Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hoover council votes to review police employee discipline after contested debate
Summary
The Hoover City Council voted to review a personnel board decision concerning employee Kevin Hollis’s two-day suspension, despite council attorney notes that policy limits board and council jurisdiction for suspensions under three days. The motion to permit review passed after debate over precedent and process.
Council President Casey Middlebrooks presided as the Hoover City Council voted April 13 to accept an employee’s request that the council review a personnel-board decision upholding discipline for employee Kevin Hollis. The action drew sustained debate over the city’s personnel policy and the risk of setting precedent for roughly 800 employees.
Pro Tem Driver opened the discussion by summarizing the question before the council: whether to review the personnel board’s decision affirming management discipline. The city attorney had earlier read policy language noting that only discipline greater than three days, demotion or involuntary separation is generally reviewable by the personnel board, and that minor discipline typically falls within management discretion.
"What we're deciding right now is simply whether to review the board's decision to uphold the discipline that Mister Kevin Hollis's management felt was appropriate under the circumstances," Pro Tem Driver said.
Council members who supported review argued the board had in fact held a hearing and provided findings of fact, opening the door to council review. Council member Schultz said the employee was entitled to be heard, calling the two‑day/three‑day technicality a reason to let the council consider the matter: "Because of that, I think that the employee is entitled to be heard, and we should be hearing what he has to say, and we should vote on it." Opponents warned that granting review could create a flood of similar requests and undermine management authority in safety‑sensitive departments.
After discussion the council held a roll-call vote to accept the request to review the personnel board's March 23, 2026 decision. The motion passed with four ayes and two nays.
Separately, the council later considered a motion to reclassify certain counts from Class 2 to Class 1 for the purposes of council action; that motion carried after a roll-call (vote recorded as four ayes, one nay, with one abstention noted). Council members emphasized that council review is not an in‑place substitute for judicial appeal and that the employee retains the right to pursue further review in court.
The council’s recorded actions on the matter were procedural — approving review and, separately, approving a reclassification motion — and do not themselves change the personnel penalty assessed by management. The council noted the matter could still be pursued in circuit court under the city’s appeal process.
The council adjourned the disciplinary item after votes; no final modification or rescission of the original disciplinary penalty was recorded at the meeting.
