City Administrator Investigation
The City of Ann Arbor has a Council-Manager form of government (incorporating elements of a weak mayor structure). In Ann Arbor, voters elect Council and the Mayor to set policy and Council oversees a professional manager (City Administrator) who executes this policy and manages day-to-day operations of the City. Per Ann Arbor City Charter Section 5.1, the City Administrator is the “administrative agent of the Council, shall perform the duties of office under its authority, and shall be accountable to the Council for the performance of those duties. The City Administrator shall be chosen on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications.” Key duties include directing and supervising the work of all City departments, including Human Resources. In Fiscal Year 2022, the City Administrator oversees 785 FTEs and $510 million annual budget. The City Administrator is one of two City positions that reports directly to Council, the other is the City Attorney.
Ann Arbor’s current City Administrator is Tom Crawford. He was hired as Administrator in September 2020. He served previously as Chief Financial Officer for the City since 2004. In May 2021, some City employees approached Mayor Taylor regarding statements made by Administrator Crawford that they found insensitive and offensive. They did not bring these concerns to the HR Director because the HR Director reports to the City Administrator. In response, Mayor Taylor sought the advice of City Attorney Stephen Postema and a meeting was held in late May between Mayor Christopher Taylor, Pro Tem Julie Grand, Mr. Postema, and Mr. Crawford. Following this meeting, Mr. Crawford authorized an outside independent investigation by Human Resources (HR) Attorney Jen Salvatore to examine concerns about his behavior brought to the Mayor’s attention. Council was notified of this investigation on June 1st. Council was urged to not jump to any conclusions until the investigation had been completed.
THE INVESTIGATION:
On June 29th, Council received a confidential version of the investigative report conducted by Attorney Salvatore. A redacted version of that report was made public on July 20th. Ms. Salvatore “conducted interviews with five individuals who work with and had witnessed concerning comments by the City Administrator” that demonstrated “insensitivities to issues of diversity, equity and inclusion”. Though I find many of the substantiated comments concerning, the statements I found most troubling were ones pertaining to race such as:
“This is why you have to be careful hiring minorities—because you can’t fire them or let them go”
An African American employee “gets his arrogance from the fact that he’s married to a white woman.”
“When only 10% of the people in Ann Arbor are black, I don’t see why we have to worry about it.” — when discussing policing reform issues
Following interviews with the impacted employees and witnesses, the City’s HR Director, and Mr. Crawford, Ms. Salvatore found the claims were “consistent and credible.” Regarding the comments Mr. Crawford denied making, she found the witness accounts more credible. In part because multiple individuals reported the same comments or same types of comments. She notes that, “Given the overall credibility of the witnesses who reported the comments and the number of individuals who witnessed them, I do believe that the comments attributed to Mr. Crawford were in fact made.” The report also finds that several of the individuals Ms. Salvatore interviewed “expressed serious reservations about their ability to work with Mr. Crawford and/or for the City in light of these comments.”
In addition to assessing the veracity of the claims, Ms. Salvatore was charged with determining whether or not Mr. Crawford violated any City policies. She examined three relevant policies and determined that Mr. Crawford had most clearly violated Section 5.28 of the City’s Code of Conduct – Engaging in any behavior or action, on or off duty, that is detrimental to the reputation or image of the city or the operations of the workplace. Per City policy, “Any employee who does not comply with Employee Standards of Conduct will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination, depending on the seriousness of the offense and/or employee's past record. While the city's HR Progressive Disciplinary Policy (2.6) outlines guidelines to be followed, it does not guarantee that each progressive discipline step will be followed in all cases. Each situation is evaluated on an individual basis.” Despite numerous concerning comments about race and sexual orientation, she found no evidence that Mr. Crawford violated the City’s Non-Discrimination Policy, because “the allegations at issue in this investigation did not involve any claim that Mr. Crawford has taken any adverse employment actions based on race, gender or any other protected category.”
The scope of Ms. Salvatore’s work did not include making recommendations on how Council should proceed if the allegations were found to be substantiated, but the report does include some observations such as Mr. Crawford should not oversee Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives an area Mr. Crawford currently has direct oversight over.
MY INITIAL REACTION TO THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
When I received the report on June 29th, I was both surprised and saddened. I, like many who know Mr. Crawford, find him to be a devoted public servant, professional, and generally likable. These comments felt inconsistent with the individual I know and I had an initial desire to excuse the behavior, accept Mr. Crawford’s remorse for the harm he caused the organization, and find a path forward with him still at the helm.
However, as your elected representative to Council, my loyalty cannot be to an individual. Rather, I believe I must prioritize the health and integrity of the organization, take steps that strengthen the City’s stated value of retaining and building a diverse staff and inclusive organizational culture, and employ a City Administrator that consistently adheres to City policy and is capable of fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of the position. Our commitment to transparency required that the investigation into Mr. Crawford’s behavior be made public, which means the every current and potential future City employee would be fully aware of Mr. Crawford’s conduct. It is difficult to imagine how Mr. Crawford could successfully oversee DEI efforts, maintain or recruit a diverse staff, or inspire trust/confidence from City staff or the community when this report indicates a pattern of behavior inconsistent with City values/policies. Indeed, the report indicates that some staff members were not comfortable remaining at the City if Mr. Crawford continued to serve as City Administrator.
Despite Mr. Crawford’s intentions and remorse, he did not model behavior that was: 1)supportive of an anti-racist organizational culture, 2) consistent with organizational values, or 3) in compliance with city policies.
COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE REPORT
Following Council’s receipt of the Salvatore Investigative Report, Council had two closed sessions with Mr. Crawford to discuss the findings. A number of Council members, including myself, also had individual conversations with Mr. Crawford to share our thoughts and reactions with him privately. This process has been deliberative and informed by advice from internal and external HR and legal professionals. It has been based on a substantiated independent investigation. At every opportunity, Council has sought to share relevant and pertinent information with the community and staff to be transparent in our decision making.
On July 6th, Council discussed initial reactions with Mr. Crawford. Council asked Mr. Crawford to provide a formal response to the report, we discussed the potential for broadening the investigation, and we asked Mr. Postema to provide Council with internal legal and HR advice regarding the claims substantiated in the report.
On July 12th, Mr. Crawford provided Council with a draft of his response to the report. Council met that evening in closed session to discuss Mr. Crawford’s response. Mr. Crawford indicated his intent to initiate a self-suspension to indicate his commitment to accountability. Mr. Crawford recognized that any action he might self-initiate did not preclude future actions by Council as a body.
On July 15th, Council received a confidential memo from the City attorney’s office containing a review of relevant DEI initiatives/directives, HR policies, and employment law considerations. The HR related considerations and recommendations in this confidential memo were summarized and made public in this communication. The HR Director shared the following advice, “If the report substantiated discriminatory comments or conduct, I would be concerned about policy violations, harm to individuals by such discriminatory or derogatory comments, damage to the City as an organization, for example in the areas of morale, staff retention and recruiting, and other related issues. My general practice concerning substantiated discriminatory comments would be to recommend to terminate employment immediately.”
Important Fact-Check: One member of Council has suggested that this communication was co-authored by our Assistant City Administrator and insuiated he coveted Mr. Crawford’s job. This claim is inaccurate and defames the reputation of a competent City employee. The HR communication was developed by Mr. Tom Guajardo, the City’s HR Director hired for his expertise in DEI issues following a scandal involving the previous HR Director, and the City Attorney’s office. The Assistant City Administrator, following these personal attacks, has reached out to each Councilmember to clearly state that he was not and is not interested in applying for the position of City Administrator.
On July 20th, I co-sponsored with Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Eyer a resolution to publicly release the Salvatore report and an intent to conclude Mr. Crawford employment with the City by September 1st. Mr. Crawford was made aware of the development of this resolution and the language around concluding his employment was developed in consultation with Mr. Crawford. At the Council meeting, at the request of CM Griswold, the resolution was separated into two resolutions. The first authorizing the release of the investigation (Salvatore Report) and the second directing staff to work out the details of concluding Mr. Crawford’s employment. The release of the report was unanimously supported by Council. The resolution authorizing conclusion of Mr. Crawford’s employment with the City was supported by a majority of Council members, with CM’s Hayner, Ramlawi, Nelson and Griswold expressing a desire to retain Mr. Crawford as City Administrator. (CM Griswold procedurally voted in favor of the resolution, noting that she only did so she could bring the issue up again for reconsideration.)
Important Fact-Check: I am aware of claims, some made by current and former Councilmembers, that the desire to part ways with Mr. Crawford stems from other issues. Those claims are baseless and amount to conspiracy theories that only serve to erode trust in local government and discourage staff from bringing forward concerns about misconduct at the City. While I believe it is reasonable to debate whether Mr. Crawford’s actions merit the conclusion of his employment with the City, I think it is irresponsible and false to suggest that the actions taken by a majority of members of Council were done for reasons not related to the Salvatore Report. Mr. Crawford should not be used as a political pawn to further political divisions and sow mistrust in our community.
On July 26th, Council received initial advice from the City Attorney’s office with options and advice about concluding Mr. Crawford’s employment with the City.
On July 29th, Council received an updated legal memo and Council met in closed session to discuss those options.
On August 2, Council will receive a proposal, per Council’s request, from the City Attorney’s for concluding Mr. Crawford’s employment with the City and will likely vote on this proposal.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
I have heard a number of questions/concerns raised following our decision to conclude Mr. Crawford’s employment with the City, some from my colleagues on Council that hold a different perspective and some from community members. I want to take a moment to more fully share my thoughts on some of the reoccurring questions:
This report can’t be true because there weren’t any employees that came forward with concerns about Mr. Crawford during the Administrator search/hiring process in 2020.
These claims were substantiated by an outside, independent investigator. Mr. Crawford largely acknowledges making these comments and even he suggests that there is “no context where these comments are acceptable.” Since the initial investigation, he has acknowledged that he did make the comments related to hiring, though suggests the intent of his remarks were different than perceived by the witness.
Although it makes me uncomfortable to draw attention to this issue, it is important to note that staff recommendations did demonstrate hesitancy in hiring Mr. Crawford during the search for a new City Administrator in 2020. Despite working for the City for 16 years, Mr. Crawford was not the top candidate recommended by staff in the recent Administrator search. Cara Pavlicek, the Village Manager of Oak Park, Illinois scored higher among city staffers, with 76% saying they would recommend her, including 52% who said “highly recommend,” while only 58% said they would recommend Tom Crawford, including 38% who said “highly recommend.” Individual comments raised concerns that Mr. Crawford lacked the necessary experience, particularly on DEI, to be successful as a City Administrator and suggested his role as CFO was the appropriate role for him in the City. Despite concerns from staff, Mr. Crawford was selected and appointed City Administrator by the last Council.
Mr. Crawford didn’t intend to do harm. He has expressed remorse and an intent to engage in self-improvement. To conclude his employment with the City harms the City’s DEI work.
In a recent article about how to promote racial equity in the workplace, Robert Livingston writes in the Harvard Business Review “Racism has less to do with what’s in your heart or mind and more to do with how your actions or inactions amplify or enable the systemic dynamics already in place. Workplace discrimination often comes from well-educated, well-intentioned, open-minded, kindhearted people who are just floating along, severely underestimating the tug of the prevailing current on their actions, positions, and outcomes. Anti-racism requires swimming against that current, like a salmon making its way upstream. Livingston suggests, based on years of research, that “establishing an anti-racist organizational culture, tied to core values and modeled by behavior from the CEO and other top leaders at the company, can influence both individual attitudes and institutional policies.”
The professional HR guidance Council received is clear, First, “the City has a Zero Tolerance Policy for discrimination and discriminatory language as set forth in Human Resource Policy and Procedure (HRPP) 2.2 Non-Discrimination, and HRPP 2.12, Anti-Harassment. Second, the City has a history of taking strong action against any type of discriminatory language or conduct and that is the current practice today. This is consistent with a professional HR practice and what is required by law. When dealing with discriminatory comments or conduct, there is an obligation to take prompt remedial action to lessen the harm done and prevent future similar conduct…My general practice concerning substantiated discriminatory comments would be to recommend to terminate employment immediately.”” If Council does not take action to conclude Mr. Crawford’s employment with the City, we would not be holding our top Administrator to the same standards as the employees he oversees. We would indicate that a lesser standard of conduct applies to a senior administrator. And, perhaps most troubling, we would be demonstrating to the employees that bravely came forward to report concerns about their employer that Council could not be trusted to respond in a manner consistent with our policies and organizational values.
Mr. Crawford has worked for the City since 2004. It is unfair to conclude his employment for a few inappropriate and “cringeworthy” comments.
The report suggested a pattern of behavior, over a period of many months when Mr. Crawford was serving as Interim City Administrator and now City Administrator. Fundamentally, this behavior is contradictory to the City’s mission and values of developing a diverse and inclusive workplace/community and violates City policies. But the comments must also be viewed in the context of Mr. Crawford’s role in the organization.
As I noted earlier, the City Administrator is responsible for overseeing all City departments (including HR) and implementing policy (including DEI initiatives). In our recent budget process, Council recognized the substantial work the City needs to do on DEI and we amended the budget to include a DEI manager. Once hired, this DEI manager is envisioned to report directly to the City Administrator. Ms. Salvatore observed that it would be inappropriate to have this position report to Mr. Crawford and recommended, at minimum, having the DEI Manager report to the HR Director. This would demote that position and devalue the importance and objectives of the DEI Manager. In addition, the report finds that Mr. Crawford’s behavior was going to have immediate impacts on our ability to retain a diverse and principled staff. Some staff members interviewed in the report indicated they are no longer comfortable working in an organization where Mr. Crawford serves as City Administrator.
The City Administrator must be able to fulfill the responsibilities and duties of the position. The Administrator must be able to inspire confidence and model behavior that positively influences the behavior of others. This report indicates that Mr. Crawford not only violated City policies and values, but lacks a key competency necessary to succeed in his position. Acknowledging this truth does not invalidate the good work Mr. Crawford has done for the organization over his many years of service to the City or his other strengths as a leader, rather it recognizes the difficulty and critically important role of the City Administrator.