This is an editorial I very much hoped I wouldn’t have to write. But after spending a lot of time mulling it over I feel like I can’t sit by without saying my piece about everything that has taken place in recent months between the Bemidji City Council and now former City Manager Nate Mathews.
It all began during a Jan. 17 council meeting, when At-large Councilor Audrey Thayer made an unexpected motion to add an item to the agenda to schedule a discussion on Mathews’ continued employment.
This resulted in a tension-filled, awkward discussion on the topic, where it was apparent some councilors were more surprised than others at the direction the meeting had taken.
In the weeks that followed, letters to the editor and opinion pieces flooded into the Pioneer, primarily in support of Mathews and calling the council out for its handling of the situation.
After reading all of those submitted pieces, working with my reporters on more than a dozen stories about the topic, hearing public comments and listening to numerous council meetings between Jan. 17 and now, this issue has occupied a lot of my headspace these last few months.
ADVERTISEMENT
I want to acknowledge that these are elected officials we have empowered to make judgment calls on things they feel are in the best interest of the community they serve. And I think the majority of the councilors seemed to believe that by removing Mathews they were doing the right thing for our town.
But, while I would love to stand by these officials and thank them for a job well done, I do not feel like I or anyone else here can actually say that because we have very little understanding as to why Mathews was not fit.
I’ve worked with Mathews a lot over the past few years and have never had anything but positive interactions with him. I also have never heard any complaints about him from the city staff I’ve interviewed or talked to. But I also know Audrey Thayer well enough to know she wouldn’t bring something like this to light if she didn’t feel strongly about it and believed she had a good reason.
This left me, and a lot of others in town, extremely confused. I know I wasn’t the only one who wanted to wait until we had all the facts before taking a strong stance one way or the other on the whole situation.
But one thing I did know all along the way was that I felt Mathews was not being treated fairly.
As a manager of a team, whenever I have an issue with an employee it is my responsibility to talk to them and work things out so everyone can move forward in a positive way. HR would never just allow me to fire someone without even talking to them about their performance.
Yet, at no point was Mathews given the opportunity to sit down with these councilors and have a face-to-face discussion in a respectful manner. Even if he had committed the worst of atrocities, this still feels like a required step before termination.
I spoke with Mathews personally in February as things were unfolding and he said he had no idea what the issues some councilors seemed to have with him were, but that he very much wanted to work on these relationships and try to resolve things.
ADVERTISEMENT
So when at no point during the five-hour long review that took place on March 29 was he ever invited into the room, I had an issue with that. When he had previously asked for meetings with people and they were refused, I had an issue with that.
But what I really took issue with was when it finally came time for the council to issue their verdict from that meeting, and the only reason they gave was that he is bad at communicating and working with people. That felt like a very hypocritical reason considering the circumstances and not worth this rushed tension-filled exit. All while Ward 1 had a vacant seat on the council I might add.
As I listened to the resolution to end his employment being read during the April 3 meeting, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. For an explanation of what he had done so wrong that was worth this misery. But that never came. There was no misconduct mentioned, no scandal or fireable offense. Nothing even close.
This sent me and our city government reporter on the hunt to figure out our legal options to find out just what went down in that review and what Mathews had done that was worth all this.
We made a formal data request which was promptly denied due to attorney-client privilege. We then contacted our company attorney and the Minnesota Data Practices Office, who helped walk us through our next steps.
The key issue in question was whether his removal was considered disciplinary. This can be hard to prove because often public officials will claim that the termination was simply due to a loss of confidence, failure of chemistry, etc. — which if true, might not produce actual discipline.
Do any of those words sound familiar? Here’s an excerpt from the council’s resolution to jog your memory: “The city council determines that the reasons for the removal are as follows: City council members have lost confidence and lack trust in City Manager Nate Mathews…”
But, if the action was in any way disciplinary, then the Data Practices Act (section 13.43, subd. 2) makes it clear that the information is public, regardless of the attorney-client privilege.
ADVERTISEMENT
So, in order to determine this, we asked the city whether any complaints had been lodged against Mathews in the past year. Because if there were, it would increase the probability that the termination was disciplinary, but we found out that not a single complaint had been filed.
Then, just a few days later, Mathews resigned as the city manager.
I think it was a smart move on his part to not mess up his chances at future employment. But boy did it mess up our chances of accessing the data.
Since Mathews resigned and technically no disciplinary action was taken, the council can choose to keep all of the information private. This leaves us and the rest of the community scratching our heads as to why a “lack of confidence” couldn’t simply wait a few more weeks for a regular annual review to take place without all this drama and negativity.
Now, we will never know all the “whys” unless the council chooses to be more open and honest about this entire situation, or we somehow, someday, are able to access the data that for now is being kept private.
I hope the council members realize that they have forced constituents to lose faith in them and question their motives simply because of how this all unfolded, whether or not the choice was right in the end or not.
A better system needs to be put in place so this history doesn’t repeat itself.
Annalise Braught is a photographer and editor at the Pioneer. She can be reached at (218) 333-9796 or abraught@bemidjipioneer.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Trust Project
