Report: Board of DD warranted in terminating Biggert
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A referee appointed to make a determination and recommendation on an allegation that the Highland County Board of Developmental Disabilities terminated their former superintendent Chuck Biggert without just cause, has ruled in favor of the board, saying that, "In 2011, Mr. Biggert's conduct deteriorated," and that his explanation of the events were "not credible."
Monica Bohlen was appointed to oversee the two-day hearing, held Dec. 8-9 in the basement of the Highland County Administration Building. Biggert requested the hearing following the board's termination of his contract in October. He was represented by attorney Samuel Lillard. The board was represented by attorney Jim Hughes.
According to Bohlen's report, which was issued Friday, Dec. 16, "Based on ... the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board was warranted in terminating superintendent Biggert."
In the 10-page report, Bohlen outlined the history of the board's relationship with Biggert, the "charges" of violating the code of ethics that the board had issued that were their basis for his termination, and the testimony and evidence offered throughout the two days of the hearing.
She wrote that some of the individual instances alleged could have been grounds for termination by themselves, but that all together, they "solidified the decision of the board to terminate him."
Bohlen said that she found some of Biggert's explanations of the allegations against him were, "not credible."
The referee wrote in sections titled "violation of board directives"; "bullying-intimidation"; "vendetta"; and "dishonesty" regarding the allegations against Biggert. "Mr. Biggert was not credible in his response to the allegations. There was much testimony about his dishonesty both involving the above allegations and on other matters that were tangential to these proceedings," she wrote. "Mr. Biggert’s management style lacked integrity. He was perceived by staff as not being trustworthy, not treating staff fairly, using his position for his own advancement. His lack of trustworthiness affected the health of the organization. Mr. Biggert’s management style affected client services in other ways. He discouraged the practice of providers picking up clients at workshops for leisure activities (that clients enjoyed) because it affected the county reimbursement of transportation services to the Board (better for the Superintendent’s bottom line). [Parenthesis are Bohlen's]
According to the report, Biggert claimed that the termination was invalid because he did not receive notice of his termination in accordance with the terms of his contract, and that the board proceeded with a pre-disciplinary conference without giving him the chance to be present and respond to allegations. Additionally, Biggert claimed that "the board did not prove that the termination was for 'just cause.'" and that "he should not be terminated because of his good performance reviews and what he accomplished financially. Further, Mr. Biggert argues that the decision must be based solely on grounds alleged in the Notice of Charges and not other allegations."
Bohlen concluded that, "Termination of superintendent contracts are governed by §5126.23 (B). According to §5126.23(B), a superintendent of a county board of developmental disabilities may be removed, suspended, or demoted in accordance with this section for violation of written rules set forth by the board or for incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. §5 126.23 (B) also outlines the procedural requirements including that the board shall furnish the superintendent in writing of the charges against the employee. Not later then 30 days after receiving such notiñcation, a prediscip1inary conference shall be held to provide the employee an opportunity to refute the charges against the employee. At least 72 hours prior to the conference, the employee shall be given a copy of the charges against the employee. The pre- disciplinary conference shall be held by the members ofthe Board and the Board shall notify the superintendent within 15 days after the conference of its decision with respect to the charges.
"The Board complied with the requirements of the statute. Mr. Biggert received actual notice in a timely fashion, he chose to attend his grandson’s birthday party instead of the pre-disciplinary conference to refute the charges, and the Board conducted the hearing in his absence," Bohlen wrote. The decision to terminate a superintendent’s contract is comprised of two parts: (1) The factual basis for the allegations giving rise to the allegation; and (2) Judgment as to whether the facts, as found, constitute a violation of the statutory grounds.
"The grounds for termination contained in the notice to Mr. Biggert, excluding the allegations that the Board concedes were not proven, were all established by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and this conduct constitutes violation of the written rules set forth by the Board and constitutes dishonesty, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, and other acts of misfeasance and malfeasance.
"The allegations involving Mr. Biggert’s interactions with the prosecuting attorney, his submission of false mileage requests and his lack of accountability for his attendance constituted dishonesty. The extensive bullying-intimidation conduct of Mr. Biggert referenced in the Notice of
Charges constituted a violation of the written rules set forth by the Board, as stated in its Code of Ethics, and constituted discourteous treatment of the public, and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance. The conduct that resulted from Mr. Biggert’s perception that certain Board members had a vendetta against him constituted a violation of the written rules set forth by the Board, discourteous treatment of the public, and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance.
"The Board was warranted in terminating Mr. Biggert’s employment," Bohlen wrote.
Mr. Biggert’s conduct that formed the basis of his termination was not a single isolated incident, but rather was a course of conduct over months during 2011. Mr. Biggert’s persistence in his course of conduct, even after the decision to reassign him for the balance of his contract
year, propelled this into a termination, instead ofthe reassignment for the rest of his temi. He persisted in this conduct. Although many of these incidents would have been enough by themselves to Warrant a termination, the cumulative effect of all of them solidified the decision of the Board to terminate him."
Highland County Board of DD member Sam Snyder told The Highland County Press Saturday that, "Obviously we're happy that (the hearing) came out this way. We did give him the opportunity to present his side of the story, and I think that when both sides were present and the referee took all the facts into consideration, she arrived at the decision. We're tickled to death with the decision."
A referee appointed to make a determination and recommendation on an allegation that the Highland County Board of Developmental Disabilities terminated their former superintendent Chuck Biggert without just cause, has ruled in favor of the board, saying that, "In 2011, Mr. Biggert's conduct deteriorated," and that his explanation of the events were "not credible."
Monica Bohlen was appointed to oversee the two-day hearing, held Dec. 8-9 in the basement of the Highland County Administration Building. Biggert requested the hearing following the board's termination of his contract in October. He was represented by attorney Samuel Lillard. The board was represented by attorney Jim Hughes.
According to Bohlen's report, which was issued Friday, Dec. 16, "Based on ... the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board was warranted in terminating superintendent Biggert."
In the 10-page report, Bohlen outlined the history of the board's relationship with Biggert, the "charges" of violating the code of ethics that the board had issued that were their basis for his termination, and the testimony and evidence offered throughout the two days of the hearing.
The full report can be read here.
The full report can be read here.
She wrote that some of the individual instances alleged could have been grounds for termination by themselves, but that all together, they "solidified the decision of the board to terminate him."
Bohlen said that she found some of Biggert's explanations of the allegations against him were, "not credible."
The referee wrote in sections titled "violation of board directives"; "bullying-intimidation"; "vendetta"; and "dishonesty" regarding the allegations against Biggert. "Mr. Biggert was not credible in his response to the allegations. There was much testimony about his dishonesty both involving the above allegations and on other matters that were tangential to these proceedings," she wrote. "Mr. Biggert’s management style lacked integrity. He was perceived by staff as not being trustworthy, not treating staff fairly, using his position for his own advancement. His lack of trustworthiness affected the health of the organization. Mr. Biggert’s management style affected client services in other ways. He discouraged the practice of providers picking up clients at workshops for leisure activities (that clients enjoyed) because it affected the county reimbursement of transportation services to the Board (better for the Superintendent’s bottom line). [Parenthesis are Bohlen's]
According to the report, Biggert claimed that the termination was invalid because he did not receive notice of his termination in accordance with the terms of his contract, and that the board proceeded with a pre-disciplinary conference without giving him the chance to be present and respond to allegations. Additionally, Biggert claimed that "the board did not prove that the termination was for 'just cause.'" and that "he should not be terminated because of his good performance reviews and what he accomplished financially. Further, Mr. Biggert argues that the decision must be based solely on grounds alleged in the Notice of Charges and not other allegations."
Bohlen concluded that, "Termination of superintendent contracts are governed by §5126.23 (B). According to §5126.23(B), a superintendent of a county board of developmental disabilities may be removed, suspended, or demoted in accordance with this section for violation of written rules set forth by the board or for incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. §5 126.23 (B) also outlines the procedural requirements including that the board shall furnish the superintendent in writing of the charges against the employee. Not later then 30 days after receiving such notiñcation, a prediscip1inary conference shall be held to provide the employee an opportunity to refute the charges against the employee. At least 72 hours prior to the conference, the employee shall be given a copy of the charges against the employee. The pre- disciplinary conference shall be held by the members ofthe Board and the Board shall notify the superintendent within 15 days after the conference of its decision with respect to the charges.
"The Board complied with the requirements of the statute. Mr. Biggert received actual notice in a timely fashion, he chose to attend his grandson’s birthday party instead of the pre-disciplinary conference to refute the charges, and the Board conducted the hearing in his absence," Bohlen wrote. The decision to terminate a superintendent’s contract is comprised of two parts: (1) The factual basis for the allegations giving rise to the allegation; and (2) Judgment as to whether the facts, as found, constitute a violation of the statutory grounds.
"The grounds for termination contained in the notice to Mr. Biggert, excluding the allegations that the Board concedes were not proven, were all established by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and this conduct constitutes violation of the written rules set forth by the Board and constitutes dishonesty, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, and other acts of misfeasance and malfeasance.
"The allegations involving Mr. Biggert’s interactions with the prosecuting attorney, his submission of false mileage requests and his lack of accountability for his attendance constituted dishonesty. The extensive bullying-intimidation conduct of Mr. Biggert referenced in the Notice of
Charges constituted a violation of the written rules set forth by the Board, as stated in its Code of Ethics, and constituted discourteous treatment of the public, and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance. The conduct that resulted from Mr. Biggert’s perception that certain Board members had a vendetta against him constituted a violation of the written rules set forth by the Board, discourteous treatment of the public, and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance.
"The Board was warranted in terminating Mr. Biggert’s employment," Bohlen wrote.
Mr. Biggert’s conduct that formed the basis of his termination was not a single isolated incident, but rather was a course of conduct over months during 2011. Mr. Biggert’s persistence in his course of conduct, even after the decision to reassign him for the balance of his contract year, propelled this into a termination, instead ofthe reassignment for the rest of his temi. He persisted in this conduct. Although many of these incidents would have been enough by themselves to Warrant a termination, the cumulative effect of all of them solidified the decision of the Board to terminate him."
Highland County Board of DD member Sam Snyder told The Highland County Press Saturday that, "Obviously we're happy that (the hearing) came out this way. We did give him the opportunity to present his side of the story, and I think that when both sides were present and the referee took all the facts into consideration, she arrived at the decision. We're tickled to death with the decision."
[[In-content Ad]]