Although one staff member told investigators that he “used the word aggressive” to describe Supervisor Carroll because Carroll is “an intimidating guy…tall…strong …stands close…raises his voice…grunts” and “It’s like he’s always looking for an opportunity to assert his dominance,” the Pima County Human Resources Department found that there was not enough evidence to determine that Supervisor Ray Carroll has bullied Supervisor Ally Miller’s staff members.
Staff members describe Carroll’s behavior as “aggressive,” “dominating” and “forceful,” and reported that his behavior left them feeling “a little shook up.”
Over the years, many members of the public who have encountered Carroll’s “aggressive”, “dominating” and “forceful,” behavior and foul mouthed rants, were not surprised by the staff members’ complaints or the County’s subsequent finding.
Related article:
Pima County anti-bullying policy found to have weaknesses
According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, Pima County’s policy leaves staff vulnerable to further abuse. In their study of the County’s policy, the Institute made note of the weaknesses of the policy, including the fact the County’s Human Relations Department “is central to implementation of the policy. Managers must report incidents to HR. HR must investigate. HR is instructed to conduct thorough and impartial investigations. Unfortunately, the track record tells another story about HR capabilities.”
The Institute notes, “The County Administrator (CEO-equivalent) determines fate of alleged bully after HR reports results of its investigation. This is very problematic. The big boss should never have the final say…. Workers groan knowing that the bully is unlikely to suffer punishment while the target and witnesses are retaliated against.”
It is clear, from the record and other reports, that the interview and judgment process was flawed. It appears that employees were grilled rather than interviewed. It appears that the process resulted in employees feeling less than comfortable to freely report the events and the feelings generated by an attack by a superior.
Employees describe events:
● Mr. Cuffari alleged that on April 15, 2014, during a break for Executive Session, Supervisor Carroll “reprimanded” him in the breezeway outside the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Hearing Room for commenting on Supervisor Carroll’s daughter’s tattoo. Mr. Cuffari also alleged that, following the Board meeting, Supervisor Carroll “was waiting in the lobby” on the 11th floor of the Administration East building and when the elevator doors opened, Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and stated, “You, leave.” to his colleague Mr. Daffron and “You, I want to talk to,” to Mr. Cuffari.
● Mr. Daffron alleged that he and Mr. Cuffari were “berated” by Supervisor Carroll on April 1, 2014, in the hallway between the District 1 and District 4 offices. (Supervisor Miller stated she “intervened” and asked Supervisor Carroll to address concerns to her directly.) Mr. Daffron further alleged that on April 15, 2014, he and Mr. Cuffari were returning to the District 1 office and Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and, “in an attempt to corner him,” “demanded” that Mr. Cuffari remain on the elevator.
● At the request of Supervisor Miller, Ms. Coyle documented an interaction with Supervisor Carroll on March 29, 2013, in which she wrote that Supervisor Carroll “went off for about 3 minutes straight. ..voice raised and fingers pointing right at me.” With regard to Supervisor Carroll’s demeanor during that interaction, Ms. Coyle said he was “…definitely passionate about …the issue… I don’t want to say aggressive …probably frustrated …wishing that was…a conversation he was having with his peer versus her assistant.” Ms. Coyle described Supervisor Carroll’s raised voice and finger pointing as “a little aggressive” and indicated that by raising his voice and pointing his finger at her “maybe” he was attempting to intimidate her. She also said she felt “a little bit” berated by him. Ms. Coyle said she did not feel threatened or harassed by Supervisor Carroll that day but that she “probably felt…a little shook up.”
● According to Mr. Cuffari, Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and stated “You leave,” to Mr. Daffron, then pointed to Mr. Cuffari and said, “You, I want to talk to you.” Mr. Cuffari felt Supervisor Carroll was trying to corner him. Mr. Cuffari said he “kind of slipped out” of the elevator and told Supervisor Carroll “Nope” because he “didn’t want to deal with him…it was just going to be more of him yelling and screaming and being aggressive …” He said that Supervisor Carroll remained on the elevator and there was no further interaction.
● Mr. Cuffari said he was not afraid of Supervisor Carroll on April 15, 2014, but felt his behavior was inappropriate and that Supervisor Carroll was bullying him in an attempt to “shake things up” in the District 1 office.
● Early in his employment with Supervisor Miller, Mr. Cuffari said he witnessed Supervisor Carroll coming into the foyer area of the District 1 office to “vent” at Ms. Coyle about Supervisor Miller. He asserts that because Supervisor Miller “didn’t appreciate” Supervisor Carroll and “at times” Supervisor Valadez walking into the office, and because the main door is five feet from Supervisor Miller’s office door, which poses a potential security breach, the District 1 office door is to remain closed and locked at all times.
● When asked if she was reduced to tears by Supervisor Carroll, Ms. Lamonna replied, “Well, that was a bad week.” She described the interaction between them as a “confrontation”, said his voice was “a little raised” and that Supervisor Carroll gave her a “verbal lashing.” She said because she was dealing with “personal issues” that week, the interaction “was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” When asked if the interaction with Supervisor Carroll would have reduced her to tears absent the personal issues, Ms. Lamonna said, “Maybe not.” Because she does not work for Supervisor Carroll, she felt the way he approached her that day was inappropriate and intimidating.
Miller brought a complaint on behalf of her employees due to the fact that she was concerned that retribution would occur.
The County’s report reads:
On April 15, 2014, District 1 Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller submitted a written complaint to Human Resources (HR) Director Allyn Bulzoni alleging District 4 County Supervisor Ray Carroll harassed and bullied her staff in violation of Board of Supervisors Policy D.23.1, “Preventing, Identifying and Addressing Workplace Bullying.” On the same date the County Administrator directed HR to conduct an investigation into the allegations.
ALLEGATIONS
In her complaint Supervisor Miller accused District 4 Supervisor Ray Carroll of “yelling and screaming” at former District 1 Executive Assistant Jennifer Coyle about Supervisor Miller’s “votes or lunches with various board members,” although she was not present at the time. Supervisor Miller wrote that she directed her staff to “lock the office door to keep (Carroll) out of the office so there was no further confrontation.” Supervisor Miller further alleged that Supervisor Carroll “harassed” District 1 staff on the elevator, in hallways and at Board meetings. She provided statements written by Ms. Coyle, Special Staff Assistant – Unclassified Joseph Cuffari and Program Specialist – Unclassified Maxwell Daffron.
Mr. Cuffari alleged that on April 15, 2014, during a break for Executive Session, Supervisor Carroll “reprimanded” him in the breezeway outside the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Hearing Room for commenting on Supervisor Carroll’s daughter’s tattoo. Mr. Cuffari also alleged that, following the Board meeting, Supervisor Carroll “was waiting in the lobby” on the 11th floor of the Administration East building and when the elevator doors opened, Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and stated, “You, leave.” to his colleague Mr. Daffron and “You, I want to talk to,” to Mr. Cuffari.
Mr. Daffron alleged that he and Mr. Cuffari were “berated” by Supervisor Carroll on April 1, 2014, in the hallway between the District 1 and District 4 offices. (Supervisor Miller stated she “intervened” and asked Supervisor Carroll to address concerns to her directly.) Mr. Daffron further alleged that on April 15, 2014, he and Mr. Cuffari were returning to the District 1 office and Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and, “in an attempt to corner him,” “demanded” that Mr. Cuffari remain on the elevator.
RECORD OF EVIDENCE
When asked how often she interacted with Board members from other districts Ms. Coyle answered, “Maybe twice a week and that was if I saw them on the elevator.” When asked if Supervisor Carroll came into the District 1 office and yelled and screamed at her as alleged by Supervisor Miller, Ms. Coyle said, “He’s (Carroll) never been in our office really.” She characterized the words “yelling and screaming” as “tough words.” Ms. Coyle recalled Supervisor Carroll knocking on the office door to ask her if her “boss” was there and when she told him that Supervisor Miller was out to lunch, Supervisor Carroll asked “With her new best friend?” referring to Supervisor Sharon Bronson. At the request of Supervisor Miller, Ms. Coyle documented an interaction with Supervisor Carroll on March 29, 2013, in which she wrote that Supervisor Carroll “went off for about 3 minutes straight. ..voice raised and fingers pointing right at me.” With regard to Supervisor Carroll’s demeanor during that interaction, Ms. Coyle said he was “…definitely passionate about …the issue… I don’t want to say aggressive …probably frustrated …wishing that was…a conversation he was having with his peer versus her assistant.” Ms. Coyle described Supervisor Carroll’s raised voice and finger pointing as “a little aggressive” and indicated that by raising his voice and pointing his finger at her “maybe” he was attempting to intimidate her. She also said she felt “a little bit” berated by him. Ms. Coyle said she did not feel threatened or harassed by Supervisor Carroll that day but that she “probably felt…a little shook up.” When asked if Supervisor Carroll bullied her, she replied, “I wouldn’t use that word.” Ms. Coyle said she has not witnessed Supervisor Carroll behaving in an aggressive or forceful manner, nor has she felt unsafe in his presence. When asked if she was aware of Supervisor Carroll “harassing” District 1 staff, Ms. Coyle said Special Staff Assistant – Unclassified Shirley Lamonna told her Supervisor Carroll was “raising his voice” to her in the hallway regarding a memo she sent to constituents approximately four to six weeks ago regarding a rezoning issue. Ms. Coyle said Ms. Lamonna was concerned that Supervisor Miller would be upset over the memorandum, rather than the interaction between her and Supervisor Carroll.
Ms. Coyle told HR that when she started in Supervisor Miller’s office in January 2013, District 1 office doors went back and forth between open and closed. Although she doesn’t remember an exact date, sometime between February and March 2013 Supervisor Miller required that the door remain closed and locked “at all times.” To her knowledge, the doors were to remain locked for confidentiality purposes, and not as a result of any interaction Ms. Coyle had with Supervisor Carroll. Then, in August or September 2013, when Supervisor Miller “mentioned they have a stalker,” Ms. Coyle said the reason for keeping the doors locked at all times transitioned to a “fear thing.”
With regard to the statement he wrote at Supervisor Miller’s request, titled Ongoing Harassment by Supervisor Raymond Carroll, Mr. Cuffari said the title “ongoing harassment” was Supervisor Miller’s words and that he would have preferred to characterize it as Ongoing Aggressive Discussions or Forceful Discussions. Mr. Cuffari used the word aggressive because Supervisor Carroll is “an intimidating guy…tall…strong …stands close…raises his voice…grunts” and “It’s like he’s always looking for an opportunity to assert his dominance.” Mr. Cuffari said he and Supervisor Carroll have known each other for a “couple of years” and that their families are Salpointe High School families.” Mr. Cuffari said that in addition to having attended high school classes with Supervisor Carroll’s daughter, he is friends with Supervisor Carroll’s son. Mr. Cuffari” said Supervisor Carroll helped him obtain the job in Supervisor Miller’s office when he assisted Mr. Cuffari with his letter of introduction and resume.
Mr. Cuffari exchanges pleasantries with County Supervisors in the hallways, elevators and Board room. When cross-district issues arise he works with their staffs. Mr. Cuffari sees Supervisor Carroll in the elevator or hallway approximately twice a week for thirty seconds at time. He said his interactions with Supervisor Carroll differ from interactions with other Board members. He described other Board members as “very pleasant. ..very nice” but the interactions with Supervisor Carroll vary. Sometimes Supervisor Carroll’s responses are friendly; other times Supervisor Carroll makes comments about or questions him on Supervisor Miller’s activities. “You don’t know what you’re gonna get with (Mr. Carroll).” Mr. Cuffari said.
In Mr. Cuffari’s statement documenting the incident with Supervisor Carroll on April 15, 2014, he wrote that before the Board meeting he told Supervisor Carroll that he saw Supervisor Carroll’s daughter’s tattoo on Facebook and that it had “very good detail work.” The tattoo is on her foot. [It should be noted that one does not have to be Facebook “friends” with Supervisor Carroll’s daughter to see the picture of her foot tattoo on Facebook.] Because he previously made comments to Supervisor Carroll about his son playing football and was not “reprimanded” by him, Mr. Cuffari said he didn’t “think twice” about commenting on the tattoo. Mr. Cuffari said Supervisor Carroll’s immediate response was “good natured” and he said something “along the lines of not being able to control your kids.” Later, when the Board broke for Executive Session he said Supervisor Carroll approached him and said, “Cuffari, come with me” and took him outside to the breezeway. Mr. Cuffari said he was “taken aback” and “confused” when Supervisor Carroll asked him outside. He said Supervisor Carroll asked him, “Why are you talking about my daughter?” and added, “You’re embarrassing me. I demand an apology. You need to jump off of Supervisor Miller’s sinking ship. I told you not to take that f-ing job. Don’t go…causing problems…looking for problems. Don’t you ever talk about my daughter again or my family.” Mr. Cuffari said the interaction lasted about sixty seconds and that it was uncharacteristic of the way Supervisor Carroll had treated him in the past. He described Supervisor Carroll’s demeanor while on the breezeway as “aggressive”, “dominating” and “forceful”, a “complete 180” from their earlier interaction. (According to video footage taken during the April 15, 2014, Board meeting, provided by Mr. Cuffari, thirty-three seconds elapsed from when Supervisor Carroll said “Hey, Cuffari. Come here” to their reentry into the hearing room. Neither Supervisor Carroll nor Mr. Cuffari seemed upset after the interaction.)
When returning to the District 1 office with Mr. Daffron after the Board meeting that day, Mr. Cuffari said Supervisor Carroll was waiting for him when the elevator doors opened to the 11th floor lobby.
According to Mr. Cuffari, Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator and stated “You leave,” to Mr. Daffron, then pointed to Mr. Cuffari and said, “You, I want to talk to you.” Mr. Cuffari felt Supervisor Carroll was trying to corner him. Mr. Cuffari said he “kind of slipped out” of the elevator and told Supervisor Carroll “Nope” because he “didn’t want to deal with him…it was just going to be more of him yelling and screaming and being aggressive …” He said that Supervisor Carroll remained on the elevator and there was no further interaction.
Mr. Cuffari said he was not afraid of Supervisor Carroll on April 15, 2014, but felt his behavior was inappropriate and that Supervisor Carroll was bullying him in an attempt to “shake things up” in the District 1 office. Mr. Cuffari asserts that he is the “hardest worker” in Supervisor Miller’s office, so losing a key staff member would “shake up the office.” When asked if he has ever felt harassed by Supervisor Carroll, Mr. Cuffari said “Yes,” but then clarified that it was not harassment, but aggressive and forceful behavior. He said Supervisor Carroll has approached him and said, “Tell Ally she needs to vote …this way …’cause she’s (Miller) an idiot…I really do have her best interest in mind. I told her…you better tell her…you’re not doing your job, you need to be talking to her.” When asked if he was berated by Supervisor Carroll on April 15th Mr. Cuffari said, “Yes.” He said Supervisor Carroll has said, “When (Supervisor Miller) doesn’t get reelected, don’t come crawling to me. Get off the sinking ship right now. You had an easy life when you were just at Wastewater (referring to Mr. Cuffari’s previous employment with the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department).” Mr. Cuffari said Supervisor Carroll would say “Cuffari, come here” when he saw him downtown and make similar comments. Although Mr. Cuffari said these interactions occurred approximately fifty times in the last year, he said, “I’ve never really felt the need to report something…up until this point….” When asked if Supervisor Carroll “harassed” District 1 staff, Mr. Cuffari said he made Ms. Lamonna “cry” and said he knows Ms. Coyle filed a complaint. He also said Supervisor Carroll has approached Mr. Daffron “a few times” because he is “mad” that they videotape Board meetings and to question him about the published press releases he has written “at Supervisor Miller’s behest.”
Early in his employment with Supervisor Miller, Mr. Cuffari said he witnessed Supervisor Carroll coming into the foyer area of the District 1 office to “vent” at Ms. Coyle about Supervisor Miller. He asserts that because Supervisor Miller “didn’t appreciate” Supervisor Carroll and “at times” Supervisor Valadez walking into the office, and because the main door is five feet from Supervisor Miller’s office door, which poses a potential security breach, the District 1 office door is to remain closed and locked at all times.
At Supervisor Miller’s request, Mr. Daffron provided a written statement regarding interactions he had with Supervisor Carroll on April 1, 2014, and April 15, 2014. Mr. Daffron said he and Mr. Cuffari were “berated” on April 1, 2014, by Supervisor Carroll, who objected to their videotaping Board meetings. This interaction took place between the District 1 and District 4 office doors and Mr. Daffron felt Supervisor Carroll’s voice was raised to intimidate, belittle and scold them. He said he felt “harassed” and “berated” by Supervisor Carroll that day. Mr. Daffron defines berating as scolding. Although Mr. Daffron included a description of the conversation between Supervisor Carroll and Mr. Cuffari on the breezeway during the April 15, 2014 Board meeting in his written statement, Mr. Daffron admitted he did not witness the incident. Mr. Daffron said Supervisor Carroll “barged” into the elevator “in an attempt to corner” Mr. Cuffari on April 15, 2014. Mr. Daffron said the way Supervisor Carroll pointed at them and “commanded” Mr. Daffron to leave and Mr. Cuffari to stay was “aggressive”, “forceful” and “borderline threatening” because he “could tell” Supervisor Carroll was “aggravated.” Other than his interactions with Supervisor Carroll on April 1 and April 15, Mr. Daffron has not experienced interactions of this nature with Supervisor Carroll. When asked if he was aware of Supervisor Carroll “harassing” District 1 staff he said “I think I heard something about Shirl. ..getting …scolded by him….” He said he “heard briefly” from Ms. Coyle, Supervisor Miller and Mr. Cuffari that Supervisor Carroll “yelled” at Ms. Coyle and that is why they keep the door closed and locked.
Ms. Lamonna told HR that she rarely sees and rarely interacts with Supervisors or staff from other districts. If she does see Supervisor Carroll, it is on her way to use the restroom or in the lobby area. When asked if she was reduced to tears by Supervisor Carroll, Ms. Lamonna replied, “Well, that was a bad week.” She described the interaction between them as a “confrontation”, said his voice was “a little raised” and that Supervisor Carroll gave her a “verbal lashing.” She said because she was dealing with “personal issues” that week, the interaction “was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” When asked if the interaction with Supervisor Carroll would have reduced her to tears absent the personal issues, Ms. Lamonna said, “Maybe not.” Because she does not work for Supervisor Carroll, she felt the way he approached her that day was inappropriate and intimidating.
When asked if she was aware of Supervisor Carroll “harassing” District 1 staff Ms. Lamanna only knew of the April 15 incident with Mr. Cuffari. She said Ms. Coyle “mentioned” that Supervisor Carroll “pounded” on the District 1 door “one time” and as a result of that, and later for safety purposes, Supervisor Miller directed that the office doors remain closed and locked.
Special Staff Assistant – Unclassified Roxanne Ziegler said she “never” interacts with Board members from other districts. She has seen Supervisor Carroll in the hallway but she spoke with him once very briefly. Ms. Ziegler has not experienced any aggressive behavior on the part of Supervisor Carroll, although she heard about the incident involving Mr. Cuffari and Mr. Daffron and the incident with Ms. Lamonna. Ms. Ziegler said Supervisor Miller told her that Supervisor Carroll yelled at Ms. Coyle and because of that and for security purposes, District 1 office doors are to remain closed and locked.
HR reviewed video footage, provided by Mr. Cuffari, taken during the April 15, 2014, Board meeting. Neither Supervisor Carroll nor Mr. Cuffari seemed upset after the interaction. Pima County Sheriffs Sergeant James G. Ogden, who was present during the April 15. 2014, Board meeting, told HR that he observed Supervisor Carroll and Mr. Cuffari talking on the breezeway, but did not observe threatening or aggressive behavior on Supervisor Carroll’s part. He characterized the exchange as “two guys talking.” Sergeant Ogden recalled making a comment to the Security Captain present that it was “odd” seeing the two conversing because Mr. Cuffari is not a member of Supervisor Carroll’s staff.
CONCLUSION
Board of Supervisors Policy D.23.1 states in part, “Workplace bullying is intentional behavior intended to create an abusive work environment for an employee or employees. Bullying behavior is behavior in the workplace that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and not obviously related to an employer’s legitimate business interests.”
Bullying has traditionally involved an imbalance of power between the aggressor and target and almost always is continuous behavior. There is no question that a County Supervisor has more power than a staff member and much of the behavior complained of, primarily the comments about Supervisor Miller, was repetitious. In addition, however, the behavior must satisfy the definition used in Policy D.23.1, as stated in the previous paragraph.
When Supervisor Carroll took Mr. Cuffari outside the hearing room, he told Mr. Cuffari to stop talking about his daughter. That does not constitute evidence of intent to create an abusive work environment. It is unlikely that a reasonable person would second-guess a father expressing concern for his daughter or find it “hostile” or “offensive.” The elevator incident does not satisfy the definition because there is no evidence of hostile intent on the part of Supervisor Carroll. Mr. Cuffari said he considered whether Supervisor Carroll’s intent was to apologize for the interaction in the breezeway. Mr. Cuffari said that he was not afraid of Supervisor Carroll.
Although Ms. Coyle is not a complainant, HR considered the interaction of March 29, 2013, as evidence of a pattern of behavior on the part of Supervisor Carroll. Ms. Coyle said she would not use the term “bullying” to describe Supervisor Carroll’s behavior during that interaction. She testified that Supervisor Carroll, while forceful, was discussing minutes of a Board meeting, which is related to the County’s “legitimate business interests.” There is insufficient evidence that Supervisor Carroll intended to create an abusive work environment for Ms. Coyle.
The single interaction reported by Ms. Lamonna, while upsetting to her, does not satisfy the definition. Although other witnesses testified that Supervisor Carroll made Ms. Lamonna cry, she clarified that she had been having a “bad week” and that Supervisor Carroll’s actions, standing alone, were unlikely to reduce her to tears. Mr. Carroll was concerned about a contentious rezoning case that has generated voluminous correspondence to both Supervisor Carroll and Supervisor Miller. Ms. Lamonna stated that Supervisor Carroll was concerned that an email was disseminated to the public directing them to contact him and that he was not told about it in advance. That is also consistent with the County’s legitimate business interests.
Mr. Daffron did not provide any evidence that would suggest Supervisor Carroll intended to create an abusive work environment for him. Supervisor Carroll’s complaint about Mr. Daffron and Mr. Cuffari on April 15 video recording Board meetings does not satisfy the definition. Supervisor Carroll’s intent was to express his displeasure at the recordings, which relates to legitimate County business. That expression of displeasure is not sufficient evidence of intent to create an abusive work environment.
Finally, Mr. Cuffari testified that on approximately fifty occasions over the last year Supervisor Carroll criticized Supervisor Miller and engaged in alleged aggressive and forceful behavior, but that “I’ve never really felt the need to report something ….” There is insufficient evidence of hostile intent when the alleged target feels no need to report it.
Witnesses commented on the strained relationship between Supervisors Miller and Carroll and members of Supervisor Miller’s staff feel they have been caught in the crossfire. The situation, while uncomfortable for the staff, does not constitute evidence of intent by Supervisor Carroll to create an abusive work environment for the staff. Furthermore, Supervisor Carroll’s attempt to stimulate communication with Supervisor Miller is a legitimate business interest. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate a violation of Policy 0.23.1.
RECOMMENDATION
Human Resources has no authority to make a recommendation in this matter.