Loading...
03/03/1983CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 3, 1983 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the City Hall EOC Conference Room, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on March 3, 1983, at 4:42 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Myrna Erway, City Clerk ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilman Petta. RESOLUTION NO. 83-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY. Mayor Grant stated that Colton and the County of San Bernardino have declared a state of emergency and Staff is recommending adoption of the subject Resolution declaring a local emergency, which would be forwarded to the appropriate State and Federal agencies. Questioned what benefit would be received from the Federal Government. The City Manager advised that the City could receive Federal funds to assist in the repairing of damaged areas, and could also make low interest loans available to businesses and residents. The City is estimating approximately $50,000 damage and is unaware at this time of the estimated cost of damage to businesses and private homes. Stated damage to the sewer line in the City of Colton has no effect on the City, as confirmed by the Colton Mayor and City Manager. The line has been repaired. The City Attorney advised that the City could be affected, since the City shares capacity on the sewer line with Colton, and has an agreement whereby funds are deposited in an account; should there be a shortage of funds, it could be mandatory that the City increase its fees; if funding is not available, the City could be expected to contribute funds for repair and capital improvements. Page 1 3/3/83 CC-83-49 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution NO. 83-08 by title only. APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION - GLORIA FLOOD The Mayor stated Gloria Flood, a staff employee, has submitted an appeal to the City Council requesting an open hearing to consider her request that a letter of reprimand issued to her on February 8, 1983, be totally withdrawn from her personnel file. The City Attorney advised that Council has been provided with the appeal request submitted by Gloria Flood, the subject letter of reprimand, and the Personnel Rules & Regulations. Stated the appeal was filed in a timely manner and is proper. Stated that under the Personnel Rules & Regulations, an employee has the option of requesting an open or closed hearing; Gloria Flood has elected to have an open hearing. Stated the letter of reprimand is very specific and narrowly written; therefore, that is the only matter to be considered; this is not a broad hearing to hear all grievances the employee may have against the City. Stated the problem with open hearings is that other employees could be involved; therefore, if matters irrelevant to the letter of reprimand are discussed involving other employees who are either not present or represented, those employees should have the option of determining whether the matter should be considered in open or closed session. Requested the Mayor to gavel the meeting out of order if discussion goes beyond the relevancy of the letter of reprimand; stated no testimony should be taken on any other issue; stated any matter involving personnel is a delicate issue; requested that Council, Staff, and the audience keep this in mind; stated if he feels anything is out of order, he will call this to the attention of Council. Mayor Grant requested that the City Attorney take the proper action as indicated and also that he indicate, in each instance, the reason for his actions. Stated the appellant has the right to state her case first; then opposition may be presented, and cross-examination shall be permitted, under the control of Council. Stated he will see that the conduct and decorum is kept in proper balance. Requested that Gloria Flood present the basis of her appeal, keeping in mind that this is a request that the letter of reprimand be withdrawn, and all testimony is to be relevant to that issue. Questioned if Gloria Flood is being represented by anyone. Gloria Flood stated she will be represented by Mike Pettit. Mike Pettit, 2692 East Highland Avenue, Space 59, Highland, California, advised that Gloria Flood is present at the hearing. Stated the document he would be reading from was prepared by Ms. Flood and stated that he would read the material in that form. Page 2 3/3/83 Stated the appeal letter addressed two items - that the letter of reprimand be withdrawn, and further request that if reclassification is necessary .... The City Attorney stated that the fact that the appellant listed two items on the request does not make that a relevant point. The only relevant matter is the letter of reprimand, and that is the only matter that is to be heard. Mr. Pettit requested clarification regarding why the reassignment is not to be considered. The City Attorney stated there is nothing to request. Stated he is not aware of any reclassification which has occurred; therefore, there is nothing to appeal. Mr. Pettit read a letter which Ms. Flood received yesterday from the City Manager indicating the hearing was set, indicating she could present whatever evidence she feels is relevant to the case. The Mayor stated the intent is to address anything relevant to the issue of the letter of reprimand. Mr. Pettit stated he would protest the proceedings on the grounds that we have filed a letter of appeal covering two issues and are only being allowed to address one, and were issued a letter from the City Manager stating we can produce any evidence we feel is relevant to the case. Stated he will continue under protest. The City Attorney stated there are not two issues to be considered; Council should acknowledge the fact that Mr. Pettit interprets the City Manager's letter one way or the other; the City Manager does not conduct the hearing; the protest has been acknowledged. Mr. Pettit stated that in reading Ms. Flood's testimony, he will be referring to various documents, which may be viewed by Council; proceeded to read Ms. Flood's testimony, which stated that the appeal was filed as a result of the issuance of a letter of reprimand and reassignment; stated the letter of reprimand was issued to her in the City Manager's office at 10:45 a.m., that she signed the document and prepared to leave. Stated she was informed that her supervisor had been suspended, that she was instructed to report to Mr. Clark, and that she was instructed not to return to her own office prior to reporting to Mr. Clark. The City Attorney stated he did not have a copy of the letter being read by Mr. Pettit; Council confirmed it did not have a copy of the letter. Attorney Hopkins stated matters have already been addressed which should not be discussed further, which involve other employees; any action taken against other employees and reassignment is not relevant; the matter which has just been read should not be continued unless this session is recessed to a closed session. The Page 3 3/3/83 only issue is the reprimand for actions as listed in the letter of reprimand indicating the employee went outside the channels established for personnel purposes. Mr. Pettit stated there are no direct points being made against any employee. The City Attorney stated mention of disciplinary action of another employee has already been read, and should not be continued in open session, since that employee has not requested the matter be discussed. The Mayor stated the decision must be made to keep the discussion narrow to protect the rights of other people who are not appealing their situation, or the matter must go into closed session; stated Ms. Flood has the right to have this matter conducted in open session; however, there will be restrictions on the latitude of the discussion. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated that since the newspaper quoted the Personnel Manager regarding the disposition of other disciplinary actions, it became a public issue, and took it out of closed session. Mayor Grant stated the City Attorney does not wish to make matters worse; feels the rights of the other individuals must be protected. The City Attorney stated even though information may have been published in the newspapers, the matter is not to be discussed further. Mr. Pettit stated he feels statements should be read which led up to the issuance of the letter of reprimand; read a memorandum which Gloria prepared January 17, 1983, to the City Manager, at his request when she met with him on January 14, 1983. Ms. Flood's memorandum indicated her purpose for bringing this matter to the attention of the City Council, rather than the City Manager, was that the matter had created a great deal of controversy and bad press for City officials and City Staff. Stated she is aware that conflict of interest charges have been mentioned in regard to City officials and that, in her opinion, she felt it would be best to go to City Council rather than involve the City Manager for fear of bad press or other repercussions. Stated she realizes this is not proper procedure, but felt this was the best road to travel under the circumstances. Stated her concern was in regard to Zone Change 82-4. The City Attorney ruled the meeting out of order, stating a zone change matter is not relevant. The Mayor questioned if it is improper to discuss irrelevant issues if it does not involve other potential appellants. Councilman Nix felt the individual's rationale should be presented; stated he is not concerned about hearing anything if it is in closed session; has no objecions to hearing data which may not relate; the Page 4 3/3/83 individual presenting the case feels it does relate as long as it does not violate someone's rights; feels as much data as possible should be heard; feels Council has the right to deny hearing the matter in open session; feels Council has the responsibility of calling a closed session, if necessary to protect the rights of individuals. Mr. Pettit continued reading the memorandum written by Ms. Flood: "My fears came to light sometime between December 7 and 15, when Myrna Erway, City Clerk, had discovered that proper notification..." The City Attorney interrupted, stated that allowing Mr. Pettit to continue reading would lead into an immediate accusation involving another employee, stated if Council wants the remainder of the memorandum read, it would have to be done in closed session. Councilman Nix stated there are cases where open sessions have been denied; feels if the case cannot be heard without direct or implied accusations, then the matter should be considered in closed session; feels the employee has the right to request an open hearing, but Council has the responsibility of hearing the matter and has the responsibility of protecting the rights of all individuals. The City Attorney stated he does not feel Ms. Flood is going to get a fair hearing, due to his interruptions, but he will continue to do so to protect all individuals' rights; recommended hearing the data which does not affect other individuals, then going into closed session to hear other data which could affect other individuals. L Mr. Pettit advised that he would address other matters at this time, and delay continuing to read Ms. Flood's memorandum until closed session. He read Ms. Flood's testimony relating to the letter of reprimand, stating in the first paragraph of the letter of reprimand the City Manager accuses her of not following proper procedures as outlined in the Personnel Rules & Regulations. Received a memorandum dated February 3, 1983, entitled "Employee Relations Procedures for Resolving Problems." Stated she signed the document verifying she had read and understood the memorandum on February 8, 1983; delivered it to the main office and was called into the City Manager's office, at which time she received her letter of reprimand. The facts indicated she was reprimanded for failure to follow procedures that did not exist at the time; was reprimanded by procedures not yet legally a part of the Personnel Rules & Regulations. The City Manager refers to his memo as reiteration of procedures to resolve problems. A copy of the Personnel Rules & Regulations received on February 11 shows the date of October 28, 1982, as the last date when revisions were made; feels that indicates that at the time of her contact, no procedure existed. Stated seven revisions have been made to the Personnel Rules & Regulations since she was hired, and that she was not made aware of five of them, Stated that all amendments to the Personnel Rules & Regulations are to be adopted by resolution, and to her knowledge Page 5 3/3/83 that has not been accomplished; feels the procedures for resolving grievances is not in effect, so how can she be in violation. Referenced the second paragraph of the letter of reprimand relative to Ms. Flood's contacting a Councilmember on her concerns in regard to improper notification of an item; felt there was a contradiction of the terms "grievance: and "concern" and gave definitions of the two words; stated she did not file a grievance, but is being reprimanded for not following grievance procedures; relative to the City Manager's reference to her following the proper procedures in a previous personnel matter, stated on May 17, 1982, she refused to sign an evaluation prepared by her supervisor; felt this was not applicable, since she was contacted by both parties, and did not initiate the action. Stated that should the City Manager be referring to another matter which occurred in July, 1981, was informed that matters relevant to a fellow employee was in the form of a grievance; stated there was no grievance procedure established at that time; felt she chose the only channel available to her; referenced the City Manager's intent to take stringent disciplinary action if it were to occur again - feels this has occurred; feels the City Manager has made it common knowledge that she had been reprimanded and reassigned; requested that the February 8 letter of reprimand from the City Manager be rescinded in its entirety. Mr. Pettit stated he would like to read Ms. Flood's memorandum in its entirety in closed session, and also wants Council to hear Ms. Flood's statements relative to her reassignment to the Finance Department. The City Attorney stated that reassignment is not a relevant issue, and should not be discussed, even in closed session; if reassignment is discussed, this is an area which the City Manager has total jurisdiction. Mr. Pettit stated he feels it would be a great disservice not to be allowed to discuss the issue of reassignment, since the facts were publicly stated in the newspapers. CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:28 p.m. with the City Manager, the City Attorney, Gloria Flood, Mike Pettit, and Ed Clark in attendance. RECONVENE The Adjourned Regular Meeting reconvened at 7:23 p.m. with all members present. Mayor Grant announced that Council had met in Closed Session regarding the appeal of Gloria Flood. Stated the following action was taken: CC-83-50 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to uphold the appeal of Gloria Flood, and that the letter of reprimand is to be withdrawn from Gloria Flood's personnel file. Page 6 3/3/83 CC-83-51 Page 7 3/3/83 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to expunge the personnel records of Randy Anstine and Virginia Farmer. Mayor Grant stated the reason for this action was due to the release of information to the public. The City Attorney stated that the City Manager inadvertently released information regarding disciplinary actions to the press; Council felt this tainted the action, and that in due respect to the individuals involved, the personnel files should be cleared of such action. The City Manager recommended scheduling one hour public workshop sessions until the FY 1983-84 Budget is finalized. The advertised Public Workshop Session to consider the Cost Allocation System Report and consideration of the FY 1982-83 budget reductions and the proposed FY 1983-84 budget were deferred to be discussed at an Adjourned Public Workshop Session to be held on March 10, 1983, at 4:30 p.m. GENERAL PLAN/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS CONTRACT Councilman Rigley voiced opposition to awarding contracts for these projects; questioned if the contracts had been executed; requested reconsideration of the projects at the March 10 meeting. ADJOURN The Adjourned Regular Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. to an Adjourned Public Workshop Session to be held at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 1983, at the Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: