PITTSBURGH — One board member of the Butler County Housing and Redevelopment Authority testified Wednesday that the authority’s executive director was terminated for the reasons the authority has stated, and not for some alternative reasons.

Jerry Andree, a member of the authority board and the Cranberry Township manager, testified at a Civil Service Commission appeal hearing that Perry O’Malley was terminated March 14 for using authority resources for personal and private business endeavors that are a conflict with the authority, abusing authority travel time, travel expenses, leave time and neglecting his duties.

During questioning by the authority’s solicitor Andrew Menchyk, Andree said O’Malley was not fired because of his age or political affiliations — the reasons claimed by O’Malley in his appeal for why he was fired.

O’Malley of Cranberry Township, who was the executive director for 23 years, was placed on paid administrative leave in January while an investigation was done. After being terminated, he appealed to the commission, alleging he was fired because of his age and politics.

Michael McNierney of Erie County was appointed as interim executive director following O’Malley’s ouster. On Aug. 24, the board hired Ed Mauk of the Pittsburgh Housing Authority as the new executive director.

Menchyk asked Andree if there were any complaints about O’Malley by current or former employees. Andree said there was one, from the authority’s former controller David Schnur.

Andree said Schnur — after leaving the authority — called him early in January with concerns about O’Malley.

Andree testified he felt uncomfortable with Schnur speaking only to him, so he had Schnur speak with Menchyk. He said Schnur, a few days after that, submitted his concerns in writing.

When Menchyk attempted to submit Schnur’s written complaints as an exhibit, Paul Mazeski — O’Malley’s attorney — objected, saying it was hearsay and contained multiple statements that have nothing to do with the proceedings.

Menchyk said he was not offering the document as the truth of the matter, but instead wanted to display what was given to the board. Commissioner Odelfa Smith Preston, who is presiding over the case, accepted the document for the record.

Menchyk asked Andree what the reaction was to Schnur’s complaints.

“Very concerned. It shocked us,” Andree said.

He said it prompted the board to do an investigation either to prove or disprove the complaints. The details of Schnur’s complaints were not discussed at the hearing.

Andree said the board hired Neva Stanger as a special counsel to lead the investigation. The board also appointed an interim director.

O’Malley was placed on paid administrative leave in January. Andree testified putting him on leave gave Stanger “unfettered” access to authority records and employees during the investigation.

When asked by Menchyk why O’Malley was placed on paid leave as opposed to unpaid leave, Andree said it was because there were only allegations about O’Malley.

“It was due process,” Andree said.

Menchyk submitted Stanger’s first written report for her investigation and said Stanger later will testify to it.

While Andree did not testify about the content of Stanger’s report, the report’s conclusion left no doubt “the board could not maintain Mr. O’Malley as executive director,” Andree said.

Menchyk also submitted a follow-up report from Stanger, in which, Andree said, she still recommended O’Malley be fired.

Andree testified O’Malley was terminated March 13, based on Stanger’s report.

On cross examination, Mazeski asked Andree if the board ever evaluates its executive directors.

Andree said during his time on the board, it never evaluated O’Malley’s performance. When asked if the board evaluated O’Malley’s conduct before the investigation, Andree said no.

Andree basically gave the same answer when asked by Mazeski if the board reviews executive directors.

“Generally speaking, the board does not review the executive director,” Andree said.

Mazeski asked if Andree was aware the authority has a policy manual on how to evaluate employees. Andree replied he was never provided with a manual. When asked, he also said there was no reference to any type of policy manual during the investigation.

Following that, Mazeski asked Andree if the board relied exclusively on Stanger’s reports when making the decision to fire O’Malley. Andree said the board did not review anything else.

When Mazeski asked if Andree had any personal knowledge of what authority resources O’Malley might have used for outside endeavors, Menchyk objected. Mazeski asked again if the board used anything other than Stanger’s information as justification to fire O’Malley, and Andree said it did not.

Further hearings are set for Sept. 24 and Oct. 8.