Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Service Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vallejo Civil Service Commission trained on employee-discipline hearings and procedural timelines
Summary
At its meeting, the Vallejo Civil Service Commission received a training from Randy Reisner on conducting employee-discipline appeal hearings, covering Rule 18 and 19 procedures, Skelly pre-hearing steps, confidentiality, neutrality and strict timelines; the commission approved minutes by roll call.
Randy Reisner led a training for the Vallejo Civil Service Commission on how to conduct employee-discipline appeal hearings, walking commissioners through constitutional due-process principles, city rules and practical steps for hearings.
Reisner told commissioners the panel functions as a quasi-judicial body that takes evidence, hears both sides and issues final decisions under the city charter. "The commission has an important and legally significant role in employee appeals," he said, urging members to treat hearings with care because their decisions can affect careers and reputations.
He distilled the process into two rule sets the commission relies on: Rule 18, which defines grounds for discipline (including misconduct, incompetency, inefficiency and failure to follow rules), and Rule 19, which governs appeals and hearing procedures. Reisner described the pre-hearing "Skelly" process that typically occurs before an appeal and cited Skelly v. State Personnel Board as the foundational California case establishing that pre-deprivation procedures are required.
Reisner highlighted several procedural requirements commissioners should check before hearing a case: that the employee received a written, itemized notice of intended discipline (NOID) specifying alleged instances; that the appeal was filed on time; and that procedural defects in service or notice can be grounds to dismiss or decide a matter for the employee. "You should always ask first: does what this employee is accused of doing actually fit within one of these grounds?" he said.
He emphasized strict timelines. Under the civil service rules discussed, an employee has five days from service of the NOID to file a disciplinary appeal, and the commission has a hard 10-day deadline after a matter is submitted to issue findings and conclusions. "Once the matter is submitted, the commission has 10 days to issue its findings and conclusions," Reisner said.
Reisner also explained that disciplinary hearings are closed by default to protect privacy—typically limited to the appellant, representatives, the city's attorney and witnesses—unless the employee waives confidentiality and requests an open hearing. He reviewed the commission's subpoena power to compel witnesses or documents when necessary and advised how to handle evidentiary flexibility (the panel may accept hearsay and ask witnesses questions directly in this informal setting).
On conduct and ethics, Reisner stressed impartiality: disclose potential conflicts (for example, personal or business relationships with appellants), avoid ex parte contacts with parties or witnesses, and refrain from independent online research about an appellant that could bias decision-making. He urged commissioners to ask neutral, clarifying questions during hearings and to base decisions on the totality of the record, witness credibility and proportionality of any penalty.
Reisner outlined a six-step roadmap for hearings—opening/record, the city's case, the employee's case, commissioner questioning, closing arguments and private deliberation—and the three possible outcomes: uphold, modify or overturn discipline. He described the applicable standard of proof as preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not"), not beyond a reasonable doubt.
In closing, Reisner encouraged commissioners to document the reasoning in their findings so decisions can withstand review and to contact him with follow-up questions. Commissioners asked logistical questions about where hearings are held and how often cases come before the commission; Reisner said the commission has heard only a few discipline cases in recent years and that many matters do not proceed beyond the Skelly stage.
Votes at a glance The commission moved and seconded approval of minutes for the regular meetings of Jan. 12 and Feb. 9, 2026. A roll-call vote recorded "yes" from Commissioner Sostrich, Commissioner Janek, Commissioner Wright, Vice Chair Tennyson and Chair Plicati; the motion passed unanimously.
The meeting concluded with no action-calendar items and was adjourned by Chair Plicati.
