Debra Schnabel during her interview with the assembly. (Emily Files)

Debra Schnabel during her interview for the manager position with the assembly. (Emily Files)

The following is a transcription of the comments made by Debra Schnabel at the May 26, 2020 assembly meeting regarding her dismissal.

I appreciate this opportunity to address the community and the assembly that represents it. I was suspended as borough manager on May 12, and terminated on May 19. The assembly and I have not engaged from May 12 until now, except through attorney correspondence. So this is new territory for me—to be told I cannot speak to you—many of you that I’ve known for most of my life, some of you less, nor you to speak to me except through counsel. Two weeks ago, we were a unit and today we are divorced.

Through your attorney’s correspondence, I was informed that a hearing was scheduled at this meeting to allow me to respond and, “to dispute the accuracy of the statements made by assembly member Rogers as well as any of the statements made by members of the public.” I understand that characterizing this invitation as a hearing is an attempt to backtrack on the assembly’s attempt to terminate me without cause, when in fact, Assembly Member Rogers assumed responsibility to identify cause. Due process would allow me a pre-termination hearing. A pre-termination hearing would allow me the opportunity to affect the ultimate decision of the assembly. The statement of Haines Borough that was just recently read by Mayor Jan Hill, states that the borough will have no further comment on the personnel matter. So I am being denied due process. But for the sake of getting information to those who do not know and who want to know, I accept this invitation to speak.

Assembly member Rogers specified three interactions which provide evidence of cause for my termination. I could address each one of these reasons at length. In fact, I did spend the entire weekend transcribing the May 12 meeting, and I drafted seven pages of response. I don’t think any of us have the patience to sit around for 20 minutes at my defense, so my response will be published in the May 28 edition of the Chilkat Valley News. So for those seeking information, you will find those details there.

The important thing for me to emphasize to the community tonight is that I believe Assembly member Rogers, Josephson and Thomas and citizens Hess, Campbell and Morphet are held hostage by their perceptions. It’s difficult not to be. One has to be open and work at hearing the whole story. The interactions identified by Assembly member Rogers and supported by assembly members, Josephson, Thomas and Mayor Hill are nuanced. There are circumstances and details within each story that indicate nothing I did was nefarious toward any individual or to the community. Nor was I defiant. Not the details surrounding the 800 feet of Fourth Avenue that for 50 years has been maintained by the borough, not the confusion surrounding lending library materials during a pandemic when I asked the assembly [to] discuss this topic but was told by the mayor you didn’t want to meet and advise me, not the way the borough, not me, but a borough representative conducted a small claims court proceeding with a land owner, not the way I represented the borough on KINY in regards to how this assembly chose to address a letter about the Juneau Access Project, and not the way that I visited with business owners about a posting of the assembly’s approved protocols of mandate 16. But the assembly was not interested in hearing or trying to understand the interactions from my point of view. The community would be better informed and engaged if you had.

This also goes to why I engaged an attorney. I never intended to sue the Borough. I retained an attorney to get legal advice. The assembly’s motion offered me no path to engage with you about my performance or termination. I hope the clerk, an attorney herself, and the borough attorney were able to remind you that engaging an attorney is not an act of war, but sometimes just a way to learn about how to assert your rights when your employer makes unfair and false accusations and takes adverse actions against you. You engaged your attorney for advice, and I did the same.

As for accusations about my temperament and my demeanor, I can tell you that I can be brusque. I can be impatient. I can be dismissive. I work on minimizing those things. I can also be, and mostly am, polite, a good listener, sensitive, empathetic and engaged. I’m a professional woman with credentials. And I have strong recommendations for service. I have 275 hours invested in conflict resolution through the Justice Institute of British Columbia. I’m not a fighter. The statement of Haines Borough indicates that I served the community well, and that my termination is due to the unique pressures and complexities of human relationships among four members of this body.

Some of the accusations against me need to be addressed because ironically, in the words of former Assembly member Tom Morphet, “They are real public issues that will be a chronic problem if not addressed.” These are pursuit of my own agenda and defiance of assembly directives. It’s important to recognize that by code, the assembly’s agenda is set by the mayor and the clerk. The manager contributes topics, yes, but in my experience and almost three years of service, Mayor Hill exercises the ultimate authority over the agenda. I think that’s important to know. Assembly member Josephson has chided me for debating assembly members on the floor. Code expressly allows the manager to speak to a topic and engage assembly members. That’s chapter 2.10.060. I was trained as a municipal manager to assume responsibility to inform the assembly of issues that need attention or if addressed could benefit local government or the community. When an assembly member blames a manager for pursuing an agenda, it demonstrates a lack of community vision. I admit to being frustrated by the recurring agenda items that challenge this community because of our inability or unwillingness to find resolution. We do not need to be firing managers. We need to be recognizing managers as professional people—community resources that help to guide and direct the government for the good and betterment of the community.

A manager is trained to take direction only from the assembly. Assembly member Rogers and Thomas especially appear to think that an individual assembly member can direct staff. On May 12, assembly member Thomas said, “Maybe the budget will be easier without the manager. Seems like every time I come up with some kind of idea or direction, it falls on deaf ears. It’s either, ‘I’m going to raise taxes’ and that’s all I hear or, ‘I’m not going to cut anything.'” Those words have never been spoken by me. The assembly is responsible for debating and coming to consensus on direction to the manager. The only directive that came to me from the assembly regarding the FY21 manager’s budget was to cut sales tax revenue projections an additional 10%, and I did that. I was told by Don Turner Jr., a consultant to the assembly, that the assembly was upset with me because I didn’t get the hint that I was supposed to cut the library and the museum from the FY21 manager’s budget. If I failed to get the hint from you as an assembly, I think you need to also own up to the fact that you failed to provide clear directives as a group for me to enact.

The notion that a performance evaluation would improve our relationship was discussed on May 12 among assembly members and has been advanced by several citizens. Your attorney’s letter of May 22 states that no formal performance evaluation is required of the manager after three months of employment. We do have a contractual obligation to annually conduct, “a review of current goals and performance objectives, which are determined and necessary for the proper operation of the borough.” I truly believe that our contractual obligations as defined in section three performance evaluation⁠—that’s the title of it⁠—if initiated, would have helped us to maneuver beyond whatever issues seem to capture our immediate attention. This borough needs current goals and long-term objectives to enable us to focus on what is important. I do not believe that my alleged shortcomings cited by Assembly member Rogers have been detrimental to the Borough’s progress. They may have aggravated his sense of decorum and his need for control. Assembly member, Josephson asserted her experience as a manager having supervised employees in the workplace. She stated on May 12 that in the last two months she has listened to a crescendo of complaints about me. She claims to be on the phone from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. almost every day listening to complaints. I find this statement suspect, but if there were such complaints, why did it not occur to assembly member Josephson, an experienced manager, to stop listening to complaints, pick up the phone, call me to set up a meeting to introduce and discuss the issues she and others may have with me. I’m embarrassed to tell you that assembly member Josephson reserves communicating her displeasure with me for public statements and scolding email messages. In the experience of municipal managers we call this playing gotcha. It’s a controlling and competitive tactic that serves to demoralize a manager. And as evidenced again in assembly member Rogers shock and awe approach to my termination.

In closing, I want to address Mayor Hill. Mayor Hill, this decision was yours. I’m very disappointed. It seems to me that this could have been an opportunity to lead, to identify the larger issues needing our attention: economic recovery, long term revenue development, budget policy, to name just a few. Many people, including people who are critical of me and my management have entered the dialogue with extreme displeasure over this abrupt action. I have never been unwilling to talk, to work with you in the interest of this community that we do care so deeply about.