Agenda Packets - 2002/03/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 11, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 21 (8) During the applicant’s employment, the employer’s bank statements were not reconciled in a timely manner. When the employer discharged the applicant his replacement had to reconcile several months worth of bank statements. (9) During December 2000, the applicant approached the city administrator and told her that the city had overpaid a contractor who managed the city’s community center. The administrator asked how much the overpayment was and the applicant said he was not sure. Over the rest of the applicant’s employment the city tried to get an accurate report on the employer’s financial status regarding this contractor. Sometimes the applicant reported that the city had overpaid the contractor and sometimes the applicant reported that the city had underpaid the contractor. At the time of the applicant’s discharge there was still no definitive figure for disclosing the employer’s liability relationship with the contractor. This figure was very difficult if not impossible to determine because of the unusual, awkward, and inaccurate accounting systems the applicant had designed to manage the contract. (10) Throughout his employment, the applicant used incomplete and inaccurate methods of record keeping so that it is now impossible to review many of the transactions conducted throughout the applicant’s employment. (11) During the applicant’s employment he caused the employer to act in ways other than specified in several of the employer’s contracts. The applicant did not seek or obtain council approval for the contract changes. (12) The employer discharged the applicant on June 7, 2001 because of the facts set out above. “An applicant who was discharged from employment by an employer shall not be disqualified from any unemployment benefits except when: (1) the applicant was discharged because of employment misconduct;… The applicant had training and experience to perform this job adequately. The applicant either chose to make the employer’s financial system inaccurate and prone to abuse or he did not care about the inaccuracy and abuse of the city finances. This hostility or lack of concern for the employer and the responsibility of his job constitute misconduct.” Council Member Quick asked what the City needed to do next. City Administrator Miller indicated the former employee can appeal the decision but she is not certain whether he will do so. She then indicated that this is a huge win for the City because determinations such as this do not often go in favor of employers. Mayor Sonterre asked what monetary result occurs in this situation. City Administrator Miller indicated the City does not have unemployment insurance and pays its own unemployment claims. She then indicated the City would be reapid the dollars that were paid for unemployment for Mr. Kessel. Mayor Sonterre asked for the dollar amount.