denied that he was intoxicated at any meeting.

Based on the majority of witnesses that observed objective signs of intoxication,

the evidence supports the finding that Mr. Atkinson was intoxicated at multiple Council
meetings. Witnesses noted the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and Mr.
Atkinson’s difficulty in running the meetings in an orderly fashion. Also, significantly,
some of the witnesses who had training in detecting intoxication determined that Mr.
Atkinson was intoxicated at multiple meetings.

Several witnesses, including Council members and staff, also noted that Mr.
Atkinson would call them in the evening and at night to discuss Village business.
Witnesses observed slurred speech during these conversations. Witnesses also reported
that Mr. Atkinson, at times, would not recall the details of the conversation the following
day.

B. Treatment of Staff

Another concern of Council was Mr. Atkinson’s treatment of staff. Each of the
Council members noted that they had received complaints from staff regarding their
treatment by Mr. Atkinson. The staff members who were interviewed complained of
their treatment by Mr. Atkinson. They claimed that they were called frequently during
non-work hours. Staff also indicated that Mr. Atkinson would threaten they would lose
their jobs if they did not do what Mr. Atkinson wanted. Staff also reported that they
believed Mr. Atkinson was often intoxicated when he would call and belittle them.

Mr. Atkinson denied that he mistreated staff. Based on the similarity of the
complaints of staff members and the observations of Council members, the evidence
supports a finding that Mr. Atkinson created a difficult work environment for Village
staff and that he interacted with staff when he was intoxicated.

2
 C. Use of Village Resources

Council was concerned about reports that Mr. Atkinson had misused public
resources by requiring staff, while at work, to provide assistance for a fundraiser, and
that there was a requirement that the staff use their own funds to contribute to the
fundraiser. There was evidence that staff were encouraged to support a fundraiser. Staff
members also reported that Mr. Atkinson requested that a Village account be opened to
deposit funds. However, when he was informed that it was not appropriate to open such
an account, he did not pursue it. Further, the staff was careful not to employ any Village
resources for the fundraiser and did not work on the fundraiser during work hours.
Based on this evidence, the evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Atkinson
misused any public resources.

IV. Recommendations

As noted above, at the outset of the investigation, the investigator was requested
to recommend whether any of the concerns of Council would rise to the level of removal
from office as set forth in Section 3.09(G)(2) of the Charter of the Village of Whitehouse.
That section provides Council with the power to expel or remove: “The Mayor and all
elected officials for gross misconduct, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance or for
conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, for violation of provisions of this charter,
or for violation of the oath of office.”

After commencement of the investigation, Mr. Atkinson resigned as Mayor.

Council determined that it was important to continue with the investigation for multiple
reasons, including transparency of the process.

Absent the resignation of Mr. Atkinson, based on the above-described evidence

and findings, there were sufficient grounds under Section 3.09 to remove Mr. Atkinson
from his position due to his intoxication at Village meetings and while conducting
Village business. Gross misconduct and malfeasance are implicated by Mr. Atkinson’s
conduct. Attending meetings intoxicated at a level that affects one’s ability to
appropriately conduct Village business undermines the authority of the office and public
confidence in the proceedings. Further, Mr. Atkinson was advised of Council’s concerns
regarding this issue, but he did not change his behavior.

Absent the resignation of Mr. Atkinson, the evidence does not support a finding
that Mr. Atkinson’s treatment of staff rises to the level that would justify his removal
from office, although the investigator does find that Mayor Atkinson created a
challenging work environment for the staff and that the staff complaints were justified.

Lastly, there is no evidence that Mr. Atkinson misused any Village resources.
Thus, there is no recommendation for removal from office based on this concern.
652790