Monday, August 29, 2016

Cooper Written Reprimand...Let's break it down

Rick Outzen today posted a written reprimand of Brian Cooper regarding improper hiring and insubordination.

First and foremost, as the Mayor likes to say, the written reprimand of Brian Cooper shows that Ed Sisson, as Forest Gump would say is "not a smart man".

Lets first break down the wording of this painfully written reprimand:

  • "chose to call names to our Mayor" Did he beckon the words to him?
  • "you were found to have completed the following undesirable behaviors"  Hate for them to be incomplete.
  • "publically"  Sisson publicly needs someone to review his work before issuing!
  • "are considered to be violations of insubordination"  How do you violate insubordination?
  • "The work your do"  Sisson, did your take English?
Ed, did Jose write this?  This is a serious document and it deserved better than this.  This written reprimand clearly makes Brian Cooper's disdain for you and the Mayor appear warranted.  Why get you involved with hiring?  You appear incompetent.

Next lets look at the obvious inconsistencies with Cooper's treatment and Schmitt and Glover's treatment:

The reprimand says Cooper "hired staff without going through the proper protocol and procedure."

How about proper protocol and procedure for:

  • Rebecca McLellan
  • David Allen
  • Greg Redding
  • Rebecca Ferguson
  • Amy Workman
  • and on and on and on

Cooper had issues with improper hiring practices before but was not given a written reprimand for them.  He was reprimanded in writing for continued hiring issues.

Sisson had waived panel interviews with Tibbett to be hired, and NO adverse consequences for him.

Glover and Schmitt had never had hiring issues before, but failed to hold panel interviews and were fired.

Seems consistent doesn't it?

Cooper cussed out the Mayor and received a written reprimand.

Schmitt and Glover respected the instructions of Olson to have no discussion with anyone at the City during the investigation and were fired.

Seems consistent doesn't it?

Cooper was given a written reprimand for going outside the "Chain of Command".

Schmitt and Glover were fired for enforcing the "Chain of Command"

Seems consistent doesn't it?

The evidence against Sisson and Olson will just continue to mount!

Friday, August 26, 2016

It's Time for some Swearin'...under OATH

Hayward Olson Sisson



  1. the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
    synonyms: lying under oath · giving false evidence/testimony 
What can we make of Chief Schmitt's lawsuit against the City, et al?
  • Hayward, Olson and Sisson are being sued individually, not only in their official capacities.
  • They may get Sisson's truck, but likely leave Jose!
  • Mayor Hayward only makes $100,000 so they may get some Redfish Refi cash.
  • Mayor Hayward has made it this far without a video deposition being made public...Smile for the camera Ashton and Please read the above definition again to let it sink in!
Depositions I KNOW will take place:
  • Hayward 
  • Olson 
  • Sisson
  • Wilkins
  • Walsh
  • Workman
  • Allen
  • Van Sickle
  • Deas
  • Andrews
  • Jester
Depositions I HOPE will take place:
  • Kerrigan
  • Wu
  • Cannada-Wynn
  • Terhaar
  • Edler
  • Admins for Olson, Sisson, Wilkins & the Mayor
  • Wells
Questions that are now UNAVOIDABLE UNDER OATH:
  • Did Olson tell Allen the Chiefs would not be coming back and go ahead and move in the Chief's office and start running the department the way he wanted?
  • Did Hayward, while at Happy Pig, tell Glover he would never be promoted as long as his previous EEOC lawsuit was active?
  • Did Wilkins actually do ANYTHING in the investigation or was it run by Sisson and Olson?
  • What did Deas conversations with "Ashton" entail?
  • How much was Deas put up to bringing his "issues" forward?
  • Did Olson really tell Schmitt that Glover "needed to move on"?
  • What details will Workman disclose as to Sisson's statements about Schmitt and Glover? About Sisson or Olson's statements regarding the EEOC investigations?
  • How many conversations did Hayward have regarding the investigations with Kerrigan?
  • Did David Allen have advance notice that the Chiefs would be investigated and placed on leave?
  • Did Allen have advance notice of the outcome and the Mayor's decision.
  • How much did Allen assist in the witch hunt for Sisson and Olson?
  • How were the Council members lobbied to vote to confirm Allen?
  • How panel interviews were so important and required by Sisson for some but not for Tibbett?

Ok Citizens...Did I miss anything???

Remember this blog is completely anonymous, blogger does NOT track IP addresses. 

I am happy to post any documents you are interested in sharing.  As Always...100% Confidential.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Fire Union Endorses Travelin' Wu

The Pensacola fire union is endorsing Travelin' PC Wu for City Council. The Fire Department likes a Council member whose favorite lines are "We have no power!" and "My hands are tied."

Last time he ran, PC Wu told Laura McKnight that if she didn't run against him he would not seek another term as he just wanted one more term to stay involved in the League of Cities Board of Directors.

I understand now that PC has his eyes on some stupid Florida League of Cities award for 20 years of service which requires him to be in office until 2024 to qualify.


PC Wu he doesn't care about the Citizens, just selfies with politicos and a plaque for sucking his City dry for 20 years.

You see, with PC Wu it is about traveling on our nickel to resorts not about representing his constituents.

Can anyone remember one (1) piece of legislation PC has ever proposed? One!

Can anyone remember one (1) briefing he has given Council regarding what he has "learned" at the League of Cities? One!

I have a public records request in for all of PC Wu's travel expenses for the last three years!

Get ready to realize how much we the the Citizens have subsidized the Professor's retirement travels.

Get ready to choke on the fleecing of Pensacola!

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Oops...Sisson Forgot to Tell Van Sickle About This or Did He?

While no longer dominating the news, the investigation into the Fire Chiefs has transitioned from a witch hunt to fire Chief Schmidt and Glover to an investigation by their attorneys into the circumstances surrounding the entire investigation.

Remember, when the Mayor made his decision about the Chiefs, I stated that once it was done, the Mayor could no longer control the story and the spin.  Lawyers, documents and depositions were in his future.  Ashton depositions are coming to your future.

Well one question to be asked of Sisson, Van Sickle and Hayward, once again on video and under oath, surrounds the alleged shortfalls in the Fire Department hiring practices.

In his report, Van Sickle stated:

"Sisson identified that the most recent example of concerns over Schmitt and Glover’s alleged mismanagement issues from an HR perspective was Schmitt and Glover’s alleged failure to follow normal hiring protocol for the January 2016 hiring round for new firefighters.

During this investigation, all parties involved agreed that the normal hiring process was not followed for the January 2016 hiring process. The primary deviation was the failure to have the applicants interviewed, scored, and ranked by an interview panel of firefighters."

Van Sickle summarizes:

"I find that neither Schmitt nor Glover was attempting to manipulate the hiring process to include or exclude any particular applicant. However, Schmitt and Glover believed incorrectly they were capable of handling the hiring process without an interview panel and without any guidance from HR. They both used poor judgment to conduct the hiring process in a manner they both agreed had not been done before. Their handling of the hiring process, from not understanding the value of a panel taking notes and individually scoring potential new firefighters; from not taking notes of any substance; from not acting to score and rank them from January 21 to at least January 26, when the application of the statutory veteran’s preference finally dawned on at least Glover, showed that they were not actually capable of properly handling the process. Additionally, their failure to properly conduct this particular hiring round coincides in timing with a disturbing level of animosity each showed toward HR, which is evidence that they intentionally ignored the proper process under the mistaken belief that they knew better than anyone else how to approach a hiring round for new firefighters."

Mr. Van Sickle, let me bring to your attention firefighter Brandon Tibbett.  You discussed him in your report.  Here is what you said:

"Tibbett was the only candidate to successfully complete the program. Tibbett completed the PAT with the PFD on December 7, 2015, in coordination with Workman in HR. (December 7, 2015, email from Jester to Workman) The HR department, apparently without Sisson’s knowledge, allowed the background check completed for the apprenticeship program to be used in place of a new background check for hiring. Tibbett was not interviewed again prior to starting his employment with the City PFD. However, Tibbett was required to complete a new drug test and the medical exam screening. Tibbett started employment with the PFD on January 19, 2016."

New Hire Checklist:
  • PAT Test...Check
  • Background Check...Check
  • Drug Test...Check
  • Medical Test...Check
What was never done?   Yep!  Panel interview.
Who approved no panel interview was required?  I understand Ed Sisson did!

But wait Mr. Van Sickle you stated previously, and let me quote:

"However, Schmitt and Glover believed incorrectly they were capable of handling the hiring process without an interview panel and without any guidance from HR. They both used poor judgment to conduct the hiring process in a manner they both agreed had not been done before. Their handling of the hiring process, from not understanding the value of a panel taking notes and individually scoring potential new firefighters;"

Mr. Van Sickle, I don't understand. It appears when you are making up charges against the Chiefs to fire them panels are required and essential, but when you are discussing the hiring process of Tibbett, you note drug tests, medicals tests and PAT tests but keep your mouth shut when no panel was required.

So Mr. Van Sickle, let me ask you: If panels are required and Sisson did in fact waive it, is Sisson not guilty of circumventing the normal process also?

Did Sisson believe incorrectly, Mr. Van Sickle?
Did Sisson use poor judgement, Mr. Van Sickle?
Did Sisson not understand the value, Mr. Van Sickle, of a panel taking notes??

No Panel...Schmidt...Fired
No Panel...Glover...Fired
No Panel...Sisson...No issue!

Why the double standard Mr. Van Sickle?

I will be submitting a public records request for firefighter Tibbett's employee file and his panel interview results.

Hey, new dude doing PRRs , the appropriate response is "No responsive documents"

Monday, August 22, 2016

How to Extend a No Bid Contract for Almost Six Months Under the Radar AFTER IT EXPIRED

As noted previously, the Airport is evaluating RFPs for Airport advertising.  Emagination Unlimited was given the contract without bid three years ago by the Hayward Administration.  Over that time the Hayward administration has installed a Marketing Manager whose most relevant previous experience was manning the customer service line at the local air conditioning contractor.

In typical Hayward insider dealing, the three year contract with Emagination expired in March 2016.

Was a new RFP issued?  No!

When someone finally realized that the three contract expired, on JULY 1, 2016 Airport Director Dan Flynn sent Mayor Ashton Hayward a memo stating:

  • "Emagination Unlimited has been the contractor since March 2013"
  • "The current contract has expired and staff is preparing to solicit proposals via a publicly advertised Request for Proposals"
  • "It is necessary to continue the current contractor on a month-to-month basis during the RFP period to ensure the availability of required services."
That was July 1, 2016.

So a month later on August 5, 2016, the City signed a month to month contract with Emagination Unlimited retroactive to March 29, 2016.

  • How can a Airport Marketing Manager that only manages one contract allow that contract to EXPIRE and not recognize the expiration until three months later?
  • How did bills submitted by Emagination Unlimited get paid between the contract expiration in March 29, 2016 and the month to month contract in August 2016?
  • How does a retroactive contract work exactly?  Is that legal?
  • Since Emagination did not have a valid contract with the City for 6 months, was it falsely representing itself as the City's marketing and advertising contractor during that period?
Mr. Barker, how is this in compliance with internal controls?

Junior varsity financial operations folks!  After all it's not their money!

This kind of contract shenanigans doesn't happen unless the "relationship" with the contractor is ultra cozy!

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Airport Advertising RFP

Proposals were due August 16, 2016 for a three-year contract for the Airport's Marketing and Advertising.

Here is a link to the RFP.

Clear in the RFP is that the winner will report to the Potted Plant.

Staff Oversight:
Services of the firm shall be under the general direction of the Marketing Manager or their designee who shall act at the City’s representative during the performance of the contract.

I received the photo below from a reader.  Normally I would not post a photo of an event like a wedding, but when the Airport Marketing Manager is getting married and its important to invite the Airport's advertising contractor, you have to question her independence.


  • Does the Potted Plant sit on the selection committee?
  • Does she chose the members of the committee?
and the biggest:
  • Does attendance at the Marketing Manager's wedding and how nice your GIFT was have influence on her decision?
  • Did she declare the gift from a City contractor?
Who else got an invite?

I will be ALL OVER the emails, videos, presentations and evaluations and other documents on this bid and the time leading up to it being issued!

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Andrew Tallman (McKay) Addresses Police Issue with Union and the Mayor

AM 1620 tried to get the Mayor to address the concerns of the Police union this morning on the radio.

Hayward just dribbled "contract negotiations", "positioning", "part of the process"

Police officers, please remember in 2010 when he was running for office, Hayward made the following statements at a reception at Billy Barnes Union Hall.  I was there.  I remember.

  • "F$#@ Dick Barker.  When I'm elected Barker is F$#@ing fired."
  • "When I'm elected, I will sit at the negotiating table with you personally."
  • "Supporting our police officers will always be my number one priority."
Is he keeping his word?

Now lets break down his statement today: 

"The police budget has increased each year since I have been in office."   True...but the rest of the story.

FY2016 Budgeted Salaries  $9,143,900
FY2017 Budgeted Salaries  $9,100,300

Decreased salaries?  How does that work?

FY2016 Budgeted Overtime  $241,900
FY2017 Budgeted Overtime  $241,900

Flat Overtime with decreased Salaries?

FY2016 Budgeted Incentive Pay  $127,300
FY2017 Budgeted Incentive Pay  $109,500

Decreased Incentive Pay?

FY2016 Budgeted Differential Pay  $280,700
FY2017 Budgeted Differential Pay  $226,400

Decreased Differential Pay?

The department budget may be bigger, but not the amounts that go to the officer on the street.

You know what this means about the Mayor?