Former Port Townsend Mayor Brent Shirley, in an effort to advance his complaint against City Manager John Mauro, had his audience with key city staff on July 11, although, according to Shirley, it did not go as planned. 

“The city attorney and human relations director gave me less than 10 minutes,” Shirley said. “I had told them going in that an independent investigation that would protect the confidentiality of witnesses was needed, because people are afraid of retaliation from the most powerful person in Port Townsend.”

The meeting marks the most recent event in Shirley’s call for an independent investigation into allegations that Mauro’s conduct has driven high-level employees from the city ranks and alienated city officials and citizens alike.

To date, Shirley said he has talked with about 12 individuals willing to testify about Mauro’s behavior, but without guarantees of anonymity, those individuals are afraid to come forward.

“‘We want names’ was all they would say.” Shirley said. “And then the city attorney said she had to rush off to another meeting.”

Short of providing names, Shirley’s allegations, to a degree, are documented in a series of performance reviews, obtained via open records requests, where city council members caution Mauro on his temper.

Neither City Attorney Alexandra Kenyon or the city’s human resources director, Cynthia Shaffer, responded to phone calls or emails seeking comment on the meeting by press time.

Although Shirley expressed cautious optimism prior to the July 11 meeting, he said, in the end, he was not surprised by the recent turn of events.

“These two people were hired by, and can be fired by, the city manager, the very person who should be investigated,” Shirley said. “The current HR director is the replacement for the two prior HR directors who have quit under Mauro. The current city attorney is a contract worker hired to replace the longstanding excellent city attorney who has also resigned.”

Former City Attorney Heidi Greenwood declined to comment.

According to the City of Port Townsend Personnel Policies Manual, complaints from employees against the city manager go to the city attorney. But the city attorney works for the city manager, which is why, Shirley said, he is not able to have his concerns objectively heard.

“Since my complaint is directed at the city manager, it is not the proper role of two people who directly report to the city manager to assess my complaint’s validity,” Shirley wrote in an email to Kenyon and Schaffer on July 12.

“That is for an independent review to determine. You are conflicted and should retain an independent review of my complaint, not assess if one is required, insisting that I first turn over names to those that are ethically conflicted.”

Kenyon and Schaffer are following a city manual that outlines a review and investigation process but the manual does not provide an avenue for a citizen to bring a complaint against a city manager.

However, the city code contains a mechanism for a citizen to bring forward an ethics complaint against a city official. Shirley said he has declined that route, as his complaint doesn’t fit easily within the description of ethics issues as written in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).

The Port Townsend City Council has the power to investigate Mauro’s alleged mistreatment of city employees, Shirley said. He wants the council to conduct an investigation that guarantees the privacy of those complaining. He also wants a review of Mauro’s resume following allegations that Mauro’s credentials were inflated in order to gain the position in the first place.

One municipality, the city of Sea-Tac, which also operates under a council-manager form of government, offers a process where city employees can file a complaint against the city manager. In the Sea-Tac process, an employee complaint about the city manager goes directly to city council — not the city attorney.

Although Shirley is not an employee, the Sea Tac code does provide an example of how a municipality could minimize conflicts of interest when a city attorney is asked to investigate their direct supervisor, the city manager.

In short, the Sea-Tac code puts the onus on the city council to move the complaint forward, including responding to the complainant in writing, addressing the allegations in a regular meeting, special meeting and executive session, choosing whether to investigate the allegations and deciding who should do the investigating — all according to a predetermined time table.

The Sea-Tac code also allows for the council to place the manager on administrative leave, and ultimately, depending on the outcome of an investigation, empowers council to act on the findings and remove the city manager from office if necessary.

With Port Townsend’s attorney and human resources director silent, and Port Townsend Mayor David Faber stating that council will not move forward until Shirley can support and substantiate his claims, it remains unclear what is next.

Shirley said he will ask city staff how any investigation, if one is undertaken, “will be independent of Mr. Mauro’s influence and control.”

Shirley’s request for an investigation appears thwarted for the moment, as does his search for Mauro’s resume.

Open records requests for Mauro’s resume have been denied by the city on at least two occasions, most recently on July 15, when city staff reported that the resume was protected by state statute.

Mauro’s resume has come under scrutiny after it was revealed through earlier open records requests and interviews that two resumes detailing his credentials were circulated. One resume, a five-page version drafted by Mauro himself and submitted to the city during his application process has not been released.

The second resume, a one-page summary drafted by the hiring firm Peckham & McKenney, conflated Mauro’s credentials and presented him as a candidate in command of a staff of 20 and a budget of $211 million.

Mayor David Faber said July 9 that the “slightly misleading” summary document is the one that was provided to the public.