HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-05 CSB PUBLIC HEARINGCAREER SERVICE BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
May 5, 1994
The Public Hearing for Officer Gerri Clark before the Board of Career
Service opened at 6:40 p.m.
Present: Members Fleenor, Kerzic, and Turner. Ms. Davidson and Mr.
Farris were absent. Also present: Attorney George Price representing
Officer Clark, Martin Semple representing the City, Stan Damas,
representing the Career Service Board, Officer Gerri Clark, Allan F.
Stanley and Randie L. Barthlome.
Mr. Semple expressed concern about the procedures and decisions of V----
the Career Service Board.
Grievance #1:
The City contended that no On-the-Job Injury Report was filed by
Officer Clark, and the City was unaware that she wanted . Workers'
Compensation instead of Temporary Disability until her attorney
insisted that a claim be filed in September. It further contended that
Workers' Compensation requires further medical examinations and
papers to be filed with CIRSA, both of which Officer Clark refused to
do . The City is unable to rule on Workers' Compensation issues, but
has submitted its reports to CIRSA which has requested further
information from Officer Clark.
Grievance #2:
Mr. Semple submitted a copy of the Police contract which describes
the method of calculating Temporary Disability, and stated that
Officer Clark's leave had been computed as described in the contract.
Grievance #7:
The City believes that restoration of Temporary Disability is not
meant to be extended on January 1 to employees who do not take
the necessary steps to return to work, but the City will restore the
Temporary Disability as described in the Contract when Officer Clark
returns to work.
Director Stanley testified that he had investigated the charge that
cover was not sent to Officer Clark when her partner requested it ,
and he could find no record that this event occurred. Officer Clark's
Career Service Board Minutes
May 5, 1994
Page 2
evaluations were quite satisfactory. He said that Officer Clark had
used all her yearly Personal Leave by July 1, and it was, therefore,
necessary for her to take her first day's leave with no pay. It was
further noted that Officer Clark refused to meet with medical doctors
who could prescribe the medicine needed to treat her stress, even
when repeatedly requested to do so.
Director Barthlome said that she had supported Officer Clark in the
Connolly hearing, and because she (Ms. Barthlome) had been a police
officer, she was able to recognize the difficulties faced by police
officers. She stated, however, that Officer Clark had refused to
cooperate in her recovery process and in the filing of claims, and
showed no intention of returning to work.
In his closing statement Mr. Price said that the On-the-Job Injury
report was filed and the paper work submitted by the psychologist,
Ann Samson, when she indicated that Officer Clark was not fit for
duty. He stated that Officer Clark had handled a great deal of stress
very well during the investigation of the previous year. Officer Clark
repeated that she had not filed paper work as requested by CIRSA
based on legal advice. Mr. Price contended that Ms. Clark regularly
talked to Ann Samson, the EAP psychologist, and that she was,
therefore, accepting treatment. He further stated that the Police
contract requires 30 days of restoration of Temporary Disability on
January 1, and the City had not restored this leave to Officer Clark.
Mr. Semple in his closing statements noted that Ann Samson had not
stated in her initial report removing Officer Clark from duty that a
claim was being filed for Workers' Compensation, nor did she state
that the stress exhibited by Ms. Clark was totally work-related. He
said that Workers' Compensation will refuse to pay any benefits for
stress unless it can be shown that the stress was caused solely by
conditions at work, and that the stress had to be unusual for the job.
In any case, the City is not able to make this determination, and
evidence must be submitted to CIRSA to continue with the Workers'
Compensation claim. He stated that Officer Clark's refusal to submit
forms and keep doctors' appointments had been the reason that
Workers' Compensation was not granted, not the City's refusal to give
the benefits.
•'
Career Service Board Minutes
May 5, 1994
Page 3
On the restoration of Temporary Disability , he stated that an
employee with no intention of returning to work is ineligible ·for the
restoration , and the City does not believe that Officer Clark intends to
return to duty. The City supported Officer Clark in the Connolly case,
her supervisors' evaluations have been good, Directors Barthlome
and Stanley had offered sympathy and support, and Officer Clark
refused repeatedly to make an effort to return to work.
Chairman Fleenor stated that the Board would render its decision
within 20 days, and adjourned the meeting.
~{7,~
Sheryl R<?usses, Secretary