My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-09-21 Merit Appeals Board Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Human Resources
>
Merit Appeals Board
>
Minutes
>
2010
>
2010-09-21 Merit Appeals Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2012 3:38:43 PM
Creation date
6/16/2011 12:15:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. White noted that the issue is framed as "any civil service laws, rules, <br />regulations violated by the employer in the nonselection of the Appellant for a <br />position with the Planning Department." He asked Ms. Noda what her position <br />is on that, given what the statute says, as it appears that the statement of the <br />issues places some burden on the employer to show that he or she did not violate <br />rules, regulations, or statutes. <br />Ms. Noda responded that that is the framing of the issue that the Board <br />presented to narrow and focus this hearing; however, the initial burden is on the <br />Appellant, and the County should not have to be defending against nothing. <br />MOTION: Mr. Rowe moved to convene into an executive session to <br />consult with counsel. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair <br />Yoshiyama and unanimously carried. <br />The Board convened into an executive session at 10:48 a.m. and <br />reconvened at 10:52 a.m. <br />MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to deny the County's motion to dismiss. <br />The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Yoshiyama and <br />unanimously carried. <br />Chair Robinson stated that the Board will proceed with the hearing. He <br />noted that the Appellant was not present, and the Appellant did receive notice of <br />the hearing. The Appellant was asked to provide information for this hearing <br />and none has been received. <br />Ms. Noda stated the following in presenting her case: <br />As an offer of proof, the County would move into evidence all County <br />Exhibits A -G. Exhibit A is the recruitment advertisement for the Planning <br />Program Director. Exhibit B is the position description for the Planning <br />Program Director; Exhibit C a letter from the Planning Department dated <br />June 21, 2010, from Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, and actually <br />signed by Margaret Masunaga, to the Appellant Todd Zeiller explaining the <br />recruitment process for the County and what the Planning Department had <br />done. Exhibit D is the application for Todd Zeiller. Exhibit E is the application <br />for Garrett Edward Smith who was the person selected to fill the Program <br />Manager for administrative permits. Exhibit F is the application for April <br />Suprenant who was the person selected for the Program Manager position for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.