David Michael Miller
A top official with Madison’s civil rights department is accusing the city’s human resources department of bias against people of color and women. And an analyst in the human resources department, caught in the middle, appears to have lost her job over it.
Byron Bishop, head of the equal opportunities division, made the charge in November 2017 when challenging the compensation classifications for his position and the city’s affirmative action division manager.
“There appears to be an established historical pattern and practice that has been going on for years, making this city of Madison HR process non-objective and completely biased,” wrote Bishop, the city’s equal opportunities division manager, in a Nov. 2, 2017 email. “The entire process needs to be reviewed to ensure we are making correct decisions... free from discrimination or bias.”
On August 18, 2017, the human resources department received a “position study request” from the civil rights department to research the classifications for Bishop’s position and that of Felicia Jones, head of the city’s affirmative action division, according to documents before the Finance Committee. Bishop and Jones were informed on Nov. 2 that they would be moved up two compensation levels. That same day, Bishop and Jones informed human resources in an email that they disagreed with the decision and would formally appeal. Both were seeking placement in an even higher pay range.
Bishop and Jones contend that their positions were misclassified in 2006, when the equal opportunities and affirmative action divisions were merged under the new civil rights department. Since the consolidation, they argued that their responsibilities have also increased, justifying moving the positions up four compensation levels.
HR stood by its decision in a January 2018 response to the appeals. Sometime before Feb. 26, Bishop and Jones agreed not to press the issue further. Neither responded to Isthmus’ request for comment.
The Finance Committee on March 26 approved the two-level classification change for Bishop and Jones. Harper Donahue, the director of human resources, told the committee, “I believe [Bishop] was misinformed in terms of our process.”
But Common Council members are concerned by Bishop’s allegations of discrimination.
Ald. Denise DeMarb, who became aware of the issue after reading the Finance Committee agenda, says she’s “deeply troubled” by the allegations of discrimination and asserts that the council has an obligation to ensure all members of the city’s workforce are treated equally.
“We don’t know what’s going on. If the allegations are true, the city needs to deal with that. And if it’s not true, it’s just as important that people know that,” DeMarb says. “There are over 2,000 people employed by the city of Madison. It’s 65 percent of our budget. People are our greatest resource. They need to have faith in the process. We have a responsibility to make sure these matters are handled with integrity and dignity. That’s the sword I’ll die on.”
Ald. Rebecca Kemble says “the concerns raised in the memo by the head of the [equal opportunities] division are serious enough for the city to consider conducting an independent external audit” of human resources.
Susan Gafner, a former human resources analyst with the city, was the HR liaison for the Department of Civil Rights. She was assigned in August 2017 to study whether the positions held by Bishop and Jones should be in a higher compensation group. She says she was ultimately scapegoated by her superiors and forced to resign over the issue.
Gafner, in an exclusive interview with Isthmus, says she determined after months of research that the positions were improperly classified in 2006. She also agreed with Bishop and Jones that responsibilities for the positions increased by 25 percent since the consolidation. As a result, Gafner recommended that the positions be moved up four compensation levels.
Gafner says this recommendation was supported by Norman Davis, director of the civil rights department. Davis, the former affirmative action division manager, had asked in January 2016 that the classification for the position be reevaluated. But he was promoted to director of the civil rights department before human resources issued a recommendation. Davis did not respond to a request for comment.
Mike Lipski — the city’s human resources service manager and Gafner’s boss — did not agree with Gafner’s recommendation, which would have moved Bishop and Jones into the same compensation group as Lipski. He instructed Gafner to move the civil rights department officials up two compensation levels, not four.
“From the start, this was treated different from any other classification I had done,” says Gafner, who worked as a human relations analyst for the city for nearly three years. “[Lipski] was dismissive and even discussing it seemed to agitate him. The details didn’t seem to matter, his mind was made up. So I wrote my report as I was directed.”
After Bishop and Jones appealed the decision, Gafner says her own department began investigating her involvement in the reclassification process. She was informed in early December 2017 that she was being investigated for misconduct.
Employee/Labor Relations Manager Gregory Leifer, according to a document from Gafner’s attorney, alleged Gafner had violated the city’s ethics code and had been insubordinate when working on the compensation issue.
Gafner denies any wrongdoing. However, when given the option in February 2018 to be terminated or resign, she says she chose the latter.
“They were offering severance, a letter of recommendation and some other benefits if I just quietly got out of the way. It was that or get fired,” Gafner says. “I did what I thought was best for my family.”
Gafner says the city was alleging misconduct for her updating civil rights officials on the status of Bishop’s and Jones’ reclassification process. The ethics violation stemmed from lunches she had with Bishop and him providing her office a city-owned air purifier that wasn’t being used in his office.
“I had a spotless record. The agencies I worked with never had any complaints,” Gafner says. “It was only after Byron and Felicia appealed the classification decision that my actions were called into question.”
Leifer declined to comment on the case. Harper Donahue, director of the human resources department, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The new pay classification for the managers of the equal opportunities and affirmative action divisions will go before the Common Council for final approval in April.
Bishop alleged in his appeal that there is no standardized policy for how human resources handles position reclassifications and employee promotions. As a result, Bishop said that rules and procedures are “applied unevenly” and “subjectively.” He also accused Lipski of abusing his position to “depress women and people of color” while overseeing classification and promotions of city employees.
Michael May and Patricia Lauten from the city attorney’s office, as well as Harper Donahue and Mike Lipski from human resources, responded to Bishop’s allegations in a memo requested by the Finance Committee. In the letter, human resources defended how its department handled the situation and refuted Bishop’s accusation of discrimination.
“Mr. Bishop makes some very disturbing allegations generally and personally against the HR Services Manager. We would have expected Mr. Bishop to support these serious charges with substantially more than just putting incendiary words together,” the March 23 memo states. “He makes serious allegations with no opportunity for the City, HR or the HR Services Manager to defend themselves.”
In a separate response, Davis states Bishop has “apologized to HR for the offenses caused” and “understands that he cannot attempt to audit the process and justify a higher compensation for himself in the same effort.”
“Regardless of his ambition to secure proper compensation for his work, the accusations and faults he attributes to the HR services manager are unwarranted in the position study process and should have been excluded from consideration related to compensation,” Davis writes. “No clear data has been provided to suggest that this process has a negative impact on women and people of color.”
Gafner says the city might come to a different conclusion if it scrutinizes her former department.
“[The city] needs to have a third-party investigation of this whole situation and a third-party audit of the human resources department,” Gafner says. “They are very foolish to think that this will just be swept under the rug.”