On Monday, November 16th, the Halifax County Board of Supervisors & the South Boston Town Council held a joint meeting. Curtis Waskey made a presentation during the public comment segment regarding the issues of the termination of Woodson Hughes. Here is complete transcript of Mr. Waskey’s remarks.
November 16, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen of our respective Governing Bodies,
I wish to thank you for this opportunity to speak before you this evening. I come before you with a heavy heart and an overwhelming sense of injustice for one of our beloved public servants. Mr. Woodson Hughes has endeared himself to this community by his acts of kindness, unselfish service, his encyclopedic mind, and his ever present professional can-do attitude. The sentiments I wish to share with you this evening are not mine solely, but are the feelings of hundreds of my fellow citizens in this community as evidenced by the petitions we have submitted to you. We have collected over 858 Signatures to date and expect more to follow.
I am saddened by the negative publicity our Public Library System has received of late but I am also very proud of our citizens for voicing their very strong opinions about a serious injustice done to a valued community resource.
We submitted generic questions to the Library Board at their last board meeting seeking answers. These questions remain unanswered. Each of you has in your packet a copy of these questions. It was communicated to the members of the Library Board that these questions were generic in nature and were at the heart of our concerns. We also expressed our opinions that transparency was indeed more appropriate than invisibility.
At the heart of our concerns are the following:
Fact – Mr. Hughes (and we suspect other employees of the Library) has not received a written annual performance review by the Library director (Ms. Griffin) since her arrival. This is contrary to written Library policy.
Fact – Mr. Hughes received a pay increase in 2008 without a performance evaluation. This is also contrary to written Library policy.
Fact – The called meeting of October 12th was not called seven day in advance and the news media was not given notice of this meeting. This was not an open meeting but a closed session meeting to discuss a personnel issue. A vote was taken in this meeting and there is no public record by way of recorded minutes for public viewing. This is contrary to Robert’s Rules of Order and the customary protocol for public governing bodies.
Fact – Mr. Hughes was not given an opportunity to view or have explained to him the allegations lodged against him, face his accusers, nor defend himself. He was fired and threatened by intimidation if he did not resign. He was denied any due process. This was done without any regard for his 22 years of loyal and valued service.
Fact – There is nothing in the written policy that addresses under what circumstances fines may be forgiven. There are no guidelines or procedures. The present system did not identify who forgave what fines and there were no shifts that employed less than two persons at any given time. The system does not have the capacity to positively identify who did what. The Halifax Library branch also experienced similar results proportionate to there circulation numbers. No one there has been fired. The Director has distorted the dollar amounts as most of the forgiveness was for values associated with items that were lost and then later found and returned.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Boards, you our elected officials, our protectors and the voices of reason and fairness, I ask you to intercede on our behalf. This entire incident is screaming for examination. If we are right, please help us to undo this wrong. If we are wrong, help to make this visible and clear. I don’t believe there is one of you sitting here tonight that would agree that 22 years of loyal and faithful service deserves the treatment this Library Board has inflicted by their Heavy Handed Actions. A comprehensive policy for fine forgiveness needs to be adopted, procedures need to be explained, and management systems need to be improved. Disciplinary actions should be taken, but only after there is a clear policy to work by. Discipline should be fair and equal for all employees. Punishment should be equal to the infraction. Your citizens deserve answers. We would like to see a valued and prized community asset like Mr. Hughes reinstated and a governing Library board directed towards proper procedures and behaviors in the future. Thank you.
Respectfully Yours,
Curtis Waskey
This Curtis Waskey guy is good!
Well, now we know what the big Library Board meeting was all about!
I wonder how they made the decision to advertise for a new Branch Manager without taking a vote…and if they did take a vote, how were they able to take it in a private session? All votes are to be part of the public record, was my understanding.
In any case, the most laughable part of the whole thing is the Board thanking the community for its support! What a laugh!
Everyone in the county should apply for the job. I know I will!
WHY doesn’t Woodson file for unlawful termination? My God, the case as stated above is practically open-and-shut…local lawyers should be calling him begging to represent such a clear-cut and winnable case!
And also…sorry if this is snarky, but I sincerely hope each and every library board member who voted to terminate him under the circumstances finds him and herself fired in similar fashion just short of his or her pension mark. Karma, karma, karma…..
This is such an ugly, hateful, unnecessary and WRONG situation. It makes me sick that so few people relatively speaking seem to care at all. they’d care if it were them. Why is everybody so selfish and self-absorbed? Whatever happened to “love your neighbor”? :o( Wrong is wrong, and more people should have the guts and temerity to stand up and say so. Why are people so afraid to stand up against the powers-that-be?
Woodson does now have an attorney (and a good one, too). And I hope he fights tooth and nail against people who think they can run roughshod over anyone they please.
Medievalmaniac is not being snarky: The board members—to say nothing of the library director—need to be replaced one and all.
And here’s a real kicker: I heard from someone out of state who would have been interested in the job. She has a Master’s degree in Library Science (which is more than I think can be said for Rhonda) and years of experience but said that after everything she’s seen she wouldn’t want to come here to work for this library. That’s a nice state of affairs, isn’t it?
YaY. Can this Lawyers name be reveiled? I’ll even contribute in monetary donation towards the lawsuit. Is he suing the Library for unlawful termination?
Woodson talked to Don Bagwell. I don’t know if Don is going to represent Woodson or if he even thinks Woodson has a case. I really couldn’t say anyway: that’d be up to Woodson or his attorney to decide what’s proper to talk about. But a fund is going to be absolutely necessary. We need to do everything we can to help defray any possible legal costs.
I could set up a Woodson Legal Fund web page that would allow contributions to be made via PayPal.
Well, I couldn’t contribute a whole LOT of money, im only a student in school. Ron, do you know Woodson on a personal level. Could someone talk to him and get more information. If a legal case is going to be made?
We need something solid so the public can start getting together and rallying support. January is very near, and the next Library meeting will take place.
“Why doesn’t Woodson file for unlawful termination? ”
From what I’ve read, he was told to stop waiving fees and he waived fees. He said about as much in his statement to WSET. I can’t see how that’s an open-and-shut case.
Is it right or fair? Probably not because he was trying to help out people. But the bottom line is that if they specifically said “Don’t waive any more fees” and he waived even 1 fee then they had a reason for termination.
I have found that when employers put things on paper (like the letter saying “Don’t waive fees”) they generally mean business.
Curtis Waskey gave the presentation of how both Libraries are in proportion to each other. The Library Manager waived %6,000 in fees at the Halifax Branch. The South Boston branch is larger and gets more traffic and business. Curtis aslo mention that the system does not identify the reason why , or who waived the fees at the Library.
If I had a book that was late and I was charger the price of the book say $10, Library Policy states that Ican be charged rice o book unless I bring the bok back and charges no more than $2 late fee. So $8 are waived and thats exactly what policy states.
The job of Branch Manager for the SoBo library was advertised yesterday. Absolutely everyone should apply! I am!
By the way, I love the specificity of the last two duties of the position:
26. Collect, count and write receipts for fines and fees and make sure money is secured in a locked area when leaving.
27. Promptly report any questionable activities, discrepancies in funds and policy violations to director.
Nothing like a parting shot, is there?
R
“From what I’ve read, he was told to stop waiving fees and he waived fees. He said about as much in his statement to WSET. I can’t see how that’s an open-and-shut case. Is it right or fair? Probably not because he was trying to help out people. But the bottom line is that if they specifically said “Don’t waive any more fees” and he waived even 1 fee then they had a reason for termination. I have found that when employers put things on paper (like the letter saying “Don’t waive fees”) they generally mean business.”
There is a lot more to the problem than that. First is the difficulty of attaching any waived fines to Woodson directly, no matter what he may have said. That is, there is no way to show that he personally waived X dollars. Second is the questionable way in which the amount of money involved was determined. Third is the inappropriate and irregular way in which Woodson was dismissed. Curtis Waskey has outlined most of the anomalies in the procedure. Fourth, if the the waiving of fines is a firing offense (and Rhonda’s own email regarding this policy says that fines can in fact be waived under “extenuating circumstances”—determining this would, I think, be the prerogative of the manager), why has the library not taken action regarding the $6000 waived at the Halifax branch?
R
Ron – “First is the difficulty of attaching any waived fines to Woodson directly”
He is the manager, all violations of policy are ultimately his responsibility.
Ron – “Second is the questionable way in which the amount of money involved was determined”
From what I understand the computer shows the amounts, the amount is technically irrelevant as if 10 cents was waived after he was to stop waiving fees, it is a fire-able offense.
Ron – “Third is the inappropriate and irregular way in which Woodson was dismissed”
Opinions and conjecture is all I have seen.
Ron – “Fourth, if the the waiving of fines is a firing offense (and Rhonda’s own email regarding this policy says that fines can in fact be waived under “extenuating circumstances”—determining this would, I think, be the prerogative of the manager), why has the library not taken action regarding the $6000 waived at the Halifax branch”.
Were fees waived by the Halifax branch after the instruction to stop doing it was given? That is important information. The instruction from the director was to stop waiving fee’s so, no it was not within the managers perogative to waive any fees.
Reality [sic] asked: “Were fees waived by the Halifax branch after the instruction to stop doing it was given? That is important information. The instruction from the director was to stop waiving fee’s so, no it was not within the managers perogative to waive any fees.”
The director’s email is irrelevant. It’s a state law. So if anyone was waiving fees in Halifax—and they certainly were to the tune of $6000—they need to suffer the same punishment inflicted on Woodson. Either the manager there or the director had been turning a blind eye to the waiving of fines, that’s clear. The fact that there has been no consequences resulting from this is powerful evidence that something is very much amiss.
“Ron – Third is the inappropriate and irregular way in which Woodson was dismissed
Reality [sic]: Opinions and conjecture is all I have seen.”
Then you have not read Curtis Waskey’s letter which outlines very specific irregularities not one of which appears to be conjectural. If you know of any of his points that is factually untrue, please let’s hear about it.
Question? To waive or not to waive- Suppose I retune a DVD to the library and someone puts it back onto the shelf and falls to log it back into the system as returned. My next trip (weeks later) to the library, I am informed that I have not returned the DVD and now owe the replacement cost of the DVD, a processing charge, and late fines if I don’t return the DVD. Total due is $45. I protest and explain that I did indeed retune the DVD. We look on the shelf and there it is. Now the Director says no waiving of fees – what is the library worker to do. They waive the fees of course. Now here is were it gets sticky. The system that Woodson used (per Woodson) only had two choices “Paid” or “Due” to remove it from the system and to no longer show it as due, he had to mark it “Paid”. Now if I had in fact not returned the DVD, then I could return it and now only pay the late fees less the replacement cost and processing fees. By the way, the maximum late fees top out at $2.00. Now how do you remove the waived portion from the system? You marked it as “Paid”. Maybe Paid could also be interpred as “Satisfied” or “they don’t owe this”. Now for the rest of the kicker – the system does not have the capability of showing “who” handled what transaction. In one of the newspaper articles, the director stated that they were going to procure a cash register to log the collection of money. Too late for Woodson. Not all waived fees were done by Woodson but he got the blame. There is noting in writing to guide the library workers as to what can and cannot be waived. The current director’s management style is vague orders that leave a lot up to speculation as to the right thing to do. She could have taken ownership of this whole situation if she had only used the most basic management skills and communicated clearly and effectively in face to face meeting instead of “flip” “barking” Emails. This director and/or board should have sat down with Woodson and explained their expectations and also given him written policy with specific instructions on what is permissible and what to do if there is any questionable situation. This is how you treat valued employees. If you don’t value the employee and want them gone, then do it (my opinion) her way. Others have done exactly as Woodson has and did not lose their jobs. But the director or others did not want them gone (again my opinion).
Reality Wrote:
December 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Ron – “First is the difficulty of attaching any waived fines to Woodson directly”
He is the manager, all violations of policy are ultimately his responsibility.
NO, ultimately,the managers answer to the director. In the end, all violations of policy are her responsibility… but she decided to finger Woodson so she could get out of accepting her part in this. If she had kept better records and had regular staff meetings and reviews, this would not have become such an issue. Sending blanket emails is not the same thing as actually discussing a situation with the employees, and they never had a training session to address the needs of employees for fees waiving in appropriate situations – and there WERE appropriate situations, such as instances in which items were returned and did not make it back to the shelves, and so forth. The fact that both branches are in violation of the rule and only one branch manager lost his job should be a pretty clear indicator that Woodson is the scapegoat because they needed to fire somebody and wanted to fire him. Ultimately, since the branch managers answer to the director, and the director is responsible for the library system in the county and therefore for the overall operation thereof, the director should be held accountable for financial issues.
Curtis wrote: “If you don’t value the employee and want them gone, then do it (my opinion) her way. Others have done exactly as Woodson has and did not lose their jobs. But the director or others did not want them gone (again my opinion).”
Opinion perhaps…but the circumstantial evidence certainly goes a long way toward supporting it.
A prediction…
Someone who once worked at the library called me yesterday to make a very interesting suggestion. And that was that the firing of Woodson was solely for the purpose of placing either Becky or Tonya in his position . . . she thought it would most likely be the former. Advertising for the position is simply something that is required by law . . .while in fact the decision has already been made.
It will be very interesting indeed to see who the new branch manager will be. If it is in fact Becky (or even Tonya) I think we’ll all be pretty sure just exactly what’s been going on.
Of course, I’m perfectly willing to give the library the benefit of the doubt: maybe they’ll bring in someone from outside. Who knows?
(If I’m not mistaken, was it Becky who read the letter at the public meeting last month?)
We will see what becomes of this. When will they determine the position of the Library Manager?