In Las Vegas, they call a similar move “doubling down.” You think you’ve got a favorable hand, so you “double” your bet. If you are correct, you win big. If you’re wrong, you lose twice as much. In learning that Trudy Redus, manager of Saracen Landing, has appealed her suspension without pay and one-year probation, it’s clear that she thinks she has a good hand.
As has been reported, the Pine Bluff Parks and Recreation Committee Personnel Committee suspended Redus last Friday. The suspension resulted from an accident Redus had on April 28 while driving a golf-cart or mule-style utility vehicle owned by the Parks Department. Her son, Trey Redus, was also on the vehicle and was injured in the accident.
If in the following year there is another accident or other incident involving Redus, it will be up to department Director Angela Parker’s discretion as to whether she will be fired immediately, the committee concluded.
Other than the fact that she is the wife of Pine Bluff Mayor Carl Redus, we see absolutely no advantage in her position. Even so, she has sought legal advice and seeks to overturn her suspension.
Readers with a little memory will recall that we predicted this very situation just after Trudy Redus was selected for the position. While we didn’t prophesize this particular incident (the accident), we speculated as to the ugly squeeze play that would arise should Redus ever find herself the target of departmental discipline.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Accordingly, we reiterate what we said all those months ago: Hiring that has even the vaguest tincture of nepotism about it is bad public policy. It places all parties in an ethically compromised position in which no action — proper or otherwise — can be taken without the taint of ulterior motive. Mayor Redus, while he does not have direct authority over the park’s department, does have influence over the department because he appoints commissioners and has a say in how much the department’s budget is.
Many people have chosen to attenuate the magnitude of Redus’ failure to take the mandated drug test with a reference to her son’s injury. While we regret that he was hurt during the accident (he apparently suffered a nasty gash to his forehead but is on the mend), this in no way changes the fact that Redus failed to take the required test; and then appears to have misrepresented the circumstances when questioned by her supervisor. As also has been reported, the city’s drug and alcohol policy manual clearly states that an employee who fails to report to testing immediately after being told to do so “will be terminated” because the “city of Pine Bluff has adopted a policy of zero tolerance.”
Nowhere in this does it say, “unless the employee is distracted by other matters.”
As such, it appears that the Pine Bluff Parks and Recreation Committee Personnel Committee has extended Redus a substantial consideration in allowing her to keep her job. Apparently, the letter of the law of city policy isn’t equally lettered for everyone. Either we have “zero tolerance” or we do not. This is a dichotomous switch — one or the other. We cannot have “mostly zero tolerance.” When we muddy the waters – for whatever reason — we expose the city to potential liability and violate the public trust.
All of this gets to a central issue in personnel discipline and one to which many terminated employees might attest: It’s not necessarily what you did. It’s what you lied about when questioned afterward. As a society we can countenance mistakes, but we hold no truck with deceit, evasion or obfuscation.
Of course this whole unseemly matter contains one final elephant-in-the-room-question: Why did Redus evade taking the drug test in the first place? The mere act of evasion casts a shadow from which she cannot now escape. Distraction, emotion or shock are not delineated in the policy, only the required drug test.
Either we have rules or we don’t. Having occasional rules or “special people” rules is a sure bet — a losing one.