When the Davis City Council in December 2008 declined to read the full Davis Fire Report written by investigator Bob Aaronson, they agreed to allow then City Manager Bill Emlen to summarize the report and present it to the Davis City Council in their meeting in January 2009.
As Bob Aaronson responded to a question the accuracy of Mr. Emlen’s account and the degree to which it reflected the tone and content of the report, Mr. Aaronson implied heavily that Mr. Emlen’s was not particularly faithful to the tone and content.
He told the Council: “I think there are three bases for what I perceive as the differences between my report and the city manager’s summary of my report. The first one is a simple difference, if you reduce a library’s volume by 70 to 80 books it contains, it’s still a library but it’s a different library. When you take information out, it’s hard for there not to be a loss. So there are nuances there are statements and contexts that to me were important that were taken out for the sake of brevity.
“The second issue which is also unavoidable-from my perspective the components of my report that touch on personnel matters were essential. Some of them I think go directly to the heart of the more consequential issues. So to eliminate them by its nature changes what the report is.
“And then the third thing is, and it’s my impression, Bill is sort of a glass half full sort of guy when it comes to city operations, it’s my impression, and I tend to a glass half empty sort of guy. Those are the ways that I try to articulate how I see there are some differences.”
Until recently, we could only rely on this comment to suggest that there were substantial differences in the tone and content of the summary of the report from the original.
Now with the report fully unredacted, we can compare the summary written and presented by Bill Emlen to the actual report. What we (presented below) is what you would expect. First, Mr. Emlen emphasized the positive points of the report and downplayed the negative and more critical findings. Second, he fundamentally misrepresented several findings. Third, he omitted critical findings.
The result is that nearly every positive statement in the entire report was included in Mr. Emlen’s summary and only a scattered number of the critical comments were presented. Mr. Aaronson would charitably characterize this as a half-full rendering of his report, but the more accurate description is that he whitewashed it.
Key Points of Bill Emlen’s Summary
In what follows will be a statement by Bill Emlen, a determination of the accuracy of the statement and then any necessary elaboration.
Emlen: “Mr. Aronson’s (sic) investigation confirmed that circumstances cited in the Grand Jury report were based on incidents and issues that spanned a decade or more in time. Although some are fairly recent, several are years old. ‘It became apparent shortly after taking on this assignment that a substantial portion of the specific factual incidents alleged in the GJR are at least five to ten years old.’“
Misleading: While the GJR was the impetus for the follow up Aaronson report, the key as Mr. Aaronson wrote was, “to ascertain the current state of the workplace.” So when Mr. Emlen writes, “Putting any department or organization under the microscope for an extended period of time will likely reveal some issues or incidents” – the question isn’t put the department under the microscope so much as determining the extent to which the employees were subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation.
The timeline is important here and Mr. Emlen implies these problems were in the past or later he implied that they were worse in the past. The report shows that while there are suggestions that things may have been worse in the past, that the problems laid out in the report were contemporaneous and ongoing. An open question remains as to how much the city was willing to step in to protect their employees.
Emlen: “The report notes for perspective purposes the following: The high level of integrity exhibited by the Fire Chief in running the department. The fact the overall morale in the department is higher today than ten years ago. Even the employees referred to as disgruntled in the investigation respect the chief’s leadership and commitment to the department. Mr. Aaronson writes, “Many of these critics, despite their fault-finding, still have many positive praising things to say about the department, the union and Chief Conroy. Virtually all of them freely acknowledge the Chief’s many successes, hard work and skillful leadership, as well as Union president Weist’s contribution to making the fire department a better, safer place to work.” That the department has made great strides in the past decade as a professional organization.”
Misleading: Mr. Emlen is clearly attempting to provide these positive examples as the pretext to the report which focuses heavily on the negative. For the most part this is accurate while understanding that he’s basically cherry-picking the positive comments in a sea of more critical comments.
I do note that the only reference I can find to the Chief “high level of integrity” is in this passage: “There is a perception amongst some firefighters that Chief Conroy has been one of the beneficiaries of the union’s dues and hours, in connection with her attendance at professional conferences. Chief Conroy categorically denied this to me. Based on her undisputed reputation for extreme ethical integrity, I credit her denial. But this is an example of the price the union (and the Chief) pays for the union’s lack of transparency in the details of how its assets are used.”
The lengthy quote that Mr. Emlen uses precedes a paragraph that notes, “Being in the dissatisfied minority has taken a toll on a number of the disgruntled employees. Their experience is one of dissonance; some of them betrayed visible signs of cumulative stress and anxiety.”
So while it is clear what the former city manager was attempting to do here, it is nonetheless misleading to pull quotes or paraphrase quotes out of context.
Emlen: “The report suggests that (shunning and favoritism) is plausible, but there is no direct evidence to prove that this has happened. There are still a group of employees who could reasonably be described as disgruntled… I found no evidence that either the Chief or the union explicitly directs anyone to be shunned or ostracized.”
Highly Deceptive: The City Manager was actually called on this during the meeting. There is “no direct evidence” because the investigator did not have enough funding to investigate it. Interestingly the two paragraphs that describe this were among the last two that were unredacted.
“There may or may not be provable instances of retaliation by Chief Conroy. I was told many stories, primarily related to promotions, assignment of projects and general treatment. As I stated to Chief Conroy, an investigation of a single event, to determine whether or not retaliation played a role, would typically require at least half a dozen interviews, not including subsequent follow up re-interviews and the review of other materials. (A retaliatory motive need not be more than one factor in a decision to render the decision improper.)
I did not keep strict count, but I would estimate that I heard at least a couple of dozen distinct allegations of retaliation and/or harassment. Based on my experience, I would estimate that investigating even just five of them might consume as much as 100 or more investigative hours. Given how much unfettered discretion the Chief exercises, separating retaliatory motivation from appropriate decision making would be difficult at best.”
In addition, while the City manager quoted the paragraph that he found no evidence… the follow up paragraph noted, “On the other hand, there is a shared sense that favoritism plays a role in some assignments and promotions. Virtually all the discontented and some of the more moderate loyalists expressed concerns about the role that being ‘in favor’ has played in certain situations.”
Here as before, Mr. Aaronson notes, “Trying to investigatively prove or disprove favoritism in particular instances is a labor intensive exercise.”
So the reason that “there is no direct evidence to prove that this has happened” is that Mr. Aaronson was not asked to follow up – rather than there being evidence that it did not happen as the statement implies.
Of all the points that the City Manager makes, this is the one that is most misleading to council and the public.
Emlen: “The Grand Jury Report suggested potentially inappropriate political activities and donations made by firefighters and the union. Firefighters, as members of a union, have an absolute constitutional right to participate in activities and provide donations, provided they do not do so on City time or as official representatives of the City. The report finds no instances of wrongdoing…”
Deceptive: As we learned the night of the meeting, when Mr. Emlen wrote, there were “no instances of wrongdoing” what that meant was that Mr. Aaronson lacked the resources to investigate these claims further.
Emlen: “The Fire Department currently has a promotional process in place, and the report shows that the department has followed the process.”
Highly Deceptive: The report here implies that there is no problem. Emlen quotes from the report, “Based on my interviews, the promotional process has been a flash point within the organization for over a decade…In fact, the single most common starting place where employees become ‘disgruntled’ is in connection with the promotional process”
He adds, “Apparently, Chief Conroy has been aware of this perception for some period of time. This is part of the reason why she is at such pains, during each process, to meet with the candidates and go over, in great detail, how the process works.”
In so doing, Mr. Emlen implies that there is nothing found to be wrong. What we learned in May 2012 was that this was not accurate in the least.
The very next sentence is omitted from the summary: “Having spent time discussing the details of the last promotional process with Chief Conroy, I do believe that she does not see that her actions have biased the result. But they have, as an examination of the question reveals.”
As we now know, the union President, Bobby Weist was promoted over other more qualified candidates.
“While almost no one questioned Bobby’s skills or abilities, a significant number of firefighters, including some who were not otherwise disgruntled, believed that one particular candidate was far more deserving than Bobby Weist – the individual who finished 4th , 1 st and in the second tier (in the assessment center, the division chiefs’ interviews and the chief s final ranking, respectively),” writes Mr. Aaronson.
Based on Mr. Emlen’s summary we never had any inkling of the problem that took up a good portion of Mr. Aaronson’s report and in fact, the implication of the quotations if the exact opposite.
It is worth noting that former Chief Rose Conroy also came to a similar conclusion – the fire department had followed the process. Except that we know that the city changed the promotional process to avoid allowing the Chief the amount of discretion as she previously had.
Under current rules, Bobby Weist never would have been eligible to receive his promotion.
Mr. Emlen would write, “it is important to note the process followed under the recruitment highlighted by the Grand Jury was in accordance with established procedures. It is also important to note that candidates selected were well qualified for the position. That said, the report does a good job of identifying why the current process could be improved for future recruitments with respect to clarity and minimizing questions of subjectivity in the final determination.”
He adds, “I concur with the investigation that improvements to that process can and should be made to refine and strengthen it.”
So Mr. Emlen made the changes, but did so have never actually acknowledged the problem that led to those changes.
Emlen: “As suggested by the GJR, the Aaronson report confirms that on an infrequent basis, inebriated, off-duty firefighters utilized their assigned beds in fire stations to sober up.”
“This practice, while understandable from a personal and public safety perspective, is still an unacceptable use of public facilities. It does not appear to have occurred very often, but any occurrence is problematic.”
Accurate: The most public of the GJR charges was the image of the drunken firefighters sleeping it off at the fire station. It made for embarrassing media coverage around the region, but from the standpoint of the organization, the workplace issues trump them.
Nevertheless, the most extensive direct quotes from the Aaronson report that Mr. Emlen used come from the section on firefighters sleeping in stations when off-duty and badging.
Emlen: “The report touches on the issues related to firefighters drinking in the downtown while off-duty and related behavioral issues.” This includes fights and badging.
Largely Accurate: The only issue I have is in this paragraph: “This third instance, based on the contemporaneous statements of witnesses, may have encompassed (an) assault committed by an off-duty intoxicated firefighter at the end of a barroom disturbance. The matter was not forwarded to the district attorney for criminal prosecution due to the lack of cooperation by the victim…”
The “(an)” is a placeholder for Mr. Aaronson’s term “felony” which was redacted until May 2012 for reasons we will never know. I continue to believe that the city redacted information that would never have stood up had it been challenged in a court of law. The city avoided these problems by unredacted additional information each time, never actually taking the matter to court.
Emlen: Bill Emlen spends a page to list out six factually disproved or inaccurate information from the report. He then concludes, “While there are issues identified in the report that should be and are being addressed, the report found that the overall service delivery to the
public has been outstanding. The department has strong leadership and is well-managed.
The employees are well-trained and dedicated to provision of service to the public.”
He then quotes from the end of Mr. Aaronson’s report, “The GJR, on its face, was never intended to constitute a comprehensive analysis of the Davis Fire Department. Many important areas in which the DFD clearly exceeds professional norms are not addressed at all. Perhaps the single largest unaddressed area is the quality of service DFD provides to the city of Davis and its residents and visitors.”
Questionable: It is an open question how well the department was actually managed at this time. Certainly the actions of Ms. Conroy and the union president call management into question.
The operations of the department appear to be largely unaffected by these problems, but here as well questions arise as to whether the public is getting as good a service as they could be. It is a real eye-opener looking at response-time data and realizing that the department deployment may have been manipulated in order to provide justification and create a crisis to add a fourth fire station.
Key Omissions
Rose Conroy and the Narcissists:
The most serious findings in the Aaronson report dealt with the promotion of Bobby Weist and the newly released sections directly from Chief Rose Conroy’s interview where she described those who were subjected to retaliation or treated with hostility as people who have “gripes” who are “narcissistic.”
“That it’s about them and they don’t like it if it’s not about them and they don’t look good in front of other people. … The problem employees are (those) who don’t get their way,” the former chief told investigator Bob Aaronson in portions of the report recently released.
“It may be something that they got at birth, it may not be something that’s inflicted here. It’s something about their personality. Not necessarily that it’s generated here. … That might be a personality issue, not having anything to do with the workplace,” she added.
“I am absolutely not one of those (people who would retaliate against an employee),” she said. “You are talking about people that have significant personality disorders.”
There is of course nary a hint of this and so while two critical sections of the report are highly deceptive, this is deception by omission. The council never would have had an idea of this as these sections were blacked out until the final version was release a few weeks ago.
Financial Records:
Mr. Emlen never made reference to the fact that “the union has never kept particularly complete” records of how its money and bank of hours are used.
Mr. Aaronson wrote, “The union treasurer is expected to know, and regularly reports at board meetings, what the union’s account balances are. Weist stated that detailed financial records, which would show members the details of how and where their money was spent, are not prepared at all.
“There have been instances where members have requested to have access to union financial information. Bobby denied that any member was ever flatly refused the request; apparently, if asked, the member is directed to the treasurer to make an appointment to review the information available, which, for the most part, only constitutes account balances.
“There is a common perception that the board members, and the president in particular, are using union assets for fancy meals, liquor and gifts, sometimes in connection with union conferences and sometimes not. One person’s routine dinner out is another’s extravagance; I did not see it as my place to try to go through union records in an effort to distinguish one from the other. It’s the members’ money and their right and obligation to inquire if they wish.”
Conclusion
The Council was not well-served by reading only a redacted copy of the report and relying on Mr. Emlen’s summary. The summary omitted the key findings about Rose Conroy and her systematic downplaying of those employees under her care.
City Manager Bill Emlen was outright deceptive with regards to claims that there was no proof of favoritism or retaliation and deceptive with regards to the hiring process and the outright favoritism employed by Chief Conroy.
While the city is reluctant to acknowledge what information the council had at their disposal, our best estimates suggest that none of these most critical areas were even broached.
In short, the council had no ability to act in the best interest of their employees. The fact that they did so willingly only magnifies the astonishing abdication of duty by everyone but Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald in the entirety of city government.
These mistakes were compounded by a comedy of errors that led to the discussion of the fire report that began well after midnight and after the council was far from on their best game.
We did recognize this at the time. To this date it appears Mr. Souza and Mr. Saylor still do not.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The department has strong leadership and is well-managed.”
How Emlen could have carefully read Aaronson’s report–and he must have to cherry pick what to use in his own–and come up with this conclusion is a real mystery. There are several leadership and management shortcomings found that Emlen either ignored or broached in a non-direct way that directly contradict his “well-managed” conclusion.
I’ve never run into a manager who spoke with such disdain about those she supervised. Except, maybe, drill instructors at basic training out at the bar with fellow trainers (“You wouldn’t believe the pack of whining pansies I got delivered last week….”). It’s obvious why Former Chief Conroy didn’t want her biased, unfeeling views about her employees to come to light.
The department had firefighters with serious complaints that weren’t being addressed through faulty, existing city channels and processes, that then weren’t corrected in spite of the county grand investigation and Aaronson’s investigation. It appears that only individual dedication (and a profitable employment situation) kept the department from coming apart.
Your analysis clearly shows that Emlen engaged in deception to cover up the true situation at the fire department. The best description of Emlen’s failing came from Aaronson’s gentlemanly, but accurate, observation:
“Some of them I think go directly to the heart of the more consequential issues. So to eliminate them by its nature changes what the report is.”
Was Emlen’s rewrite to “change what the report is” designed to mislead the city council or designed to give the council majority a public cover story to allow the three not to deal with their political supporters?
“Was Emlen’s rewrite to “change what the report is” designed to mislead the city council or designed to give the council majority a public cover story to allow the three not to deal with their political supporters?”
My guess is the latter, but that’s only a guess.
I think the rest of your analysis is right on. Aaronson was in an impossible spot, if he came on too strongly at that meeting, they would have found a way to fire him. If he didn’t come on strongly enough, they would have whitewashed it.
He came on just strongly enough that I was able to glean that we needed to see the whole report.
You are making assumptions about the way the department should be run. Suppose Conroy was hired to run the department just the way she did? Suppose she was following directions? We have yet to hear a single one of her superiors criticizng her conduct. Why?
Alternatively, suppose the City was just trying to close the door to potential litigation? The City has a long history of such base behavior. It would be refreshing to see the City run by the values of the Council rather than those of the City Attorney.
[quote]“It would be refreshing to see the City run by the values of the Council rather than those of the City Attorney.”[/quote]That would be refreshing, indeed.
It’s a mystery just what the city attorney had to say about this situation since her scheduled report to the council in January 2009 either was delivered in executive session or not provided at all. Did she and the city manager really trash Aaronson and his report, as Chief Conroy now contends?
As Stephen Souza has pointed out, Chief Conroy’s supervisor was Emlen. and it was in his best interest to bury this report since it reflects so poorly on both of them.
I tended to cut the chief some slack at the beginning. Management style is a tough thing to evaluate. Results are the objective, and different managers get to them differently. And, we all were pleased to be a city with a woman at the top of the department.
The more that was revealed through David’s digging, the more obvious it became that something unhealthy was going on behind the scenes in the fire house. Now, the whole thing is out there for each of us to make our own judgements.
Favoritism and reprisal shouldn’t go on without a process in place for employees to raise their grievances. Since the council majority closed their eyes to this investigation report, how do we know
what the values of that council were about running the city?
Today’s [u]Enterprise[/u] suggests the current council will get its own test. Union President Weist is directly challenging the city leadership and its values. We’ll see if our current council members (including two who must be hoping for union support in their runs for the state legislature) blink first?