03/20/1990 - Special
i,
Proceedings of the Special: Civil Service Bonrd Meeting of March 20, 1990.
Page 1
(
Present
Joseph Carwise, Chairman
David Keyser. Member
Syd Snair, Member
(Orland) Bill Carrozll, Member
Arthur Deegan, Member
/
(
,
,
!,
t
I
,
.
H. Michael Laursen, Personnel Director
Deborah Lally, Personnel Department
Jeff Harper, Assistant Personnel Director
E. J. Robinson, Affirmative Action Officer
Betty Deptula, Director of Administrative Services
Kathy Rice, Assistant City Manager
Cecil Henderson, Assistant Director of Public WorkslEngineering
Roger Brennan, Credit Manager
Margot Pequignot, Esq., Attorney for Mr. Brennan
Deborah Crumbley, Esq., Attorney for the City
AI Gryncewicz, Purchasing Division
Mary Drew Kane
Susan Gryncewicz. former employee
Mary McCann, Utility Accounts Division
,
l.
~
'.
;
(
(,
I
~
1,
I
f
";
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P. M.
,
,
~
",
I
"
"i:
!
1
1
i
1
r
f
~
The Board members determined the time limitations for this case. Suggested time limits were
sent out in an earlier memo. Mr. Snair asked if these were acceptable to both parties.
Margot Pequignot, attorney for Mr. Brennan, and Deborah Crumbley, attorney for the City, had
no objections.
Syd Snair moved to use the suggested time limits as set forth in the memo. The motion was duly
seconded by Dave Keyser and carried unanimously.
Secretary Laursen advised the Board they had the option of reading the charges into the record
or waiving the reading of the charges. Ms. Pequignot asked that the charges be read into the
record. Mr. Laursen proceeded to read the charges and specifications.
,
{
.'
t
I'
t
r
,
l
~
f
"
t
Mr. Laursen presented the exhibits which had been submitted during the hearing. The City
had submitted Civil Service Rule 14, the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action with memo dated
4114/86. the Disciplinary Action Request dated 4/24, the Grievance Form from Mark Tedder. a
memo to Miles Lance from Kathy Rice asking' him to start the paperwork for the disciplinary
action. and a memo from Kathy Rice in response to Roger Brennan's appeal. The employee had
submitted a tape of a meeting held on 3/16/89 which was chaired by E. J. Robinson, including
excerpts from the tape. and a log of disciplinary actions for 1987 through 1989.
The report of Hearing Officer Donald D. Conn dated February 9, 1990. had been provided to the
Board previously. Margot Pequignot distributed copies of the exceptions to the order on behalf
of Roger Brennan.'
Ms. Pf!quignot advised the Board that since the allotted time could be divided between several
panics, she would present her case and Mr. Brennan then would address the Board.
Ms. Pequignot addressed the Board. Roger Brennan was directed by his supervisor to
investigate a prank played by Mark Tedder on another employee. His investigation went
beyond what he was told to do. She staled the only thing Mr., Brennan did was write a memo
that was indiscreet. . She stated the disciplinary action (a five-day suspension and assessment of
40 points) taken in this case was too severe. This was Mr. Brennan's first offense and as such
"
"
(t~;
"-
.'
,
..
I'
<,
l;
~c _
.~):
~~.
~:. '"
{., <
~:... . l:;'t.-
}. "
1-
/',{.- .
~f"
~f~ .
fl,
.:/:1'"
~~.h
:~\':' .
\\., -
I:
~'~(
,~'
~:::,
{'. '
~i' .
.~-
~'
4.\~.,~,
i/~
~t:'"
t1"~
iJ' '"
rY:
Proceedings of the Special Civil Service Board Meeting of March 20, 1990.
Page 2
should not require such discipline. It was her opmlOn the Hearing Officer did not rely on his
own findings of fact when he upheld the City's action. It was Ms. Pequignot's contention that
punishing Mr. Brennan for writing such a memo was a violation of his First Amendment
rights. Ms. Pequignot stated there should be some form of progressive discipline (reprimand,
etc.)' before an employee is ~uspended for five days for a first offense (even though this was a
Level 4 violation whi~h requires a threc~ to five-day suspension).
Mr. Brennan addressed the Board. He stated 1) he had participated in a promotional exam in
which the selection was based on collusion; 2) he filed a charge of sexual discrimination with
the EEOC; 3) since then he has been retaliated against, degraded, and humiliated; 4) the City
filed three charges against him; and 5) he had First Amendment protection when he wrote his
memo. The Board was urged by Mr. Brennan to take no action against him.
Deborah Crumbley addressed the Board on behalf of the City. She advised the Board that while
investigating the prank involving Mark Tedder, Mr. Brennan did not follow the directions of
his supervisor. A memo from Mr. Brumback dated 3/23/90 directed Mr. Brennan to review an
incident involving Mr. Tedder and make a recommendation as to disciplinary action. A
complaint was received from another employee about the way Mr. Brennan was conducting his
review. Another memo from Mr. Brumback dated 3/28/89 clarified what Mr. Brennan should
be doing. On 3/30/89 Mr. Brennan wrote his memo to Mr. Fasching which was deemed
offensive and insubordinate.
Ms. Crumbley stated the original request was for a ten-day suspension which was changed to a
five-day suspension. Mr. Robinson testified the reason he recommended a five-day suspension
instead of a three~day suspension was because of Mr. Brennan's position as a supervisor.
Mr. Brennan failed to turn over the tapes of his investigation and was found to be careless in
not doing do.
Ms. Crumbley stated that as to Mr. Brennan1s contention that his First Amendment rights were
violated, the Board had no right to decide constitutionality but must decide whether the City's
action was proper.
Ms. Pequignot gave her rebuttal to the City's argument. She stated that at the conclusion of
Mr. Brennan's investigation, he determined that no disciplinary action be taken against
Mr. Tedder and none was t~ken. She stated that to set a precedent of being suspended for five
days for using offensive language is ridiculous. The punishment did not fit the violation. She
ask~d the Board to reject the conclusions of law found by the Hearing Officer.
Ms. Crumbley gave her rebuttal to the employee's argument. She stated that memos with this
type of language have no place in the City. She stated there arc other procedures Mr. Brennan
could use to express the concerns he had. Ms. Crumbley stated that it was recommended that
Mr. Tedder be suspended' for two days for the incident in question but this was dropped as part
of the settlement of a grievance. She urged the Board to support the City's action of a five-day
suspension and assessment of 40 points.
Mr. Brennan presented his summation. He stated 1) the Board is responsible for protecting the
employee's rights; 2) he still has charges pending before the EEOC; and 3) Mark Tedder was not
disciplined.
Ms. Crumbley presented the City's summation. She stated that Mr. Tedder was disciplined but
when it came to arbitration the City withdrew the suspension in exchange for a signed
statement from Mr. 'Tedder that he recognized the seriousness of his action in lying to the
Affirmative Action Officer. This letter is part of Mr. Tedder's personnel file. She staved the
only issue here is Mr. Brennan's conduct and the City's position is thaL the punishment is
proper.
Proceedings of the Special Civil Service Board Meeting of March 20, 1990.
I
.1
~~
~.
~
r
t>
<.
I;
I'
;'
t
,
Page 3
Mr. Keyser asked a question regarding the points and whether different amounts arc awarded
for different offenses. Mr. Laursen explained the way the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action
work. Mr. Laursen advised the Board that all Level 4 offenses arc assessed 40 points and that
once an employee accumulates 60 points, he or she is subject to termination.
,
L
;~
S.
}
/.
~
~
,.
~
!I
t
,
j
~.
t
!:
~
~
t.
~
Mr. Snair asked Ms. Crumbley what other processes are available for employee's to use to
express conr-ems. She advised him there is the union contract procedures, the civiJ service
procedures. and Affirmative Action.
Mr. . Laursen explained the two grievance procedures which arc available under the Civil
Service Rules. One is used when an employee has heen disciplined and the other is used to
grieve something an employee perceives to be wrong. Mr. Laursen also advised the Board that
Mr. Brennan has used the latter hefore but no action was taken by the Board since there were
charges pending before the EEOC.
Ms. Crumbley stated City management through the chain of command felt this punishment was
appropriate.
Mr. Snair again raised the question of progressive discipline. Mr. Laursen advised him there is
progressive discipline and sometimes a suspension is appropriate for the first offense. The City
determined that Mr. Brennan was insubordinate and the first offense of insubordination is a
suspension.
r
f
:!
r.
R
Ii
t<
I
6
l:
.~
b
}
'j
~
}
f
!
Syd Snair moved that the action taken against Roger' Brennan be withdrawn and he get a letter
of reprimand in his personnel file. The motion died for lack of a second.
. Bill Carroza moved that after reading the Hearing Officer's report and hearing what was
presented the Board uphold the five-day suspension without pay and assessment of 40 points.
The motion was duly seconded by Arthur Deegan. Bill Carroza, Arthur Deegan, and
Joseph Carwise voted lIaye;1I Syd Snair and Dave Keyser voted "nay." The motion carried.
Ms. Pequignot asked for a roll call:
Dave Keyser-no; and Dr. Carwise-aye.
Dr. Deegan-aye; Mr. Carroza-aye; Syd Snair-no;
The meeting adjourned at 6:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
....-..
H.' Michael Laursen
Personnel Director and
Secretary to the Board