2024-07-15 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board CHR. CABANAS: Okay, thank you. MR. THOMASON: It's a mixture. We got a mixture of stuff going on. So, let's CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Mr. Wiseman. MR. THOMASON: Err on the side of allowing questions (inaudible). MR. WISEMAN: I'm through. I asked my question. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Please proceed. July 15, 2024 MR. LEE: Thank you. So, it's the County's position that two actions occurred on—with regards to Mr. Turner's employment. There was a cancellation of recruitment, which the Appellant has focused his arguments on. But there was also the voiding of the appointment—both of which happened concurrently. Technically, the Appellant is correct. The recruitment ended once Mr. Turner was appointed. But upon the voiding of Mr. Turner's appointment, technically, the appointing body that would be the Director of Public Works—could go back to the eligible list and choose from that eligible list. So, the recruitment is technically ended when an employee is appointed and probationary (inaudible), it continues on. CHR. CABANAS: Mr. Lee, can you speak closer to the mic. so we can—'cause it's being recorded. Thank you. MR. LEE: So, the County's position is that—yes, the active recruitment is over during the probationary period, but when that probation period—either the candidate doesn't work out or it's voided or whatever the rules do allow for the appointing parry to go back to list of eligibles. However, given the situation of this case where the minimum qualifications wasn't able to determine whether either candidate was appropriate, then the recruitment would be cancelled. So MR. WISEMAN: But wasn't this—wasn't the catalyst to this decision based on the only other applicant for the position who made some derogatory comments about his qualifications? And that, sort of, was the catalyst for rolling it along? MR. LEE: Yes and no. I mean, there was an internal complaint that was filed MR. WISEMAN: Which was unfounded. Page 21