Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/31/1994SPECIAL MEETING March 31, 1994 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, March 31, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert; Kenneth R. Macht; and Richard N. Bird. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Terrence O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. DEBBIE HOUSE TERMINATION APPEAL Chairman Tippin called on Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien to explain the procedures in a termination appeal, and Attorney O'Brien advised that the personnel rules provide that this hearing may be structured at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners provided that due process is given. He suggested that we conduct a structured meeting, similar to a court proceeding with opening statements by attorneys for both sides, and with the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence on the defendant. The preponderance of evidence is one of the lower standards, wherein the scales would have to tip at least 51 percent one way or the other. All witnesses would be sworn and subject to cross examination. The Board indicated their agreement to proceeding in the manner suggested by Attorney O'Brien. Attorney O'Brien asked everyone who would be testifying to stand and be sworn. (This included three E911 dispatchers who were excused later on without testifying.) Deputy County Attorney Will Collins updated the Board on the status of the termination appeal, noting the following four incidents that resulted in termination: #1 - June 6, 1993 -- Injured pigeon #2 - June 30, 1993 -- Hamsters #3 - July 1, 1993 -- Unable to contact.while on-call duty #5 - Sept. 22, 1993 -- Injured dog MAR .11 1994 PAGE 01 MAR 31'994 Boar 92 F,mjr.02 In his opening statement, Attorney Collins explained that under the IRC Administrative Policy Manual, a Group 1 offense is minor, a Group 2 offense is more serious and a Group 3 offense is something that would result in suspension or termination on the first offense. In this case, Emergency Services Director Doug Wright found that each of these incidents constituted a Group 2 offense. He advised the Board that if they find two Group 2 offenses sustainable, the termination by Director Wright would be upheld. Each of these incidents were cited as neglecting to comply with requirements set forth in Department Rules and Standards of Conduct, specifically the policy on behavior of employees which states that they are to conduct themselves in a positive manner so as to promote the best interest of the County by performing assigned tasks efficiently and in accord with established quality standards. Director Wright also found that several of these incidents were violations of the Group 1 offenses. Attorney Collins advised that it is the County's contention that Emergency Services Director Doug Wright acted correctly in finding what he believed to be four Group 2 violations which is enough to terminate the employee under County personnel rules. The matter went forward to Administrator Chandler and he upheld the termination. At this time, Attorney Collins wished to note that some of the testimony that was given at the pre -termination and termination hearings involved the E911 Center dispatchers who are here today prepared to testify that the calls actually went out and that attempts were made to contact Ms. House. Attorney Stone has agreed that we can dispense with that testimony and agree that the incidents took place. Attorney Stone confirmed that he has agreed to the dispensing of the testimony of the three E911 dispatchers, whereupon Attorney Collins advised the dispatchers that they were excused. Robert Stone, attorney for appellant Deborah House, began his opening statement noting that Ms. House has been an animal control officer for the County for some time and at one time was in a supervisory position. There are four incidents that Director Wright has found to warrant *termination, but when you look at each one of them and consider the kind of incident it was, together they are not sufficient reason to terminate Ms. House. 2 Attorney Stone gave a brief summary of the following four incidents: In incident #1, the information that came to Ms. House is that the pigeon had been walking around the apartment complex 2-3 days. Ms. House has testified that she told the lady who made the call that she would pick up the pigeon on Monday because she had priority calls to make. On Monday, however, she came down with the flu, did not go into work, and forgot to relay the need for another animal control officer to pick up the pigeon. In incident #2, the hamsters were not in any danger nor were they being mistreated. This was merely somebody wanting to get rid of them. The lady said she called in at 10:00 a.m., but Ms. House received the call at 3:30 p.m. She had several other calls to make, two of which were bite calls and one to pick up two stray pups. These calls had priority over unwanted hamsters being taken to the Humane Society. The idea of loafing gets down to 10 minutes. She went home for lunch at 2:20 and took a nap. She received the call to pick up the hamsters at 3:30. Attorney Stone felt that if 10 minutes is considered loafing, we may not have any employees left working for the County next week. He stressed that the hamsters were taken care of that day. In incident #3, Ms. House was going on vacation the next morning and she and her husband finished packing up the car and went out to eat before retiring for the night. Being on call, she took her pager with her to the restaurant. Ms. House has stated that the beeper did not go off'then or during the remaining hours before they left on vacation. When they checked it out, the beeper was working, but Ms. House has said it wasn't working. Attorney Stone emphasized that pagers don't always work: What is interesting- about this particular incident is that someone from Animal Control drove past her house that night but did not go up to her door to see if she was home. Mrs. Errett also called Ms. House's residence but did not leave any message on the answering machine. Incident #4 has been waived. Incident #5 occurred during the time Ms. House was recovering from her -best friend having committed suicide and her finding the body. As a result of this, she was having some personal difficulties and taking medication. The medication wasn't helping her and the doctor doubled the medication, but it was too much. 3 800K 94., 0,jr, 03 MAR 3 11994 Bm 92 F-AcE 04 The first night that Ms. House was on the doubled dose of her medication, she received a call at 1:10 a.m. that a dog had been hit by a car near Lee's Pool Hall in Wabasso. She fell back asleep until the second call and then went out to put the dog out of his suffering. Attorney Stone emphasized that is the sum total of the four incidents that the County found to warrant termination of employment. He submitted that those incidents are not sufficient grounds to terminate a good County employee. Presenting the administration's case, Attorney Collins felt it would be best to review the incidents and letters, since these incidents occurred last year. At Attorney Collins' request,•Director Wright stated his name and position with the County and that he held a pre -termination meeting with Debbie House and wrote the findings included in the following letter: ISA Indian River County oL Board of County Commissioners OOT i 993 o Kjar_rwlvi�: Department of Emergency Services 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 �S+ G._ October 25, 1993 Debbie House Animal Control Officer I 1550 SW 19th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32962 Re: Pre -Termination Hearing' Dear Ms. House: The information provided to me at your Pre -Termination Hearing on October 14, 1993, has been reviewed and studied in detail. The following is the basis upon which I have made a decision regarding the appropriate disciplinary action which will be taken against you: 0 INCIDENT #1 INJURED BIRD CALL ON JURE 6, 1993 ALLEGATION: The'Sheriff's Office received .a call from a citizen with an animal control complaint on Sunday, June, 61 1993. The Sheriff's Office referred the call to you at your home since you were assigned on-call duty. The citizen reported an injured bird. You advised the citizen that if you.did not arrive at the location on. Sunday, you would pick up the injured bird the first thing on Monday, June 71 1993. You did not pick up the bird on Sunday as you should have and when you called in sick on Monday, you failed to report the injured bird call to your supervisor. The citizen called the Animal Control Office on Tuesday, very angry and upset because of your failure to perform your job. Another officer had to be dispatched to pick up the injured bird for treatment. The injured bird was in distress for almost three days due to your failure to. perform your job and you were given a verbal warning by your supervisor, Nancy Errett. FINDING: The record is uncontested that you were on-call on June 6, 1993. It is also clear that the 911 Center paged you twice and dialed your phone at.home receiving the answer machine. Finally, you were contacted on a subsequent call to your home. Your pager was tested by the 911 Center while you were on the line and it worked fine. You stated that you did not respond to the injured bird call on the basis that you felt this event was not an emergency and could wait. You also alluded to the fact that you did not report for work on Monday due to illness and failed to report the injured bird call to your supervisor for the entire week you were out, even though you stated you write down all the calls you receive while assigned on-call duty after hours and on weekends. I cannot find, nor did you present any record that you created regarding this incident. Another officer was dispatched on Tuesday and he easily located and captured the injured bird, which he transported to the Humane Society for medical treatment and protection. I find that the policy regarding responding to sick and injured animals was in place prior to and after this incident, even back to the time you were the Animal Control Director. You know full well that one of the main responsibilities placed on the Animal Control Division is the protection and welfare of animals. This bird was in distress for in excess of two days and certainly at risk and subject to further injury or death from other animals of prey due to its wing injury. Furthermore, you failed to report the unanswered call to your supervisor and/or document the call after you returned *to work. The corrective action your supervisor took, in terms of the, verbal warning,. was intended to prompt you to make every effort to -prevent a reoccurrence. I find that your -conduct in this incident constitutes a Group Two Offense as noted in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual in Section AM -807.21 Group 2 Offenses, (3) Neglecting to comply with requirements set forth in departmental rules and standards of conduct, and Section AM -801.1 (1.g.) Performing assigned tasks efficiently and in accord with.estahlished quality standards, by failing to respond to an injured bird call on June 6, 1993, while assigned on-call duty and neglecting to__report the call to your supervisor. INCIDENT #2 - FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO ASSIGNED CALL ON JURE 30, 1993 ALLEGATION: On June 30, 1993, the Animal Control Dispatcher received a call in your response area around 9:OOAM regarding three hamsters a citizen wanted to sign over to the Humane Society. You 5 Bou 92 Pk,uF 05 L_ MAR 31 M4, BOOK 92 F,4c ®tJ were dispatched to the. call shortly after 9:OOAM. You did not handle the call until 4:5OPM. Several attempts to contact you at home and on the radio were unsuccessful. Finally, at 3:4OPM, you answered the phone at your home. Your excuse was that you checked - out for lunch at home before 2:OOPM and had fallen asleep. You were again given a verbal warning about the lack -of responsibility in doing your job. FINDING: The record establishes that you were assigned this call, via telephone from Animal Control Dispatcher Ruth Lynn,,.while you were checked -out at Southside Animal Hospital on June 30, 1993. It is- also established that you did not respond to the call until 4:5OPM. The paramount question is -- what were your assignments and what duties did you perform during this time interval that would preclude you from responding to the call before some 7 hours and 50 minutes later? The first indication on the log for you on this date is you checking -out at Southside Animal Hospital at 8:4OAM. There is no record to show that you went to Southside Animal Hospital on any assignment related to Animal Control. A check of the records indicated that no animal had been placed at Southside for treatment _ or care and no bills reflect any charge,, bill, or invoice for treating an animal around this date for Animal Control. Therefore, no reason was established for your presence at this facility when you had been assigned a call to respond to. Although you created no formal report for the Animal Control Division, the next information on the radio log is a call from you informing the A/C Dispatcher of you having a Cocker Spaniel in custody from 2554 2nd St. Southwest. This was a "turn -over" and you transported it to the Humane Society. The next entry on the radio log is you checking -out at 12:25PM at 1846 lot Place and enroute to the*Humane Society at 12:27PM,'some two minutes later. You did not check-out at the Humane Society and the next entry is 2:OOPM when you checked -out for lunch without giving a location. No report was submitted in regard to you checking -out at this address or what you transported to the Humane Society, if anything. 'No further contact with you occurred until 3:4OPM when you could not be located on the radio or at the Humane Society. Your response was that you fell asleep at home during lunch and overslept. The record reflects that you responded to only three other calls during the day. You testified under oath that it is not your responsibility to pick up owned animals and transport them to the Humane Society. Yet, you transported a Cocker Spaniel to the Humane Society as a "turn- over" of -an owned animal. This is contrary to your earlier statement and leads me to believe that you feel you should be able to do as you please, without regard to assignments. You also stated that, "according to your log", you had six priority calls that day, four• before the Dispatcher gave you the hamster call. You also testified that you had an injured bird and two bite cases which were very lengthy involved cases. and two stray pups that were given to you before you' received the hamster call. There" is absolutely no record of you having six priority calls including two bite calls that day and no record of you .conducting any bite C: M M M investigations. If you did, you were not assigned and you did not complete any documents or account for the investigations as is routine. I find your testimony is simply an attempt to sanitize and make real- what is not reality in terms of your activities on the day in question. You have a responsibility to advise your supervisor of your activities as they occur, complete your assignments timely, and document your investigations and actions taken in each matter. You know how long your lunch period is supposed to be. Absent your supervisor approving an extended period, it is your duty to be responsible and return to duty at the appropriate time. If you did not receive relief from your supervisor in terms of timely responding to the hamster call, then it was your duty to answer the call. Your stated excuse is even less plausible when it is noted that you checked -out at 12:25PM from 1646 lot Place, less than two (1.6) miles -from the location where the hamsters were to be picked up at 103 SW Old Dixie. You were enroute to the Humane Society at 12:27PM and could have easily driven the short distance, completed your assignment by picking up the hamsters, and made one trip instead of two to the Humane Society saving the expenses related to the second trip. You also stated that you worked overtime for 45 minutes to make up the extra time you took for lunch. This is doubtful given your demonstrated work ethic and no proof was offered by you from your so called "log". I find that your testimony is unacceptable and not credible, in regard to this incident. What your log indicates is not as credible as the official log and supporting reports in explaining your activities for the day in question. You have not provided a sufficient explanation about why you did not timely respond to the call and absent that, I find that your conduct in this incident constitutes offenses as noted in the Indian River*County Administrative Policy Manual as follows: 1. Group One Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (6) Disregarding job duties by loafing or neglecting work during working hours, by failing to complete your assignments timely without good cause - or reason and sleeping when you were supposed to be at work. 2. Group 'One Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (18) Incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of assigned duties after corrective efforts have been tried and failed, by your demonstrated unacceptable conduct in completing assignments, reports, and tasks in your response zone as well, as failing to adhere to the verbal warning.given earlier by your supervisor. 3. Group Two Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (3) Neglecting to comply with requirements set' forth in departmental rules and standards of conduct, and AM -801.1 (i.q.) Performing assigned - tasks efficiently and in accord with established quality standards, by not completing assignments and documents. 4. Group Two Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (6) Being absent without permission or leave, by sleeping when you are supposed to be at work. INCIDENT #3 - UNABLE TO CONTACT WHILE ON-CALL DUTY JULY 1. 1993 ALLEGATION:, You were assigned on-call duty until midnight on July 1, 1993. At 8:30PM, you were paged repeatedly by the E911 Center, phoned by the E911 Center, paged and phoned by your supervisor, Nancy Errett. All of these attempts to contact you to respond to 7 -sfl L_ MAR 31199 r MAR 31 i,994 BOOK' 9 PAur. 0 an injured animal (bird) call were unsuccessful. The inability to contact you resulted in another officer being called away from home to handle the injured animal call. Although you stated your pager did not alert, after thorough examination by communications personnel after you arrived at work, no deficiency could be detected with the equipment. It is your responsibility to be available to be contacted by alternative means while assigned on- call duty and you failed to comply after being previously warned verbally.by Ms. Errett. You were given a formal written warning which noted that failure to correct the problem would result in a recommendation for termination. FINDING: The substantial efforts to contact you by the E911 Center staff and your supervisor were clearly established during the hearing. Your explanation as to why you could not be contacted was that your pager did not work. During the hearing you alluded to a problem with the numbers not being completely displayed on your pager screen. I do not accept this excuse since your pager was thoroughly checked by a communications technician and found to be in good working order. If I accepted your answer- about the so called numbers not coming up so you would know who was calling, your explanation is still insufficient because your pager has dual functions and you know that it will tone regardless of what is displayed on the screen. You are an experienced officer and should know that if the pager tones, chances are the E911 Center is trying to contact you. In Incident #1, you told the E911 Center staff that the reason they had difficulty contacting you was that your pager was not working. Your pager was tested at the time with a test page and it worked fine. This is the same excuse you have used in this incident and I just don't accept that your pager is the only one in the Animal Control Division the E911 Center has encountered problems with making contact when you are assigned on-call duty. You stated during the hearing that your supervisor drove by your house, but did not knock on the door to ascertain if you were home. It is not your supervisor's duty to knock on your door to get you to respond to a call while assigned on-call duty. Why have a person on-call if this is the case? It is your duty to be available to be- contacted and that is not difficult to do. You have several types of communications equipment assigned to you and you did not use them, did not contact the E911 Center and tell them of your destination, nor contact your supervisor and let her know you would not be available for calls. You'had been verbally warned twice about this type of behavior and you ignored the warning and proceeded to do as you pleased. I find that your failure to be contacted in this incident is another part of a pattern of demonstrated behavior wherein you exhibit a propensity to ignore your duty assignment and blame anyone or anything other than yourself for what occurred. Again, this is mysteriously a problem unique to you and similar situations are not experienced by other Animal Control Officers. The finding is that your conduct in this incident constitutes offenses as noted in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual as follows: Group One Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (18) Incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of 'Assigned duties, after corrective efforts have been tried and failed, by failing to be contacted while on-call after you have been previously warned about your lack of responsibility by your supervisor. 8 Group Two Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (3)Neglecting to comply with requirements set forth in departmental rules and standards of conduct, and Section AM -801.1 (l.g.) Performing assigned tasks efficiently and in accord with established quality standards, by not complying with established on-call procedures regarding availability for contact to respond to emergency calls which resulted in another officer being called away from home to handle an injured bird call. INCIDENT #4 - RETURN VISIT TO TALK WITH YOUTHFUL BITE VICTIM ALLEGATION: On September 16, 1993, you were assigned to respond to a call at 3606 2nd Place in response to an animal bite wherein a young female was knocked off her bike and bitten by a black lab. After initially answering the call, you promised the family you would return to talk with the victim. You called the family on September 17, 1993, and advised them you could not get by to.talk to the victim at 3:30PM as was planned. As of today, you shill have not talked to the victim and finalized the call per the victim's family who was contacted on October 6, 1993. FINDING: I find in this incident that you did complete the bite case report and the return visit was for the purpose of calming the youthful- victim. regarding animals and suggestions on overcoming fear of animals when riding her bike. This activity was beyond the scope of your duties and not an assignment from management staff. I do not find any cause for disciplinary action in this incident and it will not be considered in the final decision rendered. INCIDENT #5 - INJURED DOG CALL ON SEPTEMBER 22. 1993 ALLEGATION: On September 22, 1993, you were assigned on-call duty. At 1:10AM, the E911 Center contacted you at home regarding a complaint about an injured dog that had been hit by a car near Lee's Pool Hall.- You attempted to get the dispatcher to call you back if the deputy being dispatched to the scene found the dog still there. The injured dog, howling in agony, could be heard over the phone -when the call came in. You agreed to be enroute to the call. At 2:02AM, the E911 Dispatcher called you again at your residence and found you still at home. Your excuse for failing to respond timely was that you fell asleep and your husband did not awaken you to go to the call.' Finally, you arrived on scene and put the dog down. The deputy was required to stand by at the scene, with the dog in obvious pain, for an extended period of time while you slept. This conduct is unacceptable and inexcusable. You had previously been given - a verbal and formal warning regarding this type of behavior and corrective action failed as demonstrated in this case.. FINDING: During the hearing, you and your attorney stipulated to the facts as stated in this incident. The explanation provided to me regarding your conduct was that you had "no excusable explanation" other than over the past year you had experienced two suicides of very dear friends and a third friend attempted suicide, along with an excuse that you were taking some strong medication the night in question. You had a duty to report to your supervisor the ingestion of medication that could potentially affect your ability to respond to calls and/or drive a county vehicle. You could have been relieved from on-call duty by letting your supervisor know. It is unfortunate that you have had friends commit and/or attempt suicide over the past year. However, if these events seriously impacted 9 N M 92, i.1 F. L_ GEAR 3 11994 MAR 31199 I find that you failed animal to suffer for an enforcement officer to while you went back to officially summoned to animal cruelty, if it ordinances and laws yo BOOK 92 F'j,F 10 uto timely respond to this call, forced an extended period of time, and caused a law stand by at the scene, all of which occurred sleep, knowing full well that you had been perform your job. This conduct borders on is not in fact, a violation of the very are paid to enforce on other citizens. Your conduct in this case further' demonstrates your uncaring attitude regarding your job and it is clear that two verbal warnings and a formal written warning had no impact and failed to signal to you that your behavior had to change if you wanted to maintain your job. The finding is that your conduct in this incident constitutes offenses as noted in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual in the following sections: Group One Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (18) Incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of assigned duties, after corrective efforts have been tried' and failed, in that you failed to timely respond to the injured dog call after having been twice. verbally warned and issued a formal written warning that continued conduct would -cause a recommendation for termination. Group Two Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (3) Neglecting to comply with requirements set forth in departmental rules and standards of conduct, and Section AM -801.1 (1.g.) Performing assigned tasks efficiently and in accord with established quality standards, by allowing an injured dog to needlessly suffer due to your failure to timely respond to the call. Group Three Offenses, Section AM -807.2 (7) Insubordination in refusing to perform work assigned, or to comply with written or verbal instructions of a supervisor, by your failure to timely respond to an injured dog call and returning to sleep after. being contacted by the E911 Center. This conduct occurred after being warned by your supervisor on three prior occasions regarding your lack. of job responsibility and problems associated with on-call assignments. CONCLUS ION : 'In the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual in Section AM -801.1, BEHAVIOR OF EMPLOYEES, the County policy is stated clearly that certain rules and regulations regarding employee conduct and behavior are necessary for the efficient operation of the County and for the benefit and safety of ' all employees. It is clearljr stated that conduct which interferes with operations," discredits the County, or is offensive to fellow employees, business associates or the public, will not be tolerated. Specifically,I reference the following sections: AM -801.1 (l.b.) Giving proper advance notice whenever unable to work or report on time. AM -801.1 (i.g.) Performing assigned tasks efficiently and in accord with- established quality standards. AM -801.1 (2.d.) Being insubordinate or refusing to follow management's instructions concerning a job related matter. 10 The sections referenced above are a part of the policy and rules and regulations' related to conduct that all county employees are required to follow. They are reasonable and clearly stated, easy to understand, and you did not'adhere to them in four of the five incidents stated above. You are a knowledgeable and capable employee who has, for whatever the reason, failed to perform your assignments. You cannot truthfully say that you don't know what the parameters are for performing your job since you were previously in a management position and in fact, dismissed an employee for unsatisfactory job performance. If the four incidents cited above were.each standing independently and alone over a long period of time, they would possibly not be so significant. However, given the fact that the incidents occurred over a period of less than four months, the small issues do suggest a significant decline in your job performance and the incidents collectively create a paramount concern to both your supervisor and myself. If two verbal warnings and a formal written warning did not get your attention and impress upon you that certain responsibilities are inherent on your part in completing job assignments, then further warning would not seem to be appropriate in your case. During the entire hearing, never once did I hear you say that you wanted another chance or that if given the opportunity, you would improve in terms of your job performance. I have no reason to believe that you will improve and based on the informatiot obtained during the hearing and alluded to above, I have decided to terminate your employment with the Animal Control Division effective Monday, October 25, 1993. Although I provided you with documents regarding your appeal rights with your notice of the Pre -Termination Hearing, I am including another copy of Section AM -807.1 (Pages 3-5). for your -review and" action as you deem appropriate. Your final paycheck may be collected from the Personnel Department on November 5, 1993. Please contact Nancy Errett to schedule a time and date to pick up any personal property located at the Animal Control office and to deliver all County uniforms and County property in your possession. Sincerely; JXt LJ�� � Doug Wrig t, Director Department of Emergency Services Attachment Referenced document - Section AM -807.1 (Pages 3-5) cc: Jack Price, Personnel Director Will Collins, Deputy County Attorney Nancy Errett, Animal Control Officer II File 11 BOOK 92 PACE 11 L_ MAR 3 1,1994 MAR ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY MANUAL SECTION PERSONNEL SUBJECT BOOK 92 F',VuE 12. NUMBER DATE EFFECTI AM -807.1 04-06-9 PAGE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 3 OF 5 d. Termination: If the problem is not corrected, the supervisor shou: initiate the following actions: 1. Discuss the plan to recommend termination with the department heat If there remains the intent to terminate, they meet with the Personne Director and discuss the matter. The Personnel Director may ask that representative -of the County Attorney's office attend. Upon agreemer that termination should be considered the department head will: 2. Set up a pre -termination hearing during the employee's norme working time to insure that the employee's right to procedural due proces is guaranteed. Through this pre -termination hearing, the department hee must be satisfied that: a. The employee has been given written or oral notice of th grounds for his termination. b. The employee has been advised of the names of witnesses again him; the nature of the testimony or evidence against him; and have a opportunity to cross examine witnesses. The employee will be permitte to call witnesses in his behalf. c. The employee is given an opportunity, before the department hea and the supervisor terminating him, to explain away the perceive misconduct. This step provides an initial check against error 'in th termination action. d. The employee will be given a copy of the appeal rights availabl, in the event the termination is effected. 3. If the decision is to effect the termination, the employee wil: be given a copy of the termination memo which details the issues involve( in the termination. If necessary the termination memo will be sent to th( employees' latest address on file, by Certified Mail, within 24 hours o: the decision. 4. The termination effective date shall be the date of the termination decision and will not be affected by the probability or actua: knowledge of an appeal of the decision. 4• The progressive disciplinary procedures described in this unit may be applied to an employee who is experiencing a series of unrelated problems involving job Performance and/or behavior. This can only be accomplished, however, by applying the cumulative P detailed in the unit OFFENSES/DISCIPLINARY PATTERN ANagp�.2. provisions 5. In cases involving serious misconduct the supervisor may skip stet in the progressive discipline process and, if appropriate, recommer termination of the employee upon a first occurrence. See the unJ OFFENSES/DISCIPLINARY ACTION, AM -807.2, "GROUP THREE OFFENSES". 6. Appeals Process: Any employee suspended or terminated fc disciplinary reasons has access to the following appeals process: 12 &County Administrator 1. The employee must submit the appeal in written form Within fiv working days after notification of the suspension or termination. It wil be sent/delivered to the County Administrator. The appeal must refer t the provision or provisions of law or County policy, practice, procedure rule, or regulation alleged to have been violated, and shall set forth tb relevant facts pertaining to the alleged violation, and the remedy c correction sought. 2. The County Administrator shall have seven working days to set v a hearing and render a decision in writing to the employee, unless thi period is extended by mutual agreement in writing. This hearing will b conducted informally if the County Administrator prefers. The employe is entitled to Due Process (see Comment 1_) and the hearing will b structured to insure attention to the following elements: a. That the employee be advised in writing of the cause or cause for his suspension or termination in sufficient detail to fairly enabl him to show any error that may exist. b. That the employee be advised in writing of the names and tb nature of the testimony of witnesses against him. c. That within a reasonable time after such advice, he is accorde a meaningful opportunity to be heard in his own defense. d. That the employee be given an opportunity to confront and crosf examine his accusers in the presence of the decision maker. b.Board of County Commissioners If the decision of the County Administrator is not acceptable to tli employee, he.may submit an appeal.in the same format as in 7. , a., 1., above, to the County Administrator. The County Administrator shat be responsible for setting a hearing of the appeal before the Board c County Commissioners within thirty days. The hearing shall be structur( at the pleasure -of the Commissioners with care to insure the elements c Due Process are observed. The Board of County Commissioners shall rend( a decision to the employee at the close of the hearing. It shall i documented and copied to the parties in letter form from the Counf Attorney's office within five days of the hearing. The decision of tl Board of County Commissioners shall be'final and binding on the partier without further right to appeal. 13 boor �� �";E 13 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 In -less than a two month period, as a result of the preceding incidents (#1, 2, 3) you were warned on three occasions (2 verbal, 1 written) of your non compliance with departmental rules and your responsibilities to respond to calls. On September 22, 1993, less than two months after the written warning, incident #5 occurred. In my opinion, your lack of response to the first call from the E911 dispatcher was a very serious violation of departmental rules. As -- evidenced by the dispatch tape, there is no question the- injured dog was suffering and no question that the dispatcher apprised you of that fact. in my opinion, there is no doubt that you had a responsibility to immediately respond — to that call. The appeal hearing testimony reflects a total lapsed time of - approximately 50 minutes between the first and second dispatch call to you. Subsequently, you responded to the second call and put the dog down. As indicated previously, I have considered all the information and testimony presented to me in arriving at my final decision. Included in my consideration were your past performance and the letters of support presented at -the appeal meeting. However, in less than a four month time frame, in spite of three specific warnings, you still committed, in my opinion, a very serious violation of departmental rules. As a result, I am not convinced that if re -instated, based solely on your past performance, that the same type incidents would not occur again. Therefore, I deny your appeal for re -instatement. As provided for in Section AM -807.1, 6., b. of the Administrative Policy Manual ( Exhibit 11 attachment) you have the right to appeal this decision to the Board of County Commissioners. Very truly yours, ,lames E. Chandler 'County Administrator Attorney Collins stated that is in -essence the factual background in the determinations that were made in arriving at the conclusion to terminate Ms. House. Exhibits presented at the pre- termination meeting and the termination meeting are available to the Board if they wish: ... testing report of the beeper. ... appraisals from 1984-93, which were generally favorable. However, reviews in 1989 and 1991 mention deficiencies. ... letters of support for Ms. House. Commissioner Bird inquired about our policy on picking up unwanted animals and transporting them to the Humane Society, and Director Wright explained that the general policy is that we don't because of priority assignments and the limited number of personnel. We do pick up animals from elderly people who have no way of getting the animal to the Humane Society. The Humane Society does not have the ability to pick up unwanted animals; animals must be taken to them. We have a new policy in effect now that was not in effect during the time of these incidents. 15 800K 92 PAGE 15 66._ @BAR 31 -1994 .,A r MAR 3V994 BOOK 9.?, SAGE 16 Commissioner Macht asked how people are paged, and Director Wright explained that E911 staff dial a phone number plus a 3 -digit number. He admitted that it would be possible to dial a wrong number, but in this case there was a number of attempts. Attorney Stone questioned Director Wright about the dispatcher's report of June 30, 1993 on a dog bite call at 2554 2nd Street S.W. Director Wright stated that was not considered a bite case from the information that was received. We have no record of a bite case at that location and we have a witness here today to testify to that effect. Attorney Stone read into the record the dispatcher's report prepared by Ruth Lynn which describes a bite call received on June 29, 1994 from Chrissy Diggs at 2554 2nd St. S.W., Vero Beach: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INCIDENT REPORT D,A, E;',,,jOKIA99;4�4993k TIMES 10:00 OFFICER: DEBBIE HOUSE DISPATCHER:'RUTWLYNN AC #: 6-238 NUMBER: 9302727 C LAST NAME: DIGGS FIRST NAME: CHRISSY 0 ADDRESS: 2554 2ND STREET SW SUBDIVISION: k,, M CITY: VERO BEACH ZIPS HOME PHONE: (407) 778-0153 P NOTES: DOG HAS GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL BITING HER AND HER FAMILY AND ALSO THE I IGHBORS DOWN THE STREET WHOM HAVE THREATEN TO SUE HER IF SHE DOESNT DO SOMETHII 4- ABOUT IT WORK PHONES (407) 231-4790 „',r.R.w'7:.rwY:19•17'.vlf^•.IIRM•.er�v ...ww... .. :c'�.00A�ION,;�O�F; ANIMAL':::4.2554�t2ND;�STREET;�SW D LAST NAME: FIRST NAMES E ADDRESS: SUBDIVISION: F CITY: ZIP: HOME PHONE: ( ) E NOTES: WORK PHONE: ( ) — N REF. FILES D. O. Bs ANIMAL TYPE: DOG INCIDENT CODE: 210 INCIDENT: BARKING ANIMAL BITE: BITES DESCRIPTION OF ANIMALS RUSTY COLORED SEX: M NOTES: WITNESS: HOME PHONE: t ) ADDRESS: WORK PHONE: t ) — CITY: STs ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: tWITNESSEDs BARKING ANIMAL HAD: ANIMAL ID: COUNTY ID#s ANIMAL WAS: ACTION TAKEN: VET: VET COSTS INCURED: TIME TAKEN TO VETS # OF ANIMALS: 1 BREED: COCKER SPANIEL INVESTIGATION: PHOTO'S TAKEN: VIDEO TAKEN: ANIMAL CHARGES: COMMENTS: 11 YR OLD COCKER MALE WAS NOT AGGRESSIVE OWNER TOLD OFFICER SHE WAS INS TO TELL HER HUSBAND THAT IT RAN AWAY. DEBBIE ADVISED HS WHAT HAD HAPPENED. 16 Director Wright -.noted that further down the page the report mentions barking. He admitted that the biting is mentioned in the report, but wished to point out that testimony is available today to correct the notes. We think that is more of an error on the part of the person who entered it than a report of an actual bite case. Attorney Stone understood then that Director Wright was acknowledging that there can be errors on the dispatcher reports. In response to Commissioner Bird's question, Director Wright stated that he felt all 4 incidents discussed today are Group 2 offenses. Commissioner Bird felt we should look more closely at the policy which states that two Group 2 offenses in your entire career is grounds for termination, and Attorney Collins explained that prior to April, 1993, our personnel manual included a provision for incidents to be expunged after a certain length of time. Our new policy does not include that provision, and these incidents occurred after April, 1993. Commissioner Adams wanted to know more about the procedure on dispatcher reports, and Mrs. Errett explained that when a call comes in, the dispatcher writes down as much information as possible and sends an animal control officer to the scene. When the computer is free, this information is then entered into the computer. There are three officers on duty daily, Monday through Friday. They are paid two hours of overtime for each week they have on-call duty and receive time and a half for the hours they actually respond. Every third week an officer works the on-call duty. At 5:00 p.m. one officer goes on call until 7:00 a.m. in the morning. They carry hand-held radios and their vehicles have radios. They do,not have lap -size computers to log their reports. If a form is not completed, we don't have a record of that call. We are in the process of developing a new computer program to compile detailed reports of each officer's calls. We average 30-40 animal calls a day, which is 10-15 per officer. On the weekend they respond only to calls on sick and injured domestic animals and wildlife. Commissioner Macht asked if Ms. House received an annual evaluation, and Attorney Collins advised that the most recent valuation prior to her hearing before Administrator Chandler was January 23, 1993. She was rated excellent in one category; good 17 BOOK 92 PAGE 1 / LIAR 311994 MAR 3 1 800K 92 . PAGE 18 in five categories; and satisfactory in three categories. (ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS HEARING ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.) At the request of Attorney Stone, Ms. House gave her testimony of what occurred in the four incidents in question. She emphasized what had been said at the appeal meeting of November 16, 1993 before Administrator Chandler, noting that... ... She did state that she would like her job back and would make every effort to improve. ... She had offered to go home to get her log book and bring it back immediately, but they said that wasn't necessary. Ms. House stressed that she is not saying that there were excuses for everything; she does take responsibility for some of these things. She tried her best•for 10 years and she gave her whole life to her job, which is more important to her than her _ personal life. It has been a big loss. The last 8 months have been hell, and it has not been an easy adjustment to go through what she has been through. She had some personal problems and she was working them out. The only thing that got her up every morning was her job. Commissioner Bird asked what Ms. House wanted from the Board today, and Attorney Stone advised that she is asking for reinstatement. No back pay is being asked because of the delay in the appeal hearing. He noted that he is providing legal services pro bono. In conclusion, Attorney Stone placed on the record the letters received supporting Ms. House and the following memo Ms. House sent out in July, 1993 when she was a director. He pointed out that one s of her evaluations had commended her for developing the reporting program: 18 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: All Animal Control officers DATE: July 13,1989 FILE: SUBJECT: Daily Logs FROM: Deborah A. Rouse un g REFERENCES: Animal Control Director I was brought to my attention that daily logs were not being done by each Officer. It is very important that each Animal Control Officer completes a daily log, for his/her records. Even if you are riding with another Officer each Officer needs a daily log. Then they are filed in your daily log file monthly. This is also how each Officer can keep track of his/her daily routines, such as patrols, investigations, or rechecks etc. Attorney O'Brien advised that Attorney Stone has finished his direct on the witness, and that it would be the County's option to cross examine. Chairman Tippin called a 5 -minute recess. Attorney Collins addressed a couple of statements made by Ms. House with regard to the dog bite case and asked why that is on her report but not on the County reports. Ms. House explained that she called in and told Ruth Lynn what had happened. She didn't know why it wasn't written up. All calls are received by the E911 center and the dispatcher notifies the animal control officers by radio. The only other way would be if an officer found an animal by the wayside. In response to Attorney Collins' question, Director Wright stated that our records do not reflect a call coming about a dog biting people in the area of the trailers behind the Indian River 19 c+ooK 92 FACE. MAR 3x.1994 J Fr - MAR 31 1944 BOOK92. +„ �t��E 20 Correctional Institution. He had gone out to the Correctional Institution and talked to people living in the trailers and no one knew anything about a dog bite incident. Attorney Stone questioned Mrs. Errett about her knowledge of Ms. House's medication and physician reports, and Mrs. Errett recalled that she asked Ms. House on several occasions if the medication would in any way hamper her ability to operate a County vehicle, her ability to confront an adverse situation with animals or her ability to perform her job. Ms. House's statement was that it would have no effect on her ability to perform her job duties. That was all'the information that she asked from Ms. Souse. Continuing with the County's direct, Attorney Collins asked Attorney O'Brien to swear in Chrissy Diggs, 2554 2nd Street, S.W., Vero Beach. She stated that she called Animal Control to pick up the dog and take him to the Humane Society because the dog was _ always running away. The dog had not been a problem with regard to biting. She did not tell the dispatcher that the dog was biting the neighbors. She told the dispatcher that she wanted someone to pick up the dog because he wouldn't stay home -- he kept going over to her brother-in-law's house. Ms. House responded to the call in no more than ten minutes' time. Attorney Stone asked Ms. Diggs if she told Ms. House that she didn't want her husband to know about the dog being taken away, and Ms. Diggs said that she had. She didn't know why the dispatcher wrote down that the dog was biting the neighbors. Ms. Diggs stated that she never told the dispatcher that the dog was biting her. She told the dispatcher that she was afraid because she has two school kids. Attorney Stone assumed then that this call was just for someone to come and pick up the dog because there was some concern about Ms. Diggs' children and a complaint that was received from someone down the street. Ms. Diggs affirmed that to be the case. Attorney Collins asked Director Wright if there was any further testing of the pager assigned to Ms. House, and Director Wright stated that he asked Mrs. Errett to test it out in various parts of the county. That was done 27 times and there was no trouble with that pager. That pager was assigned to the new 20 employee who has trouble with it. filled this position, and he has not had any Attorney Collins made his closing statement, noting that the finding of four Group 1 offenses would be sufficient cause to terminate. He asked the Board to uphold Director Wright's and Administrator Chandler's decisions for termination. Attorney Stone, in his closing statement, emphasized that there really isn't any proof in two of the incidents. With regard to the beeper, there was only the one occasion when Ms. House said her beeper didn't work. In addition, there wasn't any message left on her telephone answering machine. It may have been checked 27 times or 100 times, but Ms. House has stated that it didn't work that one time. Attorney Stone submitted that incident was explainable. With regard to the hamster situation, he stressed that the hamsters did get to the Humane Society the day the call came in. The issue is that Ms. House did not respond immediately. The hamsters were not in danger nor did they pose any problem. The owners just wanted to get rid of them. As for the call from Chrissy Diggs, the report that came in was that it was a dog bite case. Attorney Stone felt that certainly takes priority over taking unwanted hamsters to the Humane Society. In the pigeon incident, Ms. House determined on the strength of her past performance and experience that the pigeon only appeared to be hurt. The lady who made the call said that the pigeon was walking around the apartment complex and had been for 2- 3 days. The bird was taken to the Humane Society on Monday, but there is no record that it received any treatment by a veterinarian. The thing here is that Ms. House should have notified her office when she called in sick on Monday that the pigeon needed to be picked up. In incident #5, Ms. House should have requested some additional help to respond to the injured dog in pain out by Lee's Pool Hall in Wabasso. Ms. House has said that her medication had not affected her job performance, but it did that night as a result of an increase in the medication. She was 50 minutes late in getting there, and that is bad. 21 ( WE MAR 3 11994 r R1AR 3 i 1994 BOOK 92` ACE 22 Attorney Stone believed that in looking at all of these offenses together and considering Ms. House's track record and her commitment to the County and to animals, there is insufficient cause to terminate her. He asked that the Board reinstate her to her position. Commissioner Macht felt it does appear that Ms. House is much too casual about .some of her job requirements and the inter- relationship between herself and staff. She certainly wasn't very forthcoming with her supervisor about being mentally distressed over her friend's problems and suicide and about the medication she was taking for that condition. However, all of these incidents seem to be a -little bit muddy as to who did what and who said what. Maybe that indicates that we need some tightening up of what is phoned in, what is reported and what goes onto the logs. We also may be overlooking some give and take in judgment calls, considering that we don't think twice about not imbuing a sworn _ officer with that latitude of judgment in weighing his priorities. Commissioner Macht felt, that to some degree, that is inherent in this position. He also felt, because the employee has a long-time investment in her profession and her work with the County, and because there is a reciprocal investment in her by the County, that the best interests of both are not going to be served by termination. Attorney Collins has advised that 51 percent is the operative word in these decisions. He felt that probably is very close to this situation -- that 49% of the fault lies with Ms. House, but 51% is required for termination. That being the case, he would move that she be reinstated. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the Board reinstate Debbie House with no prejudice whatever to the facts or the disciplinary procedures that have gone forth, that they stand in the record, and that she does not receive back wages. Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked if there would be any probation. Commissioner Macht felt that leaving the record intact probably implies a probationary effort, but he felt he really couldn't speak to that since that is a personnel matter. 22 Commissioner Eggert supported the Motion because she felt there is a situation on both sides which makes it very difficult. She appreciated Mrs. ErrettIs statement of not wanting to get involved and personalize, but she felt there are some things that we need to watch a little more closely and work with people on. She believed this is one of those situations. She felt it would be very helpful if we could find some way of knowing where everyone is on a more current basis, whether it be their calling in if they haven't been heard from after a certain length of time or whatever it is. Commissioner Bird supported the Motion and agreed there is evidence on both sides. Ms. House did have a bit of trouble in her personal life which had some effect on her job. He would like to see her reinstated but on some type of probation. He believed there was enough evidence and reasonable grounds for staff to do the termination. He would agree to the reinstatement with the understanding that if it takes two Group 2 offenses, Ms. House has one now. If her record is clean for the next 6 months or year or something, then the probationary period would end at that time. He felt there is enough history to warrant some type of probationary procedure. He didn't know exactly what that should be and he would leave that determination to staff and the Personnel Department. Commissioner Eggert understood then that everything that is in Ms. House's folder now stays in her folder and that there is no obliterating it. As she understands Commissioner Macht's motion, another incident of a really serious nature would be cause for termination. She felt there is a punitive factor to that. She didn't feel we could just wipe them out. Commissioner.Macht explained that his Motion encompasses the thought that the Group 2 offense, in fact, the entire presentation, remain intact. As he understood it, Personnel has said that two Group 2 offenses or even four Group 1 offenses may initiate termination. They still would have the option that if another Group 1 offense occurs, coupled with what has occurred, warrants termination, then we can be right back here. Chairman Tippin stated he would support the Motion with the understanding that there would be some type of probationary procedure. He realized that we all make mistakes for various and sundry reasons, but he expected Ms. House to be squeaky clean from now on. 23 GOOF 92 FAU, 23 BOOK 92 F'mu 24 Commissioner Bird asked if Ms. House's position had been filled, and Administrator Chandler explained that the employee was hired with the understanding there was an appeal tracking through, etc. We held that position open in anticipation of the first hearing in December, 1993, but when that was cancelled, we had a real need to fill the position. The person who filled the position may not accept it, but understands that it was under those circumstances. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock a.m. ATTEST: Barton, Clerk John W. Tippin, Chairman 24 r � �