Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-12 CITY OF EULESS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION March 12, 1997 MINUTES The City of Euless Civil Service Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 12, 1997, at 4:05 p.m. by Chairman Marland Ernest. Commission Members Present Marland Ernest Willie Mae McCormick Nell Hicks Albert Simmenroth, Alternate Staff Members Present Tom Hart, City Manager Randy Byers, Director of Public Works Clyde Cullum, Public Works Superintendent Paul Wrzesinski, Water Utilities Superintendent W. Scott Axton, Police Officer Tom Cox, Director of Support Services Ruth Alley, Personnel Manager Anniece McKanna, Personnel Technician/Civil Service Secretary Paul Wieneskie, Assistant City Attorney Others Present Tommy Powell Rebecca Powell The invocation was given by Chairman Ernest. Mr. Ernest asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the Civil Service Commission's meeting of March 5, 1997. Mrs. McCormick made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mrs. Hicks seconded the motion. Ayes: Ernest, McCormick, Hicks Nays: None Chairman Ernest declared the motion carried. City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 2 Chairman Ernest asked Mr. Wieneskie to summarize the proceedings. Mr. Wieneskie indicated that the Civil Service Commission at their meeting on March 5, 1997, had determined that Mr. Powell had a valid appeal of his disciplinary termination and warranted an appeal. Mr. Powell has appealed according to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Questions could be raised at any time by the Commissioners. At the hearing today, Mr. Powell would make his presentation and then the City would present their reasons as to the justification for the termination and would present any relevant evidence on which they based that determination. The Commission would then be given the opportunity to ask questions so they can make a decision. The purpose of the hearing is to give Mr. Powell due process rights and to provide the Civil Service Commission all the information necessary to render an informed decision. Mr. Wieneskie cited Chapter 11, Section F, Paragraph 5 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations dealing with the appeal process. Mr. Powell thanked the Commission for granting the hearing and apologized for taking their time. He discussed the events and denied that he was intoxicated. He indicated that he was in possession of marijuana and paraphernalia at the time of the incident at Showplace Lanes. He mentioned that he had been having personal problems over the past several months, but that he did not condone the behavior which lead to his dismissal and such behavior would not happen again. Mr. Powell mentioned that he was a good employee with a good performance record, and even volunteered to assist at City functions. He further indicated that he had never been on drugs or alcohol while on duty. This event was an isolated incident and that he and his wife are working out their problems. He explained that a recent incident involving damage to a City vehicle had occurred and that he had volunteered for drug testing. He noted that he has never received a reprimand from his City supervisors and has never been terminated or fired from previous jobs. Mr. Powell discussed the night of the event and stated that he had explained to the officers that it would not happen again. He took their advice to pay the fine. He offered no excuse for his actions and asked for reinstatement. He did not ask for anyone to stand up for him at today's hearing. Chairman Ernest complimented Mr. Powell on his presentation. Chairman Ernest asked if Mr. Powell was on duty at the time of the incident. Mr. Powell indicated he was off duty and that he has never been intoxicated or under the influence while on duty. Mrs. McCormick indicated that his performance evaluations were good and inquired as to the reason for the change in supervisors. City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Powell noted that Paul Wrzesinski had been his immediate supervisor but had been promoted. Mrs. McCormick asked if Mr. Powell had been involved in any disturbance at the scene. She further asked if he made a habit of patronizing such businesses where the most important money coming in is from drinks. She also asked if he ever drank off-duty and came to work with a hangover. Mr. Powell stated he had not been involved in any disturbance. He indicated that he had visited such businesses a half a dozen times, but does not make it a habit to go out and drink on a heavy basis. He mentioned that he had never come to work drunk, but had come in not feeling up to par. Mr. Ernest thanked Mr. Powell for his presentation and asked for the City representative to speak. He mentioned that the Commission might have questions for Mr. Powell later in the meeting. Mr. Tom Cox, Director of Support Services and supervisor for Personnel, began his presentation by stating that no termination is taken lightly. There are a lot of remedies the City has besides terminating an employee. In the beginning, he met with Randy Byers and Ruth Alley and discussed the situation and reviewed the policies. They talked with Police Chief Gary McKamie and City Manager Tom Hart. They determined that they made the right decision to terminate. Mr. Cox mentioned that two police officers have given statements indicating there was public intoxication, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. Those items are in evidence in the Police Department. Mr. Powell failed to mention that he called in sick that day, yet he was well enough to go to the bowling alley that evening and get in trouble with the Police. Even though Mr. Powell lost his job, the consequences could have been much worse if the police officer had booked him on a possessions charge. Mr. Cox agreed that Mr. Powell did make a mistake but disagreed that he belonged at the City. He felt that Mr. Powell violated City policy. Because the City does not condone drug use and has a zero-tolerance for drug use, the City is afraid that a negative message will be sent out if Mr. Powell is reinstated. The City asked the Commission to uphold the decision. Mr. Hart expressed that they had agonized over the decision and takes terminations very seriously. In previous conversations with Mr. Powell and other persons over this situation, Mr. Hart indicated that many people occasionally take a detour in life. The lucky persons realize they are on the wrong road and get their life back on track. From what he has heard today, he feels that Mr. Powell is such a person. Mr. Hart has not lost respect for Mr. Powell, but he feels sorry for Mr. Powell and his mistake. He reiterated Mr. Cox's comments about the City's zero-tolerance for drug and alcohol abuse. He mentioned that the City is responsible for operating many forms of equipment and performing many functions and does not need impaired employees. Mr. Hart is pleased that Mr. Powell is resolving his problems; however, the decision Mr. Powell made cost him his job. Mr. Powell should be grateful the officers did not file drug charges. Seeking new employment would be difficult with a drug charge on your record. This is still a fileable charge for two years, and the evidence is on file. The City does not desire to hurt or City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 4 crucify the employee. We think he is paying his price -- receiving a citation for public intoxication and losing his job. The statement the City is making is that we will not tolerate drug abuse or alcohol impairment. Mr. Hart thanked the Commission for their time and for hearing the facts in order to make an informed decision on this case. Chairman Ernest asked to hear testimony from the arresting officer in order to clarify items. Officer Scott Axton described the events involved on the night of the incident (January 21, 1997). He indicated that the City of Euless provides off-duty, uniformed security at Showplace Lanes. Lt. Steve Eskew was the off-duty officer that night. Lt. Eskew saw, recognized, and spoke to Mr. Powell as they were passing each other -- Mr. Powell was going out, and Lt. Eskew was going in. When Lt. Eskew returned to the parking lot, he noticed Mr. Powell sitting in a truck. When Lt. Eskew approached the truck and noticed Mr. Powell was smoking what appeared to be marijuana and a smoking pipe. Per policy, Lt. Eskew called for an on-duty officer to report to the scene. When Officer Axton arrived, Mr. Powell was out of the truck. Lt. Eskew possessed the smoking pipe and the partially burnt marijuana joint. Upon searching the truck, Officer Axton noticed a Marlboro cigarette pack on the seat stuffed with a clear plastic bag filled with 2.59 grams of marijuana (enough to make one more cigarette). Also in the pack were three burnt marijuana roaches (joints which have been smoked as far as could be smoked -- one was still slightly warm). He also found zigzag rolling papers used to wrap marijuana in order to smoke. There being no other form of tobacco found in the truck, he assumed the papers were for the purpose of smoking marijuana. Lt. Eskew spoke with Officer Axton privately and indicated that Mr. Powell was a City employee at which time a decision-making process began. They did not want Mr. Powell to lose his job; however, this was an arrestable and serious offense. Since Mr. Powell was a City employee, they wanted to assess a severe enough penalty to make him aware this was a serious event. Officer Axton described Mr. Powell as being intoxicated: smelling of marijuana, eyes were extremely bloodshot, had difficulty maintaining his balance while standing still (swaying), slurred speech, and had delayed reactions to verbal responses to police questions. The items were seized as evidence and logged into the Euless Police Property Room. Mr. Powell was cited for public intoxication, which was the least charge. The most severe punishment could have been listed as a Class B County Offense of possession of marijuana, which is up to a year in jail. Mr. Powell could have additionally been charged with possession of drug paraphernalia which is a City charge. Because he was a City employee, the officer wanted to punish him for his act but not attach a drug charge to his record. According to policy, upon arrival at the police station, Officer Axton contacted his supervisor. Per law, Mr. Powell was released to an unidentified, sober female adult. In order to clarify the actions and events, Officer Axton responded to Chairman Ernest's inquiry as to writing and issuing a citation, and an explanation as to the hiring status of the officers involved. Officer Axton indicated that after issuing the citation, all parties left. He added that he was on-duty; Lt. Eskew was off-duty and was wearing his Euless Police uniform, but was employed by the bowling alley at the time. City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 5 Mrs. McCormick asked if the police had responded to any other call to the bowling alley that night specifically involving Mr. Powell. Officer Axton responded that he was not aware of any other call. Chairman Ernest asked if Mr. Powell recognized Lt. Eskew and as to how the two encountered each other that night. Officer Axton indicated that they recognized each other on a personal level -- not a police level. He noted that Lt. Eskew was coming to work at Showplace Lanes and was on his way to punch the timeclock. The duties of the off-duty officer are to patrol the parking lot (due to numerous vehicle burglaries) and to protect anything in the parking lot. Anytime a person is observed in a vehicle for a period of time, inference may be made that the person is in process of burglarizing and the officer investigates the situation. Officer Axton mentioned that he also works off-duty for the bowling alley. Chairman Ernest expressed gratitude to Officer Axton for his testimony. Since this was a public hearing, Chairman Ernest solicited comments from any other persons. Mr. Cox stated that he had an affidavit from by Lt. Eskew which differs only slightly from Officer Axton's testimony. The Commissioners expressed interest in viewing the affidavit. (Mrs. Alley presented each Commissioner with a copy of the narrative.) Chairman Ernest remarked that they had some items in their packets and wanted to know if those documents and affidavits were contents of Mr. Powell's personnel file. Mr. Cox indicated that it was. Ms. McCormick asked about the Substance Abuse program and the success rate. Mr. Cox noted the confidentiality involved when an employee enters the program. He remarked that the program is no different from professional athletics, but the employee should enter the program prior to any offense. Paul Wieneskie asked about required enrollment into the program after an employee breaks the rules. Mr. Cox stated if the employee is still on payroll, the City can require the employee (unless they are employed in Police of Fire) to enter the program. There will be random drug testing for a specified period of time. The program is also made available to the employee after they have terminated. Mr. Wieneskie asked if the required enrollment is a condition of further employment with the City. City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 6 Mrs. Hicks asked who pays for using the program. Mr. Hart indicated persons can utilize the employee assistance program -- some visits are free. At some point, the person may be required to pay. He mentioned that the program is there for marital and other problems. Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Ernest stated that the Commission would be going into closed session. He further requested all parties who gave testimony or who think they may have testimony to give later should remain close by. The open session recessed at 4:59 p.m., and the closed session convened. At 5:53 p.m., Chairman Ernest adjourned the closed session and reconvened the open session. He expressed the seriousness of the offense, evaluated the evidence presented, and grieved over the decision. The Commission supports the policy for zero-tolerance of substance abuse. Commissioner Ernest requested for a motion regarding this hearing. Mrs. McCormick made the motion to reinstate Mr. Powell to his previous position with back pay, except the first 30 calendar days of unemployment will be counted as suspension without pay. He will also be required to enroll in the City's Employee Assistance Program for a minimum of six months with random drug tests. Further, he will be placed on probation for a period of one year starting March 12. Mrs. Hicks seconded the motion. Mr. Ernest asked for any discussion or additional comments. Mrs. McCormick commented that Mr. Powell is an ambassador for the City. Whatever he says or does will reflect on the City. It is his responsibility to determine if his actions are for the good of the City and if it will be good for him. She further commented that Mr. Powell's work record was instrumental in the Commission's hearing of his grievance. She acknowledged his good work record and encouraged him to keep up the good work. Mrs. Hicks commented that this is the most severe penalty that the City is authorized to give short of termination. Mr. Ernest stated that the Commission made their decision based on the evidence. Regardless of the vote, it will not change the policy or the attitude toward it. The significance was what should be the penalty of this case. Ayes: Ernest, McCormick, Hicks Nays: None Chairman Ernest declared the motion carried. City of Euless Civil Service Commission Hearing - March 12, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Ernest asked to hear the motion again; the secretary requested the motion be repeated for clarification. Mr. Wieneskie stated that today's decision would be noted in Mr. Powell's personnel records. He would be required to enroll in the City's Employee Assistance Program for a minimum of six months or whatever the guidelines of that program require. Mr. Ernest indicated that the participation would be either the minimum requirement of the program, or six months, whichever is greater. Mr. Wieneskie further mentioned that Mr. Powell would participate in random drug testing during that period as permitted under the guidelines of the Employee Assistance Program. Mr. Powell would be placed on one-year probation beginning today. Mr. Hart indicated that he would need legal interpretation on the treatment/counseling as stipulated in the Employee Assistance Program. According to policy, Mr. Hart remarked that he will determine if he will accept the Commission's decision or appeal to the City Council. He asked for clarification as to the status of Mr. Powell's employment and expressed his concern regarding random drug testing. He suggested there be a regular testing schedule. Mr. Wieneskie commented that Mr. Powell could be placed on paid administrative leave until Mr. Hart decides whether or not to appeal. He further indicated that random testing would be better because Mr. Powell would not know when testing would occur. If the conditions and terms of the motion supersede in a conflicting way with the provisions in the existing City policy, we could probably work around it. Mr. Ernest specified that either party has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council within ten business days from the date of the written decision which will be tomorrow. The appeal must be filed with the City Secretary. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m. Marland Ernest, Chairman z727,/Pic, /C2/ C q" 7 Dat