One of the problems with being an arm-chair lawyer is that you never really have access to all of the facts or details in a law suit. This holds true with the public’s knowledge of Powers v. Village of Holly, the painful and asinine ordeal that ensued following the dismissal of Marsha Powers in September, 2010.
The facts in the case are such: Mrs. Powers, an at-will employee with a terms-of-employment agreement was dismissed without cause by a 5-1 vote of the Village Council. Councilmember Don Winglemire was the lone dissenter, and now-former Councilmember William Kuyk was absent from the meeting. Then-Village President Pete Clemens stated in his leadup to the dismissal motion that the Village needed to move in a “new direction”, and an overwhelming majority of the council agreed.
There were many problems leading up to Mrs. Powers’s dismissal. The Village, with Mrs. Powers as lead negotiator, was unable to come to an agreement with the Teamsters on a union contract for an extended period of time. Mrs. Powers also summarily fired Village employee Gwen Walters, claiming that it was Mrs. Walters’s fault that there were errors and mistakes in water-meter billing. This firing led to Mrs. Walters filing a labor dispute and hearings, of which Mrs. Powers did not notify the Village Council adequately.
Although Mrs. Powers received high marks during her performance evaluation from many council members, there were numerous cases of poor communication, such as the Council’s rescinding of her unilateral decision to implement furlough days over the 2009 holidays, failure to communicate important information regarding union negotiations and the labor disputes. As temporary Downtown Development Authority (DDA) director, Mrs. Powers’s lack of communication led the DDA to believe their budget was very lean, when in fact there was a large fund balance (surplus, or rainy-day fund) with which they had to work.
In her dismissal, Mrs. Powers was offered a severance settlement, including an additional amount to bring her to full retirement as a municipal employee–approximately $60,000. It was Mrs. Powers, in negotiating that severance, that proposed the retirement and the Village agreed. In turn, however, Mrs. Powers rejected that offer, instead filing a law suit against the Village and six of the seven council members (including Mr. Kuyk who was absent and did not vote); only Mr. Winglemire, who voted no, was excluded.
Mrs. Powers claimed unfair dismissal under “whistleblower protection,” for damages in excess of a million dollars, that she had knowledge of wrongdoing somewhere within the Village government and was fired as a result of that knowledge and the possibility that she would report it.
Slightly more than a year later, the individual defendants were removed from the suit and the Village settled with Mrs. Powers for an as of yet undisclosed amount that looks to be above the amount of $200,000. As a result, the Village had to draw from its fund balance and lay off two Village employees just before Christmas to realize enough cost-savings to cover the settlement.
So, while the lawsuit is settled and over, there are a lot of questions that remain, and they are the gaps in knowledge that arm-chair lawyers suffer from.
The first question is why Mrs. Powers and her legal team would accept such a settlement. A good share of that settlement would be for the legal costs and fees of her high-priced attorneys. A million-dollar judgment would be a healthy payday for both Mrs. Powers and her legal team; a settlement of this small magnitude would yield only slightly more than Mrs. Powers was offered to walk away—about a half-year’s pay and full municipal retirement benefits–a much greater sum in the long run. Mrs. Powers claimed the loss of earning potential, yet to anyone’s knowledge she has not gained employment elsewhere and has not received her retirement benefits. Following her attorney’s fees, the final amount seems marginally equivalent.
The second question is why the Village would settle. If Mrs. Powers had damning information of malfeasance or wrongdoing on the part of the Village of Holly, then settling is a common way to keep things under the carpet, even if that flies in the face of the public trust placed in our government. Yet, to anyone’s public knowledge, Mrs. Powers filed no claim with any authorities of wrongdoing prior to or following her dismissal. One allegation of misconduct by a Village employee was thoroughly dismissed by a comprehensive audit. The Walters labor dispute found Mrs. Powers herself was in the wrong. If she was truly being ethical in her conduct and fired in retaliation for that, wouldn’t there be a concurrent investigation into these allegations, since she would have no reason to keep them close to her chest at this point?
If Mrs. Powers and her legal team were bluffing, or basing their “whistleblower” case on spurious evidence, wouldn’t the Village of Holly and the defendants want their day in court to debunk this? The Village lost their motion for a summary judgment in the case by a judge, forcing the case to go to a jury trial in union-friendly Genesee County, a venue that would likely provide little sympathy to a government official with a track record of poor relations with the Village union.
If the Village feared that Mrs. Powers allegations would be persuasive enough to a jury to win a large judgment, then all Village of Holly residents should be concerned about what exactly was going on to lend enough credibility and merit to her claims.
As of right now, the public doesn’t have this information. The settlement amount has not been released, and the depositions and other court transcripts and details are not yet public. But because the trial didn’t go to jury, there are aspects of this case the public may never know. Unless the Village of Holly wants to endure the perpetual revisiting of this issue much in the way that the Silverman/Pulte fiasco has hung over the heads of the community for nearly a decade, the public needs more information and in short order.
That may not provide much relief to the two Village employees who will be spending their Christmas in the unemployment lines, but at least it would be a step to build trust and provide closure, especially in the arm-chair lawyers who care about the future of the Holly community.
One Response to “Powers v. Holly: Details Please”
“The second question is why the Village would settle. If Mrs. Powers had damning information of malfeasance or wrongdoing on the part of the Village of Holly, then settling is a common way to keep things under the carpet, even if that flies in the face of the public trust placed in our government.”
Even armchair lawyers know there are more reasons than this to settle. To assume that the judicial system is without flaw and would come to a fair and just decision 100% of the time is naive. With this in mind a consideration has to be made regarding managing risk.