Harassment Claim Has Merit, According to Independent Investigation
Susie Boone, Arnold parks and recreation director, says she was harrassed for more than two years by Ward 4 City Councilman Ken Moss after his sister was fired from the city's Parks Department.
Photos
An independent investigation into a hostile work environment complaint made by Arnold's parks and recreation director has merit, according to a summary of the investigation.
Susie Boone claims she was harassed for more than two years by Ward 4 City Councilman Ken Moss. Boone says the harassment began after Moss' sister was fired from the Parks Department in 2010.
See previous article: Arnold Employee Files Harassment Complaint Against Councilman
In October, the city hired Protective & Investigative Services to investigate the complaint. The St. Louis County company provides investigative, security and polygraph services.
In a letter on the investigation to Police Chief/Acting City Administrator Robert Shockey, Kevin Garrison, a representative of the company, wrote, "I believe you will find the results of this investigation to substantiate the claim made by Susie Boone."
A summary of the investigation states that several people interviewed said that Moss held a two-year grudge against Boone because she was involved in the termination of his sister for cause from the city.
"It (the report) will also reflect that on many occasions, several council members had conversations with Moss in an effort to get him to 'move on' and stop his harassment of Boone," the summary states. "Even after these conversations occurred, Moss continued."
Moss told Patch in an interview the investigation was "ridiculous," and that it revolves around a complaint that does not exist.
"If I did something I thought was wrong, I would have owned up to it," he told Patch.
Prior to the investigation, Boone went public regarding her allegations against Moss and filed a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in late September.
In her interview with the independent investigator, Boone said the commission had responded that it could do nothing with the complaint because it was not within its realm, and advised her to take the complaint to another agency.
Boone could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
Shockey told investigators that he contacted the independent investigative firm on Oct. 3 based on the recommendation of the city's insurance company, which was concerned about the situation becoming a liability.
The investigation, which Patch obtained through a Missouri Sunshine Law request, consisted of interviews with 26 elected officials and city employees. All members of the city council were interviewed except Michelle Hohmeier, who refused; Cricky Lang, who was ill; and Moss, who appeared with his attorney, but refused the interview.
Additionally, the report noted that Ward 1 Councilwoman Doris Borgelt "stormed out of the interview when she was questioned about comments she made in the Arnold Patch with reference to corruption in the City of Arnold." The summary also states that Borgelt requested to do another interview, but it was denied because of "her hostile behavior."
Councilmembers discussed the investigation at their meeting last week. Some claimed the report was hearsay and unnecessary, while others wanted it acknowledged and accepted into public record.
In an earlier interview, Arnold City Attorney Bob Sweeney said the council has three options: it could do nothing; it could censure Moss, which is essentially a warning; or it could vote to draft a bill of impeachment against Moss.
We'll have more on the council's discussion Friday on Patch.
Matt Hay
9:59 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Why not provide a link to the document itself as an appendix to the article? That is Journalism 101.
Matt Hay
9:59 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Can you post a link to the formal complaint filed with the State which was used as the basis of the investigation? I called and was told that the State Commission had no knowledge of the receipt or disposition of any such complaint. I would be very interested in reading the content of the interviews.
Sheri Gassaway
10:59 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
There isn't a link to the investigation. I received a hard copy of the document from the city through a Missouri Sunshine Law request.
JC Penknife
11:54 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Can you scan and upload it somewhere, like scribd.com?
Sheri Gassaway
12:04 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
The document is 200-300 pages. If you would like a copy of the investigation, you may call City Hall.
Matt Hay
1:20 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Forgive me if this is inane, but does The Patch not have access to a high-speed bulk document scanner? Most Office Machines do this nowadays. While you would think the City themselves would post this document so that the tax payers can see what they have paid for, if you are going to "summarize" it, you should at least provide it in an effort to avoid bias. Respectfully, your response of essentially, "Get it yourself" has me flabbergasted. Do you think that the City is going to provide it freely or timely to John Q Citizen? If so, you have not been around long enough. They would charge a citizen $0.10/page plus then a charge because their City Attorney had to review.......and would likely request $500 bucks as a downpayment.
An alternative would be to ask the city for it in electronic form. I doubt they provided it to Council members in a stack of 300 hard copy pages. I have found that when only snippets are released, or made public, it is always those snippets which they want to be seen......
Matt Hay
1:29 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
So, do you not have an actual copy of this investigation report? Respectfully, saying it is 200-300 pages, for someone who purports to have a copy in front of them is a bit odd as that is quite a broad range. Especially, since that is exactly the vague statement that was made at the last Council Meeting. It is almost as if you only have received or read the summary, and are purporting that it is representative of the entirety of a document which you have not read. A document which the Council refused to accept into the record due to numerous factual discrepancies in the interviews of multiple Council Members. This is all very, very odd.
Thomas
1:38 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
This document has been rejected by the City Council. How come that was not reported nor mentioned? One sided journalism is not ethical.
Sheri Gassaway
1:45 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
As I stated in the story, "We'll have more on the council's discussion Friday on Patch."
Sheri Gassaway
1:43 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Matt, After reviewing the document with my editor, we have decided not to publish the entire investigation due to the fact there are several portions that are not directly related to the topic at hand that may be damaging to people who were interviewed during the investigation. Should you have further questions, you may call me at 314-409-1086.
Matt Hay
6:24 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
No secret conversations. Whenever I ask these questions, that is all I am greeted with. You find no issue at all in being complicit in attempting to damage the reputation of Ken Moss, but yet, you are suddenly concerned about others, so much so that you do not post a version in which you redact names to protect those. If there we statements that are not relevant to the issue at hand, and perhaps this is obtuse of me to ask, but why they were they asked as part of the investigation then? Was it just a fishing expedition? Was it politically motivated? How would an investigator even know to ask such questions if not relevant to the complaint that was allegedly filed and was allegedly being investigated? Should that not be a red flag to a journalist? Do all of these unanswered questions and contradictory and inconsistent answers and statements raise your journalistic spidey senses that perhaps something is afoot?
Carla Blitzen
7:06 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Perhaps Mr. Hay should pursue a career as an investigative journalist. God knows we don't have enough folks around here giving credence to conspiracy theories.
Doris Borgelt
8:59 am on Friday, December 28, 2012
Looks to me like some people are unable to put their name on what they write so as to appear like there are many when they are few. The Missouri Commission on Human Rights fully rejected on October 1st, the questionaire submitted by Ms. Boone stating the type of retaliation alleged is not covered by the Missouri Human Rights Act. The only actionable form of retaliation is when it is of a discriminatory nature. Please note that a questionaire and a formal complaint are two different things. A formal complaint was never filed. Why was the council and the public told there was a formal complaint filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights when that was not so? Why did this farce of an investigation go on? Why is the investigator so concerned with me? I had nothing to do with the investigation, Ken Moss or Ms. Boone. Seriously, why ask questions about me when I was not the subject of the investigation or why was anything asked about me not pertinent to the investigation. What was being fished for crappie or whale?
Why did the investigator imply discrimination on Mr. Moss's part when there was none even after 32 interviews? Gosh, I have a lot more questions, don't you?
Jack D
12:01 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
Matt Hay does not improve Ken Moss's reputation by harassing the reporter.
Jack D
12:01 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
Gosh Doris, I do have a question. Did you really expect that everyone would be refreshed and enlightened by your endless nonsense? .
Kelly Conroy
12:44 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
What a Merry Band of Misfits we have, both currently and formerly on the City Council. It's a wonder anybody moves to Arnold with this stuff going on. Anybody doing the most basic research into the city in contemplation of residency would take one look at your bickering and head for the hills.
Stop being an embarrassment to yourselves and to Arnold. Just stop.
Linda Van de Riet
12:41 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
Let me tell you about Arnold. While these idiots are dancing around with their stupidity, the residents are fighting lagoon issues, sewer drain issues, road issues, houses collapsing in neighborhoods filled with children and fraudulent real estate purchases set up with Arnold governments from the past. Where is the help for the people?
Arnold has always been known as the pit of Jefferson County. These council members are not the first to be concerned with their own political backsides. They protect their friends on the council, that's the name of the game.
It is not surprising that Doris acted like a child and stormed out of the interview. She wants no bad press, she is after all running for Mayor - that will be great for Arnold - more ridiculousness! Instead of working to make the city better, she is the center of most of the disputes. It is for certain that if Doris is not included to begin with, she'll throw herself in and instead of coming up with ideas on how the Council can settle their differences she'll open that never ending cave of a mouth and accuse anyone else of whatever she can think of. Why does she want to drive the City of Arnold into the ground with her petty disagreements with everyone? Why in the world would anyone want to add fuel to the fire and elect her as Mayor - that's as bad as electing Obama back into office!