Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola Personnel Board: Two appeals dismissed; attorney details pre-hearing process and timelines
Summary
At its April 7 meeting the Pensacola Personnel Board approved its agenda and Jan. 9 minutes, the citys motion to dismiss two employee appeals was granted, and the board heard an explanation of the pre-hearing conference process, the 60-day scheduling target in the HR manual and the mayors 10-day review of board orders.
The Pensacola Personnel Board approved its meeting agenda and the Jan. 9 meeting minutes and was informed that the citys motion to dismiss two employee appeals was granted after neither employee appeared for the hearing.
City attorney (title provided in meeting) told the board the appeals by Stultz and Warren had been dismissed after a motion to dismiss filed by the city and said, “We had a hearing on that with both. Neither of the employees showed up for the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted on both.”
The attorney used the meeting to review how the appeal process works, including the role of a pre-hearing conference, the timeline for hearings and the mayors role in reviewing board orders. “If it goes to hearing, then the board makes a decision and whatever that decision is is reduced to an order. And then that order goes to the mayor and the mayor's got 10 days to accept or reject or do nothing. And at the end of 10 days, if the mayor does nothing, then it's accepted,” the city attorney said.
The attorney also explained the purpose of a pre-hearing conference, saying it both opens the door to settlement and preserves the boards role as the trier of fact if parties choose to proceed to a hearing. “One is to open the door for any type of resolution,” the attorney said. “... Oftentimes, they will resolve before we actually have the hearing. ... It's a carrot and a stick. The carrot is what the parties are offering each other to resolve it before, and then the stick is the board.”
He told the board that the HR manual and board rules contemplate completing hearings within 60 days of an appeal being filed and that scheduling difficulties sometimes require the mayor to grant an extension. “But the 60 days runs from the time that the appeal is actually filed,” the attorney said.
The attorney also advised the board on recordkeeping and Sunshine Law practices, noting that the city frequently records meetings though the law requires only that minutes be taken. “The Sunshine Law requires that minutes be taken, and that there be, it doesn't have to be live streamed, and there doesn't have to be a recording made, but it certainly is allowed under the Sunshine Law,” he said.
Board business otherwise was brief: there were no public speakers at the meeting, no other pending appeals announced, and after the attorney finished his update a motion to adjourn passed without objection.
Votes at a glance: the board approved the meeting agenda and the Jan. 9 minutes by voice vote (recorded as "aye"). The citys previously filed motions to dismiss the Stultz and Warren appeals were granted; the transcript records that neither employee appeared for those motions. The Thorson appeal was listed as an item but was not heard at the April 7 meeting and remains pending with a pre-hearing conference process described by the city attorney.
