After 10 months of controversy, the Elmwood Township Board voted on Monday, February 12 to pay former Harbormaster Charles Lessard and former Deputy Harbormaster Richard Eldred $13,000 in return for their signatures to a release document in which they waived any right to seek redress from the Township or township officials in regard to their 2005 dismissals.

The controversy began when Elmwood Supervisor Derith Smith asked Lessard and Eldred to leave the marina as they returned to open the facility for the 2005 season. Smith cited a list of concerns and deficiencies that lead to her decision in the matter at the time, including a long list of fire code violations, the inadequate autumn closing of the facility, and discrepancies in the collection of winter storage fees along with other lapses in conforming with established marina policies.

Smith's actions were supported by township attorney Richard Edmonds of Young Graham and Elsenhimer, at a meeting of the board on April 11, 2005. Edmonds advised the board that, "... based on the Personnel Manual of the Township and the employee selection portion adopted in August of 1991, the Harbor Master is a seasonal employee. The season is defined by when the harbor opens and when it closes. The manual specifically states that a verbal or written offer for employment must never imply that employment is permanent or long-term or for a specific duration. For a seasonal employee to think that they are automatically employed from one year to the next is incorrect. ...everything was done legally." Lessard later contended that Elmwood was bound by a contract that had been negotiated at the time of his initial hiring in 1997 granting him permanent employment. Although a signed document or evidence of board authorization to execute the contract was not forthcoming, this contention seemed to raise questions that could not be answered on-the-spot by township council.

Lessard appeared at the May 23, 2005 township board meeting with his attorney asking to be reinstated to his post. In the interim a report detailing the results of an exhaustive examination of marina financial records made by concerned citizens and members of the township marina advisory board had been forwarded to board members for review. The observations made in the report added a dimension to the proceedings that was directly addressed by township attorney Jim Young. During that meeting he warned board members that "The township would be derelict in its duty if it did not investigate these allegations." And that "...another option could be to resolve this matter immediately, by passing a resolution to ratify the supervisor’s action." In other words, a simple vote by the board, a board that had serious allegations before it and advice from council that the supervisor had acted responsibly, would back up the supervisor's actions and put the matter to rest. This vote would not be forthcoming. Attorney Young went on to offer a simple choice: "If the board doesn’t think it is worth investigating, then avoid the procedural question and ratify the actions of the supervisor...If this came to court, I would be urging everyone to do what is best for the township as a whole and ratify the actions of the supervisor if you believe they were correct, or— have an investigation to determine what the facts are."

In the end the board voted to allow Lessard to continue his employment with the township, but not as Harbormaster. Mr. Lessard was to work on an hourly basis with the number of hours worked providing approximating the salary he earned in his previously held position. At the same time Young was instructed to inquire into the possibility of the township's insurance carrier initiating an investigation into issues touching on the conduct of business at the marina. This investigation was begun and proceeded until it was put on hold during the summer months. With no formal complaint forthcoming from Lessard, continuing the investigation could not be justified by the township's insurance carrier. That doesn't mean the investigation wouldn't be picked back up if a complaint was filed against the township, or that an investigation was deemed unnecessary. In any case the investigation would have been paid for by the township's insurance carrier.

As the summer progressed records show that Mr. Lessard had trouble reporting for scheduled working hours, or had difficulty scheduling shifts to work at the marina. Without worked hours to submit, Lessard's total pay for the season did not come close to equaling his previous salary (his agreed work week was to be up to 35hrs). After some period of time Lessard no longer reported for work.

In November Mr. Lessard delivered a letter to clerk Preston demanding payment equal to the amount his previously held position of Harbormaster would have paid less the wages he'd received over the summer months. Lessard felt he was owed "$8,000 or $9,000". The board voted to table discussion of letters from Chuck Lessard "until the marina investigation is discussed."

Lessard's claim made the township board agenda for a December 23, 2005 meeting. Prior to the meeting council Young communicated possible three options the board could take in dealing with continued demands by Lessard. The first was to do nothing, and simply wait to see if Lessard felt his position justified making a formal complaint. In this case the township's insurance carrier would once again activate its investigation into marina issues. With this option Elmwood would have paid nothing for a continued investigation. The second choice was for the board to initiate its own investigation through private sources, and to then address the matter with facts on hand. Young had acquired information on pursuing this course, and offered the board an option and a budget. The third suggested option was to pay Lessard, thus settling the matter at once.

In the end, none of these suggestions were adopted. A motion to authorize a private investigator to inquire into the activities of Lessard and Eldred (not to exceed $4,000 in cost) before negotiating with Lessard was defeated by a 4 to 3 vote with Street, Preston, Lautner, and O'Rourke opposed. A motion finally passed committing the board to posing questions to Lessard and Eldred in a public meeting, tabling any discussion until the allegations had been answered. Readers interested in reading the extensive meeting minutes generated by discussion on these questions should go to www.leelanaucounty.com/government0115.asp and read the extensive minutes from the December 23rd meeting.

Both attorney Young and the claimants had serious reservations with this approach. Lessard and Eldred (Eldred included, but having filed no written request with the township) with fielding questions from the board—asking for questions to be written in advance, and Young not wishing to commit township questions into writing. At the January 9, 2006 board meeting a further motion was made setting up a meeting between Lessard and Treasurer Street, Trustee Walter, and attorney Young to resolve issues. The resulting meeting took place on Friday February 10, and was attended not only by those identified in the motion, but by Dick Eldred and Mrs. Lessard.

Which brings us back to the motion and vote on last Monday's meeting. When the board reached the agenda item covering Lessard and Eldred's claim, Treasurer Street introduced a formal motion by reading a statement prepared by township council offering $13,000 to settle the dispute, $8,000 for Lessard and $5,000 for Eldred. The motion passed 4-3 with Street, Preston, Lautner, and O'Rourke in favor, and Smith, Walter, and Howell opposed—without discussion.

No questions were asked for the record by the township, and no questions were answered by either Lessard or Eldred. The report detailing irregular activities and deficiencies in the management of the marina is still on the table and a part of the public record.