HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/24/1995M` M
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNT'Y COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINIS RATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 )
John W. Tippin (Dist. 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 A. M. EMPLOYEE APPEAL HEARING - Lisa Freeman
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.
91- 9>l/?
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, April 24, 1995
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 Monday, April 24, 1995,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B.
Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John
W. Tippin. Staff present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; William G.
Collins, II, Deputy County Attorney; Doug Wright, Emergency
Services Director; John King, Emergency Management Coordinator; and
Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. Also present were Lisa Freeman and
her attorney, Robert Stone.
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order.
EMPLOYEE APPEAL HEARING - LISA FREEMAN
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 18, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 18, 1995 FILE:
SUBJECT: Lisa Freeman Appeal
FROM: amen E . Chandler
County Administrator REFERENCES:
As a result of a March 16, 1995 administrative hearing, I upheld Emergency
Services Director Doug Wrights termination of Secretary I Lisa Freeman.
Attorney Robert Stone, on behalf of Lisa Freeman, appealed the termination to
the Board. The appeal hearing has been scheduled by the Board for Monday,
April 24, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 F','.GF 91?
BOOK 94 F,u 919
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that the Board
was present to hear the appeal by Lisa Freeman, a Secretary I,
Emergency Services Department, of Administrator Chandler's
determination to uphold Emergency Services Director Doug Wright's
termination of her employment. He advised that a pre -termination
hearing before Director Wright took almost four hours; and the
appeal hearing before Administrator Chandler lasted almost seven
hours. He would try to consolidate that a little bit. He pointed
out the extensive exhibits from the prior hearings were available
if there were any questions, but not all of them would be
introduced.
Deputy County Attorney Collins reported that Emergency
Management Coordinator John King and Emergency Services Director
Doug Wright would give summaries of what led to this hearing and
then Attorney Robert Stone would present his client's appeal.
Deputy County Attorney Collins summarized that Lisa Freeman
was charged by Mr. King with a series of incidents which
demonstrated poor performance on her part and specifically charged
that she neglected to comply with requirements set forth in
departmental rules and standards of conduct. Director Wright had
found that five of the six incidents had merit and determined to
terminate Ms. Freeman.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins reviewed the incidents set
out in the following letter:'
:UCY
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Department of Emergency Services
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
February 14, 1995
Lisa Freeman
Secretary I
Division of Emergency Management
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Pre -Termination Hearing
Dear Ms. Freeman:
I have reviewed and studied the information provided to me at your
pre -termination hearing which was held on February 8, 1995. The
following is the basis upon which I have made a decision regarding
the appropriate disciplinary action which will be taken against
you.
2
April 24, 1995
INCIDENT #1: On September 20, 1994, John King, your supervisor,
conducted an employee consultation with you (Exhibit A) regarding
your unacceptable change in work habits and poor work performance.
He explained to you the specific instances where you have fallen
short as well as the areas requiring improvement. You were also
noticed that continued failure to correct the problem would result
in more severe disciplinary action. You acknowledged that your
work performance was below your potential and indicated that you
would improve both your attitude and performance.
FINDING: The record is uncontested that the employee consultation
occurred and that you admitted your performance was below your
potential and you agreed to improve both your attitude and
performance.
INCIDENT #2: On September 21, 1994, John King, your supervisor,
discussed with you your failure to accomplish a routine office task
(Exhibit I) he had reminded you about the prior day relating to
outgoing correspondence which you stated you had forgotten about.
You had been warned about this same type of unsatisfactory work
performance the prior day and yet it recurred the very next day.
FINDING: It was established that you did fail to complete a
routine office task related to outgoing correspondence, a simple
task which you had been counseled about the day prior by your
supervisor. Your response was that you forgot to accomplish this
routine function.
INCIDENT #3: On October 41 1994, John King, your supervisor,
counseled with you (Exhibits L & M) regarding your failure to be at
your work station at the assigned time. You voluntarily returned
your office key to Administrative Secretary II Diane Albin on
Monday, September 27, 1994, and waited outside the main entrance to
the office on Tuesday and Wednesday even though there were other
open entrances into the Administration Building. You were not at
your work station at the assigned time and you had not received
authorization from your supervisor to be absent from your duty
station. Your stated excuse for not being at your work station was
to "protect yourself." You were again warned by your supervisor
that your attitude, poor job performance, and failure to be at your
work station would result in further disciplinary action if
improvement was not noted.
FINDING: The record established at the hearing was that you
returned your office key to Diane Albin and waited outside the
office entrance on two days, failing to be at your assigned work
station without authorization to be absent by your supervisor. It
was also established that the main entrances to the building were
open at 7:OOAM and you could have entered through any of these
doors and been at your work station at the assigned time. Your
stated excuse that you took this action to "protect yourself" is
not acceptable, since no events were established with any basis at
the hearing to support your reason for being absent from your duty
station. You were again counseled by your supervisor about your
job performance, attitude, and behavior with the warning that
further demonstrations would result in more severe disciplinary
action.
INCIDENT #4: On October 24, 1994, John King, your supervisor,
gave you a written warning and discussed in detail your continued
poor job performance. You were advised that you constantly failed
to demonstrate the initiative to attempt -any project without an
explicit directive; you exhibit inattention to detail resulting in
incorrectly filed correspondence; a lack of concern about making
complete copies of outgoing correspondence; and a failure to keep
3 800K 94 FAGE ��4
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 rmu 91
your work area clean. You were further admonished that failure to
correct these deficiencies would result in further disciplinary
action as provided for in the Indian River County Administrative
Policy Manual.
FINDING: Exhibits submitted during the hearing established that a
written warning was discussed in detail with you by your supervisor
for the same type of poor job performance that you had been warned
about repeatedly. You submitted no documentation to controvert
your supervisor's testimony other than a less than plausible
statement that you felt you were doing your job.
INCIDENT #5: On November 4, 1994, John Ring, your supervisor,
gave you a written warning (Exhibits M & U) and discussed in detail
with you your continued poor job performance. On October 24, 1994,
you were given a written memorandum reminding you that a month
earlier (Exhibit R) you had beenassigned the task of cataloging
and reorganizing the technical, education, and legislative
documents on certain bookshelves. An additional task was assigned
relating to completing the inventory form for the supply room which
- you had been working on for a week. Since your supervisor was
going to be out of town, he informed you in the memorandum that the
deadline for completing these tasks was October 28, 1994. Upon
your supervisor's return to the office, he found your work product
to be substandard and incomplete, even though you informed him by
phone that you had completed the assignments on October 26, 1994.
Your written warning described that if you continued to fail to
complete routine projects or duties assigned to you, severe
disciplinary action, possibly leading to termination, would result.
It was communicated to me that you possess the ability; however,
you refuse to improve to a level commensurate with the requirements
of your position classification.
FINDING: It was established at the hearing that you received a
written warning, which is a substantial disciplinary action, that
should have impressed upon you that your job performance was in
need of immediate improvement. Photos were taken of what you
considered was a final work product. Your supervisor introduced
the photos as exhibits (Exhibit T - 7 photos) which, in my opinion,
demonstrated and established that the job was less than complete
and unacceptable.
Your excuse was that you misunderstood what your assignment was
even though.you were provided a memorandum by your supervisor and
he testified that he explained in detail to you the expected final
work product. I again find that your explanation for this
unsatisfactory level of job performance is unacceptable, inasmuch
as your supervisor called the office on more than one occasion each*
day and you could have sought clarification on any part of the
assignment that you did not understand. Further, you knew exactly
where to reach him at any time if you had any questions about the
assignments you were given.
INCIDENT #6: On January 24, 1995, your supervisor John Ring,
writes in a memorandum dated January 25, 1995, (Exhibit W) that you
contacted Administrative Secretary Diane Albin to report that you
were ill and would not be able to come to work. At approximately
3:30PM on this same date, Diane Albin was delivering correspondence
and.needed the key from your desk to walk around through the
utilities office since a meeting was in progress in the conference
room. Etta LoPresti was sitting at your desk working on a project
when Diane asked her to hand her the door key from your middle desk
drawer. When Etta opened the drawer, she found a stack of
approximately 100 EMS run reports which are sensitive,
4
April 24, 1995
confidential, and privileged. You were -assigned to shred these
confidential documents on January 11, 1995, and you failed to
complete your assignment knowing full well that these are
confidential and should be secure from access by unauthorized
individuals.
Your supervisor further notes that you failed to promptly complete
an assignment relating to a minor task involving hazardous
materials disaster plans. Your response was unacceptable in terms
of this failure and ref -sects a continuation of your failure to
complete simple work assignments in a timely manner which is cause
for his recommending a pre -termination hearing.
FINDING: At the hearing, it was established that the sensitive and
privileged EMS run reports were in your unsecured middle desk
drawer, that you received the run reports from Ruth Ann Snoberger,
that you placed a note on the forms the day you received them, and
that the documents had been in your desk drawer since January 11,
1995. Although the number of EMS run reports were earlier stated
to be approximately 100, the actual number was established to be
254 run reports.
Your excuse for not destroying the documents were that you had been
busy, it was not your assignment, and that it took a long time to
shred the documents. The issue here is the fact that you took
possession of the documents from another person with the
understanding that you would destroy them. At some point in time
you have to take responsibility for your acts of omission in the
office, and I find that this was gross and unacceptable conduct.
I personally have conveyed to you and other staff members at
various times that Chapter 401.30, Florida Statutes, exempts
patient information contained in these records from public
disclosure without consent and you blatantly ignored this standard
office procedure and placed the assets of the county in a position
of significant liability.
Your statement about not having time to destroy the documents is
totally without merit, inasmuch as I observed you on many occasions
since January 11, 1995, when you would be reading magazines or
having a casual conversation with another office staff' member. The
total time it should have taken you to destroy the documents should
have been no more than fifteen minutes, and this is based on my
personal experience.
There was some significant discussion during the hearing about your
work product involving the hazardous materials plan (Exhibits G &
H). You denied that you had added the annexes and other errors to
the document, which caused another staff member to go back through
this substantial document and make corrections to the many mistakes
you created in the plan. I noted to you and your attorney at the
time that I would research this matter further. I must tell you
that I personally know you were assigned this task, I observed you
working on the document on more than one occasion, and since the
hearing I have verified that the document is and was in your
personal computer directory (Exhibits D2 & 3). In fact, you copied
the document into your supervisor's directory and used a password
known only to you. He cannot even access the document in his
directory since only you know the password. I am at a loss to
understand what purpose you felt this would serve and why you would
ever do something like this.
Your credibility in my view is non-existent and I have no
confidence in you now, since you made this statement under oath
knowing full well that you were being untruthful. You know that
you were assigned this project by your supervisor and that you
5 BOOP( 94 PA,k 91
April 24, 1995
BOOK 4 917
personally rendered the document useless by your unacceptable job
performance. It took many hours for other staff to go through this
192 -page plan and make corrections to your errors.
There was also testimony from you during questions from myself that
you were totally unaware that secretaries and or administrative
staff in the office were permitted to take classes at Indian River
Community College to improve their skills at the County's expense.
You denied any knowledge of this and stated that you had never been
told about that. Again, your credibility was called into question
because I personally recalled having approved payment for you to
take a course at the college. After the hearing, I located the
registration documents (Exhibit D1 - (8 pages) and the check issued
by the county to pay for you to take a computer-related class in
the Spring semester in 1991. So, what you demonstrated again was
untruthfulness as well as the fact that you have had many
opportunities to improve your administrative skills and you simply
have not taken advantage of them.
The issue raised at the hearing about you demanding 20 minutes of
compensatory time from your supervisor for having read part of a
book on desktop publishing at your home was an example of your
unacceptable elementary and childish behavior. You had not been
directed to study the book, it had been on your desk for some time,
and you stated to me that you did it because "you wanted to prove
a point to your supervisor." Indian River County policy contained
in Section AM -301.3 (Exhibit J) alludes to the fact that
compensatory time must be approved prior to being taken or accrued.
Your supervisor stated at the hearing that he did not prior approve
any compensatory time; however, he gave you the 20 minutes time off
in an effort to satisfy you. At the hearing, you admitted that you
had received time off to accomplish personal tasks, doctors'
visits, trips to the veterinarian for your dog, and time off around
holidays without the time being charged to your vacation or sick
balance. It appears you want the free time off if its beneficial
to you; however, you demanded 20 minutes of unauthorized
compensatory time for allegedly having read a book at home for 20
minutes. Somehow, fairness does not seem to be balanced in this
situation and it is another example of your unacceptable behavior.
CONCLUSION:
You were noticed and your supervisor, Emergency Management
Coordinator John King, cited six separate incidents during the
hearing as the basis for recommending disciplinary action, all of
which relates to unsatisfactory job performance, unacceptable
behavior, and a poor attitude in general.
During the hearing, it was demonstrated through exhibits that you
were employed with Indian River County in the Division of Emergency
Management on September 26, 1990, in a position classified as
Secretary I. Your four annual performance appraisals (Exhibits B,
C, E, and F) were generally good; however, recommendations for
improvement were suggested in several areas such as neatness,
thoroughness, handwritten information, completing routine tasks
without prompting, relaying correct information, and attention to
detail. It was also noted that you received favorable comments
regarding your knowledge of emergency management duties and
willingness to help complete various tasks in some of the
appraisals.
Although not determined during the hearing, something seems to
have happened, known only to you, in the time period prior to
September 20, 1994, which resulted in a significant decline and
change in your work performance, behavior, and attitude to the
extent that the following actions had to be taken by your
supervisor: -
6
April 24, 1995
DATE
ACTION TAKEN
EHHIBIT(S)
9/20/94
Employee Consultation
A
9/21/94
Verbal Warning
I
10-24-94
Written Warning
L&M
11-04-94
Written Warning
U
01-16-95
Verbal Warning
W
01-25-95
Recommendation for Pre-
W
Termination Hearing
02-08-95
Pre -Termination Hearing
The above -documented incidents are substantial in nature and should
have shocked you into recognition that your actions and poor job
performance could have serious disciplinary implications if you did
not improve. However, your response was to write a letter to me
(Exhibit O) alleging harassment by all members of the office staff,
which after investigation, (Exhibit P) was proven to be frivolous,
without merit, and in my opinion, an effort to intimidate other
staff in the central office. You could never explain how you were
being harassed, but you felt everyone was out to "get you." What
has occurred now is that you have alienated all the administrative
staff to the point where they are uncomfortable around you and do
not want to work with you given your propensity to create false
allegations or imagine incidents or events that you perceive as
truthful.
I do not have to tell you that the Department of Emergency Services
is a public safety agency which requires some agencies such as Fire
and EMS to operate 24 hours a day since you have been here for .four
years. You also know that the Division of Emergency Management has
to be and is available for duty 24 hours a day in the event of a
natural or manmade disaster. No employee has the luxury to pick
and choose which assignments he or she wants to do in a disaster
situation, and I must have staff I can depend on to be available,
to perform assignments without close supervision, to take the
initiative when they see a task that needs to be done, and to be
dependable team players in these types of intensive environments
since our response to emergencies could, if not properly handled,
affect the lives of the citizens in this county. I do not see you
as a staff member that would fit this mold given the information
and testimony presented at the hearing as well as my personal
knowledge of your unacceptable job performance, behavior, and
attitude.
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
clearly. 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. For
purposes of this hearing, the following county policy statements
will be referenced and have direct bearing on your demonstrated
conduct:
AM -801.1 (l.b.)
AM -801.1 (l.g.)
April 24, 1995
Giving proper advance notice whenever
unable to work or report on time.
Performing assigned tasks efficiently and
in accord with established quality
standards.
7
BOOK 9 F',��,E 91
In addition to your having violated the above Sections, I have
concluded that your conduct warrants disciplinary action according
to the Indian River County Policy Manual, Section AM -807.2, as
follows:
GROUP TWO OFFENSES, Section AM -807.2 (3) - Neglecting to
comply with requirements set forth in departmental rules and
standards of conduct.
The sections referenced above are a part of the policy and rules
and regulations related to conduct and behavior 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 the
incidents stated above as the basis for disciplinary action.
If an employee consultation, two verbal warnings, two written
warnings, and a recommendation for a pre -termination hearing
were insufficient motivation for you to improve in your job
performance, behavior, and attitude, I do not feel further efforts
to rehabilitate you would be fruitful.
If the 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 five months, the incidents collectively
demonstrate a substantial decline in your job performance,
attitude, and behavior, which creates a paramount concern to both
your supervisor and myself that must be addressed in the interest
of efficient departmental operation.
During the entire four hour hearing, you submitted no documents in
your defense and never once did you state that you wanted another
chance to work in this department. You did state that you wanted
to continue to work for -the County. I assume that you meant you
wanted to work in another department. However, it is not the
policy of the County to transfer a person who is encountering a
disciplinary problem to another Department.
I do not feel you would be successful in this Department -if you
were allowed another chance or reinstated given the feelings
communicated to me by staff members who are concerned that you will
again make false allegations against them when they try to help you
improve your administrative skills.
Given the totality of the circumstances, I have decided to.
terminate your employment with the Department of Emergency
Services, Division of Emergency Management effective Friday,
February 24, 1995, at the close of business.
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.
8
April 24, 1995
Your final paycheck may be collected from the Personnel Department
on March 10, 1995, contingent upon the return of any county
property and computer password(s) so that all files in your
directory and your supervisor's directory can be accessed. Please
contact either Donna Anderson in the Personnel Department or myself
to schedule a time and date to pick up any personal property which
may be located in the office.
Sincerely,
4 -*-
.Doug Wri t, CEM
Director
Department of Emergency Services
Attachments referenced - due to the volume, provided upon request
Referenced document - Section AM -807.1 (Pages 3-5)
cc: Robert Stone, Attorney At Law
Jack Price, Personnel Director
Will Collins, Deputy County Attorney
John King, Emergency Management Coordinator
Lisa Freeman Personnel File
Department File
In his opening remarks, Attorney Robert Stone hoped they could
agree on something and shorten the hearing and not take up 7 hours
of the Commissioners' time. He asserted that, basically, Miss
Freeman appeared to be a very good employee until ,a particular
woman was hired. He declared that the woman, with whom she had a
personality conflict, became Lisa's "supervisor." Lisa's
relationship with Mr. King deteriorated because that woman made the
statement that Lisa Freeman had Mr. King fooled, and it was going
to be her task to see that he no longer was fooled. From that
point on, everything Lisa did was micro -managed to the extent that
they actually stood over her shoulder while she was typing and,
because of that, she wrote a letter to Director Wright that she
felt like she was being harassed and that letter was "like a bomb."
It seemed, from that point on, as if the effort was not to try to
rehabilitate Lisa, but to try to build a case to get rid of her
because they had no idea what she meant by harassment. She
certainly didn't mean• sexual harassment but that her work
atmosphere was such that she didn't feel free to do her job, that
she was, in fact, being harassed.
Attorney Stone related that earlier evaluation reports
revealed that Lisa was a willing employee, got along with everyone,
and had no problem with fellow workers until this particular
9 BOOK 94 i;,I,F 999
April 24, 1995
Boa 94 wu 921
"supervisor" started. He submitted that while Lisa may not have
done everything properly, maybe made some mistakes, they weren't
the type of mistakes that should result in dismissal.
Attorney Stone asked the Commissioners to listen to all the
evidence and base their decision on what they feel would be
appropriate.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac asked all those who expected
to give testimony to stand and be sworn. Oath was taken by Messrs.
King, Wright, Chandler, and Stone, as well as Miss Freeman and an
unidentified female (who subsequently did not testify).
Emergency Management Coordinator John King declared he would
provide a time line of the events which led to his unfortunate, but
necessary, recommendation for terminating Miss Lisa Freeman. He
began that Miss Freeman was employed in the Division of Emergency
Management for roughly 42- years and had been under his close
supervision for the last approximately three years. He recalled
that, when first employed, Miss Freeman showed promise, was willing
to learn new job skills, and had the ability to work with others.
He described that her commitment to work vacillated from good to
satisfactory during that time, but, at the very end, it was
unsatisfactory. He believed it fair to say that she could only
complete one task at a time and required close supervision. In the
beginning Miss Freeman tried, wasn't always successful, but
continued to try. He sent her to various emergency management
training schools, some were home study courses that she was allowed
to complete on the job. He had sent her for one-week courses to
Tampa and Ft. Lauderdale, but she had declined an opportunity to go
to Maryland for a one-week course.
Mr. King detailed how Miss Freeman's motivation began to
decline. She informed him privately that she wanted to work at the
Federal courthouse in Ft. Pierce. He had agreed to be a reference -
for her. He recalled that 'at a prior hearing, Miss Freeman had
said, under oath, that if she was reappointed to her County
position, and a position became available at the Federal
courthouse, she would leave County employment. Over the last year,
she had applied for jobs with the Library, two secretarial
positions with the Fire Department, jobs with U. S. Wildlife
Service, and several others. Each time, she had asked him to be a
reference. He had no problem with that as long as it did not
affect her job performance.
Miss Freeman had complained privately to Mr. King, several
10
April 24, 1995
times during spring 1994, that there were other secretaries in the
department making more money in positions for which she had
applied. Mr. King had gently explained that they were hired into
a higher personnel classification, had college educations, had more
job skills, and were chosen over her. He suggested she make
herself more marketable and encouraged her to work on finishing her
two-year college degree.
Mr. King noticed that during the summer Miss Freeman's
motivation continued to decline. He caught a lot of her errors and
repeatedly had to return her work. One of the things they worked
on was the County HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials Plan). Mr. King
described how he noted revisions in red ink in the margin in the
previous edition, and asked Miss Freeman to make changes. She had
previously helped put the document together and was very familiar
with the format and she knew the necessary compliance criteria and
protocol. He discovered she reorganized the whole document into a
very unacceptable, non-standard form, and then was unable to
correct the problem. He had to give it to someone else for the
corrections. He considered that incident a gross violation, but
didn't give her any type of formal warning, simply told her she
needed to pay better attention.
As the summer wore on, Miss Freeman's work continued to
decline; he met with her several times and told her something had
to change. He asked her very good friends in the office if there
was anything at home of concern to her, and'they`s'aid they weren't
aware of anything going on in her life, but he wasn't the only one
to notice she was struggling.
Again, on September 20th, he discussed his concerns with her.
He pointed out several specific problems to her, even simple things
like putting paper in the copy machine, seeing that his
correspondence went out daily, and keeping up filing. Miss Freeman
admitted she was working- below potential, remembered being
cautioned the previous week, and reconfirmed that she would try
harder. He also gave her examples of several other things he
expected her to do over the next few months. In addition, he
encouraged Miss Freeman to spend some time reading their desktop
publishing book. He had concluded their meeting by saying that the
infractions were not individually significant, but they occurred
repeatedly, showed a trend, and something had to change.
Mr. King explained that Miss Freeman was scheduled to report
for work at 8 o'clock in the morning to answer the phone and get
the office going, before the others arrived at 8:30. Her workday
ended at 4:30 and the others stayed till 5:00.
11 ��
acoK 94 F.� � �,� 9
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 ov)F 923
The following day, September 21st, Mr. King made it a point to
be at work at 8 o'clock to greet her and let her know he wasn't
upset with Miss Freeman, the person, but with the employee who
wasn't doing her job. She was reading the newspaper and asked if
he wanted to read the newspaper. He declined, but as he was
enroute to his desk, she told him she had taken the desktop
publishing book home and believed she was entitled to 20 minutes
compensatory leave because she read it at home for 20 minutes. He
thought she joking, but she wasn't, and said she was proving a
point that her time was her time. He admitted being very agitated
but told her he would try to meet her halfway, gave her the 20
minutes, and said, in the future, compensatory time would have to
be authorized beforehand.
Towards the end of the day, he called her to his office and
pointed out that his outgoing correspondence tray had not been
emptied the prior day and it was still full. He also discussed
with her that, while he had been generous to her in the past,
coming to work 5 minutes late twice a week had to stop, because it
was causing a problem and he had to be fair to everybody. She
reminded him that when she came in 5 minutes late one day, she was
in the door at 5 minutes to 8 the next day, so it all balanced out.
He told her if she was there at 5 minutes to 8, she just happened
to be on time. From September 27th through the 30th, he and
Director Wright attended a training course in Kissimmee and called
the office at least twice a day. On the second day, Director
Wright called and learned the Administrative Secretary was
concerned about a change in policy because Miss Freeman was outside
the office the two days waiting for somebody else to come to work.
Mr. King went to the phone and asked Miss Freeman why she wasn't
where she was supposed to be; she told him she'd given her office
key to the Administrative Secretary. That didn't seem to be a big
issue because every door in the building is open at 7 o'clock,
there are several ways to get in our office, and not having an,
office key was no excuse for not being at her work station on time.
He told her to get her office key, be at work the next day, and
they would discuss it when he returned.
When Director Wright and he returned, he asked other staff
members if some office conflict had occurred and they all said that
everybody had gotten along well with the exception of Miss Freeman
not being at her assigned work station. He called Miss Freeman
into his office and tried to learn the reason for her inattention
to detail and unacceptable attitude. She said she was trying to
protect herself and had no answer when he asked her from whom. He
12
April 24, 1995
asked if he or anybody else in the office ever asked her to return
her office key and the answer was "no." He told her he couldn't
let this go, that he was going to have to do something formal about
the incident. He subsequently began the process of a written
warning.
Late in the afternoon of October 5th, he met with Personnel
Director Jack Price. On the morning of the 6th, Miss Freeman
asked for vacation leave for the following day. He told her it
wasn't much notice, but he would check schedules and advise her
later in the. day. She advised she needed the day off for an
interview with the U. S. Wildlife Service. He granted the leave.
She later called him and told him the interview had gone extremely
well and that a Mr. Cairns with the Wildlife Service would be
calling for a reference. He asked her if she was sure this is what
she wanted. She said, "I want this job." And he said, "I won't do
anything to prevent you from getting this job with the Wildlife
Service, if that's what you want."
He conferred with both Director Wright and the Personnel
Director and told them he was going to delay issuing a written
warning because Miss Freeman may be seeking other employment and he
didn't want to do anything to penalize her if that's truly what she
wanted. Mr. Cairns didn't call.
He went on to detail how Miss Freeman had called In sick in
mid-October and how, finally, he decided he would have to proceed
with the written warning because she continued to do substandard
work and require reminders.
On the morning of October 17th, while attending a meeting in
Tallahassee, Director Wright called the office to tell Mr. King his
Administrative Secretary had informed him there was a letter from
Miss Freeman charging Mr. King with harassment. Director Wright
wanted to do an impartial investigation, told Mr. King to not give
the written warning, and they would discuss it when he returned.
When Director Wright returned, he and Personnel Director Price
spoke with Miss Freeman and determined there was nothing to
constitute harassment.
Mr. King continued that Miss Freeman began to call everybody
in the office "Mr." or "Ms." and started detailing in a notebook
staff members' comings and goings.
In late October, Mr. King assigned Miss Freeman a bookshelf
project. He gave her a very explicit memo directing her to
organize the books on his bookshelf and to store duplicates. He
left to attend a training program and called her each day. She
informed him the second day that she had finished the project.
April 24, 1995 13 BOOK 94 FAI;E 924
BOOK 94 r, ru 925
When. he returned late Friday afternoon, she was reading magazines,
nothing was on her desk, and the bookshelf had not been touched.
Another written warning was generated.
On January 16th, another incident occurred concerning the
Coopers & Lybrand audit. He recalled he received a call to expect
a routine audit. He knew they would want to see the grants files,
and the advance phone call enabled the department to ensure the
files were ready for the auditor to review. On Friday, January
13th, about 4 pm, an auditor called first and then came to the
department to look at their grant paperwork. When the auditor
arrived, he asked Miss Freeman for the files, but she had put
everything that was a year or older in storage. Another problem,
Miss Freeman had made copies of one side of a duplexed document for
the file and mailed the full set to Tallahassee. In front of an
auditor, he had to explain why half the figures were missing which
was very embarrassing. After this incident, Miss Freeman received
an employee consultation.
Then Mr. King explained in detail how a stack of sensitive EMS
reports was discovered in Miss Freeman's desk drawer on January
24th which resulted in her last written warning. He investigated
and learned that Miss Freeman had accepted them and the
responsibility for their disposition. Leaving the reports
unsecured in her desk drawer was unacceptable because she knew how
to handle these documents. This incident was part of why she was
written up.
The second circumstance of the last written warning was lack
of work effort in a project involving insertion of pages in the 3 -
ring binder of the HAZMAT plan. Miss Freeman said the best she
could do was 4 to 4i binders in a day's time, yet the other people
in the office were doing one approximately every 15 or 20 minutes.
Because of her continued declining work effort, Mr. King
recommended to Director Wright that a pre -termination hearing be
scheduled; Director Wright agreed.
In conclusion, Mr. King viewed disciplinary sanctions against
an employee as a last step in the employee motivation process.
Before the formal process began, he believed he had done everything
possible to motivate Miss Freeman, had made every effort to help
her, but at some point a manager had to determine what was fair to
everyone in the office.
Attorney Stone began interrogating Mr. King, and Chairman
Macht interrupted to remind him this was not a circuit court
proceeding. Attorney Stone apologized and remarked that he merely
wished to receive direct -answers.
14
April 24, 1995
Attorney Stone queried Mr. King concerning the incidents
relating to 20 -minutes compensatory time, the return of Miss
Freeman's key, and the dates she reported late to work. In
connection with the latter, Attorney Stone introduced a piece of
new evidence, on HRS letterhead, from HRS security concerning Paula
Freeman's entry into their building on September 27th. (Clerk's
Note: It was subsequently determined that Paula Freeman is Lisa
Freeman's sister and the new evidence had no bearing on what time
Lisa reported for work in the County Administration Building. Mr.
Stone apologized, that he had in no way intended confusion, but he
had been handed the documents with no time to study them or
determine their relevancy. Attorney Collins stipulated that Paula
was at her job place at 8 o'clock.)
Attorney Stone questioned Mr. King as to when Mrs. Lopresti,
Lisa's -supervisor, began working in the department. Mr. King
believed Mrs. Lopresti came in April of 1994, but she was not
Lisa's supervisor, he was.
Attorney Stone reviewed with Mr. King Miss Freeman's
evaluations of 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, and deduced she was
improving. He further observed that Lisa had not received any
reprimands prior to Mrs. Lopresti coming. Mr. King explained how
he used evaluations as motivational tools and that Lisa's work was
not improving with time.
Mr. King denied Attorney Stone's allegation that .he. was
responsible, not Lisa, for the incorrect photocopying of the report
that surfaced during the Coopers & Lybrand audit.
Attorney Stone reviewed Lisa's duties concluding that they had
lessened from secretarial tasks to merely clerical duties after
Mrs. Lopresti had come to work for the department. Mr. King
indicated her duties had diminished due to errors and continued
need for close supervision.
Attorney Stone questioned Mr. King concerning the HAZMAT,
bookshelf, and Coopers & Lybrand incidents and implied Lisa was not
at fault, had received poor instructions or did not understand what
was expected.
Attorney Stone clarified that Lisa's charge of harassment was
misunderstood, that it was not sexual harassment, but referred not
only to Mr. King's actions, but to those of others in the office as
well.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright was the next witness
and he clarified that Mrs. Lopresti was an Emergency Management
Planner, a position funded totally by grants, and a position with
15 BOOK 9 a�
April 24, 1995
�oOK 9 9? 7
no supervisory duties.
I Director Wright highlighted information he had considered in
formulating his finding. He initially reviewed Miss Freeman's
annual evaluations where he saw suggestions for improvement in
neatness, thoroughness, prompt relay of correct information, and
attention to detail.
Director Wright found a letter of commendation in Miss
Freeman's personnel file that he wrote to Lisa for the Hurricane
Andrew recovery effort; he wrote 400 of those letters and sent them
to everyone remotely involved in the effort, most were volunteers.
Director Wright had encouraged her to take courses but she had
testified she didn't know, and had never been told, about the
County's policy that the County would pay for an employee to take
a job-related course at the Community College. Lisa stated she had
never been advised of that, did not know about it, and yet he found
documents to prove that the County had previously paid for her to
take a computer course at Indian River Community College.
It was clear to Director Wright that Lisa had not improved
with Mr. King's informal efforts. Then, in the middle of the
formal process, when she was applying for the U. S. Wildlife job
and asking Mr. King to be a reference, he got a letter from her
alleging harassment. The letter had a very detrimental effect on
other staff members, especially people who had used their time to
try to help her.
Nevertheless, after receiving that letter, Director Wright
wanted to make a thorough investigation and told Mr. King, "Don't
do anything further. This has got to be fair. If there is
something going on I don't know about, I'm going to find out and
we'll resolve it." He interviewed every office staff member and
talked to Lisa again and, in fact, could find that no harassment
had occurred. He remarked that if he complained every time
somebody looked over his shoulder, he'd never get any work done,
because certain things are expected and if we don't deliver, then
we're probably not going to be here very long.
He also considered why Lisa would want to return to an office
where she felt people manufactured evidence and harassed her; he
really couldn't answer that question. It was clear to him that Mr.
King had sincerely tried to rehabilitate her over the past several
months, but was unsuccessful, and there was absolutely no reason to
think she would do any better in the future.
Director Wright regretted having had to take this action, but
supervisors are charged .with carrying out the mission assigned
16
April 24, 1995
them. Unfortunately, sometimes they have to terminate an employee.
The County Administrator's Policy clearly states rules and
regulations regarding employee conduct and behavior which are
necessary for the efficient operation of the County and for the
benefit and safety of all employees. As department head, he had
determined that Lisa had committed the Group II offenses and asked
the Board to uphold Administrator Chandler's finding that her
termination was justified.
By CONSENSUS, not wishing to prolong the hearing, the Board
accepted the written determination of Administrator Chandler.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Strut, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
March 20, 1995
Lisa Freeman
11465 Old Dixie Highway
Sebastian, FL 32958
Dear Ms. Freeman:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
The following is my determination, as a result of the March 16, 1995
administrative hearing of your appeal ( Exhibit 1) of your termination of
employment from Emergency Management ( Exhibit 11) . This decision was arrived
at based on my consideration of the substantial testimony and evidence presented
at the hearing.
The information presented regarding the various incidents and
circumstances were considered individually by me in order to arrive at a total
understanding of this matter. Prior to the Fall of 1994 your performance
appeared to be generally satisfactory to the Department, although various areas
requiring improvement were noted at different times. According to your
immediate supervisor, John King, he attempted to resolve the areas requiring
improvement through informal discussions and meetings with you at various
times. However, in his opinion, there was not sufficient improvement to the
extent a formal consultation meeting was necessary on September 20, 1994.
According to the information presented at the hearing, you indicated at the
September 20, 1994 meeting that your work performance was below your potential
and you would improve.
Predicated on the hearing information presented, when considering the
events subsequent to the September 20 meeting in their totality, in my opinion
rather than responding positively with an aggressive attitude to improve, you
seemed to have reacted negatively or defensively. As a result, as time
progressed, rather than an improvement in performance there was a deterioration
and with that an erosion of the office working relationships. Throughout this
time, it appears every opportunity was extended to you to correct the situation,
but that did not occur.
17 BOOK 9
PA'; F 92
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 "PA F. ���
.Based on the
preceding, it is my opinion the
Department followed
the
proper procedures,
as prescribed in the Administrative Policy Manual, and
that
your termination was justified. As a result, I
deny your appeal
for
re -instatement. In
accordance with Section AM 807.1
( page 5 ) my decision
may
be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
Very truly yours,
/1a
tes E. Chandler
County Administrator
. Attorney Stone advised that his only witness would be Lisa
Freeman and he would take her through each of the allegations.
Attorney Stone first asked Lisa if she remembered when Mrs.
Lopresti came to work as the Planner, if her work atmosphere
changed, and if her relationship to Mr. King changed when that
happened. Lisa replied that Mrs. Lopresti started as a Planner in
April or May, 1994. She characterized her earlier working
relationship with Mr. King as very close and candid. She claimed
he had never had a secretary before that he could depend on and for
4 years they had built trust and a good relationship. She recalled
that after Mrs. Lopresti came everything was normal over the course
of the summer, at least she thought it was, and she still had a
good working relationship with Mr. King and could go to him and
they could resolve any problems.
Attorney Stone asked her about her meeting with Mr. King on
September 20th and if she remembered the basis of that meeting.
Lisa recalled that Mr. King was disappointed because she was not
living up to his expectations and he said things were "going
downhill in the office. 11 She had asked him how and he really
couldn't point out anything of a serious nature. He wanted the
laser printer stocked up more than once a day and his outgoing box
emptied more than twice a day. Other than that, she reported he*
couldn't state anything else specifically, so she told him she
would try to improve. She recalled he tried to imply personal
problems, which, she told him, "had nothing to do with the office.
And that case was closed right there." Mr. King wrote her up again
the following day because she had not emptied out his outgoing box
more than once. Ever since that day, she emptied out his box every
hour on the hour, and made sure that the copier and the laser were
filled up, between three and four times a day as he requested.
Attorney Stone asked if Mrs. Lopresti had changed Lisa's
duties by doing most of the secretarial work herself, making Lisa
18
April 24, 1995
more of an office girl who filled up machines, emptied boxes, and
things of that nature. He added that Mrs. Lopresti had testified
to that at the last hearing because that's basically what she
thought Lisa's job was. Lisa concurred with his statements.
Attorney Stone asked Lisa to tell the Commission why she felt
it was necessary to ask for 20 minutes compensatory time after
reading a book at home to improve her skills. Lisa explained that
the week before Mr. King had suggested it, Mrs. Lopresti had told
her that she wanted her to take the book home over the weekend and
read it. Lisa had explained to Mrs. Lopresti that she had a 5 -
chapter test coming up at IRCC and "there was no way that I could
take the book home that weekend; any other time I would be glad to
take it home and study it on my personal time." But, Mrs. Lopresti
insisted that she take it home, and Lisa insisted she had to study
for her test, a more important use of her personal time. She
didn't take the book home that weekend. That Monday, Mr. King
asked her to please take the book home and read it "to appease Mrs.
Lopresti and keep her off of his back." So, she took the book home
that night and read it for 20 minutes and the next morning informed
.Mr. King. She thought she asked him if that would constitute 20
minutes compensatory time and he said, "Do'ybu want it to be?" And
she said, "Yes, I do." She recalled she was not belligerent, was
not angry with him, but was rather cordial with him.
Attorney Stone inquired if she had taken books and materials
home to read in the past, and Lisa responded she read them in the
office when she had free time.
Attorney Stone set the scene and asked Lisa to relate why she
returned her office key. Lisa explained that she not only turned
in her office key, but also turned in her computer disk key because
she felt that Mrs. Albin and Mrs. Lopresti watched over her
shoulder "in 20 -minute increments for a 5 -day period for 7? hours
a day." They were constantly asking her what she was doing. So,
she turned in her office key, because she felt they were harassing
her. After turning in her key to Mrs. Albin, Lisa informed her
that she would be unable to gain access to the office the next
morning unless Mrs. Albin was there to let her in. Mrs. Albin
acknowledged this and was not there at 8 o'clock. Lisa stated that
she arrived at 7:40 in the morning, and Mr. Wright let her in at
7:45. The following day, she was there at 7:55 and Mrs. Snoberger
let her in at 8:07.
Attorney Stone asked if there was any other way she could have
gotten into the building, and Lisa responded that "there were
plenty. of other accesses to get into the office building, but I
19 Boa . 94
p rr
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 mu 931
chose not to go through them ... because I felt that they were
going to try to sabotage me in some way. So, I felt that by going
through another access in the County building, would just be
affording that opportunity to them, so I chose not to go that way."
Attorney Stone asked Lisa what led her to feel/believe that
she might be sabotaged, and Lisa claimed it was because they were
constantly worried about the computer, watched over her for 20 -
minute periods of time, constantly asked what she was doing, and
were worried about the file server room. She felt she had to
protect herself, because of the unwarranted actions on their part.
Attorney Stone asked Lisa if she had been asked prior to that
time to look for another job and she replied in the affirmative.
She believed it was on September 21st that Mr. King said that he
"wanted her to take quick action in securing another job. He told
me that nobody wanted to work with me and that nobody wanted me
there." Attorney Stone surmised it was after that others began
watching her and various things happened.
Attorney Stone continued and asked Lisa about her letter to
Mr. Wright alleging harassment. She believed that the request by
Mr. King to take quick action to secure another job and the
micromanaging actions of others constituted harassment.
The next incident Attorney Stone covered with Lisa was
concerning the bookshelf. Lisa testified that her initial
understanding of the task was to write down all the books on the
shelves so that she could put them into a catalog of some sort,
which she assumed to be on the computer, and put them in
alphabetical order. Mr. King had given her the written
instructions on his way out the door and his only statement to her
was that "if she did not f inish it, he would f ire her. " She did the
best she could, but when he later told her how he wanted it
arranged, she proceeded to do it on the computer before actually
doing it on the shelves. once she finished the computer copy, she
physically removed the books, put them into categories in -
alphabetical order, removed the duplicates and boxed them for
storage.
Next, Attorney Stone reviewed with Lisa her understanding of
the policy on shredding EMS reports and the key that was looked for
in her desk the day the EMS reports were located in her desk
drawer. Lisa responded that the EMS reports are confidential in
nature and were to be protected from those who do not work in the
department. She was not aware of a key. She had not shredded the
reports in her desk drawer because two weeks prior, Mrs. Snoberger
had thrust them at her when she was in the middle of working on the
20
April 24, 1995
� s r
HAZMAT plan with Mrs. Lopresti. The HAZMAT project was a priority
project and took preference over shredding the EMS reports. After
shredding half the reports, she left the remaining reports in her
desk with the intention of shredding them when she had free time.
When Mrs. Snoberger returned from vacation, Lisa informed her that
she had shredded half the reports and the rest were awaiting her
attention. Mrs. Snoberger said she did not want them back.
Attorney Stone asked if the key to the door to the entrance of
the Utility Department was kept in her desk and Lisa advised that
it was.
Attorney Stone reviewed the incident concerning the Coopers &
Lybrand audit. Lisa specifically recalled that Mr. King made
copies of the duplexed report and later had her mail out the
original. A few months later, the copied report was retrieved from
the file for the Coopers & Lybrand auditor and it was discovered
that only one side of the document had been photocopied.
Attorney Stone reviewed the HAZMAT plan. Lisa disavowed ever
doing any typing on the document and testified that she removed the
pass code and transferred it, as requested by Mrs. Lopresti. In
response to the direct question by Attorney Stone, "Did you go in
and remove the decimals and put annexes in?", Lisa responded, "I
never worked on the '94-195 document.#'
Attorney Stone asked if there were any other incidents,
allegations, concerning her.work product or working relationship
that she felt should be brought to the attention of the Board.
Lisa recounted another incident that constituted harassment she
characterized as a "mocking scene" between Mrs. Lopresti and Mr.
Judge that involved a telephone message. Lisa also reported a
couple of incidents after she was terminated, one was an
impersonation of her in an attempt to gain access to her IRCC
records. Another incident involved a female who identified herself
as being with First Union who called Lisa's part-time employer. A
third instance was an EMS employee, Roger Jones, who implied at the
last meeting before Mr. Chandler that she had stated to him that
her harassment allegations were for sexual harassment. Lisa stated
that such a conversation never occurred.
Attorney Stone asked if she was making any claim of sexual
harassment by anyone and Lisa confirmed that she made no
allegations of sexual harassment.
In conclusion, Miss Freeman asked to be reinstated back to
Indian River Board of County Commissioners, with an increase in
pay, accrual of back pay, accrual of vacation time, and accrual of
2f BOOK 94 P},� F 9:3
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 FA�F 93
sick time. Her second request was, if reinstated to the Department
of Emergency Services, that her pager and office key be returned
with a written receipt. Her third request was to be assigned to a
different Indian River County department. Her fourth request was,
if reinstated to the Department of Emergency Services, to be
assigned a County Commissioner to speak with privately if there
should be any problems that needed to be resolved about the
Department of Emergency Services. Finally, she requested attorney
fees and a return date of Monday, May 1, 1995.
Deputy County Attorney Collins commenced questioning Miss
Freeman concerning her comment about the "implied" statement of
Roger Jones concerning sexual harassment. He asked if it wasn't
true that Roger Jones had made a 'sworn affidavit and presented oral
testimony that she had charged John King with sexual harassment,
that it was not "implied," but that he had flatly stated in a sworn
affidavit and under oath before Mr. Chandler that she had accused
John King of sexual harassment. Lisa replied, "I stand corrected
on that, he did make a sworn affidavit, but it was a lie."
Attorney Collins questioned Miss Freeman at great length on
the matter of the Hazardous Materials Plan in order to determine
how the document was changed by someone else, as she claimed she
did not change it, when she was the one who had the pass code for
it.
Attorney Collins asked Miss Freeman about her testimony that
Mrs. Lopresti was after her to study the desktop publishing book
and whether Mrs. Lopresti was her supervisor. Miss Freeman
insisted she was, yet Mr. King and Director Wright had testified
she was not.
Attorney Collins suggested to Miss Freeman that the reason she
decided to turn in her key was because she felt she was going to be
accused of sabotage if she was there before anyone else and that
had occurred within one week of her first formal warning from Mr. -
King. She agreed. Attorney Collins wondered why she didn't
attempt to take any corrective action that first week, but
immediately went on the defensive and thought that everybody was
out to get her. Miss Freeman's response was that Mr. King was
close-minded.
Regarding reorganizing the bookshelf, Attorney Collins asked
Miss Freeman if she was aware of any difference between cataloguing
and reorganizing. Miss Freeman defined both words. He remarked
that she didn't do what Mr. King's memo said, "catalog and
reorganize." _
22
April 24, 1995
Commissioner Bird asked the approximate date she started
applying outside for positions. Miss Freeman responded that she
had always applied for them since being employed with Indian River
County, and not just the six months in question.
Attorney Collins asked Mr. King if he said to "appease Mrs.
Lopresti?" Mr. King said he did not. Attorney Collins asked Mr.
King if he said Miss Freeman "would be fired." Mr. King responded
he couldn't do that because Personnel regulations don't allow it,
and he wouldn't make a comment like that.
Deputy County Attorney Collins summed up and asked the Board
to uphold Mr. Chandler's determination that Mr. Wright was proper
in terminating Lisa Freeman's employment.
Attorney Stone summed up on various points stating that all
problems began when Mrs. Lopresti came to work for the Department
of Emergency Services. He requested that Lisa be reinstated to
County employment on whatever grounds they wanted.
Attorney Vitunac instructed the Board on the standards for
their decision.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to deny the
appeal and uphold Mr. Chandler's determination
for termination.
Commissioner Adams addressed Lisa Freeman saying she has
always found her to be a very courteous and likeable person,
however, it would be very difficult for her to go back. She felt
it was unfortunate things got to this point and wished her the
best.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
23 B®OK 94 Ft:f.t 934 _
April 24, 1995
J
The hearing concluded at 11:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. . Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved on tO - (o - ?t5 -
24
April 24, 1995
BOOK 94 PAGE9 35
Lew
enneth R. Ifacht, Chairman