Amended 7/19/05

 

COUNTY SERVICES

June 21, 2005

Minutes

 

Members Present:         Victor Celentino, Dale Copedge, Debbie DeLeon, Andy Schor, Mike Severino and Board Chairperson Mark Grebner

 

Members Absent:         Don Vickers

 

Others Present:             Harold Hailey, Jerry Ambrose, Rick Terrill, Matthew Myers, Donna Rummel, Robert Van Kirk, Matt Denny, Sally Auer, Scott Sigman, Steve Dawes, Taylor Allen, Sheryl Fritze and others

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Celentino at 7:01 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing.

 

Approval of the June 7, 2005 Minutes

MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SCHOR, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 7 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  Absent:  Comms. Copedge and Vickers

 

Additions to the Agenda

1b.       Youth Commission Semi-Annual Report

4.         Proclamation Honoring the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. Epsilon Tau Sigma Chapter on the Event of their 30th Anniversary

 

Limited Public Comment:          None

(Comm. Copedge arrived at 7:03 p.m.)

 

1a.       Youth Commission – Interview

 

The Committee interviewed Jessica Seguin for a position on the Youth Commission.

 

MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SEVERINO, TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF JESSICA SEGUIN TO THE INGHAM COUNTY YOUTH COMMISSION.  MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  Absent:  Comm. Vickers

 

            b.         Youth Commission’s Semi-Annual Report

 

Mr. VanKirk informed the Committee that the Youth Commission will now provide semi-annual reports versus quarterly reports.  Semi-annual reports will coordinate well with the school schedule.

 

Various members of the Youth Commission reviewed the Semi-Annual Report which was distributed to the Committee.  The Commission is staying true to the average of $8.00 per meeting for snacks.  It also hosted a Teen Forum this year.  If funding allows, the Commission would like to continue this event.

 

Comm. Severino expressed his appreciation to the Youth Commission for their hard work.  He then asked why the Commission drafted the resolution regarding the D.A.R.E. program.  Mr. VanKirk explained the D.A.R.E. program directly affects the youth.  Mr. Denny stated the issue was brought up at a Youth Commission meeting.  Mr. VanKirk stated another program may be more effective with the youth. 

 

Comm. Severino stated it is very important for the Commission to continue to formulate its own ideas free from outside sources.  Mr. VanKirk agreed with this statement.  In response to Comm. Copedge, Mr. VanKirk stated the Commission did not feel pressured by the Law Enforcement Committee to address the D.A.R.E. program issue.

 

2.         Human Resources Department

            a.         2005 First Quarter Labor Force Statistics Report

 

The Report was received and placed on file.

 

            b.         Step 4 Grievance/UAW

 

Mr. Hailey stated a Step 4 Grievance requires a hearing before this Committee.  Mr. Terrill, Mr. Myers and the employee and his representatives are present for this hearing. The employee is employed by the Facilities Department.

 

Mr. Terrill, Facilities Director, stated the Facilities Department employee, Scott Sigman (Employee), has been a good employee and his work record is pretty good.  He then explained that recent events have made it inappropriate for the Employee to work at the Sheriff’s Office in the position of Mechanic II.  A responsibility of this position involves complex maintenance of security equipment.  This is a specific duty related to the Sheriff’s Office Jail. 

 

The Employee was investigated in March 2005 for accusations of marijuana possession.  Mr. Terrill stated the Employee denied any involvement with the anonymous accusation regarding marijuana.  Due to the Employee’s good work record, Mr. Terrill stated he dismissed this anonymous accusation.  The Sheriff’s Office Jail then investigated this matter.  During a search of the Employee’s home, a badge was found by deputies.  The Sheriff’s Office could not let the Employee continue his duties at the Office due to a lack of trust. 

 

In lieu of termination of the Employee due to his good work history, the Facilities Department decided to reduce the Employee’s position from Mechanic II to Mechanic I. 

 

Mr. Dawes, UAW International Staff; Region 1C, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Employee.  He stated the Employee has an unblemished work record with the County, as well as a number of accomplishments.  Mr. Dawes stated there is no proof of contract or work violations.  The UAW requests the Employee be reinstated to the Mechanic II position with the appropriate back pay.  This issue should also be removed from the Employee’s work record.

 

Mr. Myers, Sheriff’s Office, stated the Employee had been a good employee at the Office for several years.  The Employee was well respected by the Office.  When the Office receives a complaint regarding the possession of marijuana, it is bound to investigate such a complaint.  Mr. Myers stated the Facility’s Department is being more than fair by not terminating the Employee.  However, the Employee cannot remain in his position at the Sheriff’s Office Jail.  The contract does not have to be specific regarding an accusation of this nature for the Office to investigate such a complaint and then to take a common sense approach to discipline. 

 

Mr. Myers stated he gives the Employee credit for his good work history.   The Office cannot allow the Facility’s Department to keep the Employee on its site because the Employee is now a security risk. 

 

In response to Comm. Schor, Mr. Dawes stated the Union is not opposed to the change in work site for the Employee. 

 

Comm. Severino stated the Sheriff’s Office has a right, as an elected office, to have a say in who works at the Office.  It is, however, up to this Committee to determine if the Employee should be relocated to a different site and be allowed to keep his current rate of pay or to receive a reduced rate of pay. 

 

Mr. Dawes stated the Employee admitted he found the twelve year old badge.  The Sheriff’s Office does not have any documentation regarding this specific badge or its history.  Possession of this badge would be classified as a misdemeanor. 

 

Mr. Hailey explained the Employee is being disciplined for ‘just cause’ reasons.  This Committee must determine if the action of the Facility’s Director is appropriate.  Mr. Terrill stated there is only one Mechanic II site with the County and it is located at the Sheriff’s Office.  Another position would have to be created for the Employee to maintain his current standing. 

 

Mr. Ambrose stated there is a concern that the assignment of central service employees to these work locations could be dictated by the elected officials.  However, this issue involves a position that is specific to the Sheriff’s Office.  All employees at the Jail are subject to a security clearance. 

 

Ms. Auer, UAW, stated the job descriptions for the Mechanic I and Mechanic II positions are very similar.  There are only two differences between the two descriptions.  The Employee can still perform a majority of the Mechanic II duties.  Mr. Terrill stated there are similarities between the two descriptions.  The distinction between the two is that the Mechanic II position requires complex repair of security equipment at the Jail. 

 

Comm. Schor stated he would only consider disciplines which are related to the actual verdict in the Employee’s court case.  This Committee should consider the end result.

 

The Committee and parties of the Grievance discussed the financial aspects of this matter.  Mr. Hailey explained the Mechanic II position was ‘red-lined’ during the recent job study.  The study determined that a lower wage would be appropriate for this position.  Therefore, if the Mechanic II position is filled with a new employee, that employee would be paid on a lower pay scale than the current employee. 

 

The discussion of the grievance continued.  Mr. Myers stated the badge was unmarked and the Employee denied accusations regarding marijuana at the beginning of this process. 

 

Chairperson Grebner stated the Employee does not have the trust of the employer.  Trust is an implicit requirement for any position.  The County cannot create a new position for the Employee when the Employee was the cause of the problem.  Chairperson Grebner suggested the Employee be allowed to keep his ‘red lined’ benefits and that he be bumped down to a Mechanic I position. 

 

Comm. DeLeon stated she was troubled by this issue.  She expressed her disappointment that a union employee would place the union in a position of defending him for his own decisions.  Mr. Dawes stated the union only represents the rights of the Employee.  The union does not condone the actions of the Employee. 

 

Mr. Myers explained the Employee is entitled to an administrative review by this Committee.  The criminal charges are separate from this review.  This Committee should not base its decision on the court’s upcoming decision.  Comm. DeLeon stated this is a ‘just cause’ situation.  The Sheriff’s Office cannot trust the Employee in its environment due to his own choices. 

 

Mr. Ambrose stated the Facilities Director and the Controller’s Office agree with the Sheriff’s Office recommendation.  Chairperson Grebner proposed the Employee be placed in the Mechanic I position and also be granted the benefits of his current ‘red line’ status.  Mr. Ambrose stated there is approximately a $3,000 difference between the two positions. 

 

(The Employee and his representatives left the room at this time to discuss the above proposal at 8:27 p.m.  The meeting paused at this time.)

 

(The Employee and his representatives returned to the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The Committee resumed the meeting at this time.)

 

Mr. Dawes asked for clarification of the proposal.  Mr. Ambrose explained the difference of approximately $2,744 would be added to the Employee’s pay in the Mechanic I position.  The topped out rate at the Mechanic I position would be $37,382.  Ms. Auer asked if accepting this proposal would set a precedent.  Mr. Ambrose explained that it would not set a precedent and that a Letter of Understanding would be drafted.  The Employee would also receive retro pay from the date he started receiving the reduced amount of pay.  Mr. Dawes stated the Employee would be eligible for all raises under his new position.  He should also be considered for future advancement after his rehabilitation.  Mr. Ambrose stated if the Employee reapplies for the Mechanic II position in the future, he would be subject to the Sheriff’s Office security clearance process. 

 

Mr. Sigman, Employee, apologized to the Committee and his representatives for the purpose of this discussion.  He stated he was not proud of his previous actions.  On his own initiative, he is participating in the Project Sentry program.  To date, he stated he has not failed any drug tests.  Mr. Sigman stated he would never use illegal drugs again.  He further stated he is willing to accept the proposal.  Mr. Sigman stated he was very appreciative of still being employed by the County.

 

MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SCHOR, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S PAY SCALE AT THE MECHANIC I POSITION, THE EMPLOYEE WOULD RECEIVE RETRO PAY, HE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR ALL RAISES UNDER HIS NEW POSITION.  THE EMPLOYEE WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE ADVANCEMENT REQUESTS.  MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  Absent:  Comm. Vickers

 

3.         Discussion Item – Elected Road Commissioners

 

Chairperson Celentino stated Mr. Ambrose provided the information on this item at the request of Comm. Severino.  Comm. Severino thanked staff for its efforts in providing this material.  He stated the Committee should consider changing the process of appointing Road Commissioners to having the Commissioners elected by the community.  Twenty-seven counties in Michigan elect their Road Commissioners.  Removal of Road Commissioners should be a matter of the people, not the Board of Commissioners. 

 

Public Comment

Mr. Allen, Stockbridge Township Supervisor, stated the Township had enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the Road Commission until the past three or four years.  He believes the Commission did not take specific issues into account when acting on an item which affected the Township.  Townships have responsibility over zoning issues within their communities.  Mr. Allen stated the Board of Commissioners should conduct further research before making any changes as discussed in agenda item three.  He further stated he believes the Road Commission has failed to effectively communicate with the municipalities.

 

Chairperson Celentino asked if the Stockbridge Township Board has any comments regarding the Road Commission.  Mr. Allen stated the Board discussed this matter at its meeting last night.  Comm. Schor asked if the Township believes there would be a difference between appointed and elected Road Commissioners.  Mr. Allen stated he does not know if there would be a difference.  The current arrangement is appropriate because the Board of Commissioners has some say in their activities. 

Comm. Severino stated the Road Commissioners would be elected by approximately 100,000 people.  Currently, seven people appoint them to office.  Elected officials are also subject to recall provisions of the State.

 

This discussion continued.  Chairperson Grebner stated changing the appointment process to an elected process would create partisanship.   If the election process could be non-partisan, the process may work. 

 

Ms. Fritze stated the Board of Commissioners currently has more power over the Road Commission.  This would change if the Road Commissioners were elected.

 

3.         Continued

 

Comm. Severino stated he has received many good recommendations regarding the Road Commission issue.  He has also received many good suggestions for interviewing future Road Commission applicants. 

 

4.         Proclamation Honoring the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., Epsilon Tau Sigma Chapter on the Event of their 30th Anniversary

 

Comm. Schor explained that he requested this issue be placed on tonight’s agenda prior to his signing of the Proclamation.  Comm. DeLeon stated she fully endorses the Proclamation. 

 

Announcements:           None

 

Public Comment – Continued

Ms. Fritze explained that the Okemos residents’ concerns regarding the Okemos Road project regards the plan and process used by the Road Commissioners in approving the project.   She then updated the Committee on the current situation regarding the project.  For the second time, a judge has invalidated the Road Commission’s vote on the project.  However, trees were being cut down today.  Since the project has not been properly approved, she believes the cutting of the trees is illegal. 

 

Ms. Fritze then spoke regarding her personal expenses related to this matter.  She then requested the removal of Ms. McDonald and Mr. Smith from the Road Commission.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Debra Neff