The municipal union responds

by Gina Hamilton
Coastal Journal staff

BATH - Deputy Aaron Skolfield is the president of AFSCME, Local 93, the union that represents most of the officers of the Sagadahoc Sheriff’s Department.  The union is representing Mark Damren, who is now a patrol deputy, but had been an undercover drug enforcement officer before a recent suspension.

Damren’s position had been paid for with federal Department of Justice funds, under a grant called Weed and Seed, a program that was designed to deal with drug crime and community prevention programs.  The latest grant of nearly $200,000 paid for Damren’s position, including his expenses.  Some of those expenses came into question in January of 2008, specifically cell phone costs.

No one is disputing that Damren was over his allotted cell phone minutes, or that the costs ran into hundreds of dollars.  However, Skofield disputes Chief Deputy Jay Manhardt’s account of his oversight of the cell phone expenses.  “I am not surprised that Damren was over on his minutes,” Skolfield said.  “It’s common practice for those in the department to use cell phones for personal use.  At the end of the month, we just circle our personal calls and write a check to the department for them.”

Manhardt says that the difference is that Damren’s phone had fallen under a different expense report.  “Because the federal grant was paying for the phone, it wasn’t as easy as just paying the money back,” he said.  “It’s a completely different budget.  I wasn’t paying for the phone bill ... the Volunteers of America (VOA) was cutting the check.”

Manhardt said that he first noticed a discrepancy in Damren’s phone bills in January of 2008, and then looked at previous records.  There was a clear pattern of overages.  However, Skolfield produced several phone bills, mostly dating from 2006, but including one dating from 2007, that bore Manhardt’s signature in the approval line.  The most recent bill Manhardt signed was dated October 2007.

Manhardt says that in 2006, the program was still in its early days.  “Bugs were still being worked out of the process,” he said. “But I always thought VOA was reviewing the records, and that they’d let me know if there was a problem.”

Union concerns

For the union, there have been concerns about Manhardt’s leadership skills from the first days of his position as Chief Deputy.  “From the beginning, Jay made some poor decisions,” Skolfield said.  He related the story of Detective John Burne, who had once been Manhardt’s supervisor when he was in the juvenile division.  When Manhardt was promoted and became Burne’s supervisor, he asked Burne to have an older cruiser brought in for body work.  Burne did this on one of his days off.  Another day, Burne came into work a little early to catch up on email.  “There was no cost to the county,” Skolfield said.  “But Burne got written up for these actions, and had to start a grievance procedure.  The Sheriff [Westrum] wouldn’t overturn it until his back was against the wall.  These things follow us ... they are in our records.”

Manhardt disputes the claim, and says that the issue had been that Burne was not only coming in early, but leaving early, and Manhardt wanted him there for his entire shift.  He does not recall the incident with the cruiser.

Sheriff Mark Westrum said that because of budget overruns, all employees had been informed not to do county work on their days off. “Even if they weren’t drawing any additional pay, there were issues of Worker’s Comp and liability insurance,” he said.  He stated that the two issues were mediated, and that, to his knowledge, no formal written reprimand was placed in Burne’s file.

In Damren’s case, the union contends, his paid administrative leave during the cell phone investigation caused him mental duress, even though he was still receiving a paycheck.  “When you know you’ve done nothing wrong, but have to sit on your hands while someone else is doing your job, it causes distress,” Skolfield said. “How would anyone feel?”

Neither Damren nor his attorney, Michael Turndorf, have released the investigation report or Manhardt’s disciplinary report based on it to the press.  Turndorf is also representing the union in its civil suit against Manhardt for union interference.

Skolfield also disputes Manhardt’s account of the alleged interference.  “Manhardt sought out these men, they didn’t come to him,” he said.  The three who have given affidavits are Steven Thibeault, Matthew Shiers, and Ian Alexander. 

Although he is not a union attorney, Skolfield engaged Turndorf to file the papers, since the two cases are operating in parallel.  “It was easier to have Turndorf do it, who already knew what was going on, than explain it all again to another attorney.  There were certain items of privilege we wouldn’t have been able to share with another attorney.  Since Turndorf is already representing Damren, it’s not an issue,” he said.

Skolfield contends that there are contradictions in Manhardt’s report, based on his own observations, many of them taped, during the interviews. As union president, he was present for nearly all the interviews, except for those employees, such as Manhardt, who were not represented by the union.  Manhardt’s disciplinary report was photocopied and passed around to union members, although no union member except for Damren himself and his sergeant, Dale Hamilton, have seen the report written by Deputy Chief Moen of Auburn either.

Westrum has also not seen the Moen report.  He says that any step Manhardt took was on advice of legal counsel.  “He didn’t make any of these decisions alone in a vacuum,” he said. 

Skolfield’s experience

Skolfield’s experience with the Department had left him questioning whether there Westrum and Manhardt carry grudges or biases against certain individuals.  In his own case, Skolfield had come up for promotion twice, first in 2004.  The Union had questioned, even then, how fair Westrum could be, so they asked him to limit the percentage of input he had to five percent, down from 10% previously.  He agreed to this.  Skolfield had been the top score in a written part of the process, and had scored overall higher than the other candidate, but because of his relative lack of seniority, he was passed over.

Skolfield filed a grievance, and it was denied.  During that process, however, he “let people know that Westrum had not told the truth during the hearing.”

Skolfield believes his allegation of perjury cost him the following promotion, too.

The process had changed the second time around in 2006, and according to Westrum, the union had requested that he choose a new sergeant from the top two candidates.  Manhardt provided the two names ... Skolfield was one.  However, again, the other candidate was chosen.

Skolfield says that the other candidate was provided with a 45-minute interview.  Westrum says there was no interview.  The other candidate, he says, was called in and congratulated.  The reason this time, Westrum said, was that the other candidate’s work habits, attitude, and performance were better.  “Skolfield had spent the last two years complaining about me and the department,” Westrum said.  “It affected his performance.”

Again, Skolfield grieved the decision.  During the hearing, Westrum was asked if he was able to put animosities, biases, and friendships aside.  “As they apply under this roof, yes,” he replied.

A few months earlier, at the funeral of Mark Damren’s father, discussion of the process got heated, and Westrum acknowledges saying that Skolfield would never get promoted as long as he was sheriff if his attitude didn’t change.

At the hearing, Damren testified to that effect against Westrum.  A deal with Skolfield was subsequently worked out ... Skolfield will get the next promotion that occurs within a year.

According to the union, that testimony was the beginning of Damren’s problems in the department. 

Westrum, however, points to Damren’s first disciplinary action in early 2007, for having inappropriate material on his computer, as the beginning of his keeping his distance from Damren.  “We were pretty close at one point,” he said.  “He’d send me pictures of his baby ... I still have one here.  Then all this started coming up, and I thought, ‘the kid has problems’.”
Whatever the cause, by the winter of 2006-07, there was obvious strain between the two.  “I’d say the relationship we had was still professional, but less friendly,” Westrum said. 

By the holidays, the two appeared to have buried the hatchet.  Manhardt said that the Christmas party was a very happy one.  “Everybody was having a good time,” he said.

Then, in early January, Manhardt noticed the discrepancy in Damren’s cell phone bills.

Possible political fallout

The union contends that no other cell phone in the department has a feature that alerts the holder to overage charges.  Verizon Wireless says that there is such a feature, but would not confirm whether any cell phone issued to the department had it, citing customer privacy issues.

In February, the union voted unanimously to write to Westrum and ask for the investigation of Damren to cease immediately, and also for Manhardt to be removed.  “We believed that the relationship between the union and Manhardt was so damaged that any kind of reconciliation was not possible,” Skolfield said.  “Westrum did not reply to our letter.”

Westrum says that he did not reply to the union on advice of counsel.  However, both the union’s position and the department’s position were printed, side by side, in another local newspaper less than a week later. 

Westrum has made it clear that he will not remove Manhardt.  “Manhardt’s not working alone here,” he said.  “Counsel agrees with his decisions.”  Westrum believes that the problems at his department are based on political concerns.  “A few individuals have said they will do whatever it takes to see that I’m not elected this year.”  Westrum is vying with Joel Merry of the Bath Police Department for election in November.

“We recognize there will probably be political fallout,” Skolfield said.  “They know it too.  But that is not our motive.  The current administration simply does not have our support.”

“We don’t feel that we can even talk to our boss,” he went on.  “The Chief Deputy serves at the pleasure of the Sheriff, which is an elected office.  Nobody is accountable to us. The most damnable part of all of this is that this puts a strain on relationships in the department ... people who have been friends for years can’t or won’t talk to each other,” Skolfield added.

After being on paid leave until April, Damren then was placed on unpaid leave for a month.  He recently returned to work as a patrol deputy.  Skolfield says that Damren does not even have the materials he needs to do his job. “He should have a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in addition to his sidearm,” he said.  “He also doesn’t have a portable radio.”

Manhardt says that a long gun has been identified for Damren, but that he needs training on it before he will be issued the weapon.  As for portable radios, he said that he assumed Damren had one.  “He’d been in the department for two years,” he said.  “Not having a portable radio is like not having a bullet-proof vest ... it’s just standard operating gear,” he said.  It was possible, he acknowledged, that Damren had a Drug Enforcement Agency-issued radio, which he had to surrender when he changed jobs.  In any case, he said, Damren would have one immediately.

Damren’s reports will be released as part of the public record at the conclusion of his grievance process, which is just beginning.  In the meantime, the tension between union leadership and the department shows no signs of abating. 

“Oddly enough, I am not really pro-union,” Skolfield says.  “I wish we didn’t need one.  This kind of situation, though, proves that we still do.  For Damren to be pulled out of a job he was gifted at for something like this was a true disservice to the community.”