The Daily Herald has obtained payroll information from Tyrone Borough through a formal written “open records” request in an attempt to verify former manager Nathan George’s last day of pay.
George has contended he was terminated in executive session on Tuesday, June 8 while the borough took formal action by voting to dismiss George with cause effective immediately at a special public meeting on June 11.
Previously, an informal verbal request was made last week through borough finance director Phyllis Garhart. She indicated she would need to speak to solicitor Larry Clapper prior to providing specific information.
During the conversation, Garhart explained general payroll information such as how payroll periods ran at the borough while indicating George’s last days of work occurred during a then still-open pay period ending on June 20.
She explained the borough pays its employees every two weeks with pay periods running for a two-week cycle which begins on a Monday and ends on a Sunday.
Both June 8, the day George claims he was terminated and June 11, the day the borough took its public vote fell within the period ending June 20.
The informal request asked for copies of payroll information regarding what would be the last two pay periods for which George was a borough employee.
Payroll information regarding George for the two-week period ending June 6 was requested for comparison purposes to the second request; a copy of payroll information ending June 20 in an attempt to ascertain his last day of pay as an employee.
Earlier this week, Garhart restated general payroll information and said information specific to George would indicate his last day of pay was June 11. She said if The Daily Herald wanted to attempt to review or obtain copies of the payroll information, a formal written request would be necessary.
The formal written request was made Wednesday and the borough provided the information yesterday.
It indicated George was paid for 40 hours of his regular pay for the period ending June 20. Paychecks for the most recent pay period were issued yesterday.
The comparison pay period ending June 6, included eight hours of holiday pay which would seem to indicate an eight-hour regular work day.
It also showed a shortfall of two-and-a-quarter hours which George was not paid for during the period ending June 6. However, through the comparison with the June 6 period and the June 20 period, it would appear a full-time borough employee is paid for 80 regular hours over a two-week period. Thus, indicating a 40-hour-work week.
The information that was provided is not specific enough to show that George’s last day of pay was June 11. It does not break the pay down by day.
But, through the documentation obtained, it appears the borough did pay George for a full-work week for the period from June 7 through June 20.
The Daily Herald spoke with the former manager this morning to inform him the payroll information had been obtained and to seek his comments.
He confirmed borough employees were paid based on a 40-hour work week. He referred all other questions to his attorney, Joseph Cavrich of Hollidaysburg.
George had previously said he was not at work on Wednesday, June 9 through Friday June 11. The Daily Herald independently confirmed through borough secretary Kim Murray that George was not at work on Thursday afternoon, June 10 and was not expected to be in of Friday June 11.
The Herald also spoke with George in person at his home after the start of his normal work day on June 11. George indicated he planned to attend the special meeting that night.
The payroll information indicates George was not paid sick days or personal days for the days he says he was not at work. The 40 hours of pay are listed under regular hours.
In conclusion regardless of the former manager’s disputed last day as an employee, the payroll information indicates George was paid as a borough employee for the entire first week (June 7-11, 2004) of the two-week period ending June 20.
George claimed during public comment at the special meeting and in statements to the press, the borough was in violation of the state’s Sunshine Laws and he was denied due process of law. His claim is based on his belief the borough took official action during the executive session.
Teri Henning, media counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said if an agency takes official action during an executive session, “It’s a clear violation of the Sunshine Laws.”
The borough has been limited by the advice of counsel regarding its comments and information it has been able to release about what happened during the executive session and the reasons behind George’s termination.
George had said his dismissal was without cause and retaliatory for his attempts to use his supervisory authority with another employee. George believes the borough is in violation of its home rule charter, by not allowing him to execute his duties as borough manager regarding this and other issues.
Prior to its June 11 vote, solicitor Larry Clapper advised council and other borough officials not to discuss the issue. Since then, the borough issued only one official statement last week.
The borough stated, “the executive session of June 8, 2004, was lawfully held pursuant to the Sunshine Law to discuss employment issues regarding the Borough manager. At no time prior to the public Borough Council meeting of June 11, 2004 did Borough Council take official action concerning this matter or communicate that such action had been taken.”
George has contended among other things, he was asked to sign a letter of resignation and a release form, he was refused a request to obtain a copy of the letter and release and he was denied the chance to discuss the matter with an attorney or anyone else. He has indicated he was terminated after refusing to sign the resignation letter.
He also said he had items pertaining to his employment confiscated including a cell phone, a pager and his keys on June 8. Additionally, George said he was asked to pack his personal belongings and received a police escort out of the municipal building along with his wife and infant child.
During the June 11 special public meeting, George sat in the section reserved for the public rather than at his regular seat in the council chambers. Attorney Cavrich said the borough did not tell George where to sit during the meeting. George said he didn’t sit at his regular seat since he believed he was no longer a borough employee.
The borough’s official statement also indicates it does not believe it had violated its charter in terms of its reasons for dismissal. The borough has declined to comment on the specifics which led to George’s termination.
Last week, Cavrich said he had no documentation of George’s last day of pay. This was during when the pay period in question was still open. He did not return a call made to him this morning by press time.
