(Editor’s note: The Daily Herald continues its Top Ten countdown of the most important local news stories of 2004. The series will continue each day the newspaper is published until the Number One story, as chosen by the Herald staff.)
At this time last year, Tyrone Borough was getting set to welcome its new manager, but less than six months later Nathan George was being shown the door.
George was hired in December of 2003, several months after the resignation of previous borough manager Al Drayovitch. George’s hiring concluded an extensive search which saw the borough advertise twice to solicit applicants for the job.
George came from a job in Nebraska and assumed the position in early January of this year. At the time he said, “I’m happy to be here and enjoy the hospitality of Tyrone so far.”
Mayor Patricia Stoner said at the time, “We took a long time making a decision and weighed it heavily. He has impeccable credentials and a great personality for a small town, we are looking forward to working with him. He’s a quick study, he already knows more about the borough than many people who live here.”
After just more than five months on the scene, George was fired at a special meeting called by the borough on June 11. Councilman Bill Fink voted against firing George and council person Sharon Dannaway was absent.
However, George claimed he was actually fired three days earlier in an executive session on June 8.
At the time, George said, “I was terminated in executive session,” said George. “I was actually escorted out of the building by the chief of police. They confiscated my keys, my pager, my cell phone. I was asked to remove all my personal items and they were packed up in a box. My wife and child were downstairs with me, they were also escorted out of the building with the chief of police.
“I feel it is a violation of the sunshine law to take official action in an executive session,” said George. “I was presented with a letter of resignation.
“I was not given an opportunity to talk to anyone, no phone calls, no attorney and at first I wasn’t even allowed to talk to my wife who was downstairs.”
George was not represented by an attorney at the June 11 meeting, stating he did not have time to obtain representation because of what he termed short notice of the special meeting. Daily Herald records show the meeting was properly advertised with the required amount of notice.
George also addressed borough council during the public comment portion of the June 11 meeting and addressed concerns regarding what he thought were sunshine law violations and the borough’s home rule charter.
In a written statement which George read from at the meeting, he said he did not “agree or consent with this.”
He stated, “council is engaged in a course of conduct in relation to taking action to wrongfully terminate my employment as borough manager.”
He stated council had violated section 802 of the charter, he said he had received no prior notice or warning his job performance was unsatisfactory to the level of termination for cause. He said he was told it was personnel, borough morale and projects.
“I believe it is a direct retaliation discharge, based on my refusal to comply with council, mayor and solicitor (Larry) Clapper as directed as to my working relationship with executive secretary Kim Murray who was under my direct exclusive supervision and control,” said George. “I also believe council is retaliating against me for suggesting the borough follow its charter, in operating a council management form of government.”
George said he also wanted to put on record that he felt, “sunshine laws were violated.”
He said he had been given a letter of resignation, he also indicated he was not allowed to take a copy of the resignation or the release with him and was not allowed to consult with an attorney or talk with anyone including his own wife.
“I’m not concerned about his comments,” solicitor Larry Clapper said after the meeting. The borough, did not answer any of George’s many questions before it voted. Clapper advised council not to discuss the issue during the meeting.
George’s firing drew a great deal of public attention including about two dozen people who attended the special meeting where he was dismissed. Some spoke during public comment even prior to the council’s official action.
During the days following George’s dismissal, Tyrone Borough released a statement on George’s dismissal which said in conclusion, “the Borough’s actions to terminate Mr. George’s employment complied in every respect with applicable law including, but not limited to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law and the Borough’s Home Rule Charter.”
A petition was circulated in support of George by the public. The petition was a two-page letter outlining concerns about George’s dismissal and the conduct of Tyrone Borough, asking that an investigation be conducted. The signed petitions were later sent to the office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert.
George also retained legal counsel, Joseph Cavrich of Hollidaysburg, who responded to the borough’s statement in a Daily Herald article and offered detailed information about his client’s concerns.
At the time, Cavrich said, “I’m not surprised they issued a statement,” said Cavrich. “There has been overwhelming support for Nathan and the borough had to say something.”
Cavrich contended the borough’s statement was designed to create what he describes as a “pretext” for the borough’s actions.
“It’s done to provide ostensible reasons or motive as a sort of cover…a false reason, (for dismissal) to cover the real reason,” said Cavrich. “It (the statement) is not in accordance with the facts. It’s an effort on the part of the borough to establish a pretext.
“This is not just a Sunshine Act issue. It’s also about violations of the home rule charter,” said Cavrich. “It’s an alleged retaliation for Nathan suggesting the borough follow its home rule charter and let him do his job.
“They disagreed with him and they took him out,” said Cavrich.
He also indicated he was hopeful the matter could be resolved voluntarily between the two parties. However, Cavrich did eventually file legal papers in the matter at the Blair County Courthouse including a writ of summons which put Tyrone on notice a case had been started without the need to give specifics.
Other motions indicated George was seeking to prevent the altering or destruction of documents which were left on his desk on the last day he says he was at work at the municipal building.
Motions were filed requesting the parties named in the writ answer questions from George’s attorney. The borough, the mayor and individual members of council were all named in the writ of summons. The borough then sought to prevent George from seeking pre-complaint information.
In mid-July, the Judge assigned to the case, Elizabeth Doyle, met in chambers with the attorneys for both sides and it was agreed there would be no pre-complaint discovery or any court order requiring the borough to preserve potential evidence. It was also decided the plaintiff, George, was to expeditiously file a complaint if he wanted to do so.
Some of the court documents showed that the borough had put George on notice about his performance.
Since the July meeting in the judge’s chambers, there have been little, if any, new developments in the case. The borough has yet to replace George with a new borough manager.
Solicitor Clapper said recently the borough is under no required time period to name a replacement and that the manager’s duties are being carried out by other department heads.
He explained Pittsburgh-based attorneys hired by the borough to deal with George’s contentions would handle any new developments if any should occur regarding the matter.
