Reducing the risk of litigation

In the early days of the Copeland council we heard a lot about their goal of "reducing the risk of litigation". Elizabeth Mohr and Julie Forster review the Copeland council's latest attempt at that goal in Sunday's Pioneer Press: Maplewood / Welcome to Maplewood. Don't dis the management.

When the former city manager of Maplewood was hired, he wanted to be sure he wasn't bad-mouthed on his way out. It was laid out in his original employment contract. If Greg Copeland lost his job, any disparaging or "negative comments" by City Council about his character or job performance would cost the city $100,000. The unusual nondisparagement clause took many in Maplewood City Hall by surprise, leaving council members who recently voted to oust Copeland to question its validity and legality. Nondisparagement clauses are not rare, especially in the corporate world. But they are often fashioned in the opposite direction: A former employee cannot speak negatively of a company or its products as part of his or her termination, said Carl Crosby Lehmann, a Minneapolis employment attorney with Gray Plant Mooty who represents management. Pacts that put the clamp on bad talk about the employee in a contract when hired, though, are rare. Especially among public employees. "We've never heard of such a thing," said Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel for the League of Minnesota Cities. ... Ellen Sampson, a lawyer with Leonard Street and Deinard who specializes in employment law and contracts. "I've never seen anything like that in an employment contract, ever," she said. ... City attorneys H. Alan Kantrud and Charles Bethel would not comment on the details of Copeland's contract. Neither would Chuck Ahl, the acting city manager and the public works director. Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie could not be reached for comment. The employment contract was signed by Longrie and Copeland.

A purported contract written so that Ms. Longrie or Mr. Hjelle could trigger a $100,000 check by simply speaking ill of either their handpicked attentive city manager or the contract itself does seem of questionable validity, especially since its very existence was kept secret.

Keeping a secret is harder the longer it needs to be kept. We don't know how to judge the effort in this case, since we do not know when the document was written, who wrote it, or where it has been since it was signed.

Stephan


[[keywords: Legal;Officials;]]