Loading...
02/10/1998CIVIL SERVICE BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 10, 1998 Present: Colbert Henley Chair Bill Carroza Board Member Wayne Brett Board Member Catherine Adams Board Member Elizabeth Deptula Board Member Steven Rosenthal Interim Human Resources Director Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Brenda Moses Board Reporter 1. Meeting Called to Order The Chair called to order the regular session of the Civil Service Board at 5:00 p.m., in the Human Resources Testing Room at the Municipal Services Building, Clearwater. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Chair Henley welcomed new Board Member, Elizabeth Deptula. 2. Approval of Minutes of December 9, 1997 meeting The Chair requested the attendance list reflect him as Chair and Member Carroza as a Board Member. Member Carroza moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Action on Hearing Officer’s Recommended Order re: Charyll Jones vs. City of Clearwater Regarding the CSB’s (Civil Service Board) hearing procedure of Charyll Jones versus the City of Clearwater, Member Carroza moved to allow 15 minutes for presentations, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and 10 minutes for summations from each party. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Interim Human Resources Director Steven Rosenthal said ex-employee Charyll Jones had violated Civil Service Rules and Regulations Number 14, Section 1, Paragraph C. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said specifics on the case had been distributed to CSB members prior to this meeting. The Chair accepted the documentation including all City Exhibits. Charyll Jones said on July 21, 1997, she was terminated. In August 1995, she transferred from the Solid Waste Department to CGS (Clearwater Gas System) due to what she felt were increased promotional possibilities. She said when CGS Supervisor Belinda Massey became her supervisor, problems arose. Ms. Jones felt she had been a valuable City employee for 9 1/2 years, including the year she worked at CGS. CGS management ridiculed her, rather than offering encouragement. She had organized department files into a manageable system, and always endeavored to help others. She felt her job evaluation was fabricated and pre-determined in order to terminate her. Ms. Dougall-Sides said reasonable cause existed to dismiss Ms. Jones for poor performance. She received an unsatisfactory evaluation in 1995 after transferring to CGS, and had developed many performance and attitude problems. Some employees stated they were afraid of Ms. Jones at times. Her position involved basic clerical work, not of a difficult nature. She received specific training regarding the tasks associated with her position, including pertinent handbooks, memorandums from supervisors, staff meetings regarding departmental procedures and updates, and a great deal of discussion with her supervisor. She was sent to a mandatory EAP (Employee Assistance Program) and CGS department staff worked with her to develop an action plan for improved performance. The action plan involved a specific outline regarding her work schedule. Ms. Jones’ performance did not improve after 3 months, and she received a second unsatisfactory evaluation. Ms. Jones had also received a 4-day suspension for leaving work after arguing with a supervisor. In April 1997, Ms. Jones received a warning letter from Managing Director Chuck Warrington explaining the consequences of continued performance problems. The City feels that all possible avenues were explored to help Ms. Jones improve her performance. She would either not do the work or would not perform to City standards. Mr. Warrington said the department worked extensively with Ms. Jones for over a year. She had multiple problems with many assignments. She was uncooperative, frequently tardy, created problems with lunch schedules, and numerous other issues. She had received coaching and training to improve job performance, to no avail. Ms. Jones disputed the reasoning for the 3-month evaluation she received after her transfer to CGS, and said it was not customary. She said a clique existed at CGS and her performance evaluations were “botched up” purposely to terminate her. In 1995 she had received a satisfactory rating by Supervisor Sandy Harriger. She became an active customer service representative in February or March 1996. When Belinda Massey became her supervisor, she was still performing some of her old duties along with new ones. She said she became upset because of a family situation, but continued to try to find ways to become promotable. She felt CGS management had done everything possible to impede her progress. She had requested taking all the training courses she attended, not management. At one point in time, she asked the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Council), the Union, and the Civil Service Board for assistance. She felt issues involving her were constantly misconstrued. When the telephone system was changed, she consistently offered to help others, however another employee was given responsibility for the system. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Ms. Jones had never been promised a promotion upon her transfer. At the time Ms. Jones was considering a transfer to CGS, the former City Human Resources Director had explained to her that more promotional possibilities may exist in that department. Regarding an EEOC charge filed by Ms. Jones, it was explained the EEOC indicated there was no cause for action. They had suggested Ms. Jones hire an attorney if she chose to pursue the case on her own. Human Relations Director Eleanor Breland had testified at the Hearing Officer hearing that she had been approached by Ms. Jones, performed research, and had found no existence of racial discrimination. Ms. Jones said Ms. Breland never gave her anything in writing. She said the EEOC told her she had the right to sue the City over this issue. She filed a report with the U. S. District Court in Tampa, but did not pursue any further action because of the financial burden involved. She said she was told by the EEOC that she would experience retaliation because of her complaint. She felt the reason her temporary replacement is doing so well is because she had done an excellent job organizing the filing system before she was terminated. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said “right-to-sue” letters are generally issued by the EEOC when they find no discrimination to the charging party. If they feel there is just cause, they would represent the charging party. Had a charge been returned to the City by the EEOC, the City would have been required to investigate those charges. In response to a question, Ms. Jones said she had been tardy at times because she had no automobile and used public transportation to and from work. She had tried to make sufficient arrangements regarding her work schedule. She said other employees’ work schedules were more flexible than hers. She felt situations involving her were manipulated to the advantage of management. She asked the CSB to consider what might happen to other employees in the future should management be allowed to manipulate the facts. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides and Mr. Rosenthal explained action plans are additional counseling tools afforded employees to address specific performance issues. Ms. Jones’ supervisor and other staff kept extensive detailed records regarding Ms. Jones’ performance and behavioral problems. Ms. Dougall-Sides asked the CSB to uphold the Hearing Officer’s Findings. Member Carroza moved to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Director’s Reports Mr. Rosenthal distributed a copy of a letter sent to CSB members concerning City employee Dane Heatherington. The letter stated Systems and Technical Services Manager George Denty had met with Mr. Heatherington on August 14, 1997, to discuss a promotional matter. Mr. Rosenthal distributed information regarding the new SAMP (Supervisory, Administrative, Managerial, and Professional) pay plan highlights. He will discuss the new pay plan at the next CSB meeting. 5. Old Business - None. 6. Other Items for Board Discussion - None. 7. Employees/Citizens to be Heard It was suggested the City offer employees evaluations from their previous supervisor when departmental transfers are involved. Mr. Rosenthal said that process is currently practiced. Supervisors contact an employee’s previous supervisor whenever possible for input prior to employee evaluations. It was questioned if some City departments are lax in disciplinary action if an employee works in a department for a number of years, transfers laterally, and is unable to adequately perform in their new position. It was remarked two similar jobs can involve two completely different functions within that position, resulting in the employee’s inability to perform. A comment was made that personalities could also create performance problems. City employee Dane Heatherington questioned the validity of the Civil Service Rules regarding promotions. He said there is no consistency regarding job postings. Some positions are posted internally and externally, and others are not. He questioned the City’s justification for hiring external candidates for some positions, when other positions are only offered internally. He said he has received no correspondence from Human Resources regarding his previous request regarding positions for which he had previously applied and been denied. Mr. Rosenthal said posting of vacant positions are left to the discretion of the department supervisor. Whenever possible, internal candidates are chosen over external ones, based on qualifications and experience. He requested Mr. Heatherington meet with him regarding these issues. One City. One Future. City Manager Mike Roberto presented One City. One Future., a redevelopment concept. Commissioner Karen Seel said the City Commission is attempting to reach all residents through various modes regarding the concept. The City Manager said it is important to select a single direction and work together to accomplish goals. The process will take time and teamwork. Feedback will be compiled, plans put in place, and timeframes set. Public participation will be vital to the success of the concept. Five keys areas of focus in the redevelopment concept are: 1) Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard corridor; 2) downtown; 3) the beach; 4) North Greenwood; and 5) the LDC (Land Development Code). Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard serves as an entrance into and out of Clearwater. Beautification of that corridor must be enhanced. Downtown must offer a niche, attract more activity, and serve as the “east beach”. The beach and waterfront must be more pedestrian-friendly. A better transition between residential and commercial areas of the beach is needed. Coachman Park should be expanded to encourage more activity. North Greenwood will be most impacted by downtown changes and possible movement of the Phillies baseball team. The LDC will define the physical character and development of the community over the next 20 years. The City is in a redevelopment mode and LDC revisions will bring value to the City. In response to a question regarding Countryside residents, the City Manager stressed the importance of interrelationships. Every neighborhood has a stake in what happens to the City overall. He said the redevelopment concept requires the same type of community effort as was evident in the passage of Pennies for Pinellas tax. 8. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m.