SR-603-013 (2)
~
..
-.
.
603- 0/3
.
CA:RMM:lbcsr44jhpw
city council Meeting 8-8-89
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
S?'...4
AUG 0 8 \'89
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Adding section 21061 to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code Implementing the Use of A Hearing
Officer in Employee Disciplinary Hearings
At its meeting on September 27, 1988, the City Council
directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a
hearing officer procedure for the conduct of hearings involving
employee terminations, suspensions, and demotions.
In response
to this directionr the accompanying ordinance has been prepared
and is presented to the city Council for its consideration.
Under current city laws, any employee who has been
terminated, suspended, or demoted may request a hearing before
the Personnel Board. Over the years, the length and complexity
of
hearings
before
the
Personnel
Board
has
increased.
Accordingly, the Personnel Board, City staff, and representatives
of employee organizations agreed that a procedure should be
established by which a Hearing Officer hears evidence and makes
recommendations to the Personnel Board.
The accompanying ordlnance adds section 21061 to the Santa
Monica Municipal Code. This Section provides that an employee can
request or agree to have a disciplinary matter heard by a hearing
officer. This section further sets forth the procedures for the
~A
AUG 0 8'i19
- 1 -
.
.
selection of hearing officers, the conduct of hearings, and the
action of the Personnel Board in response to the hearing
officer's recommendation.
A draft of this Ordinance was sent to all bargaining units
on July 19, 1989. Representatives from five of those units met
with representatives from the city Attorney's office and the
Personnel Department on July 24, 1989, and requested some changes
and additions. In response to their requests, the Hearing
Officer Panel List was increased from twelve (12) to twenty (20)
persons and the individual hearing list was increased from five
(S) to eleven (11) persons. At the employees' urging, the
Hearing Officers Panel List was given a specific term of two (2)
years. It was also suggested that individual Hearing Officers be
subject to approval by employee groups before they could be
included on the Panel List. This was considered to be too
cumbersome a procedure and unnecessary due to the increased
numbers of Hearing Officers from which to select.
A request was made that the Personnel Board be required to
rehear the entire hearing if they chose to reject the findings of
the Hearing Officer. This requirement could have an inhibiting
effect on the Board's inclination to correct a Hearing Officer's
mistake. To address the employees' concerns that the Board could
act in an arbitrary manner, a requirement that the City order,
pay for, and review a transcript before rejecting any findings
and recommendations of the Hearing Officer has been added.
- 2 -
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Lyn Beckett Cacciatore, Deputy city Attorney
- 3 -