By Kristine Thomas
The case of former City Administrator Jim Hunt versus the City of Mt. Angel was resolved in the city’s favor Oct. 6. Judge Paul L. Lipscomb made his decision on a core issue – the interpretation of the termination provisions of Hunt’s employment contract.
Lipscomb’s findings determined that Hunt’s contract wasn’t ambiguous and the city council “had validly terminated Mr. Hunt ‘without cause.’”
He found the city of Mt. Angel has complied with the termination provisions of the employment agreement between the city and Hunt, including meeting in mediation and arbitration. Lipscomb ruled Hunt couldn’t prevail on any of his wrongful termination claims.
Lipscomb awarded Hunt $546 for International City Management Assoc. dues and $7,937 in attorney fees related to a prior dispute between Hunt and three city councilors. He awarded 9 percent interest on both amounts from Feb. 1 to the payment date.
According to bills obtained from the city of Mt. Angel, $9,738 was spent on legal fees for the Hunt case from March 1 through June 30. Interim City Administrator Pete Wall said the city has not received the bill from Lipscomb, which will be split between the city and Hunt. It also has not received a bill from its law firm for fees incurred since July 1. The city budgeted $10,000 for legal fees for the July 1 to June 30 fiscal year.
On Feb. 2, the city council unanimously agreed to put Hunt on paid administrative leave. Hunt received a letter from the mayor Feb. 18 terminating his contract.
Hunt said the letter informed him he had been dismissed without cause and he received three months severance pay. He said he felt the dismissal was a violation of his contract. Through his attorney, Don Kelley, Hunt requested mediation, then arbitration.
Lipscomb, in his findings, wrote the employment contract had two methodologies for termination – “for cause” and “without cause.” Following legal advice, the council terminated Hunt “without cause.”
“Nevertheless, Hunt and his attorney insist that pursuant to the terms of the contract some of the discipline and termination procedural provisions also must be held to apply to ‘without cause’ terminations as well as to ‘for cause’ terminations,” Lipscomb said.
“At some risk of oversimplifying the case, that issue forms the heart of this dispute, for there clearly were some procedural provisions in the contract which were not followed in the process of terminating Mr. Hunt,” he wrote.
“If the procedural protections relating to the discipline and termination apply, then Hunt would prevail in this case and his termination would have been overturned; if not, his termination would have to be upheld,” Lipscomb continued, adding, “the contract is not ambiguous and that the procedural provisions relating to discipline and termination actions do not apply to ‘without cause’ terminations.” When an employee is fired for “cause,” Lipscomb said, the employee has a right to a public hearing to ensure that “for cause” decisions are fair and factually accurate.
“No such ‘fairness’ concerns need to be applied to ‘without cause’ terminations because ‘without cause’ terminations by definition require no justification at all.”
Lipscomb continued, “Mr. Hunt makes various additional contract claims related to the interference with city administration by city council members, the failure to mediate disputes in good faith as required and the city’s failure to comply with the performance review provisions of his contract, etc. None of these claims merit however in the context of a ‘without cause’ termination.
“Accordingly, Mr. Hunt cannot prevail in this case on any of his wrongful termination claims.”
When asked for a comment, Hunt deferred to his attorney, who did not respond to questions as of press time.
Schiedler said the city looks forward to putting “this behind us and moving forward to accomplish the goals that were set for the city. Now we are ready to start the process of hiring a new city administrator.”
