Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-04; City Council; 7938; Personnel Board actionClTl )F CARLSBAD - AGENDA ilLL LB#Z ITG. 12/4/84 IEPT. PER CITY ATTY TITLE: PERSONNEL BOARD ACTION RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended the City Council affirm the action of the Personnel Board as set forth in Personnel Board Resolution No. 9. ITEM EXPLANATION: WAYNE MINOR, Park Maintenance Worker 111, appeared before the Personnel Board on September 13, 1984 to appeal his three day suspension from duty. and sustained the imposed discipline as appropriate to the offense. A copy of the verbatim transcription of the hearing is available for Council review in the Office of the City Clerk. A copy of the verbatim transcription has been furnished to Mr. Minor. Mr. Minor's representative has stated a desire to appeal to the City Council. Following the Personnel Board hearing there is no need for an employee to appeal to the Council-. Board action is an advisory recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the findings and recommendations and may then affirm, revoke or modify the disciplinary action as deemed appropriate by the Council. The Council review is based on the record developed by the Personnel Board. The Council may, but is not required to, allow new evidence when tne matter is acted on by the Council. If the Council wishes to allow the employee's representative to present new information, it is recormended that the Council continue this item for two weeks and have any new information submitted in writing for Council's review . The Personnel Board heard the appeal The Personnel FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact resulting directly from this action other than staff time and reproduction costs. EXI-II3ITS : 1. City Personnel Board Resolution No. 9, sustaining the action of the city in the discipline of Wayne Minor. 2. Request for appeal from Kelly Irving, dated October 15, 1984. 3. Letter to Mayor and City Council from J. K. Irving dated November 28, 1984. 4. Memorandum to Assistant City Manager da d November 29, 1984. T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PERSONNEL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF WAYNE MINOR. WHEREAS, the Personnel Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, met on September 13, 1984, to hear the appeal from discipline of WAYNE MINOR; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Board heard evidence and argument presented by the city and Mr. Minor; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Board after consideration of all the eviaence and arguments presented finds that: (a) Mr. Minor did admit to taking an extended work break, (b) Mr. Minor had previously been warned regarding abuse of break time, and (c) the discipline is appropriate to the offense. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Personnel Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That the discipline imposed be sustained. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Personnel Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 13th day of September, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Bates, Driver, Veale NOES : ABSENT: n ATTEST: .s 6 the goard a October 16, 1984 .. Jerome Pieti Personnel Director City of Carlsbad Subject: Minor Suspension This is a follow-up to my conversations with your department with respect to the above. We wish to appeal the decision of the Personnel Board to the City Council. In order to draft the appeal and make a council presen- tation we request a copy of the hearing transcript when completed by the City Clerks office. Kelly Irving, Staff Carlsbad City Employees Association c: Wayne Minor 3 November 28, 1984 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Subject: Wayne Minor, Suspension Personnel Board Resolution No. 9 Appellants Appeal to City Council on Personnel Board Recommendations Dear Mayor and Council Members: For your considerations, attached is an appeal to the Council on Board recommendations relative to a thirty (30) hour suspension of a twelve (12) year City employee. The appellant submits that: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. His exemplary work record was overlooked. He did not violate the only rule he was charged with. He was not reprimanded previously as charged. His suspension violated Administrative Order No. 30. He did not receive a fair hearing. The Personnel Board allowed evidence not a part of the case to control their decisions. The Personnel Board did not follow their own procedural guidelines, on both admitting evidence and issuing a finding on, the facts as set forth in the Notice of Discipline. The appellant prays for some relief from the City Council. Respectfully yours, JYK. Irving Appellant's Representative I:b opeiu 139 November 28, 1984 1 1 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND CITY OF CARLSBAD V. WAYNE ELLIOTT MINOR i PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I11 APPELLANT'S APPEAt TO CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I THE APPELLANT Mr. Wayne Elliott Minor, the appellant, is a twelve (12) year Carlsbad City employee with a history of successful performance. The appellant has earned three (3) promotions and for the past five (5) years has provided leadership and expertise to his assigned crew of Park Maintenance Workers. The Parks assigned to the appellant, Holiday-Oak-Maxton-Brown-Rotary-Magee- Jefferson and the pool area, are known as "clean, green and maintained" in accord- ance with department policies. The appellant has been rewarded with eleven (11) consecutive favorable annual performance evaluations from 1973 through 1983. nominated by his immediate supervisor for the honor of above standard City perfor- mance. Also, in 1984 the appellant was The appellant is married with two (2) young children and resides a few blocks from City Hall. Excluding four (4) tardies between October 8, 1981, through December 30, 1981, the appellant has a perfect attendance record with the City which now includes thirty two (32) consecutive months (January 1982 to August 1984) of perfect attend- ance. Since the Parks Department adherence to a progressive discipline policy for rule violations, Administrative Order No. 30, CX25 dated May 1, 1982, the appellant has never been "reprimanded" in writing nor has the appellant ever been referred to his department head for any written warnings. From May 1, 1982, through August 6, 1984, aside from the foregoing, the only document in the department ' s "official off ice file" and "personnel folder", rela- tive-to the appellant, was a May 23, 1984, notice to all Parks Division Staff of workhours, breaks and work schedules of/for the Parks Department and a July 17, 1984, notice/reminder to the appellant on work schedules and use of City vehicles. In conclusion, the appellant's City work history is exemplary, just two (2) notices of department rules or policies and - no referrals to his department head for possible department head written warning. I1 THE INCIDENT According to the testimony of the appellant and two (2) City witnesses at "about" or "a little before 4:30 p.m." on August 6, 1984, "a warm day", a Parks Tree Trim- mer Supervisor confronted the appellant and one other employee by charging them with taking an extended break. The supervisor charged that the two-(2) employees had spent about forty five (45) minutes on break, but the appellant and other employee denied forty five minutes by claiming the time on break was about thirty (30) minutes. The two employees were entitled to a twenty (20) minute break. testified that his break had run from 4:OO p.m. to a little bit before 4:30, an extended but unintentional break on a warm day. ness, corroborated appellant's testimony by stating that their 20 minute break started about 4:OO p.m. The appellant The other employee, a City wit- THE EXTENDED BREAK 30" v. 45" For fixing the time the appellant relied on his pen watch. fixed his time by the clock in his truck. The other employee The supervisor described that he -2- relied on his wristwatch. p.m., August 6, 1984, in dispute is the starting time, 3:45 p.m. or 4:OO p.m. All parties agree that the break ended at about 4:30 Both the appellant and the other employee were able to establish the following unrefuted testimony: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The appellant left his work site, at Jefferson Park, to return to the yard to: A. catch up on paperwork, E. to discuss an irrigation problem with Gene Nielson, and C. take his 20 minute p.m. break. Arrived at the yard around 3:OO to 3:05 p.m. Having a coirversation with Mr. Nielson. Approached by Mr. Curtis Milyard (the other employee) requesting help at Pine Field. Agreed to help request, finished conversation with Nielson, picked up some tools and rode with Milyard down to Pine Field. Worked for 40 to 50 minutes "strapping" the Pine Field fence which runs about 290 to 300 feet. Strapping includes applying four (4) straps or fasteners between each ten (10) foot post the length of the fence. Finished the job and left Pine Field at about 4:OO p.m. to take a break nearby. Verifying their time, by a pen watch and a truck clocks both witnessess Minor and Milyard, provided creditable testimony as to time and place of their activities from about 3:05 p.m. to about 4:OO porn., the starting time of their 20 minute break on the p.m. of August 6, 1984. The City made no attempt to refute the testimony that the "strapping" job on the Pine Field fence took 40 to 50 minutes to finish, nor that the employees met at the Parks' yard (#4 above) some minutes - after 3:05 p.m. The conversation, 84 above, beginning a few minrites after 3:05 p.rn., coupled with above activity #5 and a ride down to Pir,e Field plus the work at Pine Field all could not have been accomplished by 3:40 to 3:45 p.m. In conclusion the charge of taking an extended break of at least 45 minutegminus allotted 15 minutes for a net 30 minute extension turned out to be 30 minutes, minus 20 allotted for an extended break of less than 10 minutes. -3- 111 CHARGES On August 8, 1984, (CX1) the Parks Director charged the appellant with: A. Taking an extended break on August 6, 1984, in violation of the September 30, 1982, Department Employee Handbook (CX25). The Parks Director also listed as previous reprimands for poor work habits: 1. Tardiness, dated November 6, 1981, (CX7). 2. Abuse of work schedule, December 2, 1981, (CX8). 3. Tardiness, December 31, 1981, (CX9). 4. Abuse of work schedule and City vehicle, July 17, 1984, (CX14). The Parks Director rule disregard of department rules and regulations he was suspended for three days (30 hours) without pay. (CX1) that based upon the appellant’s continuous The Parks Director testified that the three day-30 hour suspension was required by Administrative Order No. 30, dated May 1, 1982, known as the Department’s Progressive Discipline Policy, as listed in the Employee Handbook, CX25, Page 25. IV THE ISSUES A. On August 6, 1984, did the appellant violate the Parks Department Employee Handbook? 1. Has the appellant been reprimanded on four previous occasions for poor work habit a? Was a three day-30 hour suspension for just cause and in accordance A.O.No 30, Progressive Discipline? 2. 3. Did the appellant receive a fair hearing? If so, what would be appropriate action to take with the appellant? would be the appropriate relief for the appellant? If not, what -4- v ARGUMENT ISSUE #A: City witness, Jerry Rodriguez, a Parks Supervisor, testified that the Employee Handbook Rules "did not apply" to the appellant. cribed that the break rules in the handbook were intended to cover Parks employees with lessor work achedules than the appellant. This City witness des- The supervisor also testified that to the best of his knowledge, he did not know of anything, anywhere, that describes penalties for extended breaks. Another City witness, David Bradstreet, the Parks Director and appointing power, testified that he "decided" to assign Supervisor determining the appellant's discipline and "adhered" to Rodriguez' position of three (3) days. Rodriguez the responsibility of The department head further testified, with respect to the Parks Department Employee Handbook, "obviously there's a mistake in our manual" because the hand- book does not provide rules for employees with the appellant's work schedule. CONCLUSION ON ISSUE #A: Handbook (or manual) because it "did not apply" and was "a mistake" to cite against him. The appellant did not violate his Department's Employee Because the Employee Handbook, CX25, was the only rule violation cited in the August 8, 1984, CXl, Notice of Discipline, and the City witnesses controverted their own writing, the appellant is entitled to recover his losses on the basis that he did not violate any rule cited on August 8, 1984. ISSUE 111: The Notice of Discipline identified four (4) "reprimands" for poor work habits "in the past." 1st November 6, 1981 (CX7) 2nd December 2, 1981 (CX8) 3rd December 31, 1981 (CX9) 4th July 17, 1984 (CX14) -5- To the appellant "a reprimand" occurs when an employee is: or B. formally rebuked. which has the effect of: A. advising or B. recommending. A. reproved severly A "reprimand" is much more severe than "counseling" The Employee Handbook, CX25, Page 26, provides for corrective action prior to imposing discipline. CX7, November 6, 1981, was a note from the appellant's supervisor seeking an improvement" on three tardies in October and November 1981. On December 31, 11 1981, in CX9 the supervisor described the November 6, 1981, note as verbal coun- seling. CX8, December 2, 1981, was anote from the appellant's superintendent confirming verbal counseling on an issue separate from tardiness. CX9, December 31, 1981, was a reprimand for four (4) tardies from October through December 1981 from the Parks superintendent. CX14, July 17, 1984, was a notice from the Parks superintendent which advised the appellant that deviations "from this prescribed policy will result in appropriate disciplinary action." CONCLUSION ON ISSUE ill: four (4) previous occasions. The appellant was not reprimanded for poor work habits on The City documents, CX7 - CX8 - CX9 - CX14 provide the best evidence to certify only one reprimand during the appellant's entire work history prior to August 6, 1984. November 6, 1981 (CX7) and December 31, 1981 (CX9) was verbal counseling and a reprimand from a superintendent on a tardiness issue. The record shows thirty two (32) consecutive months, January 1981 through August 1984 of perfect attend- ance. The one single "reprimand," CX9, was written by a superintendent on December 31, 1981, four (4) months before Administrative Order No. 30 - Progressive Discipline, was created and six (6) months before the Employee Handbook, CX25, was written and seven (7) months before the appellant was provided with a copy of the order and handbook. -6- The Handbook, CX25, received by the appellant on September 30, 1982, establishes that written reprimands are issued by the Parks Department - Head. establishes that the appellant has never received a reprimand in accordance with the rules. The record The appellant is entitled to recover his losses on the basis that he was never reprimanded four (4) times for poor work habits, as charged with on August 8, 1984, CX1. ISSUE 112: Administrative Order No. 30 created on May 1, 1982, CX25, Page 23 through Page 26, established Progressive Discipline, and defined it for all parties concerned, In short, it reads as follows: CITY OF CARLSBAD PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE RULE VIOLATIONS A. Considerable latitude on occurrences. - REPUTED VIOLATIONS 1. 1st recurrence: record placed in Departmental file. 2. 3. 2nd recurrence: 3rd recurrence: individual referred to department head for written warning. individual subject to one to three day suspension from department head. 4. 4th recurrence: individual subject to demotion or discharge. Progressive discipline is a four step process covering repeated violations which may occur after occurrences occur - and the supervisor establishes that the indivi- dual has been exposed to rules and regulations. -- At the hearing, the Personnel Director represented the appellant's suspension as progressive discipline. department head, four (4) City witnesses, testified that the suspension was Two (2) supervisors, the superintendent and the in accordance with progressive discipline as outlined in the rules. -7- CONCLUSION ON ISSUE 112: of the City/Department Policy on Progressive Discipline there was only - one (1) record placed in the department file. From the date that the appellant was provided notice That - one (1) record, CX14, was a reminder of work schedule policies and confirmation of the appellant's right to take a City truck home for lunch. On CX14, it was the appellant's unrefuted testimony that Superintendent Duncanson did not mention any times, dates or examples of work schedule violations nor im- proper use of his City vehicle. Duncanson spoke to him because of a citizen complaint of seeing a City truck at appellant's house. The appellant further testified, unrefuted, that Duncanson's testimony did not include any explanations of CX14. The appellant was never: . referred to his department head for repeated violations. , received a written warning from his department head. . experienced Step I1 of the Progressive Discipline Rules. The City violated the Progressive Discipline steps required. The City action against the appellant was as set forth on August 8, 1984 - (2x1. The City Personnel Director, both Parks' Supervisors, the Parks Superintendent and the Parks Department Head all advised the Board that Progressive Discipline was what required a three day suspension. The City never, repeat never, referred the appellant to the department head for a possible written warning prior to the August 1984 suspension. According to the City's May 1, 1982, Administrative Order No. 30, Progressive Discipline, suspensions occur after the department head has met with the employee and issued a written warning. In other words, the appellant was never provided notice that his next recurrence may result in a suspension. The appellant is entitled to recover his losses on the basis that the City did not follow their own Progressive Discipline Procedures. -a- ISSUE 13: A. The City Notice of Discipline, CXl, was dated August 8, 1984, and was appealled by the appellant directly to the Personnel Board as required by Resolution No. 6423, the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City. B. A three (3) member Board, appointed by the City Council, conducted a hearing the evening of September 13, 1984. C. The City Attorney sat with the Board, answered questions and otherwise assisted the Board D. The Board hearing follows a six (6) page procedural guide for Board proceedings in conducting the hearing. F. The City Personnel Director presented the City's case and called on five (5) witnesses to testify, including two supervisors, a superintendent and a depart- ment head, all from the Parks Department. F. At the close of the hearing, the Board announced their findings and recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council. CONCLUSION ON ISSUE #3: ITEM A Resolution No. 6423 provides that only the appointing power (department head) may suspend the appellant, in accordance with Rule XI, Section 14. The appellant was never provided with an opportunity to discuss the facts of his case with the department head prior to the decision to suspend or not suspend. Further, the appellant is required by Rule XVI to appeal directly to a Personnel Board and therefore bypass any hearings or review with the department head after a decision has been issued to suspend. In other words the employee can only review writings referred to in the Notice of Discipline and guess how they will be interpreted as by hostile witnesses against him at the hearing. -9- Further, there is no provision in the rules for an employee to explain his knowledge and memory of events cited against him in the hope of avoiding the stress of a formal, evening hearing in front of the Personnel Board. For example, the appellant believes that had the department head been made aware that on August 6, 1984: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Parks supervisor was not checking work sites and unable to find the appellant. The appellant was on a 20" break schedule, - not 15" as believed. A factual dispute exists as to the length of the extended break, f 30" v. f 10". The rule violations cited, Employee Handbook, does not apply. Three of the four alledged "reprimands" occurred 9 or 10 months before the employee was given notice of a Progressive Discipline Policy, September 1982. Two "reprimands" for poor work habits (tardiness) were followed by 32 months of perfect attendance. The only "reprimand" (CX14) written after September 1982 was a Notice of or reminder of City Policy, not a reprimand for repeated violations, and/or - no indication of how or when there were previous occurrences and recurrences. The employee had never been issued a written warning from the department head which must occur prior to considering suspension. There was - no record in the department file on the appellant with respect to taking extended breaks. A suspension occurs on the 2nd recurrence of a rule occurrence. - The department head could not have considered suspension Discipline), and the department head would have referred violation not the first (as Progressive the incident back to a supervisor to consider Step A or Step I of the Progressive Discipline Rules. The rules do not provide opportunities for the appellant to explain or defend himself unless he appeals and appears before a City Council appointed Board. rules do not afford the employee an opportunity to gain relief from his department head and compel management to plant their feet in cement until the Board rules. The That's unfair to a City employee who is thrust into a evening hearing, conducted by strangers, in a prosecution setting, and forced to participate under adversary conditions. - 10 - ITEM B The Personnel Board is appointed by the City and no provision exists whereby the appellant is given a voice as to who will sit and judge him impartially. The appellant has never met or seen the Board members prior to September 13, 1984. Of the three Board Members present at the hearing, the Board Chairman had no application for appointment toihis Board on file with the City Clerk, Member, Father Driver was attending his first meeting, after applying for the Serra Advisory Board. The third Board Member, Mr. Veale, also brand new, was appointed after filing an application noting 30 years experience as a manager with a life insurance company. One Board One side to this dispute, management, selected the judge and jury for the two sides involved. That places the employee at an unfair disadvantage in appearing before the Board. ITEM C The charging party in this case, the Parks department head, is a client of the City Attorney. The prosecutor in this case, the Personnel Director, is another client of the City Attorney. The City Attorney was required, on numerous occasions, to advise the Board (both on and off the record) on hearing objectA@n@ raised by one of his clients against the appellant's interests and objections raised by the appellant against his clients interest. where decisions were reached on proper evidence and the overall fate of the employee. Finally, the City Attorney attends the Boards closed sessions The above presents a conflict of interest for the one City Attorney and provides an unfair disadvantage to the appellant.. ITEM D The procedural guide for Board proceedings, on Page 1, calls for the Board to evaluate those facts "properly a part of the case." - 11 - CX1, the August 8, 1984, Notice of Discipline, identified the facts as known by the charging party. CX5, dated August 27, 1984, identified all the documents which supported the City's case againet the appellant odor before August 8, 1984. Based upon the facts as set forth in CX1 the employee filed a written appeal on August 28, 1984. Both Parks' supervisors testified that their recommendations to suspend were based upon the record, CX1. suspend was based on the record, CX1. on vacation August 6 through 10, 1984, and not involved in the case. The Parks department head testified that his decision to The Parks superintendent testified he was However, just prior to the Board hearing in September, the superintendent "volun- teered" a confidential memo of his dated March 22, 1984, in his superintendent's file cabinet. This memo was written to and by Superintendent Duncanson and - no copies given out to anyone 'and no copy placed in the department file for Step I Progressive Discipline purposes. The memo was clearly not a part of the City's case against the appellant on August 8, 1984, and it was clearly not included in the material the City provided by August 27, 1984, which documented (CX5) all documents, files and materials which supported the City decision to suspend on August 8, 1984. The memo was highly prejudicial to the appellant. pend for three days or the parties to the appeal knew that the memo existed. memo alledged counseling for an extended break and advising further action if reoccurred. None of the parties to the decision to sus- The This confidential memo of March 22, 1984, and found just prior to the Board hearing, was accepted, over numerous appellant objections as CX12. The ruling to accept the March 22, 1984, memo - CX12 - contradicted prior Board rulings on objections that were raised. Rodriguez, the Board ruled that his testimony could not expand beyond the facts as set forth in CX1. During the testimony of. Superintendent Duncanson (author of CX12) the Board ruled that he could not testify on circumstances, break time counseling, other than those before us, (CX1). During the testimony of Supervisor - 12 - Just before the Board accepted CX12, the Board obtained testimony from Bradstreet that he was unaware of the existence of CX12 and could not recall if Duncanson ever verbally advised him of it. The Board errored when they allowed CX12 as evidence at the hearing. listed in the Notice of Discipline. pension decision. CX12 was not CX12 was unknown to the parties to the sus- CX12 was not a part of the City's case. When the Board overruled their previous findings on expanding the hearing beyond the facts set forth, they did so on the improper basis that CX12 was admissable on the basis that Bradstreet "testified to the effect that he made the decision, if you will, ,on the basis of other issues other than those specifically before us." The Board went further to declare that CX12 was admitted "simply - not as to the fact that there had been instances of discipline prior to this particular issue" then confused us by also declaring CX12 is "just simply telling us there - has been prior discipline occurred." The Board then compounded the confusion of CX12's admissability by explaining that Duncanson "did - inform Mr. Bradstreet of this." could - not recall ever being told about CX12 nor ever seeing it. testified that he told Bradstreet about CX12. fact not in evidence. Bradstreet told the Board that he Duncanson never The Board explanation assumed a Ultimately, the Board issued a finding that the appellant "had previously been warned regarding abuse of break time." Only CX12 relates to that-finding. The Board violated there own procedural guide for Board proceedings (Page 5) by not finding on "the facts as set forth in the Notice" CX1. Lastly, before the Board adjourned into closed session for "careful consideration of all the evidence and argument", a Board Member argued with the appellant on how he verified his time on August 6, 1984, as follows: Board: Okay, another employee testified that he had a clock in his truck. Do you have a clock in your truck? I have a watch pen. Appellant: - 13 - Board: That's the only one that you - - you don't carry a wristwatch or pocket watch with you? So in other words, the times that you've testified to are guesswork because you didn't have anything --- Foregoing ITEMS A + B + C + D when taken in totality show that the appellant was not provided with a fair and impartial hearing. APPROPRIATE ACTION FROM CITY COUNCIL The appellant requests that the City Council reimburse him for monies lost as a result of the August 1984 suspension. The appellant further requests that all documentation relative to his suspension be removed from all personnel files. Finally, the appellant requests that the incident of August 6, 1984, be referred to his department for review as described on Page 25, CX25, Administrative Order No. 30 of the City. Respectfully submitted, J. K. Irving Appellant's Representative - 14 - November 29, 1984 TO : Assistant City Manager FROM: Personnel Director APPEAL OF WAYNE MINOR I have reviewed the comments submitted by J. K. IRVING in his November 28, 1984 letter to the Mayor and City Council. I have prepared some brief comments which are hereby submitted. I would like to point out that all of the information presented to the Personnel Board was presented to Mr. Minor and Mr. Irving at the same time. The board's procedure has been established by the City Attorney and used over a number of years and for a number of hearings. The appellant's statements are responded to as follows. 1. His exemplary work record was overlooked. Wayne Minor's work record is not exemplary. The Personnel Board reviewed Minor's performance evaluations for the period from January 1975 to January 1983. Out of seven annual reports all were standard except the one dated February 24, 1982, which was above standard. Other comments on the evaluations support the standard over-all rating. On Page 92 of the transcript Minor states he was tardy on more than one occasion, and on Page 95 he acknowledges being counseled by a supervisor. 2. He did not violate the only rule he was charged with. On Page 99 Minor states he was at least 10 minutes past his break period. On City Exhibit 1 showing that with which he is charged, is taking an extended break. 3. He was not reprimanded previously as charged. ' Minor on Page 92, 95 and 106 states he was previously counseled concerning tardiness and absence from his area. 5. He did not receive a fair hearing. If the hearing was unfair, why would Minor be willing to - - Page 2 memorandum .ated November 29, 1984 accept a written reprimand instead of suspension? See Page 112 of the transcript. Why didn't he ask for complete exoneration? If the hearing was unfair, why would this not be mentioned in Mr. Irving's summary? 6. The Personnel Board allowed evidence not a part of the case to control their decisions. The Personnel Board adjourned and secretly deliberated. We do not know what controlled their decision. 7. The Personnel Board did not follow their own procedural guidelines on both admitting evidence and issuing a finding on the facts as set forth in the Notice 'of Discipline. The Personnel Board used the procedure prescribed by the City Attorney. Page 2 of the procedure sets forth that the hearing is fact finding, that formal rules of evidence shall not apply n (L ROME N. PIETI U JNP/VS