Discrimination charges against Mayor Dwyer lead to change

Robert Monteith

September 4 , 2008.

Tensions on the city council reached new heights in August when Councilor Melinda Hofstad filed a sexual discrimination complaint against Mayor Al Dwyer. The complaint, filed with the city, required that a full investigation be conducted under state and federal law. Hofstad’s letter to the investigator listed several reasons why she felt discriminated against due to her gender.

Dwyer and Hofstad have enjoyed chilly relationships since shortly after the election, and the issue came out in public during a May 14 budget meeting when Dwyer and City Manager Rich Underkofler interrupted Hofstad’s questioning of a department head with a bout of quiet laughter. When she asked why they were interrupting, Dwyer informed her that city staff had formed a betting pool on how long the meeting would take to finish. The revelation led Hofstad to abandon the meeting in protest, feeling she had been personally insulted.

Since then, the mayor and councilor have taken many opportunities to speak tersely with one another throughout city council meetings and argue over proper meeting procedure. Hofstad maintains that there are several instances where Mayor Al Dwyer ignored Robert’s Rules, the guiding rule set that dictates procedure in public meetings, and either closed debate before she had a chance to speak or ignored her completely when she attempted to request the floor.

Hofstad’s letter to the investigator also lists several instances of abuse she has had to endure from people associated with the city government, including two former city councilors, one of whom stated, “You have no right to have an opinion on the Harbor. You don’t even own a boat. You are just a cook and a dishwasher.” Another told her, “We don’t want any women coming to our meetings anymore.” Although neither comment appears on any record or was even investigated, one instance of Hofstad being called a derogatory curse word by a fellow councilor was in fact legitimized in the report.

Hofstad’s letter also informs the investigator of two separate instances whereDwyer, serving in an official capacity, referred to women in a way that made her uncomfortable. The alleged comments were listed as, “She really pisses me off. I just want to cut her hair off,” and, “Everyone wants you to come back to Petersburg except…who would like to cut off a certain part of your anatomy with a sharp knife.”

Hofstad’s letter also alleged that Dwyer requested in November that she not speak to city department heads or the acting city manager during city council meetings. It also states that Dwyer attempted to edit her emails with wording that he felt was more appropriate.

In an interview this week, Hofstad said that she attempted to resolve her situation with Dwyer quietly, but could not find an avenue to do so.

“On seven occasions since last November I have tried to speak with the mayor about these problems,” she said. “I have requested mediation three different times from the city. One of them was with this Mr. Grover (the city’s investigator) who could have stopped this investigation and just mediated between the mayor and I. (City Clerk) Kathy O’Rear suggested mediation at the beginning, which I thought was good, and then another time I suggested it myself. But the mayor did not want any mediation.”

Hofstad said she also attempted to call an executive session where the mayor and city councilors could discuss the various issues plaguing council meetings, but her request was denied in favor of discussing the topic in an open meeting.

“I really didn’t want to bring this to the public. I wanted to try and resolve this quietly,” she said.

After exhausting her attempts at conversation, she went to the city offices and filed a workplace harassment complaint against Dwyer as instructed by orientation material she received upon being elected. She said that she was prompted to do so after a teenage girl asked her if all women in politics were treated the same way.

“I thought it could be resolved in house, but apparently it couldn’t be resolved that way, and because I had made this complaint, the city had to investigate it,” said Hofstad.

Hofstad maintains that she was not properly represented in the investigation as it was conducted by a labor attorney on the city’s payroll. She reported that both the city manager and the city attorney informed her that their job description implored them to argue in favor of the mayor.

“The manager informed me that he would have to aggressively defend the mayor against my interests because the mayor’s interests were the city’s interests. I talked to the city attorney and he said the same thing. I did request through the manager legal counsel for myself, which I was not given. I was told that if I took it to court and won they would have to provide counsel, but I didn’t want to take it to court. All I really wanted was somebody to sit down with the mayor and I and try to resolve this issue.”

The investigation itself did not find any sort of sexual discrimination taking place between Dwyer and Hofstad. Several witnesses were identified in the final report and most of them either worked for the city or were a part of the council itself and the investigator made sure to weight testimony from those who may have previous grievances with Dwyer or Hofstad.

“There is no question that Councilor Hofstad is subject to more adverse action by the mayor during council meetings than any other member,” read the report. “She is more likely to be interrupted or gaveled down. She is more likely to be the subject of a smirk, a snicker, or rolled eyes. Councilor Hofstad considers this harassment as do a few other interviewees. Harassment by itself is not enough, however.”

In order for Hofstad’s complaint to be legitimate, explains the report, the harassment would have to stem from a gender bias.

Instead the investigator, who did not verify several of Hofstad’s complaints and called them “too isolated and ambiguous to be fairly relied upon as proof,” stated that the harassment stemmed from other sources.

“Rather, it appears to me that other factors including political differences, personality clashes, and pride are at the root of this very strained and complex relationship.”

Hofstad responded to the report with a prepared statement that stated in part, “Why isn’t the city’s interest to ensure that I am not being harassed? It’s a typical legal maneuver that when you don’t have a defense, you attack the victim.” Later, she continued. “It says it’s okay for him to violate Robert’s Rules on certain occasions depending on my personality. In my opinion, this investigation by the city labor attorney is simply a means to save the city from legal action, which I have never intended to take anyway. I didn’t want an investigation. All I wanted was some mediation so that the mayor and I could work things out.”

Although Hofstad’s complaint may have been rejected by the city, her original intent may well have occurred. Since the investigation began, the mayor and city staff have been proactive in finding solutions to many of Hofstad’s procedural complaints. Dwyer and Hofstad ended their bouts of terse comments and have treated each other with respect while in council chambers. City Manager Rich Underkofler has also moved away from his traditional chair next to the mayor and now sits among the audience members, meaning less of a chance that his interactions with the mayor can be deemed disruptive. Mayor Dwyer also acknowledged Robert’s Rules proper procedure for closing a debate for the first time at Tuesday’s meeting, meaning that Hofstad or any other councilor will have less of a chance of feeling gaveled down.