James Spears, a former employee with the city’s Parks and Recreation department, was dismissed from his job last May over what he called “made-up” charges.

“They came up with this bogus charge to get rid of me,” Spears said.

According to Spears, he was told by Sean VanDiver, the city’s current Personnel Director, that he was being accused of “threatening” another employee – when that accusation was proven false, the charge became “harassment” and eventually “cursing out” another employee.

“I’m not that kind of person that would curse somebody out,” Spears said.

Despite multiple witnesses who defended Spears against the allegations, he was fired from his job with no further explanation.

However, Spears believes his termination was related to conversations he was having with co-worker Carneetie Ellison, who has filed four complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against VanDiver.

“He (VanDiver) never told me why I was getting fired,” Spears said. “He told me I was talking to too many people and talking to the wrong people.”

Spears’ story is convoluted – along with being terminated and reprimanded for private conversations, Spears also claims that an employee attempted to record him.

When he reported the infraction, the employee was suspended for only two days, despite a City of Selma written policy that explicitly forbids recording another person without their consent.

Spears said he sought a hearing before the city’s Human Resources Director at the time, Ollie Davison, and was told he would have a hearing, Davison has since been terminated and Spears’ hearing was stalled.

“He (Davis) told me I would get a hearing,” Spears said. “He said he didn’t know why I was getting fired and didn’t know what was going on but, apparently, Sean [VanDiver] had something against me.”

Among Spears’ concerns regarding his termination, aside from what he called a “bogus” charge, is the fact that he was never informed in writing, per city handbook guidelines, what he was being fired for.

“I have a right to that information,” Spears said. “He didn’t go by the handbook at all.”

When all of his avenues seemed exhausted, Spears contacted Mayor Darrio Melton for assistance in scheduling a hearing and was assured by the mayor that one would be held between him, Melton and VanDiver.

“I never had that meeting,” Spears said. “All this was because I was friends with Mrs. Ellison.”

Fast forward a few months and Curtis Wimberly was hired to replace Spears and, within three months, was dismissed as part of the slate of lay-offs that took place in November.

Wimberly said he filed his request for a hearing Nov. 16 because he “was targeted” because of his relationship with Ellison and forced to endure a “hostile work environment.”

To date, Wimberly has not received a response to his request.

Wimberly said he was informed by James Ware, President of the Personnel Board, after sending him a copy of his request for a hearing, that the Personnel Board did not handle such claims and it would have to be taken up with the city’s Human Resources Department, which is currently headed up by VanDiver.

“I feel as though I should have at least gotten a response from the HR department,” Wimberly said.

“Only permanent employees who have been with the city for a year are eligible for a hearing,” VanDiver said. These meetings take place first with the HR department and, upon appeal, before the city’s Personnel Board.

However, Ellison has been employed by the city for more than a decade and is currently taking legal action to have her case heard – her lawyer has filed no less than three requests for such a hearing.

The city’s “Due Process Policy,” as defined in the city’s employee handbook under article 8.10, states the following:

“All City employees are entitled to and will be afforded the opportunity to give their side of [the story] before any adverse disciplinary action concerning their property rights will be determined. It is the employee’s right to be informed of the charges, receive written evidence and afforded the opportunity to respond in the presence of his or her department head.”

This portion is followed by steps employees are required to take to schedule a “pre-determination hearing” – step one of that section reads as follows:

“The department head will give a minimum twenty-four (24) hour notification to the employee of the charge(s) and reason for disciplinary action. The notice must also advise the employee of the date, time and location of a pre-determination hearing in the Personnel Department.”

Step two of that section states the pre-determination hearing will be conducted by the Human Resources Director and recorded, and the employee will be informed of the department’s decision within five days.

The following section of the handbook, 8.10(a), outlines employees’ right to appeal before the Personnel Board:

“Classified Service employees have a right to appeal suspensions, demotions and dismissals before the Personnel Board.”

The only stipulation to this rule is for employees that have been suspended for five days or less for a single offense or 10 cumulative days in any year – employees whose suspensions exceed these limitations are afforded the same rights stated above.

The following section in the handbook outlines the appeal process and states the following:

“An employee with regular status shall have the right to appeal disciplinary action of dismissal, demotion, or suspension.”

The handbook further defines how requests should be worded, how the hearing will proceed, how witnesses will be called and so forth – no restriction is noted regarding the duration of employment as a prerequisite for a hearing.

“Following procedures is what they expected from us as employees,” Wimberly said. “I’m due, at the least, due process. I didn’t write the handbook.”