Wingfield Ruling
Wingfield Ruling
Wingfield Ruling
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
CL-2023-0202
_________________________
Stephanie Wingfield
v.
FRIDY, Judge.
the City of Dothan ("the city"). For the reasons discussed herein, we
Background
was responsible for the management of the food programs that leisure
services operated, including the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
regarding the bid process for the award of the city's summer feeding
involved in the bid process, the complaint led leisure services and the
them from adhering to the rules and regulations governing the feeding
2
CL-2023-0202
the State of Alabama for monetary reimbursement. The form also stated
forms indicating the monthly meal and snack totals to the state for
and that she had made false statements to her supervisors, city
commissioners, and the city manager that the food program was being
operated according to its rules. The form stated that Wingfield had
accountable for their noncompliance with program rules, and had failed
two "major offenses" that could cause financial loss to the city and that
she had acted negligently in carrying out her assigned duties and
two "intolerable offenses" based on what they said was the deliberate
3
CL-2023-0202
time Wingfield was given the opportunity to respond to the violations set
forth in the disciplinary-action form. The next day, June 22, 2022,
that she had committed the violations as specified, and her employment
decision to the board, which held an evidentiary hearing on July 27, 2022.
snacks for the city's "At-Risk Afterschool Program" (“the after-school food
4
CL-2023-0202
program. She said that Wingfield received training from the State
and teens who qualified or who lived in neighborhoods that qualified for
provided the funding for the after-school food program, passing money
down to the states, which, in turn, passed the money to the organizations
that ran after-school programs. To operate its program, Marcus said, the
city received $2.1 million in 2021 and $1.1 million for part of 2022. In
2021, Marcus said, Tammie's billed leisure services $1.5 million for
370,000 meals.
the after-school food program, was responsible for deciding how many
meals to order and for ordering those meals. Marcus and Hall testified
that Wingfield certified the invoices from Tammie's. Hall said that, as a
5
CL-2023-0202
department head, she was required to sign the invoices before the state
could reimburse the city for the cost of the meals. She said that she signed
various records that the program kept regarding the number of meals
ordered, delivered, and served, how and when those records were
completed, and who instructed them about how to keep the records. She
acknowledged that "a lot of the information" to which she testified was
what other people had told her and that she did not have any direct
2022, invoice from Tammie's, billing leisure services $34,580 for 38,200
snacks. Marcus said that the city did not own two of those centers and
that city employees did not work at those centers. Marcus said that she
6
CL-2023-0202
reviewed the March 2022 invoice for snacks and determined that about
27,400 of the snacks -- about 65% -- did not go where the invoice
(as opposed to snacks) were also prepared that month. Tammie's billed
the leisure services $127,680 for the February meals. Marcus said that
she looked at invoices for other months and found that they also did not
correctly reflect where the meals and snacks were taken. Marcus
estimated that the city was paying approximately $105,000 per month
for meals and snacks that did not go where the invoices indicated. Marcus
said that the other documents reflecting the after-school food program's
the board were representative of the documents she examined for other
months, as well.
Marcus testified that the city would pay the bills from Tammie's
and then the city would bill the state for the number of meals served. The
forms the city used to request the reimbursement indicated which sites
served the meals. She said that Wingfield prepared the reimbursement
requests, which reflected that the meals were served at the same sites
shown on the invoices from Tammie's. She further testified that the
7
CL-2023-0202
reimbursement documents she reviewed showed that all the meals went
to the sites; however, she added, only about 35% of the meals actually
went to those sites. Marcus noted that the records for the two distribution
2020, children could not come to the city's distribution sites to get meals,
but, she said, the city was permitted to deliver meals to the children on
operated two vans that would pick up the meals from Tammie's and
operated a van, she said. The drivers were supposed to keep records,
Marcus said, but they did not. Marcus testified that the records that were
turned in were not correct and that the people who were to keep the
records along the routes "all stated that Ms. Wingfield told them how" to
Marcus testified that, like the route drivers, site supervisors were
supposed to keep daily records of the meals they received. Marcus said
that she talked with site supervisors who told her they did not keep up
with the forms daily and, instead, completed the forms the way Wingfield
8
CL-2023-0202
told them to. For example, Marcus said, the supervisor at one site told
her that the daily forms were normally not filled in until mid- to late
month, when, Marcus said, the supervisor learned from Wingfield what
numbers she was to use to fill in for the number of meals delivered.
from one of the sites, the same method was used for the monthly reports
the site supervisors were to complete. For example, the monthly report
for February 2022 indicates that 8,797 meals were delivered to a specific
site. Marcus said that she determined that the actual number of meals
delivered to that site was 1,900. Marcus testified that the supervisor for
that site told her that Wingfield would provide the site supervisor with
form showing the name of the person who received each meal. Marcus
said that Wingfield put the names on the forms provided to the
distribution sites. An "X" was placed by the name if that person was
served, and an "A" was placed by the name if the person was absent. At
the same site she had previously discussed, Marcus said, the forms were
not filled out daily. There were 100 children served at that site, Marcus
9
CL-2023-0202
said, and the form for February 2022 indicated, that meals were served
for nineteen days, for a total of 1,900 meals. However, the invoice for that
month indicated that the city was billed for 8,797 meals for that site.
Marcus said that the supervisor at that particular site told her that she
was not able to complete the forms daily because she did not receive the
forms in time to do so. The supervisor told Marcus that she would receive
the forms with the names of who was to receive a meal mid- to late month,
and that Wingfield gave her those forms. When the supervisor received
the forms, the children's names were already on it, but the names were
not necessarily of the same children who had received the meals.
COVID-19 pandemic, Marcus said, the city employees who delivered the
meals along the neighborhood routes were to complete the same types of
daily forms showing the names of the children who received meals on
their routes. However, Marcus said, those employees also received their
forms late and the names of children were already filled in. The people
handing out the meals on the routes did not know who was receiving the
of names equal to the number of meals that Wingfield told them to enter
10
CL-2023-0202
on the forms. Marcus said that she determined that there would be meals
left over and that the route drivers told her that, on Wingfield's
instructions, they did not return those meals to Tammie's. Marcus said
that the drivers told her they would either drive an alternate route to
hand out the remaining meals, take the meals home for themselves, or
sometimes throw away the meals. Marcus said that, during the
pandemic, the two meal-distribution centers that city employees did not
operate did not distribute any of their meals using the neighborhood
routes.
the documents she reviewed indicated that meals were claimed for the
same children at different sites. Absences reported for the children at the
sites did not match the absences for the children on the meal records, she
said, and the number of daily absences at the sites and for the meals did
not match. Marcus said that there were also meals and snacks that were
claimed on lines on the forms where no children's names were listed. She
said that one of the site supervisors reported that she had told Wingfield
that too many meals were being delivered to her site but that Wingfield
11
CL-2023-0202
did not subsequently modify the number of meals that were being sent to
that site.
food program records. For example, there was no evidence that Wingfield
regarding the information in the records, the attorney for the city advised
the board that a motive for Wingfield's actions had not been discerned
audit, which would likely result in the city’s being listed as a "high-risk
to every agency that supplies the city with federal money and grants, not
just the agency that provides money for the after-school food program.
federal funding citywide for several years." She also said that, because
the records for the after-school food program were not accurate, there was
12
CL-2023-0202
a potential that the city would have to repay the state a portion of the
Marcus reported her findings to Hall, who confirmed them with the
city employees who were involved with the after-school food program.
Hall said that the grounds for her decision to terminate Wingfield's
that the program required, her failure to adequately train the employees
that participated in the program, and her failure to provide them with
Wingfield did not testify before the board, nor did she present any
witnesses on her behalf. Her personnel record was admitted into evidence
at the hearing.
circuit court. On October 24, 2022, the circuit court entered an order
review of the board's order would not be de novo; rather, the circuit court
stated that it would review the board's order based on the evidence
13
CL-2023-0202
called on the parties to brief whether the appeal to the circuit court was
proper and timely, whether there was sufficient legal evidence, i.e.,
substantial legal evidence, to support the board's order, and whether the
she asserted that the board's order upholding the decision to terminate
her employment should receive de novo review in the circuit court. The
submitted their briefs to the circuit court, which held oral argument on
the board's decision was supported by substantial legal evidence and that
the city had "properly afforded due process" to Wingfield throughout the
Analysis
14
CL-2023-0202
what others had told them, which, she argues was hearsay. Wingfield
asserts that Marcus and Hall had no personal knowledge of her alleged
misconduct.
decisions of the board, provides that "[t]he findings of fact by the board,
adduced before the board, after notice to the interested party or parties
15
CL-2023-0202
409 So. 2d 803 (Ala. 1982). "Nonetheless, there must be sufficient legal
sustained." Id. at 804. See also Alabama State Pers. Bd. v. Palmore, 277
So. 3d 977, 983 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (explaining that an administrative
board may consider probative hearsay evidence, but the board's decision
testified that she had interviewed site supervisors, route drivers, and
food program's records had been compiled, who instructed the employees
on keeping those records, and other facts that had led to the charges
findings through those employees. Thus, it appears from the record that
16
CL-2023-0202
completion of forms required for the city to be reimbursed for meals and
snacks purchased through the program, that she had provided the
she had failed to provide them with the information and documents they
In contrast, the only testimony Marcus and Hall gave that appears
to have been based on their personal knowledge concerned the way the
wrongful conduct.
that, without the explanations from the employees about the timeliness
of their receipt of the forms they were to fill out, the way Wingfield
instructed them to complete the forms, and how those forms were
17
CL-2023-0202
The city argues that Wingfield did not object to Marcus’s and Hall's
contention and the applicable law. As noted above, hearsay evidence is,
improper. See Estes, 409 So. 2d at 804. Thus, the error here is not that
the board considered hearsay evidence, the error is that only evidence
18
CL-2023-0202
hearsay.
cases, as set forth in § 41-22-13, Ala. Code 1975, part of the Alabama
1975. Our supreme court held that, under § 41-22-13(1), "it is plain that
error are applicable in this case." 907 So. 2d at 415. Unlike in Williamson,
this case is governed by the Civil Service Act of Dothan, not the AAPA,
and the Civil Service Act of Dothan does not contain a similar provision
above, the admission of hearsay evidence by the board did not constitute
error. Rather, the board's decision was in error because it was based
Conclusion
19
CL-2023-0202
the circuit court is due to be reversed and the cause remanded for entry
20