The Auburn City Council held a called meeting Thursday night to hear an appeal from Auburn Public Works Director David Hawthorne.

Hawthorne received a letter of reprimand dated March 2 for illegally burying materials at a location on Sixth Street in Auburn. He made an appeal before the council Thursday night, requesting the reprimand be rescinded.

Before presenting his appeal, Hawthorne asked that all city employees who had received subpoenas leave the room, including council member Charles Sewell.

Sewell said he had not received a subpoena. City Attorney Jack Wilson noted an attempt was made to deliver a subpoena, but the document was not issued by the city and was therefore not valid. Wilson said it appeared someone took a copy of a subpoena that had been signed and addressed to someone else, altered it and attempted to serve Sewell.

"I would suggest that a legal document has been altered to insert my name," said Sewell.

Hathorne's attorney, Stan Sunderland, said if Sewell was to give testimony he didn't see how he was to participate in the decision-making process regarding the appeal.

Wilson said Sewell could not be compelled to testify and Auburn Mayor Harold Money ruled Sewell could remain in the room as an elected official and opened the floor to Hawthorne.

Hawthorne said the Sixth Street property where he was accused of burying materials was intended to be used as a city park, but instead became a dumping site for materials and debris the city did not want to transport to a landfill. He said when citizens began dumping materials there, public works employees put cables across the access roads to stop the activity and brush grew over the debris in the five years that followed.

Hawthorne said he recently instructed a city employee to remove brush. "I then instructed the public works employees to permit and burn the piles of debris, load what would not burn and haul the remainder to the landfill," said Hawthorne. "The following week as the men prepared to haul away the refuse, they were stopped by Maggie Maddox, code enforcement officer."

Hawthorne said Maddox instructed the employees to stop burying debris. Jim Raymond of the Athens Environmental Protection Division (EPD) office then inspected the property due to complaints regarding the site and Hawthorne was instructed to remove the debris.

"I thought that was what I was doing," he added.

Hawthorne said Raymond returned to Auburn a second time with another EPD employee due to calls from council member Charles Sewell and City Planner James Abraham. "And then, just a few days later I am presented with a letter of reprimand from the City of Auburn with accusations by Councilman Sewell that he observed me moving materials," said Hawthorne.

The letter of reprimand stated, "On two separate occasions, Mr. Hawthorne was observed moving material at Sixth Street using a bulldozer. Council member Charles Sewell upon further investigation claims that he personally witnessed the driver to be David Hawthorne. Councilman Sewell and James Abraham formally lodged a complaint against Mr. Hawthorne for illegally burying materials at Sixth Street."

Hawthorne refuted Sewell's accusations, saying the councilman could not clearly see the site from where he observed.

"It is my humble and seldom incorrect opinion that Mr. Sewell is attempting to embarrass Mayor Money's administration by going after his employees with spurious accusations," said Hawthorne. "Mr. Sewell, in his pomposity, must be of the opinion that he can make allegations against anyone and whether truthful or not, they will be upheld by the city with all of the taxpayers' money behind him. And where in the city charter does it say that any council member has the authority of the city to bring action against an employee of the city?" asked Hawthorne. "This is a move that only the City Council can perform."

Hawthorne told the council that if what he believed to be an illegal investigation continued, he would have his attorney bring charges against the city for denial of his right to due process, violation of a city ordinance and violation of provisions in the city's personnel handbook.

City Attorney Jack Wilson noted any pending lawsuit that Hawthorne may or may not file had no bearing on the hearing and that the council was to either affirm or reverse the reprimand. He also noted there was no official investigation into Hawthorne's actions or allegations of violations on behalf of the city.

Sewell said he had not conducted an investigation into Hawthorne's activities either.

Council member Donna Scouten asked Sewell if he actually saw Hawthorne burying materials.

"No," he answered. "He was going back into the hole back there. I couldn't see what he was doing."

"So, in other words, you cannot testify that he was burying anything," Money said to Sewell.

Scouten noted an e-mail Sewell sent to the council members stated he saw Hawthorne burying materials.

"And that was an assumption from his activities there," said Sewell.

Council member Dorissa Shackelford then questioned Maddox as to whether materials were being buried at the site. "I didn't actually see anything being buried," said Maddox, who noted three city employees told her Hawthorne instructed them to bury materials. "They knew that they were doing wrong so that's why they called me out there and I told them to stop," said Maddox.

Shackelford then asked that the three employees speak before the council.

Money said he did not want to bring city employees in to testify against their superior and questioned the authority of the acting city clerk to issue subpoenas.

Wilson said the subpoenas were simply issued to compel someone to attend the hearing. "The real question is whether you want them to answer your questions," said Wilson, who noted Hawthorne and his attorney would have the right to question the employees as well. Wilson said the city was not required to bring forth evidence and question anyone, but the council could do so by vote.

Dorissa Shackelford made a motion to call the three employees to speak before the council and the motion was seconded by Sewell. Shackelford and Sewell voted for the motion and Blechinger and Scouten voted against the motion. Money provided the tie-breaking vote, voting against calling the employees to speak, again saying he didn't want to have city employees testify against their superior.

Hawthorne's attorney, Stan Sunderland, then addressed the council.

"I believe at one point in the process in which Mr. Hawthorne was accused of doing something for which he was reprimanded the basis of the accusations against him was that Mr. Sewell saw him burying things," he said. "And tonight he [Sewell] stated in this open meeting that he didn't, in fact, see Mr. Hawthorne burying things. The reprimand that was issued seems to directly say that Mr. Hawthorne buried things. It doesn't say his employees buried it. It doesn't say his employees buried things under his direction," said Sunderland, who also noted Maddox did not observe Hawthorne burying anything.

"I think you acted on what you thought was the appropriate information but you didn't have accurate information and that's been borne out by what we've heard here tonight," Sunderland said to Sewell. "Mr. Hawthorne stands reprimanded for something he didn't do," he continued. "I don't think at this point in time that you [the council] have any choice but to withdraw the reprimand."

Money said he knew stuff was buried at the site for a long period of time. "I'm not saying Mr. Hawthorne buried anything or didn't bury anything. I instructed Mr. Hawthorne to clean it up and Mr. Hawthorne took his time to clean it up."

Blechinger made a motion to rescind the reprimand and the motion was seconded by Scouten and the floor was opened for the council to discuss the issue.

"Personally, I think this is a white wash," said Sewell. "That's all it is. It's a white wash. Had the mayor and council allowed these witnesses to come forward, the truth would have come out that they were instructed by Mr. Hawthorne to bury material there on more than one occasion," said Sewell.

"I believe that Maggie Maddox is telling the truth," said Shackelford, "and she has documented what happened and when it happened and who did what. I do not think that collectively employees of public works would lie to Maggie to have this said and I think they should have been allowed to say what they were going to say and that's been covered up now."

"We all have a report in front of us. We can see what Maggie wrote in the report," Blechinger responded. "I don't think anything else would have been discovered by that and I think what is most important to me is that what the conclusion that we came to in giving David a reprimand was not based on any of that, it was based on the fact that Charles said he saw David burying material." Blechinger noted the EPD issue had been addressed. "The material was cleaned up. It was taken away. It's a moot point. I feel like the issue has been dealt with," she said.

"At the time we reprimanded David, we were not given access to Maggie's information," added Scouten."

Money again noted he would not bring city employees in to testify against their superior and said he thought Sewell should have approached the issue in a different manner.

Blechinger and Scouten voted to rescind the reprimand and Sewell and Shackelford voted against the motion. Money provided the tie-breaking vote, voting to rescind the reprimand.

"With all due respect for the council members that voted against this, we hope that we bring some closure to this and that we move forward," said Money.

Originally published Sunday, April 1, 2007