FAIRMONT– In a special meeting on Thursday, the Fairmont City Council held a continuation on consideration of undue influence allegations on a city administrator by two council members– Wayne Hasek and Jay Maynard. Ultimately, in two split votes, the council ruled no action to be taken against either.

In a special meeting on Jan. 15, 2025, there was a hearing on harassment allegations against Hasek and Maynard, which was resolved, but the allegations of undue influence was tabled. At that meeting there was also a hearing on allegations against Council Member Britney Kawecki, which was resolved at the time.

Mayor Lee Baarts opened Thursday’s meeting with allegations against Hasek and said that the complaint, as determined by the city council, was under the code of conduct which states a sufficient claim of a violation of a code of conduct. He said the city council would need to decide whether or not to take any formal action against Hasek.

Before getting into details of the investigation, Baarts said that no names or personal descriptions would be used during the meeting.

Keith Hiller of Technology Solutions and Associates LLC, an outside investigator hired by the city, then introduced himself and said he was asked by interim city administrator Jeff O’Neill to see if there was any special privileges involving Councilor Maynard and Councilor Hasek.

“In order to do that I had to determine whether or not prior city administrator (Matt Skaret) and how events unfolded and how they were in that purview,” Hiller explained.

He said that the issue started with a local citizen who is “unhappy” and has some questionable behavior with city staff and the city in general.

“City staff were feeling harassed, intimidated, and they wanted the city administrator to do something,” Hiller said.

He added that the city administrator as chief executive officer of the city does have an obligation to protect staff from harassment.

“I think the majority of the council will agree, that throughout the testimonial evidence, that the council does agree that behavior from this local citizen is quite questionable. It has been going on for several years,” Hiller said.

It was noted that remedies have also been sought out to quell the behavior to protect staff, which was difficult to do so.

He said that around June 16, 2024 Skaret had begun consulting with legal counsel on what could be done to remedy the situation.

“That went on, ad nauseam, back and forth, back and forth, finally they came to the conclusion that the best course of action would be a cease and desist against this local community member,” Hiller said.

He said on Oct. 10, 2024 the local community member was delivered by email, along with the council in its entirety, the cease and desist.

Hiller further said that there has been some assertions that Hasek and Maynard may have said something that led others to believe that there was some form of special privilege granted to them because of their position as it resulted to the issuance of the cease and desist.

“After a complete investigation, it is the opinion of this officer that Councilor Maynard and Councilor Hasek had no violations of the city’s code of conduct and that’s the conclusion at this point,” Hiller said.

Council Member Randy Lubenow expressed dissatisfaction with the interview process done by Hiller. He referenced a document provided to the council members, though not available to the public, that detailed the investigation.

“You were hired to investigate whether there was a use of influence by two council members. This quite honestly I believe turned into, for lack of a better word, a b*tch session by numerous individuals,” Lubenow said.

He said he believed the documents from the investigation included out-right lies and said he struggled with Hiller’s earlier admission of being a police officer for over 30 years.

Furthermore Lubenow said he didn’t believe that the investigation stayed to the scope of the investigation.

“Your opinion is what it is but I wish we had stayed to the scope of the investigation,” Lubenow said.

Hiller responded and said he believed that the scope of the investigation got to the narrowed finding at the end that Councilors Hasek and Maynard had no special privileges.

Lubenow then said that he thought the timing of the situation was “strange” and he put some blame on the city’s attorney, Flaherty and Hood, because he said they were asked numerous times if there was anything that could be done (to stop harassment of city staff) and nothing was suggested.

“Going through the police department would have at least given us some teeth. A cease and desist letter was nothing more than, ‘hey, you shouldn’t do this anymore,'” Lubenow said.

Hiller pointed out that his job was not to question the decision on the manner on how the council wanted to address the issue, but to determine if there was special privilege applied to the two councilors.

“I’m glad you understand what the scope was because I think you lost it somewhere in the interviews,” Lubenow said.

Kawecki said she was in agreement with Lubenow and that when she went through her interview she was told not to meander.

“When I go through this binder as well, I have a hard time understanding how you allowed other people to not meander,” Kawecki said.

She took issue with the amount of times references to her were listed in the investigation documents.

“This was, I feel, an investigation into me, which is not what we hired you for,” Kawecki said.

She called the report “disappointing” and said that it made her look like a “horrible person.”

Hiller said, “The testimonial evidence offered by others is truthful and accurate. I stand by my report. That is how they decided to answer the questions. I believe that they answered truthful and accurate.”

He said that in order to have a good understanding of the landscape when doing the investigation, he needed some level of understanding from city staff.

“That’s what they reported to me. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t go that direction on purpose. They were all asked the same questions and that’s what they provided to me,” Hiller said.

He said that other councilors provided information that they felt was germane to how possible information that tied into the harassment was occurring.

“How a local citizen was getting information. How was it coming back to them. They felt it was germane and relevant so that’s why it was shared with me,” Hiller said.

Maynard asked Hiller whether Skaret was definite in his assessment of whether or not he received any influence or orders from himself or Hasek.

“The (former) city administrator is crystal clear that he received no prodding, no influence, no requests, no direction from yourself or Councilor Hasek as it related to the process, the decision making or the issuance of the cease and desist to the local community member,” Hiller said.

Kawecki took issue with the response and relayed some details from a situation on Sept. 19 at city hall. Hiller said the situation she was referring to involved a closed session meeting so he had to be careful when answering her question.

“There was nothing, no comments that were made, that would direct me to think that there was any special privileges that occurred involving Councilors Maynard or Hasek,” Hiller said.

Lubenow alluded to some council members knowing about the cease and desist letter before others. Hiller said that Skaret had responded to some council members with language including “I’ve already taken care of it” or “I’m already working with Flaherty and Hood.”

He said facts behind the case would suggest that the city administrator was working on it. He said that all council members are entitled to an opinion and can make suggestions to a city administrator such as “you need to do something.”

After about 40 minutes of discussion, Council Member James Kotewa asked Hiller again what his role in the investigation was. Hiller said he was asked to determine if there special privileges assessed by Councilor Hasek or Councilor Maynard in the determination and issuance of a cease and desist to a local community member.

“What is your final opinion with what your role was in this investigation?” Kotewa asked.

“Based on the testimonial interviews, based on the evidence that was presented, I think the totality paints a pretty clear picture to the city council that it is more likely than not that Councilor Maynard and Councilor Hasek did not violate any code of conduct policy or procedures within the city of Fairmont,” Hiller said.

Following the hearing, Hasek had an opportunity to comment and simply said, “I agree with Mr. Hiller.”

Maynard made a motion that the matter be closed with no action taken. Kotewa seconded it. Lubenow abstained from voting as he said he did not feel like he had enough information to cast an educated vote. In a roll call vote, the motion passed 2-1 with Lubenow and Hasek abstaining, Maynard and Kotewa voting yes and Kawecki voting no.

Next similar allegations against Maynard were to be discussed. Baarts asked whether the council wanted Hiller to go through the information again and it was not deemed necessary.

Hasek made a motion to not take any action and Kotewa seconded it.

Lubenow said, “I believe that Councilor Maynard, by his own words, did in fact tell the former city administrator to send the cease and desist, that it couldn’t wait. I believe that was, in my opinion, a direct order to the city administrator.”

In a roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 with Hasek, Kotwea and Baarts (in a tie-breaker) voting yes, Lubenow and Kawecki voting no and Maynard abstaining.