Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1992-06-18 Minutes MINUTES FOR TSE M~ETING OF TSE CIVIL SLRVICE COlrII~1ISSION JUNE 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. IN THE NORTH RICSLAND HILL5 COUNCIL CHAMSLRS 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Newsom called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jeff Newsom, Chairman Marie Hinkle, Commissioner Sally Hackfeld, Commissioner Others Present: Ron McKinney, Personnel Director Linda Cast, Personnel Technician Vicky Craven, Employee Benefits Clerk 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were tabled until the July 14th FOR MAY 26, 1992 hearing. 4. APPEAL HEARING 92-03 The witnesses were sworn in. Appellant Virginia Vermooten was represented by her attorney, David Joffe. Rex McEntire represented the City. The rule was not invoked, and the witnesses remained in the room. Opening statements were made by Mr. Joffe and Mr. McEntire. Mr. Joffe called Arlita Hallam, Library Director, as his first witness. Mr. Joffe presented Ms. Vermooten's personnel file as Exhibit A, and the minutes from Appeal Hearing 92-02, May 6, 1992, as Exhibit B. Ms. Hallam verified her position in the library, and the "pecking order" of supervision, from the City Manager through the Children's Librarian. Ms. Hallam reviewed the personnel file, and verified that she had no problems with Ms. Vermooten's performance as a librarian. She further verified that on May 7th, she met with Ms. Vermooten at approximately 9:30 or 10:00 a.m., and gave Ms. Vermooten a letter from Ron McKinney, Personnel Director. She also gave Ms. Vermooten three options: resignation, being listed for another position with Civil Service, or indefinite suspension. She did not remember if she asked Ms. Vermooten if she had any difficulty in working with her in the library, nor if she had distributed the letter written to Rodger Line, City Manager. Ms. Vermooten was not given an opportunity to consult with her attorney at that time. Ms . Hallam met with Ms . Vermooten again at 10:30, and Ms. Vermooten said that she wanted the indefinite suspension. Ms. Hallam met with her again at approximately 11:00 a.m. and presented her with the letter of suspension. Ms. Hallam was questioned by Mr. Joffe about Ms. vermooten's testimony during the May 6, 1992 appeal hearing concerning Ms. Vermooten's ability to work with Ms. Hallam. Ms. Ha11am did not remember Ms. Vermooten saying she would be able to work for Ms. Hallam. Mr. Joffe cited the portion of the minutes of the hearing that stated it would be acceptable to Ms. Vermooten to work for Ms. Hallam. Mr. Joffe introduced Exhibit C, Civil 5ervice Rule 10, and Exhibit D, a letter dated May 7, 1992, from Ms. Hallam to Ms. Vermooten. There were questions and answers concerning the phrase "reflects discredit". There were questions and answers concerning an employee writing a letter to the City Manager. Ms. Hallam agreed that there was no rule requiring an employee to show her anything sent to anyone else, and that she did not ask Ms. Vermooten to show her letters sent to others. She further stated she did not object to Ms. Vermooten not showing the letter to her. In regards to the distribution of the letter, Ms. Hallam said it was a violation of Civi1 Service Rule 10(e). She verified she has not asked any employee to not distribute a letter in the library. She further verified there is no written policy 2 against distributing letters. Mr. Joffe introduced Exhibit E, a letter from Vincent Vermooten to Ms. Hallam. Ms. Hallam confirmed that the letter had been posted on the bulletin board because it was information that concerned the entire staff. She did not consider this action offensive. Upon questioning by Mr. McEntire, Ms. Hallam confirmed that the first reason for letting Ms. Vermooten go was that she stated that she did not want to be supervised by Ms. Hallam. Mr. McEntire introduced City's Exhibit 1, the letter from Ms. Vermooten to Rodger Line, City Manager, dated April 15, 1992. Upon questioning, Ms. Hallam explained the options offered to Ms. Vermooten. The options were: being on an eligibility list for another position in the City; two months severance pay and benefits upon resignation; or indefinite suspension. Ms. Vermooten initially signed a resignation, then returned to the office within 15 minutes, withdrawing her resignation. Mr. McEntire introduced City's Exhibit 2, the letter of resignation from Ms. Vermooten. Ms. Hallam confirmed she filed a written statement to the Commission on May 22nd. Mr. Joffe questioned Ms. Hallam on re- direct concerning her response to questions posed by Mr. McEntire. There were also questions about offering severance pay with Ms. Vermooten's resignation. Mr. Joffe called Ms. Vermooten as his next witness. She stated her position was Children's Librarian, and related her personal, educational, and work history. As part of her work history, she related that she was aware of no reprimands at the library. Ms. Vermooten related that on May 7th, 3 approximately 10:10 a.m. At that point Ms. Vermooten received a letter stating the suspension was upheld. She was then told that her employment was being terminated because she had stated she would not work under Ms. Hallam. Ms. Vermooten stated that she told Ms. Hallam that she had been misunderstood, that she had not stated that. Ms. Hallam did not ask her if she would have difficulty working for her, nor did Ms. Hallam ask her if she had distributed the letter to Mr. Line. Further, she did not ask if Ms. Vermooten authorized anyone to distribute the letter. Ms. Vermooten stated that she initially decided to resign because she thought it to be the option she could change most easily, since she had not had the opportunity to consult her attorney. At the second meeting on May 7th with Ms. Hallam, Ms. Vermooten withdrew her resignation. Ms. Vermooten had a third meeting at approximately 11:00 with Ms. Hallam to sign the letter necessary for the termination. In reference to the letter written to Mr. Line, Ms . Ver~nooten stated that she wrate the letter due to Dennis Horvath's rudeness at a library staff ineeting. On April 16, she delivered the letter to Mr. Line, and had a duplicate with her when she went to work. No copies were made for anyone else, nor did she authorize anyone else to make a copy. Upon questioning, she stated there were no rules in the library requiring anything to be shown to the Director prior to distribution. Mr. Joffe introduced Exhibit F, a notice from Texas Employment Commission stating there was no misconduct relating to her discharge. Mr. McEntire objected that it was immaterial, and Mr. Joffe withdrew. Mr. McEntire asked Ms. Vermooten if she recalled his question during the meeting on May 6th, asking her if she wanted all future decisions regarding her employment 4 made by someone other than Ms. Hallam. Ms. Vermooten stated her understanding was that Mr. McEntire was asking her if that was on the appeal, and was she requesting that as a possible remedy. Her reply to the question was yes. Mr. McEntire questioned Ms. Vermooten about the letter written to Mr. Line. She conf irmed that she had allowed others to read it on the 16th, but did not make copies. She allowed other people to read the letter to reassure them that the letter was from her as an individual, not representing any other library employees. Commissioner Hinkle asked Ms. Vermooten what she wants from the Commission. Ms. Vermooten replied that she wants her job back. Commissioners Newsom and Hackfeld asked questions for clarification on line of supervision, the letter written to Mr. Line, and the meeting held in March with Mr. Line. Mr. Joffe called Delores Womble, library circulation clerk, as his next witness. She verified that she had seen a copy of the letter written to Mr. Line because she asked to see it. 5he is not aware of any policy to not distribute letters in the library, nor has Ms. Hallam made the statement to not distribute anything in the library. There were questions and answers concerning distribution of letters in the library. Chairman Newsom asked questions concerning the letter to Mr. Line, and the procedure for the library employees to meet with Mr. Line. Appellant rested. Mr. McEntire called Lynn 0'Day, a part- time library employee, as his first witness. She verified she read the letter addressed to Mr. Line on Friday the 17th in the circulation area of the librarg. She had been told the letter was there, and wanted to read it to confirm that Ms. Vermooten was acting on her own behalf, not as a representative of other library employees. She verified 5 af other library employees. She verified for Mr. Joffe that she did not notice any disruptions that day. Ms. O'Day verified for Commissioner Hackfeld that she did not make copies of the letter, nor did she see anyone else make copies. Mr. McEntire called Rodger Line, City Manager. Mr. Line stated that he first read the letter on April 17th. He thought it to be a very poor way to do business to allow a letter to be distributed before he had a chance to investigate. This was the very first letter he had received from anyone that had anything critical to say about Dennis Horvath. Mr. Joffe asked if Mr. Line knew of any policy prohibiting an employee from writing him a letter to complain about something. He replied no. During further questioning, he verified that he is the person to complain to if the problem concerns Mr. Horvath. In response to Mr. McEntire, Mr. Line stated that under no circumstances is it appropriate to distribute a letter of such a critical nature to anyone not directly involved. Mr. McEntire called Mignon Morse as his next witness. Ms. Morse is an Assistant Library Director. She stated she was at the meeting on May 7th with Ms. Hallam and Ms. Vermooten, and that Ms. Hallam gave Ms. Vermooten the three options. Ms. Vermooten initially gave her resignation, then returned and said she preferred to be fired. Ms. Morse stated that she feels the six weeks since Ms. Vermooten left have been less stressful than it was before she left. Questions were asked by Mr. Joffe, and answered, about disruptions in the library, Ms. Vermooten's job performance, and distribution of materials in the library. Closing statements were presented by Mr. Joffe and Mr. McEntire before the commission adjourned for deliberation. 6 Upon return from deliberation, Commissioner Hinkle made the motion that the commission uphold the act of the department head. Commissioner Hackfeld seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 11, ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Ch J ff Newsom , Civil ervi ce Secretar on McKinney 7