Personnel board overturns City of Augusta termination after procurement testimony
Loading...
Summary
After testimony about purchase‑order printing errors, credit‑card handling and workplace complaints, the Restoration County Personnel Board voted to overturn the City of Augusta's termination of the procurement department employee.
The Restoration County Personnel Board voted to overturn the City of Augusta's termination of a procurement department employee after a special hearing that included sworn testimony from procurement staff, IT personnel and department directors.
Chair David Barbee opened the Feb. 2 special meeting and told the board it had two options: "either uphold the city's recommendation or overturn" the termination. County counsel told the board the evidence would show repeated, knowing violations of personnel policy between Aug. 4 and Sept. 17, 2025, including falsification or misrepresentation of official documents. "As a result, 110 purchase orders were issued with an incorrect authorizing name and title," counsel said during opening remarks.
The employee's representative disputed that the city would present evidence of knowing misconduct and said the employee had no prior disciplinary actions during 17 years of service. The defendant testified repeatedly that he had not been informed of the printing issue and learned of the allegations only at the time of his termination: "I didn't find out about this until I was getting terminated," he said.
Witnesses described two lines of factual dispute that the board weighed. Procurement staff said a Sept. 2 power outage required reloading the Central Square "L" form used to print purchase orders; after the reset they observed the signature line change and that POs printed bearing the wrong director name. Administrative services and acquisitions staff testified they discovered and reprinted hundreds of affected purchase orders and that at least some printed with the incorrect authorizing name for a period before IT or procurement corrected the file.
Several witnesses also described an episode on Sept. 15 when a recreation department director reported hotel charges were not posting; procurement staff said they were asked to look into the credit‑card authorization and to increase a temporary limit for that trip. The new procurement director said he instructed staff to increase the card and that the deputy did not implement the directive; the deputy and others disputed whether a formal instruction was given and whether the deputy had the authority or the technical access to make the change.
An IT witness described how the Central Square signature files are managed and said IT does not set procurement policy; IT confirmed receiving an early‑afternoon email on Sept. 2 asking for help but said he could not account for every selection made during the reset that day. "We were notified that you were interim director," the IT witness said, adding that vendor work is sometimes required to update the stored signature file and that the timing for updates varied.
Employees from acquisitions and administrative services testified about workplace tensions under the interim director and said morale improved after the new director took over. Some witnesses said they filed HR complaints; others described training and procedure changes after the leadership transition.
After hearings and an executive session, the board announced its vote to overturn the termination. The roll call, as read into the record by the chair, recorded votes to overturn from Mister Rose, Miss McCaskin and Miss Myers; Mister Masters was reported to have voted to overturn while not in the room; Miss Dunn abstained; and Chair David Barbee said he voted to overturn.
The board did not announce disciplinary steps in the public session; members moved into executive session to deliberate and returned to record the outcome. The hearing record contains testimony and documentary references that the board cited in deliberations; staff said the next procedural step for the city would be to respond to the board's decision under applicable appeal law and administrative process.
The board's decision reinstates the employee's employment status pending whatever administrative follow‑up the city pursues. The personnel board did not provide an immediate timeline in the public record for how the city must respond to the overturn.
