City now says former Richmond DPU director was fired after rescinding earlier resignation
Former Richmond Department of Public Utilities director April Bingham was given a “letter of termination” last month after she tried to undo a resignation she seemed to agree to in the aftermath of the water crisis, according to a city spokesperson.
“On January 15, Ms. Bingham resigned from employment at the city of Richmond,” the spokesperson said. “On Jan. 23, she rescinded her resignation. Ms. Bingham was then issued a letter of termination. As this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.”
The new revelation indicates Bingham’s departure from her leadership role might not have been as voluntary and amicable as Mayor Danny Avula initially said it was. Avula’s team brought in former state water official Scott Morris to lead the utilities department on an interim basis.
The Bingham-Morris swap is the only major staffing change the new mayor has announced related to the crisis that hit during his first week in office.
In an email to the City Council last week, Bingham said she did not do an exit interview as part of her departure and hasn’t been contacted to participate in the city-initiated review of the water crisis being led by engineering firm HNTB.
The new explanation from the city also sheds light on some of the city’s mysterious responses to public records requests related to Bingham’s departure.
The Richmonder requested a copy of Bingham’s resignation letter on Jan. 15, about 10 minutes after the move was announced.
On Jan. 25 — two days after Bingham apparently took back her resignation — city officials said they could not yet provide the document requested and would need more time. On Jan. 31, the city said it had no records to give, a response that implied there either was no resignation letter or no letter still in effect.
In response to other Freedom of Information Act requests, the city indicated it had committed to give Bingham an undisclosed amount of severance pay at some point. Officials insisted she was not receiving severance pay, but refused to offer more clarity on why there might have been a severance agreement that was nullified by some change of course.
