HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1994Y
MINUTE No
��TTAC
HED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
_ AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING rt
- ' WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 3 )
Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Richard N. Bird (Dist.. 5 )
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
- .1
9:00 A.M. EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE APPEAL - HARRY LUTZ
( memorandum dated October 13, 1994 )
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE
MADE' AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION ' FOR THIS MEETING
MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 19, 1994
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session in County Commission Chambers, 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 19, 1994,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Fran B. Adams;
Carolyn K. Eggert; and Richard N. Bird. Commissioner Kenneth R.
Macht was attending a committee meeting. Also present were James
E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE APPEAL - HARRY LUTZ
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/13/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 13, 1994 FI:
f
FROM: ames E. Chandler
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Employee Grievance Appeal
REFERENCES:
As a result of a September 15, 1994 appeal melting, I upheld the demotion of
Buildings and Grounds employee Harry Linz from Tradesworker II to
Tradesworker I ( Attachment 1) .
Attorney James Wilson, representing Harry Lutz, has appealed the decision to
the Board ( Attachment 11) .
The Board appeal hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. October 19, 1994 at
9:00 a.m.
1
October 19, 1994
BOOK n3 PAGE �c.
I
BOOK 93 wa 552
After Deputy County Attorney William Collins II gave a brief
overview of the grievance appeal procedures, County Attorney
Charles Vitunac asked all those expecting to give testimony today
to stand and be sworn en masse.
Lynn Williams, Supt. of Buildings & Grounds, raad aloud the
following memo dated January 10, 1994:
-----------------RE-- _= O
TO: Jack Price, Personnel Director
FROM: Lynn Williams, Supt. of Buildings & Grounds ✓�
DATE: January 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Harry Lutz Demotion
axxxaxxxaxx====xxxxxxax=x=xxx=x=x=xxxxxxx�sxxxxxaxxxxxxxx=x===x==
On October 2, 1993, Harry Lutz was arrested and charged with
D.U.I. (copy of arrest record attached). A joint decision was made
between Mr. Dean and I to assign Harry to the Administration
Building* until disposition of his case.
On January 6, 1994, after pleading "no -.contest"., Harry was
sentenced -to tea (10) days house arrest; loss:•af driver's license*.
•..' .. one (1.�,.:year., -f,ines-= and .costs,,
Pursuant to Administrative Policy 4A*H807.2, Group Three
Offenses #10 (Unlawful conduct,, either on "or off the job, which
would tend to affect the employee's relationship -to' the job or
fellow workers, or negatively reflect on the reputation of County
Government). Harry's conduct-is•subject to corrective action up to
termination.
By his action and the subsequent court septencing, Harry is no
longer able to effect the duties of Tradesworker II. The primary,
areas of deficiency lie in his ability to respond to after hours
and weekend call request while driving a County vehicle. We feel
a work permit is insufficient to operate a County vehicle and as
such limits Harry's ability dispatch his duties as a Tradesworker
II.
Further, his arrest and sentence have seriously harmed Harry's
personal and professional reputation with the Sheriff's Department
employees operating the Jail. His effectiveness as a supervisor
and representative of this Division have been negatively impacted
..:by his actions. His relationship with fellow workers has suffered.
In lieu of termination, it is recommended .that Harry be
demoted to Tradesworker I and that his pay be adjusted to a level
consistent with other employees of similar longevity in the pay
classification.
Please let me know if you require additional information.
attachment,
2
October 19, 1994
M M M
CLASS FAMILY:
TRADESWORKER II
LABOR AND TRADES
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLASS
Performs maintenance and construction work in labor trades br,
activities in the County Jail. This is a skilled, journeyman
position, working independently under the general direction of the'
foreman.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
1. Performs general and specialized tasks in the construction,
renovation, modification, installation and repair of buildings,
equipment, apparatus and facilities.
2. Diagnoses and repairs electronic and electro -mechanical
systems.
3. Performs some routine plumbing, electrical, and air
conditioning work.
4. Supervises trustee workers assisting with job.
5. Provides technical assistance and support for subordinate
Positions, including job assignments.
6. Performs coordination of outside contract workers involved with
building system repairs, ie. fire sprinklers, fire alarm, etc.
7. Performs other work as required.
REQUIREMENTS
A. Training and Experience ,
The required skills would normally be acquired through
attainment of high school graduation, and several years of working
experience, or an equivalent combination of formal education and
working experience. .
B. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
1. Knowledge of the practices, methods, materials, and tools of
one or more of the building trades.
_2.. Knowledge of the occupational hazards and safety precautions of
the trade.
3. Knowledge of detention electronics and so histicated intercom
sy-tgms and ability to repair this equipment.
4.
Ability to work.from blueprints, rough sketches :_.0 .ral or
written instructions.
5. Skills in the use and care of tools, equipment, and materials
of the specific trade.
Licenses/certifications
NONE
3
October 19, 1994
BOOK 93 WAD j
BOOK W PACL 55ti
General Services Director Sonny Dean read aloud the following
letter dated August 23, 1994:
._ MAI.., OF COUNTY COMMISSIOA.--.
1840 25th Stmt, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: 1407) 567-8000
August 23., 1994 •
Mr. Harry L. Lutz
1402'Barber Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
RE: DUE PROCESS HEARING - 8/18/94
-I
Dear Mr. Lutz:
In accordance with your request and my letter of. August 9, 1994, a
post demotion hearing was held in my presence on Thursday, August
:.1$,. '1994..:.. Tie •.purpose. , •of.:. t� h4arnq�^..waig:..Q .4ive . ou
bppo tun�Y'hj , • siiot�lb� a us#e; =r iw- to-' why _your:, cYema q�iii ori '� as $
1994 was improper.
It was agreed by both parties that the memorandum of January 10,
1994, from Lynn Williams, Superintendent, Buildings and Grounds
Division, to Jack Price, Personnel Director had outlined all
reasons for the demotion in question.
It was also stipulated by both parties that the DUI conviction of
January 6, 1994 was not in question, since that was determined by
legal proceedings in a court of law.
I have carefully reviewed the facts presented at this hearing, as
well as data that was relevant and available at the time a
determination was made by Mr. Williams. I had anticipated that
evidence and/or information would have been introduced in the
meeting which had not been known by management prior. * However,
this was not -the case.
The demotion was based solely on three factors:
1. The loss of your drivers license prevents you from
performing all the duties o:C a Tradesworker II.
2. Unlawful conduct off the job that tends to affect your
relationship to fellow workers and negatively reflects -
on the reputation of the County.
3. There is no other comparable position within the
department that you could be transferred to and maintain
the same pay and -privileges.
N
October 19, 1994
M M
PAGE TWO
HARRY L. LUTZ
RE:_DUE PROCESS
M M
HEARING - 8/18/94
The argument as to the demotion not being "fair" could be a two
edged sword. You feel your demotion and reduction in pay was not
fair to you. The County feels it was not -fair for then to be put,
in this position and have to make such a decision. This was not a
result of something the County originated but a reaction to the
result of something caused by your "mistake".
Based on the evidence and information
is my decision the demotion was not improper. resented Thetfactethatg'you
were transferred out of the jail into a position of less
responsibility without loss of pay from October 41. 19931 until you
were convicted -on January 141 19941 and that the County chose not
to terminate your employment, which •,was an alternative, indicates
that you were treated fairly and` within the guidelines of
personnel management policies. our.
•`Y. ��'�Si ¢tar
.�y4} r
.: .�' �•�'.^•\ •
.<'�
• . �!«� '
rte'
;'i:.�.F'.n�••
. �..t�•..:,••d:-.. ,��.
• :'a ��._ fit• its:''• .. •: ..i
.t• .•. ; ..
.. ,�c.
.'~r•'•,r..w�
a .. ... _ r ��)
.. ..
.a
;^,•.,Z J'•.....
...�_- :'
..
.
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
HTD/eh
(LUTZ.AUG)
Copy to:
Jack Price, Personnel Director
William G. Collins, II, Deputy
James P. Wilson, Esquire
Lynn Williams, Superintendent,
October 19, 1994
County Attorney
Buildings & Grounds
5
BOOK c�c� F'AvE 0
Ba% 93 FAA 5564
County Administrator Jim Chandler read aloud the following
letter dated September 20, 1994:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Sbeet, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (407)567-M M
September 20, 1994
Harry L. Lutz
1402 Barber Street
Sebastian, FL 32958
Dear Mr. Lutz:
Suncom Telephone: 2211-1011
The following is my determination of your appeal of the General Services
Director's decision regarding your demotion from Tradesworker II to
Tradesworker 1. ' This determination is based on the testimony presented at our
September 15, 1994 meeting, as :well as Information contained in the appeal letter
from your attorney ( Exhibit 1),' the General Services Director's decision letter ,
( Exhibit 11) and the Buildings & Grounds Superintendent's demotion memo
( Exhibit 111) . Based on a combination of the preceding, I concur with the
General Services Director's decision and the factors he delineated in arriving at
that conclusion ( Exhibit .111) .
Of particular significance, in my opinion, are the factors relating to the
Tradesworker II position. There is only one such position within the County
organization. The position assignment is to service the County Jail, as was the
Intent when the classification was created. As a result, the individual occupying
that position must be able to fulfill all of the responsibilities of the position. A
critical responsibility Is the ability to satisfactorily respond to calls after normal
working hours and on weekends.
Even though a Work Permit may authorize you to drive a vehicle for work
related purposes during the one year period, testimony presented indicated the
Risk Management Department's concern regarding increased exposure and
potential liability if involved in an accident. In my opinion, the County should
not be exposed to that potential liability. As a result, in my opinion, you
cannot totally fulfill all the responsibilities of the Tradesworker II position.
Considering the DUI conviction, I believe your supervisor had no
alternative but to consider disciplinary action. Based on the incident and your
past performance, I agree that termination was not warranted. A reprimand,
verbal or written, `if considered, would not have resolved the matter concerning
your- ability to drive a County vehicle and fulfill the responsibilities of the
Tradesworker 11 position. As a result, I believe the demotion was justified.
Based on the preceding, I deny your appeal. Pursuant to Administrative
Manual Section AM -807.1, you may appeal my decision to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Yours truly,
�mmes E. Chandler
County Administrator
6
October 19, 1994
-I
Attorney James P. Wilson, representing,appellant Harry Lutz,
read aloud the following letter dated August 30, 1994:
JAMES P. WILSON -
ATToRNEY-AT-I.Aw
JAMES P. WILSON 3625 20TH STREET • SuffE A
r
P.O. Box 2454
MEMBER OF: P.O.
BEACH, FLORIDA 32961
FLORtoA BAR (407) 567-3424
August 30, 1994 ,����J ' �S
ti
AUG1994
James Chandler NADMINo� TOR'S
County Administrator �.s
Indian River County i
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Il4i�%
RE: Harry Lutz
Demotion..
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Pursuant to Section AM 807.1 of the County Personnel Code, please
consider this a formal appeal on behalf of Harry Lutz from the
decision rendered by Sonny Dean, General Services Director, on or
about August 23, 1994.
In accordance with the rules, we request that Mr. Lutz be granted
an appeal hearing before you or the County Commission, whichever
you deem appropriate. The basis for the -appeal is as follows:
1. That there was no basis, in law or fact, for the demotion of
Mr. Lutz from -his former position of Tradesman II to Tradesman I.
A work permit was issued which allows Mr. Lutz to perform any
duties assigned.
2. That the duties of Tradesman II are substantially similar to
the duties being performed by my client since the demotion.
Therefore the demotion to Tradesman I was unnecessary in that Mr.
_- Lutz could have continued to function as a Tradesman II.
3. That all grounds set forth at the hearing by Lynn Williams, Mr.
Lutz's supervisor, which formed the basis for Mr. Dean's decision
were vague, arbitrary and capricious and did not properly form the
basis for the.'action especially when considered.in light of other
action or inaction on the part of county officials in dealing with
other employees in similar, or more" serious, circumstances. It has
come to our attention that Mr. Williams has written a letter of
recommendation to the Court in an attempt to- obtain a light
criminal sentence for other county employees who have been
convicted of -felony drug offenses -.-
7
October 19, 1994
BOOK e PAGG `l
I
BOOK W FACE 558
James Chandler
August 30, 1994
Page Two
Please contact Dana Brumley at my office to coordinate a time and
date convenient to all parties to hold the appeal hearing.
1__T0_*f orwjl'r'd to hearing f rom -you.
P. Wilson
CC: Harry Lutz
William G. Collins, II, Esq.
Jack Price, Personnel Director
Attorney Wilson presented arguments against the three factors
upon which the demotion was based:
1) The loss of non -restricted drivers license preventing Mr.
Lutz from performing all the duties of a Tradesworker II.
2) Unlawful conduct off the job tends to affect
relationship to fellow workers and negatively reflects on
reputation of the County.
3) No comparable position within the department for transfer
where same pay and privileges could be maintained.
Attorney Wilson maintained that pressure had been brought to
bear on Mr. Lutz to drop the appeal thus putting a chill on other
employees filing appeals under similar circumstances. In Mr. Lutz'
first appeal hearing, Roger Moore of Risk Management gave testimony
about the driving requirements for County employees. Risk
Management was concerned about Mr. Lutz' ability when driving a
County vehicle. The bottom line is that Mr. Lutz has a driver's
permit which allows him to drive while on the job. Since his
arrest and demotion, Mr. Lutz has been driving a County vehicle
practically every day. Attorney Wilson emphasized that Mr. Lutz
was not driving a County vehicle when he was arrested. He was not
on call by the County; he was on his own personal time. Mr. Lutz'
driving permit is restricted to "for working purposes only through
June, 1995."
8
October 19, 1994
Attorney Collins didn't disagree -with Attorney Wilson on this
point, but pointed out that Lynn Williams, superintendent of
Buildings and Grounds, has the responsibility to comply with Risk
Management's safety policies.
Commissioner Bird felt that perhaps Risk Management over
reacted since this one isolated situation does not show habitual.
behavior.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding other employees who were
arrested on DUI charges and felony charges and were not demoted or
disciplined at work in any way.
Attorney Collins cautioned Attorney Wilson about using names
without giving evidence to the fact.
Continuing, Attorney Wilson commented from the following
letter dated September 28, 1994:
JAMES P. WILSON
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
t
JAMES P. WILSON
r
MEMBER OF:
FLORIDA BAR
September 28, :1994
j
James E. Chandler
. County Administrator
Indian River County
• 1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Harry Lutz Appeal
3625 20TH STREET • Surm A
P.O. Box 2454
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961
(407)567-3424
FAx(407)567.3426
ApMINI
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Please consider this an appeal of your decision upholding the disciplinary action imposed
against Mr. Harry Lutz. According to Administrative Manual, Section AM -807.1, please
set this matter before the Board of County Commissioners for hearing.
E
October 19, 1994
BOOK Uj F,�,E D j
BOOK
As grounds: .
1.- Your decision states that .there is only one Tradesworker H position and Mr. Lutz
would be unable to fiilfill the duties of the position while in possession of a Work permit
driver's license. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to fulfill the responsibility of
the Tradesworker H position.' However,-- the uncontroverted testimony and evidence
presented at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal, establishes that the work permit
issued to Mr. Lutz allows him to perform, without restriction, any duties assigned to him
by the County, including driving vehicles to and from work on the job, and in response
to any calls that may be received by him during his off-duty hours. In fact, Mr. Lutz
currently drives a county vehicle under the authority granted by the work permit and has
been doing so since shortly after charges were filed. The only testimony which tended
to support your position was the self-serving statement that it was possible that there
would be increased exposure and liability if Mr. Lutz was involved- in an accident -while-
operating under his work permit. However, such concern is misplaced, especially
considering that. the County has a number of persons driving vehicles with much worse
records than Mr. Lutz, including convictions of DUI, reckless driving and numerous -
moving violations. The fact that certain county drivers operate county vehicles with such
records and while in possession of work permits, tends to indicate that the County has
decided to selectively enforce its personal rules against Mr. Lutz while ignoring violations
committed by others. The only liability the County could incur above and beyond that
normally imposed in an accident would be if Mr. Lutz or any other employee was driving
under the influence of alcohol. At no time was any evidence offered, nor does anyone
attempt to claim that Mr. Lutz carried out his duties while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage, either on duty or when on call.
. 2. Your decision further states that aside from the driver's license problem, Mr.
Lutz could otherwise not totally fulfill the responsibility of-.Tradesworker U. The
testimony at the appeal clearly indicates that not only can Mr. Lutz presently qua* as
Tradesworker U, he is presently performing all duties established under the position with
the exception of supervisory duties. It is true that Mr. Lutz was removed from his
position at the jail, however, he continues to perform maintenance and construction work
in the labor trades, as required in the definition and has, on occasion, been called by jail
personnel to perform services specifically at the jail for which he was trained. The
Tradesworker U is not a specific position that requires service at the jail. It allows for
maintenance and construction work in labor trade or activities in the County Jail. Mr.
Lutz was transferred from primary duties at the jail, but is now performing maintenance
and construction . work described within the definition. The only reason he is not
exercising supervisory authority is because such duties were strippeJ from him at the time
of his demotion. Those duties were removed as a punitive measure against Mr. Lutz, but
he otherwise fully performs and qualifies for duties of a Tradesworker H. He is simply not
paid commensurate with his experience and abilities.
3. The decision regarding the appeal states that "I believe your supervisor had no
alternative but to consider disciplinary action." Clearly, Mr. Lutz'simmediate supervisor,
Lynn Williams, stated he had the discretionary right to determine whether or not to
discipline Mr. Lutz and how such discipline should be imposed. Had such discipline been
handed out in an even-handed and consistent basis, Mr. Lutz would probably not feel that
.this appeal -was justified. However, Mr. Williams own testimony has established several
incidents of conduct involving other members of his department who have been convicted
of crimes of equal, or much more severe, nature and carrying much greater penalties.
io
October 19, 1994
I
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
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
Attorney Collins asked each of the _following to come forward
to make a statement in regard to what has been said -here this
morning:
Lynn Williams, Superintendent of -Building & Grounds
Jack Price, Personnel Director
Sonny Dean, Director of General Services
Beth Jordan, Manager of Risk Management
Jim Chandler, County Administrator
In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, General Services
Director Sonny Dean advised that someone else is currently
performing the Tradesworker II duties. The pay range for
Tradesworker I is $15,142 - $21,507. The pay range for
Tradesworker II is $17,555 - $24,856.
Commissioner Adams estimated that there had been a $2800 drop
in pay for Mr. Lutz. She was concerned about our lack of a strong
written policy on disciplinary action when employees are convicted
on drug, alcohol, theft or other felony charges.
Harry Lutz, appellant, stated that his base pay before his
demotion was $11.44 an hour or $23,774 annually. His annual pay
was cut to $20,987 when he was demoted. With the loss of on-call
pay, he estimated that his pay is down $6,000-$7,000 a year.
In conclusion, Attorney Wilson emphasized that Mr. Lutz has
been punished in the court system and should not be punished on the
job also. He maintained that Mr. Lutz' case stands alone because
nobody else has been disciplined like this and taken the salary
loss that Mr. Lutz has experienced. He asked that the Board
reinstate Mr. Lutz to the Tradesworker II position at his base pay,
at -least.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) reinstated Harry
Lutz to the Tradesworker II position with
retroactive pay with the stipulation that he not be
assigned to the Jail and that he not be assigned to
on-call duty (driving) after regular working hours
until after an unrestricted driver's license is
returned to him in 1995; directed Personnel to
review job descriptions in other departments for a
13 BOOK 93 f'AGE 583
October 19, 1994
eoo
possible lateral transfer; and directed staff to
come back with strict, specific written policy on
discipline procedures when employees receive
convictions for driving under the influence, drug
usage, theft, etc.
NOTE:
The following letter was sent to Harry Lutz following today's
meeting:
14
October 19, 1994
TVERc OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY CHARLES P. VITUNAC
c c BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County Attorney
Z
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
•
1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 WILLIAM G.-COLLINS 11Deputy county Attorney
Telephone: (407) 567-8000, Ext. 424
Suncom: 224-1424 TERRENCE P. O'RRIEN
Fax: (407) 770-5095 Asti. County Attorney
SHARON PHILLIPS BRENNAN
Asst. County Attorney
October 19, 1994
Mr. Harry L. Lutz
1402 Barber Street
Sebastian, FL 32958
Re: Demotion Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners
Dear Mr. Lutz:
Pursuant
to the
request
of your attorney, by letter
dated September 28,
1994, an
appeal
hearing
was held before the Board of
County Commissioners
of Indian
River
County
on October 19, 1994. After
hearing testimony and
evidence
regarding
your
January .13, 1994 demotion from Tradesworker II to
Tradesworker I,
the Board of County Commissioners
came to the following
decision.
By a vote of 4 -to -0 you are reinstated to the Tradesworker II category;
your work assignments will not involve reinstatement to the Tradesworker 11
position at the County Jail; the Personnel Department will consider a lateral
transfer that could utilize your job skills in a department other than the
Building & Grounds Division, should such an opening arise; you will receive
back pay to the date of your demotion in the amount necessary to
compensate you for being paid at the lesser Tradesworker I level in the
Intervening time; and you are to do no on-call driving prior to the
reinstatement of a valid driver's license.
The decision of the Board of County Commissioners is final and binding on
the parties without' further right to appeal:
Yours truly,
Charles P. Vitunac
wgc/nhm County Attorney
cc: James E. Chandler - County Administrator
H. T. "Sonny" Dean - General Services Director
Lynn Williams - Superintendent, Building & Grounds
Jack Price - Personnel Director
William G_ Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
Beth Jordan - Risk Manager
James P. Wilson, Esq.
0 t
October 19, 1994
BOOK 93 FA('65
Baox U
W
There being,4,o
further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, -,"theYBoard adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
ATTESTI-
CA
rtbn4-Qller-4� Jd" W. Tippin,'&airman
4s
rb
Minutes approv' e";'- Irlt).-A AAA
16
October 19, 1994