Personnel board reviews pending appeals, hearing officer outlines timetable and dismissal process

The personnel board received an update on two long-pending employee appeals and on how the board and hearing officer handle continuances, prehearing conferences and dismissal motions.

Hearing officer and board attorney explained that some appeals have been delayed by turnover in the city attorney's office and by joint stipulated continuances. “The HR rules that establish it provide that these matters should be heard within 60 days,” the hearing officer said, adding that the mayor may grant an extension when needed. The hearing officer said a copy of any appeal must be forwarded to the board attorney and the city attorney within 24 to 48 hours of filing so the timeline can be tracked.

The hearing officer described the common process when appeals stall: the city may file a motion to dismiss if an employee fails to appear or declines to pursue the appeal, and the hearing officer rules on that motion. If either party objects to the ruling, that party may ask the personnel board at its next meeting to overrule the hearing officer's decision. “You do have oversight and purview, but typically your oversight and purview occurs at the hearing level because you're the trier of fact,” the hearing officer told the board.

The board was informed that the city has filed motions to dismiss for the Stoltz and Warren appeals and that those motions were scheduled to be heard the same day. The hearing officer said that if an ex-employee moves away or no longer wants to continue an appeal, the city's motion to dismiss typically proceeds and the hearing officer issues a ruling; the mayor then may accept or reject the ruling as required by the local process.

The board also was told that a previously scheduled hearing in the Sartipi matter was canceled because the parties reached a settlement. The hearing officer said settlements sometimes include conditions (for example, rehire conditioned on withdrawal of an appeal) and that a party may ask the board to ratify a written settlement agreement if enforcement or reinstatement of an appeal becomes necessary.

Board housekeeping items received brief votes: the agenda and prior meeting minutes were approved by voice vote and the meeting was adjourned by motion. The meeting record did not list individual roll-call vote tallies for those motions.

Looking ahead, the hearing officer said the office will try to provide a clear timeline template for processing appeals to avoid protracted continuances, but that some delays are caused by turnover in the city attorney's office or by parties jointly stipulating to continuances. The board did not take any substantive final action on the Stoltz or Warren appeals during this meeting; the outcomes of the city's motions to dismiss were to be determined at the scheduled hearing.