In the best interest of the city, Mr Anderson should not be allowed to return to his position here in South Portland.  Mr. Anderson has had a long, long “vacation” with pay and the city has not folded yet. If Mr. Anderson is allowed to return I feel there will be a cloud always hanging over the city with talk for and against Mr. Anderson. As a city we need to move on without him and spend more time on other issues in this city. Give him a package and send him on his way.

Seems to me that if all involved (Smith, Anderson, Gailey, city, council, etc.) were so concerned about individual legal rights in proper and rightful balance with public right to know and openness and transparency in govt. then all involved would sign legally binding agreements that would prevent defamation suits and counter-suits and just allow the truth (with proper editing or black out negotiated where needed) to be REVEALED.  There is no message as compelling as the truth.  All should be open to it surfacing and making any legal agreements necessary for it to happen.  The public deserves deeper satisfaction or proof or other than what has been provided to date.
Meantime, correct me if I am wrong but Mr. Anderson was supposedly cleared it appears of the specific investigation tied to Ms Smith’s claims BUT THAT IS SEPARATE from the investigation, still ongoing I thought, that related to his long, ongoing, paid vacation which was more specific to accounting audits and concerns over his non profit legal case settlement, etc.

That is great that Mr. Anderson has been cleared of wrongdoing. Now we can get back to the business of running the city.  It certainly will cost the taxpayers less if our employees can get back to work. If an employee wants any further information released, they can release the information themselves because the city can’t release information on personnel matters.

“Imagine this was you who were falsely accused.”
I imagine that I would want everything out in the ‘open’ so that it could be seen as well as heard that I had been “falsely accused”

To Legal Advise II:

How do we, the taxpayers, know that “Dana Anderson has been cleared” if we cannot read the report? Are we supposed to take the City Manager’s word for it? I do not think that either the City Manager or Dana Anderson is entitled to our trust.

Dana Anderson is a public figure and I read somewhere that public figures are not entitled tp the protections in defamation suit that people who are not public figures. I think taxpayers should be able to express their concerns about the way their city is run and demand absolute honestly by their public officials. The jury is still out on whether our officials have the degree of honestly taxpayers are entitled to demand.

So, “Legal Advise II”, your threats should exactly the same as Anderson’s lawyer in the newspaper against Soule and the Mayor. Now you seem to be making the same threats against private citizens. I wonder . . . . ???

As Richard Nixon said to David Frost all I had to do was grant clemency and the whole Watergate affair would have gone away. Legal advice II assumes that the Mike Wing report was a true accounting of Deb Smith’s concerns. The city manager has claimed that citizens do not even have the right to know whether Mr. Wing’s report was effective rather we are to trust that since it was completed that it clears Mr. Anderson of all complaints against him.  If I were in the consulting business and relied on town managers for my bread and butter I would make sure not to make things more difficult.  I would never bring down a scathing indictment of the status quo for fear of scaring future business away.  This is how I would approach the business. How Mr. Wing runs his consulting business is hard to guage without knowing more about the report. I’m sure he was rigorous and thorough and investigated each and every issue found in Deb Smith’s letter.  If it comes out later that this is not the case, well then I guess we are right back were we started.

It has become increasingly clear that South Portland is being run BY and FOR a very small group of men who are not elected officials. How can the citizens regain control of their city government? We need to support those members of City Council who promote openness and honesty in government and vote out the others at our earliest opportunity.

The City Manager is absolutely correct in not releasing publicly any information concerning personnel.  Doing so would expose us as tax payers to the possibility of a lawsuit.  And it’s sad when the explanation is “to avoid a lawsuit”.  How about this?  It is ethically and morally wrong to make false accusations against someone.  And to spread these false accusations is just as bad.  Dana Anderson has been cleared.  Thus those people who have and continue to make comments against his character are most definitely guilty of defamation. Imagine this was you who were falsely accused.  Can you imagine facing the public after all of the nasty accusations have been thrown around?  Defamation is a serious offense - those of you on here maligning Mr. Anderson’s character should think twice when you post comments.  If you have first hand knowledge of something, step forward.  Otherwise, realize that you are putting negative comments out in the world which are damaging to another human being.

To address Ms. Skinner’s question as to why Ms. Smith doesn’t release the report, I refer you to the story of Dana Anderson being exonerated and his lawyer, Greg Frame, indicating that he is looking at defamation charges.
After requesting an exit interview, it appears that Ms. Smith was told to submit her remarks in writing to the City Manager. Because of this, Deb Smith was able to express her concerns and share her thoughts on her department, and more specifically, her boss Mr. Anderson.
However, the City has claimed her report is considered confidential to protect their employee, Mr. Anderson.  There is a strong likelihood, particularly based on Mr. Frame’s comments, that if Ms. Smith released the report herself, she too would be charged with defamation and would have to defend herself in court. This clearly would add “insult to injury” and I suspect her lawyer is advising her against doing so.

I do agree, though, that it would be in the best interests of all our citizens to release Ms. Smith’s complaints and the consultant’s report. We need to know that employees are being treated fairly and that our tax money is being spent wisely.