South Lake Tahoe councilmember censured
By Kathryn Reed
On identical 4-1 votes Monday the South Lake Tahoe City Council ratified the city manager’s decision to ban Councilmember JoAnn Conner from interacting with staff and agreed to censure her. Conner was the dissenting vote on both measures.
It took nearly 3½ hours to reach those conclusions Oct. 19.
Some in the city say the issues involving Conner started immediately after she was elected three years ago this November. Members of this council and previous ones have reached out to her individually and collectively to express their displeasure with her words and actions.
“I have witnessed her conduct for many years,” Mayor Hal Cole said, intimating a pattern of negative behavior.
“I have personally seen Ms. Conner treat staff in a disrespectful manner. I have personally seen Ms. Conner treat citizens in a disrespectful manner during city council. I have personally seen Ms. Conner lose emotional control to the extent that I thought that she was not speaking in a logical or professional manner,” Sass said. “I believe members of this City Council, including myself, are hesitant and uncomfortable working with Ms. Conner. It’s my opinion that Ms. Conner poses a financial risk to our city as a result of potential litigation from city staff.”
Councilmember Wendy David said, “The hostile environment you have created and cited has not only damaged our city, the city you were elected to serve, but has created fear, real fear of you and your potential retaliation and behavior.”
South Tahoe Councilmember JoAnn Conner listens as her attorney Jacqueline Mittelstadt makes a point Oct. 19. Photo/Kathryn Reed
Lake Tahoe Community College President Kindred Murillo wrote a letter that referenced the hostility she incurred when giving a talk to the council. El Dorado County Supervisor Sue Novasel also wrote a letter. Neither she nor her assistant, Judi McCallum, will speak directly to Conner because of her language and demeanor.
City Manager Nancy Kerry said the only way Conner would speak of former Councilwoman Brooke Laine was to call her a c-u-n-t. F bombs, Kerry said, are standard from Conner.
It has gotten to the point that employees are scared of Conner, fearing for their jobs and that she will pull the funding for projects they are working on or ax money from their departments. This in turn impedes their ability to do their jobs.
Kerry early last month made the decision to ban Conner from talking to staff after at least six complaints were levied against the councilmember by staff to the city attorney.
Cole said in the weeks since that action was taken Conner’s behavior – mostly through social media – borders on harassment and retaliation. That is what led him to seek censure.
Censure is not punishment, according to City Attorney Tom Watson, but instead is a statement saying certain behavior is not being condoned.
What wasn’t agreed to between Watson and Jacqueline Mittelstadt, who represented Conner, is whether evidence needed to be presented to substantiate the censure and to what degree this was a judicial hearing. Watson said no evidence had to be given, that councilmembers need not answer questions and that it was not a judicial hearing in any sense. Mittelstadt disagreed.
When it comes to censure the city’s protocols say, “A decision to censure requires the adoption of a resolution making findings with regard to the specific charges, based on substantial evidence, and approved by the affirmative vote of at least three council members.”
What the attorneys vehemently disagreed about is whether that evidence had to be presented to Conner.
(Mittelstadt had been the city’s attorney, having quit in 2010 after a brief, contentious tenure.)
City Councilman Tom Davis in particular said Conner was violating protocols of conduct. Such a protocol is not posted on the city’s website.
“I find it ironic that in the very same hearing, the city councilmembers failed and refused to comply with the requirements of the very protocols they proceeded to censure another council member for allegedly violating,” Mittelstadt told Lake Tahoe News.
Seven letters were read into the record, with one supporting Conner and six favoring the city’s actions. Thirteen people spoke at the meeting – 11 for Conner, one for the city, and one person didn’t take a side. About 60 people attended the meeting.
Many who spoke said the hearing should not be done in public. Legally it had to be. Many expressed support of Conner, saying she was the only councilmember who helped them. Some said the actions are violations of Conner’s free speech rights.
At Monday’s meeting Conner did not say a word publicly, but instead consulted with her attorney who was allowed to sit next to her. This pushed City Attorney Watson to a lower level sitting area.
Kerry told Lake Tahoe News it is the city’s policy that Conner is entitled to have her attorney’s fees for the censure process be paid for by the taxpayers. Any further legal fees would be her burden. It remains to be seen if Conner will sue the city.
“I believe that the action of the council (Oct. 19) is not legally defensible,” Mittelstadt told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting. “I have to talk to Councilmember Conner as to what she wants to do.”
Mittelstadt started the afternoon by saying she was seeking to have the entire matter delayed and for both sides to sit down to reach an agreement. The council didn’t even vote on that proposal. Mittelstadt said she is still willing to get her client and city officials in a room to hash things out.
Before people start calling her supporters cronies, or bashing her behind a pseudonym. I’d just like to say that there should have been an independent investigation. Perhaps the grand jury should now investigate. (cue the cries of wasting taxpayer dollars)
An investigation of the opinion of people would be plain silly. People gave their opinion, that’s what happened. People wrote letters, people spoke and all gave their opinion. The council members voted their opinion. Many respected citizens spoke up to say she’s hostile and a bully and while others may disagree, the fact we have a council member who uses her position to bully and belittle others and make working with her difficult means as Sass said, she’s not actually representing anyone because no one wants to work with her. If people won’t work with you, then you’re not getting anything done. Time to resign and get someone in there who can work for the people.
People on both sides of this argument are, “removing” all doubt about the efficacy of the City’s ability to do any kind of business on the square.
Pathetic and shameful
There was only ONE person who showed up to defend the council’s resolution and at least eight who strongly supported Ms. Conner. The mayor could not defend his position with facts, but only innuendo. And one council member refused to answer any questions regarding the censure resolution. Is this the kind of representative who speaks for the people? Or does this show intolerance? Their lack of eloquence and fairness demonstrated ineptness.
The inability of four council members to make their case was breathtaking. The one concrete example the city manager cited was in an email by Ms. Conner which was totally misrepresented and undercutting her veracity as shown by Ms. Conner’s lawyer who read the entire email.
The city of SLT is in precarious hands. Freedom of speech was stifled by these four council members and the resolution forbidding city employees to talk to Ms. Conners shows their fear of anyone who challenges them. Definitely a higher public scrutiny needs to be on that council.
Now that the public has become aware that this is a pattern with the city- forbidding some citizens from doing business with their staff, (not just Conner) do they realize that ever visit to a city office or with a city official or staff is bound to be recorded? It’s tough to believe but they have really LOWERED the bar of tolerance which will not be good in the long run.
BTW, who is censoring Nancy for spelling C-U-N-T in public? I am offended and request/expect a censure. Class-less? Yes. Criminal? No.
This entire circus act should now be investigated by the Grand Jury as a colossal waste of time and public funds by people who should be forced to go find jobs in the real world. Proof that the City is unable to function effectively and efficiently. It should simply be dissolved.
I watched the entire meeting. To me it seemed like a huge waste of time. The four counsil members minds were made up the moment they sat in their chairs. Considering all the scandals this town has been involved in throughout history, this seems tame. It also seems funny to me that Conner is being criticized for her strong language, yet you print the “C” word in your article. Tisk tisk Kae.
GOOD! What a nasty “lady”!
From the testimony at the meeting, it appears that JoAnn helped all those nice people by threatening staff. I wonder how many of her supporters would really condone that kind of behavior on their behalf. And forbidding a Council member from participating in a parade that JoAnn organized (and her business may have been paid to organize) is just childish.
JoAnn did a good job of turning out her supporters at last night’s hearing…. they constituted about half the audience. The remainder were thoughtful citizens who will also vote next November.
I’ve personally have been witness to her abusive behavior. Plastic bag meetings, Mayor elections in December of 2014.
This is not how an elected official should act. All the people saying there is no proof…What are you talking about. EVERYONE has seen it. I’m sure there a city council meetings on tape with her being abusive.
Still perhaps the city should have furnished some evidence to appease the conspiracy trolls.
When thinking of JoAnn Conner the adage “Often wrong, but never uncertain” comes to mind; a person so dogmatic in their positions that they’re never willing to listen and learn some other way of looking at things.
What I personally find distressing is that Ms. Conner apparently believes her behavior and treatment of certain people is perfectly acceptable. That mindset is generally reserved for the very youngest of people who’ve not yet learned the concept of taking responsibility for their behavior, actions, and words. Behaving like an adult who can be respected and taken seriously includes learning to disagree without being disagreeable, but it seems these days that politics at every level has shifted toward the ill-mannered and crass.
Her supporters are suspiciously on message. I am sure they all came up with the (weak) ‘slippery slope’ argument independently. Yes it is embarrassing that this was so public, but who is the genesis of all of this? Not the people who were harassed/bullied. Heard a lot of ‘well i disagree with her tactics’ excuses. Some people have higher standards for leaders. Maybe she’d make a good football coach where berating people is a rarely useful tool.
“There was only ONE person who showed up to defend the council’s resolution and at least eight who strongly supported Ms. Conner.”
Yeah… or few felt the need to show up and dignify the opposition with their presence.
I only made it 12 minutes in to the video, but it is censure, not censor. Unless they were actually talking about censorship, which is not relevant.
Surprise! You can’t call your coworkers c-words unless you work in a restaurant. Oops.
I for one wasn’t going to show up to support the council when I know she has a gun and a temper.
Sam, I agree with your last comment.