Sandusky general services chief placed on paid leave

Sandusky’s general services superintendent is on paid leave pending an internal investigation into misconduct, city officials said.
Sandusky Register Staff
Jan 22, 2013


Sandusky police escorted Scott Miller out of his office Wednesday, when he was ordered to turn in his keys and identification badge. City manager Nicole Ard refused to discuss any allegations against Miller, other than saying he faces a disciplinary investigation concerning his conduct.

In a memo Ard sent to Miller Wednesday, she told him he’s barred from city property while on leave and he cannot attend events or meetings related to city business. “You are required to cooperate with all investigations concerning your conduct,” the letter stated.

Sandusky police said Ard asked them to handle a “portion” of the investigation, although it’s not criminal in nature. There is no police report documenting any incident involving Miller, police said, because Ard verbally asked officers to assist in the matter. Miller, a 21-year employee, earns about $70,000 a year.

When reached by phone Friday, he said he has no idea why Ard placed him on leave.

“I believe my personnel record is pretty much spotless,” Miller said.   



How can the city suspended someone and that person doesn't know what he has done wrong? Doesn't Miller have the right to know what he has been suspened for? By getting rid of Miller, the city could save $70,000 more dollars. Has Miller had any previous problems so documented in his file and when was it that he was last evaluated?


Many times someone has done something and refuses to believe it is wrong. The wrong doing by any employee is not necessarily food for the gossip mill in the paper or by anyone other than the City Manager or the City Council. It is probably better to wait until an "investigation" is done before speculation flies this way and that and public opinion runs amuck.

I would rather have all my ducks in a row and be proven innocent of a supposed charge than to have my image smeared and then try and tell everyone something different later on. It's harder to prove a negative than it is a positive any day of the week.

Good for Ard for not speaking out of turn until the completion of an investigation and report to the commissioners before spreading ANYTHING about ANYONE within the city until they know for sure if a wrong doing has been done. That protects everyone from getting the wrong idea. If he isn't guilty of anything, his image isn't smudged and its "no harm, no foul".

BW1's picture

"The wrong doing by any employee is not necessarily food for the gossip mill in the paper or by anyone other than the City Manager or the City Council."

Except that all those parties work for us. He's barred from attending city commission meetings, which, if he's a resident of the city, abridges his constitutional right of petition. If a government official is going to curtail rights like that, they need to show cause to the citizens to whom they are properly subordinate.


Even if he did go to a city commissioners meeting they wouldn't be discussing him at an open meeting. Any disciplinary action of a city employee would have to be discussed in executive session would it not? She may have put that in the letter, but doesn't it say he cannot go to any event or city meeting...I took that to mean any meeting that would involve his department, not the commissioner meetings anyway.

I DO wonder what he has done, but since I am sure we will all find out as soon as the investigation is complete, I would rather wait and be right than speculate and be wrong. Wouldn't you? That happens way to often in Sandusky. The "think you knows" that are wrong far outway the "know your rights" happen too often around here.


“I believe my personnel record is pretty much spotless,” Miller said. He has no idea why he was suspended.
The city won't save $70,000 as his position would most likely be filled by someone else or he'll be reinstated.
He may just have pissed her off or she doesn't like him. And that's not a stretch; happens all the time.

Just Thinkin

It will come out sooner or later


I'm thinking it has something to do with his computer......
You can have a spotless record and do something really, really stupid and inappropriate to get yourself fired. He knows what he did. He's just to embarrassed to admit it!


In Ohio:

Ohio has five basic exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.

1) The employment-at-will doctrine does not apply if an employment contract provides for a specific term of employment or job protection, such as allowing a termination only for just cause.

2) Facts and circumstances may imply a contract, even if the employer does not provide a written employment agreement. Facts and circumstances that may imply a contract include information contained in employee handbooks, oral representations by supervisors of job security in exchange for good performance, and written assurances reflecting company policy. (Note: These conditions can often be difficult for an employee to satisfy, particulary because a simple disclaimer in the employee handbook stating that the handbook is not a contract, or a notice from the employer that the employee can be terminated for any reason, will prevent the employee from claiming there is an implied contract.)

3) Promissory estoppel is another exception to the at-will doctrine. In such a case, an employee reasonably relies (to his or her detriment) on something an employer says or writes, even though it is not a contract. Let’s say, for example, that the employer suspends the employee from the job for failing to obtain an expensive license of some kind, but promises to reinstate the employee when the license is obtained. If the employee, relying on the representation that he or she will be reinstated, spends money to obtain the license, and the court finds that the employer should have expected the employee to rely on the promise, then the court could prevent the employer from refusing to reinstate the employee under the "promissory estoppel" theory.

4) A “public policy” exception would prohibit an employer from terminating an employee “at will” if such a termination would violate certain important public policies. For example, if an employee can prove she was terminated only because she took time off to serve on a jury, a court may determine that she was wrongfully terminated because jury service is an important public function, and allowing employees to be terminated for serving on a jury would endanger that important function.

5) State and federal laws prohibiy employment terminations for specific reasons, such as discrimination based on race, sex, disability, or other protected class status, or retaliation for engaging in protected conduct, such as whistleblowing or filing a workers' compensation claim. For example, an employer may not terminate an at-will employee because the employer learns that the employee has a disability.


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal information.


No, his position is not a union position.


Thank. That clears that one up. I thought most of the employees working for the city were union workers. So what you are saying is that the city workers have no union representation? I was told they did. Good to know that they do not. I was misinformed by someone who used to work for the city that they did have a union. HUMMM, he is such a liar.


Most city employees are union members. This position is an administration position and is NOT in the union. HUMMM, its seems you are not as smart as you think you are!


Well all I can say is, he knows what he did. The City would not take such drastic measures as to escort him out if it wasn't something pretty bad. I wouldn't be surprised if he was polishing up his résumé right now.


Re: "If he isn't guilty of anything, his image isn't smudged and its "no harm, no foul".

Not true. The "charge/investigation data" can show up in paper work for decades. It all depends on who does what........

Then there is the "memory factor". How often do we see "wasn't he/she charged with"? Someone else comes back with "ya but I think it was dropped".

2cents's picture

Did he use the term wet-back? : )


i can see a lawyer on the horizon.


I hope you sue the city after all this is said and done. Scott is a fine individual,always fair and puts others before himself. He is a model citizen and hard worker.

Kottage Kat

What does this person do?
Never heard this job title before


thanks for that one. I never heard of this one either. Whatever he does, it sure pays good money and he has been at it a long time. From the sounds of it, a little of everything???? General work? What, like building maintenance, road work, fixing things? I don't know. It sounds like a general overall thing. Just guessing here. I wonder how many people work with him? Whatever he does he did something that came back on him and Ard is investigating it. Couldn't be too bad he is on paid leave so he isn't exactly fired yet. He has a fighting chance of going back. Its a wait and see thing.

I will give Ard this much, she is fair. Waiting until the outcome of the investigation before firing anyone as yet. That's a good thing.


Was he suspended with or without pay?


Retread the title..... "...placed on PAID leave."


If he plays dumb it will be easier to make money off the city


City computers have so many blocks--NO COWBOY.. Re-structuring- YES, most likely. Do it the right way, don't try to drag a loyal hardworking employee through the mud, if you need to re-structure then just do it and offer him another position. The report cARD was empty! Now must every one pay the price for her failure? Wasting city money on this witch hunt. Get back to the real homework.


Either the City Manager has something on him or not. Suspension is serious but you notice he was suspended with pay. How long is the city going to drag this one out?


She will try to get him on something even if its something simple now that it's been dragged out this long. This guy is a Desert Storm Veteran - fought in Iraq - served our country and now our City for 21 years. It will be a loss if she takes him down with her.