By popular demand, here are the documents related to the sexual harassment complaint filed against Hatton Wright by Kathryn Reitz.
Complaint filed by Kathryn Reitz on April 5th, 2007
Report on Kathryn Reitz complaint received on June 5th, 2007
see below for the last 7 minutes of the City Commission meeting on April 9th, 2007 when the Mayor launched her attack on Hatton Wright.
23 Comments
July 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I have some serious questions regarding the complaint filed by Mrs. Reitz.
According to Mayor Elam, Mrs. Reitz wrote a six-page complaint concerning the actions of many people involved in city government. The mayor stated in a commission meeting that she received a Mrs. Reitz’s six-page complaint through an unnamed third party. The mayor said that she called the city attorney regarding the six-page complaint and that she and the attorney exchanged e-mails regarding the complaint. I believe she said that the city attorney and she discussed how to handle the complaint. However, the attorney’s finding in the Reitz complaint says that Mrs. Reitz spoke to Mayor Elam regarding her complaint by telephone, during which the Mayor instructed Mrs. Reitz to file her complaint with the city manager, as required by the city sexual harassment policy. There is no mention in the attorney’s report of the six-page complaint, I questioned the city attorney as to whether the six-page complaint was included in information provided to the investigating attorney. Basically, the city attorney told me it was none of my business. (she used different words.)
The attorney’s report states that Mr. Reitz called Mayor Elam and told her that Mrs. Reitz had made recordings of her depositions. The attorney said that the recordings would have to have been made surreptitiously (in secret). Why would Mr. Reitz call Mayor Elam to tell her that his wife had made secret tapes of the depositions? It certainly appears that the mayor and the Reitz’s relationship is deeper and more involved than as Mayor/city employee/ citizen.
In a commission meeting the mayor said that she had “encouraged” Mrs. Reitz to file a complaint. Then in the commission meeting where the commission discussed Kevin Mack’s complaint against the mayor the mayor backed off of the word “encouraged” and in its place I believe she said that she informed, instructed or advised Mrs. Reitz on “how” to file her complaint. Strangely, by the time the six page complaint regarding the actions of many people in city government finally was filed it had turned into a one page complaint directed only at Hatton Wright!
Both the city attorney and the city mayor had an obligation, under the Tennessee Code Annotated and the city personnel manual, to inform the city manager of the six-page complaint. I asked then city manager Rob Shearer if he had been informed of the six-page complaint or if he was aware of it. Rob said he didn’t know anything about the six-page complaint until the mayor said something about it during the discussing of Kevin Mack’s complaint against the mayor. Why is it that the mayor and the city attorney can ignore their obligations and keep their positions while so many others are being fired and forced into retirement or resignation? Why did they keep this six-page complaint secret? Why were the other people listed in the six-page complaint not made aware of Mrs. Reitz’s accusations? Why were other people in Mrs. Reitz’s Six-page complaint not implicated and included as targets of Mrs. Reitz one-page complaint? From what I saw in the six-page complaint there were others who were doing much worse than Hatton Wright was accused of, why weren’t they targeted?
I am not a expert in writing analysis, but to me the one page report looks suspiciously like it was not written by the same hand as the six-page complaint. I would like to know if Mrs. Reitz authored both complaints.
I have asked for the identity of the mysterious third party who delivered the six-page complaint to the mayor. I was told that I was not entitled to know that person’s identity. Why? Not knowing makes me even more suspicious. Why was anyone other than Mrs. Reitz involved in delivering the complaint and why didn’t Mrs. Reitz follow the personnel manual?
I have asked for the e-mails between the mayor and the city attorney, yet all I am getting is the attorney-client privilege line. I don’t believe that the attorney-client privilege exists in this case. I have provided what I believe is proof that the city has an obligation to provide the information I seek, yet they continue to hide from me what should be public record. What are they trying to cover-up? What lurks behind that veil of attorney-client privilege? Why did they hide all of this from the city manager?
I believe with all my heart that the mayor and the city attorney are guilty of official misconduct and official oppression due to their neglect of their duty to inform the city manager of the six-page complaint. In fact, the city mayor is not one of the four people who could receive a sexual harassment complaint, so to have been more involved than to direct the complainant to follow the city’s personnel manual is, in my opinion, exceeding her authority. A public official who exceeds their authority is guilty of official misconduct. A public official who is found guilty of official misconduct MUST be removed from office under the TCA.
When I survey the attitudes and opinions of people in this city I am amazed. There is a faction of society that views what is going on in city hall as “house-cleaning”. It appears to me that the people who feel that the city is just getting a “house-cleaning” believe that the problems with the city are caused by the former city manager, the city planner, the zoning administrator, and the public works director. I am all for “house-cleaning”, however, I believe that there are serious violations of constitutional rights, violations of laws, violations of ordinances, and violations of the city’s personnel manual occurring as those “house-cleaners” go about their way. If you are one of those people who view the events going on in city hall as “House-cleaning” and you feel that it is a good thing for the city, why do you turn a blind eye to what the Mayor and city attorney are doing? As I remember it, Mr. Reitz didn’t deny having called Kevin Mack. I also don’t believe that he denied having spoken to Kevin Mack about the things that Kevin accused him of saying. I believe what Mr. Reitz said was that he didn’t mean to give Kevin the impression that Kevin expressed in his complaint. (I could be wrong).
Let’s really take a slow look at this whole matter.
We found out that on the day of a meeting to settle one complaint against the city (the first complaint came as a result of the reassignment of a city employee because she had filed an “unfounded” sexual harassment complaint against Hatton Wright. ) that a second sexual harassment complaint had been filed against Hatton Wright (The Reitz Complaint). The mayor made a dramatic public announcement that there was another complaint against Mr. Wright. She went on to try to persuade others in the Public works department to come forward with their complaints. The mayor pulls a stunt that I believe violates the city charter and is able to get the city commissioners to vote with her to take the investigation into the accusations about Hatton Wright out of the hands of the city manager. (The city manager is the administrative head of the government. It is his duty to cause an investigation and handle the decisions thereof.) The mayor calls for a thorough investigation into the complaint against Hatton Wright. Then Hatton Wright files a complaint about the mayor. The mayor calls a special meeting right away to discuss the complaint against her, suggests Mrs. Flowers as the investigating attorney, gets approval from the commission on who will investigate her, and is able to get a very quick investigation into the complaint against her. (No thorough investigation here) The report Mrs. Flowers gives the commission is so biased that even some of the commissioners said that it looked like a statement for the defense. In spite of what appears to me to be a concerted effort on the part of the city attorney to exonerate the mayor rather than find the truth, the complaint against the mayor is found to have at least some merit. (I believe that even in the Mayor’s own deposition there is evidence of official misconduct. I believe there is ample evidence throughout the depositions to warrant further investigation into the actions of the mayor. However, the city attorney either ignored the evidence or didn’t see it; to believe she would dismiss the evidence as not being evidence of a crime would be laughable.) However, when we finally get an attorney’s report in the complaint againt Hatton Wright we once again find that the complaint against Hatton Wright is “unfounded”.
During one of the several commission meetings since the filing of the complaint by Mrs. Reitz, the mayor said that she “encouraged” Mrs. Reitz to file her complaint. One question that should be asked here is “when” did the mayor “encourage” Mrs. Reitz to file her complaint? Did she “encourage”Mrs. Reitz to file her complaint on the day of the arbitration of the complaint against the city by another former employee? Exactly what kind of encouragement did the city mayor give Mrs. Reitz? Why is there a conflict between what the mayor said in a commission meeting and what she apparently told the city attorney? What is the nature of the relationship between the mayor and Mr. and Mrs. Reitz?
Something inside of me tells me that we have not heard everything regarding this issue. Everyone reading this posting should call the city and get their own copy of Mrs. Reitz’s six-page complaint and read it for themselves. You can’t help but ask; “why did she file the complaint against Hatton Wright and not file a complaint against everyone else listed in the six-page complaint?”
I believe this is a hatchet job that was created by parties interested in causing harm to Hatton Wright. In fact, if you read the six-page complaint you will find that Hatton Wright was only loosely associated with most of what Mrs. Reitz was complaining about. How did that entire six-page complaint end up boiling down to a one page complaint against Hatton Wright. I would be hard pressed to believe this whole matter was anything other than a personal attack against Hatton Wright. I suggest that you read the attorney’s findings on the complaint against Hatton Wright, I found it very interesting.
August 28, 2007 at 9:59 am
The storm has just begun.
Keep your eyes on the horizon.
The truth will all be know.
Be patient Butch.
August 31, 2007 at 7:49 am
BUTCH did you read reitz’s complaint it says”I am asking that you act in a confidential manner and protect my identity as stated in Part E.
This states that all parties be treated with dignity and respect. This also states that this will not be discussed with parties other than those directly involved. Right after this complaint The city manager contacted the press Lori Everett.
Don’t you think this should be investigated?
It was trying to stay in house. The Mayor did not mention this persons name in public.
August 31, 2007 at 11:10 am
raytears:
Have you read Part E of the City’s Sexual Harassment Policy?
http://radiofreemj.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/personnel-manual-sexual-harassment-policy.pdf
While both the city manager and the mayor (and everyone else) had an obligation not to talk about the complaint, the complaint itself is a public record.
“Public Record” means if a citizen asks for it (or a newspaper reporter), then the city is required by law to give them a copy.
Might not be fair. Might not be good policy, but its the law. Talk to the state legislature about it.
August 31, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Raytears, Raytears, Raytears
Do you remember Brer Rabbit’s plea to Briar Fox? “Hang me as high as you please, but for the Lord’s sake, don’t throw me into that briar patch”? Well, I say: Investigate Linda Elam to your heart’s desire, but for the Lord’s sake, please don’t launch a complaint against then city manager Rob Shearer for calling Lori Everett and leaking the story to her!
Butch
August 31, 2007 at 1:47 pm
OPEN RECORDS ACT
A records custodian for an agency that has records about sexual harassment complants and investigation must keep those records confidential. The exceptions to this rule is if another government agency needs information from those records to investigate the sexual harassment compaint then it may get only those records it needs.
Does any one know the law or do you just shoot from the hip? Or coarse it’s ILLEGAL
August 31, 2007 at 2:16 pm
raytears:
what are you quoting from?
August 31, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Raytears,
I just read the open records act. I can’t find the part of the act to which you refer. Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste what you are talking about…you know, kind of a show-and-tell, so we can all be more well informed and less ignorant. Please make sure that you reference your source, including copywrite date, revision number, etc.
Butch
August 31, 2007 at 7:23 pm
If you just read it pertaining to sexual harassment
please list what you have read.
August 31, 2007 at 10:40 pm
The essence of a man is found in his inner being, it resides in his character. His outward actions are almost always a hazy reflection of what exists in the deep recesses of his mind. His voice carries with it the revelation of what lurks in his heart. Though he tries his best to hide his secret self from others, he is yet betrayed. The value of a man’s character is measured by how strongly he is willing to stand for what he believes and by what he is willing to endure in order to hold fast to his beliefs, but even more so in what he is willing to give up in order to maintain his identity. A man of good character is who he is, wherever he is, all the time. He believes what he believes regardless of the consequences.
So, the answer to your question is quite simple. If Rob has done wrong, he needs to be investigated. No matter how good a friend Rob is to me, if he has done wrong, he has done wrong and appropriate action must ensue. However, he has already lost his job, perhaps you prefer blood or are you not satisfied until you have your pound of flesh?
Now, let me tell you something about Rob Shearer. Until you can show me evidence that he has done wrong I am going to believe he hasn’t. I believe in Rob Shearer. I know him to be a very honorable man. Rob has served our community with honor and dignity, he has done his job well. There are those who would like to malign his character and denigrate his integrity, but when their accusations and assertions are drug out into the light of day, they seem to all whither and die. I know Rob as one of the few truly honorable and good men I have met in my life. Rob is a brilliant man with tremendous knowledge and insight. He is a great father to his children, a great husband to his wife, a wonderful friend to me, and a strong Christian. I challenge you to find proof of wrongdoing on his part…not just mistakes, everyone makes mistakes…but I challenge you to find one shred actual, true-to-life evidence that has not been fabricated that Rob has intentionally caused harm to anyone. You simply won’t find it anywhere.
However, when I read what you post it gives me great pause. You strike me as someone who simply wants to re-direct attention from what is really happening in this city and misdirect it toward Rob Shearer without regard to how damaging it might be to him personally. I have studied and contemplated your posts. I have tried to analyze your point of view. While I am trying to find truth in the issues, you seem to simply want to be “right”. While I wish I were wrong, you seem to want to “win”. This isn’t a personality contest. This is about setting things right. Do you not grasp the gravity of it all? Do you not know the weight of the situation? Don’t you realize what has happened here? If you are aware of some wrong, I encourage you to do something about it. Present the facts. List them one by one. Let’s have the truth, the whole truth. However, if all you desire is to harm others, I would ask you to refrain from your endeavor and check your own heart.
As for me, please prove me wrong…I dare you! If there is anyone out there who is willing to truly study the facts and systematically prove me wrong about the mayor’s actions…please, step up and let’s get to it. I only wish I were wrong.
Butch Huber
September 1, 2007 at 6:19 am
You have no platform to speak from. Your constant pursuit of the mayor shows me you are angry unforgiving person. Your post are a complete
plagiarisms half the constitution and half star-trek.
Butch or should I say harold you said if everbody
would have just listened to you, you would have had the mayor removed. Wow what power you have. You said in the newspaper you have contacted Bredison,s office. Well anyone can contact any office, just pick up the phone. Who is the real Harold ? Did you fail lawschool ? Did the cheerleaders refuse to go with you because all you talked about was you. Welcome to Butch’s world, He quotes everything and says it’s his.
September 1, 2007 at 10:19 am
Raytears,
Thank you for the laugh, Raytears. Sure, my name is Harold. To be more accurate, my name is Harold Creighton Huber. I was named after my father’s brother who was killed in the D-day invasion in Europe. My father named me in tribute to his brother. However, I grew up in the day of “Weird Harold” and therefore my dad called me “Butch”. I am very fond of the name “Butch”, it fits me. However, I carry the name “Harold Creighton Huber” with honor. I guess you feel you have broken some major story. Butch Huber is really Harold Huber..ooooh…ahhh. And your real name is “Raytears”. I step up to the microphone in the commission meetings and state my name and address. No matter what I call myself, everyone in this city who cares knows who I am, yet you lurk in shadows.
I don’t constantly pursue the mayor…I constantly pursue the truth. The mayor just happens to be in the way.
Plagiarism…I suppose I should have informed the public that I used part of the Declaration of Independence in my writing so they were not under the impression that I wrote it. Plagiarism? Please investigate me and charge me with Plagiarism because I used the Declaration of Independence in my writing. I am sorry, “Raytears”, I thought you could make the literary connections and the arrive at the proper conclusion. Let me break that down for you. I was making a comparison from what was happening then…to what is happening now. I was paralleling the issues faced by those who molded this nation, to the issues we now face. I was infusing the causes that provoked a people to rise up and form the greatest nation on earth, with the current situation in Mt. Juliet. Oh, never-mind. To those who feel duped by my use of the Declaration of Independence in my writing…I sincerely apologize.
Raytears, when you write that I said “if everybody would have listened to you (meaning me), you (meaning me) would have had her removed from office. Aren’t you misquoting me? I haven’t gone back to read what I wrote, but I think what I said was something along the line of “if they would have listened to me Ed wouldn’t have been censured because she (the Mayor: Linda) wouldn’t be in office.” Those two statements are not quite the same are they?
I’m sorry to inform you, Raytears, but I was quoted as “having said” in the paper.
Below is a response from the Governor.
Dear Butch,
Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns. Your comments and
suggestions were greatly appreciated and I will be sure to forward your
concerns to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for review and
response.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write. I hope to hear from you
again on other matters of importance to you.
Warmest regards,
Phil Bredesen
It is now a public document…call the Governor’s office and request a copy of it if you don’t believe me.
What have I quoted and said was mine? Name it?
Did I fail law school? I suppose you are the type that believes that a person has to go to law school to know the law? The United States is a Federal Republic. That means that we are governed by law. If you are going to be governed by something, shouldn’t you know what it is that is governing you? To intimate that I have to be a lawyer to use the law is silly, and you know it. I didn’t fail law school, because I never attended law school. I have made it clear that I am not an attorney.
Raytears writes:
“Did the cheerleaders refuse to go with you because all you talked about was you.” Raytears, would you grow up? I am a faithfully married man with children. To attempt to provoke me this way just speaks of your character. I won’t debase myself to draw swords with you in this battle…one that you would surely lose.
Welcome to Butch’s world, He quotes everything and says it’s his.” If you are going to make statements you need to back them up. Where is your evidence?
Raytears, you make me out to be an angry, unforgiving person. I forgive you. And by-the-way, you don’t make me angry, you simply amuse me.
Butch
September 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm
You must realize that people still think of you as weird harold. You the one lurking in the shadows
always trying to make a name for yourself.
You’ve pretty much made this Harolds web site.
You even answer your own blogs. Do you have mirrors all over your house? I would expect you do. Did you forget The Open Records Act pertaining to sexual harasssment I noticed you side stepped the truth again. Oh I am glad you are amused, it releases that stored up frustration in your soul.
The wisdom of man is but foolishness to God.
Your friend and mine Raytears
September 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm
raytears… dude!
I think I found your “Open Records Law” reference. Google is such a wonderful tool.
see if this seems familiar:
“A records custodian for an agency that has records about sexual harassment complaints and investigations must keep those records confidential. There are three exceptions to this general rule. First, if another government agency needs information from those records to investigate the sexual harassment complaint, it may get only those records it needs.”
That’s what you typed, right?
Here’s where it came from:
http://www.ago.state.co.us/FAQ/CORA11.cfm
Its the website of the Colorado Attorney General and the text is his answer to question 11 of the 19 frequently asked questions about the Colorado Open Records Act.
Nice try, dude… Got anything on the Tennessee Open Records Act?
September 1, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Raytears,
I have grown tired of the name Raytears, and since that is obviously not your real name, I think I will refer to you as John R.
Oh, I didn’t see the Weird Harold jab coming. I’m crushed. How can I ever go out into public again. People will be pointing and laughing at me. They will be saying there goes “Weird Harold”. Oh the shame of it all.
Yeah, making a name for myself is all that I am concerned about. You are really doing a lot of damage to me by making fun of my name. You are destroying all that I have built in a whole lifetime of work. You have struck a mortal blow; you have done me. Curse you, John R.
No, John R., I don’t answer my own blogs. I thought about posting some ridiculous blog calling me names and saying all sorts of nasty things and telling lies, but then you came along. Thank you for being you, John R.
You got me, John R. I am the mirror gazer. I just can’t stop looking at myself.
No, I didn’t side step the sexual harassment question. I am waiting for you to post your position piece. Where is your evidence?
I am not sure about the releasing the frustration in my soul, but the amusement you provide does give me some comic relief, does that help?
I can’t let your sign-off go…”Your Friend and Mine, Raytears.”! Ha, Ha, Ha Your have me in stitches. You are talking about yourself in third person! Who does that?
John R., you are the typical liberal. No foundation, just a lot of hot air. I come to the table with substantial evidence and issues, you want to make fun of my name. I deal with real issues that are serious, you want to personally attack.
The problem with liberals is that they have no foundation. There is no basis to their position. I have yet to meet someone like you who eventually doesn’t resort to personal attacks. You have no meat to what you say, so instead of admitting that you are wrong, you personally attack. I speak truth, you tell lies. I have hard facts and evidence, you tell lies. I point to the actual law, you tell lies. I try to be accurate, you tell lies. I try to persuade people to do the right thing, you tell more lies.
I was having fun with you for a while John R., but your nastiness and vitriol are become more and more exacerbated, and I think our dialog must now end. If and when you can come back and play nice I should think that we could have an exchange of ideas, but until that time, I have nothing more to say to you.
Butch…oh I’m sorry…Weird Harold
September 1, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Well I see someone has just reposted what I posted
still no one answers the question about going public with information about sexual harassment Have you read what the law is under the open records act ? Surfer just repeated what I wrote.
I get the feeling that either you don’t know or that I’m correct in saying it was against the law. Butch your emotion is getting in the way of answering the question.
September 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Raytears:
let me beak it down for you. What you posted is from the COLORADO Open Records Law.
Newsflash: We live in TENNESSEE.
You might want to see if you can get the Tennessee legislature to adopt the Colorado Open Records Law, but until they do, the City has to obey the Tennessee Open Records Law.
The Tennessee Open Records Law doesn’t have an exception for sexual harassment complaints.
So if a citizen (or a reporter) asks for a copy of a sexual harassment complaint, the city has to give it to them. If they DON’T give it to them, then they’d be breakng the law (the Tennessee Open Records law).
“Do you know the law or do you just shoot from the hip?”
September 1, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Surfer,
This guy said that I wrote “plagiarisms half the constitution and half star-trek” He doesn’t know the difference between the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, how do you expect him to be able to discern the difference between Colorado and Tennessee?
Weird Harold
September 7, 2007 at 10:36 am
There will be more casualties.
September 18, 2007 at 1:45 pm
The letter that BHuber received from Bredesen is a generic letter that his office sends out. I doubt he even made contact with the letter.
September 18, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Sudangreendog@yahoo.com,
I talked to Mr. Brooks Wilken at the TBI. He confirmed that he had received the e-mail from Governor Bredesen. He and I had a conversation on the matter that I had been addressing. During that conversation he stated that there was no sense in investigating the issue because they would need a prosecutor in the event that they found crimes had been committed, and that because General Thompson would not prosecute there was little they could do. I didn’t accept his position, but it is apparent that they have not investigated. I spoke with Assistant District attorney Bobby Hibbett at a boyscout event about the issue and he told me that the TBI had original jurisdiction in political corruption. I read the TBI website and, sure enough, they do have original jurisdiction. This is currently a situation where people are playing hot potato…no body wants to deal with political situations like this. That doesn’t mean they won’t eventually have to deal with them.
I am not saying that it wasn’t swept under the rug…but the complaint was received by the TBI.
That complaint was in regard to Rob Shearer being forced to resign under duress, it was not the full complaint.
Just thought you should be fully informed.
Butch Huber
April 28, 2008 at 9:01 am
Folks,
I have made a terrible blunder. For a long time now I have been denying that I know who Debbie Moss is, or even what she looks like. People have accused me of sticking up for her because she is my friend, to which I have relied…”I don’t even know her”.
Today, it finally occurred to me who “Debbie Moss” is and what she looks like. You see, I only have known “Debbie Moss” as “Debbie”. Sounds kinda thin, doesn’t it? But it is true. I was on the payroll committee with “Debbie”. I don’t know that I was ever introduced to her last name. I just knew her as “Debbie”.
Sometimes I can really be dense, I guess. I was talking to someone about how people keep accusing me of being a friend of Debbie and saying that I know her, and the person I was talking to said, “She was on the payroll committee” with you, wasn’t she?” I said, “no”.
I had no idea that the Debbie on the payroll committee was actually “Debbie Moss”.
It took about a week for that one to sink in.
Yes, I do know Debbie Moss. I am glad I figured this one out, finally.
I know Debbie Moss as a very strong, in-your-face type of person. She isn’t someone I would suspect of taking anything off of anyone. Now the picture comes much clearer. I can certainly see how Debbie Moss could have gotten cross-wise with the mayor in that meeting when the mayor was trying to get Pulte Homes their illegal building permits.
Debbie, I apologize for denying that I know you. I know that if you have read my posts or heard that I was denying knowing you it probably was perplexing to you. Not that I am anybody important, but that I would deny knowing you when you know that I do.
For the record, I know Debbie Moss. I don’t know her well, but I do know who she is. It could be said that she and I are friends, but a more appropriate description would be to say that we are two people who worked on a committee who were friendly. My relationship with Hatton Wright could be described much in the same way. I know who he is, and we have been friendly with each other, and while we are friendly, we are more acquaintances than we are “friends”, although I would call him a friend.
I say all of this just to set the record straight.
April 30, 2008 at 7:21 am
[...] Reitz [...]