Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1991-04-03 Minutes MINtJTES FOR THE APPEAL SEARING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE CO1~IIrIISSION APRIL 3, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. IN T8E NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY HALL 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman George Pederson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Members Present: George Pederson, Chairman Garry Cope, Commissioner Bob Roark, Commissioner Bernie Roux, Commissioner Others Present: Ron McKinney, Civil Service Secretary Rex McEntire, City Attorney Linda Cast, Personnel Technician Donna Heishman, Appellant Brad Parker, Attorney for Appellant Rodger Line, City Manager C.A. Sanford, Asst. City Manager Charles Scoma, Councilman Deborah Scott-Payne, Staff Accountant Kelly Copple, Budget Technician Donna Enos, Purchasing Agent Claudette Smyth, Finance Assistant Sharon Coggins 4. APPEAL HEARING Chairman George Pederson introduced CS 91-02 Case 91-02, appeal of Donna Heishman under Section 15, Article 17, of the City Charter. Witnesses were sworn in. Brad Parker, Attorney for the Appellant, chose to invoke the rule. Rex McEntire, City Attorney, and Mr. Parker each gave their opening statements. Mr. McEntire called Kelly Copple as the city's first witness. Ms. Copple verified she has been a Budget Technician since August, 1990. Ms. Copple verified she made a report to Mr. Ron McKinney around February 13 or 14, 1991, concerning a problem she had. The department had dissention, and they were not working as a unit. 1 Ms. Copple felt Ms. Sharon Coggins, her predecessor, had been released because Ms. Heishman believed she had talked about her to other people. Because Ms. Copple had talked to others in her department of her concerns about the department not getting along, about the personal work being done by Ms. Heishman and Debbie Scott, and about others in City Hall noticing it, she was concerned with the possibility of losing her job. When Mr. McEntire asked about the city equipment that was being used by Ms . Heishman and Ms. Scott, Ms. Copple verified the use of Ms. Scott's computer. Ms. Copple further stated that when she was told that they would be working on the business, she tried not to pay any attention to them, and would just do her work. When questioned about comp. time, she stated that everyone pretty well kept their own records. She was not aware of the exact number of hours available for the others in the department. Upon questioning by Mr. Parker, Ms. Copple explained the procedures for keeping comp. time records. She confirmed that she has used a telephone to conduct personal business, as well as a calculator. Ms. Copple confirmed that she did personal business for Mr. Lee Maness, Finance Director, when she was in the Finance Department, in that she made bank deposits for him on occasion while she was doing the city's banking business. Mr. Parker questioned if some people outside of the Budget Dept. were aware of Ms. Heishman conducting personal business. Ms. Copple stated that maybe one or two people had made comments. Upon questioning by Mr. Parker, Ms . Copple then confirmed that she did not talk to Mr. C.A. Sanford, Asst. City Manager, until after Ms. 2 Heishman had been confronted by Mr. Sanford. She further confirmed that she could not dispute that Ms. Heishman was using only the computer, not the paper or diskettes. Mr. McEntire called Mr. C.A. Sanford as his next witness. He confirmed that his conversation with Mr. McKinney in mid-February was his first knowledge of Ms. Heishman's personal business being conducted at work. He had three conversations with Mr. McKinney during the week about the situation, and also talked with Mr. Rodger Line, City Manager, Dennis Horvath, Deputy City Manager, and Donna Enos, Purchasing Agent. When he talked with Ms. Heishman, he asked if she was doing any work for her husband's business on city property. She said she was, and confirmed that Debbie Scott-Payne had been doing some work for her on comp. time. His understanding from Ms. Heishman was that it was done at times other than the normal working hours. Mr. Sanford confirmed that she had not been given authority to use the city computers for the personal business. He asked for her resignation. Ms. Heishman felt the punishment was excessive, and asked to speak with Mr. Line. Mr. Line joined them in the conversation, and upheld Mr. Sanford's decision. Ms. Heishman did not resign, and reported to work on Monday, February 25, 1991. Mr. Sanford then talked with Candy Ray, Donna Enos, Kelly Copple, and Debbie Scott-Payne. From them he learned more of the scope of the activity. He subsequently placed Ms. Heishman on indefinite suspension. Mr. Sanford stated he would do it again. Mr. Parker questioned Mr. Sanford about the use of a city vehicle by Kathy Renz, and he verified he knew 3 about it, and it was necessary for the duties of her position. He further questioned if Mr. Sanford had sought legal advice prior to asking for Ms. Heishman's resignation. He stated he had discussed it with Mr. Line, the City Manager. Mr. Parker questioned Mr. Sanford about comp. time, and he verified that Ms. Heishman had been criticized about her use of comp. time when Mr. Line had needed her. Mr. Parker confirmed Mr. Sanford's use of the city telephone for personal business. Upon questioning about the activities of Lee Maness and his personal business, Mr. Sanford stated he wasn't aware until a councilman told him of it. Mr. Parker had questions about the Peat Ma=wick report, and asked if it showed that budget and finance should be combined, and if it recommended that Ms . Heishman should be over the function. Mr. Sanford said it did not. Mr. McEntire asked if an investigation was ongoing on Lee Maness. Mr. Sanford responded with a yes. Mr. Parker asked if anyone else was under investigation, and Mr. Sanford said no. Upon questioning, Mr. Sanford confirmed that the Lee Maness investigation began February 25, 1991, after an executive session of council. Chairman Pederson asked and received an explanation of the chain of command in the budget department. Commissioner Gary Cope questioned who Kelly Copple works for. Commissioner Bernie Roux asked if there was someone next in line to step in and replace Ms. Heishman. Mr. Sanford said they did not have anyone at this time. Mr. McEntire called Debbie Scott-Payne as his next witness. She stated she 4 has been with the city 5 years, and in the Budget Dept. since November, 1989. Ms. Scott confirmed that she was using a city computer to do Ms . Heishman' s business records, starting in August, 90. This was done in the city hali, during the business day; also, on weekends, at night, or in the morning before work. She was paid by Ms. Heishman. From August, 1990, through the end of the year, she worked close to 100 hours. From January 1 through February 25, she worked approximately 50 hours, of which approximately 30 hours would have been on the computer. When questioned about comp, time, she stated she was out of comp. time at the beginning of the year. The 30 hours on the city computer were on city time. She felt she was not in a position to refuse to do the work, even though she was out of comp. time. She stated that in 1990, she worked an average of 5-10 hours a week, some weeks not putting in any hours. In 1991, she was busier. She further stated she did not realize it was against the law to use the city property. • Mr. Parker asked Ms. Scott if she had been instructed not to talk to anyone about this case, since she had declined to talk to him earlier in the week. She stated she had not been told that by anyone, it was her decision. Mr. Parker asked if she was afraid that she would be fired by Ms. Heishman if she refused to do the work. Ms. Scott stated that Ms. Heishman was her boss, and she did what she was asked to do. Upon questioning by Mr. Parker, Ms. Scott stated that she didn't think she had any comp. time left at the first of the year. She didn't tell Ms. Heishman, because Ms. Heishman hadn't asked her. She verified that Ms. Heishman did tell her to use her comp. or vacation time when she was working 5 for her. Through questioning, Ms. Scott verified that Ms. Heishman never tried to hide that they were working, or using the computers. She had heard Ms. Heishman say on occasion that she was on comp. time, but would be available if needed. Ms. Scott verified that the comp. time was on the honor system in the Budget Dept. Upon questioning, she stated the first time she thought that doing the work in the city offices might be wrong was when Ms . Heishman told her of her conversation with Mr. Sanford. Ms. Scott confirmed that she has been asked questions about Mr. Maness. She has not observed him doing personal business. Ms. Scott stated that, to her knowledge, Ms. Heishman did not ask her to put the personal business above city business. She confirmed she cashed some of her checks at the city hall, not having anything to hide. She confirmed that the software that was being used on the personal business was purchased by Ms. Heishman. Commissioner Cope asked Ms. Scott if she entered into the agreement to work with Ms. Heishman on her own free will, or did she feel coerced. She said she had a choice, she did not know how it would have affected the outcome. When Commissioner Cope asked if she had received any disciplinary action for her use of the city property, she said no. Mr. Parker asked if she had been told she will not be reprimanded, to which she said yes, her job was not at risk. Commissioner Cope verified that her title is Staff Accountant, and that it is an appointed position. Ms. Scott checked her records, and advised Mr. McEntire that the time she 6 spent on the city computer for Ms. Heishman's business between the hours of 8 to 5 in the months of January and February was approximately 13 hours in January, and 11 hours in February. Mr. Parker confirmed that she had approximately 5 hours comp. time during that period. Commissioner Cope asked her if she would have made that time up from future comp. hours, and she said yes. Mr. McEntire called Mr. Rodger Line, City Manager. He stated he has been City Manager a little over 8 years. Mr. Line was advised by Mr. Sanford of Ms. Heishman's use of the computers for personal business. On Friday, February 22, he received a call from Mr. Sanford that Ms. Heishman wanted to discuss the matter with him. He met with her, and got back with her later in the day. He confirmed that he had not given her authorization to use the computers for personal business, and would not had he been asked. He confirmed that she did not deny her use of the city equipment, or of the city employee. His decision was to uphold Mr. Sanford's request for her resignation. Mr. Parker asked if Mr. Line normally terminates employees of the city. Mr. Line said he does for the positions that he appoints directly, and when its necessary that it be done. Mr. Parker asked about Ms. Heishman's appeal to Mr . Line . He conf irmed he met with her at Mr. Sanford' s request, for approximately 5 minutes. Mr. Parker questioned Mr. Line about the practice of employees using the telephone for personal business. He confirmed it happens. Mr. Parker asked about Mr. Line's use of the telephone for personal business, and if he thought that was alright. Mr. Line said yes, it was. He further stated his contract specifies his 7 hours of work are not specified as 8 to 5. Mr. Parker asked if it was a common practice for department heads not to keep 8 to 5 hours, and Mr. Line replied that was correct. Mr. Line confirmed that department heads often take work home with them at night. There were questions asked about what constitutes excessive use of the telephone system. There were questions about compensation for overtime for management level positions. Mr. Parker asked questions about Ms. Heishman's absences on different occasions, and if Mr. Line preferred her not to be gone during budget season, from February to September. He agreed he wanted her here to do her job. In reference to his meeting with Ms . Heishman following the request for her resignation, Mr. Line stated she felt the punishment exceeded the crime, and that it was being viewed too seriously; that she was sorry and would like another chance; and also that she was underpaid for what she did. She did not deny anything in reference to the use of the city computers. Mr. McEntire called Sharon Coggins. Ms. Coggins stated she was the Budget Technician prior to her resignation in August, 1990. She stated that during the time she was in the Budget Dept. she observed Ms. Heishman using the city computer for her husband's business, and that Ms. 5cott was helping her. Ms. Coggins stated she gave her resignation August 6, with a 2 week notice. The next day, Ms. Heishman reprimanded her for a personal phone call, then 2 days later Ms . Heishman gave her a final paycheck and had her leave early. 8 Upon questioning, Ms. Coggins stated that she felt Ms. Heishman's personal business interfered with the office operations of city business. Mr . Parker conf irmed that Ms . Heishman asked Ms. Coggins to leave. There were questions about Ms. Coggins use of the telephone, personal and business. Mr. McEntire called Donna Enos, Purchasing Agent. She stated she had worked for the past two years under Ms. Heishman. Ms. Enos confirmed she had observed Ms. Heishman conducting her personal business. She further stated that Ms. Heishman had approached her in January, 1991, about a computer program that might work for Ms. Enos' husband's business, and that she could put it on the computer at work and use her comp. time to work on it. Ms. Enos said no, because she doesn't accumulate comp. time, and would wait until she got a computer at home. Mr. Parker asked Ms. Enos how the conversation about the computer program came about. She stated it stemmed from her taking an afternoon off to go to the accountant to take care of her husband's business, and general conversation about computer programs. Mr. Parker called Councilman Charles Scoma. Mr. Scoma stated he was in City Hall at the time of the incident. Mr. Heishman called and asked him to stay with Ms. Heishman until he got there because she was upset. While he was with her, she stated she realized she had made a mistake using the computer, but it wasn't a secret. During further questioning, he stated he was not in a position to know if her work was getting done. As a councilman, he did not get involved in 9 the day to day operations of the city. Mr. McEntire asked if the question came up as to her being fired or not being fired. Mr. Scoma said she asked if she should come in Monday, and he asked her if she was fired. She said no, not really. He said if it were him, he would come to work until something was done. Mr. Parker called Claudette Smyth, Finance Assistant. She stated she has been in her position 8-10 years, and Lee Maness is her supervisor. Ms. Smyth said she was not aware of Ms. Heishman's use of the computer until after she was gone. She stated she is aware of other people using the computer. In questioning the procedures for comp. time, she said each department keeps their own records. In the Finance Dept., each employee keeps records of their time. Mr. McEntire asked who Ms. Smyth knows that uses city equipment for personal business. She stated most people use the telephone. Upon questioning, she stated she did not know of anyone who would use the city computer 10-13 hours a month for personal business. Commissioner Cope asked if he heard correct that she had personal knowledge of her department head using computers for personal use. Ms. Smyth answered yes. Mr. Parker called Donna Heishman to the stand. She stated she had been an ' employee of the city for 3 1J2 years prior ta February 25, 1991. She originally hired in as a 5enior Staff Accountant, and was promoted in February, 1989 to Budget Director. Ms. Heishman explained that when she was promoted, the Budget Director was a new position in a new department. She put in hours to create new 10 procedures where there were none before. When first appointed, she was advised by Mr. Sanford that she could take comp. time for hours in excess of 40 hours. The record keeping of the comp. time was on the honor system. She further explained that she bought, at her own expense, a comguter for use at home, and the software, so that she could do some of the extra work at home. She and her husband did not purchase their business until January, 1990, so the computer was used only for city work prior to that time. In June, 1990, Ms . Heishman said she was advised not to take vacations during the budget season, fram February to September. Around August, 1990, she started using her comp. time at the city offices to do the books for the personal business so she could be available if needed. Ms. Heishman said she has carpal tunnel syndrame, and hired Ms. Scott for the personal business to do the repetitious work. Ms. Scott volunteered to do the work, she was not coerced. Ms. Scott was told by Ms. Heishman not to do anything on city time, but rather on her own time. Ms. Heishman also asked her to keep the records turned over for privacy purposes so the cash flow records would not be viewed by passersby. Ms. Heishman said she was not told between August, 1990, and February, 1991, that her department was not being run efficiently. In recalling the events of February 22, 1991, Ms. Heishman said the day started with a budget meeting. When it was over she returned to her office, and was later summoned to Mr. Sanford's office. When she entered, he asked if she had used her computer for personal business, and if she had paid Ms. Scott to do work. She answered yes to both. He then asked for her resignation. During the il conversation, he said her work was exemplary, it was her use of the computer that called for the resignation. She did not resign. She returned Monday the 25th, and advised she would not resign. Mr. Sanford subsequently brought her final paycheck and letter of termination. Mr. Parker entered as exhibits correspondence received by Ms. Heishman from the Civil Service Commission, and a letter of the charges against her. The charges were specifically 1) appropriation of City property to her own use; 2) use of a subordinate employee in performing work for Ms. Heishman. Ms. Heishman stated upon questioning by Mr. McEntire that her salary at termination was $44,700 annually. She stated she had been dissatisfied with her salary recently. She also confirmed that she and her husband intended to make a profit from their business. Ms. Heishman further confirmed that she and Ms . Scott did use the city computer for her husband's business. Ms. Heishman further stated it was not her intent to harm the city. Chairman Pederson asked if she requested to be reimbursed for her software, to which she replied no. At his request, she stated her educational credentials. Commissioner Cope verified that there was no attempt by her supervisor to have her just quit doing the work. Closing statements were presented by each attorney. The hearing was adjourned for deliberation. Upon reconvening, Commissioner Cope made the statement that the lst specification did not violate any civil service rule or regulation as set forth in Sec. 1Q.01; 12 and that the 2nd specification is found to be true. He further made the motion to reduce the indefinite suspension and order the maximum temporary suspension of three weeks. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Roux, and carried unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1:50 a.m., April 4, 1991. > Vice-Chairman C i n George Peders Civil S rvice Secreta Ron McKinney 13