NewHampshire.com logo   Search NewHampshire.com The homepage for New Hampshire
Welcome to NewHampshire.com Communities Sign in | Join | Help

Hooksett Banner

News and Information for the Town of Hooksett

Town Council pounded for firings

BY NICHOLAS BROWNHooksett’s “fired four” listen as their lawyer, B.J. Branch, appeals their firing to the Hooksett Town Council. From left are Michelle Bonsteel, Sandy Piper, Jessica Skorupski and Joanne Drewniak. Only Drewniak’s and Skorupski’s cases were being addressed at the meeting on Tuesday, May 15. -The Hooksett Banner/Nicholas Brown

At least two of Hooksett’s four fired town employees were axed for alleged insubordination, impropriety and dishonesty related to discussing an unfounded rumor that the town’s top staffer, David Jodoin, was having an adulterous affair with another town employee.

Nobody, including the four fired employees and at least six other town hall workers and witnesses, said there’s truth to the rumor, and an attorney called to investigate the matter stressed that Jodoin has been “extremely upset” about the unfounded gossip, to the point that he’s had physical symptoms.

Jessica Skorupski, a former building department assistant, and Joanne Drewniak, a former assistant in the assessing department, appealed their firings at a public meeting at the Hooksett Public Library on Tuesday, May 15.

Drewniak was also accused of referring to Jodoin, the town administrator, as a “little f___r” and of using the expletive in front of a Hooksett resident at town hall.

Drewniak’s attorney, B.J. Branch, said Drewniak freely admits to using the term in front of two other fired workers once, behind closed doors, during a break, but said she was immediately reprimanded and hasn’t uttered the phrase again.

Branch, who’s representing each of the “fired four,” read excerpts from years of performance evaluations of Drewniak and Skorupski characterizing them as model employees with no previous blemishes on their records.

And now, he said, “They’re executed. In essence, their careers are ended.”

Branch said his clients were the victims of a “smear” job and said Jodoin, whom the council hired in 2005, used the charges as “pretense” so he could “clean house.”

The town council hired attorney Lauren Irwin to research the facts since Jodoin – who would normally research such matters – was the complainant after another town employee told him of the town hall rumor.

Irwin spent much of March 29 interviewing town employees, and said the actions of some employees warranted some form of discipline, but she didn’t make any specific recommendations.

Branch maintains Drewniak and Skorupski merely discussed a rumor – generated by a resident, not a town hall employee – that “something” might be “going on” between Jodoin and another employee, whom he said was recently given a new part-time job with a new salary.

He defied the council to prove that Drewniak and Skorupski specifically discussed a rumor related to a romantic affair.

“How silly is this stuff?”

Branch asked at one point. “This is like high school stuff – junior high, realistically.”

But Irwin said, based on her interviews, “I don’t think there’s any confusion about what they meant by ‘something.’”

“This wasn’t a ‘Can you believe the tie he wore’ or ‘He must dye his hair,’” she said.

Irwin, who said she was impressed at how consistent the facts were between her numerous independent interviews of town hall employees – including Drewniak and Skorupski – also said Jodoin described a “toxic” work environment at town hall.

But Branch repeatedly placed blame on Jodoin – who wasn’t at the appeal hearing – for the town hall work environment.

He alleged testimony from at least one other town worker that Jodoin called Drewniak and her husband “difficult” and “losers,” and said Jodoin said once, “I do not believe women belong in code enforcement.”

“These people were hounded by Mr. Jodoin,” Branch said.

Later, Branch said, “Why these people? Because, quite frankly, (Jodoin) wanted them to go.”

Immediately after the hearing, Town Councilor David Ross said he was “disgusted” by some of Branch’s comments.

“I wouldn’t let him defend a parking ticket,” Ross said. “His behavior was deplorable.”

Debra Ford, an attorney who ran the hearing on behalf of the Town Council, said she was disconcerted that Branch’s clients didn’t seem to exhibit remorse for gossiping about unfounded and potentially harmful rumors.

“There appears to be no apology or no acceptance of responsibility,” she said.

Ford said the council – members of which remained silent during the hearing except to open and close the hearing and to recite the Pledge of Allegiance – will rule on the appeals by May 25.

Two other fired employees – former assessing department director Sandy Piper and former building department head Michelle Bonsteel – were offered their jobs back by the council, but that offer was rescinded, Piper has said. Piper, a 27-year town employee, said she plans to fight her firing in court.

Published Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:40 AM by Hooksett Editor

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

*** Marple said:

As a former State Representative, I still receive questions from constituents and the concensus of questions prosposed to me by consitutents is as follows. I believe this is the domain of investigative reporters, not me, hence I pass on these questions for the press to obtain answers and publish the same.

1- If the town administrator had evidence that he was being slandered, then would it not have been his personal RESPONSIBILITY to enter into a contract with an attorney and pay for his own legal expenses?  He did not. He used taxpayers money to "investigate" his personal obligation which did not involve the taxpayers.

2- If the "Hooksett four" had collectively determined, or otherwise learned, that the temporary employee, who was the topic of the "gossip", was in fact, being paid more than any of the four fired, and was staying overtime at night with the administrator, then why was this suppressed? Further the work purported to be needed was not done!

3- Did the Town Council actually vote to use taxpayers money to hire an attorney to investigate the allegations? If not, who "authorized" the administrator to proceed or did he do it of hie own volition?

4- If The Council did not vote to spend taxpayers money on this exercise, will the Council take action to recover all of the taxpayers spent mpney from the responsible party/parties ?

5- How will the lost time and pay, that was taken from the work schedule of all Hooksett employees be recovered ? Who will pay for the intrusion into their work place and take the taxpayers time for such non-work period during investigation?

4- Who has the "Errors and Omission Liability Policy" that the Hooksett taxpayers can appeal to for reimbursement for all the costs the taxpayers have sustained in this matter?

May 17, 2007 4:57 PM
 

NormaN R. Gill said:

To the Editor: Re: Firings

I was taken aback by the lack of respect the town council showed the citizens who attended the public hearing. The council members showed in their actions that they felt the general constitutents were ingnorant and just plan nozy.

Their actions only reinforced the need for the people of this wonderful town to take control of the council. We as constituents need to replace the council members who are attacking our constitutional rights of free speech. We are being assaulted by the very people we elected to represent us.

One council member Mr Ross was rolling his eyes the entire time, making it known to the people that he felt above us.

We need to take action against this council.

Secondly we must replace Mr.Jodoin the very individual who failed in his responsibility to make an administrative decision and who escalated this in house issue to a point that our town has become a national laughing stock. Mr. Jodoin must be replaced so that we can begin to repair the damage he has caused. Mr. Jodoin is wasting each citizens hard earned tax dollars on an issue that is covered in Adminstration 101.

If anyone would like to start a drive to Fire Mr. Jodoin and impeach the present council members please contact me at dmajs@comcast.net.

May 21, 2007 7:57 PM
 

Sarah Shaw said:

I am a former resident of New Hampshire, now living in California.  What, you may ask, makes me want to comment on this issue?  I feel compelled to comment because I love my home state and the people who live there, and because I feel shocked and sorry for the residents of Hooksett, whose story is being played out in the media all over the country.

It is my humble opinion that Mr. Jodoin has mishandled this situation.  Had he set up a meeting between himself and the "fired foursome," where an opportunity for dialogue and understanding could have resulted, it would have taken care of the matter immediately.  Instead, he fussed and fumed until he had "physical symptoms," whatever they were.  Nothing is more effective than nipping gossip in the bud.  A simple sit-down and an airing of grievances could have ended it.

The subsequent firing of the four workers, who have had years of good service to this town, seems rash and confusing to me.  Does this mean that no one is free, during a break, to discuss personal problems, even what is going on, or might be going on, at their place of employment? Please, Mr. Jodoin!  People are people, and these women did not start the rumors. They were merely discussing what a townswoman had told them. It was not nearly as malicious as you would pretend. Furthermore, if it was truly gossip, it could have been handled quickly and quietly.

My suspicions are that Mr. Jodoin had it out for these women in some way, and he seized this opportunity to be rid of them.  Now, he has an attorney, and the City Council has an attorney, and the fired women have attorneys, and where does it end?  What should have been handled with common sense, circumspection and maturity has resulted in a hullabaloo of gigantic proportions and untold costs to the good citizens of Hooksett.

Can the residents of Hooksett send Mr. Jodoin back to his office, assuring him that his reputation is intact?  Can they tell the good ladies to get back to work and to pay a little less attention when tongues wag?  Can they fire the attorneys, pay them off, and send them home?  Can they get back to enjoying their community once again?  It seems like a worthy goal.

May 22, 2007 6:56 PM
 

Steve C said:

Norm,

I agree with you in getting Mr. J out of there. I wish I was still in Hooksett.to help you get him out of office. Again, this makes how many Town administrators? The town council doestn't have the ability to do so. I think the towns people  need to have a vote on whom they would want for the Town and not have the Council make it. We are the ones who vote for town council members so why can't we vote on a NEW Town ADM. .

May 23, 2007 7:43 AM
 

Sarah Shaw said:

Is it not possible to start a petition?

May 23, 2007 11:48 AM
 

Vincent Laposta said:

I moved to Hooksett a year ago and am now so disappointed in the leadership of this town that I am contemplating changing my legal address to my summer home.  

What has taken place here in town is total mismanagement by the Town Administrator and a major lack of responsibility by the Town Council.  Human Resouces 101 is pretty clear about communication and how to motivate employees.  This Town Administrator's action shows a complete lack of knowledge of basic employee relations.  This fact should be evident to the Town Council and they should have acted to protect all parties involved.  

I don't understand why the Town Council is refusing to share the reasons for their decision.  It is a personnel issue which usually involves confidentiality however, the issue has escalated to a national level and without the insight of the Town Council, the town of Hooksett's actions are now the laughing stock of the country.  If the Town Council has a loyalty, it should be to those individuals who have dedicated themselves to the well-being of the town of Hooksett and not to a relative newcomer.

Without knowing all the details from the Town Council, and it might not make any difference anyway, I vote that the Town Administrator be terminated for his ineffective people skills and the utter lack of regard for employees who have dedicated their lives to our community.  

I asssume now that we have brought on temporary help to fill the void of losing 25% of the town's workforce.  I as a taxpayer do not want to underwrite the replacement nor legal costs of an issue that is basically personal in nature.  

Note to the Town Council:  Please recalculate the budget and tax rate to reflect the removal of costs and lost production due to this childish behavior.  We did not elect you to condone such such childish actions or vendettas.    

May 23, 2007 11:54 AM
 

D.M. Britt said:

David Jodoin, Grow Up.  Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

What employee, man or woman, has never talked about their boss, including David Jodoin. Sounds fishy to me. Maybe the council needs to ask him what he is hiding but then again maybe their all in it together!!!

May 23, 2007 2:04 PM
 

P.T. said:

I think it's absolutely WONDERFUL! Rid the United States of poisonous souls as these and the world is much better - if not safer.

May 23, 2007 4:19 PM
 

Evelyn S. said:

I for one have been fed up with the "Hookset 4"  and the idea that they may come and go as they please - what a joke. We'll be much better off without them ALL.

May 23, 2007 4:28 PM
 

Jack Meoften said:

I think Joanne Drewniak is sexy!

May 23, 2007 4:37 PM
 

Jacqui M said:

Evelyn, your statement is almost as bad as what David Jodoin did.   It is totally without substance!  What's wrong with these four, hardworking women, and what on earth do you mean by their coming and going as they please?  They keep hours like everyone else does, and they earn their money!   Are you after one of their jobs?

May 25, 2007 7:14 AM
 

Muriel Saliba said:

Another morning I wake up and read about our small little town in the paper.  Is anyone else as sick of it as I am??  Furthermore, I caught a heated debate this afternoon on Fox TV between alot of white shirts and legal minds.  When did this whole thing turn into four gossipy women looking to get their jobs back vs the fact that the Town Administrator, Dave Jodoin, did not handle this properly??  

Wether anyone is willing to admit it or not, there is gossip in every workplace.  Some chose not to take part in it, while others thrieve on it.  As the Town Council invited the citizens of Hooksett to the public meeting to get all the facts, it left most of the room leaving with the thought of "what was that all about!!"  The council was very set on how this was going to run and did not deviate.  Don't we, the taxpayers have a voice??  Then when people continued to question this issue, Mr. Longfellow so nicely put it that "the only people who came to the meeting were the nosey ones."  Thank you Mr Longfellow for your comment and opinion of the people who voted you in office.

If this is all about gossip, as it is said, why does Mr. Jodoin still have a job when he is the one who made comments and remarks about one of the four employees and their family??  Is that not slander and gossip??  

If it is about the comment that one of the four women made, don't you think as Administrator, as the person of authority, he should have taken this person into his office repremanded her and notified her of the consequences??  Had this been done with either the gossip or the remark Mr. Jodoin would have been none the wiser as it would have been handled behind closed doors for noone to know.  Instead, he went on a lynching and now our beautiful little town of Hooksett pays the price to the world.

Let's get this right, let us know what the facts are that only Mr. Jodoin, the town attorney and the Town Council know and put an end to this madness.  If it takes Mr. Jodoin being out of a job, well didn't he create this mess himself by blowing it out of proportion?  If this continues, the costs rise, our taxes go up, and Hooksett is going to suffer even more with people who want a quick exit from Patten Place.

May 26, 2007 2:38 PM
 

KC said:

As a former resident of Hooksett is makes me very sad to see all of this in the national news.  Mr. Jodion is not someone who should be in management if he can not handle reprimanding his employees.  Were these woman notified that this will not be tolerated and if it happens again you will be terminated?  Does not sound like it to me.  I spent most of my life in Hooksett and love that town and miss it very much, I have so many wonderful memories and to know that now it is being run by a bunch of idiots makes me sick.  Vote in someone that cares about the town and its citizens.  HIRE THE WOMEN BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 26, 2007 4:33 PM
 

PL said:

I'm on the council's side on this one. These are middle aged women with NOTHING better to do than spread ugly rumors about their superior & the "new kid on the block". Sounds like a simple case of jealousy to me. GROW UP LADIES!!!!!! You give us all a bad name. If Mr. J. isn't doing his job approach it the legal way - not by destroying his family. How would you feel if the roles were reversed? Again I say Grow Up - you're not in high school anymore. No wonder wpmen are STILL held back by their gender!!!

May 26, 2007 5:16 PM
 

Colleen said:

Wow!  I live in NY State and work for a corporation that has thousands of employees.  I am shocked and very bothered by the Hooksett town councils decision to fire these four employees!  There are gossip conversations going on all the time at work about bosses, what is happening with the company, other employees, people outside of work, and politician, etc.   I know supervisors that have sat down with employees, that made false personal statements about them, which usually ceased the gossip.  The gossipers leave feeling better about the supervisor and it stops other employees from carrying those false conversations any further. This would have been a more businesslike and troubleshooting decision. It is hard work managing people in a work force, but a good manager/supervisor will stand up and try to turn the employee around.  I think the firing of these employees could leave the remaining employees with bad morale and feeling as if they need to keep looking over their shoulders, which is unproductive to the real work that needs to be done. If you HAD to take action, don't you think a verbal warning or, if you HAD to take a harder stand, couldn’t  you suspend them for a couple of days -- but firing someone with that many years of service -- if they were that bad, why weren’t  they fired a long time ago?!  

Good Luck "Hooksett 4"!

May 28, 2007 11:17 AM
 

John said:

I can imagine why someone would take such drastic action, if he or she felt that his or her family were being threatened. Rumours as such can break a marraige-- even the most trustwrthy of relationships can be dented.

However, the action taken should have been handled with a group or individual meetings with the four. The behavior should have been addressed, after getting their side of the story. If the workers admitted to the gossip, their behavior should have been addressed with a letter of warning.

David Jodoin should also have taken the time to justify the higher salary of the woman, and also to answer any questions about their joint activities. I question the severity of his reaction. Is he trying too hard to prove that the gossip is not true?

The fact that this "town manager" did nothing to really "manage" this situation is laughable.

That said, I do despise gossip, and feel there is no place for it in a high performance workplace.....however, in my experience, there is always a bit of truth in every rumour...hmmm.

May 29, 2007 10:49 AM
 

LINDA said:

IF MR. JODOIN GOT SO UPSET THE RUMORS MUST BE TRUE.  HIS WIFE, IF HE HAS ONE, SHOULD KEEP A VERY CLOSE EYE ON HIM.  THE TOWNS PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO KEEP AN EYE ON HIM, IT SEEMS HE MAY BE A LITTLE SNEAKY.  WATCH THE BUDGET!!!

May 30, 2007 11:22 AM
 

Richard J. Cahill said:

                                       HOOKSETT FOUR

                                              GOSSIP :

                          Gossip can damage your wealth!

Gossip is casual conversation or unsubstantiated reports about other people.

A gossip is a person who talks, in a mostly derogatory manner about other persons’ lives.

Gossip involving merely repeating unsubstantiated reports is equally culpable.

Gossip in the workplace encompasses venues within the scope of the employment including lunch-hour conversations particularly with co-workers.

Work related gossip with outsiders is also a breach of confidentiality which workers owe to their employer.

Some legal consequences for the accused can include ;

Offence under Discrimination legislation in most Common Law jurisdictions

Defamation (slander).

Disciplinary consequences up to dismissal in the employment context.

Consequences for the target ;

(a)     Embarrassment  ;

(b)    Victimization.

(c)     Bullying.

(d)    Workplace disaffection.

This could lead to the possibility that the employer would be vicariously liable for any personal injury suffered by the complainant.

Now to the Hooksett Four case.

The town council voted to fire four workers because they discussed an alleged rumour about a possible romantic relationship between their boss, Town Administrator and another employee. This is accepted by all sides as being untrue.

This behaviour was regarded as insubordination, impropriety and dishonesty.

An Attorney at Law, defended two of the workers in a public hearing to appeal for their reinstatement.

No one has said the rumour is true, being untrue leaves the four workers liable in damages for a defamation suit, and it may be slander per se because it imputes unchastity to the female victim!  

The attorney for the town of Hooksett, said the women knowingly spread a false rumour.

The workers’ attorney said "That did not happen”.

Suggested Defences?

"I think the issue that keeps coming up is the idea of gossip that is basically universal, anyone short of a robot gossips." suggested by a partner in the defence camp.

This is no defence.

"Especially where there was no type of warning or rule.”

What sensible adult is unaware of the danger of gossip?

Would a court find that any injury was foreseeable in these circumstances?

Yes it would!

“If that could be a precedent, then who among us isn't going to get fired."

This might invite a sub-editor to pen the headline “Lawyer admits to being a gossip”.

It is also no defence.

The defence attorney maintains his clients did not start the rumour about the named (male) target.

He well knows that to repeat a defamatory statement is itself defamatory so this defence too falls.

He seems to forget that there are two victims in the case.

"This was them raising legitimate question raised to them initially by outsiders that an employee[the female target]was spending an inordinate amount of time with the administrator [the male target].

[Who were these outsiders?]

'Hey, what's going on here. She's getting a higher salary and they've created a new position,' a job arguably created for her.

[This exacerbates the defamation as the report is totally false].

It is a very risky defence.

They were discussing an issue that had to do with work!

Why did they not take it to the board?

According to the town's fact-finding report, one of the workers admitted to using an expletive to refer to the target, although she claims she only did this once, behind closed doors, on her lunch break.  

She published [to others] in the context of her employment.

This is a poor defence.

The town has offered to hold appeal hearings for the other two workers, but their Attorney?., who described the town's appeal process as "woefully inadequate," said he hasn't decided whether to proceed with the hearings or go directly to court.

Piper says she and the others just want their jobs back.

An abject apology to both victims in public may avert defamation suits.

June 4, 2007 5:22 PM
 

Theodore Galloway said:

I would like to support the dismissed employees by purchasing a "Reinstate the Hookset Four" t-shirt.

July 24, 2007 4:06 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

This Blog







  Print This Page  |  Email This Page  |  Make Us Your Homepage!
User Agreement  |  Privacy Policy  |  © 2006 The Union Leader Corporation  |  Powered by SilverTech