Landers said Norton was reported to have been upset prior to, and especially after, the physical portion of the incident, Landers said. Police reports were made and the matter was adjudicated before a substitute city judge. The judge apparently did not find enough evidence to proceed with charging Grindstaff with simple battery, said Landers.

"What you have there ultimately, in retrospect, is a couple of acts of bad judgment," said Landers. "Closing the door to enter into a discussion that could potentially be volatile was not a wise thing, I think. It was certainly not a wise thing for him to touch her in any manner. He concedes that both of those points, in retrospect, were inappropriate behavior on his part."

Landers said Norton was very upset on the day of his interview with her. It was clear to me that these two people would have trouble working together in the proximity of their current jobs, he added.

In his concluding remarks to the council, Landers said it was a clouded situation.

"You have a circumstance where it is he said/she said as relates to the touching," Landers told the council. "I'm sorry but I can't clarify what happened behind that closed door. Neither can any of the employees at city hall. I think it's safe to say that you won't ever be able to definitively know what happened.

"But there is only point on which they essentially disagree. And that is the manner in which he touched her. It is clear that she felt either physically or emotionally restrained and her reaction is one of significant upset. His reaction, in retrospect, is one of regret and remorse for having put himself in that position where no one could possibly know what went down and that he did, in fact, touch her, which he concedes he should not have done at all."

The council had no questions of Landers. They addressed the matter in public after a brief deliberation in executive session. Mayor Ralph Moore opened the meeting saying that the council needed to reconcile Grindstaff and Norton's status.

Council member Barbara Bohannon opened the discussion stating her concern that Grindstaff was wrong in putting his hands on Norton. Council member Helen Turner agreed, saying that she has a problem with people putting their hands on other people. The remainder of the council agreed, as they did with Moore's observation that Grindstaff's closing his office door constituted a lack of judgment, not a policy violation.

Moore went on, for discussion purposes he said, to suggest a conceptual idea that Norton and the city might benefit if she functioned in a new job position as Events Coordinator for festivals and other city-sponsored events. Moore's suggestion brought immediate questions, especially from Bohannon and Turner.

"I don't know what the proper word would be, but that sounds like somewhat of a penalty," Bohannon said in quick response. "It's just like we discussed that night (over there). You wanted to create this assistant city clerk position. There again, she wasn't good enough to be city clerk, but yet she's good enough to create another position for. I'm not saying we need to fire her or bring her back. I'm just making a statement."

Moore responded, clarifying his suggestion with examples of what the job would involve, adding that the Events Coordinator would report directly to the mayor and council.

"I see this as a promotion," Moore said, adding that such a position might appeal to Norton.

In regard to creating a new job position, Bohannon responded, stated that the city is in the middle of a budget year. Immediately following her statement, Turner asked who would do Norton's job. The council was told that the Utility Billing Coordinator position was currently being accomplished as a team effort. After a brief discussion the mayor and council dispensed with the idea of creating an Events Coordinator position.

Council member Shirley Jackson said she did not believe that either employee needed to be fired over the incident.

"I think Alan regrets it, I think it was just poor judgment," Jackson said. "I don't think he was mean or malicious about it."

Moore said the council has two people that will not be able to work together. His attempt was to find a way to get one away from the other, Moore said.

"The bottom line," Bohannon said, "is that you're going to let the city administrator come back and you're going to create another position for the one who didn't do anything and you're going to get her out of city hall."

Moore agreed with Bohannon's statement.

Turner spoke out, saying that the council needed to make a decision and move on with city business rather than "bickering back and forth."

"I'm tired of this," she said. "We've got a city to run. And everybody is looking at us. They put us in office and they have confidence that we will make a sound decision. But we keep going back and forth. I'm beginning to wonder myself.

After a few more minutes of discussion and silence, Moore called for another proposal and a motion.

"It would be my recommendation that we fire Grindstaff, put Glenda back in her position and concentrate on creating a new position for her at the beginning of the next budget year and have everything ironed out."

Turner said she supported the idea because if Grindstaff "comes back in here and it happens again, what are we going to say then? He should have never put his hands on her. He knows that and we all know that. If he had never put his hands on her I could have supported him."

Turner made the motion that Grindstaff be fired "for cause." Bohannon seconded the motion, followed by a unanimous vote in favor of the motion. A "for cause" termination negates the council's need to provide four months separation pay.