The Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport Commission Tuesday removed Airport Manager Steve Sievek from his post and reassigned him to a temporary assignment as construction coordinator at 75 percent of his salary.
Neither Sievek nor commission Chair Beth Pfingsten would immediately elaborate on the reasons for the reassignment.
A memorandum that was written Tuesday by Pfingsten addressed a complaint about the airport’s failure to ensure the required inspection and certification of de-icing equipment. That failure, the memo continued, resulted in the cancellation of a Nov. 19 Delta jet flight departing from Minneapolis to Brainerd.
“This is a serious and grievous error representing unacceptable performance, jeopardizing customer relations and the reputation of our facility,” Pfingsten wrote.
The memo stated that as a result of this incident and Sievek’s performance in totality, he was being reassigned.
The commission voted unanimously in favor of Sievek’s reassignment and also appointed Commissioner Rick Adair as temporary volunteer airport manager. Adair, Pfingsten and Commissioner Andy Larson will serve on a committee that will seek a temporary interim manager who will oversee the transition.
The commission’s actions took place in open session after the panel met in closed session to discuss the airport manager’s performance evaluation.
Sievek, who has been airport manager since May 15, 1994, told the commission he appreciated the opportunity to serve as construction coordinator. The former Crow Wing County commissioner said he was proud to be a part of the many improvements at the airport since he started. He then said he plans to retire on or about June 1.
“It’s with sadness and regret that I choose to retire at that time,” he said.
He conceded that in some ways he might be considered a dinosaur and admitted that he was not “techno-savvy.” Sievek said he conducts business with a handshake and his word is his bond and noted the mounting documentation requirements of the job. He also said that he obviously was not perfect and that marketing was not his strong suit.
Later in the meeting, Sievek publicly apologized to the commission and to the traveling public for the de-icing truck’s lack of certification.
“I accept full responsibility that the truck was not certified,” he said.
After the meeting Sievek said he didn’t have a lot to say about his reassignment. He said he was enthused about his temporary assignment as construction coordinator.
Jeff Czeczok criticized the commission for not stating in its agenda that it was meeting in closed session to consider disciplinary action against an employee. He said that was a violation of state statute.
“I’m a little dismayed at what happened here,” Czeczok said.
Commissioners later discussed whether they should have someone review their closed session in anticipation of a complaint from Czeczok. The commissioners decided to address the issue next month.
MIKE O’ROURKE, associate editor, may be reached at mike.orourke@brainerddispatch.com and 855-5860.
Comments (19)
Add commentget rid of Sievek
can you belive it- fire him, hire him- only in Brainerd. He's a government leach-
here you go people
the apostle of the "I don't know much about this but I have the right to talk down at you from my lofty perch of judgement" is gonna check in on the discussion. Get ready to find out how bad you are as a person next to him and his.
Violated State Statute
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, states: “Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.”
Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), states: “A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.”
**********************************************************
{Airport Commission Agenda
December 6, 2011 Meeting
Page Two
C. Personnel Committee.
1. Discussion – Manager Performance Evaluation
2. Discussion – Union Contract}
Nowhere does the agenda indicate they will be discussing discipline nor does it indicate they will be entering into closed session.
Once again they violate State Statute and what will be their consequence?
Jeff Czeczok
why cost are high
Paying him as a construction coordinator?? What different duties will he be doing that they are already paying Kueper's to do?
political favor
he was given the job in 1994 when he lost his commish seat. he had NO training in any airport duties and never did more then the minimum. incompetant but can't be fired-more waste-there is already a construction manager! jeff is correct-they did not follow the law to remove him!
Accountability
Appears "Mismanagement" continues!!! What a shining example for all hard working dedicated employees, no worries if you aren't performing your job to required standards; shoddy equipment maintenance, lack of required documentation, long absence from work place . . . . you will be reassigned to something different with a slight decrease in pay. Hmmm . . . almost sounds like a Union Job! Rather hard to fix Congress and Washington DC if we can't fix our own local government first! So for the Baby Boomers that grew up learning right from wrong, that not everyone wins and losing doesn't desiginate you to failure for life and is often a great incentive, that if you want financial gain and status you work for it and earn it along with the respect that is deserved, and heaven help us if we imparted this on to our children . . . . Take a good look at our world and all if it's Political Correctness!
Take a serious look at the money that has been misused at the Airport - the construction project has been a big RED flag from the beginning! Conflicts of interest and nothing but "The Good Old Boys Club" . . .who is profiting and has a greased hand.
mis·man·age (ms-mnj)
tr.v. mis·man·aged, mis·man·ag·ing, mis·man·ag·es
To manage badly or carelessly.
Shame on us all ~
Statutes
Jeff, am I missing something? in the statutes you references I am not seeing anywhere that they are required to have in the agenda they will be closing a meeting or potentially disciplining an employee. So the way I am reading the 2 statutes you included as long as they stated in an open meeting as to why they were closing the meeting, i.e. performance evaluation and then when the opend the meeting back up they concluded that the employee was to be reassigned wouldn't that be meeting the requriements of the law? Or am I missing something?
ACCOUNTABILITY
Appears "Mismanagement" continues!!! What a shining example for all hard working dedicated employees, no worries if you aren't performing your job to required standards; shoddy equipment maintenance, lack of required documentation, long absence from work place . . . . you will be reassigned to something different with a slight decrease in pay. Hmmm almost sounds like a Union Job and rather hard to fix Congress and Washington DC if we can't fix our own local government first! So for the Baby Boomers that grew up learning right from wrong, that not everyone wins and losing doesn't designate you to failure for life and is often a great incentive, that if you want financial gain and status you work for it and earn it along with the respect that is deserved, and heaven help us if we imparted this on to our children . . . . Take a good look at our world and all if it's Political Correctness!
Has anyone checked into the Airport remodel job, one big RED flag!!! Conflicts of interest, missed deadlines, re-work of shoddy work ... who hands were greased in this venture??
Shame on us all ~
Walleyeguy
They are required to identify the following:
{"...Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.”{
They never did any of this...all they did was go into closed session without it being indicated that a closed meeting would be on their agenda nor did they say the reason for the closed meeting -- Discipline.
Does this make it easier to understand?
Jeff
Closing a meeting
Jeff, without having been to the meeting....did they not state at the meeting they were closing due to a performance evaluation? As long as they stated that info during the meeting they would have met the requirements of that statute, correct?
airport manager
to start with jeff get a life and quit being bob o' little cry baby steve did a good job at his job did he miss a crane inspection yes he admitts to it and assumes responibility he also found out after listening to city administration about having to have a special inspector to do crane inspection that ads desiel could do and they did a local company did the inspection but you dont know the facts as usual steve and the former state senator brought more money to this county-city than you can imagine instead of letting it go to other parts of the county if your so concerned about it cut the federal taxes as this money is out there steve found it and applied for grants instead of letting it go if you dont know what you talking about shut the h--- up
A new witch hunt begins in
A new witch hunt begins in the old bean-[filtered word].
Walleyeguy
The Airport Commission entered into a closed meeting under the guise of the Manager’s performance evaluation.
They knew in advance of the meeting there was going to be discipline handed down, see: Commission Chair Beth Pfingsten’s memorandum.
They’ve scheduled 3 earlier meetings to discuss the Airport Manager’s evaluation and when it appeared on the December’s Agenda, it was a clear sign the evaluation was going to be identified to the public.
The item Seivek was responsible for was subsequent to the most recent meeting regarding his performance evaluation and the December’s Agenda was issued late last week.
The Statute I posted above clearly shows that when disciplinary matters are going to be discussed during a closed meeting, the public is to be notified and the meeting is to be noted on the agenda as a "closed Meeting."
Does this make more sense to you now?
JVC
In this state statutes only
In this state statutes only apply to government entities if it can be forced upon the entity. Sometimes it takes court involvement to make sure statutes are followed.
Statutes
Jeff, not to be a thorn in your side....but with the 2 statutes you listed, I am still not seeing where it say the public has to be notified on the meeting agenda of discipline...
Walleyeguy, I'll try one more
Walleyeguy, I'll try one more time.
This Statute: Section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), states: “A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority.
And, this wording from the other Statute: section 13D.01, subdivision 3, states: “Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.
The subject was "discipline and the grounds permitting the meeting to be closed were the preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority.
The individual subject to the authority of the Airport Commission was the Airport Manager.
And, the public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed.
They did not do this. They neither voiced they were going to discuss discipline prior going into closed session nor was it on their agenda.
I sincerely hope this helps you understand now, because if it doesn't, I believe there's a position for you over at the CWC Attorney's Office. :)
Regards, Jeff
Both Sides of the story?
I will be the first to admit I do not know all of this story, but I don't think anyone commenting here does either. The Brainerd Airfield Manager may have made some mistakes, but did he willfully do them? I doubt it. He appears, to me, to be a good, hard working person, but wasn't fully preparred to do the job. Aviation is constantly changing, and it has gotten a lot more technical and requires constant education just to keep up with all of the changes from the FAA reguarding airfields and airspace. No one is perfect, and he even admitted it himself he was more of an olden days person and was ready to step out, he didn't embrace the new technology. With all of the extremely negative responses out there, I have to ask, would anyone bashing the Airfield manager be fit to do his job? Probably not. Seperately, I think the airfield manager and marketing need to be 2 seperate people. Airfield manager has a lot of duties, and you would have a better product if you looked for an expert in each field.