The Jefferson County Health Department Board of Trustees has once again censured board member Suzy Davis, this time for allegedly bullying two of the agency’s employees.
The board voted 3-2 on April 27 to censure her, with chairman Tim Pigg and trustees Dennis Diehl and Amber Henry voting to censure her and Davis and Tammy Stidem voting against the censure.
It was the second time Davis, who has served on the board for three years, was censured.
In July 2021, board members censured her, claiming at that time that Davis had been late to or not prepared for meetings, had undermined the board on COVID-19 mitigation issues, had used meetings as a personal forum for personal opinion, had voted against receiving extra vaccines, and had inappropriately recorded and livestreamed an unscheduled visit she made to the Health Department, showing clients and interrupting the department’s business.
During the 2021 censure, she was warned if she continued to violate the board’s bylaws, the trustees could take steps to impeach her and remove her from the board.
After that first censure, Davis filed harassment complaints against Vollmar, Diehl and Pigg, and a third-party firm was assigned to investigate her claims and found no violations.
Second censure
The most recent censure focused on complaints filed by two employees – Kelley Vollmar, the Health Department’s executive director, and Jaclyn Brown, coordinator of the Health Department’s ASPEN program, a virtual tool and resource directory for community resources, behavioral health tools and virtual services.
Both Vollmar and Brown claim that Davis bullied them and violated board bylaws and employee handbook policies.
Christi Coleman, the Health Department’s attorney, read a three-page resolution calling for Davis’ censure at the April 27 meeting. She also said the latest allegations against Davis were investigated by a third-party firm which concluded they were founded.
“As a result of the findings associated with the complaints filed by Ms. Vollmar and Ms. Brown, effective immediately, trustee Susan ‘Suzy’ Davis shall be and is censured and admonished to adhere to all bylaws, rules and procedures of this board,” Coleman read. “The Board of Trustees admonishes (Davis) that failure to perform her duties pursuant to the bylaws of the Board of Trustees and the employee manual will result in this board taking action to impeach and remove her from her position.”
The manual defines bullying as any “behavior that harms, intimidates, unreasonably offends, degrades or humiliates an employee, including in the presence of others.”
The resolution also said board members should not attempt to undermine the director’s authority and responsibility for the daily operation of the center and should not disclose confidential information or notes taken during closed meetings.
During the discussion about whether to censure Davis again, Henry pointed out that even though Davis had been censured before, she continued to behave inappropriately, except this time it was even more serious because it involved employees.
“We’re legally held bound to take this seriously,” she said.
Stidem, who was elected April 4, said she understood frustrations on both Davis’ side and the administration’s side.
She said Davis at times didn’t address things appropriately but added that she was trying to get information about the Health Department’s finances and about the ASPEN program, which she said local residents are interested in.
Henry countered that the investigation was about false information and derogatory comments, not Davis seeking out information.
Diehl said the reason people have questions about some Health Department issues is because Davis has been spreading false information.
“All you have to do is read this report and you will see,” he said to the audience of about nine people. “You’ve been given false information.”
Stidem asked who received Vollmar’s and Brown’s complaints and who authorized the independent investigator to look into them.
Pigg said the complaints went to the board’s personnel committee who directed Coleman to find an independent investigator.
Pigg said the chairperson, which would have been Diehl at the time, signed off on the expenditure.
Davis responds
Davis said she was unaware of the complaints Vollmar and Brown had made against her until she received the board packet two days before the April 27 meeting.
She said the complaints should have been brought up during an open board meeting so she and the other board members could look into the allegations.
Davis also complained that the investigation was conducted behind her back.
“I’ve read through all of it,” she said. “I don’t see anything correct or true, so where is my due process?”
Pigg told her she wasn’t on trial and the board wasn’t seeking her impeachment.
Davis also complained that if the document outlining the allegations against her were going to be public record, she needed to be able to sit with an attorney and go through all of it.
“We can’t do this tonight,” she said. “You cannot censure me tonight. I have not been notified by the board. I’ve not been notified by Kelly Vollmar that there’s even a complaint or by Ms. Jaclyn Brown that there’s even a complaint.”
Coleman said the censure only required Davis the opportunity to respond to the allegations, which she did during the meeting.
“This is not a removal,” Coleman said. “The bylaws are very clear, as a matter of fact, because if we were strictly following the bylaws, it would have been a removal because she’s already had a censure for similar violations of bylaws.”
She said the committee wanted to give Davis another opportunity to change her behavior.
Coleman added that the investigator, Brittany Newell of Missouri Education Solutions LLC, did not interview either of the employees who filed the complaint but listened to livestreamed board meetings and read written communications from Davis.
Davis continued to argue that it was not right to censure her and make the allegations against her public and asked the board to table the matter and take a different approach.
“I do deserve due process whether it’s in the bylaws or not,” she said. “I deserve to be presented with Ms. Vollmar’s complaints and with Ms. Brown’s complaints, and I deserve to be able to go through with Ms. Vollmar and with my chairman each single one and I deserve to have an attorney present.”
Diehl said he believed it was more fair to Davis to have an independent person review the allegations because if that person didn’t find any wrongdoing, it wouldn’t come out publicly.
“You may feel this is unfair,” he said. “I think it’s the fairest way to do it.”
Davis denied the allegations against her, saying she would never try to harm Vollmar or call people names.
Pigg interrupted by saying he was at a meeting when Davis threatened Vollmar, and Henry said she, too, had seen it.
While reading a prepared statement, Davis said “Why is it that just because someone has a different view or opinion, we tend to think that only ours is the only valid point? To think that only ours is the valid point is not correct. Folks, I have the right to post what I want to post (on social media), speak what I want to speak, to be right. I have a right to be wrong. If I give out wrong information, I have that right to do that. That is not against the law.”
Vollmar’s complaint
Vollmar filed a complaint against Davis on March 6 and revised her complaint on March 27, adding that Davis violated the anti-bullying policy in the employee manual, according to a memo sent to Missouri Education Solutions LLC.
On March 29, the Health Department hired that firm as a third-party, neutral investigator.
As part of her complaint, Vollmar provided emails, text messages, social media posts (including those made by Davis on a Jeffco Patriots Facebook page), and a 2022 investigation report.
The firm’s findings were divided into four categories: legal bills, site visits, ASPEN and miscellaneous criticisms.
The firm found that Davis repeatedly questioned and commented about legal bills and requested detailed versions of legal bills. The firm also found that Davis was informed how she could view the documents but was instructed not to make copies due to confidential information. Instead of viewing the documents, however, she sent numerous demands for free copies of detailed bills.
The firm also found that Davis defied the scope of her authority as an individual board member.
“Ms. Davis disregards the information she is provided by JCHD. Instead of sharing the information provided by JCHD with the public, she either carelessly or intentionally shares misconstructions and misinformation. It is certainly within the scope of Ms. Davis’ role and duty as a board trustee to keep the public informed, but she must take care to accurately inform them,” the firm’s report said. “Ms. Davis’ conduct, again, cannot be attributed to a lack of knowledge or misunderstanding. Ms. Davis was informed of and had the accurate information available to her.”
The firm also called out Davis’ behavior toward Vollmar.
“Ms. Davis has a dislike of Ms. Vollmar. The reason for the aversion is unknown, but Ms. Davis’ actions towards and regarding Ms. Vollmar are reflective.
“Many of Ms. Davis’ communications towards or about Ms. Vollmar were of an aggressive, threatening nature. For example: Ms. Davis’ threat to go to the newspaper, state representatives, prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General if Ms. Vollmar did not give her what she wanted; statements that accompanied her demands of ‘stop playing back and forth games’ and ‘I can do what I want there;’ Ms. Davis’ email headline of ‘another lie from Vollmar Debunked;’ and talking over the top of Ms. Vollmar trying to speak at a recent public board meeting and clapping her hands, saying ‘great grandstanding Kelley Vollmar!’”
The firm concluded that Davis violated the anti-bullying policy.
“Ms. Davis has repeatedly and with aggressive intent ridiculed and maligned Ms. Vollmar. Examples include Ms. Davis accusing Ms. Vollmar of ‘wasting time’ when Ms. Vollmar was trying to lawfully, accurately and in accordance with the board’s will process Ms. Davis’ record requests.”
The conclusion states Davis interfered with Vollmar’s job as the director by putting out false information to the public about ASPEN.
“As a board trustee, it is certainly acceptable for Ms. Davis to inform the public (within the confines of confidentiality and Sunshine Law). But the careless or intentional spreading of false information becomes sabotage and interference.”
Vollmar told the firm she found Davis’ conduct harmful, intimidating, unreasonably offensive, degrading and humiliating.
The report also stated that Vollmar had sought counseling and medical assistance as a result of Davis’ conduct toward her.
Brown’s complaint
Brown filed her complaint against Davis on March 30, the day after she learned Davis had reached out to someone affiliated with the Jefferson County Community Health Mental Fund Board, a possible source of funding for ASPEN, and provided that person with misinformation.
The outside firm was asked to investigate Brown’s complaint on April 4, and in its report, the firm said Davis repeatedly gave false information to the public about ASPEN, confusing it with similarly named companies such as a student information system even after being told those are different programs.
The firm said Davis repeatedly suggested the program was not fully funded by grants, which was incorrect.
“Ms. Davis has repeatedly and with aggressive intent, unreasonably publicly criticized or trivialized Ms. Brown’s work,” the firm said in its report. “As Ms. Brown is the ASPEN Coordinator, comments about ASPEN are comments about Ms. Brown’s work.
“Despite being educated to the contrary, Ms. Davis posted on social media and made statements in publicly viewed board meetings that ASPEN was just a glorified data collector or resource directory. Similarly, contrary to the information Ms. Brown had provided Ms. Davis, Ms. Davis made statements on social media and in public board meetings that ASPEN was monitoring students’ behaviors and that under ASPEN, student/parent confidentiality and HIPAA would be nonexistent.
“Ms. Davis also insinuated on social media that statements about grant money having been obtained for ASPEN were lies. Similarly, Ms. Davis made misrepresentations on social media about the timeframe for ASPEN spending to give the appearance of rapid spending.”
In its report, the firm concluded that Davis knowingly shared incorrect information.
“When a board trustee knowingly shares adverse, false and misleading information about a program with the public, the board trustee’s intent is no longer keeping the public informed or sharing his/her personal position on a matter. Rather, such is reflective of aggressive conduct that is predicated on ill intent.”
Brown told the firm that Davis’ conduct made her feel humiliated, uncomfortable, undermined, misrepresented and professionally threatened. Ms. Brown reported that she has experienced mental exhaustion and anxiety and is seeking counseling services because of Davis’ conduct.
Other board action
Prior to the open meeting when Davis was censured, the board held a closed session to review Vollmar’s performance evaluation and then came back into open session and voted 3-2 to give her a 6 percent raise, increasing her annual salary from $133,000 to $141,000.
Pigg, Diehl and Henry voted in favor of Vollmar’s pay raise, and Davis and Stidem voted against it.
Davis opposed the increase and said the board gave Vollmar a 3 percent raise the previous year, which would be more acceptable.
Diehl said the Health Department is a $5 million business and has to take care of its own hiring, firing and training, which Vollmar oversees.
Diehl said a salary study of the top 10 counties in the state was completed, and considering the size of Jefferson County, the number of staff members, and Vollmar’s education level and experience, most people with comparable jobs to hers were making more money.
Pigg said the average salary for someone in a similar position with six to 10 years of experience was about $155,000 a year.
The resolution and associated documents calling for Davis’ most recent censure is posted on the Health Department’s website at jeffcohealth.org.