Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2014 Mason County Civil Service Commission 411 N 5'1' Street, Shelton, WA 98584 August 21, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Call Meeting to Order—Chair Kelly called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Roll Call—Present: Brian Kelly, Chair, Commissioners Louann Davis and Danielle Skeeters- Lindsey, Chief Examiner Dawn Twiddy, Sheriff Casey Salisbury,Undersheriff Jim Barrett, Chief Jan Shepherd, Chief Tom Haugen, Support Services Director Bill Kenny, Lt. Cindy Kasten, Robert Decker,Tammy Reeves, Larry Reeves, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tim Whitehead, Dina Guay, Julie Oberbillig,Keith Lindsey, Kevin Stewart, Chief Ryan Spurling Minutes: July 17, 2014 - Commissioners Lindsey-Skeeters/Davis moved and seconded approval of the July 17,2014 meeting minutes as presented.Motion carried with all in favor. Business: A. Recording of Civil Service Meetings—Commissioners Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey moved and seconded approval to record the civil service meetings each month.Motion carried with all in favor. B. Chief Examiner Update a. Amended April 17, 2014 meeting minutes to include the adoption of the revised Clerk& Corrections Corporal job descriptions. Chief Examiner Dawn Twiddy presented the April 17, 2014 meeting minutes and stated the original motion made at the April meeting was to approve four job descriptions that had been presented and reviewed. This was a clerical error and needed to be corrected with new signatures on the April 17t"meeting minutes. The motion should have read as follows: Commissioner Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey moved and seconded to approve the Police Operations and Corrections Division Lieutenant,Clerk,and Corrections Corporal classification specifications as presented. Motion carried with all in favor. Chair Kelly noted the corrections and asked that they be reflected in the April 17, 2014 meeting minutes as approved. A motion was not needed, as the correct motion had been originally made just not reflected in the approved typed minutes. b. Written notice of voluntary transfer from a deputy sheriff to corrections officer. Per Civil Service Rule 8.11 the voluntary transfer needed to be put in writing and submitted. Each Commissioner was provided a copy of the written notice and a copy was put in his personnel file.No action needed. C. Sheriff Update Ucivil service\agendas&rninutes\2014\rninutes\rninutes august 21,2014.doe a. Chief Shepherd requested an extension of the provisional hire for the Clerk position. She said that the four month appointment expires at the end of August. Due to the exigent circumstances of needing to fill the jail corrections officers and deputies as a priority the Clerk background investigations have not been top priority. Two of the three original certified names did not pass the background investigation so additional time is needed to complete the new names. Chief Shepherd is requesting an extension of another four months per Civil Service Rule No. 8.13,which states it can be extended up to one year. Commissioner Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey moved and seconded to approve the provisional hire employee to be extended for an additional 6 months. Motion carried with all in favor. The meeting was recessed at 5:10 and would reconvene at 5:3 0 for the hearings set for a specific time. Chair Kelly called for a motion and stated that he would need to rescind the motion approved by Commissioners Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey approving a six month extension on the provisional hire. He said there is some concern that while Civil Service Rule No. 8.13 may allow for the extension for up to one year although the RCW may not allow for it to extend past a four month term. Commissioners Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey moved and seconded to rescind the motion made to approve the provisional hire for an additional 6 month period. Motion carried with all in favor. Chief Shepherd stated that she would need to know by the end of the month when the provisional hire employee's four month time would come to an end. Chair Kelly stated that if necessary a special meeting could be called to approve the extension once there was time to look into the law around provisional hires. D. 5:30 p.m. Hearings set for a specific time. a. Tammy Reeves appeal regarding the process in which the four open Corrections Corporal positions were appointed by the Sheriff. Chair Kelly reminded everyone the reason for an appeal is to deal with Civil Service processes and that while they can hear anything that Mrs. Reeves would like to say they can only act upon those processes which are within the purview of the Civil Service Commissioners authority. Mrs. Reeves thanked the Commission for hearing her appeal. Mrs. Reeves presented to the Commission her concerns regarding the process in which the Corrections Corporal testing and selection was handled which was the basis of her appeal. She identified three items: 1. The Corrections Corporal promotional announcement identified the minimum qualifications as 2 continuous years working as a paid Mason County Corrections Officer,which Robert Decker did not have,but was allowed to test. 2. The Corrections Corporal promotional announcement identified the minimum qualifications as each candidate must not have any pending disciplinary action,which one candidate(no name given)did have, but was allowed to test. Ucivil ser-vice\agendas&minutes\2014\minutes\minutes august 21,2014.doc 3. Robert Decker was selected for uCorrections Corporal position when iu fact be should not have been ou the list nor was his name certified 6v the Chief Examiner. All three Commissioners shared concerns that Mrs. Reeves' testimony was not reflected iu her written letter ofappeal. There was much discussion among the Commissioners and Mrs. Reeves regarding the three items identified hyMrs. Reeves. The Sheriff s Office presented information to the Commissioners to support the change in the job description and to show that the promotional announcement should have been amended to reflect two years required rather than two continuous years. The Sheriff s Office stated that there were not any candidates on the list that had pending disciplinary actions. Chief Haugen gave un explanation on the written notice received from one of the uofificd candidates.wishing to have their name removed and how he was under the assumptionthat Mr. Decker, being the next name on the list had been moved up and oedificduuaueligible candidate. Mrs. Julie Oberbillig stated she was an attorney and that she has been retained by Mrs. Reeves. She apologized to the Commission that she was not conversant with the facts and would like to request the opportunity to be able to become conversant and be able to present Mrs. Reeves' argument to the Commission o1u later time. Commissioner Kelly asked for Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 1[ino Whbuheud`o opinion on delaying the hearing to ufuturc dote. Mr. Whitehead stated that this was the hearing date and it is the burden of the Sheriff s Office to show that they acted properly and that he thought the Sheriff would need to agree in a continuance. Commissioner Kelly said that per RCW 41.14.120 appeals must be held within 30 days and since it is past the 30 days,and this is the hearing that the Commission would continue the hearing and handle the appeal without delay to another date. Commissioner Skeeters-Lindsey stated that she recalls Chief Haugen attending the Civil Service meeting in December of 2013 to discuss Mr. Decker who had a break in service as a Corrections Officer and did meet the minimum qualifications of years prior tohis break in service, but did not quite meet the minimum of 2 continuous years of service for his current employment with the County. She also said that the Commission, at the time,had approved Mr. Decker to be eligible to test for the Corrections Corporal position, but that it was not documented in the Z)eocrnher 19,2013 meeting minutes. Chief E{uugeuuoofirmed that ho did come to the December l9, 2O|3 meeting and make that request to Commissioner Skoeters-Liudaey and Commissioner Kelly. Chief Bangen presented u letter from/\| Hernandez,Union Representative, dated February 0, 2O\4 that outlines nine items for the corporal and lieutenant promotions that was agreed upon by himself,the business representative Wayne Thompson, Sheriff Salisbury, UudcrabedfT Barrett, and Chief Haugen,which stated that the minimum qualifications should be a combined total of two years ofemployment. Commissioner Kelly asked both Mrs. Reeves and the Sheriffs Office if they had anything further to bring forward regarding the appeal before he calls an executive session to discuss the hearing and options available to the Commission per RCW 42.3 0.110(g). Executive session called at 6:17 for 15 minutes. Meeting called back to session at 6:26 p.m. Commissioner Kelly discussed the issues between the approved job description and the promotional announcement that was sent out to candidates as the most critical issue of the hearing. Commissioner Kelly continued by stating that Mrs. Reeves name was certified by the Chief Examiner and advanced to the Sheriff for his selection. He also wanted to point out that the Sheriff has the power to appoint any of the candidates from the certified list and that the Civil Service does not have the authority or influence of who is appointed. He said that the appointing authority would have the burden of proof that his actions were or were not in good faith and for cause.He felt the Sheriff's testimony supported those he chose to appoint. Based on the facts presented the Sheriff had the authority to choose the people he selected. The process in which the Sheriff makes his selection is beyond the authority and scope of the Civil Service Commission. Because the Civil Service Commission does not have the authority to design the Sheriff s selection process nor the authority or influence of who is selected,they would need to deny Mrs. Reeves appeal. Commissioners Skeeters-Lindsey/Davis moved and seconded the denial of the Tammy Reeves appeal based on no cause. Motion carried with all in favor® b. Robert Decker appeal regarding the Corrections Corporal Eligibility List process and his eligibility for appointment by the Sheriff. Mr. Decker presented to the Commission his concerns regarding the process in which the Corrections Corporal eligibility list was created and the denial of his promotion which was the basis of his appeal. Mr. Decker said that he was ranked as number 7 on the Eligibility List after all the testing was completed and he was not expecting to be selected for one of the positions,but when Mr. Biswell removed his name, he was told that his name was moved up on the list and he would be interviewed for the position by the Sheriff. He was notified along with all the others on July 9h that he was selected and that the promotional ceremony would be held on July 15th. He was notified approximately 15 minutes prior to the ceremony that his promotion would need to be put on hold due to an appeal that had been submitted to the Civil Service Commission. There was a discussion among the Commissioners,the Sheriff s Department and Mr. Decker regarding his appeal. Chief Haugen again gave the same explanation on the written notice received from one of the certified candidates wishing to have their name removed and how he was under the assumption that Mr. Decker, being the next name on the list,had been moved up and certified as an eligible candidate. Commissioner Kelly asked both Mr. Decker and the Sheriff s Office if they had anything further to bring forward regarding the appeal before he calls an executive session to discuss the hearing and options available to the Commission per RCW 4.3(g). Ucivil service\agendas&minutes\2014\rninutes\minutes august 21,2014.doe Executive session called at 6:43 p.m. for 15 minutes. The meeting was called back into session at 6:53 p.m. Commissioner Kelly said that a clerical error occurred in the job description and the promotional announcement did not reflect the same minimum qualifications,which should have been changed to reflect the job description. The Commission agree that the discrepancy was a clerical error, done in good faith and was not a fatal error. Mr. Decker would have qualified had the promotional announcement reflected the correct language taken from the job description. Based on him being qualified per the job description he would remain on the Eligibility List. With that,the decision needs to be based on the certification of Mr. Decker's name and whether his name was or should be certified. Commissioner Davis/Skeeters-Lindsey moved and seconded to officially certify Mr. Decker's name on the Eligibility List for Corrections Corporal position. Motion carried with all in favor. Commissioner Kelly informed Mrs. Reeves and Mr. Decker that the Chief Examiner will provide a written copy of the rendered decisions within 10 days of the hearing. Adjourn-Meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Approved September 18, 2014 Brian Kelly Danielle Skeeters-Lindsey Louarm Davis Chair Commissioner Commissioner 0, Let-011, C, Dawn Twiddy, Chief Examiner kAcivil service\agendas&minutes\2014\rninutes\minutes august 21,2014.doe