As many have heard since it went public, last Friday our Union and the Town of East Hartford were served with a CHRO complaint from one of our members, Investigator Courtney Desilet claiming gender discrimination. We've passed the complaint on to our counsel so I'm not going to get into the nuance, but I will address the main basic issues that came up.
The main allegation is that the Union filed our grievance challenging the results of the Sergeant's oral board simply because the top placed candidate who received a perfect score is a female. Anyone who has read our previous posts here about that matter knows our actual reasons for filing the grievance which we've explained in great detail on this blog, and they have nothing to do with the gender of any of the candidates. She also alleges that we have asserted she engaged in misconduct. Again I would refer you to any of our previous posts, we have never accused anyone other than HR Director Malave of misconduct and/or (severe) incompetence. We have been very careful about this because we still don't know what happened, and wont know until we get the documents related to the test which we are still seeking. We would not throw accusations at our own members without solid evidence that they had done something wrong.
The complaint further alleges that the Union and Town are conspiring to deny this individual a promotion that she feels she is entitled to, because of her gender. I've personally been to every meeting between the Union and Town on this matter and I can tell you we haven't been able to agree on a single thing nevermind coming together to form a conspiracy. Also this individual hasn't been singled out to be denied a promotion. Every single candidate on the list has been denied a promotion, male and female, and they will continue to be denied promotion until the grievance and personnel appeals are completed which is how the process is supposed to play out. The last point I'd like to make on this allegation is that nobody is entitled to a promotion based solely on their test scores, the Chief still reserves the right to pass someone over on the list for promotion if he sees fit, and previous Chiefs have done just that. So there is no guarantee this individual would've been promoted had there been no grievance or personnel appeals filed anyway.
There is also a charge that the Union has refused to show the complainant documents related to our grievance, and that we've kept her in the dark on it's status. This individual has never once approached me or any other Union Officer and asked to see our files. If she had she would've been shown everything as the documents we have are all in the public record, meaning that even if we did refuse, she could have simply FOIed them from the Town. As to not keeping her informed, again I'd point to this blog where I have worked to keep everyone up to date on the latest goings on regarding that issue. Additionally we have discussed the matter multiple times at Union meetings where it was listed on the agenda beforehand, and the minutes posted on the Union bulletin board afterward. These meetings are open to all members including the complainant. I don't think there's anyone in our Department who doesn't know what's going on with this process thanks to our efforts to keep them up to date and be transparent. Therefore these claims are completely false.
Her complaint then delves into numerous alleged personal issues she has had with several members of the Department. She and her attorney somehow are trying to project liability for their alleged actions (the truth of which should also be called into question.) onto the Union as an organization simply because they are members. The Union is not responsible for the actions of each individual member as our bylaws give us no methods or authority to discipline or otherwise Police our membership's behavior. That authority rests solely with the Police Department Administration and the Union is statutorily required to provide a defense.
It should be noted that many of her accusations against members in her complaint were copy and pasted from a complaint she previously filed with Internal Affairs. As far as I know that complaint was investigated and was not sustained because it lacked credibility. Curiously she omitted the parts of her IA complaint from her CHRO where she accused other female employees of harassing her because that didn't fit the new narrative of gender discrimination.
It's my opinion that this complaint lacks any credibility or substantiated evidence of discrimination by the Union, or the Town for that matter. The complaint contains several statements that are clearly and demonstrably false and I am looking forward to having this matter adjudicated in a courtroom setting under oath where I am confident we will prevail.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Pension Deal Passed
Town Council voted last night to APPROVE our new pension contract. All that's left now is to sign off on the MOU and the contract to put it into effect. I'll put up a longer post here about the details once it's all done.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Show Your Support - Personnel Hearing
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be a Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria from the Sergeant's Oral Board Exam so our members will have a fighting chance in their appeals and we can all finally learn something about what transpired with this test.
I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible and show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is that it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test that were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible and a slap in the face to the credibility or our promotional process, let's show them this affects everyone.
I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible and show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is that it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test that were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible and a slap in the face to the credibility or our promotional process, let's show them this affects everyone.
The Latest on the Sergeant's Test Grievance
Since the last update we posted here we've had a few hearings on this matter but no decisions have been handed down yet. The Town unfortunately hasn't budged on their stance which can be summed up as "we didn't do anything wrong, but we're not going to prove it to you. Please stop asking."
On September 26th we had a hearing at Town Hall regarding the Municipal Prohibited Practice (MPP) complaint we filed regarding the Town's refusal to honor our MERA request for the documents from the test that should be able to easily prove or disprove any claims of wrongdoing. Attorney McEleney presented our case to the State Mediator, I'll try to summarize as best as I can though there are a lot of complex legal issues involved that I'll admit I don't fully understand so I won't get into in great detail.
Our case centers on a provision of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) which states a Union is entitled to any documents from the municipality that it needs to file and argue a grievance. I filed a MERA request with the initial grievance asking for the scores, scoring criteria, and notes of the evaluators so that we could see the reasoning behind the scores and determine if there was in fact any foul play or tampering. Had we been given these documents and they showed the scores were legitimate, we would've been able to drop the grievance and let the promotional process proceed. In response the Town provided us with the raw numeric scores of the candidates, but refused to show us any of the criteria or notes that would explain why the scores are what they are. The purpose of our complaint is to try and force the Town to provide us with these documents so we can make our case.
The Town's counter argument revolves around a provision of the state Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which includes an exception that states test questions and other proprietary information do not have to be disclosed due to an FOI request. Our response to this point is that we're not requesting the documents under the FOI statute, we're asking for them under MERA which has no such exceptions, therefore the language of the FOI statute is irrelevant to our request. The Town seems to be trying to make the argument that an exception that exists under FOI should also apply under MERA, or trump MERA altogether, though they concede there is no prior case law to support this assertion.
Mediation on the issue was attempted and was unsuccessful so the hearing was brought to a close after both sides were done arguing our points. As of this writing we still have not received a decision or response on the outcome of this hearing.
On October 15th we had our first hearing at the Labor Board in Wethersfield. This was supposed to the beginning of the hearing for the actual grievance but the Town requested to change it to a hearing on the arbitrability of the grievance. What this means is the Town is trying to argue that the matter at hand is not subject to collective bargaining or arbitration and therefore the case should not even be heard. There was a lot of legal speak that went over my head and cases cited as to why they believe this that I won't get into because I'd probably get it wrong.
However they also made the argument that the Personnel Appeals Board was the proper avenue to take an issue with a promotional exam and not the Labor Board. I find this assertion comical for a few reasons, first and foremost is that the Town has also refused to show the individuals who filed Personnel appeals their test results, so they're being sent into these appeals with no idea of what they're appealing because the documents are all being hidden by HR Director Santiago Malave. For comparison, imagine going into a court case to fight charges against you and not being allowed discovery, so you have no idea what the evidence against you is until it's presented in the court room. This is what our Town considers a "fair process."
Secondly the Personnel Board is ultimately a part of the Town Government, does it really seem fair that your only avenue to take up an issue you have against the Town, is with the Town!? As Police Officers we constantly hear how there's a need for outside scrutiny of us because an internal investigation can't be impartial. That's the reason why when we have an Officer involved critical incident that results in a death we have to call in an outside agency to investigate it, to ensure impartiality and credibility. So why does the Town think the rest of the Town Government should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny? Now we're fortunate here in East Hartford that our Personnel Appeals Board has ruled against the Town in the past and have shown they can be impartial and I'm grateful to have them as an option, but I don't think it should be your only option.
Attorney McEleney put on a great case on our behalf and was able to show that our labor contract does include provisions that govern how promotional tests will be handled so the issue is clearly arbitrable. He was also able to argue that while the Personnel Board is another venue to deal this matter, it's not the only one. Briefs on this matter were submitted last week and now we wait for a decision, if the case is determined not arbitrable then the grievance will be dismissed, otherwise we'll schedule a new hearing date to begin presenting the actual case before the Board. Though we may have to wait until the MPP matter is settled first as we'd like to have the documents we requested to help us make our case.
On September 24th the members who filed Personnel Board appeals had their first appearance, though it was more of a formality for the Board to officially accept their appeals and set hearing dates. Attorney McEleney is representing the members in their appeals.
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be another Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria so our members will at least have a fighting chance in their appeals. I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible to show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is because it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test who were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible, let's show them this issue affects everyone.
Once we have some more hearings or get any decisions I'll update here again.
On September 26th we had a hearing at Town Hall regarding the Municipal Prohibited Practice (MPP) complaint we filed regarding the Town's refusal to honor our MERA request for the documents from the test that should be able to easily prove or disprove any claims of wrongdoing. Attorney McEleney presented our case to the State Mediator, I'll try to summarize as best as I can though there are a lot of complex legal issues involved that I'll admit I don't fully understand so I won't get into in great detail.
Our case centers on a provision of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) which states a Union is entitled to any documents from the municipality that it needs to file and argue a grievance. I filed a MERA request with the initial grievance asking for the scores, scoring criteria, and notes of the evaluators so that we could see the reasoning behind the scores and determine if there was in fact any foul play or tampering. Had we been given these documents and they showed the scores were legitimate, we would've been able to drop the grievance and let the promotional process proceed. In response the Town provided us with the raw numeric scores of the candidates, but refused to show us any of the criteria or notes that would explain why the scores are what they are. The purpose of our complaint is to try and force the Town to provide us with these documents so we can make our case.
The Town's counter argument revolves around a provision of the state Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which includes an exception that states test questions and other proprietary information do not have to be disclosed due to an FOI request. Our response to this point is that we're not requesting the documents under the FOI statute, we're asking for them under MERA which has no such exceptions, therefore the language of the FOI statute is irrelevant to our request. The Town seems to be trying to make the argument that an exception that exists under FOI should also apply under MERA, or trump MERA altogether, though they concede there is no prior case law to support this assertion.
Mediation on the issue was attempted and was unsuccessful so the hearing was brought to a close after both sides were done arguing our points. As of this writing we still have not received a decision or response on the outcome of this hearing.
On October 15th we had our first hearing at the Labor Board in Wethersfield. This was supposed to the beginning of the hearing for the actual grievance but the Town requested to change it to a hearing on the arbitrability of the grievance. What this means is the Town is trying to argue that the matter at hand is not subject to collective bargaining or arbitration and therefore the case should not even be heard. There was a lot of legal speak that went over my head and cases cited as to why they believe this that I won't get into because I'd probably get it wrong.
However they also made the argument that the Personnel Appeals Board was the proper avenue to take an issue with a promotional exam and not the Labor Board. I find this assertion comical for a few reasons, first and foremost is that the Town has also refused to show the individuals who filed Personnel appeals their test results, so they're being sent into these appeals with no idea of what they're appealing because the documents are all being hidden by HR Director Santiago Malave. For comparison, imagine going into a court case to fight charges against you and not being allowed discovery, so you have no idea what the evidence against you is until it's presented in the court room. This is what our Town considers a "fair process."
Secondly the Personnel Board is ultimately a part of the Town Government, does it really seem fair that your only avenue to take up an issue you have against the Town, is with the Town!? As Police Officers we constantly hear how there's a need for outside scrutiny of us because an internal investigation can't be impartial. That's the reason why when we have an Officer involved critical incident that results in a death we have to call in an outside agency to investigate it, to ensure impartiality and credibility. So why does the Town think the rest of the Town Government should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny? Now we're fortunate here in East Hartford that our Personnel Appeals Board has ruled against the Town in the past and have shown they can be impartial and I'm grateful to have them as an option, but I don't think it should be your only option.
Attorney McEleney put on a great case on our behalf and was able to show that our labor contract does include provisions that govern how promotional tests will be handled so the issue is clearly arbitrable. He was also able to argue that while the Personnel Board is another venue to deal this matter, it's not the only one. Briefs on this matter were submitted last week and now we wait for a decision, if the case is determined not arbitrable then the grievance will be dismissed, otherwise we'll schedule a new hearing date to begin presenting the actual case before the Board. Though we may have to wait until the MPP matter is settled first as we'd like to have the documents we requested to help us make our case.
On September 24th the members who filed Personnel Board appeals had their first appearance, though it was more of a formality for the Board to officially accept their appeals and set hearing dates. Attorney McEleney is representing the members in their appeals.
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be another Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria so our members will at least have a fighting chance in their appeals. I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible to show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is because it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test who were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible, let's show them this issue affects everyone.
Once we have some more hearings or get any decisions I'll update here again.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
October Meeting
Our October Meeting will be held on Monday October 28th at 0830 in the usual spot. I know the time isn't the most convenient as we normally try to schedule it around common days but due to all the training going on this month nobody really has a normal common day so we're working around it. Unfortunately the Town Council vote on our Pension deal has been postponed to the 10-29 meeting (due to other unrelated matters that came up they needed to deal with first.) so we won't be able to cover that issue, the only new business we'll have is info on the latest meeting we had regarding the Sergeant's exam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)