Juris strikes back

Former Town Administrator Evans Juris, who was abruptly fired by a deeply divided Selectboard in March, has brought a civil suit against the town alleging that he was wrongfully and maliciously dismissed "in material part" for refusing to accede to requests by Selectmen Gus Benavides and Connie Grant that were contrary to state law and town ordinances.

According to the writ served on the town Thursday, Juris monetary damages for lost income and benefits as well as "humiliation," "emotional distress," and "the disparagement of his professional reputation and its impact on his future employability."

With Alice Boucher, then chairman of the Board of Selectmen, dissenting, Benavides and Grant voted to fire Juris on March 12, less than a week after he formally notified the board that Benavides' "discriminatory and threatening behavior" created a "hostile work environment." After working through a routine agenda, Grant asked to convene in non-public session to consider "the dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee or disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him." Juris invoked his right to require the discussion be conducted in public session. Without explanation Grant offered a motion to terminate Juris's contract, which was seconded by Benavides and carried two-to-one.

The pleading, prepared by attorney Philip McLaughlin alleges that Juris found himself at odds with Benavides soon after Benavides was elected to the board in March 2007. Although the duty to hire, fire and evaluate town employees was included in Juris's employment contract and job description, he claims that on August 27, 2007 Benavides spent an hour-and-a-half seeking to persuade him to "change and degrade" the performance evaluation of Finance Director and Assistant Town Administrator Debra Shackett.

Beanvides' conduct, the brief claims, "violated the standards of personnel administration" set by the selectmen, compelling Juris to "protect the integrity of the system from a Selectman who also had a fundamental obligation to protect and support the system but who pressured Mr. Juris to violate clearly established guidelines, contrary to public policy."

Juris also alleges improprieties on the part of Grant. On September 12, 2007, he claims that Grant asked him to facilitate the issuance of an occupancy permit to a contractor, who was not entitled to it, and pressed the matter by noting that her business — Kitchen Encounters, Inc. — was a sub-contractor on the project.

Likewise, Juris charges that in January and February 2008, when the town was preparing to sell the lot at 43 Potter Hill Road, Grant urged him not to engage the appraiser he would have chosen in the normal course of affairs, but instead her friend, whom she named, indicating he might do the work without charge. At the same time, Juris recalls that Grant told him that she knew several individuals interested in acquiring the property, among them her husband Steve Grant. Juris says that when he refused Grant's request, she was "annoyed."

In his pleadings, Juris concludes that Grant's behavior, like that of Benavides, placed him in the position of safeguarding the integrity of the town government against a selectman seeking special favors contrary to public policy.

Furthermore, Juris charges that on two specific occasions Benavides and Grant violated the state Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A). First, on February 5, 2008 during a non-public meeting, both Grant and Benavides expressed concerns about allegations of impropriety on the part of Juris. Benavides, he says, stated that he had discussed the allegations privately with Grant, but not with Boucher, the third member and chairman of the board, contrary to the law, which requires that both public and non-public meetings of a quorum of the board be posted. Moreover, when confronted with the allegations, Juris asked to address them in public session, which was his right under the law, But, with Boucher dissenting, the board refused.

The other occasion was on March 12, when Juris was fired. The pleadings note that Juris had no remedy to the pressure to change a performance evaluation, grant an unwarranted occupancy permit, engage a questionable appraiser or respond to allegations of impropriety. "Mr Juris undertook to protect his view of the public interest," the pleadings recall, by filing notice of "a hostile work environment" in a letter to the selectmen on March 7. Assured that he would be afforded an opportunity to present his concerns to the board, Juris drafted a second letter dated March 10. However, the suit alleges that before Juris could meet with the board "Selectmen Benavides and Grant apparently consulted privately and then voted in public session to terminate [him] without explanation."

By summarily dismissing him, Juris charges, the selectmen violated both his employment contract and the personnel policy, which afford employees with specific rights and prescribe particular disciplinary procedures, neither of which were honored. Moreover, he contends that Benavides and Grant, whose "conduct in the pursuit of their personal agendas sought to influence Mr. Juris's administrative decisions," were obliged to recuse themselves from any action to terminate his contract.

Above all, Juris insists that Benavides and Grant pressed him to "act at variance with the authority with which he was vested," including "acceding to the demands of a Selectman to modify a personnel evaluation or acceding to the request of a Selectman to appoint a favored appraiser to undertake the evaluation of a real property in which her husband had an interest." According to both state law and local ordinances an employee cannot be dismissed for acting in accord with or for refusing to act contrary to settled public policy, the pleading notes.

Contacted by phone, Juris said that on the advice of his counsel, he would make no public comment on the lawsuit.