Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Union Meeting Tomorrow
Just a reminder that our monthly meeting is tomorrow at 0830 at the usual spot. We have a lot to cover so if you're interested and/or have questions feel free to attend.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
EHPOA and Town Open Labor Contract Negotiations
Yesterday the EHPOA Negotiating Committee had our first meeting with the Town to open negotiations for a new labor contract to replace the current one set to expire on June 30th 2020. This meeting was just to set the ground rules for negotiations and set future meeting dates, no actual contract items were discussed.
One of the ground rules both sides agreed to is that we will conduct all negotiations in private. This means we will not be able to post anything regarding what is being negotiated on this blog since it's a public forum. We are free to discuss all the details with our members at our meetings and at lineups however. So if you want to know what's going on with negotiations, you're going to have to come to the monthly meetings where we will be giving updates. We'll get a list of committee members posted on the Union bulletin board in the Patrol breakroom as well.
If you have any ideas that you'd like addressed in negotiations and haven't already passed them on to the Union Vice President, please do so by February 4th.
One of the ground rules both sides agreed to is that we will conduct all negotiations in private. This means we will not be able to post anything regarding what is being negotiated on this blog since it's a public forum. We are free to discuss all the details with our members at our meetings and at lineups however. So if you want to know what's going on with negotiations, you're going to have to come to the monthly meetings where we will be giving updates. We'll get a list of committee members posted on the Union bulletin board in the Patrol breakroom as well.
If you have any ideas that you'd like addressed in negotiations and haven't already passed them on to the Union Vice President, please do so by February 4th.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Summary of January 22nd Personnel Appeals Board Hearing
Thanks again to everyone who came to the hearing to show their support for our members. This hearing picked up where the last one left off with the Appellant's testimony. The second Appellant testified to his reasons for filing his appeal which were pretty much in line with the first Appellant who testified at the last hearing. He went over his experience and test preparation, but otherwise there wasn't anything new revealed.
The Appellants also called a Lieutenant from our Department as a witness. He testified that when he took a Sergeant's exam several years ago he too had questions about the reasoning behind the low passing score he received on his oral board exam. In that case he contacted HR Director Santiago Malave and asked to see his score sheets, which he was allowed to do without any questions or having to file any official requests. He also testified that he learned he could do this from another Sergeant who told him that she had been able to see her oral board results and suggested he do the same. This of course stands in stark contrast to the experience the three Appellants had in this case where they were lied to and then denied the ability to review their paperwork, even after filing the official paperwork as instructed by Mr. Malave.
Because we were limited in time at this hearing, that's all we were able to cover. There is another hearing on Monday the 27th at 1700 were the Appellants should be able to wrap up their initial case and the Town will begin theirs, but at this time we don't know if that hearing will be open to the pubic or not.
After the hearing the Appellants, the Union President and Vice President finally received copies of the documents that we've been seeking regarding this matter. We haven't had time to review everything in depth yet since there's a large number of pages, but we'll be working on getting that done and meeting amongst ourselves in the coming days. As we detailed in a previous post we are prohibited from disclosing the contents of the documents to anyone not involved in this process due to a court order. But we can say that after what we've seen so far in a brief overview of the documents, the Union absolutely intends to continue to pursue our grievance on this issue and our assistance to the Appellants for all the reasons we've previously stated here and at our meetings.
The Appellants also called a Lieutenant from our Department as a witness. He testified that when he took a Sergeant's exam several years ago he too had questions about the reasoning behind the low passing score he received on his oral board exam. In that case he contacted HR Director Santiago Malave and asked to see his score sheets, which he was allowed to do without any questions or having to file any official requests. He also testified that he learned he could do this from another Sergeant who told him that she had been able to see her oral board results and suggested he do the same. This of course stands in stark contrast to the experience the three Appellants had in this case where they were lied to and then denied the ability to review their paperwork, even after filing the official paperwork as instructed by Mr. Malave.
Because we were limited in time at this hearing, that's all we were able to cover. There is another hearing on Monday the 27th at 1700 were the Appellants should be able to wrap up their initial case and the Town will begin theirs, but at this time we don't know if that hearing will be open to the pubic or not.
After the hearing the Appellants, the Union President and Vice President finally received copies of the documents that we've been seeking regarding this matter. We haven't had time to review everything in depth yet since there's a large number of pages, but we'll be working on getting that done and meeting amongst ourselves in the coming days. As we detailed in a previous post we are prohibited from disclosing the contents of the documents to anyone not involved in this process due to a court order. But we can say that after what we've seen so far in a brief overview of the documents, the Union absolutely intends to continue to pursue our grievance on this issue and our assistance to the Appellants for all the reasons we've previously stated here and at our meetings.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Personnel Appeals Board Hearing January 22nd
The next PAB Hearing is Scheduled for Wednesday January 22nd from 1700-1900. We have a fixed end time due to another group using the room after us. This hearing will still be open to the public as we will not be using the "confidential" documents at that hearing since we may not have them yet and/or will not have had time to fully review them, so members are still free to come to observe and show their support if you wish.
Friday, January 17, 2020
EHPOA Wins Limited Release of Sergeant's Oral Board Documents in Superior Court
As most of you are aware we have been fighting with the Town over viewing the documents related to the contested Sergeant's test for 7 or 8 months now in multiple venues. The Union has consistently argued that if we were allowed to see the documents and everything appeared legitimate as the Town claims it is, then this issue would go away and we could move forward with promotions. Instead the Town has fought us tooth and nail and spent tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these supposedly benign documents hidden from anyone's view despite past practice of transparency. In the meantime the custodian of the documents suddenly put in for retirement which has further raised suspicion that maybe they're not so benign after all.
One of the venues we've been fighting in is Superior Court where we filed a motion to release the documents for use the Personnel Appeals Board hearings. Last week when the attorneys went before the judge there was no question on his part that the candidates should be allowed to see these documents and use them in their appeals. But he wanted to come up with some sort of protective order over the documents to satisfy the Town's desire to keep them shrouded in secrecy. Yesterday we received the judge's decision on the matter which is as follows;
The Union's attorney, President, Vice President, and the three appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents related to the test unredacted.
The seven non-appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents pertaining only to their own individual tests unredacted.
Witnesses and outside experts may view only the content of the documents pertinent to their testimony.
All parties allowed to view the documents will have to sign a confidentiality agreement to not disclose the information contained in the documents to anyone not listed in the above paragraphs. They must also agree to only use this information for the PAB hearings and may not use them for any other hearing without going through this court process again. Additionally once the hearings are over we must return the documents to the Town for destruction, never to be seen again.
The last main point, which was a point of contention between the Union and the Town, is that when these documents are being discussed in the normally public PAB hearings, the hearing will be made private with only those given access to the documents allowed to be in the room. The Union has pushed for these hearings to remain open to the public and members of the Department because we believe the only cure for corruption in Government is transparency, without it nobody can be assured that the process is fair. The Town unfortunately doesn't share this belief and made a big push to close the hearings to the public and the judge ultimately sided with them.
There's been a lot of speculation over the last few months about what these documents will show, fueled by the Town's irrational grabbing at straws to hide them, and now we'll finally have the answer. Whether they reveal corruption or nothing at all really doesn't matter at this point, the damage has been done. The employees here at EHPD have lost all faith in our Town's HR Department to conduct a competent, impartial, and transparent exam and promotional process. Whenever a new HR Director is finally appointed they're going to have a real challenge on their hands to rebuild trust and fix the complete mess Santiago Malave has made of the Department.
We are also still arguing for the release of these documents through an MPP for use during the grievance process since this order only allows us to use them in the PAB hearing. we have a hearing scheduled for that at the labor board later in the month.
The next PAB Hearing is Scheduled for Wednesday January 22nd from 1700-1900. We have a fixed end time due to another group using the room after us. This hearing will still be open to the public as we will not be using the documents at that hearing since we may not have them yet and/or will not have had time to fully review them, so members are still free to come and show their support.
One of the venues we've been fighting in is Superior Court where we filed a motion to release the documents for use the Personnel Appeals Board hearings. Last week when the attorneys went before the judge there was no question on his part that the candidates should be allowed to see these documents and use them in their appeals. But he wanted to come up with some sort of protective order over the documents to satisfy the Town's desire to keep them shrouded in secrecy. Yesterday we received the judge's decision on the matter which is as follows;
The Union's attorney, President, Vice President, and the three appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents related to the test unredacted.
The seven non-appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents pertaining only to their own individual tests unredacted.
Witnesses and outside experts may view only the content of the documents pertinent to their testimony.
All parties allowed to view the documents will have to sign a confidentiality agreement to not disclose the information contained in the documents to anyone not listed in the above paragraphs. They must also agree to only use this information for the PAB hearings and may not use them for any other hearing without going through this court process again. Additionally once the hearings are over we must return the documents to the Town for destruction, never to be seen again.
The last main point, which was a point of contention between the Union and the Town, is that when these documents are being discussed in the normally public PAB hearings, the hearing will be made private with only those given access to the documents allowed to be in the room. The Union has pushed for these hearings to remain open to the public and members of the Department because we believe the only cure for corruption in Government is transparency, without it nobody can be assured that the process is fair. The Town unfortunately doesn't share this belief and made a big push to close the hearings to the public and the judge ultimately sided with them.
There's been a lot of speculation over the last few months about what these documents will show, fueled by the Town's irrational grabbing at straws to hide them, and now we'll finally have the answer. Whether they reveal corruption or nothing at all really doesn't matter at this point, the damage has been done. The employees here at EHPD have lost all faith in our Town's HR Department to conduct a competent, impartial, and transparent exam and promotional process. Whenever a new HR Director is finally appointed they're going to have a real challenge on their hands to rebuild trust and fix the complete mess Santiago Malave has made of the Department.
We are also still arguing for the release of these documents through an MPP for use during the grievance process since this order only allows us to use them in the PAB hearing. we have a hearing scheduled for that at the labor board later in the month.
The next PAB Hearing is Scheduled for Wednesday January 22nd from 1700-1900. We have a fixed end time due to another group using the room after us. This hearing will still be open to the public as we will not be using the documents at that hearing since we may not have them yet and/or will not have had time to fully review them, so members are still free to come and show their support.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
January Meeting
Our January meeting will be held on Thursday January 30th at 0830 at the usual spots. Due to a packed schedule with PAB Hearings, Superior Court dates, grievances, training, and the opening of contract negotiations we are unable to do it in conjunction with a common day like we usually try to.
On the Agenda will be updates on the Sergeant test appeals/grievance, opening of labor contract negotiations, Appendix F issues, and any other issues that may arise. As always we will have an open floor for members to bring up their own issues.
If you're a Supervisor I encourage you to attend as we've recently had some productive discussions with the Chief about how to resolve the constant Appendix F disputes in contract negotiations and I'd like input from those it affects most.
On the Agenda will be updates on the Sergeant test appeals/grievance, opening of labor contract negotiations, Appendix F issues, and any other issues that may arise. As always we will have an open floor for members to bring up their own issues.
If you're a Supervisor I encourage you to attend as we've recently had some productive discussions with the Chief about how to resolve the constant Appendix F disputes in contract negotiations and I'd like input from those it affects most.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Summary of Jan 8th PAB Hearing
Thanks again to everyone who came and sat in on the hearing last night. Unfortunately it got off to a rocky start with confusion over the start time so we didn't get started until around 1730, and once we did there were a few Administrative motions by board members. Based on the language of the motions and the support from two of the three Board members, it seems to me as though the majority of the Board agrees with the Appellant's position that the Town should be open and transparent with test results to get this rather simple issue cleared up instead of muddying the waters with deception and unnecessary secrecy.
Once we got the hearing started Attorney McEleney began by submitting all the documents he was going to be referring to in his case to the Board as exhibits. The Town's attorney Meredith Diette objected and insisted that the entire 58 page FOI packet the Town gave me months ago including the letters to the examiners and candidates be entered as 58 separate exhibits instead of as one whole document. So we all sat there while all 58 pages were individually numbered and entered. This set the tone for the rest of the hearing with Attorney Diette objecting to almost every document submitted by the appellants after that, including one that was just a chart listing all the candidates and their grades, and relevant emails between the candidates and HR Director Malave.
Both Attorneys then gave their opening statements with Attorney McEleney using his time to simply lay out the facts of the case and reasons for the appeals as we've laid out on here previously. Attorney Diette then gave her statement which continued the Town's theme of "nothing wrong happened but we're not going to prove it you, and you need to stop asking." During her statement however she repeatedly stressed that the one candidate with the perfect score and 28 point gap to second place was female, bringing it up over and over again with a strong verbal emphasis. It was obvious to everyone there that Attorney Diette was trying to make the implication that this appeal was only happening because the appellants had some sort of sexist bias and not because everyone else who took the test either failed or just barely passed with a minimum score. Not only is her implication unfounded and offensive to our members, but it seems pretty stupid to accuse your client's employees of sexism against a coworker while your client is actively being sued by that same coworker for sexism in the workplace. I'm no lawyer but that seems like a pretty bad legal strategy to me. Chief Sansom complains about morale being low among the ranks, why not try telling your lawyer not to make completely unfounded implications of illegal behavior by your employees in a public hearing as a morale booster?
In fact when the first appellant, began his testimony the first thing he did was call out Attorney Diette on her offensive comments to which she had no response. He then went on to detail his extensive preparation for the tests, the test questions and his feelings on them, his discussions with other candidates and employees about his answers and his lack of understanding of his score. He also described how after the scores were released, he was mislead by Human Resources.
The Officer explained that he went to HR and asked Suzan Kyeremateng how he could view his test results to help understand his score and she told him he would have to wait 15 days after the posting to look at them, but he would be able to. A short time later he learned that in order to file a PAB appeal he only had 14 days, so had he taken Suzan's advice he would have missed the window to file an appeal. Either she isn't familiar with the processes of the Department she works in, or she intentionally mislead the Officer to prevent him from filing an appeal. After realizing this he emailed HR Director Malave and asked how he could view his test results, Malave responded that he would have to file an FOI request, but implied that after that he'd be able to see them. Several days after filing the FOI Malave responded that it was denied and refused to show him anything. This whole exchange was captured via email, when a copy of the email was submitted as an exhibit Attorney Diette objected and was able to keep it from being seen by the Board members. Fortunately during a blunder later during cross examination she accidentally opened the door to the email and it was allowed to be submitted to the Board.
This seems like a recurring theme with HR where we never can quite tell if they're simply incompetent, or if they know exactly what they're doing and are just lying. Either way our members should take it as a warning for future interactions with them that you cant believe anything they tell you. You're going to have to look things up for yourself.
We had a scheduled stop time of 2000, and during her cross examination of the first Officer Attorney Diette seemed to be asking a number of repetitive or irrelevant questions while repeatedly looking at the clock. It seemed to me and others watching that she was simply trying to waste time and run down the clock to prevent Attorney McEleney from calling another witness that day, and she succeeded in running just past 2000. Fortunately for us, the PAB, perhaps noticing Attorney Diette's tactic, allowed McEleney to call one more witness before adjourning.
Attorney McEleney called one of our members who took the Detective's exam in 2018. That member detailed how she questioned her oral board score and requested of Mr. Malave that she be allowed to view her score sheets. Mr. Malave not only allowed her to see the sheets, but he didn't request that she file an FOI or take any other additional steps. It was a completely different exchange to the one Officers had with this test. Of course this exchange was also captured in an email chain which Attorney McEleney tried to give to the Board members but Attorney Diette again objected to it.
The hearing was adjourned after that. The next hearing will be in two weeks on Jan 22nd at 1700, unless they change it to 1730. We expect that the Appellants will proceed with the rest of their witnesses on that date.
Once we got the hearing started Attorney McEleney began by submitting all the documents he was going to be referring to in his case to the Board as exhibits. The Town's attorney Meredith Diette objected and insisted that the entire 58 page FOI packet the Town gave me months ago including the letters to the examiners and candidates be entered as 58 separate exhibits instead of as one whole document. So we all sat there while all 58 pages were individually numbered and entered. This set the tone for the rest of the hearing with Attorney Diette objecting to almost every document submitted by the appellants after that, including one that was just a chart listing all the candidates and their grades, and relevant emails between the candidates and HR Director Malave.
Both Attorneys then gave their opening statements with Attorney McEleney using his time to simply lay out the facts of the case and reasons for the appeals as we've laid out on here previously. Attorney Diette then gave her statement which continued the Town's theme of "nothing wrong happened but we're not going to prove it you, and you need to stop asking." During her statement however she repeatedly stressed that the one candidate with the perfect score and 28 point gap to second place was female, bringing it up over and over again with a strong verbal emphasis. It was obvious to everyone there that Attorney Diette was trying to make the implication that this appeal was only happening because the appellants had some sort of sexist bias and not because everyone else who took the test either failed or just barely passed with a minimum score. Not only is her implication unfounded and offensive to our members, but it seems pretty stupid to accuse your client's employees of sexism against a coworker while your client is actively being sued by that same coworker for sexism in the workplace. I'm no lawyer but that seems like a pretty bad legal strategy to me. Chief Sansom complains about morale being low among the ranks, why not try telling your lawyer not to make completely unfounded implications of illegal behavior by your employees in a public hearing as a morale booster?
In fact when the first appellant, began his testimony the first thing he did was call out Attorney Diette on her offensive comments to which she had no response. He then went on to detail his extensive preparation for the tests, the test questions and his feelings on them, his discussions with other candidates and employees about his answers and his lack of understanding of his score. He also described how after the scores were released, he was mislead by Human Resources.
The Officer explained that he went to HR and asked Suzan Kyeremateng how he could view his test results to help understand his score and she told him he would have to wait 15 days after the posting to look at them, but he would be able to. A short time later he learned that in order to file a PAB appeal he only had 14 days, so had he taken Suzan's advice he would have missed the window to file an appeal. Either she isn't familiar with the processes of the Department she works in, or she intentionally mislead the Officer to prevent him from filing an appeal. After realizing this he emailed HR Director Malave and asked how he could view his test results, Malave responded that he would have to file an FOI request, but implied that after that he'd be able to see them. Several days after filing the FOI Malave responded that it was denied and refused to show him anything. This whole exchange was captured via email, when a copy of the email was submitted as an exhibit Attorney Diette objected and was able to keep it from being seen by the Board members. Fortunately during a blunder later during cross examination she accidentally opened the door to the email and it was allowed to be submitted to the Board.
This seems like a recurring theme with HR where we never can quite tell if they're simply incompetent, or if they know exactly what they're doing and are just lying. Either way our members should take it as a warning for future interactions with them that you cant believe anything they tell you. You're going to have to look things up for yourself.
We had a scheduled stop time of 2000, and during her cross examination of the first Officer Attorney Diette seemed to be asking a number of repetitive or irrelevant questions while repeatedly looking at the clock. It seemed to me and others watching that she was simply trying to waste time and run down the clock to prevent Attorney McEleney from calling another witness that day, and she succeeded in running just past 2000. Fortunately for us, the PAB, perhaps noticing Attorney Diette's tactic, allowed McEleney to call one more witness before adjourning.
Attorney McEleney called one of our members who took the Detective's exam in 2018. That member detailed how she questioned her oral board score and requested of Mr. Malave that she be allowed to view her score sheets. Mr. Malave not only allowed her to see the sheets, but he didn't request that she file an FOI or take any other additional steps. It was a completely different exchange to the one Officers had with this test. Of course this exchange was also captured in an email chain which Attorney McEleney tried to give to the Board members but Attorney Diette again objected to it.
The hearing was adjourned after that. The next hearing will be in two weeks on Jan 22nd at 1700, unless they change it to 1730. We expect that the Appellants will proceed with the rest of their witnesses on that date.
Monday, January 6, 2020
PAB Hearing this Wednesday January 8th
The Personnel Appeals Board hearing for this Wednesday is going forward. The plan is to have the appellants and other witnesses on our side testify at this hearing. The hearing will take place at 1700 hours in Town Council Chambers at Town Hall. If you're free and would like to attend to show your support or just learn more about what's going on with the process, the hearing is open to the public and we encourage you to attend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)