Parker council reviews proposed personnel disciplinary procedures and appeals process

Parker City Council members and staff spent the council’s April 15 workshop reviewing revisions to the proposed personnel policy manual, focusing on disciplinary steps from verbal counseling through termination and the role of human resources, the city administrator and the city attorney.

Council members questioned language that treated verbal counseling as a written entry in an employee personnel file and recommended removing a sentence that would place a written record of a verbal counseling into the file. “A verbal counseling is not written,” a council member said, adding that “if there is [a written] document … then certainly it has to have the same mandates that someone can respond to.” City Attorney Catherine asked staff to update the draft accordingly.

The council then discussed how written reprimands and suspensions are handled. Several members suggested replacing specific lists of possible outcomes with broader language such as “may result in disciplinary action” to avoid an immediate jump from a reprimand to suspension or termination without intermediate steps. One council member pointed out differences between exempt and nonexempt employees regarding short suspensions and asked staff to make statutory adjustments; a staff member said she would “make the changes that are required by law.”

Members repeatedly urged that human resources be included in review steps. “I would like human resources included in that action,” a council member said while discussing suspension and termination reviews, and later added that no discipline above a written reprimand should be administered “without review by the city attorney.” Other council members pushed back on making HR a required approver for every action, arguing that routine supervisory actions should remain with line supervisors while HR’s role should be clarified as informational and as the official holder of personnel files.

The group debated who has the final administrative authority. One council member raised concerns about language saying the city administrator’s decision is final and “no further appeal is available.” Supporters of final administrative authority argued that the city administrator supervises city staff and should have the final decision on personnel actions, with council oversight of the administrator if problems arise. Others urged an explicit path for employees to request review or meeting with the mayor and counsel in serious or sensitive cases; staff answered that historically terminations had been routed through human resources and legal counsel and sometimes included mayoral contact.

On grievance procedures, council and staff discussed whether an employee with a complaint about an immediate supervisor should be required to talk with that supervisor before escalating. Several members recommended that the policy encourage, but not require, initial informal discussion with a supervisor and allow employees to seek HR if they are uncomfortable discussing the matter with their supervisor.

Council members also reviewed sections on personnel files, safe working conditions and driving record checks. Staff said HR should maintain the official personnel file even when departments keep working copies. On driving records, members discussed whether the report/notification timeline should be “eight business hours” rather than within 24 hours because of weekends and off-duty periods; staff proposed clarifying that convictions, not citations, are the trigger for some actions.

No formal ordinance or resolution was voted on at the workshop stage. Staff was directed to redraft the sections discussed — striking or rewording the sentence about written records for verbal counseling, clarifying HR’s role, aligning suspension language with federal wage-and-hour rules for exempt employees, and refining the appeals language so the limit of administrative finality and any exceptions are clear. The revised draft will return to council for further consideration.