HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 2133
TABLED AT THE JULY 8, 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. RULE 11.01 WAS AMMENDED AT THE
AUGUST 26, 1996 BUT WAS NOT AMENDED BY ORDINANCE.
ORDINANCE NO. 2133
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission has considered and acted upon what
actions are appealable under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, only adverse actions are appealable to the Civil Service
Commission and District Court, so the question of what is an adverse action for these
purposes was the subject of a proposed change in the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations; and
Whereas Section 11.01 currently reads as follows:
..
,.
"A regular employee in the classified service has the right to appeal to the Civil
Service Commission any adverse action taken against the employee. Adverse actions
are defined as actions that would result in loss of pay, reduction in pay, pass-over for
promotion, reduction or loss of an employee benefit, or the alleged denial of fair and
equal consideration regarding all aspects of employment including the alleged denial of
reasonable accommodation or access to public facilities by handicapped employees;"
and
WHEREAS, the following amendment was proposed by the Department of
Human Resources:
A r~gular employee in the classified service has the right to appeal to the Civil
Service Commission any adverse action taken against the employee. Adverse action is
defined as action by a department head which directly results in loss of pay which
includes permanent suspension, suspension without pay for any period, reduction in
grade (arising from disciplinary action) and an actual pass-over for promotion. Adverse
action will also include denial of reasonable accommodation to public facilities if the
employee is disabled. Adverse action does not include reprimands and rating
procedures which "could" indirectly result in loss of pay;" and
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission recommended that Section 11.01 be
amended to read as follows:
A regular employee in the classified service has the right to appeal to the Civil
Service Commission any adverse action taken against the employee. Adverse action is
defined as action by a department head which directly results in loss of pay which
includes permanent suspension, suspension without pay for any period, reduction in
grade (arising from disciplinary action) and an actual pass-over for promotion. Adverse
action will also include denial of reasonable accommodation to public facilities if the
employee is disabled. Adverse action does not include rating procedures. Adverse
action does not include written reprimands unless all appeals within a department has
been exhausted."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, that:
1.
Rule 11.01 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations will hereafter read as follows:
"A regular employee in the classified service has the right to appeal to the
Civil Service Commission any adverse action taken against the employee. Adverse
action is defined as action by a department head which directly results in loss of pay
which includes permanent suspension, suspension without pay for any period,
reduction in grade (arising from disciplinary action) and an actual pass-over for
promotion. Adverse action will also include denial of reasonable accommodation to
public facilities if the employee is disabled. Adverse action does not include rating
procedures. Adverse action does not include written reprimands unless all appeals
within a department has been exhausted."
PASSED and APPROVED this 8th day of July, 1996.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
MEMO
TO:
C. A. Sanford
City Manager
FROM:
Greg Dickens
Director of Public Works
"
SUBJECT: Civil Service Rules (Reprimands)
DATE: June 20, 1996
1. I have just learned of a proposal by the Civil Service Commission that would
allow the appeal of reprimands to the Civil Service Commission.
2. To prepare what has heretofore been a simple reprimand would then be
expanded to require each department head to prepare a formal document with
the same degree of care as a permanent suspension. The new rule would
require the employee to exhaust his appeals within the department before his
appeal to the Commission. This would mean a re-writing of the procedures for
appeal because under the present rules we would be required to give the
employee the written notice of his right to appeal at the time of the reprimand.
3. The rule allowing appeal of reprimands has a very adverse effect on
departmental management of personal.
CITY OF N*RTH RICHLAND HILLS
Fire Department
June 20, 1996
C.A. Sanford, City Manager
City of North Richland Hills
7301 Northeast Loop 820
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
,
REF: Civil Service Commission Rule Change of
6/19/96 - Appeal of Written Reprimands
Dear Mr. Sanford,
On June 19, 1996, the North Richland Hills Civil Service Commission heard a presentation
made by an attorney representing the North Richland Hills Police Officers Association.
This presentation asked the Civil Service Commission to consider a rule change which
would permit all Civil Service classified employees to appeal all letters of reprimand. This
appeal process would allow the affected employee to appeal any form of written
correspondence which is deemed negative in nature, even though this reprimand does not
cost the employee time, grade or money.
In the not to distant future the Civil Service Commission is to present this rule change
issue to the members of the City Council for approval and adoption. This purposed rule
change, though slightly modified from the original intent of the Police Officers Association,
would allow the employee to appeal any written correspondence, if deemed negative in
nature, through their chain of command, all the way to the Civil Service Commission. The
commission would then hear the grievance and decide as to the final disposition of the
written correspondence. That disposition could be for the correspondence to remain in the
individual's personnel file or for the correspondence to be rescinded.
I '
As Fire Chief, I feel the proposal of allowing the employee to appeal any form of written
correspondence which does not cost the employee time, grade, or loss of money will
eventually undermine the authority of all supervisors who are charged with the duty to
accomplish the goals and objectives of meeting the needs of this city. Infractions of
department rules and regulations by a single individual usually constitutes a letter of
reprimand or a employee counseling form to be issued to the violator. This serves as a
warning to the employee that continued infraction(s) of the department's procedures will
result in the department head issuing some type of punishment which could cost the
employee a suspension and loss of pay, a reduction in grade or an indefinite suspension.
P.O. Box 820609 . North Richland Hills, Texas· 76182-0609 USA
7202 Dick Fisher Dr. N. · 817-581-5670' FAX 817-656-7551
Page 2
A written warning has no loss of time, no loss money, no loss in grade and only serves as
a reminder to the employee that proper behavior is expected and non-conformance will not
be tolerated. The employee's coworkers also observe that disobedient behavior is not
permitted and understands that management will not and can not tolerate inappropriate
behavior. Most forms of discipline are the very foundation of a well run organization.
All correspondence detailing an employees behavior and work habits provides
documentation for or against the employee. The employee has control as to the positive
or negativeness of this written correspondence. Should the employee be allowed to
appeal all negative correspondence and the Civil Service Commission continues to favor
the employee with it's ruling, then no paperwork trail is established as to the poor
performance displayed by this employee. A time will come when this same employee
violates a policy or procedure and termination is warranted. The department head will lack
proof of any documentation supporting this disciplinary action of an indefinite suspension
as this violation appears to be a first for this employee because no paper trail is found.
The Civil Service Commission may feel this type of disciplinary action is uncompromising
for a first time offense. When in fact this same employee has been warned several times
in the past for this improper behavior. No paperwork is found due to earlier decisions by
the commission to revoke the earlier warning(s) issued by their supervisors.
All paper trails, good or bad, are very important to the City, the City Manager, the
supervisors, the employees and to the city's Civil Service Commission. These paper trails
allow those who sit in judgement, to make decisions as to the job performance
demonstrated by the one in question.
Paper trails from the Mayor's Office to the very last employee hired, allow the citizens of
North Richland Hills to review and evaluate it's city government, it's services and it's
planned improvements for the next several years. Paper trails keep all names and facts
accurate for those who will vote in the next election.
If disciplinary warning letters can be appealed to the Civil Service Commission, then the
cost associated with overtime expenditures must be a consideration by the department
head during budget preparations. This department usually issues ten to fifteen disciplinary
warning letters in fiscal year. Should a few or all of the warning letters issued in a twelve
month period be appealed to the Civil Service Commission, and no matter what the final
verdict is, there will be overtime cost associated with this appeal procedure.
J
-
Page 3
It's conceivable that when a single grievance is filed, several supervisors and a few co-
workers must appear before the Civil Service Commission to testify. All of the Civil Service
classified persons are entitled to overtime pay. This overtime pay is a minimal pay of four
hours, even if the hearing is in-session for only thirty minutes.
The degree of disciplinary action issued by a department head is based on the job
performance of the employee for past several months if it's relative to the infraction that
has taken place. The lack of documentation of any department violation by a supervisor
lessens the degree of disciplinary action taken by the department head. This same
process, or a paper trail is also considered by the Civil Service Commission when
rendering it's opinion. The disciplinary warning letter states to the employee what they did,
and that the action was in violation to the department's policy and procedures. These
letters also alert the Civil Service Commission that the employee received adequate
warning prior to a suspension or termination.
As Fire Chief, I request that my concerns as a department head regarding this rule change
proposal be forwarded to the members of the City Council for their consideration prior to
the new rule becoming law.
Fire Chief
Copy: Ron McKinney, Civil Service Director
Rex McEntire, City Attorney
SRG:jkw
CITY OF N$RTH RICHLAND HILLS
Police Department
June 25, 1996
PDL #01/96/186
Mr. C. A. Sanford
City Manager
City of North Richland Hills
7301 N. E. Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Dear Sir:
I was shocked recently to be notified that the NRH POA had persuaded the Civil Service Commission to
hear appeals on Written Reprimands. I had been notified that they had sought to overturn the long
established rule that only matters having direct fiscal impact are appealable to the Commission, but was
assured that this flew in the face of reason and logic and that granting the hearing was merely a formality.
This proved not to be the case.
Since the Civil Service Commission must now seek approval of the City Council to approve the
recommended change I seek to lodge a protest in the strongest possible tenns to the proposed change.
What the Commission seeks to do is to substitute their judgement for t~at of the employee's direct
supervisor and the department head hired to manage the affairs of the individual. If this body is better
qualified to determine when an employee is to be reprimanded in writing for some infraction or
indiscretion, then the head of the agency should they not extend their authority to deny the department head
any authority to verbally reprimand an employee without prior approval by the Commission? If this be
true, perhaps we do not need individual heads of departments, or at least not people who discipline the
employee in the department.
Minor infractions of agency policy are, and ofa right should remain, the province of the individual charged
with maintaining decorum in his/her portion of the four hundred plus employees of this city. Since it
would be ludicrous to presume the Civil Service Commission knows what goes on in the daily
administration of the many and varied departments of this city, it is equally absurd to think that their
collective opinions are moæ valid than the Chief Administrator ofthe department regarding minor matters.
This commission should only intervene when direct economic impact is part of the discipline imposed.
If Written Reprimands are appealable to the Civil Service Commission, will they then decide to impose
their best judgement on shift assignments, days off, perfonnance evaluations or vacation policy? The
Police Department has several hundred pages of General Orders enacted under the authority of the Civil
Service Commission, but none of which the Commissioners have specific knowledge. These rules are
P.O. Box 820609 . North Richfand Hills, Texas. 76182-0609
7301 Northeast Loop 820 . 817-581-5550· FAX 817-656-7512
Mr. C. A. Sanford
June 25, 1996
Page Two
needed and the adherence of the officers to such rules is mandatory to a well functioning Police
Department. The Chief Administrator is, and of a right ought to be, responsible for misconduct on the part
of his /her employees. Ifthis be the case, how can a commission seek to remove the authority to discipline
the employee while continuing to affix responsibility with the department head for such misconduct?
This group of well meaning (albeit uninfonned) individuals has directly intruded into an area of
management's rights that is never removable without management's pennission even when enacting a
union contract. I do not choose to abrogate this right to be eroded and request that you as the ultimate
decision maker importune the City Council to reject out of hand such an attempt.
Sincerely,
f:e~~n
¡j hief of Police
I
.
JLM/cp