My initial email to the Sachse City Council, letting them know that the former CEO had resigned, after being asked to resign by the board under pressure from Jeff Bickerstaff:

From: Spencer Hauenstein

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:50 PM

To: Mike Felix <mfelix@cityofsachse.com>

Cc: Brett Franks <bfranks@cityofsachse.com>; Frank Millsap <fmillsap@cityofsachse.com>; Michelle Howarth <mhowarth@cityofsachse.com>; Cullen King <cking@cityofsachse.com>; Chance Lindsey <clindsey@cityofsachse.com>

Subject: SEDC Concerns

Mayor Felix and City Councilmembers,

I am writing to you as the Board President to notify you that the SEDC's Executive Director has
resigned. My personal view on the matter is not that she was deficient or deserving of dismissal, so in my opinion this should not reflect poorly on Ms. Blake's performance or professionalism.

I am concerned, however, that this incident reflects poorly on the SEDC's Board Liaison. Over the past year, he seems to have failed the SEDC in several ways, through his actions and his inactions.

As Sachse doesn't define the role of "Board Liaison", I looked up external definitions of what a Board Liaison is supposed to do. I have found that most organizations define the role as something along these lines: "The Liaison serves as a monitor and advocate for the Committee's progress and reports on their needs, proposals, and status to the City Council, and in turn, relays important information back to the Committee from the City Council." As an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors, the SEDC's Board Liaison is one of nine important voices in our meetings, but as he has no vote he does not have any actual control over the decisions of the Board or the actions of the SEDC. My understanding is that as an ex-officio member he has all of the rights and responsibilities of the other board members, other than the right to vote.

Despite the lack of authority, on many occasions our Board Liaison has injected his own will on the
SEDC by bypassing the Board of Director's authority and giving direction directly to our Executive
Director. On some occasions he has directly contradicted the guidance the Executive Director received from the Board of Directors. On at least two of those occasions, he made veiled threats to her job security if his direction wasn't heeded. These were issues which were at the discretion of the Board of Directors, not the Board Liaison, and his side-stepping of the Board's authority was highly inappropriate.

In addition, the Board Liaison failed Ms. Blake over the last year by not giving the Board of Directors enough feedback as his opinion of her deteriorated. My understanding is that he took issue with how she was executing her duties over the past 6-8 months, though the Board of Directors found her to be performing quite well. Despite his concerns, he failed to make the board aware of the issues until they rose to the point that he called for her to be dismissed outright. This is a gross misstep of employee management. If he had raised the issues in a timely manner they could have been properly addressed. If the Board had been made aware earlier and had agreed with his particular criticisms, the Board of Directors (as her employer) could have given Ms. Blake clear guidance and set clear expectations to correct the issues. Conversely, if the board had disagreed with his criticisms, it would have had a chance to clarify to the Board Liaison that Ms. Blake was performing as we expected. By not making the board aware of his criticisms at all, he allowed his issues to continue unabated, and his negative opinion infected other key personnel in the city over the ensuing months, creating an unhealthy work environment for Ms. Blake.

After hearing the Board Liaison's concerns, I found them to be unfair and unfounded. In some cases, he considered her to be at-fault for simply following the Board of Director's guidance. I am confident that all of his issues could have been resolved if he had raised them properly, and none of them rose to the level that required her dismissal. Employers have a duty to set clear direction and give clear correction to employees in a timely manner so that they have a chance to improve if needed. The Board of Directors was deprived of the opportunity to provide that to Ms. Blake, and Ms. Blake was gravely deprived of this feedback from her employer. Ms. Blake deserved far better treatment than she received in this matter.

As you doubtlessly know, employees have the right to expect that personnel matters will be handled with as much discretion as possible. The Board Liaison failed to do so in this case. His negative opinion of Ms. Blake was quite well known by city staff and members of the public before the issues were even raised to the Board of Directors in February. I have been appalled by the Board Liaison's misjudgment and his mistreatment of the Executive Director in this regard.

As we are now lacking an Executive Director, we will have a chance to redefine what we want to see in an Executive Director and have a fresh start. As part of that fresh start, I ask that the City Council assign a new Board Liaison. It is clear to me that I am not the only board member who feels that our Board Liaison's actions and inactions led to substantial turmoil and harm to the SEDC and cost us our Executive Director. I would suggest each of you reach out to other SEDC board members to hear their opinions on the matter as well.

I am planning to begin the search for our next Executive Director fairly quickly. I am hoping that the SEDC's by-laws will continue to allow the Board of Directors to have control of our staffing, but if the City Council is going to pursue modifying our authority, please do so as soon as possible. I feel that the Board of Directors provided proper oversight and direction to the Executive Director and no change is warranted. If there has been a breakdown of communication and direction between the SEDC and the City Council in my opinion it is due to the malpractice of the role by the current Board Liaison.

On the topic of oversight, I have felt that our previous Executive Director was well managed in the 7 years she was here. In addition to our monthly board meetings, I was also meeting
with Leslyn individually monthly, and we spoke often so I always knew what she was working on, though not on a day-to-day basis. The by-laws currently say that the Board President has "general active management of the business of the corporation", and nobody ever raised a concern to me about my performance of that duty. It seems that suddenly starting in January people were questioning this management arrangement which has been in-place since the SEDC's founding in 1994. If I was lacking in my performance, I accept responsibility and I apologize.

In the absence of further guidance from the City Council, I will work with the Board to hire the best candidate to help the SEDC achieve our recently-approved Strategic Plan. If the City Council wishes to have more input on the SEDC's direction, I would implore you to schedule a Joint Session.

Please understand that I have written this email out of a sense of obligation and respect for the
position that the City Council has entrusted to me.

Regards,
Spencer Hauenstein
President, SEDC Board of Directors