Why was Atlanta arborist Tom Coffin fired?
August 12, 2008 at 10:59 am by Thomas Wheatley in NewsThat’s a damn good question.
On one hand, you have an outspoken arborist who churned out more citations and inspections than his colleagues combined, holds a Ph.D in forestry from the University of Georgia, and by all standards and definitions, committed what may be the ultimate sin in municipal government: He actually — gasp — did his job. On the other, there’s…uhm. Well, no one really knows. Coffin says the firing was out of the blue and the city’s said it was not related to the $140 million budget shortfall. Surely there’d be a paper trail, right?
So I stopped by City Hall yesterday to review his personnel file.
Coffin, one of the founders of Atlanta’s legendary alt-weekly, the Great Speckled Bird, joined the arborist’s office in June 2000 and — save for a brief period in 2002 when he was laid off because of a budget crunch — looks on paper as if he was an exemplary employee.
Numerous evaluations conducted by his supervisors placed in his file consistently rated Coffin as a “highly effective” or “outstanding” employee.
The sole documented sore spot came two years ago. In Dec. 2006, Coffin was issued a reprimand by Ainsley Caldwell, his supervisor, for distributing a memo that contained “unsolicited data” to “external parties.” This followed a warning Caldwell gave him him two months earlier not to do that after he learned he’d leaked a memo. (Ever the rabblerouser, Coffin refused to sign the reprimand.) Whatever ill will this may have caused, however, didn’t stop the department from promoting him several months later to the position of senior field arborist.
No additional warnings or reprimands addressed to Coffin except for the 2006 hand slap from Caldwell are included in the file.
Which gets us to where we are today — namely, Coffin’s July 29 dismissal from the city department whose ordinances have evoked praise from lovers of Atlanta’s green canopy and scorn from developers and some property owners.
His termination papers from the city simply say he’d been “terminated,” a cold “X” in the block next to the word.What’s listed as the reason? One isn’t given. And according to several sources inside City Hall, that ain’t standard procedure.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
This is disgusting! Mayor Franklin is better than this and she should get personally involved to rectify this situation and hold those who made this half *ssed decision to fire Coffin accountable.
Remember not being able to see a tree is one of the ten reasons Atlantans hate Manhatten.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
E, you have more faith in Big Shirley than I do. Keep in mind she is a former Cousins employee and developers have been pushing to restrain the arborists (arboristas?) for years.
Thomas,
Was this the result of an open records request? Sounds like it; did you ask for all correspondence (including email) between the Mayor’s office, City Council president’s office and those that fired Coffin?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I believe Georgia is a no-fault state and the employer does not have to provide a reason the employee was fired. Not sure if that extends to the government or not.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Unfortunately there were a number of employees laid off by the City of Atlanta that had a much longer of term of service and exemplary records. One should question why only this employee that has launched a personal campaign to lobby for reinstatement is more valued. During this economic downturn, it is a shame that this one employee is garnering so much support. I believe that this is insulting to the many workers that have given so much to this city for so long and are now being devalued by a personal attempt to discredit the city by one disgruntled employee.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Press release from Council member at large and mayoral candidate Mary Norwood today
At next week’s council meeting, I will introduce a resolution calling for investigation of the termination of Tom Coffin and broader questions regarding accountability for all city employees as well as their fulfilling their duties and tasks assigned. All of our employees must be accountable for the fair and impartial enforcement of all city rules and regulations and for the diligent and efficient performance of their jobs. Whether obtaining a building permit, paying a water bill, removing a tree, or having a street repaired, all citizens need to feel assured that our city is acting fairly and conscientiously as well as cost-effectively and fulfilling committed to making our city work again. The termination of Tom Coffin needs to be investigated and the arborist division as a whole reviewed. It is my understanding that the Mayor has asked for such an investigation and if so, I concur that this step is an important one for the City of Atlanta to take. Our tree canopy of is a defining attribute of our city and one that all of our citizens feel strongly about. It is important that we, as elected officials, make certain that we are protecting our citizens’ quality of life and the environment of our city. We also want to be sure that City employees do the jobs we pay them to do. This is a time and a place to make sure that fairness and efficiency both prevail. This is how we make our City work again.
The devil will be in the details and let’s hope Mary gets them right this time. Can council actually make an investigation happen? (Is there any sign that the sewer audit is moving forward despite all the assurances when council approved the latest massive fee increase?) Who conducts this investigation? What are its terms of reference? (If they are as broad as “accountability of all city employees” that guarantees failure.) When does it report and to whom? What teeth do its recommendations have? It is high time council stopped posturing as the friend of the citizen and took real action.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
His department was told to pare the budget. He was a thorn in the side, nearest to retirement (one of the chief causes of the budget crisis according to City Hall), and probably had the largest salary. Word has it that his supervisor doesn’t care about trees.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The other detail I’ve heard is that Mr. Coffin was terminated on a day he was going to deliver a citation to a Buckhead landowner for the illegal removal of approximately 15 old growth hardwoods.
At this point, a response from the city seems beyond overdue. Posturing or no posturing, I respect Mary Norwood for being the only city official to say as much.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
A,
I assume you mean “at-will” not “no fault”. No fault refers to an insurance framework which limits recovery from injured people in automobile accidents to that which their own insurance did or does not cover. Georgia is NOT a no-fault state, but it is an at-will employment state, but the City had put in certain employee protections (and protections for itself) over and above the general at-will rule.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
There’s always more to the story. The accountability issue of (his fellow) city employees is and always will be an issue. But in this matter, the untold truth of the matter is that Tom was inconsistent and irrational when it came to enforcement of the ordinance. Many times permits were denied, not because some evil developer or land owner wanted to cut down some legacy hardwood tree, but because Tom saw himself first and foremost as a mythical caped crusader in the fight against the removal of all trees, especially those that the wealthier denizens of the city wish to remove. More than once his superiors were called to sites to answer the protests of those landowners who, in good faith and in full consideration of the tree ordinance, had engaged independent arborists to determine, e.g., if a tree were truly dead, dying, or hazardous, only to have Tom deny the permit outright–in other words- NOT on the basis of any scientific observations that would be consistent with standard principles of arborculture. No one in this industry WANTS to cut down trees, but sometimes trees need to be removed. The point is that a senior city arborist who has a personal agenda (read vendetta) that informs his decisions before any consideration of the scientific ‘truth’ concerning this or that tree, need not be a senior city arborist. Simply put, scientific evidence should inform the decision maker–the decision maker should not disregard such evidence in order to fulfill whatever bucolic vision he or she might dream up while on the tax payers’ dollar. Ms. Norwood would do herself and City Hall a favor by getting the facts together before stirring up a nest of hornets. The fact is, the number of trees removed without permits actually increased while Tom was on the job, and this was due primarily to his reputation as an inconsistent and unfair administrator of the ordinance. Folks had the attitude: If he’s going to deny it, I’ll do it anyway before anyone is the wiser. Not an attitude that one would encourage in their children, but the truth anyway.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
oskar
be careful about the “facts” as you state them. sounds to me like you are a builder with an ax to grind. there’s nothing wrong with the council looking into what happened in this instance, as it is obvious to all that many questions still remain unanswered. be careful, though, oskar — next time you take a tree down illegally, you may uncover a nest of hornets ready to sting.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
What can I do to protest his dismissal? I want him to retain his postion and will help in any way I can.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Oskar: Anyone who has their facts together should be presenting those facts to the Tree Commission in appealing a city arborist’s decision, not ranting online about mythical caped crusaders. Also, arborists engaged (paid) by landowners (developers) are hardly independent (neutral).
August 13th, 2008 at 7:44 am
For the record-I am not, and do not work for any developer or tree removal company. I do not, and will not have a tree taken down illegally, and have always followed the commission\\\’s protocol for appealing an arborist\\\’s decision. In some cases, the recompense fee is the only fair and equitable option. Further, I apologize that my earlier remarks appear to some as a \\
August 13th, 2008 at 7:47 am
“rant.” My point was simply that on numerous occassions Tom enforced the ordinance inconsistenly and unfairly–that is, without regard to the facts pertaining to the condition of this or that tree. I’m guessing that his co-workers and superiors were ultimately aware of this.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Oskar, if what you say is true then wouldn’t there be a trail of decisions by him being overturned via appeals to the Tree Commission?
Or is the Tree Commission not really a reliable purveyor of decisions based on facts?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
There’s a simple fix that would make the hazard tree exception to the ordinance less of a loophole. Then Oskar’s complaint would be moot. (Of course often there is no really scientific way to predict a tree’s demise unless the darn thing is very dead.) Just forbid building in the area where the tree was removed for, say, 3 years. Then cases like a neighbor who took out mature trees on the hazard excuse and the same week got a permit to put a pool in the very spot would not occur. Decimating tree cover in this city should mean paying mightily. The approach was proposed during the last brouhaha. But since council does not actually care to protect trees it got nowhere.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Oskar, I think your argument is being construed as being from a developer because you wrote: ‘no one in THIS industry wants to cut down trees’.
In fact, most developers do want to cut down trees anytime one is in the way of maximizing their profits.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
the firing of tom coffin is indicative of the disease existing in the bureau of building department which can not tolerate someone doing their job and trying to protect our community by enforcing the codes that we are supposed to abide by. it is a sad day for the city and everyone in buckhead (ok, not spec home builders and developers) hopes that this error will be corrected. thanks for continuing to make this public.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I feel like that if I don’ want a huge tree on my property risking my family’s life than I should be able to cut it down. It’s not that fun dragging the kids out of bed and into the basement during a bad storm in the middle of the night. If the tree benefits everyone in the city then give me a property tax credit for putting up with the risk and also the work of raking the leaves. I’ve seen too many people killed by trees in this city for them to tell me I have to put my kids life at risk. If the city wants trees they should use their money to buy property and plant trees on it. I question the constitutionality of the laws in the first place.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I own a private residence in Atlanta. I had the unfortunate opportunity to be a victim of Tom Coffins abuse of his position. A few days after spreading a truckload of composted dirt over my yard to establish a lawn, I was in my yard when Tom Coffin drove up my driveway. He got out of his truck as I walked up and, without introducing himself, screamed “get out of my way I’m here on official business!” After several attempts to get his name and him dodging around my yard refusing to speak to me; I called the police. After they arrived and spoke with him he nastily told me his name, position, and that I had to remove the thin layer of dirt or he was going to fine me $27,500 for disturbing my trees root zone! He wrote a ticket ordering me to remove the dirt and left. No conversation, no explanation.
I made an official complaint to the city of Atlanta as I’m sure many who have had contact with him have had to do. He’s painting a picture of himself as the Joan of Arc for the trees of Atlanta, but he was more like the Hitler of the same. I have 13 huge oak trees in my yard which I could have cut down, but I choose to keep. His manner and actions where volatile and unstable and I’m sure his superiors had just reason to terminate him.
When he returned to my house in 2 weeks to ensure that I had complied with his order(I had), he stated that the city arborists had full police power and did not have to speak or even state there name if they did not wish too?(delusional power trip?).
Even if his intentions are wonderful he had the worst people skills I’ve encountered and was ill suited for his position.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I for one am very happy to know that Tom Coffin has been removed fromt he arborist division. He was unfair and no I am not a developer and never recieved a fine from him. But I had dealings with Tom over the years that he worked for the city. He lied, was sneaky and unreasonable. I believe that we need to save our trees but not at the cost of lives. Does anyone remember the terrible tragedy that occurred in Va Highlands a few years ago when Tom refused to allow a tree to be taken down claiming it was alive, if I remember correctly the tree fell and killed a family. He once told me that I could not take down a dying tree in my yard that was leaning on my neighbors house. I went to the Federal Government to override his authority. The tree was SO DEAD!
February 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Janet L
I don’t know about your dealings with Tom Coffin. You definately do not know about the water oak that fell during a very violent storm and killed 3 of the Cunards. Tom had nothing to do with the permitting of that tree. The tree was located on church property. Tom lives down the steet from that tree and will tell you it was in horrible shape. The church never requested a permit to remove the tree.
And you know what? Mr. Cunard tragically lost his family and never lashed out at that tree or any other tree. I did not know him directly but I have friends in Vi-Hi that do. That tree fell during a very violent storm. No one knows what can happen during storms like that. Signs, utility poles and traffic lights can come down as well. Tom is human and like any human has faults. Don’t blame him for something he had nothing to do with. His job is not an easy one. The subject or regulating urban trees is a touchy one. I admit that I know Tom. He tough me much about trees. We didn’t alway agree and he is a headstrong person but he is also a fairly reasonable person as well.
Think about this. On days when the air quality in Atlanta reaches a certain unacceptable level the city has to pay fines. It’s also not good for you to breathe. Trees filter out that yucky stuff. When the heavy rains come it’s the trees that help to significanly reduce the runoff and control urban flooding. There are economic and sociological benefits as well. People have better mental health when around trees and greenspaces. If you haven’t already you should see the infrared satelite photos of the metro area. They are horrifing. Weather patterns have changed due to our changing the land. The people that are trying to protect the air, water, land and the trees that connect it all are protecting your livelyhood. It may seem like an incovience to rake leaves but come on. What are you going to do when you can’t breathe the air or your home’s been swept away by flood waters? These are the things to be conservative about. And that’s why Tom is so passionate about the trees. He cares about what kind of planet he is leaving for his children and grandchildren. And probably sticking up for something that 1) has no voice and 2) cannot move. That is the treehugger soapbox but think about it. It’s reality. It’s about more than just YOU.