Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-07 (Special) Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO May 7, 1980 'nle City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session at 6:10 p.m. on May 7, 1980. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. 'nle invocation was fiven by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was ed by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Hifday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot s. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Employee Relations BeVirt Director of Finance/ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer Higbee Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the meeting was to con- sider a bill for an ordinance on first reading concerning a hear- ing officer for the Board of Career Service Conmissioners. Mayor Otis asked the City Attorney to explain the bill. City Attorney Berardini stated the bill authorized the I appointment of hearing officer by the Board of Career Service Com- missioner• and defined the duties of the officer. The bill was to be conaidered an emergency meaaure meaning the bill must re- ceive unanimous vote from the entire Council to be passed as an emergency meaaure and take effect innediately. Any descenting vote by any member would negate the emergency measure and the bill would then proceed as a normal bill and take effect thirty days after final passage and publication. May 7, 1980 Page 2 Mr. Berardini stated Council had received a request from the Career Service Board that some of its duties and re- sponsibilities had become burdensome and complicated in con- sidering matters dealing with labor relations and disciplinary matters. The Board had asked Council to consider an ordinance authorizing a hearing officer in order _that the efficiency of the Board be enhanced and the duties be performed in a more orderly and prompt fashion. Mr. Berardini stated the bill for an ordinance for review at this meeting was the second draft. The first one being considered at the meeting of May 5, 1980. Mr. Berardini stated the bill had been reviewed by the Director of Employee Relations, Mr. Goodman (legal counsel for the Board), and the City Manager but that he had not talked with the employee associations or their attorney. Mr. Berardini stated the bill proposed to create an appointed officer to sit in on cases involving three specific instances, i.e. dismissal, demotion or suspension of any tenured employee in the Career Service. Mr. Berardini explained the terms of the bill and the proposed amendments suggested by Mr. Goodman. Council Member Keena asked for clarification of 5-3-13 (e) (8) and (9). Ms. Keena stated (8) appeared to negate (9) in that the Board would not be able to modify or reverse the find- ings of the officer unless it found the hearing officer's find- ings to be contrary to law or unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Berardini stated the intent of the two sections was not to bind the Board to the recoDlllendations of the hearing officer. The Board had the discretion to affirm, modify or re- verse the officer's findings and reco11111endations. Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this matter. Kobert Dill, 700 East Speer Boulevard, Denver, appeared before Council. Mr. Dill stated he was appear- ing on behalf of the Englewood Firefighters Association for the purpose of objecting to the passage of the bill. Mr. Dill stated the bill contravened with a provision in the memorandum of understanding which called for the mutual agreement on the appointment of a hearing officer. Mr. Dill contended the hearing officer would basically decide the case and anythinf he would do would be affirmed by the Board unless there was c early an abuse of discretion or arbituary or capri- cious conduct. May 7, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Dill argued a credible witness may give testimony and re- ceive little or no weight by the hearing officer. Mr. Dill stated there may a conatitutionality issue with this legislation I since the preaent ordinances already provide that the Board had the authority to make decisions concerning disciplinary actions, suspenaions and diamiasals. Mr. Dill stated there had been no real evidence that an emergency existed, that a decision had to be made i11111ediately. Mr. Dill asked if the bill would be retro- active and apply to the current appeal filed by Firefighter John Blanchard. Mr. Dill contended the bill waa special legislation in light of the Blanchard case. Mr. Dill stated the firefighters object to the bill if that was the case. * * * * * * Council Member Neal left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday's question, City Attorney Berardini stated there were people who were hearing officers and performed only hearing duties. Mr. Berardini added Council could not take a role in the selection of an officer but only establish the policy under the circumstances. Council discussed this matter at length with Mr. Dill in that the hearing officer would hear the cases and then make his findings and reco11111endationa to the Career Service Board. The Board would make the final decision. The hearing officer would be trained to hear legal matters and be able to decifier what can be considered aa evidence and what can not be con- sidered as evidence. The time conaumed to hear a case would be reduced. The hearing officer would only hear particular cases at the discretion of the Board and the amount spent to hire an officer would be controlled by the budget. Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak to Council on this matter. Louis Parkinson, 590 Pennwood Circle, appeared before Council and spoke in opposition to the proposed hearing officer. I Mr. Parkinson stated the hearing officer was a powerful individual in the process. They are the sole judges of the credibility of the witness and the case could turn either way. Mr. Parkinson stated the bill deprived the employees of access to be heard by their members of the Board of Career Service. John Wilderman, 180 Cook Street, Suite 406, Denver, appeared before Council on behalf of the Englewood Employees May 7, 1980 Page 4 Association. Mr. Wilderman supported the statements of Judge Parkinson. Mr. Wilderman argued that the hearing officer was not agreed upon in the last negotiations. Mr. Wilderman stated the board should hear full testimony and not the hearing officer. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Career Service Board Member Jo Ellen Turner stated the bill had been reviewed by the Board and agreed upon. The amendments had not been reviewed; however, she felt they reflected the intent of the Board's request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis declared a recess at 7:30 p.m. The Coun- cil reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: matter. Council Members Higday, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Neal. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if anyone else wished to speak on this Malcolm Atkins, 3814 South Sherman, president of the Englewood Employee Aaaociation, appeared before Council. Mr. Atkins stated Mrs. Henninf had indicated to the officers of the association in a meet ng that this particular bill would not appear before Council until mid-June. Therefore, he was unprepared to diacuaa it at this point and time. Mr. Atkins stated he would like to eit down with the City administration, the City Attorney or the Council and discuss this matter further. Mr. Atkins stated he personally felt a hearing officer would be a good thing but the direction the proposal was going was im- proper. ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1980 * * * * * * BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 14 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY May 7, 1980 Page 5 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIOR 13, CHAPTER 3, TITLE V, OF THE '69 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF A HEARING OFFICER BY THE BOARD OF CAREER SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, DEFINING HIS DUTIES, ARD DECLARING AR EMERGENCY. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL NO. 14, SERIES OF 1980, ON FIRST READING. Council Member Keena sec- onded the motion. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Council to consider the testimony given by Mr. Atkins in his interpretation of the statement given by the Chairman Henning of the Career Service Board. Council Member Keena stated she was unaware of a request for a delay from the Career Service Board on this matter. City Manager Mccown stated at the meeting between the Board and Council there waa a lengthly discussion about a review of the charter and the ordinance provisions in regards to the Career Service system. Mrs. Henning stated the Board was con- cerned that both the charter and the ordinances in certain in- stances were somewhat ambigious, hard to interpret and in some cases contradictory. She felt it was time for a complete review of all of these items and aaked Council's permission to go ahead and spend monies to have Mr. Goodman, attorney for the Board, to review those and get back to Council. Council needed these re- cot11Dendationa back by June. The Board was now doing this with Mr. Goodman. There waa a motion made that night by Council Member Neal that he would like to have this (&earing officer) on the agenda for the very next meeting which was May 5th in order to consider it. COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA tl>VED TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT ALL THE CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS BE PUT INTO THE ORDINANCE AND ON ITEM (e) (5), SIXTH LIRE DOWN, TO CHANGE WORD "CONCLUSION" TO "RECOMMENDATION" FOR CONSISTENCY. Council Member Bilo sec- onded the motion. Malcolm Atkins, appeared again before Council, and requested that Council hear from the vice president of the EEA and the president of the firefighters to clarify what was said bill. May 7, 1980 Page 6 Carolyn Tracy, 4376 South Huron, vice president of the Englewood Employees Aaaociation, appeared before Council. Ma. Tracy stated the only thing she recalled at the meeting with Ma. Henning waa the hearing officer. Nothing was discussed about other change• in the charter or code. Ms. Tracy stated she waa led to believe the hearing officer matter was going to be considered in mid-June and the association would have input. Clarence Ziaaerman, 5035 West Hinsdale Circle, Littleton, appeared before Council. Mr. Zinnerman stated he attended the meeting with Ma. Henning and he understood the associations had until June before any action would be taken. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Ms. Turner, Career Service Board Member, stated it was the Board's intent to have Council conaider the hearing officer proposal right away and to have an emergency clause with the bill. Ms. Turner stated Susie Schneider and Barbara Young, members of the EEA, were present at the study session. Susie Schneider, 2999 South Grant, appeared before Council. Ma. Schneider stated it was her understanding that the City Attorney was to prepare an ordinance and present it at the next Council meeting. Ma. Schneider stated she relayed this information to the aaaociation at their meeting on the night following the study session. City Manager Mccown aaked Ma. Schneider if it was her impression that at the meeting between the Council and Career Service Board that the ordinance that was requested for last Monday waa the ordinance regarding the hearing officer. Ms. Schneider stated that was correct and her understanding. Ms. Schneider also stated ahe understood there would be some changes regarding the charter and the ordinance and they would come later. Barbara Young, 3701 South Lincoln, appeared before Council. Ma. Young stated she had the same understanding as Ma. Schneider. Council diacuaaed with City Attorney Berardini the timeframe under which the bill could be passed on second read- ing and into effect. It waa brought up that the next hearing to go before the Career Service Board was May 15th. Herbert Hosanna, 4895 South Delaware, appeared before Council and spoke against passing the ordinance for a specific May 7, 1980 Page 7 hearing. Mr. Hosanna urged Council to consider the ordinance on ita merit only. 'ftlere no further co11111ents to be made at this time. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the amendment made by Council Member Keena resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Neal. 'ftle Mayor declared the motion carried. Council Member Fitzpatrick requested that copies of the bill for an ordinance with the amendments be supplied to the association. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Atkins if the associ- ation could review the proposed ordinance and be prepared to discuss it on Monday, May 12. Mr. Atkins stated this would be possible. Upon a call of the roll, the vote on the original motion made by Council Member Higday resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bradshaw, Otis. Council Member Bilo. Council Member Neal. The Mayor declared the motion carried and the bill passed on first reading without the emergency clause. Council Member Bilo stated some doubt had risen in his mind concerning this matter. Mr. Bilo stated the hearing officer should be and was required to help the Career Service Board but he not fully vote in favor of the bill based on the facts that were presented at this meeting. City Attorney Berardini stated since the vote was not unaminous, the ordinance may not be considered now prior to seven days. Mr. Berardini suggested the ordinance appear before Council on final reading on May 19th at the regular Council meeting as May 7, 1980 Page 8 a regular ordinance. The declaration of an emergency should be atruck and considered a• a regular ordinance on the 19th with whatever amendment• Council deairea. 'ftlere were no further statements to be made. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor Oti• adjourned the meeting without a vote at 8:25 p.m. jePuty Cit~er