Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Township denies grievance request

Jodi Summit
Posted 6/20/18

GREENWOOD TWP- The Greenwood Town Board refused a grievance request from fire department member Jeff Maus to be reimbursed for 80 hours of time spent while taking a Fire Fighter Officer I training …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Township denies grievance request


GREENWOOD TWP- The Greenwood Town Board refused a grievance request from fire department member Jeff Maus to be reimbursed for 80 hours of time spent while taking a Fire Fighter Officer I training class that was offered through Central Lakes College.

While the township was not contesting paying for the time actually spent in the classroom (24.75 hours spent at a weekend class in Camp Ripley plus 18 hours of online interactive classes done from home), Maus had also submitted time sheets for time spent doing required homework assignments and studying for the required tests, adding in emails from the instructor detailing the assignments outside of class time. He also had requested reimbursement for time spent driving to and from Camp Ripley. The township pays fire department members $10 per hour for time spent on required training, meetings, and emergency calls.

Maus had asked permission to take the class, which Fire Chief Dave Fazio then forwarded to the town board for approval. The town board approved having up to five department members take part in the class.

Four department members signed up for the class. Four completed the online training and three completed the Camp Ripley weekend and passed the tests required for certification. None of the other members filed time sheets requesting reimbursement for study time.

Township attorney Mike Couri, in a memo submitted to the town board on June 11 (prior to the regular meeting), noted that this issue is regulated by federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). He said there are four tests that must be met in order to determine if an employee who is taking non-mandatory training must be paid.

Greenwood Fire Department members are considered township employees.

“While it does not seem right that a person who volunteers for additional training would have to be paid for it,” Couri wrote, “if it fails any one of the tests above, the law requires that the employee be paid.” The tests include if the training is outside regular work hours, if it is truly volunteer, if the class is not directly related to the employee’s job, and if the employee does not perform any productive work during attendance at the class.

Couri noted that it might be determined that not all these tests were met, specifically that the class could be seen as related to the employee’s job, and noted that the Department of Labor have generally given the benefit of the doubt to the employee in these cases.

Couri noted that the township needed to set a policy that specifically designated which firefighter positions are eligible for which training. The township had approved this training. The town board did pass a motion at the regular June meeting regulating that only in-house training, along with mandatory Firefighter I and II classes, could take place until a new township policy is put in place.

Couri noted the second part of Maus’ complaint had to do with not being paid for homework done before or after class hours.

“The general answer to that question is yes,” Couri wrote, “provided that the employee must be paid for the training after considering the four tests above.”

“In our case, it appears likely that Mr. Maus’ training requires compensation by the township under the four-part test above,” Couri wrote. “Even if Mr. Maus’ training did not fail the four-part test above, township policy to pay for such training puts this into the category of a compensable training, which would again trigger payment of time spent completing the homework.”

But the issue is complicated by the fact of determining if the homework is required. Couri notes that the references to homework assignments which consist of reviewing videos and reading chapters.

“Because these are labeled ‘homework assignments’ by the course instructor, it is difficult to conclude that this homework is not required as part of the course. If it is required, the employee must be compensated for the time spent doing this homework.”

While Maus had submitted a time sheet to the township for 80 hours of training, Chief Fazio had rewritten the time sheet, without notifying Maus, to claim only 42.75 hours. Maus only realized he was not being paid what he felt was the full amount when he received his check. He said it was difficult to determine exactly what he had been paid for, since the check also included payment for his time at regular department meetings, drills, and calls that month.

Township Treasurer Pam Rodgers noted that mandatory training is 100-percent reimbursable.

“How is our policy written as to mandatory versus non-mandatory training,” she asked.

Maus noted that the town board had approved taking the class.

“I would expect the board expects that I pass the test and honor the fact they are spending township funds for me to do so,” he said. “I am attending the class on behalf of the township. I took the class. I passed the test.”

Maus noted that there was a substantial amount of reading outside of the regular class time, as well as online videos to watch. He noted that this work was required to gain the knowledge needed to pass the final tests.

Greenwood Chair Mike Ralston noted the township had never paid for similar study time before, but said there could be exceptions to every rule.

It was noted that fire department members were permitted to log training time at home doing independent work that they logged, to meet training time requirements.

Supervisor Carmen DeLuca did not agree with Maus’ assertions that the study time was required.

Supervisor Paul Skubic worried about the fairness of paying Maus for more hours than the other members who took the same class. Skubic wanted more detailed documentation from Maus. Maus had recorded the dates and hours spent, which were attached to his time sheet. At the meeting, he offered several pages of handwritten notes, taken while he was studying for one of the unit tests.

Ralston said there was a lot of “gray space” in Maus’ claim.

“Some are justified,” he said. “Some are not.”

“I don’t know if it’s worth litigating against or not,” Ralston said. Ralston seemed in favor of allow time spent doing work that was assigned by the instructor, but not for time spent studying material for the tests.

“You are taking advantage of a loophole,” he told Maus. “You’ve chosen to get as much compensation out of this township that no other members have asked for. You are making a choice. We will deal with it in the best way we can.”

Maus asked Ralston if he thought he was claiming this time out of greed.

Ralston answered yes.

Maus told the board that his claim was not out of greed.

“I am following the policies this board has set up to compensate folks,” he said, “and to be in compliance with federal labor laws.”

Fazio said he wasn’t sure if the township’s personnel policy allowed for reimbursement for time spent studying.

“The rest of us didn’t consider that,” he said. “Day one, it would open up a can of worms.”

Fazio wondered if this would apply to time spent studying for the mandatory Firefighter I and II classes.

Fazio did back up Maus’ assertion that substantial out-of-class study time was required.

The board then set to reviewing Maus’s claim, date by date, to determine what was paid time.

A motion by Ralston to pay the first claim involving class plus study time failed on a 2-3 vote with DeLuca, Skubic, and Byron Beihoffer voting against, and Ralston and Larry Tahija voting in favor.

DeLuca noted he wanted to see what the township attorney had to say on the issue.

Ralston noted the supervisors had all received a letter, prior to the last meeting, which outlined the opinion.

“He gave us an opinion,” Ralston said. “And it’s gray.”

The board then voted not to approve any of the study time requests, on a 4-1 vote, with Ralston voting against. The board also voted 5-0 against approving pay for time spent travelling to and from Camp Ripley. The township has paid mileage for that trip.

After the meeting, Maus said he was not sure what, if any, steps he would take to resolve the issue. He would have the option of filing a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industry. He noted the township does have the responsibility of paying him for the time spent preparing the grievance and attending the meeting, according to state law.


12 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Shaking my head

Good for you Jeff for calling these amateurs out. Their refusal to follow their own policies, or our comprehensive plan is disappointing. They all need some basic training and begin to take their positions seriously. It is a popularity contest as to whom gets what. Back to the clown car I’m afraid.

Saturday, June 23, 2018
steve rodgers

How ridiculous that anyone would support Jeff "I can't wait to sue the township" Maus. The citizens of Greenwood pay for his self-serving antics. He needs to go away!!!

Steve Rodgers Fectos rd

Monday, July 2, 2018

Mr Rodgers,

After reading the Timberjay article it seems clear this was a grievance hearing and the Town Board sought opinion of the Township Attorney who supported Mr Maus’ position and said he must be compensated. The sueing part comes when the Town Board acts against the advice of it’s Attorney. The Town Board should realize it will be difficult for an attorney to defend the Township’s position when it runs counter to it’s own attorney’s opinion.


Tuesday, July 3, 2018
steve rodgers

The article was incomplete and one-sided. Chairman Ralston quoted the attorney saying there are gray areas, so he did not entirely support Maus.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Mr Rodgers,

The 14th paragraph is a direct quote from the Township Attorney and it says he must be compensated. Given the FlSA opinion the Township Attorney references and his opinion, how could any attorney start a defense of the Board’s action. It would be best to take the emotion out of the situation and act in a manner that would be the least costly for the Township.


Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Shaking my head...

Jeff Maus is right. The Township attorney agreed. I doubt that most of the board members even read the attorney’s opinion. We have a treasurer and 2 board members that were basically ‘appointed’, as they ran unopposed. Whose interests are they looking out for? Time for another re-do in Greenwood. Perhaps they should all read and comprehend the ‘Comprehensive Plan’ that cost the Township thousands of dollars. The majority of property owners were not in favor of further development at the townhall. That has been ignored by a ‘recreation committee’, that has no official standing, but the board goes along with their ridiculousness. Now they want to put in a well, to water what? Quit spending already! The gazebo had been used only 7 times since it was built. I understand there are 3 things planned for the gazebo this summer. Isn’t that nice?

Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Pam Rodgers

People that won’t even sign their names are chicken @@&$. FYI, I had no intention of running, but was asked and badgered until I said I would. Since I have been there, I have had to reconcile two years of payroll that was messed up and create processes for reconciliation, I have had to work with a clerk that makes mistakes due to lack of knowledge and can be defensive, dealt with changing our bank accounts because the clerk fell for a pfishing scheme. Dealt with Bassing who thought he controlled everything and hid information. Now dealing with the fallout since we don’t have any of his correspondence.

Apparently ILK doesn’t know that the treasurer had absolutely no decision making authority but finds it necessary to slam me.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am all about integrity, low taxes, doing things the correct way and transparency.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Ms. Rodgers,

I made no mention of you in either of my comment posts and have not “slammed” you in any fashion. My comments were solely directed to the actions of the Board. Integrity is synonymous with truthfulness and you have falsely accused me of slamming you. Is your integrity only self-acclaimed?


Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Pam Rodgers

IlK - you are correct- it was Shaking My Head that slammed me.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Ms . Rodgers,

Shouldn’t an appology follow such a mistake?


Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Island Time

M?. Rogers, How " ridiculous" is that that you, much less any intelligent individual, would continue to support such unadvised

decisions (literally) being made to the detriment of yours and others tax dollars. It may also be prudent for you to consider your research as to the statements you make. Maus has never sued the Township. As a self-appointed vocal advisor/ board member, it would seem that you would have at hand the attorney opinion that was in the hands of all the board members. It is unknown if any read them but seems evident that it may be less than five. A reading of those documents would show a striking factual resemblance to the Timberjay article you reference. You stated,"Chairman Ralston quoted the attorney saying there are gray areas, so he did not entirely support Maus." Correction? The one vote for Maus to be paid for his hours worked came from Ralston 1-4. It was the others who did not support Maus or the opinion paid for by us. If your comrades did not understand the Personnel Policies they adopted it was on them to have taken the opportunity to research the ins and outs of the Federal law they implemented in the policy documents. They engaged the Township lawyer to issue an opinion which seems to have been unwelcomed and then spit out as if it were gristle. I have never known the definition of integrity to include allowing no one to make mistakes. Integrity promotes the benefits of all. Integrity does not seek to promote itself on the failures of others but strives for the success of all. We all fail at times, we all rise at times, remembering that will bring us all farther together.

Thursday, July 5, 2018
Shaking my head

We have never had a treasurer that thought her opinion ( other than financial matters) mattered. Although she is not a board member, (it is allowed by MATT) she thinks we care what her opinion is during board meetings. We don’t. She has zero history in the Township, and is a recent resident- aka: packsacker. Arrogant and rude. I support Sue Drobac 100%. The appointed treasurer had been way out of line in harassing the clerk and should be called to task. The treasurer should re- think keeping her appointed (unopposed) position as she is a seasonal resident.

Saturday, July 7, 2018