Rail Road-ed

Well... yesterday was interesting. Not going to mention too much about it... but let's just say... I ruffled some feathers with the article and posts about the records that were not protected.

The sentiment from some online was to attack the messenger and not that processes that allowed this to happen. Blows my mind, but here we are.

Today, as promised, we are talking about the railroading... I mean termination... I mean administrative leave of Joanna Coutu. A bit confusing when trying to keep up.

Here is the entire letter her boss, Eric Landon, wrote to justify firing her. He is the one that made the decision.

Long story short. Landon made a decision on how they will implement recent changes to state law. Coutu disagreed with his decision. She walked out one day and came back the next. She did not ask for time or anything when she did that.

She had continued to refuse to implement the changes and eventually Landon decided to fire her for insubordination among other things.

He then decided to fire her.

We will get into more depth in a few minutes, but first, I wanted to point out that there is an employee manual that guides how discipline works.

The employee handbook appears to require a progressive type discipline. No where does it say that the first discipline for an employee is firing.

I did a records request for Joanna's discipline record. Guess what? Nothing exists aside from this issue. Notice point B. There is supposed to be a form to document discipline. That form would be public record.

It does not exist for Joanna, so she has never been disciplined for anything.

So why in the world are we going straight to firing?

It goes on to say this.

Oral counseling should be the first step... followed by written reprimands... and only then suspension or dismissal.

Yes, if someone is arrested or something along those lines, the county should be able to fire the employee on the spot. Disagreeing with your boss? Not sure that gets to the "you are fired" threshold for a first offense.

So what exactly happened?

Here is a timeline of events, according to Landon:

• May 27, 2026 - Joanna walks out of a meeting about this new state legislation
• July 7, 2026 - Landon gives staff directive on the new state law
• September 4, 2026 - Joanna disagrees with the county's position on this new statute and creates "conflicting" information.
• September 10, 2026 - Joanna told Landon she disagreed with his decision making and leaves the office for the day stating something along the lines of her not being needed any long since Alexander Alt is acting as the Land Development Director.
  
  Alt is the Intergovernmental Liaison and apparently has been involved in this process.
• September 11, 2026 - Joanna assigns a task to Landon because she does not want to do it as she refuses to comply.

All said, Landon notes insubordination, actions unbecoming, absence without authorization, and betrayal of trust as reasons to fire her.

Let's dive deeper.

There is a house bill 803. This legislation basically allows manufactured and off site constructed homes to be built in any land use district that allows single family housing. This is a by right development, so it does not go to the county commissioners or staff for approval. However, these still have to meet building code standards.

Apparently, there was a question about mobile homes being applicable to this statute. Landon made the decision that the county will include mobile homes.

Landon makes the decision that the county will follow what he thinks the statute says and that mobile homes will be allowed in ALL single family home zoning.

Think about that for a minute. Anywhere in the county that allows a single family home (outside deed restricted communities), will be forced to allow a mobile home if there is a permit for it.

That is what Landon is stating here... which is crazy.

Joanna appears to be in disagreement with this.

That comes to a head on September 4th when Joanna receives a question about a permit for a mobile home.

She forwards the email to Landon on September 11th and basically tells him that this was his decision, he can deal with it.

On September 10th, Joanna gets an email stating that staff was given that direction based HB 803.

Now, diving into HB 803 a bit I found

Further, these homes have to be attached to the ground permanently.

That definition does NOT include what most of us consider mobile homes... something with wheels that is you know... mobile.

Why did Landon do this policy? Is he really listening to Alt over Joanna?

Remember, Landon often tells people how smart she is and how she has far more knowledge than he does on these land use type issues.

Now, they want to fire her with this being her first and only offense that has been documented?

AND SHE WAS RIGHT.

Like help me make sense of that.

Clearly, there is something going on here. Steve Howard presumably knows about all of this and has given his blessing. I do not see a way in which Landon decides on his own to do this.

So what is the real reason?

Now we wait to see the results of the hearing. If the person running the meeting (a department head) and they agree with Landon that they should fire her... i expect some type of lawsuit.

And why not... she was right. I can see lots of money in her future when she wins that.