One member of the Rhinelander City Council has responded to media reports concerning last week's firing of Rhinelander City Administrator Kristina Aschenbrenner.
A special city council meeting was held in closed session to review Ashenbrenner's performance as the first anniversary of her employment neared. Another performance review had been held in late May. Council member Alex Young disputed some media reports quoting Aschenbrenner that she had been blindsided by the termination.
In a written statement, Young said he's prohibited by law and ethics to talk about what was discussed in closed session, but Young said to say the termination was a surprise was inaccurate. He said Ashenbrenner had been told of performance concerns in the May session. He says the Administrator's contract clearly says she was an at will employee and was subject to annual reviews. Young says there was no 'smoking gun' and said the majority of the council felt Aschenbrenner's job performance had not improved since the May review. He says the council followed contract language in ending her employment. Young's full statement is below.
KK
-------
ALEX YOUNG STATEMENT ON TERMINATION OF RHINELANDER CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S CONTRACT
I cannot speak for the City Council as a whole and by the City’s ethics code and other laws am limited in what I can discuss publicly, however given the speculation and conjecture among the public, I feel it is very important that I try to clarify any areas where I am legally able regarding the termination of the City Administrator’s contract.
Going into Monday’s meeting, I certainly didn’t know what the outcome would be, but characterizing it as a total surprise is disingenuous. It is wholly inaccurate to say that no performance concerns were voiced to the Administrator prior to Monday. It is public record that the City posted, notified the media, and held a special meeting on May 31 specifically regarding the performance of the Administrator. Any assertion that the 5/31 meeting didn’t exist or was about anything but the performance of the Administrator is disingenuous. It was written plainly on the meeting notice, posted publicly, and delivered to the media, the same as it would be for any City meeting.
Members of the City Council, the Mayor, and the City Administrator spent a great deal of time that afternoon discussing her performance at that meeting. The Administrator’s contract calls for annual reviews, so in holding that special meeting to discuss her performance in May, outside of the normal annual review process, it should be apparent that a majority of the Council believed the issues were important enough that a delay in addressing them until the annual review was not an option, thus the necessity of holding a special meeting to air those concerns.
I understand folks want a “smoking gun” or singular reason, in this case, there simply is not any one smoking gun. It is public record that I neither moved nor seconded the motion to end her contract, and I cannot put words in others’ mouths. Having been present, this was simply a case where it became apparent at the outset of Monday’s meeting that the majority felt the general performance concerns voiced in May had not improved, would not improve, and that it was time to move on. A question was then asked that night as to legal procedures for ending the contract, after quick research, the City Attorney opined it could be ended at that meeting, in open session, and by the methods agreed to previously by both the City and the Administrator in that contract.
The majority nevertheless felt that rather than outright termination of her contract, it would be fair and right for the City to offer her an opportunity to resign instead, an offer which she declined. So, in open session, members moved to end her contract exactly as it is laid out in the terms of that contract, terms which she agreed to and signed at the time that she was hired : termination of the contract at will, with severance. --Alex Young
