The Progress has obtained a copy of the “non-disciplinary suspension” letter delivered to R. Lamar Whitmer, Mayor Lisa Borowsky’s chief of staff.
In a case dubbed “Whitmergate,” the letter adds to the mystery behind Whitmer’s Jan. 14 paid suspension.
According to a city press release, Borowsky’s right-hand man was suspended “after allegations of policy violations by Mr. Whitmer were received by the interim city attorney and the city manager.”
Three weeks ago, City Manager Greg Caton and attorney Luis Santaella huddled with Monica Boyd, the city’s Human Resources director, and deemed Whitmer would be “placed on paid, non-disciplinary suspension.”
“As recently as Jan. 14,” according to the city press release six days later, “during the workday, new allegations regarding potential policy violations were reported, requiring the paid, non-disciplinary suspension to occur without delay.”
Caton handed Whitmer a letter titled “Non-Disciplinary Suspension” signed by Caton, Santaella and Boyd.
“Under the provisions of Section 14-73 of the Scottsdale Revised Code,” the letter directs, “you are hereby placed on non-disciplinary suspension with pay for a period of not more than 30 working days.”
Extensions, “if reasonably necessary,” can be in increments of not more than 10 calendar days, the letter notes.
“The paid, non-disciplinary suspension will begin on Jan. 14, 2026, while an investigation into city policy violations is conducted.”
According to the city code cited, a city manager can make a nondisciplinary suspension to “permit an investigation into matters concerning a possible disciplinary action …”
“In determining whether a nondisciplinary suspension or an extension of such suspension is necessary and appropriate,” the code continues, “the responsible general manager or supervisor shall consider, in addition to other relevant factors, whether the employee’s presence on the job or at the work site will hinder or may compromise the investigation and whether an employee’s presence is detrimental to the efficient operation of the work unit or is otherwise detrimental to the public interest.”
Whitmer’s “work unit” consists of himself, Borowsky and Terrance Thornton – Borowsky’s original chief of staff who was demoted to make room for Whitmer.
Borowsky insisted the suspension “has been done without any disclosure of the allegations or accusations or the accuser. This simply is unjust and violates our Constitution.”
She called a Jan. 21 press conference “to demand that the city attorney disclose exactly what Mr. Whitmer violated in terms of city policy.”
That demand fell on deaf ears.
More than two weeks after the suspension, Caton’s office still has not provided any details about the “allegations of policy violations” – nor how Whitmer’s presence at City Hall would be “detrimental” to the investigation, work unit and/or public interest.
The suspension letter ordered Whitmer “to be available Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., for all aspects of this investigation.
“Your work location,” the letter commands, “will be your primary residence; you will be available by telephone at all times during your designated work hours …”
In a brief statement to the Progress, Whitmer insisted, “I have no idea what this is about.
“There’s no basis for any complaint.”
Half-joking that he was “complying with my house arrest,” Whitmer referred questions to his attorney, Dennis Wilenchik – who blasted the suspension as “a fiasco.”
“Not providing any tangible information at all supporting the need for this exercise is not a good look for city management,” Wilenchik raged, “and is embarrassing and damaging to the city as well as our client and seems designed to embarrass the mayor for no good reason as well.
“We know of nothing our client was doing or engaged in that was any violation of any ordinance or city code,” Wilenchik continued, “and nothing has been revealed to him at all to enlighten us, let alone any prior warning received.”
Borowsky echoed that:
“The city manager’s actions were wholly unnecessary and have the appearance of a blatant political hit.”
Battles brewing
Whitmer quietly started “my first office job in 40 years” Oct. 6, at an annual $135,000 salary. Shortly after taking the job, Whitmer told the Progress he would “help everyone work together” in his new role.
That was hardly the case in the first nine months of 2025.
For much of last year, Whitmer unleashed a public battle against the City Council “bloc” that indeed blocked many of Borowsky’s initiatives.
Whitmer in particular blasted council members Jan Dubauskas, Adam Kwasman and Barry Graham.
Months prior to taking an office at City Hall, Whitmer bankrolled an advertising campaign – in the Progress and elsewhere – that slammed those three for resisting Borowsky’s efforts to move a planned Old Town parking garage.
Whitmer also insinuated Dubauskas and Kwasman faced recalls – unless he brokered “a peace deal.”
When that didn’t work, he grabbed a poison pen, firing off a letter to the editor to demand Kwasman’s resignation – and calling the longtime personal-injury attorney “an ambulance chaser.”
That was nothing, compared to Whitmer’s full-frontal attack on Graham.
After sneering at Graham’s behavior privately and publicly for months, Whitmer filed a complaint – later dismissed – against Graham with the Arizona State Board of Accountancy.
Around this time last year, Wilenchik, meanwhile, was threatening to sue several City Council members unless they “publicly denounce … wild accusations made against the mayor.”
The attorney referred to “Parkingate” reports Dubauskas, Kwasman and Graham complained to county detectives about Borowsky pitching alternate parking garage renderings by one of her campaign donors.
Tapes of the interviews were leaked to the Progress and other newspapers.
Last March, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to investigate Borowsky.
Letter details
Eleven months later, while the Whitmer suspension itself remains general, the suspension letter delivered to Borowsky’s chief of staff was quite specific.
After outlining how Whitmer must be at his home during work hours, the letter adds, “You will receive a one-hour unpaid meal break between 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
“If you need to leave your residence during the established work hours for personal reasons, excluding your one-hour meal break, you must receive prior approval by contacting Senior Director, Monica Boyd …”
The letter includes a stern warning:
“If you violate the requirement to remain at your home during your designated duty/work hours listed above, you will be considered absent without permission. You will not receive compensation for this time and may receive discipline up to and including termination.”
The Caton-Santaella-Boyd letter concludes with more demands on Whitmer, again without giving specifics on his alleged violations:
“To the largest extent possible, this investigation will be conducted in a confidential manner. You must refrain from discussing this investigation including your interviews or written statements with any employee(s), or potential witness(es) to this investigation other than the investigator(s), human resources representative, or the city manager.”
Asked for an update on Whitmer’s suspension, Holly Peralta, a city spokeswoman, said, “At this time, there is no update to share. The matter remains active, and to protect the integrity of the process, the city does not have additional information to provide.”