ICMA Signals Capitulation While Gaslighting Members About Freed Lawsuit
In a shocking turn of events the ICMA Director of Advocacy, Jason Grant, signaled that the organization is ready to capitulate and settle the anti-defamation lawsuit filed against them by Michigan city manager James Freed.
In an article published yesterday on the ICMA website, Grant continues the organization’s practice of gaslighting and lying to its members while accusing me of spreading misinformation and disinformation. But, it was the closing paragraph that suggested the “white flag” will be raised soon.
As the case progresses, the ICMA Executive Board, with guidance from legal counsel, will determine how to move forward in the best interest of the association. We must consider financial implications of defending the case, probability of potential outcomes, and most importantly, the effect upon our ability to enforce the Code of Ethics as a professional organization.
In Defense of the ICMA Code of Ethics
I will say what I have been saying since the beginning.
The ICMA cannot afford to let this case go to trial for three reasons.
- All of the ICMA staff and executive board depositions given under oath will come out and become public record,
- A “guilty verdict” will expose them to multi-million dollar judgment, and
- Irreparably damage the reputation of the organization AND undermine the entire existence of the Code of Ethics
The Boomerang Effect of Weaponization
The ICMA touts the “Code of Ethics” as the core foundational building block of their existence.
If it is shown in court that the ICMA weaponized its code against a member to settle a personal and/or political score, members will flee the organization.
And let me be very clear about something. When the jury rules in favor of Freed, others will weaponize the verdict against the organization.
What is going on with this statement by Grant is that he is attempting to gaslight the ICMA membership by doubling down on the organization’s position that they didn’t do anything wrong — but telegraphing that the consequences of losing the trial is extremely risky.
Not only will the organization be subject to an unknown 7 or 8 figure penalty that may exceed their insurance limits and result in individual members of the executive board being held personally liable for the damages, its entire existence will be undermined. Thus, they don’t want members to think that they settled because they were in the wrong or because they have any sense of shame or contrition.
No, they want you to believe they are in the right and that they are settling because it was the “prudent” decision in light of the existential ramifications that could destroy the organization.
“Neither Arbitrary nor Punitive”
Now, you all have to make up your mind and determine if you want to “buy the bridge” that Grant is selling today.
Earlier in the piece, Grant tried to suggest that a public censure was neither “arbitrary nor punitive.” This guy would piss on your leg and tell you it is raining. Anyone with an IQ north of 2 knows damn well that a public censure is punitive. It is by very definition a punitive action. It defies credulity to suggest that sending out press releases to all the media outlets announcing the censure is not punitive.
Freed’s wife called him while crying at Wal-Mart because she saw her husband getting dragged as a dishonest and unethical public offical on the front page of the Port Huron Times Herald. Above the fold, no less. When Freed walked into the local Speedway for his morning coffee and saw his face plastered on the front page in the town he not just works in but leads, you better damn well believe that it was punitive.
It is one part laughable for Grant to make this argument — and one part infuriating.
But he was right about one thing. It wasn’t arbitrary. It was anything but!
This was a coordinated and calculated professional assassination by ICMA ethics staffers to get payback for the “Perego Letter” authored by Freed back in November 2018.
Normalization of Gaslighting
Grant writes that “we must defend our right to hold ourselves accountable as ICMA members.”
And yet, under the failed leadership of CEO Marc Ott, the organization fails to hold itself accountable time and time again. Here are but a few examples:
- Pamela Antil & Bill Fraser text message
- Molly Mehner lying to the executive board about Freed’s “past ethical issues”
- Violations of the Rules of Procedure
- Admission by staff and Mehner that no investigation was conducted to verify Freed’s statements
- Blatant conflicts of interest
- Rewarding unethical conduct
- Ray Baray political campaign contributions
While Freed sat patiently waiting for his appeal hearing to start, Antil and Fraser had the following text exchange.
Now, neither of them had ever met Freed or interacted with him, but they were going to sit in judgment while holding this unwarranted animus towards him. None of them were punished or castigated in any way.
Neither Ott nor the president of the executive board issued a public statement condemning the text messages. Nobody apologized to Freed, including Antil or Fraser.
On page 9 (see image) of the court filing released by Freed on September 5, 2024, ICMA staff admitted that they did not send the Freed matter to the Michigan Municipal Executives (MME) to convene a fact-finding committee as required by the organization’s own “Rules of Procedure.” They further cited deposition statements by staff admitting that no investigation into the facts presented in defense of Freed were investigated.
And the Rules of Procedure were violated in all three of the ethics investigations Freed was subjected to because of the blatant conflicts of interest present. Cowles was tasked with investigating the person who got her boss in trouble. And then she was tasked with investigating the person that recorded her phone call and exposed her “misinformation” or “disinformation” in her staff report to the CPC (see page 4 of court filing below):
Cowles is either an incredibly incompetent employee or one with a political agenda. Either way, she should not be employed by the ICMA and this is especially so after it was revealed in depositions that she misrepresented the Freed phone call in her staff report to the CPC.
Instead of being disciplined or terminated, she was promoted to replace Martha Perego.
Perego deliberately interfered in multiple investigations into Freed. She and her department completely ignored organizational rules and processes and waged a campaign of retaliation to get some payback against Freed. Instead of being disciplined or terminated she was feted with a retirement party at the 2023 conference in Austin. And then she was bestowed the honor of having an award named after her.
And who can forget Ott’s loyal chief of staff, Ray Baray, who has been a member of the ICMA since 2009 or so. This is the guy who makes campaign contributions to Democratic political candidates and PACs going back to at least 2008 while working for Ott in Austin and as his right-hand man for the ICMA.
I filed an ethics complaint against him and there was absolutely no punishment.
The ICMA Code of Ethics are so important that they don’t even care when the second most powerful person in the organization is caught violating Tenet 7.
You gotta remember that when it comes to the ICMA: “It’s rules for thee, but not for me.”
When Grant says the “process ensures that the issues have been fully investigated and deliberated on the established facts to reach a decision” you know he is lying! Not because I say he is lying — but because Ott, Perego, Cowles, and Mehner all affirmed that procedures were not followed and no investigation into the facts was conducted.
James Freed vs ICMA Reference Page
