2024-07-15 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board July 15, 2024 The County's position that was more for the sake of argument but there is a distinction between action and notice. Even so, entertaining the Appellant's arguments, the County's position is that sufficient notice was granted. The beginning date of that was the email from Human Resources to Mr. Turner on March 20'h indicating that the recruitment had been cancelled. Subsequent actions within the Appellant's own declaration attached to his opposition, indicate that he was also aware of some actions prior to the April 15'h date that he argues was his notice date. That'll be the discussions between his immediate supervisor, the Director of Public Works— MR. WISEMAN: I'd like to interrupt. I have a question on the recruitment issue. MR. LEE: Sure. MR. WISEMAN: He was beyond recruitment, wasn't he? MR. LEE: I did read that in the Appellant's yes. MR. WISEMAN: Wasn't he on probation with MR. LEE: So, that would be MR. WISEMAN: getting two letters of approval of his probationary (inaudible). MR. LEE: So, the—he would be under examination `cause he was on probation and there are relevant rules MR. WISEMAN: But the recruitment is determinative of the time the statutory time (inaudible) isn't it? CHR. CABANAS: Can I interject for a moment as the Chair. Mr. Thomason, I don't want to are we—without going into the merits of the case, are we allowed to ask those questions as Board members? Because our focus right now is on the motion to dismiss. MR. WISEMAN: But my question was on the motion to dismiss CHR. CABANAS: Correct. MR. WISEMAN: this is the basis of the opposition in the ground level of the motion. CHR. CABANAS: Right. But it's leading into recruitment and the definition of recruitment versus other—and probation—so I just want to get legal advice from Mr. Thomason. MR. THOMASON: I think this is broad enough to encompass this (inaudible) questions. Page 20