10/19/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M However, in no instance has any of those employees been the subject of any disciplinary action whatsoever.' Specifically, certain departmental employees. have been sentenced to jail terms and allowed a leave of absence to serve their sentences. Those -persons were reinstated upon completion of the jail sentence at the same pay rate and position as they held prior to the incarceration. Other employees have been hired after serving sentences, including time on the weekend work program and there are several members of the department who have been convicted of multiple DLII offenses and have been allowed to drive county vehicles after reinstatement of their driving privileges. Another employee of the department was convicted of a felony drug offense within a month of Mr. Lutz's DLII arrest. Not only was that employee not disciplined or terminated, Mr. Williams wrote a letter of recommendation to the Court on County stationary requesting that the Court impose a sentence that would allow that person .to return to work at the County. I have also learned that since the hearing, that same individual who was convicted of the drug bf�ns, 'was caught stealing mulch from County property -after hours. For that offense, he received a written reprimand, but no demotion or decrease in salary. I would like to say that Mr. Williams is inconsistently applying punishment to Personnel in his department. However, the only inconsistency that I can find in Mr. Williams treatment of his employees is his treatment of Mr. Lutz. Such selective enforcement is an abuse of descretion which is contrary to your own rules of personnel management and creates a basis for a Court action if Mr. Lutz so chooses. The most unfortunate Part of this entire episode is that Mr. Lutz has been demoted from his previous position from Tradesworker U, despite the fact that he currently occupies and Performs the duties of a Tradesworker II employee. Despite his training and experience, he now serves in what is essentially an entry-level position with the department, and not coincidentally serves on a equal basis with persons who had presently and previously served as Tradesworker I's, but who were not disciplined for offenses while they worked at the County. The circumstances that have occurred to Mr. Lutz indicate a conscious attempt on the Part of Mr. Williams to penalize Mr. Lutz for reasons having nothing to do with his work performance or his court conviction. Such intent has been made clear by actions of Mr. Williams and Jack Price which have taken place since this appeal was originally filed. 4. Mr. Lutz has the right to appeal an adverse decision of his supervisor, according to rules that were adopted by the County. The County should allow persons the free exercise of their appeal rights and not interfere with those appeal rights nor punish someone who exercises such rights. However, in Mr. Lutz's case, that has simply not been the..County's position. Mr. Lutz has advised me of a number of incidents which have occurred since "filing this appeal, which prove the County's treatment of this matter to be personal, rather than professional. Specifically, Mr. Williams has implied on occasion that Mr. Lutz may be too old to perform his duties and may not be working with the County long enough to vest his retirement. He has attempted to have Mr. Lutz dismiss the appeal and, when Mr. Lutz refused, Mr. Williams made a number comments regarding Mr. Lutz's work performance which appear to be simply retaliatory, and not based on any performance evaluations. The fact of the matter is Mr. Lutz's job performance has been rated very good to excellent at all times during his employment - County, including his most recent evaluations. Of more concern in this ��' is the actions of Mr. Price, the County Human Resources Director, and -��y Dean. Based on my instructions,�� Lutz appeal, d b which was held before been researching County it BOOK 93 FA.;E 561 October 19, 1994