|
As you indicated and elaborated on at the October 21, 1992 meeting, the
<br />procedural questions are contained in your September 28, 1992 letter.
<br />Therefore, the following is in response to each as they appear in that letter.
<br />1. Pat Callahan has been appropriately recognized and designated by the
<br />County as the County Recreation Director. As such she has full
<br />department head responsibility and authority for administration of County
<br />Recreation, including departmental personnel matters. In her absence, the
<br />person designated by Pat Callahan is recognized by the County as the
<br />Acting Recreation Director. Mr. Haliquist was verbally terminated by Pat
<br />Callahan on September 18, 1992. Pegi Wilkes, having been properly
<br />designated as Acting Director, notified Mr. Haliquist of his termination by
<br />certified letter dated September 21, 1992. Pegi Wilkes had been fully
<br />apprised of the circumstances and issued the letter at the direction of Pat
<br />Callahan. The procedural actions by Pegi Wilkes, in my opinion, were
<br />clearly consistent with County policy and procedures.
<br />2. - Mr. Haliquist was not formally suspended by Pat Callahan per Section 9.07F
<br />or 12.05. After the meeting with him on September 16, 1992 they agreed to
<br />meet again on September 17, 1992, but he was not to report for work. The
<br />meetings on September 17, 1992 resulted in an agreement to meet again on
<br />September 18, 1992, but he was not to report to work. Mr. Hallquist was
<br />terminated on the afternoon of September 18, 1992. Mr. Haliquist was
<br />compensated for September 17, 1992, but not for September 18, 1992. At
<br />this time It is not clear whether he was regularly scheduled to work on
<br />September 18, 1992. Considering the nature of the allegations, in my
<br />opinion, until a final determination was made, the actions by Pat Callahan
<br />were appropriate and in the best interest of Mr. Haliquist and the County.
<br />In as much as it is not clear whether he was scheduled to work the 18th, I
<br />am of the opinion he should be compensated for that day. In my opinion, ✓
<br />the preceding is consistent with County policy and procedures.
<br />3. Pat Callahan testified at the October 21, 1992 meeting that she met with Mr.
<br />Haliquist to discuss the drug allegations and give him the opportunity to
<br />respond. Mr. Haliquist acknowledged, at the October 21, 1992 meeting that
<br />he met with Pat Callahan and that he provided his response. The result,
<br />in Pat Callahan's opinion, was that Mr. Haliquist should be terminated and
<br />she did so verbally in a meeting with him on September 18, 1992. The
<br />meetings of October 21, 1992 and October 27, 1992 were to hear your appeal
<br />of that decision. In my opinion, the preceding is consistent with County
<br />policy and procedures.
<br />4. Based on the seriousness of the allegations and Mr. Hallquist's public safety
<br />responsibilities, in my opinion, Section 9.07(D)(3) is applicable. According
<br />to Pat Callahan, she verbally terminated Mr. Haliquist on Friday, September
<br />18, 1992. That same day, Personnel advised Mr. Haliquist he would receive
<br />a written statement by certified mail. The written dismissal statement was
<br />transmitted by certified mail to Mr. Haliquist on Monday, September 21,
<br />1992. Since he had not received the statement Tuesday, September 22,
<br />1992, Mr. Haliquist picked up a copy from Personnel that day. The
<br />statement was received by certified mail Wednesday, September 23, 1992.
<br />In my opinion, the preceding is consistent with County policy and
<br />procedures.
<br />In summary, I believe proper procedures were adhered to in this matter.
<br />The September 21, 1992 dismissal statement reflects that Mr. Haliquist was
<br />terminated pursuant to the following Group III Offenses:
<br />"11. Immoral, unlawful or improper conduct, or indecency, either on or off
<br />the job, which tend to affect the employee's relationship to the job, fellow
<br />workers, reputation or goodwill in the community."
<br />11
<br />F 3 1993 800K 88 P,au 743
<br />
|