In February 2011 Suhoski was suspended for five days for excessive tardiness. He had been told to come into work by 9:00 AM the previous October, and admitted to still coming in late to work, hence the suspension.
Tardiness, and discipline related to the tardiness are personnel matters. Mr. Suhoski is a employee of of ours, so when one of our employees is disciplined for an issue while they are on the job, we are entitled to know the details, just as we were when he was suspended the first time. Things we may not be entitled to know about are medical, psychological, or personal issues, but if they interfere with performance, things would have to be considered.
This time the selectmen are not giving the reason for our Town Administrators suspension; one of our employees. Board chairman Tom Creamer told the Worcester Telegram that no further information would be released because it is a personnel matter.
Tom, it was last time, too. What is the difference this time? When the Board closes up, and states the reason is because it is a personnel matter, despite the fact that previous personnel matters with the same employee have been made public, then something is up.
I don't like delving into dirty laundry. That's not what I do, but when others set themselves up for questioning since the action is contrary to past actions, then I am stuck. I have to address it, especially since it affects us.
Now, it is up to the board to give the residents of Sturbridge a reason for the suspension.
Hopefully, in fifty words, or less.
The article below is from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette --ed.