In an emailed statement, the St. Michaels commissioners addressed the dismissal of Town Manager Jean Weisman and thanked her for lengthy service with the town.
“After a lengthy discussion during a closed session on June 24th, a majority of the Commissioners of St. Michaels concluded that the time had come to part ways with Town Manager Jean Weisman.
“We are bound by law to keep the content of that discussion confidential.
“Unfortunately, the nature of her position, and the sensitive, confidential information in her possession and control did not afford us the opportunity to provide prior notice.
“We thank Ms. Weisman for her longtime service to the town and wish her all the best in the future.
“An interim manager with extensive experience will be hired to serve until a permanent replacement is recruited.”
Weisman has worked for the town of St. Michaels for 37 years, the last 10 as town manager.
Michael Estrella says
A week after taking action to fired the town manager, Jean Weisman, the town commissioners have finally decided to publish their version of what transpired in their secret meeting. Parts of their version sound very similar to the statement published by Jean’s attorney earlier this week but with fewer facts. Their statement also fails to provide any logical reasoning behind the firing.
The lack of fact and reasoning is not really surprising, particularly with the male members of this commission. They seem to have been fact challenged over the past year or so. Recently two of them got caught flat footed in a lie about a spending cut they favored. Their response was classic, they chastised the female peer who caught them in the lie but within a week or so had to read a statement into the record admitting to the misleading statement.
There is an old saying that goes to believability. It says to take everything you hear with a grain of salt. With the men on this commission, no matter if it is a statement they publish or a claim they make, I make sure I carry the whole salt shaker!
Dennis Glackin says
“Unfortunately, the nature of her position, and the sensitive, confidential information in her possession and control did not afford us the opportunity to provide prior notice.
The above is the reason given for the dismissal, along with the previous and lame response “go in a different direction”. Of course the Town Manager would have sensitive, confidential information in her possession. Did the Commissioners have reason to think that such information would be compromised in some way by allowing a normal termination with proper notice and compensation? Precisely what sensitive, confidential information are they referring to? This “reason” seems to beget more questions than answers, and makes the entire dismissal even more disturbing.
Chris Agharabi says
The Commissioners state: “We are bound by law to keep the content of that discussion confidential.”
I’m not an expert in the law but after conferring with people who are versed Open Meetings rules-
What law are they referring to?
What reason did they have to close the meeting? is a copy of that mandated statement and document available? Please release the statement.
I wondered when and where was the open meeting on June 24th, that preceded the closed session, noticed to the public? As I understand it, was briefly mentioned at the last open meeting. Ok. That’s legal – but it is not reasonable notice – not even 24 hours.
As mandated by the MD Open Meetings Act, will the Commissioners be disclosing who attended the closed session, all topics that were discussed and what actions were taken?
The Open Meetings Act aside, the decision was 4-1. This could not have been an emergency to remove the town manager or one would assume this would have been a 5-0 vote. Maybe it was emergency for certain members of the Commission and not others?
That may just be speculation. However, here are the facts:
There was no statement made for a week.
As of writing this there is, in essence, no one “running the town.”
There is no definitive plan other than “we’re working on it.”
On top of it all, a dedicated public servant of 37 years has been asked to leave for no apparent reason other than “a new direction.” Simply a power move – possibly a political move – that is frankly heartbreaking to most of St. Michaels. What’s next?
Hiding behind a half baked legal excuse is cowardly, un-transparent and something the State of Maryland should be interested in. I wish the Commissioners, Jean Weismann and the Town of St Michaels the best of luck in getting to the truth. I for one would anxious to know the new direction the town is taking and who will truly be leading us.
William Boos says
An open letter to The Honorable Michael Bibb and fellow St Michaels Commissioners,
I have read the memo that was sent via email from the Commissioners of St Michaels dated July 1, entitled Jean Weisman. I assume this was sent in an attempt to answer some of the groundswell of questions and concerns that have arisen from the public regarding your decision to end her 37-year employment with the Town of St Michaels. Unfortunately, this memo raises more questions than it tries to answer. Here is the memo:
After a lengthy discussion during a closed session on June 24th, a majority of the Commissioners of St. Michaels concluded that the time had come to part ways with Town Manager Jean Weisman. We are bound by law to keep the content of that discussion confidential. Unfortunately, the nature of her position, and the sensitive, confidential information in her possession and control did not afford us the opportunity to provide prior notice. We thank Ms. Weisman for her longtime service to the town and wish her all the best in the future. An interim manager with extensive experience will be hired to serve until a permanent replacement is recruited.
By Authority of the Commissioners of St. Michaels
The memo states: “We are bound by law to keep the content of that discussion confidential.” What law are you referring to? The MD Open Meetings Act states, “For the most part, the decision to invoke an exception to close a meeting is discretionary. Although other laws, such as medical privacy laws, might require a public body to discuss a topic in a closed session, the Act itself does not mandate closed sessions; instead, it provides that the public body “may” meet in closed session to discuss an excepted topic. § 3-305(b). Given the discretionary nature of the decision, the public body must articulate a reason for excluding the public. The COSM have every right by MD law to keep that discussion confidential, but please don’t hide behind some non-existent and undescribed law.
What possible sensitive and confidential information could Jean have had, that would cause you to deal with her in a way so inconsistent with the common decency usually afforded to a trusted 37-year employee? Your last line intimates that a new interim manager with extensive experience has been identified and will be hired. If so, who is that person, does he or she live in St Michaels or locally?
Additionally, what reason did you give for doing so, before you moved into closed session on June 24th and is a copy of that mandated closing statement and document available? Which member of the Commission has received the mandated training and thus serves as the designated Open Meetings Act expert? How, when and where was the open meeting on June 24th, that preceded the closed session, noticed to the public? As mandated by the MD Open Meetings Act, will you be disclosing who attended the closed session, all topics that were discussed and what actions were taken. Which of the Commissioners voted in favor of terminating Jean’s employment, and which voted against?
I and many others look forward to your answers.
Bill Boos
Former President of the Commissioners of St Michaels
George Sass says
Very good questions, Bill. I’m sure most of the residents of St.Michaels want answers.
Joe Morton says
I fully agree with the comments by others and would hope we get the answers requested. In all my dealings with Jean, I have found her to be honorable and unbiased. Just as important helpful. I believe Jean deserved better than what can only be described as an unceremonious departure. The Town of St. Michaels, including the business community deserve responsive and transparent answers to reasonable questions rather than hiding behind the attorney(s). If the commissioners “are moving in a new direction”, then tell us what it is and how you believe you will get there.
michael Estrella says
I think that commissioners Bibb, Breimhurst, and duPont consider BACKWARDS a new direction?
William Boos says
The Sunday edition of the Star Democrat reports that after a distinguished, seven-year career with more than 120 arrests, Sgt. K-9 Max is retiring from the St. Michaels Police Department. Max will live in retirement with his current handler, Cpl. Jason Adams, and family. It was a festive sendoff for the dog on Wednesday, June 30. There were hot dogs on the grill, chilling bags of Capri Sun and dog treats in a special package. Community members came out to bid a farewell to the yellow lab. St. Michaels Police Chief Anthony Smith also lauded Max’s service to the waterfront town. “He (doesn’t) call in sick,” Smith said. Pet Supplies of St. Michaels provided Max with a goodie bag. Kids and seniors showed up to celebrate with Max. At the end of the event, Max’s handler broke into the goodie bag. Max wagged his tail and seemed to smile. Retirement never tasted so sweet.
In other St Michaels news, Jean Weisman, town manager and 37 year employee, was dismissed last week without notice or reason. No ceremony or party, not even a goodie bag. Retirement never tasted so bitter.
Dennis Glackin says
Sad but true.
Angela Rieck says
I support the commissioner’s decision. Our property taxes in St Michaels are high in comparison to similar towns and cities. For example, my home in Key West is worth more than 3 times the value of my St Michaels home, yet my Key West taxes are only 20% higher. I recently discovered that when the sidewalks are replaced, I will be required to pay $8,000 for dangerous and high maintenance brick sidewalks. Amortized over 5 years, that means that my taxes are higher than my more highly valued property. Ms. Weisman has had a long and distinguished career and I applaud her hard work. We are all fortunate to have had someone with such dedication…but the problem remains, exceptionally high taxes. This courageous new group of commissioners understand that to solve the problem we will need different leadership. Best wishes to Ms. Weisman in the next stages of her career.
P Wells says
Angela is it your understanding that the town manager somehow has influence on setting the tax rates present in the town? Collecting, maybe, but I ask you to reevaluate the logic behind firing a faithful executor of the tax legislation created by current and past commissioners.
Jean Weismann was a great manager not because she involved herself in the politics or legislation of the town, but because she carried it out without bias and by the rule of law. The ideal public servant. Without Jean, St. Michaels will suffer a lag of knowledge and professionalism for years to come.
J Garland says
1) the brick sidewalks they are installing are not unsafe and have concrete foundations, so your information is not accurate; 2) Florida, overall, has a regressive tax system requiring the poorest citizens to pay the most through sales taxes and other local taxes. Property owners in St Michaels are taxes around the average rate; 3) The Town Manager has no control over tax rates. That being said St Michals is among the least taxed municipalities in Talbot County and TC is among the lowest taxed in the State, so once again – your information is incorrect.
Christopher Thomas says
Couldn’t agree more. The tax solutions between Florida and Maryland are so different that comparing them is absolutely meaningless. She’s also incorrect about her sidewalk payment requirement, and incorrectly attributing the tax rate to the town manager, proof that she doesn’t pay attention nor understand what’s going on in town. 10/10 chance she’s not a full time resident, and 9/10 chance she’s friends with a commissioner. Anyone paying attention at all wouldn’t call this current group “courageous” for two seconds.
Christopher Thomas says
Recently, thanks to the planning commission’s work, the COSM voted to reverse the ordinance that required owners proximal to sidewalks to foot half of the bill. Our reasoning was that if the town can’t afford to replace and maintain town property on it’s own, either raise everyone’s taxes or hold off until they can afford to do it. Sidewalks benefit the town as a whole, not just those who happen to own property adjacent to them. This had nothing to do with Jean, and wasn’t your “courageous” commissioners, who could have reversed this at any time in the past 30 years. All they did was say “yes” to someone else’s good idea.
Carol H. Parlett says
Fourteen days since 4 of our 5 current Town Commissioners voted to, without notice or cause, remove Jean Weisman from her position as the Town Manager.I just wanted to take a minute to remind those commissioners Bibb,Breimhurst, duPont, & Harrod the meaning of transparency. As follows:
TRANS * PAR * EN * CY (noun)
Transparency is the opposite of SECRECY. Secrecy means deliberately hiding your actions; transparency means deliberately revealing them. Transparency is a choice, encouraged by changing attitudes about what constitutes appropriate behavior.
Obviously, after 2 long weeks, you have chosen secrecy although you campaigned on transparency!
Boy, have we, as a Town, been duped!!!
Gail Aveson says
You are so right!
Michael Davis says
There is an old cliche that America is a nation of laws, not men. At least it was that way before the cult of Trump.
I’m not saying that all people who write that the St. Michaels Commissioners should ignore the law are Trumpers, but there are similarities.
There are laws that protect the privacy of information. We should all be grateful for that rather than complain whenever we feel entitled to know legally protected information.
William Boos says
What ??
Paulette Florio says
Mr. Davis you have a valid point about privacy but regarding town business these 4 specific commissioners((Bibb, DuPont, Breimhurst, Harrod) ran for office promising complete transparency. We voted them in. They work for us. If you have not read the article on the front page of this weekend’s Star Democrat you are missing the point.
These 4 commissioners are making poor decisions across the board. For instance, why would they not jump at the opportunity to return K-9 Max back into service in our community when he has been an asset. It is not a difficult decision to make. It costs the town nothing. The residents have raised the funds and he has historically been a deterrent to crime. This is just a sample of the poor decisions being made by these 4 individuals. Not to mention that the decision about the canine officer should have been made by our Chief of police. Who knows more and better about keeping the town safe? The Chief of Police or these 4 commissioners? I would like to hear the discussions they have about issues that pertain to our town and so does everyone else for that matter. They are making huge budget cuts that will affect every aspect of the town. They seem concerned about spending yet we now have an interim town manager coming on board. Is this expense going to be kept under wraps as well? There’s privacy and then there’s cover-ups.
I would like to see The Talbot Spy dig a little deeper. The people who live in and love St. Michaels care about the town. We are not going away until we get answers, starting with the abrupt unexplained firing of our town manager.
Christopher Thomas says
There was a tactful way to pave the road for a “new direction,” and these commissioners did not take it. They should have hired an assistant town manager YEARS ago to learn from the decades of experience that Mrs. Weisman had, and then allowed her to retire with the dignity of an employee of 37 years with her replacement already in place. This would have given the commissioners a chance to “groom” their replacement, allowed the community and town employees time to get to know that individual, and allowed Mrs. Wiseman the ability to retire with the accolades and thanks that she deserved.
There was nothing criminal about her conduct, otherwise the vote to terminate her would have certainly been 5-0. Hiding behind the “advice of their attorney” has caused nothing but turmoil and chaos over the past few weeks. Residents not knowing who is running the town, rumors flying all over the place regarding Mrs. Weisman’s actions, town employees fearing for their jobs because of the secrecy, etc. These commissioners want to move in another direction, and that’s their choice. But there’s a level of dignity and class that they absolutely failed to operate with, and this is unfortunately just another instance of non-transparency that at least three of them pledged when running.
These commissioners are not leaders, they are reactionary at best. I can say that with certainty because they have failed to outline a pathway forward and THEN act upon it, instead, they abruptly act and then plead forgiveness in the name of acting in the town’s best interest. Tell me this; was it responsible to fire the town manager without a replacement locked in, attempt to find an interim manager, and then attempt to secure a full time replacement in the wake of this drama?
Certainly the commissioners do not want this dragged on, and it’s puzzling why these commissioners couldn’t foresee this backlash, considering their “wealth” of business experience with hiring and firing high level management.
Any reasonable candidate will read these articles, view the comments here and on social media posts, and wonder if they want to work for a group of people who shoot from the hip and don’t-even-ask questions later. I pity the person who takes Jean’s job, because working for these commissioners must be a harrowing experience.
As a resident, I thank Jean for her years of service, and as a planning commissioner, for her wealth of knowledge and ability to remain objective.
Christopher Thomas says
The Exception to this is obviously Mrs. Windon, who while I don’t agree with on everything with, has been the single commissioner to defend process and transparency the entire time.
Dennis F Glackin says
She’s been a voice of reason.
Dennis Glackin says
Well said. There is little question whether the commissioners had the right to terminate Jean. The manner in which it was done was an insult to her and the residents of the town who expect their elected officials to act with grace and dignity. This “new direction” they cite as the reason for her dismissal has yet to be explained to the residents and businesses. And that is inexcusable. They can and should make public their proposed “new direction”, as that policy has nothing to do with closed meeting exceptions. Finally, if Commissioners Harrod, Dupont, Bibb and Breimhurst want to not make matters worse, perhaps they should solicit input from the stakeholders in the Town before they announce through another Constant Contact e-mail that they have hired a new manager in another closed session.