3/31/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r- MAR ��' BOOK 92 PAGE 14 Attorney Collins asked if the Board wished to hear a tape on the dog call in incident ,#5, but the Board declined. Administrator Chandler stated his name and position with the County, and confirmed that Debbie House had appealed her termination to him. He read into the record the following letter dated July 19, 1994: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Strait, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone:(407)5674MM November 19, 1993 Deborah A. House 1550 19th Avenue S.W. Vero Beach, FL 32962 Dear Ms. House: Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 The following is my decision regarding your appeal ( Exhibit 1) of your termination from the Animal Control Division by Emergency Services Director Doug Wright ( Exhibit 11) . The decision is based on my conclusions resulting from the information and testimony presented at the November 16, 1993 appeal meeting and a review of your personnel file. A substantial amount of information and testimony was introduced by both parties at the appeal meeting. This is particularly true with respect to the four incidents (#1, 2, 3, 4 referenced in Doug -Wright's termination letter and your appeal letter. All of this information was considered by me and was in varying degrees a factor contributing to my final decision. However, as related in the following, there are several factors that were critical in arriving at my final decision. With respect to the June 6r, 1993 incident (0), you advised the citizen the injured bird would be picked up by the following day (Monday). On Monday,. when your husband called to report your illness, the information regarding the injured bird should have been reported to the office. The bird was not picked up until after the citizen called the office on Tuesday. As a result, you were issued a verbal warning by your supervisor. From the substantial information presented concerning the June 30, •1993 incident (#2), in my estimation one factor As especially critical. You checked out for lunch at 2:00 p.m. that day and subsequent attempts to contact you by radio were unsuccessful. Between 3:30 p.m. and 3:40 p.m. you were contacted by phone at home. The testimony presented reflected that you .had fallen asleep. As a result, you were again issued a verbal warning by your supervisor. Potentially, had you not been contacted, you could have overslept to the extent that the hamsters would not have been picked up that day. On July 1, 1993, you were assigned on-call duty and the testimony reflects several unsuccessful attempts were made to contact you that evening to respond to a call. Presumably, no one can irrefutably make- a determination whether your pager was or was not working that evening. However, the documentation regarding the subsequent satisfactory testing of the pager is, in my opinion, very persuasive. Regardless, you were on. call and could not be contacted. As a result, you were issued a formal written warning that stated in part "she has also been warned that failure to correct the problem will result in the supervisor's recommendation that the employee be terminated". 14