C

Two months after placing Human Resources Director Casta Brice on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into city document disposal procedures, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen postponed a vote on beginning the investigation.

In February, the board placed Brice on leave following the discovery of documents set aside for disposal in a locked closet in the Human Resources department of the Tullahoma Municipal Building.

The decision to place Brice on administrative leave was stated to be based upon a pending investigation into whether city department heads were following the procedures for document disposal as laid out in Tullahoma Municipal Code 1-210.

It was later discovered that the board had never properly adopted the document retention policy, which was designed by the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS), although the city had presumably been operating by its guidelines. The policy was officially adopted on March 27, one month after Brice was placed on leave.

At the Feb. 27 meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, the board approved of directing the city attorney, Stephen Worsham, to recommend an individual or individuals to undertake the investigation into whether the document retention policy had been violated.

Worsham brought the qualifications of an unnamed individual before the board at the April 10 meeting, where the board considered a request to “direct the city attorney and a recommended third party to determine if the MTAS document retention policy was violated by then-Human Resources Director Casta Brice when disposing of documents for shredding.” A report of their findings and a recommendation would be given to the board when the inquiry was completed.

Worsham shared that he had discussed the matter of the city’s investigation into the disposal with District Attorney Craig Northcott, who confiscated the documents in question for preservation pending his own criminal investigation. Worsham recommended that the board conduct their investigation in conjunction with the district attorney.

“I’ve talked to a respected jurist in this town who is retired and is willing to do this for the city,” he continued. “If you all do vote on this item tonight and approve it, then I would suggest that we simply inform him as to what we are looking for there and let him conduct the investigation without me. I don’t need to participate in that also, as long as he knows what the objective is and what he’s looking for. I’m happy to do that if you wish, but I don’t see why the city should bear that additional expense in compensating me and also this other person that I would recommend to you all.”

Upon Mayor Ray Knowis directing the board to vote, Alderman Kurt Glick asked for clarification on what the board was voting for.

“This is something this board requested happen, so I’m confused now as to why we don’t want to take action. We’ve got someone who, as Alderman Amacher had stated is ‘on paid vacation,’” said Alderman Daniel Berry, referring to comments made by Amacher at the Feb. 13 meeting of the board. “I’m just confused as to what the problem is now. I want somebody to explain this so that we can get this over with.”

Amacher voiced her concerns with the agenda item as presented, including: a desire to know the identity of the investigator, the focus of the investigation, as well as disputing Worsham’s recommendation to work in conjunction with the district attorney.

“Our internal investigation should’ve actually happened first, before the DA was ever involved,” she said. “I don’t believe that we can do so until the criminal investigation has concluded. Furthermore, I do not think that this conversation should be had in open session, considering that there is a pending criminal investigation, and there could be more liability that stems from it, in such case we should be holding this conversation in executive session once we receive the results of any pending criminal investigation.”

She went on to state that the results of the investigation would lead to further investigations into the entire city HR department, based on their findings.

Knowis, Worsham and Berry confirmed that the agenda item and information within was directly taken from the motion passed by the board. No additional information on the investigation or the investigator was provided, given that the history of the item was based entirely on decisions made by the board.

“I was the original person that put that agenda item on the packet several weeks ago, [and] the original agenda item didn’t make it in its entirety,” Amacher said. “What we did ask Mr. Worsham to do is to bring us names, whether they be law firms or individuals, who have the background in order to aid us in an investigation going forward, in which case we would set the parameters of what we actually want them to conduct, as far as the investigation. What this agenda item should be is a list of those names, qualifications, expertise, what they can offer and how much it would cost us.”

Knowis asked whether Worsham could elaborate on the points presented by Amacher.

“I hate to be elementary, but just read what’s in the agenda packet,” Worsham said. “I have a recommendation. The gentleman with whom I talked asked to remain anonymous, and if you’re not satisfied with him, I will talk to other people. I have a recommendation, if this passes; if it doesn’t pass, then this just becomes a moot question. I didn’t design this, [and] I didn’t initiate the investigation; I wasn’t a part of it, but I’m trying to do what I believe the board wanted me to do. I don’t think we even need an investigation, frankly, but that’s up to y’all. I can tell you that some people I talked to did not want to do it. They did not want to touch it under any circumstances.”

Amacher clarified that she had based her motion and intentions for the proposed investigation off of the actions that were taken to investigate then-Parks and Recreation Director Kurt Glick in 2020. She stated that she would not support the motion without knowing the identity of the investigators, the cost or the intent of the investigation.

“Well, Ms. Amacher, all you have to vote on is the concept, not the person or who does it if you’ll look at the reading right there,” Worsham said. “Let’s either do it, let’s vote on this and move forward with someone that we can recommend to you all, or we’ll forget it. I think the first step is: are we even going to do it? And this is the first step. It’s not to select anyone or any method or anything like that. If you don’t want to do it, just vote it down, and we’ll just go ahead and let the DA do his investigation.”

Worsham further stated his understanding of the motion as being an investigation into whether the document retention procedures that the city “had not really formally adopted when this happened” had been followed.

“We already set the parameters for this investigation, if you recall,” Berry directed toward the board. “This board directed the city attorney to find a third-party person, and that’s what this item is. I think this board seems to forget that we record these things and everything we say is recorded. There is a real person at the other end of this, and we are just sitting around. This is ridiculous. Let’s get some finality to this and move on.”

The board voted to postpone the motion to select an investigator until the criminal investigation by Northcott is concluded, with the postponement being approved 5-2, with Knowis and Berry against.