Minutes - 2002/03/11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 11, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 21 • reimburse the employer. The employer took no action regarding those unauthorized charges because the applicant did not know about them or he condoned them. (6) The employer has a strict written policy that city funds will not be used to purchase alcohol beverages. The applicant was aware of this policy. During the applicant's employment he authorized the reimbursement of employees, including himself, for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. (7) The applicant was uncooperative with other city officials when they asked for financial information. The city administrator asked for a quarterly financial statement she could use in council meetings to help the city plan expenditures. The applicant was at first hostile to this request. After several months, the applicant did provide the administrator with a document he characterized as a financial statement. This document was disorganized and provided little useful information to the administrator or the council. Other department heads complained to the administrator that the applicant was hostile to their requests for information. (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."