CITY OF DICKINSON

_______________________________________________________________________
Investigation Report Regarding Allegations of Workplace Harassment
and other Inappropriate Conduct in City Hall
_______________________________________________________________________
By: Meredith L. Vukelic, Pearce Durick PLLC

Submitted May 2, 2024

Background
On February 29, 2024, then-City of Dickinson (“City”) employee Matthew Galibert submitted a
grievance explaining allegations against City Administrator, Dustin Dassinger. On March 6, 2024, Mr.
Galibert submitted a grievance explaining allegations against City Human Resources Director, Shelly
Nameniuk. Later in the day on March 6, 2024, Mr. Galibert submitted complaints explaining allegations
against Dassinger, Nameniuk, and also the City’s Risk Management employee, Greg Beck. Through
conversation with Mr. Galibert, he confirmed his complaints fall under Chapter 29, Article 29.08 Civil
Service System, Section 29.08.04040 General Provisions, provision 2.5 Other Harassment. The
complaints largely relate to an incident at City Hall on February 16, 2024, but also matters leading up to
and after that day.

Very broadly summarized, Mr. Galibert’s position is that he was not allowed to perform all aspects of
his job description; that he raised this and other concerns about his working relationship with his direct
supervisor over time with the supervisor and with upper level management and Human Resources; that
his personal rights were violated/he was harassed on February 16, 2024, when law enforcement was
called to City Hall related to a concern about Mr. Galibert, unflattering opinions were expressed about
Mr. Galibert to law enforcement and others, and he was placed on administrative leave for a short time;
and that after further review and understanding that the concerns were not supported by video footage,
he did not receive an apology, explanation, or discussion regarding how it could remain a viable
workplace for him to continue in, despite multiple requests by him.

The City engaged this investigator, Meredith Vukelic, on March 8, 2024, to serve as a neutral third-party
investigator and to report findings, determinations, and recommendations to the City. Mr. Galibert
resigned from his position on March 12, 2024. The City requested the investigation still be conducted.

At the City’s request, this investigator compiled one report to address all allegations. Throughout this
report, Mr. Galibert will be referred to as Complainant. This investigator typically refers to an accused
employee as Respondent, but since there are three accused employees, each accused individual will
be referred to by their last name to assist the reader.

Procedure of Investigation
The following information relevant to the allegations was reviewed as part of the fact-gathering process:

• Grievance and complaint documentation submitted by Complainant, and e-mail communications

from Complainant further describing concerns;
Page | 1
• Audio recordings of phone call to, and communications with, law enforcement dispatch on
February 16, 2024;
• Body cam footage from law enforcement on February 16, 2024;
• Police report by Officer K. Jacobson written February 17, 2024;
• Text messages among City staff on or around February 16, 2024;
• E-mails among City staff after the February 16, 2024, incident;
• Documentation from Complainant’s personnel file, including but not limited to employment
application, offer letter, new hire information, and evaluation information;
• City Planner, and Engineering & Community Development Director, job descriptions;
• Handwritten notes from a City employee’s meetings with Complainant (short, not detailed, and
somewhat illegible);
• Written statements/rebuttals from Nameniuk and Beck and aerial photo of parking lot with notation
showing where Complainant’s personal items were found;
• RACI chart and email explanations provided by Complainant’s direct supervisor;
• Complainant’s written “Goals for Planning Department” and “Planning department” outline;
• Staff Report dated March 5, 2024, submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission and related March
13, 2024, public hearing recording;
• January 17, 2024, Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing recording;
• City Human Resource Policy Manual (Chapter 29 of City Municipal Code);
• Organizational chart of the City.

Several interviews were conducted. Most interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom or Microsoft
Teams, with two witness interviews, and a second interview with Complainant, conducted via phone.
Interviews took place between March 18, 2024, and April 19, 2024. In total, 15 people were interviewed.

Persons interviewed were informed of this investigator’s role as a neutral factfinder and the scope of
the investigation. 1 Confidentiality parameters were discussed with each individual, including requests
they not speak with others about the interviews to protect the integrity of the process. All were informed
that retaliation is prohibited against anyone who brings forth a complaint or a concern, or who
cooperates with the investigative process.

A great deal of recorded and written documentation was provided to this investigator. Many opinions
were shared during interviews and in writing. Some were irrelevant to the investigation and are not
referenced, including but not limited to witness’ more general opinions on the parties to the complaints
or the work environment, since this investigator was not tasked with assessing each accused’s job
performance or the work environment as a whole. Nor was this investigator tasked with investigating
the Complainant’s direct supervisor to any extent. Background on the Complainant’s relationship with
his supervisor is included since it is relevant to certain allegations against the accused.

1
Complainant questioned this investigator’s role. It was explained this investigator is neither law enforcement nor
a prosecutor and is therefore not investigating whether criminal conduct occurred. This investigator has no
authority to investigate alleged violations of state or federal discrimination or harassment laws as this investigator
is unaffiliated with the state Department of Labor and Human Rights or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Division. This investigator’s focus is primarily on whether City policy was violated, though some legal elements
are touched on.
Page | 2
This report is not intended to be exhaustive of all information learned but contains information relevant
to the allegations, in a summary fashion. To help the reader best understand the opinions shared by
others and how this investigator’s determinations were made, the summaries are still very detailed. This
investigator apologizes for the length of this report; there was a vast amount of information to
summarize.

Complaint Allegations and Desired Outcome

Complainant alleged, in summary, the following:

Allegations as to Dassinger:

- On February 16, 2024, Dassinger instructed Nameniuk to call Dickinson Police Department
(“DPD”), after Beck identified some personal belongings in the City parking lot as belonging to
Complainant, and after not questioning Beck’s (alleged) explanation that Complainant threw his
things around the lot and sped off;
- Dassinger attempted to convince DPD that Complainant is mentally unstable, paranoid, and may
even make an attempt on his life, including a response to an officer who wondered if there was
another explanation for the items in the lot along the lines of, “Normally I’d go along with you if this
were an isolated incident, but he may be bipolar” and that many “red flags” had been exhibited by
Complainant, hardly providing explanation to DPD for what they were, and that this was aggressively
harmful, dishonest, reckless, and corrupting;
- Dassinger deactivated Complainant’s badge, asked him to wait outside the building and across the
street when Complainant arrived for work, and placed Complainant on paid administrative leave for
about three hours after insisting, in front of DPD personnel, that there are resources out there and
Complainant can find help, in relation to Complainant’s mental health, though Complainant never
requested to discuss his mental health or volunteered any such information and though
Complainant had composed an email after a January 26, 2024, meeting requesting this narrative
regarding his mental health stop;
- Dassinger took the above actions one week after Complainant expressed concerns regarding the
conduct of his direct supervisor who Complainant alleged was forcing Complainant to amend a
staff recommendation in an unethical manner;
- Dassinger’s actions impacted Complainant to the extent Complainant felt he likely must relocate
or remain in a volatile and hostile work environment.

Allegations as Nameniuk:

- On February 16, 2024, Nameniuk made reckless, fabricated, or at best misleading comments to
DPD personnel and actively encouraged others into an “absurd downward spiral of horrendous
accusations”, such as by stating:
▪ Complainant was obsessed about his probationary period;
▪ That he has a Jekyll and Hyde personality
▪ That he has demanded lengthy meetings with his supervisors and Human Resources (“HR”)
though he had only requested one meeting with Dassinger;
▪ That he demanded a promotion, an assistant, and to be on the executive team when he hadn’t;
▪ That he has spent hours in other peoples’ offices included three hours in the Deputy City
Administrator’s office when he hadn’t;
▪ And that he sometimes has mean-spirited meetings.
Page | 3
- Nameniuk told City dispatch that Complainant had “gone rogue” and the felt “something is going to
happen” which were false statements.
- Nameniuk freely shared extreme concerns about Complainant with other employees.
- One week before the foregoing occurred, Complainant had informed Nameniuk that a difficult
ethical dilemma would exist for Complainant if Complainant’s direct supervisor was going to force
Complainant to alter his professional recommendation to the Commission.
- Nameniuk did not put an end to discussions about Complainant’s mental health despite his
request.

Allegations as to Beck:

- Beck photographed Complainant’s prescription medications and shared the photographs in a

group text with Dassinger, the Deputy City Administrator, and perhaps Nameniuk.
- Beck arranged Complainant’s belongings along the downstairs break area counter.
- Beck explained to DPD officers and other employees that Complainant’s personal items were found
in the parking lot because Complainant must have had a mental breakdown and threw them around,
before checking camera footage, despite Beck not having working experience with Complainant
and nothing of concern being in Complainant’s HR file.

Broader Allegations:

Complainant also alleged that Dassinger and/or others have “likely” continued to spread the narrative
that Complainant had a psychotic break or mental breakdown even after confirming Complainant’s
version of events related to the February 16th incident, based on a report that a Fire Department
employee is alleged to have mentioned hearing this to a City Hall employee.

All-together, Complainant alleges his privacy and employee rights have been violated, using terms such
as defamation, retaliation, and harassment. He alleges he has only requested an apology and for the
accused to ameliorate the reputational damage the accused attempted to cause, though Complainant
alleges all they’ve replied with is “we did what we had to do.” Complainant described it as “abusive
behavior.”

Complainant’s Desired Outcome:

When asked his desired resolution, complainant shared the following:

I will be losing two months of rent here in Dickinson, which consumes my security deposit and totals
$1590. I've also hired a moving service for a total of $2266.26. Factoring hotels, gas and other
miscellaneous expenses, this runs close to the total moving stipend I'm offered by the new
employer. I'd like for anything exceeding that $5,000 relocation stipend to be covered, if possible.2

2
Complainant communicated to this investigator on April 10, 2024, that his final paycheck had a $1,000 deduction
for departing before 12 months tenure, which he wrote “adds insult/injury to injury, as I’d taken repeated
measures to attempt improving the situation and they’re (the way it seems to me, at least) shown to be
‘encouraging’ me to leave ([Nameniuk] on Officer Jacobson’s body cam upstairs / [Nameniuk] in email to other
execs / all ignoring my requests to ameliorate).” This investigator explained she was not well positioned at that
point in the investigation to investigate additional concerns but stated this would be noted in the report. For the
reader, the job offer letter dated May 5, 2023, issued to and signed by Complainant did reference this deduction
in a paragraph explaining the City’s offer of a $2,500 moving allowance.
Page | 4
 I don't think it's necessary to request anything further as I don't like the idea of seeking punitive
financial damages. Regarding punitive measures, I still would like for the Board of City
Commissioners to consider termination of [Dassinger’s] contract as City Administrator, as he has
exhibited (in my personal opinion) astonishingly poor judgment and simply depraved behavior. I'd
asked on multiple occasions for some follow-up such as an apology, explanation, or perhaps even
just some discussion regarding how to ensure it can remain a viable workplace for me to continue
in. I asked this to or in front of [the Deputy City Administrator], [ ] Nameniuk, [the City Engineer], and
[ ] Dassinger. In every single instance it was ignored and was never addressed over three weeks.
With that additional reason, I would like for the Board to consider removal of all three offending
individuals.

Summary of Relevant Parts of Audio and LEO Body Cam Recordings – 2/16/2024:
Initial Call

Approximately 15 minutes, 49 seconds. Much only silence. Nameniuk is heard calling from City
Hall, stating she “wonders if they could have an officer come to City Hall.” She says, “We may have
a rogue employee and I just want someone over there before everybody starts coming to work, so
something doesn’t happen.” Nameniuk explains they found things all over the parking lot including
this person’s prescriptions. She states she “really thinks something is going to happen, and I can’t
get ahold of anyone on the executive team, so I’d rather have someone there, and I’ll be on my way.”
Dispatcher says she will send someone. This audio then includes Dispatch 1 discussion (below),
discussion of an irrelevant matter, and then includes Dispatch 2 discussion (below).

Dispatch 1

Approximately 35-second audio. Dispatcher references City Hall and explains the Human Resource
Manager had called in, saying she “thinks they may have a rogue employee, they found their
prescriptions all over the parking lot.” Something inaudible is stated; reference made by dispatcher
to “arriving between now and 7:15.” A male officer responds that he would “head down there.”

Dispatch 2

Approximately 15-second audio. Somewhat inaudible. A male may make reference to a video.

Dispatch 3

Approximately 7 minutes 14 seconds. Some is inaudible. Male is heard requesting another unit. He
states, “apparently this is an employee that is wanting to leave and he is unstable, they don’t know
if he’s in the building or not,” and a somewhat inaudible reference is made to “shutting off his
access now” and “they just want another unit patrolling around the area.” A male requests they “run
and attach that Matthew guy.” Another male gives the spelling of the Complainant’s last name. A
female responds, “I’m not finding him in our system.” A female states she “found a vehicle that is
possibly registered to him,” and describes the color, make, model, and license plate. A male asks
Page | 5
 if there is a vehicle with a Texas plate, a white pickup, attached to him anywhere. Female responds,
“We don’t have him in our system so there’s no vehicle attached to his name and I can’t find an out-
of-state plate by just his name.” A male asks if HR or anyone is there yet, they “should have his date
of birth and info there.” Female says she found the Matthew out of Texas, he is “eligible negative,
nothing North Dakota.” A male asks what he was last seen wearing. Another male responds they
haven’t seen him yet. Male asks if they have a phone number for him. Another male responds that
he’s getting all of his information now. A male asks a female, “Did you run his name by chance, his
birthdate is [then gives it.]” She responds she found him out of Texas, he is eligible negative, nothing
North Dakota. An individual gives a license plate number and states, “He just pulled in that parking
lot behind you.” The female responds that plate comes back to the car she previously described
and Complainant’s name. The other individual describes the car’s location in a parking lot. The
individual then explains, “We’re walking into City Hall, it sounds like he left his box of meds next to
his car yesterday.” A male suggests they stand by, and says, “I don’t know if he’s welcome in the
building or not.” “If you’re done talking to him, have somebody hang out with him … let him know
what he has to say.” A male says something inaudible and says all units will be back in service.

Axon Body 4 Video 2024-02-16 0736 D01A1019W

Approximately 5 minutes, 28 seconds. Video only, no audio. Law enforcement approaches the
Complainant at his car in the parking lot. Conversation is had which cannot be discerned.
Complainant and officer walk toward sidewalk/street and interact with another officer.
Complainant smiles while talking at times, his demeanor appears normal. Officer with body cam
gets into a cruiser sitting in the parking lot nearby. Video ends.

Axon Body 4 Video 2024-02-16 0740 D01A1756S

Approximately 9 minutes, 49 seconds. Video only, no audio. 7:41am shown at top. Officer is inside
the building, in a hallway speaking with Beck and Nameniuk. “Risk Management” sign is seen on
wall in the hallway. Officer walks toward a window, and across the street Complainant is seen
speaking with the officers as described above on the other Axon Body 4 Video. After a couple of
minutes, Dassinger is seen standing in the doorway of the “Risk Management” office, talking. Officer
walks back and forth from window to office area. Around minutes 4:30 officer walks down a hallway
and chats with another officer who came in (K. Jacobson) (who is seen on the other Axon Body 4
Video talking to Complainant). Officer with body cam on goes back to the window, then to the office
area. Officer Jacobson is seen speaking to Beck and Dassinger. Officer with the body cam joins the
conversation. There are plastic bags on the floor in the office with items in them. At minute 7:48,
officer with body cam follows Dassinger through hallways and outside to the cruiser in the parking
lot across the street. Dassinger opens back door to cruiser and speaks with Complainant who is
sitting in the back seat. Complainant gets out. Video ends.

Final extraction of video -- Officer Jacobson

Approximately 49 minutes, 34 seconds. 7:06am shown at top. Initially no audio. Dassinger and Beck
are seen talking in the lobby area. They walk to Beck’s office. Audio then is on. Beck describes that
stuff was scattered throughout the parking lot. He says, “Who the hell would throw out their meds”
and “I don’t know, I thought I better throw up an alarm, because I know that there’s been some
things…” Dassinger says, “Yeah, some red flags” and “Well, let’s see if we locate him, see if you can
put something out on his vehicle, an attempt to locate… the guy’s not stable.” Beck says, “Yeah.”

Page | 6
 Dassinger explains he told Nameniuk to stay in her vehicle. Dassinger says, “There’s two people
right now that he does not… that he could do something to: Josh, and me.” Dassinger explains he
would get ahold of Josh to stay home or be careful. The two discuss shutting Complainant’s badge
down for now, and they need to make sure Complainant isn’t in the building. Beck says to DPD
personnel, “Who the hell just, I mean… all his personal belongings, I don’t know… jean jacket.”

7:13am Dassinger, Beck and DPD officer check Complainant’s office and find a cell phone on the
desk. There is a question about whether Complainant has two phones. Dassinger says it would be
weird if he left his phone here. Dassinger explains that Complainant started about nine months ago
and has been “very unstable since he got here. There’s been lots of discussions with him. He came
from Norway, but he’s a U.S. resident.”

7:15am Nameniuk and officer go into an office. She gives officer a synopsis of situation (there is an
interruption that they confirmed the cell phone is Complainant’s work phone) – she states
Complainant is from the U.S. but had lived in another country for a while. She continued:
Complainant right away was asking if he could be fired and when his probation would be up. Right
after probation he went to Dassinger with this whole plan about how he should be on the executive
team, he needs to be a director, he needs an assistant under him, and all these demands about
what he felt his position was and his feelings on his job description and him not doing what he was
promised when he came here. Dassinger talked him down, then weeks or a month go by and it
comes right back up. Complainant complained about his supervisor, and they’d meet for hours, like
they met for 4.5 hours discussing why he’s unhappy and what he thinks needs to happen.
Complainant will meet with HR for 1 hour, with the Deputy City Administrator for 3 hours, with
another employee for hours and hours a day. We try to tell him you’re new, you haven’t been here
very long, you need to figure things out and as time goes on you might get more duties and things
might progress, it’s not going to happen in the first year. Last time Nameniuk and Complainant met
he had a resignation letter but didn’t give it to her. She “tried to encourage him… we’d been pretty
frustrated already with him… if you’re unhappy and you don’t think you can do the job that we’re
asking you to do, then maybe you should go, maybe this is a good time, maybe we can pay you out
the last two.” But he wanted to stay until April so he never gave his resignation, but Nameniuk has
seen him leaving with his own books, things off his wall, the last couple days. She described he’s
been friendly and there was no indication there was going to be a blow-up when he left but it’s
almost been like a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde. He’ll go talk to the Deputy City Administrator and he’s super
nice to her and have a real calm nice conversation, and then he’ll meet with Dassinger, the direct
supervisor and Nameniuk and it’s the complete opposite, he’s mad and frustrated, really up and
down. They were aware Complainant had prescriptions but didn’t know what they were for. There
was a prescription on his desk but “we had no idea.”

7:19 Nameniuk and Beck walk downstairs together and Nameniuk comments about it being a really
crappy week. There is slight laughter.

7:21am Beck informs at least a few different staff that if an employee’s door badge doesn’t work,
they should not let that individual in the building. He said he can’t say more than that. (He does not
name anyone). Officer requests Complainant’s personal information. Beck returns to his office and
prints out Complainant’s information and gives to the officer.

7:22 Beck, Dassinger, and an officer discuss Complainant’s vehicles. Dassinger asks Beck, “He had
his pickup today, right?” Beck responds, “Huh?” then clarifies, “This [referring to the personal
Page | 7
 items] was laying in the parking lot when I got here, I have no idea when it happened. We may want
to review the….” Dassinger says, “Oh, you don’t know if this happened this morning?” Beck says,
“No, I know it happened after I left….” The officer walks away from the conversation but Dassinger
can be heard saying he thought this happened this morning and something about the Deputy City
Administrator. Beck says, “Sorry about that.” Dassinger asks about camera footage.

7:24am Another officer joins and is updated on the situation. Officer speaks with law enforcement
dispatcher regarding running his name with birthdate. Officer and Beck proceed downstairs to do a
search to confirm that Complainant is not there.

7:28am Beck receives a request via cell phone to describe where the parking lot is located. He takes
the elevator up. Officer continues search of the basement and heads back upstairs.

7:34am Beck asks officers to have an officer post up at front door since it is open – explains he
doesn’t want Complainant in the building yet. Officer asks if Complainant is fired or not welcome in
the building. Beck says, because of what they found in the parking lot being prescription medication,
that was their number one red flag, and he knows they’ve had some issues with him, so right now
he is not welcome. Beck explains that’s why they have shut down Complainant’s access and why
he’s trying to get to all the employees so they don’t open the door for someone. Officer responds
that he thinks Nameniuk is talking to Dassinger to see what he wants to do about it. Beck says
Dassinger is in IT’s office going through the surveillance video trying to see if they can determine
when this happened.

7:36am Officers go up to IT’s office. On the way up they learn Complainant has arrived. Officer tells
Dassinger Complainant is here. Dassinger says we can’t let him in, need to talk to him. Access card
has been turned off. Dassinger says they need to figure out what’s going on but can’t have that
conversation in this building. They are still trying to track down the video. Over the LEO radio it is
said he (Complainant) forgot his items in the parking lot yesterday. Officer says to Dassinger, “What
do you need from us” and that according to what HR said, “Nothing rises to the criminal level.”
Officer asks Dassinger if he wants to talk to Complainant while officers are here. Officer heads
outside with Dassinger to speak with Complainant.

7:40am Officer approaches Complainant and asks him what’s going on. Complainant states “just
got to work.” Officer asks about a box. Complainant says he left a box in the parking lot containing
personal effects he was removing from his office to take home such as house plants, pens, ink, his
medication. Officer asks if it was thrown around in the parking lot or was it just sitting in the box.
(inaudible due to wind) Complainant says he tried to take it out to his car and realized the car was
locked and he didn’t have his keys, so he left it there and at the end of the day drove off without it.
Officer said it was found this morning and asked if he came back for it last night. Complainant says
he didn’t remember it until he “actually got here and was reminded of it by some police officers.”
Officer asks if he has had some frustrations at work recently. Complainant says yes and he’s “been
job searching and possibly going to resign soon… but nothing very out of the ordinary.” Officer asks
how he feels about the people he works with. Complainant says he loves them – says officers could
ask his colleagues how they feel about working with him, “maybe not my boss so much because we
have a ‘beef’ now.” He says his boss’s name. He says he’s only dissatisfied with his boss. He says
he’s not out to hurt anybody. Officer asks where he left the box. Complainant set it on ground by his
car but just forgot about it after work.

Page | 8
 7:44am Complainant waits in the back of the patrol vehicle while officer returns to the building to
check in with Dassinger. Officer double checks on placement of items with Beck and Dassinger.
Also states that Complainant had said he is thinking of resigning. Beck explains the items took up
about three parking spaces, as if thrown around in anger – whipped all over the place. Other officer
questions if it would be possible if he did leave it on the ground and someone else rummaged
through it/scattered it. Dassinger says that’s why they need to find the video. In hushed tones,
Dassinger says if it was “just this one incident, he could go along with that,” but “we think he’s bi-
polar,” and they have had some serious incidents as of late. Dassinger says he will give Complainant
his stuff back but they will be placing him on administrative leave pending a City investigation
because of his behavior. His access will be cut from entering City buildings.

7:48am Dassinger and officers head outside to return items to Complainant. Dassinger opens door
of patrol vehicle and asks Complainant how he is doing, saying that they have been worried about
him. (Wind affects audio – medication is mentioned). Complainant says he just drove off without it
and apologizes. Dassinger asks Complainant to step out of vehicle. Dassinger says everyone is
concerned about Complainant and they take the welfare of the people who work here into account,
too. Dassinger says they’ve had conversations in the last several weeks and he’s expressed already
that he (Dassinger) is concerned about Complainant’s mental well-being. Complainant nods head.
Dassinger says he has a lot of responsibility for the people who work for the City. Dassinger tells
Complainant he is being placed on paid administrative leave, his access to building is cut off until
they have a chance to view video of what took place. Complainant says, “Sure, that’s a lot.”
Dassinger says this incident spiked a lot of concern, considering the conversations they have had
recently. Complainant says, “I don’t know how you would characterize them, I thought they were
pretty professional.” Complainant says he doesn’t know why Dassinger is concerned to this degree,
this is quite a lot. Dassinger tells Complainant they will be in touch on Tuesday since Monday is a
paid holiday. Dassinger asks Complainant,

Complainant seems
confused as to why they are reacting this way but retrieves his forgotten items from the officer and
leaves. Dassinger again asks if Complainant is okay and says their first concern is Complainant.
Complainant says he is quite ok, he is fine. Dassinger says there are “resources out there for you if
you need to talk to somebody. You have a lot on your mind.” Complainant says, “I don’t know what
you’re trying to do.” Dassinger says, “I’m trying to help you.” Complainant thanks the officers.
Dassinger says they’ll be in touch on Tuesday and to take care. Dassinger returns to the building.

7:55am Officer returns to vehicle and reports all units back in service. Video ends.

Information Learned from Parties and Witnesses

All witnesses interviewed are employed in a variety of roles with varying levels of authority within the
City, though one is employed by the County in a position that has some overlap with the City. Interview
summaries are separated into information related to what occurred leading up to February 16, 2024;
reports of what occurred on February 16, 2024; and reports of what occurred after February 16, 2024:

Prior to February 16, 2024:

- Complainant stated he had limited one-on-one interactions with Dassinger; at times Dassinger
attended Tuesday meetings, they may have acknowledged each other at other events. In October
Page | 9
 2023, Complainant was concerned about the job being a good fit for him, since it was difficult for
him to have robust conversations with his direct supervisor for some reason, and he felt blown off
by his direct supervisor. He understood he should take concerns about his direct supervisor to their
supervisor. Complainant reported to Dassinger, who asked him to write out his thoughts.
Complainant compiled an 11-page “Goals for Planning Department” document and submitted it to
Dassinger. Complainant felt there was a change of attitude toward him afterward.
- Complainant reported his relationship with his direct supervisor remained positive until after the
Christmas break, when Complainant stated he was not invited to certain community meetings,
such as with the Department of Transportation. When Complainant would discuss financials, his
supervisor would say financials had already been rolling before Complainant started in the position.
Complainant said a building official, an executive assistant to community development, and a prior
employee in the engineering department commented about his lack of attendance at meetings.
o One City witness opined that the direct supervisor was disrespectful to Complainant by leaving
him out of meetings, but this witness also stated there was no City Planner previously so he
couldn’t compare. This witness also believed Complainant had initially been involved in
meetings, then not in the last few weeks of his employment.
o The County planner, when asked his opinion on whether Complainant should have attended
meetings with outside stakeholders, responded that Complainant’s supervisor should have
authority to determine how best Complainant’s time is used.
- Complainant stated he started job searching end of December when things weren’t going well with
his direct supervisor.
- One witness who reported being friends with Complainant was aware Complainant and his direct
supervisor butted heads. This witness personally gets along with them both well. The witness was
aware Complainant felt the supervisor wasn’t letting him do his job, Complainant wanted to do
more. This witness did think Complainant may have wanted to do too much too soon and had
suggested to him that he slow down. Complainant and his supervisor had totally different
communication styles, this witness said, with the supervisor’s tone being more hostile than
Complainant’s, though this witness never heard anything inappropriate. The witness told them both
the witness wasn’t sure they could continue working together.
- The direct supervisor reported that Complainant scored a little less on his year-end review than on
his 90-day evaluation because of the time Complainant spent in others’ offices (another employee
had reported that Complainant was using her productive time), though Complainant disagreed. The
direct supervisor also observed Complainant rolling his eyes during the Mayor’s presentation at a
discussion in the Fall which the supervisor felt was impolite (the supervisor had been pulled aside
by other people about their observations of Complainant). The supervisor also described that some
stakeholders, e.g., one through DOT, another through Parks and Rec, and one from a local
engineering company, expressed negative opinions about Complainant’s conduct during meetings
or about his understanding/experience. The supervisor believed Complainant was offended when
he wasn’t asked to certain meetings but this was one reason he wasn’t invited, though the
supervisor did not divulge the specifics to Complainant since the concerns had been disclosed in
confidence, and instead talked to him about how to better communicate so people could
understand him.
- The direct supervisor reported that 2-hour meetings with Complainant had become the norm, and
he told Complainant that he was spending more time with him than all others on the team
combined. The supervisor wanted to address Complainant’s concerns and let him know he cared,

Page | 10
 but it began impacting the supervisor. He had never experienced someone like Complainant and
felt Complainant was pushing him to quit. The supervisor reported Complainant would tell him he
needed to read a particular book, or that he didn’t have planning knowledge and needed to let
Complainant make the decisions. The direct supervisor reported Complainant questioned his
ethics multiple times. As for Complainant believing he wasn’t allowed to do aspects of his job
description, the supervisor explained a roles and responsibilities document that was discussed
with Complainant, and it was communicated certain times of year there would be little time to
invest in certain matters due to construction season and the need to focus on planning and
development. This had been discussed prior to Complainant starting. Right after Complainant’s
probationary period ended, his supervisor reported Complainant requested interns. Complainant
also mentioned soon after that he was interviewing elsewhere. The supervisor would tell
Complainant he needs to determine if he’s happy in his position under the circumstances.
- Dassinger reported that in December and January, Complainant had stopped in his office 2 or 3
times, unscheduled, and they would have brief conversations about Complainant’s concerns with
his supervisor and his planning duties in general. The direct supervisor reported he had spoken with
Dassinger over time, wanting advice on how to handle matters with Complainant, because he
wanted things to improve. They would throw around ideas, but these were never long discussions.
Dassinger suggested the 3 of them sit down to meet (this was later scheduled for January 26, 2024).
- Dassinger reported meeting with Complainant for about 2 hours, prior to January 26, and they
discussed Complainant’s 11-page Goals for the Department. Dassinger reported Complainant
wanted a commitment letter from the City indicating they would eventually get to his demands, and
Dassinger responded that it wasn’t realistic or possible – he couldn’t guarantee additional staff,
increased pay, or that Complainant wouldn’t have to report to his direct supervisor. Dassinger
believed Complainant was disappointed by his responses, said he felt misled when hired, so
Dassinger went through the details of Complainant’s job description and discussed from
Dassinger’s perception, Complainant was largely doing what was on it but maybe not to the level
Complainant wanted. Dassinger told Complainant he needed to settle in and get to know the
community, which he meant as a positive, though thinks Complainant took it personally. Dassinger
reported that Complainant exhibited mood swings, and would get red. Complainant was upset he
wasn’t getting invited to more meetings and Dassinger said he was part of the meetings he needed
to do his job. Dassinger described that Complainant’s communication style was different, he would
go down rabbit holes. Complainant felt his education put him past his supervisor and he wanted
more autonomy is what Dassinger understood. Dassinger attempted to explain the history of the
development side of things in the City and how opposing views would be presented to the
Commission, and there was desire for unified recommendations now. Dassinger told Complainant
at this time, they were not looking to make changes to the organizational chart.
- Dassinger scheduled a meeting between the three of them for January 26. Complainant informed
this investigator that he was asked to start the January 26 meeting, and he explained how certain
things negatively affected his work and it was hard to cooperate with and support his supervisor.
Complainant told this investigator he had to tell his direct supervisor that “things don’t work this
way,” and Complainant didn’t think his direct supervisor understood enough to throw
Complainant’s feedback out the window. He shared he was looking for a reason to stay with the
City, because he could find better pay and work elsewhere that would involve strategic planning.
Complainant felt his direct supervisor and Dassinger insinuated Complainant didn’t know what he
was talking about. Complainant stated Dassinger told him he seemed erratic and asked about his

Page | 11
 mental state, and his supervisor did not chime in as to this in the moment (though had previously
brought up with Complainant that he seemed to be very all over the place, ambitious, and had told
Complainant he spends 10 times more time with Complainant than with other employees).
However, during this investigator’s second interview of Complainant, he described that in this
meeting Dassinger said he was worried about Complainant, and used the words “anxious” and
“wrestles.” (Dassinger does not recall discussing Complainant’s mental health during the January
26 meeting, only a later February meeting.) Complainant in his written complaint had stated an
issue during this meeting was “not calmly discussed,” and when asked how so during his interview,
Complainant stated he would not use those words again, there just “wasn’t discussion.” It was an
hours-long meeting that took the wind out of Complainant’s sales, he said. He also reported that
Dassinger raised his voice.
o Similarly, Dassinger and the direct supervisor stated the meeting was hours long, but stated it
was very difficult to end the meeting because of Complainant’s conduct; they felt they would
respond to his concerns and work through something, only for Complainant to come back to it
later. Complainant was not satisfied with explanations given. Dassinger conceded he raised his
voice once when asking Complainant to trust them. Dassinger felt the meeting was professional
and thought they had made baby steps explaining things to Complainant. Dassinger recalls
saying Complainant needed to decide if he wanted to stay with the City.
o The supervisor and Dassinger reported that Complainant presented the shorter version of the
Planning department goals during this meeting and said he wanted some sort of a signed
contract that he would get these things in order for him to want to stay. They tried to understand
the root cause of the problem and what they could do now without adding to the budget, to show
they were genuine in wanting to work with him, while also explaining the history of the
Department and related matters. The direct supervisor reported that Complainant accused
them of rehearsing before the meeting, and said the meeting quickly escalated with
Complainant being argumentative and confrontational about everything. He reported
Complainant got red in the face and told them they aren’t able to make decisions without his
involvement.
o The supervisor and Dassinger both reported that Complainant mentioned his supervisor’s
competency during this meeting, and that Complainant said he was there to lecture them, not
the other way around. When asked during his second interview about this, Complainant stated
the closest thing he got to saying they were incompetent was by asking if either of them had read
the Comprehensive Plan. As for the lecturing comment, Complainant said it sounded like
something he could say off the cuff, but he did not have memory of it; it didn’t stand out as some
important thing he had said. When describing the lecture comment, Dassinger told this
investigator he has never supervised someone like Complainant before. It was apparent
Complainant wasn’t happy in the organization. Dassinger and the supervisor both felt like not
much had been resolved during this January 26 meeting.
- The day prior to the January 26, 2024, meeting with Dassinger and his supervisor, Complainant did
not disclose to this investigator initially but later did confirm that he had met with the Deputy City
Administrator, though the two have drastically different recollections of why the meeting occurred,
what was said, and the length of it.
o The Deputy City Administrator reported that on January 25, Complainant came to her and asked
if she had time for him. He expressed some anxiety and wanted her advice. She said she could
give him 3 hours. Complainant brought up the planned meeting for January 26 and he was

Page | 12
 nervous he was going to be terminated. She asked why, and he said he doesn’t think they like
what he does or what he brings up. The Deputy Administrator said the discussion between them
got down to Complainant explaining what he was demanding since his evaluation, and she
asked him why he felt he needed to demand things. Complainant mentioned his job description,
wanting to be on any item regarding planning, and something about the executive team. She told
him he was hired for a job, and where on the job description does it say he needs to be in the
executive meeting, that he’ll get more pay after his evaluation, or that he needs to be part of any
City planning meeting there is. She suggested if he thought the job description should look
differently, he needed to give it time. She reported that Complainant stated he didn’t want to
talk to his direct supervisor anymore because he doesn’t listen to Complainant and tells him to
do his job. The Deputy Administrator responded telling him that’s what a supervisor is supposed
to do. She also told him she doesn’t hear that the County planner is saying he needs to be in all
these meetings. The Deputy Administrator reported that Complainant brought up he had a
resignation letter, she asked him why, and he said because he feels his supervisor doesn’t like
him. She responded saying the supervisor has never expressed that to her.
▪ The Deputy Administrator informed this investigator their meeting was 3.5 hours, and at the
end, Complainant stated he wasn’t going to go into the January 26 meeting with any
demands but would say he’ll work hard, and he was appreciative of the conversation with
her. The next day the Deputy Administrator observed Complainant and did not feel he was
in a good mind place, as if he didn’t get a good night’s sleep. He seemed agitated. She
suggested he breathe and go in and compromise. Through the walls, the Deputy
Administrator believes hearing both the Complainant’s voice raise and also Dassinger’s,
with someone saying “Excuse me.” She reported that Dassinger and the supervisor
described afterward that the meeting did not go well, there were demands, and
Complainant had brought a document with demands on it.
▪ Nameniuk reported hearing from the Deputy Administrator on January 26 that she had had
a 3 hour meeting with Complainant the day before.
o Complainant stated the meeting with the Deputy Administrator was absolutely not that long,
but only 40-45 minutes. He stated he talked to the Deputy Administrator about personnel and
the budget book. He did not ask for a meeting and she did not say she had 3 hours. Complainant
recalled talking about one of his supervisor’s lies about Complainant being insubordinate
because he wanted the Deputy Administrator to be aware Complainant had done what had
been asked in a particular situation. He also recalled telling her he was going into the meeting
with Dassinger and his supervisor and would like her take or advice on what he should do, but
he didn’t tell her about what he hoped for. Complainant reported the Deputy Administrator
talked about Complainant, told him to spread his wings, and talked about public hearings and
how they go about that. He stated he was backing out of her room hoping to wrap the
conversation up. He did not recall bringing up a concern about being terminated the next day.
-
He might have mentioned that he didn’t know if it the meeting was going to go
super well.
o The Deputy City Administrator also reported to this investigator that more generally, she did not
bring up topics herself with Complainant because he could really “take up your time,” so she
kept it cordial. She reported that Complainant’s supervisor had previously discussed with her
his difficulty getting to the point of a conversation with Complainant, so meetings would get

Page | 13
 drawn out multiple hours. The Deputy Administrator had suggested the supervisor use an
agenda to get through meetings.
- Complainant, his direct supervisor, Dassinger and other witnesses all spoke to a difference of
opinion on a staff recommendation that was going to the Commission in March. Complainant
drafted a Staff Report, and his supervisor made suggested edits using tracked changes.
Complainant did not think approval should be recommended; his supervisor believed that since the
application technically complied with Code, an approval recommendation needed to be made,
although there were issues that would be explained for the Commission to consider. Complainant
shared his opinions on options for handling via e-mail to his direct supervisor on February 12 and
13, 2024. Complainant reported to this investigator he did not want to go on record and on public
TV stating he recommends approval, but his supervisor told him approval would be the
recommendation. Complainant stated he felt this was an ethical concern that was raised during the
other meetings.3 Complainant resigned the day before the March 13, 2024, Commission meeting at
which this application was discussed. Complainant verbally informed this investigator that he
viewed the March meeting recording and his supervisor went over the staff report and did not
recommend approval. In an e-mail to this investigator, Complainant stated his prior supervisor and
the County planner “appeared to fall over themselves” as the commissioners questioned the
application, and that the Staff Report Complainant had authored remained unaltered.
o This investigator reviewed both the Staff Report and the meeting recording. The Staff Report did
include a recommendation to approve. The verbal exchange during the Commission meeting
did not specifically reference “approval” though did discuss that it technically complied with
current language in the Code, while also commenting on concerns. The supervisor and County
planner appeared to answer questions asked of them, and they and some commissioners
referenced matters that required consideration.
o Complainant’s supervisor reported that Complainant’s and his own job descriptions explain
that ultimately, the supervisor has decision-making responsibilities. And if a development
application is in “compliance with rules/regulations”, the staff report recommendation is to be
“approval”. This follows the expectations in the Planner job description, the supervisor
explained. When asked if ever a team member disagreed, could they not join in the
recommendation and make that known to the Commission, or does this supervisor’s position
stand, the supervisor responded he understands he is to be the final decision maker based on
feedback that began during his interviews for his position. It has been well understood the City
does not want multiple differing voices coming from staff in public meetings that contradict
each other. His position was created to be both the engineering and community development
director for this and other reasons. The supervisor’s job description, under Judgement/Decision
Making, provides he has: Authority to make decisions for the Engineering, Buildings & Codes,
and Planning departments on matters of significance, and is responsible for the overall direction
of assigned departments through subordinate managers.
▪ The supervisor also explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission had made clear
during a January 2024 public meeting that the expectation is that staff and commission

3
This investigator was not tasked with investigating concerns about Complainant’s direct supervisor, and is not
providing an opinion on the appropriateness of the Staff Report or whether an ethical issue was present in how the
“team” decision to recommend approval came to be. The details surrounding the communications related to the
Staff Report are, though, quite relevant to Complainant’s complaints or retaliation and the dialogue that took
place between Complainant and others prior to February 16, 2024.
Page | 14
 follow the Municipal Code, not their own ideas. This investigator reviewed the January 17,
2024, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Chair stated between minutes 13-15,
“I go by our ordinance, that’s what we’re governed by.” The Chair explained the Commission
does not go by opinion -- Complainant’s opinion, or the direct supervisor’s opinion, or staff’s
opinion. That it’s “black and white in the Code.” The Chair wanted to see a specific Code
provision applicable to the application in front of it at the time.
▪ The supervisor believes he verbally communicated to Complainant his expectations of
requiring a recommendation of approval for the Staff Report, which included an expectation
to include arguments of concerns or other related feedback. The supervisor did not have
record of responding to Complainant’s February 12 and 13 e-mails regarding the same.
▪ As it concerned Complainant’s desire to not have his name on the Staff Report, his
supervisor explained Complainant was the one who began adding his name at the end of the
staff reports. In the past, the staff reports were always referenced from either the “Planning
Department”, or “The Development Staff/Team” and there was never an expectation or
recommendation for Complainant to add his name to staff reports.
o One witness said Complainant’s direct supervisor had spoken to her about Complainant’s
ethical concern, explaining he had changed the Staff Report in tracked changes for Complainant
to see, but he wasn’t directing that Complainant needed to change what he was going to present
to the Commission.
o The County planner was aware of some disagreements between Complainant and his
supervisor over approval decisions and described that Complainant would repeat his opinions
over and over though the supervisor had final say. This witness did not find it unethical or
problematic for the supervisor to have edited the Staff Report with tracked changes, and
Complainant being allowed to speak to Commissioners about concerns is “how it works.” This
witness believed the supervisor really wanted Complainant to succeed, but said if they weren’t
getting along, things aren’t always a good fit. This witness said if the supervisor had declined a
request to keep his name off the Staff Report, this witness would have a problem with that, but
also said that once Complainant started in the role he started signing Staff Reports and this
witness didn’t feel it was necessary since it is a team report. This witness said the job itself is
much different than when you’re in school, and he had hoped Complainant would pick up on
that. This witness also opined that if Complainant wanted to do more long-range, policy type of
work, it would need to be in a different job. This witness said that whether Complainant was
invited to various meetings or not should have been for management (his supervisor) to decide;
how an employee best spends his time is for the supervisor to decide, he said.
o Also relevant: Complainant’s initial explanation to this investigator was that the disagreement
with his supervisor over the approval question is what he felt resulted in an ethical dilemma. He
shared that since he did not agree with recommending approval, he should not have been forced
to speak to that at the Commission meeting, since it would represent that he himself
recommended approval and he did not want this on the public record. However, during the
second interview with this investigator, Complainant conceded that his direct supervisor had
ultimate say in approval recommendations, and Complainant said he wasn’t worried about
taking “heat and blame” if a bad decision is made or a project turns out bad because “it seems
like everything falls on [direct supervisor].” Complainant then said it was more that his direct
supervisor would tell Complainant he was wrong, or would change his tune, such as by shooting
down Complainant’s opinions then telling Complainant he wants him to feel fulfilled. It would

Page | 15
 seem like the direct supervisor just wanted Complainant to agree with him. Complainant’s
biggest hangup, he said, was that he didn’t want to present on the Staff Report publicly.
- A witness in HR (not Nameniuk) reported that Complainant asked about the end of his probation
period about 3 times, and she would explain the 90-day evaluation and his rights as a civil service
employee. This witness also reported Complainant talked to her 3-4 times, indicating his dislike for
his supervisor, saying his supervisor doesn’t know about planning. The witness said Complainant
spoke with her about wanting to be on the executive team, wanting assistants, and that he had
gotten other job offers. This witness felt Complainant’s expectations were not reality and he seemed
to lack respect for authority and chain of command. She said he framed it as he wanted this now or
will leave. This witness would tell him he is still new, government takes time, and he has the
education but no prior experience. This witness believes people spend too much time at work to not
be happy at work (from a mental health perspective) and that she shared this thought with
Complainant multiple times. Complainant had come back after one of their discussions and said
he would go with the flow but would not do certain things if asked by his supervisor. This HR witness
would caution him to be careful regarding insubordination.
o This witness reported Complainant came in around January 29 asking how to file a grievance.
He reported Dassinger had yelled at him and he was in a hostile working environment. This
witness cautioned him about whether he knew what that term meant. She asked what solution
he wanted and he didn’t know. Then he would come in the next day and say he was fine.
o This witness reported about a week later Complainant came to her with his job description and
said others were doing something illegal but didn’t tell her what, and said his job description
said one thing and he was doing another; she pointed out to him the “other duties as assigned”
language and suggested he meet with his supervisor.
o This witness felt Complainant was erratic, and up and down in his emotions. She began to feel
a little unsafe because Complainant would stand outside her office and listen or barge in if
others were in there. She recalled this starting in November and December.

.
o This witness felt Complainant’s supervisor was too nice, and needed to take charge more and
not allow the lengthy meetings. The supervisor spoke to this HR witness over time with concerns
that something was off with Complainant but not in the sense that he might harm anyone.
o This HR witness reported telling Beck on one occasion prior to February 16 that she felt
Complainant was acting “off.”
- Complainant and Beck both described infrequently interacting with each other. They were both at
Leadership meetings twice a month and sometimes at Feel Good Fridays. Beck recalled a time in
November or December when he felt Complainant got snarky with his supervisor during a
Leadership meeting and that it was tense. Beck said, because of his role as Risk Management
Specialist, people do come to him with concerns about other employees.
o He recalled an HR witness expressing in January she felt discomfort about Complainant being
in her office – specifically coming in without asking, shutting the door, and sitting down – and
Beck recalled her using the word “aggressive” though she didn’t elaborate. Beck understood
aggressiveness is a perception. He clearly understood the HR witness felt uncomfortable.

Page | 16
 o Beck said the Deputy City Administrator had also voiced concerns about Complainant’s
attitude and the nature of his emotions, that he seemed distraught. Beck learned from the
Deputy Administrator that she and Complainant had talked about Complainant’s requests.
o Beck also recalled a time when Complainant’s name was brought up in front of Dassinger, and
Dassinger expressed concern for Complainant and Beck felt Dassinger didn’t want to lose
Complainant as an employee.
o Beck had learned from Nameniuk that Complainant brought in a grievance he thought, and then
came back later wanting it back. That was a behavior they had seen, Beck said – Complainant
bringing something in then wanting it back. Beck said Nameniuk had also mentioned a meeting
she had involving Complainant that made her uncomfortable though she did not provide details.
o Beck was of the opinion, based on what he was hearing from others, that Complainant was
undermining his own supervisor and not only using the chain of command to express concerns
but involving other employees, too, which he felt was toxic. Beck understood that Dassinger,
Nameniuk, and the Deputy Administrator were concerned about Complainant at least in part
due to his passive aggressive nature. Beck had heard from someone that Complainant had hit
his hand on a table during one of the long meetings he had with others. Beck referred to the
Municipal Code’s provisions on risk reduction measures and he felt Complainant fell under the
categories of extreme stress, resentment, hostility or anger. Beck was also concerned with
irrational behavior, such as Complainant requesting things beyond the scope of his job so early
on after starting.
- Complainant stated he had chatted with Nameniuk twice in her office over time. The first was when
he had typed up a resignation in early February; another HR employee was present and asked
Complainant why he would do this to himself. He was confused as he wanted a smooth transition.
He stated he was encouraged to resign sooner, though he clarified by stating he thinks the HR
employee meant wait and then give 2 weeks’ notice. Complainant felt Nameniuk was helpful during
this meeting. Nameniuk and the other HR employee recalled discussing that a 2-week notice is
standard and whether the City would honor a 2-month notice they weren’t sure. They described that
this meeting with Complainant was long, and they expressed to him that he was clearly not happy
here. Complainant had in his mind what a reorganization of the department should be. They
reported informing him that when someone is in a position they don’t want to be in, maybe leaving
is the right thing so their mental health isn’t affected. Nameniuk reported that Complainant got red
in the face, his stance changed, and he said he wished they wouldn’t bring that up.
o Complainant believed this conversation occurred after the lengthy February 7 meeting, but
Nameniuk and the other HR witness said it occurred the day before, on February 6.
o Complainant reported asking Nameniuk that there be a stop to discussion about his mental
health and that she agreed there would be. Nameniuk recalled the request to end discussion
about Complainant’s mental health, though stated this meeting with Complainant that day went
hours’ long and she had to leave to attend an evening Commission meeting. The next day, she
did not have time to tell Dassinger about Complainant’s request prior to their group meeting.
o Nameniuk reported that, after they had scheduled the February 7 meeting, but days before it,
Complainant’s direct supervisor had been talking to her in her doorway when Complainant
came in the hallway. The direct supervisor said “just one second” and Nameniuk observed
Complainant roll his eyes. Complainant denies that he did this.
- One witness reported eating out with Complainant between the January 26 and February 7 meeting,
and described that Complainant was still processing the January 26 meeting. Complainant reported

Page | 17
 to this witness that Dassinger had talked about Complainant being “unstable and paranoid” and
this was bothering Complainant. The witness was bothered as well, stating it’s okay to ask if he’s
okay or wants to talk about anything, but bringing up like that was an unnecessary “direct attack.”
One reported advising Complainant not to go into the February meeting unrepresented but
Complainant opted to go alone.
- Another witness reported Complainant confided in this witness about the January 26 meeting and
had explained he was respectful the whole time and Dassinger and the supervisor got upset and
said he’s so up and down. This witness opined that Complainant comes to work happy and then
gets frustrated, communicates that, and the others may not be used to that. This witness said
maybe not everything he got frustrated about he needed to be, but it wasn’t for this witness to say.
- The direct supervisor reported that he, Dassinger, and Nameniuk met on or around January 30 to
discuss some of Complainant’s demands and how to handle from an HR perspective. They had no
authority to sign some sort of contract as requested by Complainant, so wanted to figure out how
they could reinforce the definitive steps they were taking moving forward.
- A second multi-hour meeting between Complainant, his direct supervisor, Dassinger, and now
Nameniuk occurred on February 7. Dassinger requested it because he felt there was a lot of
unfinished business and things he didn’t want to linger. He knew Complainant had talked about a
resignation. Complainant stated he shared more feedback during this meeting and it became
apparent his supervisor didn’t appreciate that Complainant would question his judgments. Though
Complainant also reported that he had accepted their responses and it seemed they were just
wanting him to agree with them. Complainant felt no progress was made. Dassinger reported the
meeting was largely about Complainant’s supervision and they discussed the Staff Report
disagreement. It was discussed they wanted one voice coming out of it for the Commission and that
the direct supervisor has ultimate say, though Complainant would have the platform to lay out his
concerns. The supervisor described the meeting as mostly a repeat of the January 26 meeting; they
were trying to understand Complainant and trying to explain their positions.
o Dassinger, Nameniuk, and the supervisor all reported that Complainant had requests or
demands about his job and the structure of the department. Complainant denied this to this
investigator, and when asked about the 11-page document he had submitted, Complainant said
he was explaining his opinions on the responsibilities he had but an inability to be part of
meetings or receive information, and that he “wouldn’t mind” having a reclassification to
another position in order to stay with the City. Complainant said it would be understandable for
them to interpret it the other way if he wasn’t saying something different verbally. However, the
others all told this investigator that Complainant’s verbal explanations were not different,
though he would seem to come to understand their responses and then later not. In his second
interview, Complainant did acknowledge he asked for something from the others in writing that
would show things would change. He said he didn’t want a promise for a raise but wanted a
change to the Organizational Chart and wanted that in writing – a long-term plan in writing as to
strategy.
o Complainant reported to this investigator that this February 7 meeting “started out with
[Dassinger] asking about his mental health,” and similarly in Complainant’s written complaint
against Nameniuk wrote, “In that second meeting, [Dassinger] opened the discussion by once
again suggesting that I’m mentally unstable.” Complainant stated Nameniuk was very quiet
during the meeting.

Page | 18
 o While Complainant used the terminology “suggesting that I’m mentally unstable” in his written
complaint, when interviewed, he described that Dassinger said, “[Complainant], I’m worried
about you. You’re up here, then you’re down here. You’re erratic.” Complainant clarified that
the first time his mental health was brought up by Dassinger was during the January meeting in
the sense of, “Do you [Complainant] need anything.” After that, when Dassinger would bring it
up, he was saying, “I’m worried about you.” Complainant didn’t know where it was coming from,
but figured it came from his direct supervisor. Complainant felt justified in being concerned
about not being invited to meetings and what he believed were lies by his supervisor. During this
investigator’s second interview of Complainant, he also clarified that Dassinger stating he was
“up and down” is what Complainant interpreted as Dassinger saying he is “mentally unstable,”
and Complainant confirmed Dassinger did not use the words mentally unstable.
o Dassinger, Nameniuk, and the supervisor all reported that Dassinger did not mention
Complainant’s well-being at the start of the meeting as alleged, but instead not until long into
the multi-hour meeting. Nameniuk explained they started the meeting by asking Complainant
what he thought about the January 26 meeting. The question wasn’t framed right she said, and
Complainant went down the list of what he wanted. They said that’s not what we’re asking,
that’s not what we’ll be doing, and we’ve gone over that. She said Complainant would say he
was on board, but then he wasn’t, and it had them confused. Nameniuk said once during the
meeting that she didn’t understand and then it looked as if Complainant might cry. She recalled
that is when Dassinger said they were concerned about him and his mental health.

Complainant got very defensive, red, and seemed angry to

Dassinger, and told them not to bring up his mental health. Dassinger said he responded to say
it’s not meant to be negative, but only as a resource. When asked why he brought this up,
Dassinger said because Complainant had become irritable and it seemed he needed someone
to talk to, and Dassinger wasn’t sure if Complainant had a friend base or others he could talk to.
Dassinger had previously noticed Complainant pacing and lingering in the hallways, and a few
things “didn’t seem right.” Dassinger said it wasn’t until after this lengthy meeting that
Nameniuk told him Complainant had asked that his mental health not be mentioned. The
supervisor reported that Complainant’s body language and verbal language was aggressive (in
tone), he seemed frustrated, and it was appropriate for Dassinger to bring up this topic because
it was another roller coaster ride of a meeting; it was said in the sense of offering services to
someone who is dealing with ups and downs. The supervisor reported that in response,
Complaint got agitated, wringing his hands, getting red in the face, and shifting in his seat.
Nameniuk reported that the way Complainant’s demeanor would change was a “bit unnerving.”
She was not worried he would do something harmful, but he would get agitated.
▪ Nameniuk had previously heard from an HR employee that the employee was concerned
about Complainant. He would come into the employees office and the employee felt he
might do something.
▪ Nameniuk’s opinion is that Complainant was borderline insubordinate during the meeting,
and that Complainant starting a sentence with the word “respectfully” didn’t make it
respectful.
- One witness who could hear certain interactions through an office wall reported hearing voices
raised to Complainant though thought he was calm. The witness thought Complainant wanted more

Page | 19
 say in projects and a raise and the others didn’t agree. This witness thought Complainant’s
requests, that were causing the meetings, might have caused others to think he was unstable.
- Complainant stated Nameniuk tried to put it on him that he was trying to request these lengthy
meetings, but Complainant stated he was there on their request.
o Dassinger confirmed he requested the January and February meetings in hopes of working
through Complainant’s concerns. Dassinger, Nameniuk, and the supervisor – along with the
Deputy City Administrator and another HR employee – all stated that Complainant’s conduct
caused meetings to run long.
o When Dassinger and the supervisor were asked why they didn’t cut meetings short by explaining
they had authority to make the decisions and had made them, or something similar, they stated
they were trying to hear Complainant out, understand his position, and explain why they had the
opinions they did. When Complainant was asked why he didn’t attempt to end meetings by
saying he understood they had the authority to decide, Complainant said his supervisor would
be the one to circle back and open discussion again, trying to get Complainant to understand
his perspective.
- Regarding his allegation that Nameniuk claimed he had demanded a promotion and asked to be on
the executive team, Complainant stated he never went to her to request anything – a promotion, a
raise, nothing. He believes the documents he had submitted (Goals for Planning Department) led to
this conclusion. Complainant explained that he was asked to provide thoughts on his future.
Nameniuk said she did hear about his requests or demands from the others, and that it was
discussed during the February 7 meeting she participated in.
- Dassinger reported that after the February 7 meeting, Complainant entered Dassinger’s office when
the door was closed, without knocking, and came in. Complainant pulled out a chair, pushed it back
in, and walked out without saying anything. Dassinger was on the phone at the time. Complainant
told this investigator he did go in – to get his satchel that he had left – but that he knocked and
Dassinger had waived him in. When told Dassinger had reported he came in without knocking,
Complainant said that would have been unreasonable.
o A witness in HR told this investigator that Dassinger at the time had mentioned to her getting a
lock on the door and had described that Complainant had come into his office without knocking.
- Complainant summarized he was trained the first day that if his job description didn’t reconcile, he
was to bring it up with his supervisor. He did, and said the issue wasn’t a priority to Dassinger. His
supervisor has asked him to update his Roles and Responsibilities, and he did, but it culminated
into not really mattering. It was troubling to Complainant that he moved from Norway for this and
he didn’t get the job as advertised.
- Several witnesses interviewed stated they never had a concern about Complainant from a health or
safety standpoint. Adjectives like “low key,” “a happy guy,” “even keeled,” and “professional” were
used to describe him. A couple considered him a friend.
o One witness said he did not always agree with Complainant, but they didn’t take it personally or
argue.
o Another witness (not an accused individual) did say Complainant would get upset; he would not
slam doors but shut them firmly and make comments when frustrated. There were times people
asked this witness if Complainant was okay. This witness also felt it wasn’t healthy for
Complainant’s own sake that he was removing items from his office, then bringing them back.
That was the only concern she had.

Page | 20
 o The County planner got along with Complainant fine, though said Complainant was oppositional
at times. This witness recalled a time Complainant mentioned not being involved in a capital
improvement project but this witness felt that wasn’t something he should really be part of, and
that how the supervisor gives duties should be up to the supervisor.
o The supervisor, Dassinger, Nameniuk, the HR employee, and the Deputy Administrator all
described their opinion that Complainant was not happy. The supervisor felt Complainant was
acting in a unique manner but did not think Complainant would harm someone or himself. The
HR witness who had several interactions with Complainant said she had felt he was capable of
something concerning due to his erratic behavior, but she only recalled expressing to Dassinger,
Nameniuk, and/or Beck that she thought he was “off.” Dassinger reported hearing through
Nameniuk that this HR witness had concerns about Complainant’s mental health.
- Some other employees said Complainant did have a tendency to linger in offices and chat, that he
was chit-chatty though not too disruptive, while others said any chatting was legitimate (work
related) and not disrupting.
- Multiple individuals reported seeing Complainant taking boxes and personal items from his office
to his vehicle over time, especially the two-week period leading up to February 16. Complainant
stated he was, as he was “not hiding that he was planning to move on at all.” He felt he was moving
items out in an undramatic fashion, though a couple others opined it seemed he was wanting
people to notice or give attention to it. One described it as passive aggressive.
- Complainant explained his allegation of “other harassment” was not related to a protected status
such as sex, race, status of being disabled, etc. Since his mental health was mentioned in the
complaints, he was asked and reported he had never requested a workplace accommodation
related to an impairment or disability.

February 15 leading into February 16, 2024:

- When read the IT personnel’s summary of what appeared to happen with the box of personal items
left in the lot on February 15, 2024, Complainant stated that sounded right to him.
- Complainant -- when asked if it’s the case others would say there was a concern for safety or some
other risk, what would his response be – said they had his cell number, they could have called him
and heard his voice. It was a normal day for him. If they were so concerned, they didn’t tell any other
employees to watch out for anything, only told others not to let someone in. And even when asked
by law enforcement to check videos, they didn’t. One DPD officer asked if there was any other
explanation. Complainant stated it didn’t seem like this was out of concern for public safety, and
he’s never done or said anything violent.
- As to Nameniuk, Complainant is most concerned about her telling dispatch that he had “gone
rogue” and that “something is going to happen.” Complainant doesn’t think any reasonable person
would have said something like that, and he believes he was one of the most affable people at work.
- As to Beck, Complainant said it was most concerning that they did not know each other well though
Beck called him crazy, and when asked by DPD about reviewing video that morning, he wouldn’t.
Complainant stated Beck photographing and sharing his prescription bottle doesn’t bother
Complainant as much.
- Complainant stated Dassinger was sort of the ringleader on February 16, dedicated to acting like he
might “go and kill” Dassinger when Complainant has never even said anything to him that was

Page | 21
 mean. Complainant felt Dassinger talked to him like a baby by the patrol vehicle. Complainant
characterized this as Dassinger seeming to have evil intentions.
- Beck reported he found the items when he arrived at work the morning of February 16 and contacted
Nameniuk, mostly because of the prescription bottles. They spoke over the phone and Nameniuk
was concerned. From Beck’s perspective, it looked as though someone was angry based on where
the items were scattered in the lot. Beck said he would have thought this no matter whose items
they were. Beck was also worried about possessing the prescription drugs when he found them; he
didn’t want to be accused of taking them. As for the decision to sweep the building, Beck said this
stemmed from the concern he heard in Nameniuk’s voice when they talked, so he wanted to do his
due diligence. When he heard they planned to shut down Complainant’s access, Beck wanted to be
sure Complainant wasn’t already in the building. Workplace violence training directs to do a
walkthrough, he said. As for checking video footage, Beck said he does not have access and would
need to get approval. Dassinger was involved by then. The “red flags” he and Dassinger referred to
which were captured on the body cam Beck said stemmed from the conversations over time. Beck
said he did not call Complainant that morning and was unaware if anyone did. Beck did give contact
information to DPD personnel. Beck was concerned with sending out a staff-wide notification since
it would go to Complainant, too, though with 20/20 hindsight thinks they could have sent a more
vague message about the need to look into something. He told other staff to not let someone in if
their badge isn’t working. Beck reported he did not use Complainant’s name as he wanted to protect
his identify the best he could until they learned more.
o Beck specifically denied telling anyone that someone was unstable or had a breakdown. He also
did not hear anyone else use that language.
o Beck’s reason for sending the photos through text of the items was to document what he had
found and to also show he wasn’t stealing Complainant’s medication.
o As to Beck laying Complainant’s personal items out on the counter, Beck stated it was only
coffee mugs found in the lot. No one interviewed saw prescription medication laying out.
o Overall, Beck believes they didn’t do anything they shouldn’t have, as they needed to protect
who was there, even if it meant hurting someone’s feelings.
- The Deputy City Administrator reported getting a call from Nameniuk saying something is going on,
there are things in the lot including pill bottles with Complainant’s name on them. The Deputy
Administrator said they needed to get those so no one sees, and she then text Dassinger asking him
to call her ASAP. When they chatted, Dassinger said he’d take it from there. The Deputy
Administrator said they do have a protocol for calling people who don’t show up to work, but they
weren’t at that point yet with Complainant since he doesn’t show up until 7:30-8:00am. When asked
why no one called Complainant that morning when there was a concern, she said she thought
someone had but didn’t know who. She said she was concerned about Complainant and had said
to Nameniuk they should call law enforcement, though her thought was that it would be for a welfare
check on Complainant and not because she thought Complainant was going to hurt someone. The
Deputy Administrator hoped Complainant would understand this was just protocol, though she
didn’t know what was said to Complainant in the presence of law enforcement.
- Nameniuk stated when she heard from Beck that morning, she wondered if they hadn’t listened hard
enough to what the other HR witness had been saying. Nameniuk wondered if Complainant had a
breakdown or hurt himself, or whether he would come in and cause a problem. She told Beck she
would contact Dassinger and thought they should have police presence. She called the Police Chief
directly but got no answer. She called the Deputy Administrator who agreed they should call police,

Page | 22
 so Nameniuk called dispatch. When Nameniuk arrived at work, Dassinger was just arriving and told
her to wait in her vehicle until they were sure things were okay. Nameniuk didn’t know what
Dassinger had already done or planned to do. She described it as chaotic. Nameniuk does not recall
that she told employees someone had a breakdown or was unstable; if she did, it would have been
in the context of it being possible or a worry of theirs, but they didn’t know. Nameniuk said they
wanted it to keep it quiet due to employee presence, though one employee in particular was sticking
his nose in and following others (this is the witness who reported being asked by Dassinger about
Complainant). What she reported to DPD personnel mostly stemmed from things she had heard
from the direct supervisor, Dassinger, the HR employee, and the Deputy Administrator. Nameniuk
otherwise did not have information to share other than what was captured on video and body cam.
She understood Dassinger was overseeing everything. She stated she could have likely don’t things
differently, but it was her first time going through something like this.
- Dassinger stated he was called by the Deputy Administrator around 6:52am and he missed the call.
The Deputy Administrator text him saying Complainant had “gone rogue.” Dassinger quickly came
to work. He saw Nameniuk in the lot and told her to wait there; he was unaware she was already
involved. Dassinger initially believed Complainant had thrown his items around the lot that morning
and that Beck had seen this. When Dassinger came to learn that’s not what happened, he went to
IT to ask about footage. He went to Complainant’s office with DPD personnel. When asked whether
he attempted to contact Complainant, Dassinger said no, and he “probably should have.” When
asked why staff were not alerted to not come to work, Dassinger said then Complainant would also
be notified so it was a double edged sword, and ultimately, Dassinger felt if Complainant was
targeting anyone, it would have been Dassinger or the supervisor.
o Dassinger recalled telling one City employee in particular that they were looking for
Complainant (using his name), they were having some concerns, and to let them know if that
employee has contact with Complainant. Dassinger denied recalling saying mental breakdown
or anything similar.
o When asked about his comment to DPD personnel that this was not an isolated incident,
Dassinger said he was referring to prior meetings they had had, Complainant walking around
with a resignation letter, his odd entrance into Dassinger’s office uninvited, carrying personal
items out and the timing of that, and then the items including medication in the lot. It “was real
odd timing.” He had felt like Complainant had changed his mind during meetings in a heartbeat
which led Dassinger to think Complainant was bipolar, and he wanted DPD personnel to
understand there was a potential for concern.
o When asked about the conversation with Complainant outside in the presence of DPD
personnel, Dassinger said it wasn’t intentionally conducted in front of law enforcement, and he
did not do that with any malice.
- One witness reported he was at City Hall and was making coffee downstairs when Beck came
running in and started frantically taking pictures of mugs placed by the kitchen sink. The witness
reported Beck said to this witness that a male employee is having a mental breakdown and threw
his stuff around the parking lot. This witness went to Beck’s office and saw Beck taking photographs
of medication on his desk. The witness asked Beck if the male employee was okay, had Beck called
him or checked the cameras, but Beck did not respond and was still frantic. This same witness said
Dassinger came to his office and asked this witness about his relationship with Complainant, said
he was having a mental breakdown, and said he’s been having issues the last couple weeks. Beck
peeked in and said something about Complainant being there. Some comment was made about

Page | 23
 locking down City Hall, though no staff-wide notification was made; Beck commented that sending
something out would result in Complainant getting the notification. This witness felt their conduct
was inappropriate and wrong. This witness then called another employee. This witness felt if the
accused were concerned about staff safety, they weren’t locking down or notifying people. They did
nothing to protect this witness.
- One witness reported learning something was going on through the employee referenced
immediately above. The employee told this witness that Dassinger had said not to let Complainant
in the building as he was considered a threat to staff. This witness came to work at 7:50 and saw
Dassinger talking with Complainant with officers standing by, with Complainant wearing only a
sweater in subzero temperatures. This witness saw Beck in the stairway, though Beck did not say
anything. This witness did not become fearful of Complainant, was only worried about him.
- Another witness also reported learning something through the same City employee shortly after
7:30; the other employee told this witness cops were looking for Complainant, that his meds and
some other things had been scattered in the lot, and that Beck had said he had had a mental
breakdown. This witness reported seeing Beck and cops running around. This witness text
Complainant to ask if he was okay. He responded after he had already been talked to in the parking
lot and said he was not really okay because they think he’s crazy. This witness said no one came to
tell her to go home, take cover, etc. This witness wondered why the City alert system wasn’t used,
why they were letting people in the building. This witness felt there was a lot of time between finding
the items in the lot and work starting to tell people not to come, or to go check on Complainant.
- Another witness reported Beck and Nameniuk were running around crazy and saying someone was
mentally unstable, though did not use Complainant’s name. People were not told to not come to
work, to lock their doors, etc., only to not let someone in. This witness figured out it related to
Complainant and wondered why the others hadn’t called Complainant. This witness felt they made
a mistake and blew it out of proportion, and they had scared people, and then never followed-up
with anyone. This witness mentioned another employee had been very scared. This witness said
there was later no follow-up on the comments about someone being unstable.
- Another witness reported coming to work around 7:15. Around 7:30, Beck came running down
saying if someone comes and their badge doesn’t work, don’t let them in. This witness reported that
Beck said they think someone had a mental breakdown and can’t give details. This witness saw
Dassinger around the office areas with law enforcement. The witness heard Beck say to Nameniuk,
“Well that’s a way to start the morning” and heard them laugh, which this witness found
inappropriate. This witness was not told to go home or anything similar. This witness talked to
Complainant later, who told this witness he had shown to work in a great mood, then felt swatted.
- The direct supervisor was not at work initially and was contacted by Nameniuk about something
going on. The supervisor had a planned morning meeting outside of the office but nearby and
decided to park in a different location than usual, although his first concern was for Complainant’s
own well-being. Dassinger later contacted the supervisor and told him to be aware of his
surroundings. This did cause the supervisor to be fearful. The supervisor denied hearing anyone use
language such as mental breakdown.
- Dassinger scheduled a debriefing after he had gotten information from IT. He felt it important to
disseminate to the Deputy Administrator, Nameniuk, Beck, and the supervisor what the video
showed and he explained it seemed as though the items had been accidentally left, not thrown
around, and he would contact Complainant. The others had similar recollections of the debriefing.

Page | 24
- Dassinger called complainant and told him the footage shows Complainant’s version of events is
what appears to have happened, he was no longer on administrative leave, but that he could take
the day off, paid. Dassinger recalled it being a 5 minute call. Complainant seemed to understand
and did not seem angry. Dassinger did not apologize during the call but mentioned there were
unfortunate circumstances that led up to it. Nameniuk was present for the call and believed
Complainant had felt confused about what had happened, it had been a shock to him to come to
work and have that happen. She felt he was clearly unhappy and said he would rather not come in
that day. Complainant described Dassinger as backtracking pretty hard during the call, and
Complainant recalled saying something like, “if ever I needed a mental health day, today would be
it.”
- An HR witness who was not at work that morning for personal reasons opined that, based on what
she knew about Complainant over time, she did not feel anyone acted inappropriately, the response
was warranted, and that if others knew the back story they would understand.
- Overall, from Dassinger’s perspective, things had been moving very fast the morning of the 16 th and
they had to be slowed down.

After February 16, 2024:

- Complainant said the incident caused nightmares and he didn’t eat for 5 days, though he was still
expected to show up for work when they didn’t approve his request to work remotely. He described
that showing up to meetings was sickening as Dassinger responded to his comments in a manner
that made him feel like he shouldn’t share his opinions. Complainant stated it was upsetting
because it was scary but also because there is no other planner position in Dickinson, and he has
friends there.
- Complainant reported he emailed asking for an apology and to repair the reputational damage at
the next leadership meeting and follow-up calls occurred with Nameniuk, the City Attorney, and the
Deputy City Administrator; he wanted things to be fixed but nothing came of it. On his next day of
work, Nameniuk came to his office for the first time ever, and Complainant interpreted it as her trying
to act normal, so he asked her to leave. He didn’t say he didn’t want an apology from Dassinger but
did say it’s looking like Nameniuk owed him an apology. Complainant stated he wasn’t looking at
legal action. He understood they may have been worried what an apology would look like.
- Complainant reported his direct supervisor came to him and asked how he was doing, Complainant
asked him if he was aware of or okay with what happened, something like that, and the response
was, “We did what we had to do.” So, Complainant wrote that he needed to take some time and
hoped to not have to take PTO but got no reply, and they seemed more concerned about him asking
for permission before he left. He described it as adding up to them really not caring.
- Complainant alleged that no attempt had been made by the accused to apologize, discuss the
situation, or ensure him the working environment was safe for him. Dassinger and the Deputy City
Administrator reported that Complainant was invited to a meeting with them to discuss
Complainant’s request to work from home, though Complainant denied the request explaining he
wanted communications in writing.
o When asked during his second interview about the invitation to a meeting he declined,
Complainant stated they should have sent an email response saying they would have IT set up
remote work. This investigator asked if Complainant felt he should have that request be
accepted with no discussion. Complainant stated a Zoom call or another employee in the room
would have been okay as it was not reasonable for him to have to meet with those who called

Page | 25
 the cops on him; when asked if Complainant asked for either, Complainant stated he thought he
previously told Nameniuk verbally over the phone that he wanted another person with him. He
declined the meeting because he didn’t think the subject matter would cover what he was
expecting to talk about. When asked if he would have only accepted a written apology,
Complainant said verbal would have been file as well.
- Ultimately, Complainant believes his personal rights were violated by not being able to attend
meetings after raising ethical concerns (retaliation), losing the ability to do strategic planning work,
misleading/false statements being made about him to law enforcement, and the sharing of the
photo of his medication. This caused a considerable amount of distress, he said, and created a work
environment impossible to work in.
- Nameniuk reported having a voicemail on her phone from Complainant the following Wednesday.
She asked the Deputy Administrator to be part of the call. (Her summary of the call is included in e-
mails elsewhere in this report). Complainant came to work Thursday and she went to his office to
let him know Dassinger may not be in so they would let it lie until Monday and talk then. Complainant
stated he needed an apology from her and she said ok, we will meet on Monday. Complainant asked
to take off work and Nameniuk stated he would have to ask his supervisor. Nameniuk is aware he e-
mailed his supervisor, and her opinion is that Complainant’s email was unprofessional; he said he
was not going to utilize leave instead of asking. After Complainant filed a grievance against her, she
felt she shouldn’t talk to him. Complainant did not try talking to her.
o As for follow-up with staff after they learned more, Nameniuk said she didn’t know if anything
occurred. She was not part of anything. She explained they still were not feeling comfortable,
they wondered if there had been ill intentions by Complainant, and stated she doesn’t know
whether he put things in the lot so something would blow up and he could file a grievance.
o She reported Complainant had turned in a Grievance against Dassinger but later took it back.
He later brought in grievances 3 grievances, but then asked for those back.
o Nameniuk does not feel an apology is needed because they did what they needed to do, but she
does understand this impacted him. Hindsight shows they could have handled it better and have
a lot to learn, though the idea was keeping themselves and employees safe.
o She felt Complainant was creating a toxic environment by printing out statements and letting it
sit at the printer, taking other employees for coffee and showing them the videos he’d received
from his open records request; she felt he was trying to get people on his side. She felt he was
creating a toxic environment back when he originally asked HR for information on filing
grievances. Nameniuk reported that a couple people Complainant was friends with have
encouraged people to file harassment complaints.
- Complainant’s direct supervisor reported Complainant had demanded an apology and the
supervisor said he didn’t know hardly any of the details about what occurred since he wasn’t
involved until the debriefing meeting. Complainant later was a no-show and requested to work
remotely. They don’t have a remote work policy and he didn’t know about remote access.
Complainant did come to work and the supervisor wanted to acknowledge him so knocked on
Complainant’s door with the intent to discuss that there is still work to do. Complainant mentioned
an apology. The supervisor was not aware of any others, outside of City Hall, being aware something
had occurred.
- Dassinger said no follow-up was had with staff afterward, to explain it had been a false alarm or
anything – no blanket message, though the expectation was that Department heads could
communicate with teams to answer questions if necessary. Dassinger did try to meet with

Page | 26
 Complainant with the Deputy Administrator invited, but Complainant declined because he wanted
things in writing. Dassinger said to this investigator, “He wanted an apology but then didn’t want to
meet.” Dassinger had learned at some point that Complainant had prepared something for the
Dickinson Press and had made an open records request. Dassinger had intended to assure
Complainant that the work environment was safe for him, they weren’t out to get him.
- Beck and Nameniuk also reported no follow-up was sent to staff after. Beck said, as for checking in
on Complainant after what he had gone through with DPD personnel, Beck understood Dassinger
or the Deputy Administrator reached out to him after the debriefing meeting. Beck did not give an
apology to Complainant and when asked about this, Beck said it was because he didn’t decide to
do the lockdown. Beck agreed that he probably should have acknowledged something with
Complainant after they learned more, but said he didn’t want to bring more attention to it. This was
his first time dealing with something like this in an employee situation. Beck understands why
Complainant is upset, but feels Complainant has caused other employees to lack trust in him which
he needs in his role.
- One witness reported telling Complainant he should file some sort of grievance or harassment
complaint, as they felt what occurred was over the top. This witness said he was discouraged where
this had gone, and he didn’t expect Complainant to be placed into a toxic environment.
- Multiple City employee witnesses felt an apology would have resolved the matter simply. One said
it should have been fixed with others, as well – the accused had gone around saying someone had a
mental breakdown, don’t let them in the building, but then didn’t later tell people it was a false
alarm. The HR witness who felt the response by others was appropriate on February 16 did opine
that Dassinger should have sent out a message to everyone afterward.
- One witness opined that Dassinger and Complainant’s direct supervisor talked over Complainant
more at meetings closer to Complainant’s resignation and thought Complainant should have been
invited to a meeting the County planner was invited to. This witness was sad to see Complainant go.
- Another witness reported that Dassinger would not include Complainant on meeting invites after
the complaints were made and that Dassinger said he didn’t think it was right to have him in the
room. The witness said these were meetings Complainant would otherwise have been part of and
the other planner was invited. This witness felt Dassinger got upset when the other planner
forwarded a meeting invite to Complainant.
o Dassinger said two meetings he was at with Complainant afterward went fine, there were no
exchanges of words, it was professional. He denied not inviting Complainant to meetings after
Complainant filed complaints. Dassinger said there was a discussion with the County Planner
and a couple of Commissioners about a project that would come months down the line and
since Complainant had already submitted a resignation, it didn’t make sense to involve him.
Dassinger said his thoughts on Complainant’s meeting attendance were unrelated to February
16 or anything else.
- Multiple employee witnesses expressed in one manner or another that they lost respect for the
accused as a result of the February 16 incident. On the other hand, those that had more involvement
in discussions with Complainant about his requests/demands or concerns over time felt that other
staff didn’t have the background to understand.
- One witness said a Fire Department employee came in weeks later and said he heard Complainant
had gone crazy. This witness said no, this did not happen. The Fire Department had not shown up on
February 16 so this witness assumed upper management must “be talking.”

Page | 27
- The accused and Complainant’s direct supervisor denied continuing a narrative that Complainant
had experienced a mental breakdown or psychotic break after the video footage confirmed
Complainant’s version of events. Three individuals – two from the Fire Department named by
Complainant as those who may have heard an alleged continued narrative that Complainant had
experienced a mental breakdown or psychotic break from Dassinger or others, and the County
planner who is in City Hall on a regular basis for meetings and planning purposes – declined hearing
anything like this. The County planner heard about the incident from a witness sympathetic to
Complainant, and heard nothing about a mental or other type of breakdown. One Fire Department
employee had sensed something had happened only by people’s demeanors, heard something
about papers in the parking lot, but heard no other specifics or names; he deduced it was related to
Complainant due to Complainant’s absence from later meetings. The other Fire Department
employee reported hearing talk of Beck or Nameniuk running around City Hall saying something
about a mental breakdown that morning, but this witness did not hear this from the accused or
anyone on the Executive Team, with 100% certainty, he said.

Information Obtained through Other Documentation/Evidence

Relevant provisions in the City’s Municipal Code, Article 29.08:

The City’s Human Resource Manual is included in the Municipal Code, beginning at Section
29.08.04030. It begins with a description of the “Purpose of this Manual”:

This manual, which provides for human resources administration is enacted by the City of Dickinson
in order to further the following goals:

1. To provide a uniform and sound personnel administrative system throughout the City of
Dickinson.
2. To inform employees of the general policies and procedures of the City and of the benefits and
obligations of employment with the City.
3. To ensure that all personnel actions are based upon employee qualifications (knowledge, skills
and abilities) and job performance and are in compliance with federal and state law.
4. To serve as written documentation of the City of Dickinson's commitment to fair employment
practices and equal employment opportunity.
5. To assist city administration in carrying out sound, equitable and consistent human resources
administration and in making effective use of human resources.
6. To promote and encourage communication between the city administration and the employee(s).
7. To protect the rights of the employee(s) and employer throughout the employment relationship
and to ensure that the responsibilities of both parties are carried out.

Application The Human Resource ordinance shall apply to all municipal employees except
employees as specified in Section 29.08.02.120. In the event of a conflict between this ordinance,
(also referred to as the manual, or personnel manual) and any state or federal law, the terms and
conditions of such law shall prevail.

Section 29.08.04040 – General Provisions – includes an Equal Employment Opportunity provision, and
a Sexual and Other Harassment provision. Within the Sexual and Other Harassment provision is
language regarding workplace “violence” more broadly:

Page | 28
 1. Equal Employment Opportunity

It is the policy of the City of Dickinson to recruit, hire, train, promote, discipline and discharge
all applicants and employees equally and without regard to race, religion, creed, color, national
origin, sex, age, disability, political affiliation, marital or veteran status, or any other basis
prohibited by state or federal law. Violations of this policy by any municipal employee may be
cause for immediate disciplinary action. Any employee who feels he/she has been
discriminated against should bring this concern to his/her supervisor or higher authority
according to the appeals procedure specified in Section 29.08.04.140 of this manual.4

2. Sexual and Other Harassment

The City of Dickinson is committed to providing a work environment that is free from
discrimination and harassment. To maintain this commitment, the municipality will not tolerate
any form of harassment, including sexual harassment.

2.1 Statement of No Tolerance

Sexual or any other form of harassment in the work place is prohibited by Federal and State law,
whether committed by supervisory or non-supervisory employees, and will not be tolerated.
Retaliation or intimidation directed toward a complaining party or a witness in an investigation
is also prohibited by law and will not be tolerated by the City under any circumstances and is
grounds for termination. The City will endeavor to take prompt remedial measures to
immediately end the offending action.

2.2 Harassment by Non-Employees

The City will attempt to eliminate sexual or any other form of harassment of or by any non-
employees, such as customers, visitors, or others, including the referral of appropriate matters
to the appropriate law enforcement authority.

2.3 Employment Protections to Complaining Party

A true complaint of sexual or any other form of harassment will not have any bearing on the
terms and conditions of employment of the complaining party, including but not limited to
wages, advancement, evaluations, assigned duties, shift assignments, and career
development.

2.4 Definition of Behavior Constituting Sexual Harassment

[…]

2.5 Definition of Other Harassment

Under this policy, other harassment in defined as behavior of a nature, which is unwelcome and
personally offensive to its recipient. It is a form of employee misconduct, which is demeaning
to another person and undermines the integrity of the employment relationship. Other
Harassment includes action(s) by another person which in the opinion of the employee violate

4
Section 29.08.04140 is specific to complaints alleging disability-based discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The section does not reference any other status protected by law.
Page | 29
 his/her personal rights. This includes one person bullying another person or persons through
actions which demean the other employee through repeated use of demands, language, threats
to control the other person's behavior or attitude.

[…]

2.10 Violence Prevention

The City endeavors to provide a safe workplace for all employees. To ensure a safe workplace
and to reduce the risk of violence, all employees should review and understand all provisions of
this workplace violence policy.

2.10.1 Prohibited Conduct

We do not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees.

Employees are prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities. This list of
behaviors provides examples of conduct that is prohibited:

• Causing physical injury to another person.

• Making threatening remarks.

• Displaying aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another
person or subjects another individual to emotional distress.

• Intentionally damaging employer property or property of another employee.

• Possessing an unauthorized weapon while on City property or while on City business.

• Committing acts motivated by, or related to, sexual harassment or domestic violence.

2.10.2 Reporting Violent Situations

Any potentially dangerous situations must be immediately reported to a supervisor or the

human resource (HR) department. Reports can be made anonymously, and all reported
incidents will be investigated. Reports or incidents warranting confidentiality will be handled
appropriately, and information will be disclosed to others only on a need-to-know basis. All
parties involved in a situation will be counseled, and the results of investigations will be
discussed with them. The City will actively intervene at any indication of a possibly hostile
or violent situation.

2.10.3 Risk Reduction Measures

Hiring

[…]

Inspection

[…]

Individual Situations

Page | 30
 Although we do not expect all employees to be skilled at identifying potentially dangerous
persons, employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform the HR
department if any employee exhibits behavior that could be a sign of a potentially dangerous
situation. Such behavior includes:

• Discussing weapons in a threatening way, or bringing them to the workplace (exceptions

for public safety or other authorized personnel in the course of their official duties).

• Displaying overt signs of extreme stress, resentment, hostility or anger.

• Making threatening remarks.

• Showing sudden or significant deterioration of performance.

• Displaying irrational or inappropriate behavior.

Threatening conduct, or any other acts of aggression or violence in the workplace will not be
tolerated. Any employee determined to have committed such acts will be subject to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Non-employees engaged in violent acts
on the employer’s premises will be reported to the proper authorities and fully prosecuted.

Section 29.008.04080 – Compensation (presumably still part of the Human Resource Manual) –
contains provisions explaining benefits, including explanation of the Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) at provision 18.10:

Purpose

It is recognized that most people face personal difficulties at some point in their lives. Given this
reality, the city of Dickinson EAP is committed to assisting employees with distress as a means of
facilitating 1) a resolution of problems and 2) the maintenance of satisfactory job performance. For
this reason, the City is offering all regular full-time and regular part-time benefited employees
access to an Employee Assistance Program, the use of which is described in this subsection. In
pursuing the above objective, the EAP can be used by employees to help prevent problems from
hindering one’s capacity to fulfill job requirements.

18.10.1 Use of the Program

Employees wishing to use this program may contact the EAP provider in accordance with the
provisions of the program. EAP may be used in one of two primary ways:

18.10.2 Confidential Use

An employee experiencing difficulties may, on his/her own initiative, seek information,

guidance, or personal therapy. […].

18.10.3 Employer Involvement

When an employee’s job performance is determined to be unsatisfactory as a result of personal

difficulties caused by on or off the job circumstances, the employee’ s supervisor has the option
of encouraging the use of the EAP. In cases where there is a serious concern, as determined by
the Department Head, about the employee’ s performance, the Supervisor, working with the

Page | 31
 Human Resource Coordinator, may require participation in the EAP as part of an action plan.
[…]

Section 29.08.04090 – Leaves of Absence – includes a provision regarding Administrative Leave with
Pay at 19.14:

19.14 Administrative Leave With Pay

The appropriate Department Head or his designee may place an employee on administrative
leave with pay for up to three working days in accordance with written departmental policy or in
other situations when the Department Head determines it is in the best interest of the City to
remove an employee from a work situation. If three working days is not sufficient to meet the
needs of the situation, the appropriate Department Head may increase the duration of
administrative leave with pay for a period not to exceed 30 days with prior approval of the City
Administrator.

Section 29.08.04120 – Grievance and Appeal Procedure – includes the following:

22. Grievance and Appeal

22.1 Purpose

The purpose of this grievance procedure is to provide a just and equitable method for the
resolution of disciplinary action appeals and/or employee disputes resulting from an action or
inaction of one of their superiors or fellow employees without discrimination, coercion,
restraint, or reprisal against any employee or group of employees who may submit to or be
involved in an appeal. The term appeal shall be synonymous with that of grievance.

22.2 Definition of a Grievance

A grievance is an action or decision of a supervisor or department head or other employee, other

than suspension, demotion or termination, that may be in violation of any federal, state or city
law, rule, regulation, ordinance or policy, relation to employment or personnel matters, sexual
harassment or who alleges discrimination due to race, color, creed, sex, age, marital status,
national origin or physical disability.

22.3 Procedure For Filing a Grievance

If an employee wishes to file a grievance, the employee must submit a written notice of
grievance to the City Administrator stating the reasons for the disagreement on a grievance
form. The employee may choose representation at any point during the grievance procedure.

22.4 Appeals Regarding Written Reprimand

[…]

22.5 Appeals regarding Suspensions without Pay, Demotions, Disciplinary Reassignments,

or Dismissals

[…]

22.6 Appearance Before the Civil Service Commission

Page | 32
 […]

22.7 Final Decisions in the Appeal Process

[…]

22.7.1 Process for Appeal to City Commission

[…]

22.8 Other appeals to Civil Service Commission

Other appeals where permitted by these rules shall be heard by the Civil Service Commission in
the same manner as provided in this subsection.

22.9 Dismissal of Grievances Upon Voluntary Separations

Ongoing grievances will be immediately dismissed if the appealing employee(s) voluntarily

terminates employment with the City during the appeal process.

EXCEPTION: If the Civil Service Commission so agrees, the appeal of any employee(s) who
submitted a claim of extenuating circumstances at the time of resignation may be allowed to
continue through the normal appeal process outlined in this section.

Most Relevant Information Contained in E-mails and Text Messages among City Staff:

On January 30, 2024, Complainant wrote to Dassinger and his direct supervisor the following, in follow-
up to a January 26, 2024, meeting the three of them had:

I’ve concluded these main points:

• The three of us share the same vision regarding prioritizing current needs over long range
planning
• The best thing for me to do now is arrive at work each day focusing on that priority, promoting a
great work environment, and dedicating myself to current planning improvements.
• I’ll focus on department improvements by applying my best judgment to the guidance provided
by Josh.
• I’ll provide long range planning considerations or attend meetings as Josh sees fit but I’ll
maintain that focus on current planning as an overarching objective
• If any of what I shared is being considered a formal request, I’d like to withdraw it. I don’t need
to discuss any personnel topics at this point and accept your responses.
Please don’t worry too much about things like whether I enjoy myself at work. I’ve hardly had a single
day that I didn’t love being here. Much of the reason I requested any discussion was to achieve
clarity regarding some requests and expectations for my role. I believe I gained that clarity and hope
to move forward in the healthiest or best manner possible.

On January 31, 2024, Complainant e-mailed Nameniuk asking what a meeting scheduled for the
following week was about. Nameniuk replied in relevant part:

[Dassinger] and [direct supervisor] briefly told me about your recent conversations and we just want
to briefly review everything and make sure we are all on the same page moving forward.

Page | 33
On February 12, 2024, Complainant emailed his direct supervisor regarding a Planning & Zoning
report/recommendation, asking the supervisor to let him know his preference for delivering the staff
recommendations. Options Complainant thought viable were:
- Recommend approval, remove his signature from the report, supervisor presents it and makes
recommendation.
- Remove recommendations altogether and re-tool report to focus on findings of fact. Exhibit
application is in compliance with Code and compatible with comprehensive plan.

On February 13, 2024, Complainant emailed his direct supervisor again regarding his thoughts on taking
the report/recommendation to the Commission, in part writing:

Following our discussions, I will be specifically referencing those matters as “what’s codified” and
will reserve my intersubjective recommendation for if it’s specifically requested during a meeting. If
that is to happen, as in, if a commissioner specifically wants to know my recommendation, I’ll hedge
by deferring to the staff conclusions and that Staff would recommend approval on that basis as the
primary determinant. However, if I’m pressed further, I hope you will be fine with me offering what
would be my honest recommendation in that specific circumstance – and hopefully nothing that
like would happen in the first place! I hope this sounds good to you – looking forward to your
thoughts on this if you have them.

On February 16, 2024, Beck wrote in a text to Nameniuk, “Did something happen yesterday with
[Complainant]?” She responded, “No why?” Beck wrote, “It looks like he threw everything out of his
vehicle onto the ground in the parking lot. I have two prescription bottles that I found.”

In a text message from the Deputy City Administrator on February 16, 2024, to Dassinger, she wrote:

[Complainant] has gone rogue. Had [Nameniuk] call police. Call me or [Nameniuk] or [Beck] ASAP

Beck shared photographs of the personal items, including Rx bottles, found in the lot in a group text with
Dassinger and the Deputy City Administrator, writing, “This is all the stuff I found in the parking lot.” The
Deputy City Administrator responded asking where Complainant is now. Beck wrote, “No idea. I did a
walk through City Hall and he isn’t here.” The Deputy City Administrator wrote, “My thought is to have
IT shut down his card so that he cannot come in the building the back way […] Up to [Dassinger].”

An image of Complainant carrying a box of what appears to be personal items, including possibly a
prescription bottle, at some location inside the building on February 16, 2024, was sent to Dassinger at
8:11AM by an IT employee. At 10:19AM on February 16, 2024, the IT employee provided a synopsis to
Dassinger of what was viewed on available video footage, which Dassinger thanked him for in a
response email at 10:22AM:

On 2/16/2024, a brief inquiry was performed on [Complainant], here is what was observed on video:
Around 4:20PM on 2/15/2024, [Complainant] exited the facility carrying a box of items and proceed
west to the City Parking Lot. He walked out with [employee name] and walked with her to towards
her vehicle located on the Northern side of the City Lot. After walking with her, he proceeded to the
south to where he was parked in the south central section of the lot. Due to the distance for the
cameras, we have limited vision, but it appears that [Complainant] checks his car doors and then
proceeds to set a box of items down on the passenger side of his car by the rear wheel well.

He then returns to the building around 4:23 PM, leave the box by his vehicle.
Page | 34
 Around 5:03 PM on 2/15/2024, [Complainant] is seen exiting the facility carrying what appears to be
a desk lamp. At that time, he walks out with [different City employee] where he visits with her on the
South eastern portion of the parking lot before proceeding to his vehicle. He then proceeds to drive
out of the lot without any incidence. When he leaves, based on image shadowing and a box like
shape, it appears the box he had set by his car earlier in the day remains behind. Again, due to
distance and now low lighting at that time, it is unclear what happens to the box overnight.

Complainant made an open records request on or around February 16, 2024, through the City Attorney.
During their following email communications, Complainant wrote, “A written apology and explanation
will be enough. I don’t need to go back to the building again until these requests are generally fulfilled.
I’ll be hearing back from my colleagues about whether this mistake was acknowledged at next
Thursday’s agenda review meeting or earlier.” Complainant wrote on February 21, 2024, “Now that I
understand [Nameniuk’s] involvement, I’d like to acquire any documentation she has to support the
claims she’s made.” On February 22, 2024, Complainant wrote, “I will assume there is zero
documentation of the claims [Nameniuk] has made against me. If there is any documentation
whatsoever, please send it.” In the same e-mail on February 22, 2024, Complainant wrote, “[Dassinger]
and [direct supervisor] each should have a printed copy of my actual requests regarding personnel, the
department, and my position.” He then requested that documentation be scanned to him.

On February 21, 2024, Nameniuk wrote to Dassinger:

[Complainant] called and left me a message while I was at lunch. His message was very choppy but
I was able to hear some of it. He said he was going to require an apology in writing before he would
come to work tomorrow and wanted me to call him back today to discuss. So [Deputy Administrator]
came in my office and I called him back. He said he wanted an apology and wanted to be assured
that nothing more was going to happen when he comes in tomorrow. He wants us to say that we
made a mistake and take back everything we accused him of. I asked him if he could tell me about
the conversation you had on the phone with him because I was there and I felt like maybe he didn’t
hear or remember what you said. I re-iterated that his badge access was turned back on after you
learned that his story regarding the parking lot was verified by the cameras. I told him that you were
out until tomorrow and that I wouldn’t be talking with you before then so I wouldn’t have an answer
if there would be an apology or not before he comes to work. Then through the conversation he said
he would be here in the morning. So I asked him, so are you still requiring an apology, just not before
you come to work? He said yes. He has some demands as well. He will not be in a meeting with you
or [direct supervisor] without someone else being present, he doesn’t want us to bring up his mental
health again, etc. [Deputy Administrator] wanted me to give you a heads up on all of this before you
get here tomorrow morning.

On February 20, 2024, the IT employee, when working on the open records request, explained in an
email, “I do not have footage for ‘The moment someone discovered my belongings, how, and their
reaction to it.’ This is largely in part due to the distance and location of the belongings. Note even in the
parking lot footage of the belongings being placed on the ground, it is only through the use of shadowing
in the video that we are able to make out what appears to be the box being placed on the ground beside
the car.”

On February 22, 2024, Complainant wrote to his direct supervisor:

After yourself and [Nameniuk] visited my office this morning, I've decided to take additional days
off. I don't believe this should consume my vacation accrual because I do not feel that this is a safe
Page | 35
 work environment. I have indicated that I am not interested in pursuing any legal or any other action
and have requested just an acknowledgement and apology. If those are not forthcoming, I will be
re-evaluating my (non-violent) options. I had requested an apology to be made before today but was
told [Dassinger] has a family emergency. That's why I came in. Since you've evinced your position of
no-remorse, I feel unsafe to continue working from my office. Please seek appropriate
accommodations if you wish for me to continue working from home in the meantime. I will resume
normal work as soon as this is amicably resolved. Again, that can simply be an apology and an
acknowledgement of mistakes. I provide my word that I will not seek legal action, as soon as I know
that this is a stable work environment and my requests have been reasonably fulfilled. I hope you
understand that asking for this as reconciliation is the most generous and kindest decision I feel I
can possibly make.

Please respond to my personal email or by Teams chat if you wish to stay in touch. To explain why I
don't feel "safe," you and a select few others appear to still believe I'm deeply disturbed and have
already called the police, I don't feel confident that further actions will not be taken against me in
unpredictable ways until I see that a more favorable opinion of me than that is held. Otherwise, the
conduct coming from the executive team and HR is highly uncertain.

The direct supervisor forwarded the foregoing email to Nameniuk, who forwarded it to Dassinger, the
Deputy City Administrator, and the City Attorney. Nameniuk, in the body of her email, wrote:

I just wanted you all to be aware of a couple emails sent by [Complainant] today. He has left the
building and says in the email below to [his direct supervisor] that he is taking additional days off,
doesn't ask, and doesn't specify how much time he plans to take off. I believe he is saying that he
shouldn't have to take vacation time for this but not positive. He also says that he doesn't feel safe
here. I feel like we should try to find out what is making him feel unsafe and I don't know who is the
right person to address that with him.

My conversation with him this morning was; I knocked on his door, and said good morning, there
was no reply. I started to tell him that we would not be meeting today and he quickly said, don't close
the door, I don't feel comfortable having a conversation with you in a room with you with the door
closed. So I opened the door all the way and said, I am not here to have a conversation with you. I
just want you to know that [Dassinger] may or may not come in today but we will not be having a
meeting or discussion with you today. We will just let things go until Monday and we can talk then.
He said that he is not requiring an apology from [Dassinger] anymore, after reviewing the open
records request it is now me that he is requiring the apology from. I told him okay, we won't be talking
until Monday. He said, I feel like I need to take the rest of the week off if that is okay with you and
Josh. I told him that decision was for his supervisor not me. I then left the room.

[Complainant] emailed [the HR Generalist] this morning: Please describe to me how the grievance
process works and whether it would be possible to conduct an investigation into the conduct
leading up to last Friday's events. I'm not sure if this is possible, considering my grievance will likely
be submitted regarding [Nameniuk]'s behavior and claims.

On February 23, 2024, at 6:25PM, Complainant wrote his direct supervisor:

Please provide a response in a timely manner. I'm requesting a temporary accommodation to work
remotely until I can better understand the nature of my work environment.

Page | 36
The direct supervisor, when forwarding Complainant’s email to Dassinger, wrote:

See the email below from [Complainant]. Based on our discussion today, we have not allowed and
do not intend to allow employees to work from home for more than minimal amounts of time.
Therefore, I do not intend to respond to his request this weekend. We can add this topic to the
discussion with him on Monday. If you feel differently on this topic, please let me know.

On Sunday, February 25, 2024, Dassinger invited Complainant, via email/calendar invite, to Dassinger’s
office for a meeting the following day, indicating the meeting would be for purposes of discussing
Complainant’s request to work from home. Records show Complainant declined the calendar invite
and responded to the e-mail, writing, “I prefer our interactions to be conducted by email whenever
possible.”

Statements/Rebuttals Written by Accused Employees:

On February 16, 2024, at 11:27AM, Beck sent to Dassinger a written incident report. In summary, he
explained:
He arrived at 6:30am and found what he thought was garbage laying in the second and third rows,
and the driving lane, of the lot. He found two Rx bottles with Complainant’s name, a bottle of pain
reliever, and other personal possessions including insulated cups. Beck took them into City Hall to
his office. He found it strange the items were strewn about the lot. He text Nameniuk to see if
something had happened the day before with Complainant’s employment and if he had missed an
email regarding termination. Finding the items combined with conversations he had had with
Nameniuk, the Deputy City Administrator, and others about Complainant’s mannerisms the last
month led him to contact Nameniuk. She confirmed employment had not been terminated.

The two then spoke over the phone and Nameniuk said she would contact Dassinger about next
actions. Beck then retrieved more items from the lot. Around 6:52, the Deputy City Administrator
text Beck to let her know she had text Nameniuk to have her contact DPD. Beck then did a sweep of
the upstairs to verify Complainant was not currently in the building. Once back to his office, he
photographed the belongings and sent them to Dassinger, Nameniuk, and the Deputy
Administrator. He was informed they were having IT shut down Complainant’s badge. Dassinger
showed up and they had a quick discussion.

DPD officers arrived shortly after Dassinger. Dassinger asked DPD to issue a look out for
Complainant and his vehicle(s), and Beck provided the Complainant’s contact information to an
officer. The officer and Beck did a full sweep of second and first floors and the basement. Beck
talked to employees already present that they were not to allow anyone access to the building if the
individual’s badge did not work.

An officer saw Complainant pull into the lot and they talked. Complainant was detailed until
Dassinger had a chance to speak to Complainant. Beck was informed Complainant would be
placed on paid admin leave until there was time to formally investigate. At 9:00am a debriefing
meeting occurred and it was disclosed this was a non-threatening circumstance and Complainant
had carried out his personal belongings the day before and forgot to place them in his vehicle and
drove away. Someone must have run over the belongings or went through them and scattered them
when doing so.

Page | 37
 Beck wrote that all actions were taken to minimize the potential risk to and in the interest of City
Hall employees’ safety.

Beck submitted an additional rebuttal to this investigator, some similar to what is included in the above
statement. Additional, most relevant, comments are as follows:

According to the City’s Drug & Alcohol Policy, being in possession of someone else's controlled
substance could result in termination. […] As the custodian of the Drug & Alcohol Policy, I was
fulfilling my responsibility by documenting this incident, particularly concerning a controlled
substance prone to illicit use. The photographs of the complainant’s personal belongings, taken
around 6:53 am and shared at approximately 6:58 am, were solely circulated among Administration
personnel to document the contents and establish the chain of custody.

[Explanation of responding to open records request – not included since this investigator is not
investigating open records compliance].

The only items arranged on the counter were two insulated drinking containers, that I could only
assume belonged to the complainant, which I had to temporarily place there to make room for my
own personal items in the fridge. […] To maintain the complainant's privacy, I kept the prescriptions
in my pocket, away from the view of the employee standing at the break area.

As a Risk Management Specialist, my primary responsibility is ensuring the health and safety of City
employees above all else. Throughout the events of the morning of February 16, 2024, I want to
emphasize that at no point did I disclose the complainant's identity to any employee not directly
involved in the situation concerning City Hall.

While I have not personally interacted with the complainant outside of Leadership Team meetings
and a sporadic Friday morning employee get together prior to this incident, I had been approached
by several individuals who expressed concerns about the complainant’s actions leading up to this
day. Even though I have no authoritative power to start any lock down procedures of any facility, I
believe the reaction was justified given the discussed behaviors. [Then references Risk Reduction
Measures from Municipal Code].

I want to clarify that I did not disclose any information to individuals outside those who have access
to employee-related matters within Administration. With the exception of the responding Police
Officers, acting in a professional capacity, investigating the incident that day. Additionally, I do not
have direct access to security camera footage unless I submit a formal written request and obtain
approval from Administration. It's important to note that the City Administrator requested this
footage from the IT Department for review while the incident was unfolding.

During my response to Police questioning, I only mentioned what employees had discussed with
me regarding the complainant’s behavior leading up to the incident.

I want to clarify that in none of my communications with the City Administrator, HR Director, and
Deputy City Administrator did I ever mention a "mental meltdown." I did mention, "It looks like he
threw everything out of his vehicle on the ground in the parking lot." This observation was based on
the initial appearance of the scene when I arrived at work.

Page | 38
 This situation has tainted the work environment and relationships that I have worked hard to create
in the last five years with City Hall employees and other departments because of the complainant’s
actions. The complainant's actions have created an atmosphere of discomfort and tension,
manifesting in employees' reluctance to engage in even the most basic interactions, such as a
simple "good morning" greeting. This breakdown in communication and rapport not only impedes
my day-to-day operations but also undermines the sense of unity and collaboration essential for
our collective success. […] I am acutely aware of the impact this situation is having on our collective
well-being as the center of all City operations. I can now only hope that I may be able to renew a
sense of collaboration within the workplace, before the health and welfare of City employees is
compromised due to the loss of trust in me throughout the organization.

Nameniuk submitted to this investigator a lengthy rebuttal and written response to the allegations.
Some of this is edited for succinctness; she explained:

Dassinger is a trained law enforcement professional, trained to identify behavioral issues and
potential threats. The accused and Deputy Administrator had recently attended a workplace
violence training so it was fresh in their minds. She stated this was not an accident, but Complainant
purposely and knowingly left his items including prescription drugs (controlled substances) in a
public lot unattended. He said he forgot his keys, set the box next to his car and thought they would
be fine sitting out there for a couple hours until he went back out after work. This was “attributable
to the erradic [sic] and reckless behaviors” he had been displaying lately. Unfortunately, no camera
footage confirms what actually happened.

Dassinger asked her to give the officer a brief synopsis of what led up to the day. The intent was to
show some of the red flag signs they saw leading up to the event.

Complainant had asked the HR generalist in his first week here if he was going to get fired. Nothing
happened to cause such a question or concern so found it very strange for him to ask that.
Complainant asked the HR generalist a couple times when he will be off probation, and another
employee sent an email on his behalf asking when he would be off probation. He made a comment
on the staircase in front of the HR generalist’s office one day while Nameniuk was standing there
about getting off probation. Complainant had asked the HR generalist once verbally what the
process was to file a grievance so he was already planning to file one before he was off probation.
Once he was off probation, he knew he had Civil Service protection and could then file a grievance.
As to the “Jekyll and Hyde” personality, this stemmed from comments from the Deputy City
Administrator on how calmly and politely Complainant talked with her and then when he met with
the others during the two lengthy meetings, he was not as calm, and certainly not respectful. Saying
the word “respectfully” before the sentence does not mean you are being respectful. Accusing his
direct supervisor of lying, not knowing anything about planning or the comprehensive plan, is not
respectful. Nameniuk noticed in the few meetings she had with Complainant how quickly his
demeanor changed and his body language was very pronounced.

Nameniuk didn’t say Complainant “demanded” lengthy meetings but that he did have lengthy
meetings. The direct supervisor had told Nameniuk about multiple meetings he would have with
Complainant that took hours. The direct supervisor felt he was meeting with him more than all of his
other staff put together, and he had to draw a line when it took time away from him and his kids. The
HR generalist mentioned to Nameniuk that Complainant would pop into her office (not a planned or
scheduled meeting) and would stay for 45 minutes or more. These meetings take away from her
workload and ability to get her things done so she did express frustration at times to Nameniuk and
Page | 39
 later expressed other concerns to Nameniuk, Dassinger, Beck and the direct supervisor that she felt
uncomfortable with Complainant coming into her room and shutting the door and said she was
worried that he could “do something.” She started closing her door more and not making eye
contact if he was near so that he wouldn’t come into her office.

As to Complainant’s written complaint that he had been consistently respectful in all interactions,
Nameniuk wrote that Dassinger and the direct supervisor had told Nameniuk things Complainant
had said during their very lengthy meeting, like “I’m here to lecture you” and insinuating the direct
supervisor doesn’t know his job and is a liar. Complainant didn’t even have a year of experience yet.
Asking Dassinger to not worry about his mental health is not the same thing as him making it very
clear that he doesn't want him to bring it up anymore. This is an example of how Complainant thinks
he communicates clearly but in fact nobody got the message he said he gave.

Dassinger asked Nameniuk to set up the February 7 meeting to make sure that everyone was on the
same page since the meeting on 1/26/24 didn’t seem to end with any resolve, even though they met
for 4 ½ hours and the Deputy City Administrator said she met with Complainant on 1/25/24 for 3
hours. The Deputy Administrator had said all the things he and her talked about and what he said he
was going to do and say in the next day’s meeting, and then it was the complete opposite of what
actually happened. Complainant came down to my office one week prior, 1/31/24 and the direct
supervisor was standing in her office having a conversation. Complainant was pacing around and
acting like he wanted to come in. The direct supervisor saw me looking toward the door and turned
to him and said, just a few seconds. Complainant rolled his eyes and took off down the hallway,
then emailed and said he was there because he had the dates wrong and thought we were meeting
that day. He asked what we were meeting about.

On 2/6/24 the HR generalist was in Nameniuk’s office and Complainant came in. He talked about
how he can’t do the things his direct supervisor and Dassinger are asking of him, he thinks his
position is so much more than they want him to be doing, and he doesn’t know if he can work here.
We talked about him giving it some time, he hasn’t been here a year yet. Get to know the position,
the community and the department a bit more. The HR generalist reminded him of a previous
conversation she had with him that he has to decide if the job they are asking of him isn’t what he
wants, then he needs to go. If he can get on board, then that’s what he needs to do. Nameniuk
mentioned to him that he seems to go up and down and she doesn’t know what direction he wants
to go from day to day. In the email he sent Dassinger (after the January 26 meeting) Complainant
said he could get on board, but in the conversation with Nameniuk and the HR generalist, he said
he couldn’t.

Complainant showed Nameniuk and the HR generalist that he had his resignation letter in his hand.
He wanted to know if he were to give his resignation tomorrow, would they let him go right away or
could he work until April. They asked why he would want to give such a long resignation notice; most
people give a two-week notice. Nameniuk told him she couldn’t predict what they would say but
suggested he give no more than a month notice. They brought up how they could tell this is really
bothering him and it’s going to affect his mental health if it hasn’t already. He quickly became very
upset and agitated and said he wished we would quit talking about that. His body language changed
and he was visibly angry, red in the face. Nameniuk said she would talk to them about not bringing
it up again. However, she did not have a chance to visit with Dassinger prior to meeting the next day,
2/7/24. Complainant’s comment about coming into her office to demand they quit talking about his
mental health was not correct; he came in to talk about his resignation and wishes for how the
position and department could be restructured. Nameniuk felt like he hoping she would go to the
Page | 40
 others and advocate for him and his ideas, or beg him to stay. When that didn’t happen, he started
the retaliatory behaviors and harassing/toxic behaviors.

In the 2/7/24 meeting Complainant first said he was on board (with what Dassinger and direct
supervisor were saying), then he said he can’t be on board and gave them options for how we should
restructure the department or how we could move forward. Nameniuk mentioned to him that she
couldn’t follow him -- he says one thing, then the opposite, then another thing then the opposite --
he’s very hard to follow. Complainant didn’t argue her point. Regarding a later allegation by
Complainant that Dassinger opened this meeting’s discussion by suggesting he was mentally
unstable, Nameniuk wrote it was only when Complainant’s demeanor quickly changed and he
looked as though he was to begin crying that Dassinger brought up concerns. There was no intention
or plan to bring up his mental health and it was purely out of concern for Complainant that any of
them ever brought it up. Nameniuk also denies Dassinger and the direct supervisor did not provide
alternatives to Complainant regarding the ethical dilemma he felt he had on approving the
application. Nameniuk says they did tell Complainant there was no legal reason to deny the request,
but Complainant should share all of his concerns with the Commission and any issues that he
thought could rise later on due to their decision, therefore giving them all the facts and leaving the
decision to the Commission.

Regarding Complainant’s complaint against her stating she fabricated or misled officers regarding
demanding a promotion, assistant, and to be on the executive team, Nameniuk wrote she hasn’t
seen the document that was provided to Dassinger but was told that he and Complainant met and
that Complainant gave Dassinger a very large document (14 pages – unsure if that was an
exaggeration or actual number of pages) with all of the things he wanted which included a
promotion, to be on the Executive Team, to have a couple people underneath him, and to have an
assistant. He mentioned that he wanted guarantees. Dassinger was astonished to get something
like this from someone who just recently came off probation and had no practical prior experience.
Dassinger told Nameniuk he explained that wasn’t how things worked and that some managers
have been asking for many years for additional staff members and promotions and that this wasn’t
going to happen right now, and that he needs to give himself some time and learn the position, the
community, and the department a bit more and ease into some of his future plans and requests.
Nameniuk wrote that Complainant may have used the word “guarantee” for some requests which
“feels a lot like a demand.”

Regarding Complainant’s allegation that it was fabricating or misleading for Nameniuk to tell
officers Complainant had spent hours and hours and hours in other peoples’ offices, Nameniuk
wrote she didn’t document visits and didn’t follow him around. She did observation closed door
visits upstairs and would come back later to see that they were still in the same place, and she
received comments from others who had met for extended periods with him. The direct supervisor
mentioned being frustrated at times because he Complainant would be in another employee’s
office for over an hour, then he would moved on to a different employee’s office, recognizing that he
doesn’t/shouldn’t have that much involvement with them work-wise. The HR generalist mentioned
many occasions when Complainant would stop in for 45 minutes and up, the Deputy Administrator
mentioned meetings and one in particular that lasted 3 hours. Nameniuk mentioned this to
Complainant on 2/6/24, trying to explain that even if he comes in early, leaves late and skips his
lunch to justify the time he is spending visiting in other’s offices, those people have work to do and
didn’t plan for him to pop in for 45+ minutes. Now their work is behind and suffering, and that yes,
it’s important to have work relationships, but within reason. Again, Complainant grew very agitated,
red in the face and his mannerisms quickly changed.
Page | 41
 Nameniuk doesn’t believe she said he had mean spirited meetings. She observed his body language
change very quickly in different meetings and that was concerning to her. From straight faced and
calm to almost in tears and then upset and angry looking. He wasn’t raising his voice but emotions
clearly displayed on his face and body language within seconds. These were warning signs they were
taught to look out for – intimidating/bullying behavior, discourteous/disrespectful, visibly changing
body posture and disposition, carrying around his resignation letter, carrying out his personal
belongings from his office day after day in front of other staff. She believes he was creating a hostile
work environment and retaliating because he didn’t get his way with the requests for promotion and
restructure he proposed.

As for Complainant’s mention of slander and belief that his colleagues who were not involved in the
police incident would disagree with Nameniuk’s portrayal of him: Nameniuk feels Complainant got
others involved. He has met privately with them to show them videos. She feels Complainant
created a hostile environment with his disrespectful comments and behaviors leading up to 2/16
that made them uneasy. She feels he is attempting to sabotage their reputations when their
concerns were always about safety of employees and themselves.

As for her telling dispatch Complainant had “gone rogue,” from what she knew at the moment and
what had led up to that moment, that is what she felt. He was parading around the halls, taking his
personal belongings out to his car day after day, having closed door meetings with other employees,
making requests and guarantees from his supervisor, carrying around a resignation letter, having
explosive type behaviors, mentioning a job offer, leaving personal belongings including 2
prescription medications that are a controlled substance and another unidentified prescription that
was already run over and unidentifiable -- yes, they had good reason to be concerned for safety. He
was very unpredictable up to that point.

Nameniuk denies she “freely shared extreme concerns with other employees” – she shared
information with law enforcement to help them do their job appropriately. Conversations remained
with HR, Administration, and the DPD. Complainant, though, shared information with multiple
employees.

Ultimately, she, Dassinger, and Beck had a responsibility to take the potential threat that occurred
on 2/16/24 seriously and respond appropriately, even if there was no concrete evidence at that
moment. Once the video footage was reviewed and his story corroborated with the video,
Complainant was called and told that was the case. He was paid for the day, told him his access
was turned back on and he was able to return to the building as usual. He chose to not come back
to work and consequently Monday was a paid holiday and he had already requested Tuesday and
Wednesday off work. Dassinger told him they would chat on Thursday. Nameniuk got a phone call
from Complainant on Wednesday, 2/21/24, to call him back. Nameniuk asked the Deputy
Admininstrator to sit in on that call and summarized the conversation in a 2/21/24 email to
Dassinger right after (e-mail included elsewhere in this report). Complainant came to work on
Thursday. Nameniuk went to his office to tell him that Dassinger may or may not be in today but we
were not planning to meet, would let it settle until Monday. Nameniuk understood a meeting was
attempted with Complainant, but he declined to meet.

Most Relevant Information from Complainant’s Personnel File / Job Description:

The Planner position summary reads:

Page | 42
 This position is responsible for participating in the development and administration of development
plans, ordinances, and policies relating to the maintenance and enhancement of the physical and
social development effects of the City, including coordinating the City’s current and long-range
planning functions, land use management, zoning and development review. Work is performed
under the general direction of the Engineer-Community Development Director.

The job description lists essential duties, including among other things that the Planner:

Serves as a liaison to other City departments, governmental agencies and boards to coordinate
efforts, share resources and discuss relevant issues. Maintains relationships with community
organizations, contractors, developers and citizens to exchange information and serve as a
resource regarding department programs, policies, and procedures.

Represents the Department and other entities as assigned at City Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and other meetings to present plans, and to discuss and advise on the development
and implementation of plans and programs. Prepares reports pertaining to development activities,
direction, accomplishments and compliance with rules/regulations.
…
Performs other duties of a similar nature or level as assigned.

Under a “Judgement/Decision Making” heading it includes statements that “End results are reviewed
by supervisor” and “Strategic issues are referred to supervisor,” among other statements. Under a
“Relations to Others” heading, it includes statements that the “incumbent is cooperative and
collaborative” and “[o]ffers suggestions to improve the activities of the department and the operation
of the City in general,” among other statements.

Complainant’s Goals for the Planning Department Documentation:

An 11-page document provided by Complainant to Dassinger in October 2023 titled “Goals for Planning
Department”, Complainant included the following (among other) language:

While I am currently under the supervision of Community Development, planning is indeed a

department of its own. This distinction is important. It creates the separation between planning,
buildings, and engineering work. […] If all are rolled up into "Community Development Department,"
then a conflicting entanglement is created in our organization in which the City Engineer has
relatively massive and direct control over the daily work of disciplines which are not taught through
the engineering background. If that management were carried out by someone with a perfectly
fitting background, I would feel more assured. However, I am not convinced such a person even
exists. With appreciation of the reality that our current hierarchical structure will be somewhat
inflexible for a while, I have spent some time considering adjustments which can lead to improved
harmony without, proverbially, upsetting the apple cart.

I would like to request these measures to be put in place to assure that Planning work can be built
out, performed well, and performed with ethical and managerial oversight but with topical
independence.

o Assurance that the application submittal process will be followed without deviance. […]

Page | 43
 o Access to more information and communications. No individual on the executive team is
currently providing a thorough or regular snapshot of all the information I need in order to
perform high-quality development studies or to propose ordinance amendments. I need to
have a meeting on a regular basis to run through the latest economic, development, and
political updates. […] I witness decisions made which completely lack planning input. Input
which planning departments are quite literally created to provide. […]
o Eventual budgetary increase. I will see how much I can do on my own but if you refer to the
first flow chart, you might find it easy to imagine that all of the planning work for a city takes
a team. […] Additional staff could assist primarily with case management, field inspections,
field work study, overlay district requirements review. For now, I would like an
acknowledgement of this need and future conversations for the 2025 or 2026 budget.
o On that note, it's important that as City Planner, I can at a bare minimum have a
conversation regarding the planning budget in the future. […]
I am also requesting an increase to paygrade 19 from 16. Please consider the following reasons:
o [Describes educational background and its rareness.] [My] job description demands
commensurate compensation. […]
o I currently perform the work of multiple staff members. If I'm relieved by future staffing, I
would continue to justify this increase due to a transition to supervisory work as well.
o I am good at my job. […]
o Everything included in this memo suggests that I am currently acting as Principal Planner /
Planning Manager. […]
o The position of a project engineer has been approved at paygrade 18. The position, as
posted, requests entry level experience and a bachelor's degree. Considering my current
workload, capabilities, and education, and the relative difficulty of filling a planning position
compared to engineering creates a compelling case for an increase.
o Considering the composite between responsibilities, education, workload, and
coordination, my equal counterparts are the Building Official and City Engineer
(hypothetically). These positions are referenced directly by the municipal code as being
responsible phase-gates of development applications and review process. The most
noticeable difference between these three positions is that the city planner is typically
required to possess a master's degree.

To summarize,

I would like to guarantee that with improved autonomy, improved coordination/communication,

and compensation commensurate to my capabilities and quality of work, that I will commit fully to
this role in service to the Dickinson community. It is my earnest hope that none of what I share will
be perceived negatively or disparagingly to the organization or to my supervisor specifically. Thank
you for your willingness to discuss this. I truly appreciate the kind words you've spared and all of the
cooperation and active collaboration I enjoy with my colleagues.

[Attachments to the document include Complainant’s ideas for an updated organizational chart,
and Community Development/Planning Director and Principal Planner job descriptions.]

Complainant provided a slimmed down version of the document called “Planning department” at the
January 26, 2024, meeting he had with his direct supervisor and Dassinger. Summarized, he explains
that the Planning Department would:

- Receive an efficient flow of information regarding various (listed) matters;

Page | 44
- Provide reports to varied groups (executive/development/civic groups/commission/conferences)
on certain analyses;
- Projects require planning review of CIP projects at outset/conceptual phase/architectural
review/site plan review;
- Have a say regarding the budget book, administers its own budget, and seeks approval only when
needing to request an exceedance;
- Must grow eventually and should have 2-3 full time planners;
- Would eventually gain representation on the executive team, with possible solutions of his direct
supervisor training on planning knowledge and discussing theoretical concepts with planning staff,
or the planning department being separated from Engineering gaining a field-specific manager who
joins the executive team;
- Coordinate with individual who is conducting grants research and applications.

The slimmed-down version of the document from Complainant ends with:

MY CAREER
Despite advocating for planning to be on the executive team, I have no desire for that at this
moment. I prefer focusing on improving the planning department, acquiring local knowledge,
improving soft and hard skills, and compiling local research for eventual long-range planning work.
However, within five years I would like a re-classification to Planning Manager. I would like an
appropriate pay grade to reflect my responsibilities. The "Planner" title can apply to most positions
within the planning career. Therefore, it's possible to mistakenly assign a salary according to the
position title rather than the job duties. I currently perform the functions of a Current Planning
Manager.

I understand that my request may be difficult to fulfill. As a compromise, I would like a guarantee
for an achievable to Senior Planner within 3 years. I would then still appreciate the option for the
department to grow into multiple divisions of planning and, when I'm ready, to manage the
department and staff that I've designed. I hope that I will continue to build your trust in my
judgments regarding development, planning, governance, and management.

Despite achievables or future re-classing, I would like to request an increase from paygrade 16, in
consideration of my points regarding the Planner title versus responsibilities.

I'd also like for us to agree to a road map to get from where we are today, to what the planning
department could be. I would like to receive defensible feedback regarding the limitations of a 5
year plan and your perspectives regarding the designs I've outlined in this memo.

Determinations
The following determinations are made considering the information learned as summarized above. A
preponderance of the evidence standard is used when determining whether an allegation can be
substantiated, in other words, is it more likely true than not true that the conduct as alleged and/or a
policy violation occurred.

General Opinion Regarding February 16:

To preface the rest of the determinations, this investigator took into consideration information from
several individuals that February 16th was the first time City Hall has had to respond to what they

Page | 45
believed was an employee-related emergency such as this, and that it was a quickly evolving matter
with many unknowns at first. Also, this investigator’s position is that it is difficult to critique a situation
such as the early morning events on February 16, under the notion that hindsight is 20/20 and those
acting in the moment did not have the benefit of the knowledge they later came to obtain. For example,
it is clear from Dassinger’s interview, which is supported by the officer’s body cam, that Dassinger
understood at first that Complainant had engaged in the alleged tossing of his personal belongings in
the lot that very morning, and that Beck had witnessed it. This understanding stemmed from the Deputy
Administrator’s text to Dassinger stating Complainant had “gone rogue,” and lack of clarity from Beck
initially that he had found the items but had no idea when or how they got there. Once the latter was
cleared up with Dassinger, he understood the importance of viewing video footage and took the step to
do so.

The initial information shared among Beck, the Deputy Administrator, and Nameniuk may have caused
each some confusion or additional concern than they may have had on their own. Nameniuk’s concern
in her voice, for example, led Beck to have more concerns. Their varying comments and actions appear
to have gotten the ball rolling very fast – a ball that Dassinger told this investigator he thought was
moving too fast and he attempted to slow down. This investigator does opine that Complainant should
have simply been called that morning, and the lack of a phone call made directly to him is perplexing.
However, Beck’s, the Deputy Administrator’s, and Nameniuk’s conduct of reporting their concerns was
not contrary to language in the Code at 2.10.2 related to Reporting Violent (potentially dangerous)
Situations, considering what they believed to be of concern at the time, which related to their
perceptions of matters that had occurred over time involving Complainant – perceptions this
investigator cannot find were unreasonable.

Alleged Conduct by Dassinger:

- This investigator cannot substantiate that Dassinger directed law enforcement to be called on
February 16, 2024. The decision to call law enforcement was made between the Deputy City
Administrator and Nameniuk.
- This investigator can substantiate that Dassinger made comments to DPD that Complainant was
unstable and that he “could do something to” Dassinger and the direct supervisor (though “make
an attempt on a life” cannot be substantiated), and that Dassinger responded to an officer who
wondered if there was another explanation for the items in the lot along the lines of, “Normally I’d
go along with you if this were an isolated incident, but he may be bipolar” and that “red flags” had
been exhibited by Complainant. This is evidenced by body cam footage. However, this investigator
cannot substantiate that Dassinger’s sharing of those opinions amounted to dishonesty,
recklessness, or other unreasonable behavior. Based on Dassinger’s experience with
Complainant in multiple prior meetings that totaled several hours, and based on Dassinger’s
perception of what he considered odd behavior by Complainant (e.g., Complainant entering
Dassinger’s closed office without knocking, Complainant making repeated requests and demands
for workplace/organizational changes so early in his employment despite much discussion, etc.),
his decision to provide some context – from his perspective – to law enforcement during a rapidly
evolving situation was not unreasonable. Dassinger was attempting to explain to law enforcement
why the situation was alarming from his perspective.
- It can be substantiated that Dassinger deactivated Complainant’s badge, asked him to wait outside
the building and across the street when Complainant arrived for work, and placed Complainant on
paid administrative leave for about three hours on February 16, 2024. Dassinger admits this and it
Page | 46
 is on the body cam footage. In light of what Beck, Nameniuk, and the Deputy City Administrator had
shared with Dassinger that morning, the unknowns in the moment, and due to the time it was taking
for video footage to be reviewed, this investigator does not substantiate that this conduct was
unreasonable under the circumstances. The Municipal Code allows for paid administrative leave
at a Department Head’s discretion. Paid administrative leave is typically not intended as a punitive
measure, but a measure taken to protect personnel and property, including the person who is under
investigation. As soon as video footage could, to some extent, confirm Complainant’s version of the
events with the box of personal items, Dassinger took immediate action to call Complainant and
tell him the same, end the paid administrative leave, but allow him to take the rest of the day off,
paid. This was reasonable given what he knew at the time.
- It can also be substantiated that Dassinger, in front of DPD personnel, discussed with Complainant
how he was doing, that they had previously discussed Dassinger’s concerns about Complainant’s
well-being, that there are resources out there, and Complainant can find help. This was captured
on the body cam footage.
o This investigator cannot substantiate that having a conversation regarding concerns about
what they had found was inappropriate, especially considering Dassinger’s perceptions that
Complainant had been up and down, was unhappy with aspects of his work, and had engaged
in the behavior Dassinger considered odd, and because, in this investigator’s opinion,
Complainant’s January 26, 2024, e-mail to Dassinger did not read as a request for Dassinger to
not discuss Complainant’s mental health.
o However, this investigator does substantiate that aspects of this conversation were
inappropriate. At the time Dassinger and Complainant were talking in the lot, Complainant was
not posing a threat to anyone or anything, was acting reasonably and calmly under the
circumstances, and was clearly confused as to what was going on.

: the Code states,

“When an employee’s job performance is determined to be unsatisfactory as a result of
personal difficulties caused by on or off the job circumstances, the employee’ s supervisor has
the option of encouraging the use of the EAP.” Dassinger had previously had opinions about the
lengthy meetings with Complainant, certain comments made by Complainant in those
meetings, and other conduct by Complainant Dassinger found odd, but there had been no
discussion with Complainant about unsatisfactory performance. And at the time of their
conversation on the morning of February 16, Dassinger did not yet know if Complainant had
engaged in any inappropriate behavior related to the personal items left in the lot. Dassinger
was explaining they still needed to review video to find out what had occurred.
o Additionally, and perhaps most concerning to this investigator, is that the conversation
took place in the presence of multiple DPD officers. At the time of the conversation, any fear
or concern surrounding Complainant’s risk level to himself or others would have been largely
dissolved based on Complainant’s typical arrival to work, calm demeanor, and explanation of
what he believed happened with the box. Prior to heading outside, Dassinger and an officer
discussed that so far nothing criminal had been reported. Law enforcement presence for a
discussion about getting help, past concerns about Complainant’s well-being, and whether he
was taking his medication was not reasonably necessary at that point in the chain of events, and

Page | 47
 this occurring could reasonably cause a reasonable person a great deal of embarrassment or
other have other negative impact. It would have been more appropriate to have the discussion
in private.
- The weight of the evidence does not support the allegation that Dassinger took the above
actions in retaliation for Complainant previously bringing up concerns about the ethics of his
direct supervisor’s conduct. Much discussion had occurred between Dassinger and Complainant
beyond the topic of ethics concerns that had caused frustration, other conduct Dassinger
reasonably deemed odd had been engaged in by Complainant, and, Dassinger had been given
information by Beck, Nameniuk, and the Deputy City Administrator the morning of February 16,
2024, that led him to believe some immediate threat could exist. As Dassinger learned more while
the morning’s events unfolded, he took steps to explain the same to Complainant, still give him the
rest of the day off, and Dassinger later did nothing further in the form of discipline or punitive
measures. In other words, once this situation was figured out, Complainant was to be back to work
with no adverse employment action taken.
- This investigator also cannot substantiate that Dassinger failed to attempt to discuss the
situation with Complainant after-the-fact. Dassinger made the call to Complainant later in the
morning on February 16, 2024, explaining the video confirmed Complainant’s position and his
ability to take the day off. This was a Friday, City Hall was closed the following Monday for a holiday,
and Complainant had previously scheduled to be out Tuesday and Wednesday. Complainant came
to work on Thursday. In reaction to Complainant’s e-mails between Saturday, February 17 – Friday,
February 23, Dassinger sent a meeting request to Complainant on Sunday, February 25, which
Complainant declined. While Complainant opines it was unreasonable to expect him to meet alone
in an office with Dassinger or those involved with the incident on February 16, Complainant declined
the meeting explaining his desire to have communication in writing. He did not request to meet by
phone or virtual means, or to bring support to the meeting; his request was specifically for written
communication. Additionally, Complainant had previously told Nameniuk over a call on February
21 that he would not meet alone with Dassinger and his direct supervisor without someone else
present (see Nameniuk 2/21/24 email to Dassinger); the Deputy City Administrator was also invited
to the meeting Dassinger offered and Complainant declined.
o And while Complainant opines that a discussion on the topic of his request to work from home
would not have been sufficient, this investigator finds it reasonable to assume that the
conversation could have and likely would have addressed the topics related to his request to
work from home, e.g., why he felt unsafe in the working environment. By not accepting a meeting
with Dassinger and requesting only written correspondence, Complainant impeded the
opportunity for the very discussion that he was requesting.
o Complainant informed this investigator that he would not have only accepted a written apology,
but his e-mails stated he wanted an apology in writing, he told Nameniuk he was requiring an
apology in writing, and his declination of an in-person meeting and written response further
support that notion, and at least support Dassinger’s and others’ understandings that
Complainant would only accept something in writing.
o This investigator finds it reasonable that Dassinger wanted a discussion before agreeing to the
work-from-request. There was no City policy applicable to remote work. More broadly,
employees do not dictate their working arrangements, employers do, and while Complainant
understandably felt quite uncomfortable at work during this time, Dassinger made a reasonable

Page | 48
 and timely attempt to discuss the topic with Complainant, and what all might have been
discussed had a meeting been agreed to is left to the imagination.

Alleged Conduct by Nameniuk:

- This investigator cannot substantiate that Nameniuk made reckless, fabricated, or misleading
comments to DPD personnel on February 16, 2024, or actively encouraged others into an “absurd
downward spiral of horrendous accusations.” Nameniuk was asked to provide background
information to DPD personnel so DPD had context for understanding their involvement, and she
shared her opinions and perceptions stemming from her own experiences and what she had heard
from others.
o Nameniuk’s comments about Complainant’s prior comments related to his probationary period
were similar to what the HR witness reported to this investigator, and there is e-mail evidence of
a colleague of Complainant’s having also e-mailed about Complainant’s probationary period.
o While hearing that Nameniuk described complainant as having a Jekyll and Hyde personality
would understandably be hard for Complainant to hear, this was a personal opinion being
provided, that in Nameniuk’s perception, was accurate.
o Nameniuk did not say on the recording that Complainant demanded lengthy meetings with his
supervisors and HR, though she did describe that Complainant complained about his
supervisor and they would then meet for hours. While it is clear Complainant did not request all
of the meetings that occurred, this investigator can substantiate that Complainant met with his
direct supervisor a great deal over time, and that the later, lengthy meetings Dassinger
scheduled with him stemmed from Complainant’s own requests and demands, and Dassinger’s
desire to clear things up. In other words, but for Complainant’s complaints, requests, and
demands, those meetings would not have occurred. Complainant’s opinion on why the
meetings were lengthy differed from the opinions of all others who commented on the length of
meetings.
o Nameniuk, in this investigator’s opinion, accurately described that Complainant demanded
things such as a promotion, an assistant, and to be on the executive team. While Complainant
maintains he did not, his 11-page document issued to Dassinger in October 2023 reads
otherwise. The slimmed down version he provided on January 26 reads more as a request for
future changes, but still included that he wanted changes within 3 or 5 years and used language
such as wanting “a guarantee” and for them to “agree to a road map to get from where we are
today, to what the planning department could be.” The direct supervisor, Nameniuk, and
Dassinger had similar accounts of Complainants verbalized requests in the lengthy meetings;
the Deputy City Administrator had heard his requests during her own one-on-one meeting with
him and suggested he back off; the HR witness similarly suggested he slow down; and even a
friend to Complainant had suggested to him he was moving too fast. Complainant
acknowledged to this investigator that he wanted something in writing to assure future changes.
Describing these as “demands” was not misleading.
o Nameniuk reported Complainant had spent hours in other peoples’ offices including three hours
in the Deputy City Administrator’s office, and this investigator does find it more likely true than
not true that Complainant did so. The Deputy Administrator reported the 3-hour meeting
occurred, while Complainant believed it was 45 minutes. Evidence favoring the Deputy
Administrator’s account is that she had shared, with Nameniuk at least, and prior to this
investigation, that the 3-hour meeting had occurred. Multiple witnesses did report that

Page | 49
 Complainant would meet in others’ offices over his time there, as well, some saying it was all
legitimate and work-related, others saying he could get chit-chatty or distracted.
o The audio recording does not substantiate that Nameniuk said Complainant sometimes had
mean-spirited meetings, though she did describe that he could get mad and frustrated, and
really up and down.
- That Nameniuk told City dispatch that Complainant had “gone rogue” and the felt “something is
going to happen” can only be substantiated as false using 20/20 hindsight. Based on the
circumstances leading up to February 16, and what Beck reported that morning, this investigator
cannot substantiate that Nameniuk lied or attempted to mislead law enforcement, but instead, that
she did have grounds to be concerned based on what she knew in the moment and her perceptions
surrounding prior behavior by Complainant. When she made the call to dispatch, she said someone
“may have gone rogue.” (emphasis added).
- That Nameniuk freely shared extreme concerns about Complainant with other employees
cannot be substantiated, to the extent the allegation concerns employees outside of HR and the
two City Administrators, who as referenced earlier, are appropriate individuals to be involved in a
risk-related situation. One City witness reported that Beck and Nameniuk were running around the
morning of February 16 saying someone had a mental breakdown, but Nameniuk denies saying it
and all other witnesses who heard it, said they heard it from someone other than Nameniuk.
- The weight of the evidence also does not support the allegation that Nameniuk took the above
actions in retaliation for Complainant previously bringing up concerns about the ethics of his
direct supervisor’s conduct. Complainant did share these concerns with Nameniuk approximately
a week earlier, but Nameniuk herself was not sure who may have been correct in the situation. It is
more likely true than not true that her conduct on February 16 stemmed from her perceptions of the
other interactions she had with Complainant, what she had heard from others about his interactions
with them, and her observations of what she considered to be odd conduct (e.g., taking boxes of
personal items out to his car, lingering in hallways, rolling his eyes in frustration at his direct
supervisor).
- Nameniuk admits was asked by Complainant on February 6 to put an end to discussions about
Complainant’s mental health. Nameniuk stated she did not have an opportunity to inform Dassinger
of this request prior to the February 7 meeting when Dassinger made mention of Complainant’s well-
being. During the February 7 meeting, Nameniuk agreed with Dassinger’s assessment that
Complainant seemed emotional, even angry. Nameniuk was not privy to the conversation between
Dassinger and Complainant in the parking lot and had no control over it. Ultimately, this investigator
cannot substantiate wrongdoing by Nameniuk in this regard.

Alleged Conduct by Beck:

- It is substantiated that Beck photographed Complainant’s prescription medications – along with

the other personal items found in the parking lot – and shared the photographs in a group text with
Dassinger and the Deputy City Administrator. The text messages exist, and Beck admitted to this.
This investigator does not substantiate that this conduct was inappropriate or a violation of
confidentiality. The intent was to document what was found, in part because Beck did not want
anyone to believe he obtained them from some other unauthorized means since they contained
controlled substances. The Municipal Code provides that any potentially dangerous situation must
be immediately reported to a supervisor or HR and those situations warranting confidentiality are to
be disclosed only to others on a need-to-know basis. Beck shared the photographs with only the

Page | 50
 City and Deputy City Administrators; he otherwise shared information regarding their existence to
only law enforcement and HR.
o This investigator is not making legal conclusions under federal or state law, but for the reader’s
consideration, the following is shared for context: When analyzing the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act, court opinions have explained that employers have a duty to keep confidential
any medical or health information the employer has received from an employee in response to
the employer’s medical inquiries. Medical information an employer might receive otherwise is
not required to be kept confidential. See, e.g., Taylor v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276 (5th Cir.
2015); EEOC v. Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans, 700 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir. 2012). Beck did not come to
have knowledge of Complainant being on prescription medication due to any City medical
inquiry made to Complainant, but instead, because the prescription medication was left and
then found by Beck in the parking lot. Even medical or health information that an employer
receives in response to a medical inquiry, which the employer is obligated to keep confidential,
still may be shared with those who need to know.

Under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, medical history obtained by an employer stemming
from an employer-required physical examination or from the employer’s investigation into a
person’s medical history for determining their capability to perform the job, must be kept
confidential. See N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-10. Under the state ‘s Duties, Records, and Meetings
chapter applicable to public entities, any “record” of a public employee's medical treatment or
use of an employee assistance program is not to become part of that employee's personnel
record and is confidential and, except as otherwise authorized by law, may not be used or
disclosed without the written authorization of the employee. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.1(1). "Record"
in that chapter means recorded information of any kind, regardless of the physical form or
characteristic by which the information is stored, recorded, or reproduced, which is in the
possession or custody of a public entity or its agent and which has been received or prepared
for use in connection with public business or contains information relating to public business.
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1. Again, the prescription bottles or information related to their existence
was not received by or prepared for use by the accused for any public business, but instead
came to their attention by way of Complainant leaving them in the parking lot. As a result, they
likely do not constitute a “record of medical treatment.” Even if they did, Beck only shared
information of their existence with the two City Administrators, HR, and law enforcement. Also
worth noting, and also in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.1, is the following language:

2. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, personal information regarding a public

employee contained in an employee’s personnel record or given to the state or a political
subdivision by the employee in the course of employment is exempt. As used in this section,
“personal information” means a person’s month and day of birth; home address; home
telephone number or personal cell phone number; photograph; medical information; motor
vehicle operator’s identification number; public employee identification number; payroll
deduction information; the name, address, telephone number, and date of birth of any
dependent or emergency contact; any credit, debit, or electronic fund transfer card number;
and any account number at a bank or other financial institution.

Again, Complainant did not give information related to any medical condition or medication use
to the accused, but even in such circumstances, the information is exempt, not confidential.

Page | 51
 Exempt records are those that the public entity has discretion to disclose, compared to
confidential records which must be protected.

- Regarding the allegation that Beck arranged Complainant’s belongings along the downstairs break
area counter, this investigator can only substantiate that Complainant’s coffee mugs found in the
parking lot were brought by Beck into the break area – not his prescription bottles. No one reported
seeing anything else. This investigator cannot substantiate that this was inappropriate conduct.
- This investigator can substantiate that Beck explained to DPD officers and Dassinger that
Complainant’s personal items were found in the parking lot because Complainant must have
thrown them around, and that he did so before checking camera footage, despite Beck not having
working experience with Complainant and nothing of concern being in Complainant’s HR file. While
reasonable minds can interpret this as an unfair rush to judgment when other explanations existed,
reasonable minds can also interpret this as fair when understanding Beck had heard concerns
about Complainant from others previously, heard concern in Nameniuk’s voice that morning, and
was not basing his concern only on his own interactions with Complainant. Based on the weight of
the evidence, this investigator cannot substantiate that his sharing of his perception as to what
happened – with only HR, the Administrators, and law enforcement – was inappropriate.
- This investigator does find concerning that multiple witnesses reported that Beck said, when
walking the halls the morning of February 16, that someone had a mental breakdown. The body cam
does not capture Beck telling staff someone had a mental breakdown or anything similar, but the
officer was not with Beck the entire time. Beck denies that he used that language with anyone.
However, that multiple witnesses in separate locations heard it, leads this investigator to
substantiate based on the weight of the evidence that it more than likely occurred. Importantly,
it cannot be substantiated that Beck himself identified Complainant as the individual. It was quite
easy for other staff to quickly learn or figure out that Complainant was the subject of concern.
o That Beck did not take action to later correct that comment with staff after learning
otherwise is concerning. Consideration can be made for Beck’s position that he did not or does
not recall using that language. If Beck did know there was a correction that was appropriate, and
he did not feel he was the proper individual to further discuss the matter with staff, it would have
been appropriate for him to request it of Dassinger or HR.

Broader Allegation of “Other Harassment”:

Ultimately, this investigator does determine that Dassinger, Nameniuk, and Beck engaged in “other
harassment” as defined in the Code, considering its broad definition and the definition’s reliance
on the employee’s (here, the Complainant’s) subjective opinions. Complainant especially
considered the conduct on February 16, 2024, to be unwelcome and personally offensive, and to have
undermined the integrity of the employment relationship. Separate from Complainant’s subjective
opinions, this investigator’s determinations regarding Dassinger’s conversation with Complainant in
front of DPD personnel and the later failure by the accused to correct misperceptions with staff,
otherwise lead this investigator to determine that certain conduct was demeaning and did undermine
the integrity of the employment relationship from a reasonable person standpoint.

The Code, though, does state that “in the event of a conflict between this ordinance, (also referred to
as the manual, or personnel manual) and any state or federal law, the terms and conditions of such law
shall prevail.” This investigator would not be able to substantiate violations of “harassment” under
state or federal law, considering the legal definitions of employment-related harassment found in the

Page | 52
North Dakota Human Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These laws generally define
harassment as unwelcome conduct based on a protected status, such as race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, older age, disability, etc. The Complainant did not allege the conduct was based on any
protected status of his.

Alleged Continued Narrative that Complainant had Mental Breakdown:

This investigator cannot substantiate that the accused individuals, or anyone on the Executive
Team, continued to share a narrative that Complainant had experienced a mental breakdown,
psychotic break, or anything similar. The accused each denied this. The County planner and two
individuals named by Complainant within the Fire Department all reported not hearing anything about
the incident from any of the accused or Complainant’s then-direct supervisor.

Complainant used the word “defamation” with this investigator. This investigator has no authority to
determine whether state law was violated, but for the reader’s information, the North Dakota Century
Code defines both criminal and civil defamation in Chapters 12.1-15 and 14-02, respectively. This
investigator does not analyze the statutes further since this investigator cannot substantiate that the
accused furthered any narrative about the event or Complainant afterward. If Complainant is alleging
that the statements made by the accused to law enforcement were defamatory, see Richmond v.
Nodland, 552 N.W.2d 586 (ND 1996), which explains the existence of at least a qualified privilege for
communications between citizens and law enforcement under N.D.C.C. Ch. 14-02. Even when
statements to law enforcement are defamatory (as defined in law), a qualified privilege is only abused
if the “statements are made with actual malice, without reasonable grounds for believing them to be
true, and on a subject matter irrelevant to the common interest or duty.” Id. Actual malice depends on
scienter and requires proof that a statement was made with malice in fact, ill-will, or wrongful motive,
with the burden being on the plaintiff. Under Ch. 12.1-15, criminal defamation also has elements of
actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth and similarly has protections for privileged
communications.

Allegation Complainant was Forced or Encouraged to Leave:

This investigator does determine that further attempts to repair the reputational and personal
impact the incident of February 16, 2024, reasonably had on Complainant should have occurred.
Though this investigator has not determined that the involvement of law enforcement was inappropriate
based on what was known at the time, the accused did have reason to know that several other
employees in City Hall that morning knew something serious was going on, some saw Complainant
being questioned outside the building, and it was apparent to many – at some point in time – that the
law enforcement presence and commotion was related to Complainant. While some may have come
to learn this through Complainant himself, others knew by way of the accused’s actions and by what
staff personally witnessed that morning.

Once the video footage was reviewed and it was determined that Complainant’s story checked out, it
would have been reasonable for staff – especially those employees who were directly addressed that
morning while matters unfolded – to learn from upper management that it had been a false alarm or
there was no threat, or language to that effect. Doing so, even if vaguely and without identifying
Complainant, would have eased staff’s concerns about their own safety but would have also cleared
up any misconceptions staff had about what Complainant may have done. It would have gone a long

Page | 53
way in Complainant feeling comfortable being back at work. Indeed, Complainant made clear he had
large concerns being back at City Hall.

Again, finding that the law enforcement presence and investigation that morning was not inappropriate
itself, it is still quite understandable that being questioned by police upon arrival to work, talked to about
getting help and whether he had taken his medication in front of DPD personnel, and being placed on
administrative leave was troubling for Complainant. This investigator feels especially that Dassinger
should have done more to repair the situation, considering what was stated in the presence of law
enforcement. That aspect of the situation, at least, deserved more acknowledgment than the call that
was made to tell him his story checked out and he could come back to work and the one attempt to
schedule a meeting with Complainant. It must be considered, though, that what might have been
shared during that meeting had Complainant agreed to attend, is unknown.

Additionally, this investigator finds reasonable that some considered Complainant’s e-mails after
February 16 to be problematic. Complainant’s e-mail comments to the City Attorney and his supervisor,
e.g., on February 17 when he requested a written apology and explanation, included, “I don’t need to go
back to the building again until these requests are generally fulfilled” and, “Please seek appropriate
accommodations if you wish for me to continue working from home… I will resume normal work as soon
as this is amicably resolved.” These were not framed as requests from an employee to a supervisor,
which would have been appropriate. Complainant was still expected to follow attendance policies. That
his requests were not promptly approved without discussion, this investigator deems reasonable.

Despite the foregoing opinions and despite this investigator’s empathetic feelings regarding the impact
the event on February 16th had on Complainant, this investigator cannot substantiate that any
accused individual acted in a manner with intent to force or encourage Complainant to leave
employment. Additionally, as far back as October 2023, Complainant had been concerned the position
was not a good fit for him and he had already considered, and multiple witnesses reported knowing,
that he had been looking for other jobs, including applying for at least one. The day before the lengthy
February 7 meeting, he had a resignation in hand and discussed it with Nameniuk. Complainant told
law enforcement upon his arrival on February 16 that he was possibly going to resign soon – before
Dassinger engaged with him and before he learned what he did through his open records request.
Complainant told this investigator his thoughts of resigning stemmed at least in part from
Complainant’s position that there was an inability to have robust conversations with his direct
supervisor, and Complainant’s opinion that the individual was not a proper person to supervise
Complainant. While the February 16th incident and later communication issues no doubt added to
Complainant’s opinion on the role not being a good fit, no evidence supports any intent on the part of
the accused to push him out.

Recommendations:
As indicated above, based on the Code’s definition of Other Harassment, it was substantiated. This
investigator does not opine that disciplinary action is appropriate for Beck’s or Nameniuk’s conduct.
While they could have handled things better on February 16, and both conceded this, neither’s conduct
was so unreasonable as to warrant discipline.

Regarding the determinations that Dassinger more likely than not conducted himself inappropriately
while chatting with Complainant in the parking lot in the presence of law enforcement, and that more

Page | 54
should have been done to repair the situation with Complainant afterward under Dassinger’s
leadership, this investigator opines that a written warning or reprimand would be appropriate.

Complainant desired an apology initially, but did not request this in his communications with this
investigator; it is not clear whether any personal repair between the parties is desired or appropriate at
this time. Complainant now lives out of state.

This investigator does not recommend payment to Complainant as he requested for moving expenses,
based on the determinations and Complainant’s explanations he already intended to leave. Great effort
was taken to explain positions related to his work-related concerns and requests over time, and while
Complainant did not like what he was hearing, it was ultimately for his supervisors to decide and for
Complainant to determine if he desired to continue working in the position in light of those decisions.

As for payment to Complainant for him to seek therapy for the impact the events had on him, this
investigator would find reasonable an offer to cover 2-3 therapy sessions, related to the impact the DPD
presence and Dassinger’s discussion with Complainant in DPD presence had on him – and especially
considering the lack of attention to repair matters with him or other staff afterward. It is understandable
that Complainant later desired to and did meet with colleagues to discuss the incident, in hopes to clear
the misconception that he had a mental breakdown. Whether an offer is made is for the City to decide.

Beyond the recommendations specific to the parties, the following recommendations are also made:

- Article 29.08 of the Personnel Chapter (29) of the Municipal Code should be reviewed and updated
as appropriate. Certain provisions conflict with others, and it is not clear what process is to be used
for investigating differing types of complaints. The use of the word “appeal” in the Grievance and
Appeal Procedure is confusing to the reader and could be clarified; in some situations, an appeal of
a disciplinary decision is being made, while in others, appeal is synonymous with a more general
grievance. The City Attorney, Human Resources Department, and/or outside legal counsel may be
best suited for bringing recommended changes forward. It may be the case that an Employee
Handbook separated from the Municipal Code would be more effective.
o City staff, including the Human Resources Department, should then receive training on any
updated Handbook/Personnel Chapter language.
- The Human Resources Department should welcome and not feel discouraged by concerns or
complaints being made under the Personnel Chapter/Employee Handbook. During interviews,
some personnel seemed to be critical of employees who had previously brought complaints or
encouraged others to bring complaints. Grievance procedures exist for the benefit of both
complaining staff and accused staff, and for the overall purpose of ensuring a safe and comfortable
working environment. That people desire to use the procedures available to them should not be
viewed as negative. Retaliation complaints could arise if employees believe complaining is used
against them.
- A more streamlined process should be implemented for addressing emergency situations,
including when and how to notify City staff of actions to take or not take, when appropriate. The
situation on February 16, 2024, led multiple staff members to be concerned for their own well-being,
due to the bits of communication they received with no later follow-up. While the City recently had
active shooter training, additional types of training may be beneficial in the area of risk management
and response.

Page | 55
- Not detailed in this report, but expressed by several employees, is a concern regarding the level of
trust City employees have in leadership, especially HR. Multiple employees do not feel comfortable
going to HR with various matters. Feel Good Fridays already occurs, and perhaps other types of
relationship building could be attempted to improve the trust or working environment.

________________________________________________

This ends the Report and this investigator’s role in the matter.

Page | 56