Pat Fitchena’s hiring of an attorney to represent the North Oakland Transportation Authority at a June 16 unemployment hearing did not sit well with some board members who knew nothing about it until they read it in the newspaper.
‘I’m not saying we probably wouldn’t have taken this action. We probably would have,? said NOTA Board Member Alice Young, who also serves as Orion Twp. Treasurer ‘But we weren’t given the opportunity as far as I know.?
Fitchena paid an attorney out of her own pocket to represent NOTA at the appeals hearing which determined that former employee Danny Poole, who previously lodged a written complaint against her, was not entitled to unemployment benefits and must now repay the state nearly $8,000.
‘The law is the law no matter what attorney explains it to you,? Fitchena said. ‘Mr. Poole was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he did not follow the process. He refused to work with (the) NOTA board to stay on until the problem could be addressed.?
Fitchena decided to appeal the December 2007 decision that determined Poole was entitled to unemployment benefits because she was not given a fair hearing as she was sequestered during the proceedings, which is not allowed.
However, the decision to appeal Poole’s unemployment and hire an attorney was never brought before the entire NOTA board.
‘She had an attorney for herself, but was representing NOTA without NOTA’s approval,? Young said. ‘It was always my understanding that only a board can hire an attorney.?
The decision was apparently made by Chairman John Sutphin and Board Member Dan Alberty, both of whom represent Addison.
‘I’ll take the blame for that, Alice,? Sutphin said. ‘I was called and asked and I told her to go ahead.?
He noted that appealing an unemployment claim is ‘nothing out of the ordinary.?
‘This is a common practice in any business,? Sutphin explained.
‘I think this board should know when we’re going to fight something ? at least ask the board,? said NOTA Board Member Bill Dunn, who also serves as Oxford Twp. supervisor. ‘I don’t know what I would have done, but I would have liked the opportunity to discuss it at this board meeting before it happened.?
Alberty said it’s not the NOTA board’s job to ‘micro-manage? the director’s office. He said it’s up to the director to handle personnel issues such as unemployment claims.
‘I still feel that this is the job that the director should be doing,? he said. ‘In this particular case, if she’d done something wrong, then we would correct it.?
In this case, Alberty admitted the board probably should have been kept up-to-date on the situation.
‘Maybe a follow-up should have been (reported) at every meeting and it wasn’t done,? he said. ‘But we all do things we’re not proud of or find out later we didn’t handle them quite the way we (should have).?
‘I don’t like it that Addison Township seems to know all that’s going on (while) Orion Township and Oxford Township don’t have a clue,? Dunn said.
‘I’m going to take your comment about Addison knowing everything as a compliment,? Alberty later retorted.
Fitchena indicated that she will not be asking NOTA to reimburse her for the attorney fees.
But Lisa Sokol, who oversees the Orion Senior Center, believes its NOTA’s responsibility to repay Fitchena because the attorney was representing its interests at the hearing.
‘This board left her out there on her own to contract for an attorney and that should not happen,? she said.
She suggested NOTA hire its own attorney, so the board has one available for future situations.
NOTA will address the issue of possibly hiring its own attorney at the August board meeting.