PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

6:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wagner called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Wagner, Mrs. England, and Mrs. Dunn were present. No members were absent. Others present were Lynn Miller and Lynda Yartin.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 21, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mrs. England moved to approve; Mrs. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. England, Mr. Wagner, and Mrs. Dunn voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Human Resource Director’s Report. Mrs. Miller stated she had provided a written report and she has been working with the legal department to revise the PAB rules to limit the number of witnesses at a PAB hearing. She stated the Board does have some leeway and she would like to discuss that tonight. She stated we also have a Planner II position vacancy which is classified. She further stated we are proceeding with utilizing the Columbus State Community College Testing Center for a national testing network.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve amendments to Personnel Appeals Board Rules and Regulations. Mrs. Yartin clarified that at the last meeting this Board moved to approve amending the Rules and the law director has submitted draft language for them to discuss this evening. Mr. Wagner clarified the reasoning for limiting the number of witnesses was because employees work in close proximity to a great number of other employees and they could call the entire force. Mrs. Miller stated if there was an issue this could curtail activities and perhaps if we started with three witnesses on each side, then if the Board agreed that it needed to be expanded they would have that opportunity. Mr. Wagner stated if there was a need to have more than three witnesses that would not be known before the hearing, but would be determined at the hearing based on the evidence. Mr. Wagner further stated if the Board heard the three witnesses and then determined they needed to hear more witnesses, another hearing would have to be scheduled. Mrs. England stated she had not thought another hearing would have to be rescheduled; she thought the language meant that the three would be limited, but if prior to the hearing the Board felt more would be necessary they could entertain that option. Mr. Wagner stated he would be okay with that, however, his concern was if this was interpreted strictly as three, then the Board would hear the evidence and determine if they needed more witnesses. Mr. Wagner stated if the additional witnesses were available to be called he would be okay with that, but if we limit the witnesses to three and they don’t bring their additional witnesses, then another hearing would have to be scheduled to make those witnesses available. Mr. Wagner stated his concern would also be that during that time the witnesses would have time to talk with each other. He stated he would be okay with limiting the witnesses to three, but there should be some process at the hearing for the Board to hear additional witnesses if it is determined necessary and they should be available and in an area where they could be called. Mrs. England stated as she understood Mr. Wagner’s concern something should be included that both sides need to be prepared for the inclusion of additional witnesses on the date of the hearing. Mr. Wagner stated that was correct, then the Board could make the decision as to whether or not the additional witnesses were relevant or important without having to wait for another hearing. He stated he would rather hear the testimony at that time while the evidence was fresh in his mind and that kind of thing. Mrs. England stated she agreed with that, and she also felt there should be witness separation and each side should be prepared with any additional witnesses they want to have testify and be prepared to present their justification for additional witnesses to the Board at that time. Mrs. Miller stated at the application process perhaps we should stipulate that they have the opportunity to call three witnesses and if additional witnesses were desired to let the Board know at that time. Mr. Wagner stated if there were something in the language that indicated we would attempt to limit each side to three witnesses, however, if either party felt they needed more than three they needed to request that early, they should show up with those witnesses, and the Board would determine if they were relevant or not. He stated that way there would be no surprise on either side and it would be hard for them to argue in advance why the additional witnesses were relevant if the Board did not know what the other testimony was. Mrs. Miller suggested the language indicate the Board shall limit the witnesses for each party to three unless otherwise requested by either party at the time the application is filed and the relevance of the witnesses will be determined at the hearing. Mrs. Miller stated on the application we could request they list the three witnesses they planned to call and if additional witnesses are desired they should indicate that request for Board approval. She stated she would also add that the additional witnesses should be available during the hearing but may not be called. Mrs. Miller stated she would work with the law director to rework this language and bring it back to the Board at their next meeting.

(2) Discussion regarding Police Officer Eligibility List. Mr. Wagner stated he understood the Board no longer needed to approve the Eligibility List. Mrs. Miller stated with the Charter change the City Manager has control of the Eligibility List going forward but because any challenges to the testing process would be heard by this Board she wanted to keep the members advised on what we are doing. She stated the City Manager has extended the list that this Board approved last year for another six months. Mrs. Miller stated she had also provided the Board with information regarding police officer and dispatcher recruitment and we will be moving forward with that testing process.

4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Wagner stated this Board also has the responsibility of being the Tax Appeals Board and clarified this involved the City’s income tax and not property taxes.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. England moved to adjourn; Mrs. Dunn seconded the motion. Mrs. England, Mr. Wagner, and Mrs. Dunn voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Personnel Appeals Board adjourned at 6:25 P.M, July 21, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, City Clerk