10/19/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P II regulations and files to gather information that would assist with his appeal. Mr. Lutz performed such - iecord examinations while off duty. However, each time Mr. Lutz examined a record, Mr. Price or someone in his office would contact Lynn Williams directly and upon Mr. 1='s return to work, Mr. Williams would either accuse him of doing such research while on duty or advise other persons in the department that Mr. Lutz was inspecting the files with the apparent attempt to alienate Mr. Lutz from his fellow workers. That result of Mr. Price's and - Mr. Williams' conduct has been a deterioration of the personal relationships between Mr. Lutz and several employees whose records were examined by him to determine whether or not they were disciplined by Mr. Williams, or the County, for criminal offenses which occurred or for other incidents which would have provided grounds for disciplinary actions under county rules. Mr. Williams has caused an extreme disturbance with his department which could have long-lasting effects and such interdepartmental problems were directly caused by the deliberate actions of Mr. Williams and Mr. Price. Their actions were intended to have a chilling effect or to intimidate Mr. Lutz into dropping his appeal. This intimidation . has been witnessed by many others within the County and the chilling effect that it would have on others whose rights were violated by the County is incalculable. It is clearly not within the intentions of the Board of County Commissioners when personnel rules .and regulations were adopted. Such actions would also create grounds for a grievance to be filed under the Union contract and most certainly would have grave consequences for the County in any subsequent court actions. The actions of Mr. Williams and Mr. Price are relevant to this matter to simply show the personal animosity held by these persons against Mr. Lutz and to establish that the County is indeed selectively enforcing its personnel rules based on personal factors and not the objective factors that should be followed when .imposing such discipline. 5. That action taken against Mr. Lutz was initially taken without hearing or without notice to Mr. Lutz. Mr. Lutz was entitled to a hearing prior to his demotion. Unfortunately. Mr. Lutz was demoted on January 10, 1994, without hearing. On March 4, 1994,- I contacted Jack Price and requested that Mr. Lutz be allowed to have a hearing as provided by County rules. Mr.. Price responded on April 13, 1994 and advised that a hearing would be set as soon as possible. I had several discussions with the County Attorney's office in the interim time and finally, on July 28th, I wrote Mr. Price again, requesting that Mr. Lutz be allowed to have the hearing to which he was entitled. That heaiirig was finally held on August 11, 1994 and your office held the appeal on a timely basis. I now request that Mr. Lutz be afforded the opportunity to present his case to the Board of County Commissioners, as provided for by County personnel rules, and that in connection with said hearing, the County be allowed to review tapes of prior hearings, including the appeal hearing held in your office. Thank you for your cooperation. 12 October 19, 1994