[00:00:02]
CALL THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
[CALL TO ORDER]
AND APPEALS COMMISSION LEADING THIS ORDER FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28TH, 2026.UH, FOR THE RECORD, IT IS NINE 11, FULL CALL
[ROLL CALL]
COMMISSIONER GALLER.COMMISSIONER OWENS PRESENT, VICE PRESIDENT ALER PRESENT PRESIDENT CAR.
UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[1. 26-56424 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Civil Service Employee Rights and Appeals Commission meeting of Wednesday, September 30, 2026. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026.THAT WAS A MOTION BY, UH, VICE PRESIDENT LER AND A SECOND BY HARLEY.
I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UH, THE, UH, MINUTES, UH, FOR THE THIRD ITEM, UM, UH, 26 DASH 56 2 64, RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.
UH, WOULD THIS BE, THERE'S NOT A DATE THERE.
SO IT WAS AT THE, THE HEARING THAT HAPPENED ON THE 30TH OR A PREVIOUS DATE, MINUTES.
I BELIEVE THESE ARE THE HEARING NOTES.
UH, SO YEAH, I SEE THE NINTH ON THE, THE FIRST ITEM.
THE SECOND ITEM IS SEPTEMBER 16TH.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, UM, THE ITEM NUMBER THREE, MEETING OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE CERTAIN THAT I WAS PRESENT.
UH, THE, UH, OUR, OUR COMMISSION SECRETARY HAS CLARIFIED FOR ME, SO I'M COMFORTABLE TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ANY OTHER CALLS PUBLIC FOR.
[2. 26-56491 Recommendation to discuss Ondra Lucas' request for the Commission to hear his disciplinary appeal hearing. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
TO DISCUSS ANDRE LUCAS REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION TO HEAR HIS DISCIPLINARY APPEAL HEARING.UH, IF WE COULD GET A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, I MOVED SECOND FOR THE RECORD.
THAT WAS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORALES AND A SECOND BY VICE PRESIDENT, UH, LER.
MR. LUCAS, DO YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION? IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST ANNOUNCING YOURSELF.
UH, FOR THE RECORD? YES, FACE THE CAMERA.
UM, I WAS A PUBLIC WORKS WORKER.
UH, I WAS TERMINATED IN MAY DUE TO MY LICENSE BEING SUSPENDED.
UM, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE 10 DAY, OR I DIDN'T READ THAT IN THE, THAT PART OF THE EMAIL.
UM, AND I'M JUST ASKING TO BE HEARD TO TRY TO GET MY POSITION BACK.
UM, I WASN'T CHARGED WITH A DUI, UH, BUT I HAVE MY FULL LICENSE BACK AT HOME, UH, TO BE HEARD, TO GET MY POSITION BACK.
WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION? UM, I WAS AN R OH FOUR.
UM, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST REFUSE OPERATOR THAT YOU CAN GO? UM, I JUST GOT, I HAD APPLIED TO BE A RFI, UM, AND I GOT APPROVED TO BE ONE OF THE RFIS.
UM, SO I HAD GOT A POSITION, BUT THEN THIS UNFORTUNATE SITUATION HAPPENED, SO I STAYED A REFUSE OPERATOR.
AND THEN ONCE MY LICENSE HAD GOT SUSPENDED AND I WAS TERMIN SO TO CLARIFY, YOU WERE NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A 10 DAY PERIOD FOR APPEAL? SO IN THE EMAIL I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE, ABOUT THE 10 DAY APPEAL, BUT I DIDN'T READ THAT FAR.
DID DID YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT, UH, STORY THE LAST TIME YOU READ HER? YOU HAD SAID THAT, UH, SOMEBODY HAD TOLD YOU YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO APPEAL? YEAH, SO ROB, HE'S HERE.
UM, HE DID TELL ME THAT I HAD TO DO AN APPEAL PROCESS TO GIVE MY POSITION BACK, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A 10 DAY PERIOD TO DO THE APPEAL PROCESS.
HOW MANY YEARS DID YOU HAVE WITH THE CITY BEFORE? SORRY? SIX.
AND, UM, SO BECAUSE YOU WERE A COMMERCIAL OPERATOR AND SOME UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT HAPPENED, YOU WERE SEPARATED AND THEN IN THE END NO CHARGES WERE BROUGHT, YOU WASN'T CONVICTED OF ANYTHING? CORRECT.
MAY I ASK
[00:05:01]
THE PROCESS OF YOUR LICENSE BEING SUBMITTED OR, OR THE INCIDENT WITH YOUR EMPLOYER? I DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE UNION AT ALL, BUT YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY MYSELF.BUT YOU DO, DO YOU, ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE UNION? I AM A MEMBER OF THE UNION JOHNSON NOT JUST REPRESENT HIMSELF COMMISSIONS.
I WOULD SIMPLY ADD THAT OBVIOUSLY IT'S YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE HIS REQUEST, BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT LIKE HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE.
AND IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AND ALLOW AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD BY, BY THIS BODY, YOU ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT.
SO FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO COMES IN, I CAN ASKING FOR A SIMILAR REQUEST.
I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD DENY THEM IN THE FUTURE IF YOU'D ALLOW THIS TO, UM, MOVE FORWARD.
IT WASN'T LIKE HE WASN'T RECEIVE, IT WASN'T LIKE HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE, HE RECEIVED THE NOTICE.
HE JUST DIDN'T READ THE FULL LANGUAGE WITHIN THE EMAIL.
BUT CLEARLY IT'S YOUR DECISION TO MAKE.
MY, MY, UH, WHERE I NEED CLARIFICATION, UM, FROM THE CITY IS THAT IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH HIS LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED.
THERE WAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ALLOWED TO THE EMPLOYEE.
AND THEN, UM, HE WAS TERMINATED, BUT THEN HE GOT HIS LICENSE BACK.
SO HOW IS IT THAT THE CITY DIDN'T ALLOW THE EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE TO, UM, WORK OUT THE ISSUE? HE WAS NOT, UNLESS HE WAS CONVICTED.
AND THEN IF HE WAS CONVICTED, THEN HE WOULD HAVE LOST HIS LICENSE, BUT HE WAS GOING THROUGH THE, UM, COURT SYSTEM OR WHATEVER SYSTEM OR WHATEVER ISSUE HAPPENED.
AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WASN'T A, UM, LIKE A, IT WAS NOT A FINAL, UM, DETERMINATION ON THE OUTCOME OF HIS, UM, ISSUE ABILITY TO DRIVE.
SO HOW IS IT THAT THERE WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO WORK OUT THE ISSUE THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE PROCESS? SO ROB STROM HERE IS FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
ROB STROM PROBABLY, PROBABLY COULD, COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
BUT TYPICALLY WHEN ATTORNEY POSITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A A LICENSE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT LICENSE AT ALL TIMES.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LICENSE BECAUSE OF SOME SUSPENSION, THEN YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS OF THAT JOB.
BUT MR. TRO CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
STORM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.
MR. LUCAS DID LOSE HIS LICENSE, HIS COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR AN ACTION THAT HE ENGAGED IN.
UH, THE ITEM WAS INVESTIGATED.
UH, SKELLY HEARING WAS HELP WITH MR. LUCAS, UM, AND HIS SEPARATION FROM THE CITY WAS PROCESSED.
UH, MR. LUCAS WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THIS COMMISSION, NOT ONLY VIA EMAIL, BUT ALSO IN SERVED DOCUMENTATION IN THE ATTACHMENTS, WHICH IS SENT CERTIFIED.
NOW, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING MR. LUCAS SAID.
WHEN HE IS SAYING THAT I TOLD HIM AS FAR AS THE APPEAL, I BELIEVE MR. LUCAS IS REFERRING TO HIS ABILITY TO REQUEST TO REAPPLY DISMISSED EMPLOYEE FOR A REFUSE OPERATOR WHEN THE POSITION BECOMES AVAILABLE AGAIN, WHICH IS A RIGHT TO ANY EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISMISSED.
AND THEN THIS BODY REVIEWS THAT ACTION.
THAT WAS GONNA BE MY ONE QUESTION.
HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE IF AND WHEN THERE'S AN EXAM PROMULGATED FOR THAT POSITION.
SO MR. LUCAS WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH HUMAN RESOURCES AND THEN THAT REQUEST IS PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION FOR REVIEW, AND THEN THIS BODY MAKES THAT DETERMINATION.
IF THIS BODY DECIDES THAT MR. LUCAS CAN APPLY, UH, WHEN REFUSE OPERATOR IS OPEN, UH, YES, MR. LUCAS CAN APPLY, UH, FOR THE POSITION AND THEN IT'S JUST, IT'S UP TO US WHETHER HE'S ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE OR NOT.
SO GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, I, I HEAR YOU, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTING TO COME BACK, BUT IN LOOKING AT THE LETTERS THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE TIME PERIOD IS TO FILE AN APPEAL.
AND AS, AS MR. ANDERSON INDICATED, WE ARE HERE TO UPHOLD THE RULES AND POLICIES OF THE CITY.
AND IF WE ALLOW YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A HEARING NOW AFTER YOU'VE MISSED THAT 10 DAY, WE'VE BEEN NULLIFIED THAT PART, ANYONE COULD COME IN AND ASK FOR ONE.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR IN FAVOR OF GRANTING YOU AN APPEAL.
[00:10:01]
I WOULD BE OPEN TO HEARING YOUR CASE IF THE POSITION IS REOPENED AND YOU APPLY, THEN I STILL HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.SO, UM, AS FAR AS BEING, UH, LICENSE, LICENSE FOR THE CITY BEING SUSPENDED, THIS QUESTION FOR, UH, DOES THE CITY OFFER THE EMPLOYEE, HEY, UH, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GO TO THE DMV AND GET A RESTRICTIVE LICENSE SO THE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOSE HIS JOB WHILE HE'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE CITY OFFERS TO THE EMPLOYEE THAT, THAT COULD POSSIBLY KEEP HIM FROM BEING IN A SITUATION WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY WITHOUT THE JOB TRYING TO GET IT BACK, RATHER THAN BEING PROACTIVE AND SEEING IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN KEEP A GOOD EMPLOYEE IF WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PRIOR INSTANCES? YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY FOR MR. LUCAS'S POSITION THAT HE FORMALLY HELD A COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE, A CLASS A OR B IS REQUIRED FOR DRIVING COLLECTION VEHICLES, UH, FOR THAT POSITION, WHICH HE DID NOT NO LONGER HAVE AT THAT MOMENT.
THUS, HE COULD NOT PERFORM THE FULL RANGE OF DUTIES FOR
SO IS THERE A TIMEFRAME OR JUST AS SOON AS THE LICENSES FOUND SUSPENDED? THE EMPLOYEE IS, WE DO DO A INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS WHERE WE GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE DMV.
UH, WE MAKE CALLS TO THE DMV TO CONFIRM, UH, SET FACTS.
UH, MR. LUCAS DID LOSE HIS COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE.
THE INVESTIGATION IS REVIEWED BY, UH, COUNCIL, UH, FROM THE CITY.
UM, AND THAT WAS FOUND TO BE A VALID, UH, PROCESS TO MOVE TO SKELLY FOR TERMINATION.
UM, WAS THERE, THERE WAS NO OTHER POSITION THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED TO, TO TAKE, LIKE WAS ANYTHING CONSIDERED IN, IN SO FAR AS PLACING HIM IN ANOTHER POSITION AS OPPOSED TO TERMINATION? THERE WERE NO OTHER VACANCIES THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED FOR.
RIGHT NOW, THE DEPARTMENT, AS IT'S CONSTITUTED IT IS MAINLY COLLECTIONS.
THE FORMER REFUSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUREAU OF PUBLIC WORKS.
SO COLLECT, UH, COMMERCIAL DRIVERS.
UH, WE DO HAVE OTHER OIL PROPERTIES, ENTITIES IN THE DEPARTMENT, BUT MR. LUCAS, IF, IF IT'S ONLY POSITION FOR RATS OPERATOR THAT HE COULD NO LONGER FULFILL AND THERE NOTHING ELSE IN LIKE BACK TO PUBLIC WORKS OR IN, IN ANY OTHER POSITION THERE THAT HE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO, AT THAT TIME WE WERE NOT PUBLIC WORKS ANYMORE.
SO IT WAS, IT'S A WHOLE NEW DEPARTMENT.
SO WE, YOU KNOW, WOULD ONLY BE DEALING WITH OUR DEPARTMENTS.
SO IT, AND THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL, SO I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION MIGHT NOT BE AN EXACT ANSWER, BUT LET'S SAY PRE SPLITTING OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, EVERYTHING'S BACK UNDER PUBLIC WORKS.
WOULD IT THEN HAVE BEEN SOMETHING WHERE YOU REACHED OUT AND TRIED TO FIND ANOTHER POSITION IN PUBLIC WORKS? YOU KNOW, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE CONDUCT THAT CAUSED MR. LUCAS TO LOSE HIS LICENSE.
YOU KNOW, I I, I CAN'T SAY AT THAT MOMENT, UM, WHAT THE DECISION WOULD'VE BEEN, BUT, OKAY.
AND I'M SORRY, CAN, CAN YOU, UH, BROTHER, CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY? WHAT, WHAT WAS THE, THE, THE INCIDENT? WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED EXACTLY? UM, I WAS LEAVING AN EVENT, UM, I FELL ASLEEP IN MY CAR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NEIGHBOR CALLED THE POLICE ON ME.
THAT WAS, AND YOUR KEYS WERE IN THE IGNITION? YES, SIR.
I THINK BUT THERE WHAT, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK WHERE, WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AND ROB, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME.
HE WAS WORKING OUT HIS LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS AND THIS LICENSE WAS, WAS SUSPENDED WHILE WORKING OUT THE ISSUE, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE HE GOT HIS LICENSE BACK.
HOW, HOW LONG DID YOU, WERE YOU WITHOUT YOUR COMMERCIAL LICENSER? UH, FOR FIVE MONTHS.
I'M, WE CAN GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF, I'M SUPPOSED TO JUST DECIDE TODAY WHETHER WE CAN HEAR.
YEAH, I, I THINK JUST TRYING TO GET CONTEXT ON MORE INFORMATION.
I MEAN, YEAH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO PRESENT, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY EVIDENCE OR CASES OR ANYTHING.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE BASIC QUESTION AND ME, THE ISSUE IS HE MISSED THE DEADLINE FAILURE ON THE PART OF AN EMPLOYEE TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THAT LETTER IS NOT AN ONUS FOR US TO GRANT THEM A RIGHT TO AN APPEAL.
HE IS A MEMBER OF A UNION, WHETHER HE WANTED TO GO TO THE UNION OR NOT, HE HAD A SOURCE TO GIVE
[00:15:01]
HIM INFORMATION AND GIVE HIM ADVICE ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.FAILURE TO DO THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NEED TO OPEN THE DOOR.
THAT WOULD THEN OPEN THE DOOR TO OTHER EMPLOYEES TO BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH.
AND AT THAT POINT, WHY WOULD THE DEPART THE CITY GIVE ANYONE A 10 DAY WINDOW? BECAUSE WE'VE JUST SAID THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
I APPRECIATE THAT HE DOES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REAPPLY, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
THE CITY MIGHT NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO REHIRE.
AND I THINK AT A POINT IN TIME IF THAT OPENS, THEN WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER HE IS HE'S SUITABLE TO COME BACK AND WORK FOR THE CITY.
SO, SO PROCESS WISE ON WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS NO MOTION NOW? NO.
BUT IF SOMETHING OPENS UP, HE CAN THEN COME TO US.
WELL, WE WOULD MOVE, WE WOULD MOVE TO DENY HIS REQUEST TO, AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, LET ME GO AHEAD AND DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
I MOVE THAT WE DENY, UM, MR. LUCAS'S REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF HIS TERMINATION BEFORE, BEFORE WE DO THAT ONE LAST THING, BECAUSE I FIND THAT OPERATIONAL EMPLOYEES SEEM TO GET, UH, I DON'T WANNA SAY DIFFERENT TREATMENT, BUT I HEAR ON ONE HAND THAT, OH, WE DON'T TERMINATE A CERTAIN AN EMPLOYEE, WE GIVE 'EM A 10 DAY SUSPENSION FOR A DUI AND THEN AN EMPLOYEE THAT DIDN'T GET AN ACTUAL DUI, BUT BECAUSE HE HOLDS A COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE, HE GETS, HE LOSES HIS JOB.
BUT TO ME, HURLEY, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION THAT WE WOULD'VE DEBATED HAD HE FILED FOR HIS APPEAL WITHIN THAT 10 DAY WINDOW.
THE CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT HE HAD INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDED TO FILE HIS APPEAL WITHIN 10 DAYS AND HE FAILED TO FILE THAT APPEAL.
SO WITH THAT FAILURE TO FILE THE APPEAL, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THOSE ISSUES.
WHETHER IT WAS A JUST TERMINATION OR SOMETHING ELSE SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, THOSE WOULD'VE BEEN QUESTIONS WE WOULD'VE ASKED DURING THAT APPEAL.
SO IF HE WAS TERMINATED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NOTHING THAT HE DID WAS WRONG, THAT HE HAD BEEN ABLE TO COME BACK TO HUMAN RESOURCES AND SAY, HEY, I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF X AND BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE HE DIDN'T GET DUE PROCESS, BUT THAT HE WOULD'VE DONE THAT WITH US.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHERE THE DUE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING KIND OF FALLS IN.
BECAUSE HE NEVER FILED THE APPEAL WITH US.
HE DIDN'T HAVE THIS BODY TO LOOK AT THE PROCESS THAT WENT, THE CITY WENT THROUGH TO TERMINATE HIM.
AND FOR US TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE FACTS AND SAY, YES, THIS WAS A JUST TERMINATION, OR NO, THIS WASN'T A JUST TERMINATION.
YOU, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS X, Y, AND Z.
AND WE MAY HAVE THEN MADE THE DECISION TO OVERTURN THE TERMINATION, BUT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FILE THAT APPEAL IN A TIMELY MANNER, WE NEVER HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO HE'S ASKING US NOW TO ACCEPT HIS APPEAL OUTSIDE OF THAT 10 DAY WINDOW AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
BUT AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO, I DON'T WANNA OPEN THAT DOOR FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE ONCE WE DO IT FOR ONE EMPLOYEE, WE DO IT FOR EVERYBODY.
IF WE DO IT FOR ONE, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY NOT DOING IT FOR THE NEXT ONE? BUT SO, SO I'M SEEING 2, 2, 2 3 PATHWAYS.
ONE PATHWAY IS COMPLETE DENIAL OF EVERYTHING.
ONE PATHWAY IS, UM, THREE PATHWAYS ON, ON THE NOT ALLOWING HEARING.
SO ONE, ONE PATHWAY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NOT DENYING EVERYTHING.
ONE PATHWAY WOULD BE, UM, ALLOWING HIM, YOU KNOW, MAKING MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL, ALLOW HIM TO REAPPLY.
THEN THE OTHER WOULD BE FOR ALL THAT.
NO, HE, NO, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO GIVE HIM THE RIGHT OF REAPPLY.
OH NO, WE HAVE TO GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO REAPPLY.
THEN HIS APPLICATION COMES TO US.
THE RE THE RIGHT FOR REAPPLICATION COMES TO US.
HE, HE, HE DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT YET.
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO VOTE ON IT.
COMMISSIONERS THAT IS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, HE NEEDS TO REQUEST IT TO THIS POINT.
SO HE HASN'T MADE THAT REQUEST.
I THINK THAT WAS HIS FIRST REQUEST TO US ELIGIBILITY.
BUT IS HE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE IF WE SAY HE IS, HE IS QUALIFIED IS MY QUESTION.
WELL, FIRST, UH, MR. LUCAS WOULD'VE TO BE GIVEN THAT ABILITY TO APPLY, HE WOULD BE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO APPLY.
AND THEN, UH, HR WOULD, WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ELIGIBLE OR QUALIFIED, I'M SORRY, QUALIFIED.
QUALIFIED BASED ON HIS CURRENT STATUS.
AND WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS GIVE, UH, A FORMER EMPLOYEE FALSE HOPE.
RIGHT GARY? IS THAT A TWO PART PROCESS? IT'S A TWO PART PROCESS.
[00:20:01]
DENY HIS REQUEST TODAY TO HEAR THE APPEAL, THEN IF THERE'S A FUTURE POSITION THAT OPENED UP IN THE CITY, HE WOULD'VE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, HEY, WOULD YOU ALLOW ME TO APPLY FOR REFUSE OPERATOR THAT'S OPENED UP IN 2027? AND THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.WHAT TYPE OF EMPLOYEE HE WAS, WHAT HAPPENED IN A TERMINATION.
IF HIS TERMINATION WOULD BE APPLICABLE.
SO WE WOULD NOT NEED TO MAKE ANY DECISION RIGHT NOW ON HIS ABILITY TO REAPPLY.
THAT WOULD HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD IF HE DOES REAPPLY.
BUT COULD WE WELL, YOU WON'T, WELL, WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S GONNA APPLY FOR.
WELL, I MEAN, JUST, WELL, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET TERMINATED FROM THE CITY, YOU'RE INELIGIBLE FOR REAPPLICATION BASICALLY FOR ANY POSITION.
SO, YOU KNOW, MY, MY, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD CAUTION ON GIVING HIM A BLANKET RIGHT.
TO APPLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S GONNA APPLY FOR.
FIRST YOU NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT HE'S GONNA APPLY FOR.
THEN YOU MAKE THE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT OR NOT.
SO GARY, WHAT IF WE MADE A MOTION TO DENY HIS REQUEST FOR APPEAL, BUT SAY THAT WE'RE OPEN IF HE DOES APPLY IN THE FUTURE TO HEARING HIS APPEAL, TO BE ABLE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE, CONSIDERATION FOR REHIRE? YES.
SO THAT'S THE MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I CAN HAVE YOU JUST RESUBMIT THAT FOR THE RECORD.
SO WE WOULD MOVE, WE MOVE TO DENY MR. LUCAS'S REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION TO HEAR AN APPEAL OF HIS DISCIPLINARY ITEM.
AND IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD HE REAPPLY TO BE HIRED BY THE CITY, WE ARE OPEN TO CONSIDERING HIS, UH, REHIRE BY THE CITY, HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE REHIRED BY THE CITY.
'CAUSE IT, IT'S STILL, STILL THE DEPARTMENT AT THAT POINT, WHETHER THEY HIRE HIM OR NOT.
IT'S JUST THE ABILITY TO
SO, UM, I THINK I MISUNDERSTOOD OUR CONVERSATION.
I, ME AND ROB HAD, WHEN HE TOLD ME THAT I HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, 'CAUSE HE TOLD ME ONCE I GET MY LICENSE BACK, THEN APPEAL IT TO GET YOUR JOB BACK.
SO I, WHEN HE TOLD ME THAT, I'M AUTOMATIC AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMING LIKE, OKAY, WELL ONCE I GET MY LICENSE BACK, THEN I GOTTA REACH OUT TO YOU GUYS TO TRY TO GET MY JOB BACK.
I, I DIDN'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION FOR LIKE A 10 DAY PERIOD.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT CAN BE CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE IN THE EMOTIONS OF BEING DISMISSED, BUT ULTIMATELY A CHORE RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS.
I THINK WE HAD THE CONVERSATION THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE.
WHILE YOU MAY NOT LIKE REACHING OUT TO YOUR UNION, THAT'S PART OF WHY THEY'RE THERE.
SO THAT YOU HAVE A SOUNDING BOARD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE AND THEY CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THE STEPS AND THE PROCESSES.
IF YOU ARE REHIRED OR YOU GO TO ANOTHER POSITION THAT HAS UNION REPRESENTATION, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY OFFER YOU, BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER IN WHATEVER YOUR JOB IS.
IS HE ELIGIBLE RIGHT NOW TO APPLY FOR A NONCLINICAL? IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE THE SAME PROCESS.
HE, JOHN, HE WOULD COME TO US AND ASK FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR A NON-CAREER JOB.
SO HE COULD DO THAT BEFORE, THERE'S NO, BEFORE THERE'S A TESTING POSITION.
THAT'S, THAT'S A CORRECT BECAUSE BOTH THE NON-CAREER AND THE PERMANENT, WE EXPECT THOSE TO BE OPEN SOON.
GOOD EMPLOYEE THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE GREEN CAMPS.
SO RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE, I'M SORRY, I'M, GO AHEAD.
THEY HAVE RFI POSITIONS STILL CURRENTLY OPEN.
AM I ABLE TO STILL APPLY OR THAT, LIKE, HOW, HOW WOULD I GO ABOUT THAT? SO YOUR NAME IS ON THE PROMOTIONAL LIST ELIGIBLE LIST, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE, BUT YOU ARE NOT CURRENTLY AN ACTIVE EMPLOYEE.
SO YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PROMOTIONAL POSITION.
INTERNAL, UH, WELL, SHOULD, SHOULD WE TAKE THE VOTE FIRST AND THEN, WELL, THERE'S A MOTION.
I WAS GONNA SAY, UH, JUST FOR OPPONENT ORDER, WERE YOU PROPOSING THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS CURRENT RECOMMENDATION? I BELIEVE YOU MOTIONED, UH, WHICH PART? AS A, UH, UH, TO THE, SORRY, DENY THE ITEM AND JUST CAST MEETING AND THEN, UH, OPEN, UH, IN THE FUTURE.
I BELIEVE, UH, UH, UH, VICE PRESIDENT LER, YOU WERE SECOND.
DID YOU APPROVE THAT? FRIENDLY? YES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IS THIS, WOULD THIS BE CONSIDER CONSIDERED
[00:25:01]
A WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE? NO.SO IF HE WAS TO GET HIS JOB BACK, IT'S NOT LIKE THE CITY WRONGFULLY TERMINATED HIM AND HE COULD GO THROUGH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ALLEGATION THAT THERE'S BEEN A WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE.
I THOUGHT IF WE GIVE THE, IF WE REVERSE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S A LAW TERMINATION.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY, UH, IT'S CALLED
UH, SO WHAT, SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS THE CURRENT PRO? DO I APPLY FOR A POSITION AND THEN AND THEN REACH OUT.
OH, YOU TALKED TO HR AND YOU TALKED TO ROB.
IT, THE POSITION IS NOT CURRENTLY OPEN.
NEITHER THE NON-CAREER NOR THE PERMANENT.
WE EXPECT IT WILL BE OPEN SOON AS AS WE DISCUSSED, THERE'S A NEED WHEN IT'S OPEN.
AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD NEED TO REACH OUT, BE GIVEN THE RESOURCES SO WE CAN TALK AFTER THE MEETING TOO.
ADDITIONALLY, I HEARD THERE WAS A
WHEN THE EMAIL WAS SENT TO YOU WITH ATTENDEE'S NOTICE, DID YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT EMAIL? YES.
IT'S ALSO MAILED CERTIFIED AS WELL.
SO WE ARE, UH, WE ARE, UH, VOTING ON A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, UH, DENY THE, UH, UH, MR. LUCAS'S REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, COMMISSIONER MORALES.
AND, UH, BUT WITH THE, UH, CAVEAT IN THE FUTURE TO OPEN TO REHIRE THE CANDIDATE IF THE POSITION IS AVAILABLE.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE LAST PART? WHAT? OPEN.
SO, UH, ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER OWENS NA, VICE PRESIDENT ALER.
PRESIDENT GARNER A MOTION CARRIES.
SO I, I THINK, UH, IT SHOWS A LOT OF CHARACT.
POINT, OR GARY, ARE WE ALLOWED TO TALK ON THIS? WE'VE ALREADY VOTED.
YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE AND HAVE A CHAT WITH OKAY.
BUT DON'T COME BACK WHEN, WHEN GO FIGURE AROUND AFTER WE RECESS, I'LL COME OUT.
SO ITEM THREE, UH, TECHNICALLY, UH, SO THIS WILL BE MOVED TO, UM, CLOSED SESSION AND BEFORE WE GO TO CLOSED SESSION.
AND ITEM NUMBER THREE, THERE'S ONE MORE PERSON HERE.
PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT, ANNOUNCEMENT, SEND IN A CHAIR ITEM.
SO IF YOU WANNA CALL PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE.
[PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Civil Service Employee Rights and Appeals Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the President.]
GOOD MORNING.UM, MY NAME IS ANGEL GARCIA AND I AM CURRENTLY A COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST THREE WITHIN THE TID INFRASTRUCTURE BUREAU, THE RADIO SERVICE DIVISION.
I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THIS DIVISION FOR FIVE YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS.
I'M HERE TO ASK THIS BOARD TO INVESTIGATE THE RECRUITMENT PRACTICES OF THE TI 26 0 4 8 COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST SIX IN THE RADIO SERVICE DIVISION.
ON RECEIVING AN INVITATION ON MY VIRTUAL INTERVIEW, I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY PANELISTS WHO HAD CONDUCTED THE, THAT WHO WOULD CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW.
I IMMEDIATELY WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THREE OF THE FOUR PANELISTS, TWO OF THEM, HUGO GILL, PID EMPLOYEE, MOHAMMED KHANS, FORMER TID EMPLOYEE.
BUT BOTH OF THE INDIVIDUALS, THERE WAS DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF OPERATIONAL MISMATCH, WHICH LED TO CONSTRUCTIVE TENSION IN OUR WORKING RELATIONSHIPS OVER THE TIME WHERE WE WERE IN THE SAME DIVISION.
DUE TO THESE FACTORS, IT WAS AN UNFAIR TO BE INTERVIEWED AND RATED BY MY ABILITIES TO FULFILL THE DUTIES OF THIS POSITION IN QUESTION.
BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF INDIVIDUAL, I BELIEVE THE INTERVIEW PROCESS BIAS TOWARDS ME DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL INTERVIEW FOR THE TI 26 0 48 COMMUNICATION ALLY SIX PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY.
THERE'S ALSO A DI BETWEEN THREE OF THE FOUR PANELISTS, WHERE HAM KHAN, MARTY MARTINEZ, BOTH REPORTED DIRECTLY TO HUG GILL.
DURING THEIR TIME WORKING AT TIBI INFORMED NICOLE I FOR, I INFORMED NICOLE GROSS ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER FOR
[00:30:01]
TID SATISH AND I, I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS LAST NAME.UH, PUN CHIEF OFFICER FOR THE RADIO SERVICE DIVISION.
IMMEDIATELY OF MY CONCERNS WITH SI WITH SITUATIONS, AND BO SAID THAT THIS WAS THE PANEL AND NOTHING COULD BE DONE.
I ALSO INFORMED MY UNION REPRESENTATIVE AT THAT TIME.
ON MAY 8TH, 2026, I MET WITH VANESSA LIMES, INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE BUREAU MANAGER AT SATISH HY, CHIEF OFFICER FOR THE RADIO SERVICE DIVISION.
AT THIS MEETING, I HAD ASKED TO BE CONSIDERED AS A DIRECT APPOINTMENT TO THE VACANT COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST SIX POSITION.
DURING THIS MEETING, I PROVIDED DETAILS OF MY EXPERIENCE, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND PROVIDED 15 LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN SUPPORT OF THE DIRECT APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNICATION SPECIAL SIX.
ON MAY 28TH, 2026, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM VANESSA.
INFORMED ME THAT SHE HAD NOT, SHE WOULD NOT BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DIRECT APPOINT IN OUR MEETING.
SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT DIRECT APPOINTMENTS DID NOT HAPPEN.
2026, THERE WAS, THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST THREE DIRECT APPOINTMENTS TO THE VACANT POSITION, ONE BEING ANOTHER COMMUNICATION SPECIAL SIX, AND THE VOICE DIVISION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE BUREAU.
IN JULY OF 2026, TI 26 0 4 8 COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST SIX POSITION WAS ANNOUNCED.
AND IT AS AN OPEN POSITION IN MY TIME HERE, THIS WILL MARK THE FOURTH TIME BEING PASSED UP FOR PROMOTION WITH NO OPPORTUNITY OR NO REASON TO WHY OR EXPLANATION ON HOW TO IMPROVE.
IT IS CLEAR AFTER THE LATEST DENIAL THAT THIS DEPARTMENT WILL NEVER PROMOTE OR PROVIDE ME WITH ANY IN ADVANCE OPPORTUNITIES.
IT IS A RETALIATING AGAINST ME BECAUSE OF A COMP COMPLAINTS FILED TO THE EU OFFICE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS BOARD TO IMMEDIATELY INVESTIGATE AND PROVIDE ME WITH A FAIR AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WITH AN IMPARTIAL PANEL THAT WILL BE WITHOUT SHARING FAVORITISM BY AND COURT PREJUDICE FOR THE TI 26 0 4 8 COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST SIX POSITION.
I THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME.
TO CLARIFY, UH, SINCE THIS IS A CONCERN, INVOLVES, UH, RECRUITMENT AND HIRING, IS THAT UNDER HR BROTHER THAN US? IT IS UNDER HR.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T REALLY RESPOND AND TAKING ANY ACTION BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT AND IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
BUT YES, RECRUITMENT'S UNDER HR.
IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD PLACE THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THE RECRUITMENT FOR THE COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST POSITION.
I, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE PUT THIS, OH, SECOND DEVON'S MOVE.
WHAT HE SAYING ITEM HIM ON A FUTURE AGENDA YEAH.
FOR HR TO COME IN AND, AND HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH US ABOUT THE RECOUPMENT PROCESS.
SO SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS WE DID, THAT WAS
I, I DID WANNA SAY ONE LAST THING.
I WAS TOLD BY THE UNION THAT THERE WAS A FIVE DAY APPEAL PROCESS, WHICH I CONTACTED.
I APOLOGIZE GISELLE ABOUT THAT.
I'VE ALSO SENT HER DOCUMENTATION, UH, JUSTIFYING THE APPEAL.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS BECAUSE I'M HEARING THIS 10 DAYS.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT AS AN EMPLOYEE, THIS INFORMATION IS NOT RELATIVELY AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE TO KNOW.
SO I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEES SHOULD REACH OUT TO SOURCES, WHICH IS WHY I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED MY UNION REP.
MY UNION REP DID STATE THAT THEY, THEIR ABILITY TO INTERVENE IS VERY MINIMAL.
SO, WHICH IS WHY SHE INFORMED ME TO CONTACT THIS COUNCIL AND WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME.
IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
HAVE YOU APPEALED TO HR HUMAN RESOURCES? I HAVE NOT BECAUSE MY UNION TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED TO GO DIRECTLY THROUGH THE PARTY.
UH, WE'RE IN PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW.
WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING A DISCUSSION.
BACK TO THE, THEY'RE NOT HAVING A DISCUSSION.
I I'LL GO WITH YOUR, I WAS JUST GONNA SIMPLY SAY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE YOU ARE READING YOUR INFORMATION ACCURATE THAT YOU RECEIVED.
I THINK THE APPEAL SHOULD PROBABLY START WITH HR FIRST.
UH, AGAIN, THERE IS NO INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME.
THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME WITH DENIAL, THAT DOESN'T EVEN STATE THAT AN APPEAL IS EVEN POSSIBLE WITH HR.
SO, WHICH IS WHY I CONTACTED MY UNION RIGHT AWAY, WHICH IS WHY I CONTACTED THE ADMINISTRATORS OF MY CONCERNS BEFORE THE INTERVIEW EVEN HAPPENED.
AND SO BASED ON MY HISTORY HERE BEING PASSED UP FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES FOR SOME KIND OF PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY, THERE'S SOMETHING WAY BEYOND THAT.
UM, I I HOLD HERE, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT.
15 DIFFERENT LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ASSISTANT CHIEFS, LIEUTENANTS FROM ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, JCC
[00:35:01]
FROM THE HARVARD, ALL WILLING TO PUT THEIR RECOMMENDATION FROM MY PROMOTION.AND SO THERE'S SOMETHING WAY BEYOND THAT.
AND SO THE, THE CURRENT RECRUITMENT IS STILL ACTIVE AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, WHICH IS WHY I IMMEDIATELY MOVED TO MAKE THIS APPEAL, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROCESS IS GONNA LOOK LIKE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW FAST THEY'RE GONNA GO TO THE NEXT ROUND OF INTERVIEWS, BUT WHAT I DON'T WANNA SEE IS SOMEBODY GETTING APPOINTED AND THEN SOMEBODY COMING BACK AND TELLING ME, WELL, WE'VE ALREADY APPOINTED SOMEBODY.
THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANNA SEE.
SO COMMISSIONER, ONE THING I WOULD DO WOULD DO, UM, HE DID SUBMIT THE PAPERWORK TO GISELLE.
I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT PAPERWORK GETS TO THE PROPER PERSON IN HUMAN RESOURCES.
UM, SO THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES, WHEN WE HEAR THIS ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, SHOULD YOU GO IN THAT DIRECTION, HR WILL BE PREPARED TO RESPOND.
NO, WE MADE A MOTION TO PUT THIS ON, BUT, BUT, UH, ALL IT IS IS YOU'RE DIRECT, YOU'RE REQUESTING, UM, STAFF TO IZE IT.
THEN YOU CAN MAKE A FORMAL THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S THE, THAT'S, YEAH.
SO YOU ALREADY DIRECTED GISELLE, UH, I BELIEVE OH, DOESN'T REQUIRE A VOTE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT IS.
ACTUALLY DIDN'T GET THIS RESULT BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO US.
PERHAPS THEN WE HAVE AN UPDATE.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY HE WANTS GISELLE TO CONTACT HR WITH IT.
WE, YEAH, WE NEED TO ENSURE BIAS IS NOT, WELL GARY SAID PAUL
I'M LIKE, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S UNDER, THAT'S UNDER OUR MM-HMM
AND I, I WILL ADD THAT I HAVE CONTACTED THE EO OFFICE AS WELL AS THIS, BECAUSE I DO FEEL THAT THIS IS A RETALIATION ASPECT OF THINGS AS WELL.
BUT LIKE I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE WORKED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE FIVE, THE PAST 5, 7, 5 YEARS.
AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO ME ARE VERY HIGHLY, I RESPECT THEM AND I DON'T TAKE THEM LIGHTLY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT MY DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN IT LIGHTLY AND HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A PROPER CONSIDERATION FOR THIS POINT.
SO, AND BEING TOLD THAT A DIRECT APPOINTING PHONE HAPPENED, IT'S A BLATANT LIE BECAUSE I SEE IT ALL THE TIME.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN HOLD INTERVIEWS.
AND THEN THAT POSITION WAS DIRECT APPOINTED.
SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THREE PEOPLE APPLYING THAT THE OTHER PERSON'S JUST GONNA BE DIRECT? IT'S A SCAM.
IT'S JUST SAYING, OH YEAH, WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING WHEN YOU'RE NOT REALLY DOING THE RIGHT THING.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING, MAKE IT, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE SAME ACROSS ALL AVENUES.
IF YOU'RE GONNA GIVE SOMEBODY A DIRECT APPOINTMENT, THEN GIVE ANOTHER PER OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT APPOINTMENT, WHICH IS WHY I WENT BEFORE THIS POSITION WAS EVEN POSTED IN MAY.
THIS POSITION WASN'T POSTED UNTIL JULY AFTER I WENT AND I ASKED FOR THE DIRECT APPOINTMENT.
I THINK
I APPRECIATE THE EVERYBODY'S TIME.
IS IT CONFEDERATE I'LL, IS THERE, UH, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
BY THE COMMISSIONERS? UH, YES.I, UM, WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON, UH, THE RECENT, UH, SPECIAL HEARING THAT WE HAD, UM, REGARDING, UM, POTENTIAL LAYOFFS FOR THE CITY.
HAVING, UM, WITNESSED SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE UPDATES ARE, ARE BEING PROVIDED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT I WANTED TO ENSURE BY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
SO I WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE, UM, BECAUSE WE DID REQUEST THIS IN SEPTEMBER, THAT WE HAVE AN UPDATE REGARDING WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME WAS SINCE WE'RE NOW PAST OCTOBER 1ST.
AND SO GARY, I'D LIKE TO ASK IF THAT'S, UM, POSSIBLE FOR, UM, THE NEXT MEETING IN NOVEMBER OR IN DECEMBER THAT WE HAVE, UM, HR COME BACK AND PROVIDE US WITH WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME WAS OF THE, IF THAT, UM, OF THOSE, UH, ACTIONS OR PLAN.
I'LL HAVE GISELLE WORK WITH HR TO HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE.
ANY OTHER MENTS? NO OBJECTION.
[ADJOURNMENT]
A JERK.