Sexual Harassment Suit Filed Against ...

Sexual Harassment Suit Filed Against Huntington

Posted in the Lufkin Forum

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#1 Dec 14, 2012
Diddly Squat asked that this new thread be started.... so here it is!

Yes, there is a lawsuit that has been filed in the FEDERAL court against Bruce Milstead, City of Huntington City Manager. The lawsuit is claiming Sexual Harassment and Retaliation... so the question again is HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT BRUCE MILSTEAD NOW??? It seems that since he has taken the position of City Manager, many woes have been brought to the city of Huntington in one form or another... The citizens need to take their concerns to the city council and demand that some form of action be taken.
Diddly Squat

Katy, TX

#2 Dec 14, 2012
I want to give credit to the Lufkin News for reporting this and reporter Jessica Cooley did a good job at:

http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article...

I would suggest the Lufkin News chase the CITY COUNCIL members down and put the pressure on them to address WHY they are rubber stamping without question the actions and expenditures of the so called city manager/city administrator/ whatever.

I have lived here all my life and the city business was always administered by the mayor until a few years ago, and I do not remember an election being conducted where the citizens authorized a change.

Also how was Bruce Milstead able to take over and cancel the regular election of the Volunteer Fire Dept dismiss all but 4 of firemen.
And as long as I can remember,(since before Jakie Lew Holland was chief) the fire dept was seperate from the city.(The city trying to take over the fire dept is the reason there are two buildings now)

And it seems from what I am hearing that the mayor has abdicted much of his authority to Bruce Milstead and that BM has abdicted much of his authority to Betsy Gregson, including firing people.

There seems to be many unethical or possibly illegal things happening.

Please stay on top of it Lufkin News. You probably can publish a miniseries of weekly articles if you will talk to various taxpayer/citizens.
Crazy Town USA

Blum, TX

#3 Dec 14, 2012
Then maybe the mayor needs to step down. There are plenty of citizens that would do the job not just fill the seat...

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#4 Dec 14, 2012
Crazy Town USA wrote:
Then maybe the mayor needs to step down. There are plenty of citizens that would do the job not just fill the seat...
If this were true, tell me why NO ONE ran against him in the last election? Maybe you should consider running for mayor
Crazy Town USA

Blum, TX

#5 Dec 14, 2012
I thought i saw your name on the app form manuela?

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#6 Dec 14, 2012
really??? I thought it was your name on the app form Crazy

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#7 Dec 14, 2012
Here is a summary of the Lufkin Daily News Article about the Sexual Harassment Suit against the City of Huntington:

The suit alleges that Deadra Lyn Combs was sexually harassed by Bruce Milstead. His "sever and pervasive sexual conduct caused (combs) to avoid him and to be less productive in her job. Allegedly, when Combs told her direct supervisor, Betsy Gregson about Milstead behavior and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she was fired within a week. Lufkin Attorney Robert Alderman is reprsenting the City.

Attorney Julia Hatcher is representing Combs.

Quotes by Gregson in the newspaper shows support by Gregson for Milstead.

Since: Dec 12

Katy, TX

#8 Dec 14, 2012
Manuela wrote:
Diddly Squat asked that this new thread be started.... so here it is!
Yes, there is a lawsuit that has been filed in the FEDERAL court against Bruce Milstead, City of Huntington City Manager. The lawsuit is claiming Sexual Harassment and Retaliation... so the question again is HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT BRUCE MILSTEAD NOW??? It seems that since he has taken the position of City Manager, many woes have been brought to the city of Huntington in one form or another... The citizens need to take their concerns to the city council and demand that some form of action be taken.
Well it does my heart good to see that cornbread fed Humpty Dumpty in trouble. My hat is off to Mrs. Combs for filing that suit against him. I think he has run over people for long enough. I think its time he is held accountable for his actions.

Old Roly Poly has been rude and crude. He is one of those type people that lets power go to his head. Since he has become City Manager, nothing but trouble has go down. I hope they ride him out on a rail.

Since old Betsy Gregson is sticking up for Bruce on this case, people are going to think Bruce has some dirt on her. I am sure she thought she should have been the City Manager.

Well hold on to your taters. It is going to be an interesting ride.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#9 Dec 15, 2012
I just read up on open meetings laws. I got my information from a source quoted by Diddly Squat.

I read that agenda's must have specificity, not broad, vague terms.

So I looked at the agenda for the EDC for Dec 12, 2012 at http://www.cityofhuntington.org/wp-content/up...

Item 10 and l1 are review of old busines and review of new business. This is vague according to the law and specificly outlawed.

See https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions...

THE EDC is violating open meetings law with vague agendas. Someone needs to file a complaint about this.

I Will make another post with the Attorney General's opionion in the next post

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#10 Dec 15, 2012
This is an excerpt from an AG opinion about vague agenda's for open meetings.

We next consider instances in which the subject matter of a meeting has been determined to be inadequately described in a notice. In a 1986 case, the Texas Supreme Court considered a meeting notice that included general terms such as "personnel," "litigation," and "real estate matters." Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. After explaining that notice under the Act "should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting" the court held that those general terms "did not provide full and adequate notice, particularly where the subject slated for discussion was one of special interest to the public." Id. at 959.

In a 2000 opinion, this office concluded that the generic notice "employee briefing sessions" was inadequate under the Act. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0169 (2000) at 6. The opinion reasoned that because a governmental body exercises control over its staff, it presumably can ascertain in advance what subjects will be addressed such that those subjects should be included in the meeting notice. Id. And in a 2001 case, this same reasoning was applied by the Austin Court of Appeals to "comments by members of the governmental body itself." Hays County Water Planning P'ship v. Hays County, 41 S.W.3d 174, 180 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. denied)(citing Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0169 (2000)).

In Hays County Water Planning Partnership, the Austin Court considered the following posting: "Presentation by Commissioner Russ Molenaar." Id. at 178. The court held that "'[p]resentation' is a vague description. There is nothing in the posting that would give a resident of Hays County any inkling of the substance of Molenaar's proposed presentation." Id. at 180. Use of the term fails "to inform a reader as a member of the interested public ... of the topics to be addressed by Molenaar." Id.

Based on these cases and the standard to be used in construing the Act's provisions, we conclude the notice set out supra is inadequate as a matter of law. The general and generic nature of the notice does not sufficiently notify a reader, as a member of the interested public, of the subjects of the update and reports to be discussed at any particular meeting. And like the notices at issue in Hays County Water Planning P'ship and Attorney General Opinion JC-0169, the subjects to be addressed can presumably be ascertained by the governmental body in advance. Hays County Water Planning P'ship, 41 S.W.3d at 180; Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0169 (2000) at 6; but see, Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0169 (2000) at 4 (discussing "public comment" as sufficient notice where, unlike with staff, the governmental body cannot predict the subject matter of citizen comments and questions). Or conclusion here is not altered by the fact that the governing body does not, as you assert, "engage in any discussion" or "take any action regarding these items." Request Letter, supra note 2, at 6. Under the Act's definition of "meeting" a governmental body is subject to the Act, and its notice requirements, even when its members merely receive information about public business or public policy over which the body has supervision and control and do not engage in deliberations. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 551.001(4)(B)(Vernon Supp. 2008); Martin v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 13-01-096-CV, 2002 WL 34215930, at *3 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi Aug. 8, 2002, no pet.)(not designated for publication)("[A] governmental body is subject to the Act even if the members merely receive information and do not engage in deliberations among themselves or with a third party including an employee of the governmental body[.]")

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#11 Dec 15, 2012
“It is absolutely disappointing that this kind of behavior would be allowed,” Milstead said.

I think Bruce said it best about his situation. It is absolutely disappointing that the Council would be sitting on their hands and doing nothing. When will they realize this is something that needs addressing.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#12 Dec 15, 2012
inacar wrote:
“It is absolutely disappointing that this kind of behavior would be allowed,” Milstead said.
I think Bruce said it best about his situation. It is absolutely disappointing that the Council would be sitting on their hands and doing nothing. When will they realize this is something that needs addressing.
You hit the nail on the head here Inacar!!! Hopefully the media attention will prompt the citizen of huntington to confront the council and demand action be taken. If the council sits back and allows Bruce to continue with his usual activities during all this, it is nothing but a big slap in the face to the citizens, the same people who elected the council members to serve for them. I know we will hear 'innocent until proven guilty' and that is all well and good, BUT, with such a huge accusation, there as to be some form of discipline - especially in light of all the troubles the city of huntington has been and is facing since Bruce has taken the position of city manager.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13 Dec 15, 2012
And I must also interject here, if Betsy was approached by an employee about an employee grievance and did not follow the proper guidelines to document and investigate the allegations, she is neck deep in the mess too. And one step further if they ran this by Mayor and Council, well you get my drift. Well it appears guilty or not, they have managed to paint themselves into a corner. Once again forgetting there are rules of conduct an employer has to follow even if your name is Bruce and Betsy. Even when you think you are the "Big Fish" in a small pond, there's always the chance a bigger one will get you.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#14 Dec 15, 2012
This was reported to Betsy and she didn't do anything about it. Guess that means that she is neck deep too.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#15 Dec 15, 2012
Manuela wrote:
This was reported to Betsy and she didn't do anything about it. Guess that means that she is neck deep too.
Perhaps in the end, she will say she was forced to fire the woman as per orders of BM.

You know in the day of all these hidden tape recorders, or cell phone recorders, I wonder which one of them recorded the other?

Some people say that Betsy was angry she didn't get the job of City Administrator. She had been the secretary for a long time and has much more administrative experience than BM.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#16 Dec 15, 2012
You have a good point, you think that maybe there have been/are hidden recording devices in the city offices.... hmmmm, you know, there is information put here that they certainly don't like and probably thought was kept behind their closed door. Makes one wonder who is out to get who up there... Betsy does have motive since she wants the position that Bruce has... just sayin.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#17 Dec 15, 2012
Up Up and Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps in the end, she will say she was forced to fire the woman as per orders of BM.
You know in the day of all these hidden tape recorders, or cell phone recorders, I wonder which one of them recorded the other?
Some people say that Betsy was angry she didn't get the job of City Administrator. She had been the secretary for a long time and has much more administrative experience than BM.
I think the Council was scared of giving Betsy anymore power. They thought "good old boy" Bruce could control her and keep them from having to deal with her as the boss. They never dreamed by the comments Bruce had made that they would join forces. Betsy can say all she wants that it was Bruce's fault, she had the responsibility to follow the rules and it appears she cut corners.

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#18 Dec 15, 2012
All I know is that if I was a supervisor, and an employee reported that they had made an EEOC complaint, I would not fire them at that time. It smacks of retaliation.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#19 Dec 15, 2012
And then again, Betsy may have had this all planned, she just probably didn't think it would take 5 years for Bruce to hit the wall and she'd have to come in and save the City. Oh Bruce, did your ego completely get the best of you?

Since: Jul 12

Katy, TX

#20 Dec 15, 2012
inacar wrote:
And then again, Betsy may have had this all planned, she just probably didn't think it would take 5 years for Bruce to hit the wall and she'd have to come in and save the City. Oh Bruce, did your ego completely get the best of you?
They might be sticking together now, but before its over with, they will turn on each other.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lufkin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
corner of six st. and ave F (Feb '15) 2 hr mr nobody 4
Louie gohmert Jul 19 anon 2
News Numerous Deep East Texas Jack-in-the-Box restau... Jun '17 mr nobody 2
newks Jun '17 mr nobody 2
Sheila Ann Morton missing (Aug '14) Jun '17 Still concerned 12
News 10/18 BOWMAN: The settlement of Cuthand (Oct '09) May '17 Anonymous 5
New to nac May '17 Kat 1

Lufkin Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lufkin Mortgages