2015-03-18 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board March 18, 2015 In order to prepare for the hearing or the trial portion of the case on the merits, the Board would need to look at those documents that may not yet been produced. So, we would need a continuance to the following month or whenever the Board could meet. On the other hand, the counsels may decide to go forward with the hearing on April 15, in which case he'll be prepared to advise the Board. This would depend on how the respective counsels look at their case and whether they are prepared to move forward or not. Mr. Patel stated, as a practical matter, that this will be Chair Kuewa's last meeting. Ideally, the Board would want to have all Board Members in place before getting into the substance of this. And assuming that someone else would be appointed to replace Chair Kuewa, it would give the Board and the replacement time to get up to speed. Mr. White added that Ms. Rabago's term expires in December of this year. Chair Kuewa followed-up on what Ms. Rabago stated concerning what's to prevent other appellants coming forward and asking for the same type of stipulation. Was there some flexibility in the employer's requirement that all appellants be in attendance? Normally, if the attorney's representative is present, that would be sufficient. Why would it be necessary for the appellants to be present for the hearings? Chair Kuewa asked Mr. Patel if he could comment. Mr. Patel replied that he'll defer to Mr. White because, technically, he represents the Office of the Corporation Counsel, which is a party. He mentioned that if the parties stipulate, then there's an agreement to go that route, and with that agreement the Board could properly rest their decision on that agreement. Mr. White stated he discussed with both counsels the issue of reconsolidation of the 14 cases. On April 15, if the Board decides only on the preliminary issue of discovery and how much of the documents requested are going to be produced, and the trial portion is not heard on that day—both counsels would be agreeable to re -discussing the reconsolidation of all 14 cases again. It would need to be a mutually convenient day for the Board, counsels, appellants, and himself. Mr. White said that from speaking with the counsels, their preference is to get the 14 appellants together. He didn't detect any discord among the 14 appellants that they'd want to do separate hearings (i.e. holding 11 hearings instead of one). Efficiency and economy need to be considered. Given this situation, he doesn't have any problem with recommending the stipulation be signed by the Board's Chair or Vice -Chair. Page 5