On Sept. 27, Fishers City Council President Rich Block released a statement on the results of an investigation into allegations City Clerk Jennifer Kehl had violated federal civil rights laws. The statement was brief, so I submitted a series of questions to city officials about the statement. I received a response Oct. 3.
The answers contain the city’s contention that providing even a redacted version of the outside law firm’s report could impact potential actions in another “legal forum” by parties involved.
Kehl
Fishers City officials also say, in answer to one question, that it is their view that City Clerk Kehl was provided opportunities to respond to the allegations lodged against her, and on two occasions, council members explained the report’s conclusions.
The city’s responses also shed light on a previous investigation of Ms. Kehl by an outside law firm hired by the city council, but never made public. The city argues that the reporting circumstances were different in those two probes and that is why they were handled differently.
To provide some background, the city council announced last May 23 that it was hiring an outside law firm to investigate the civil rights violation allegations against City Clerk Kehl. On Sept. 27, Council President Block issued the following statement:
Block
“The Common Council for the City of Fishers engaged Barnes & Thornburg, LLP to investigate allegations made against the separately elected City Clerk. The investigators concluded that no violations of law occurred; however, several management issues related to the Clerk’s office were brought to the Council’s attention. Accordingly, changes have been implemented which have transferred duties previously assumed by the Clerk (but not legally required to be performed by the Clerk) to current City staff which will streamline the administration of government and maximize efficiencies.”
I contacted Ms. Kehl when the above statement was released and she claims to have asked for information on the report, but has been told it is confidential and cannot be shared with her. She did the job she was elected to do to the best of her ability, Kehl said on Sept. 27.
Because the statement was brief and short on specifics, I submitted questions to the city. Here are the questions and responses from city officials:
Q: Why was the report not made public? I understand there are confidentiality issues, but why not release the report and redact the names? Or at least release a redacted executive summary of the report?
A: Although the Council has concluded its internal investigation, the Council is mindful that these allegations are still within the statute of limitations and have the possibility of being presented in another legal forum. For that reason, the Council believes the details of the report should remain confidential in order to protect the rights of the individuals involved.
Q: Jennifer Kehl tells me she has received no information on what the report says. Is this true? If so, why was she not informed in more detail about the allegations made against her & the findings by the outside law firm?
A: No. She was notified by Council twice in writing of allegations made against her which were further expanded upon during her meetings with investigators. During the investigation, she was given the opportunity to address each and every allegation made against her with the investigators. Additionally, on two separate occasions, members of the Council met with Kehl to discuss the conclusions of the investigation and steps moving forward.
Q: The statement issued (Sept. 27) cites “management issues” as reasons for taking away responsibilities and staff not required by law to be performed by the city clerk. Is it true that the Fishers City Clerk now has only one employee?
A: Yes, the Fishers City Clerk has one Deputy Clerk to assist in statutorily required support duties for the Clerk. Please reference the attached funding memo that was set to the Clerk to outline the changes. (See NOTE below.)
Q: How many employees reported to the clerk before this probe and findings?
A: The Clerk’s office, prior to streamlining the Court customer service experience, included three full time staff plus the City Clerk.
Q: Since the city has taken action to narrow the scope of duties for the clerk, can the council explain in any more detail why these actions have been taken?
A: (NOTE: The city provided a copy of a memo written by Council President Block to Jennifer Kehl, outlining why the city was changing the duties and responsibilities of the City Clerk.) The enclosed memo outlines the process changes for the City Court that led to the streamlined experience, while still preserving statutorily-required duties within the purview of the Clerk. By streamlining non-statutorily required duties into our customer service team, we were able to eliminate one position, streamline operations, and provide the necessary customer service support through existing positions. The future funding of the Clerk’s office is directly proportional to the Clerk’s duties and responsibilities under Indiana law, which in general, is to serve as clerk of the legislative body (City Council) and clerk of the City Court. City Council meets once a month, and Court is held part-time, generally in session on Fridays. The work load to serve the Clerk’s required duties does not justify more than 1.5 employees.
Q: What management behavior by the clerk caused this action?
A: Out of respect for the people involved in the allegations, Council is mindful that the comments relating to the specific management behavior could be in conflict with the claimants’ right to address these issues in another legal forum.
Q: Did the funds to pay for this investigation by an outside law firm come from the city council budget or another line item?
A: The funds to pay for this investigation came from the City Administration’s legal budget line item.
Q: I was aware of a previous instance where an outside law firm was used to investigate the city clerk when allegations were made about her. Why did the city council choose to announce this probe before it started, yet did not publicly announce the previous investigation, which, according to my sources, found no wrongdoing?
A: The party directly involved in the initial complaint did not initiate the investigation. Because the complaint was reported by a third party with second hand information, the City Council chose not to announce the probe. This second complaint came directly from the parties involved and the City Council felt it was important to demonstrate the transparency and communicate the seriousness of the complaint. The City of Fishers takes every allegation of discrimination and harassment very serious and will continue to provide an accommodating workplace for its employees.