Repeal the Censure against former Fairfax Mayor Kevin Schafer

Pam Johnson
Anonymous 0 Comments
6 Signatures Goal: 100

This petition is for removal of Resolution 2011-03 Censure of Former Mayor Kevin Schafer.


On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 the Fairfax City Council on a 4-0 vote, with NO DISCUSSION, publicly reprimanded Former Mayor Kevin Schafer for "inappropriate behavior".


The censure raised eight points of issue with former Mayor Schafer.


I will address to you each point of this censure and let you draw your own conclusion of what is the truth.


 Point one:Whereas, the Fairfax Mayor improperly represented the City in the unemployment compensation appeal on Monday, November 1, 2010 


>The definition of Mayor is: 'the head of a city government, the highest ranking officer in a municipal government'.


Point two:Whereas, the Mayor on October 25, 2010, called the Minnesota Department of Unemployment Insurance and changed the contact for the appeal from Marcia Seibert-Volz to Mayor Kevin Schafer, with-out the consent or knowledge of the Administrator or City Council.


>On October 25, 2010, the former employee called the Minnesota Department of Unemployment Insurance and ADDED Kevin Schafer as a WITNESS. Also, there NEVER WAS a specified 'contact for the city, Marcia Seibert-Volz NEVER filled out the contact information sheet. In a letter dated November 1, 2010 from Marcia Seibert-Volz to the unemployment Judge, Marcia states in her letter, "the City of Fairfax was not represented at the hearing this a.m. Kevin Schafer was listed as the applicant's witness not the city contact."


 Point three:Whereas, the administrative functions rest with the city staff and is the job of the city administrator. The city Administrator did not have knowledge the contact had been changed until the hearing had already started with the Mayor representing the City.


>In the ruling handed down by the Judge, the Judge states that, "Seibert-Volz contacted the Department 45 minutes after the scheduled hearing time". In a letter from Marcia to the Judge explaining her tardiness Marcia stated, "she got busy and wasn't watching the time."


 Point four:Whereas, the Mayor does not have the training, experience, and knowledge to represent the city.


>Again, Kevin WASN'T representing the city, he was a witness for the former employee. Marcia acknowledged the fact that the city was not represented in the hearing by Kevin. Marcia did not follow the instructions set forth by the unemployment agency, she was 45 minutes late for the hearing, and the information and guidlines set forth by the Unemployment Agency state that if you do not call in for the hearing in time the Judge will not hear from you.


Point five:Whereas, the Mayor did not have the documents on hand when the hearing occurred.


>That is because he was only a witness.


 Point six:Whereas, the Mayor represented the city by telephone at his place of business with the former employee and spouse of the former employee present, The hearing should have occurred at the city office, with the Administrator present to provide assistance and testimony.


 >First, the Judge knew that the spouse of the former employee was present, second, Mayor Schafer and the former employee never had contact throughout the trial, thirdly, Marcia sent in her 'evidence' to the courts prior to the hearing-none of which swayed the Judge's ruling that she handed down. Marcia also sent in a letter after the hearing had taken place saying that she wanted to testify that she "knows that the former employee is working cash jobs for area farmers and isn't reporting it" this statement of Marcia's is an outright lie as all of the income from the farm jobs was indeed reported to the state, which the Judge saw.


Point seven:Whereas, the recording shows that the Mayor misrepresented facts favorable to the former employee and omitted facts unfavorable to him, in his testimony.


>Again, Marcia submitted her "evidence" to the court that the Judge made her ruling from. In order for the former employee to not receive unemployment benefits the former employee must have committed employment misconduct as set forth by Minnesota law. There was no misconduct. Also, the former employee and the Mayor were sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God.


Point eight:Whereas, the Mayor's conduct meant that there was no meaningful hearing. He advocated for payment of unemployment compensation and offered only support and no resistance to that finding.


>Kevin Schafer told the truth, he did not lie, he did not make baseless claims against the former employee as the City Administrator was doing with her accusatory letters to the Judge following the hearing. What happened was the City Administrator dropped the ball and now she needs someone other than herself to take the blame.


 Whether or not you like Kevin Schafer is not the point here. The point is that an innocent man is being accused of something he did not do. An innocent man is being used as a scapegoat by our City Administrator and her friends, the city council. The Resolution for censure is WRONG. I encourage you to review this information closely and consider signing this petition to remove the censure against someone who is innocent of the charges leveled against him.


'For bad things to happen, all it takes is for good people to do nothing'


Pam Johnson





  • 7 years ago
    Bob Bemmels United States
    7 years ago
  • 7 years ago
    Milo Johnson United States
    7 years ago
  • 7 years ago
    Dorothy Johnson United States
    7 years ago
  • 7 years ago
    Leon Johnson United States
    7 years ago
  • 7 years ago
    Steve Lhotka United States
    7 years ago
  • 7 years ago
    Pamela Johnson United States
    7 years ago