To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 

 

 

 

Minutes of Special Meeting

 

Monday, September 22, 2008

 

1:00 p.m.

 

I.

The Special Meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m.

 

 

 

Present:

President Donald A. Casper

 

 

Vice President Morgan R. Gorrono

 

 

Commissioner Yu-Yee Wu Sheridan

 

 

 

Not Present:

Commissioner Mary Y. Jung (Notified absence)

 

 

Commissioner E. Dennis Normandy (Notified absence)

 

 

 

President Donald A. Casper presided.

 

 

II.

Public Comment on all matters appearing on the Special Meeting Agenda Session.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

III.

Follow-Up Hearing of Appeals From Q-35 Assistant Inspector Eligibles on List ID 21055, Challenging Classification Decision Relating to Q-50 Sergeant Appointments and Assignments Made in August 2007 and Failure to Appoint Appellants to Q-35 Assistant Inspector. (File No. 0268-08-1 ) Discussion and Possible Action

 

 

 

Speakers:

Juanita Stockwell, Appellant

 

 

Robert Ford, Appellant

 

 

Peter Busalacchi, Appellant

 

 

Rolando Canales, Appellant

 

 

Diane McKevitt, Appellant

 

 

Anthony Johnson, Appellant

 

 

Bartholomew Johnson, Appellant

 

 

George Fogarty, Appellant

 

 

Guillermo Amigo, Appellant

 

 

E.R. Balinton, Appellant

 

 

Mary Godfrey, Appellant

 

 

Richard Jue, Appellant

 

 

Vincent Neeson, Appellant

 

 

Sheila Jackson, Appellant

 

 

Doreen Carroll, Appellant

 

 

Silvia David, Appellant

 

 

Robert Leung, Appellant

 

 

Dan Gray, Appellant

 

 

Michelle Rodriguez, Public Advocates

 

 

John Affeldt, Public Advocates

 

 

Alice Villagomez, Human Resources Director, SFPD

 

 

Elizabeth Salveson, City Attorney’s Office

 

 

Bruce Topp, Department of Human Resources

 

 

Deputy Chief Kevin Cashman, Field Operations Bureau-SFPD

 

 

Terrye Ivy, Appellant

 

 

Julian Hill, President, Officers for Justice

 

 

Marion Jackson, Retired Inspector

 

 

Deputy Chief Charles Keohane, Administration, SFPD

 

 

Micki Callahan, Human Resources Director

 

 

Jennifer Johnston, Department of Human Resources

 

 

Nikolas Borthne, Appellant

 

 

 

 

IV.

Vote on whether to assert the attorney – client privilege and hold closed session to confer with legal counsel pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10 (d) (2) and California Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation.  (Action Item)

 

 

 

 

Action:

The Commission voted to conduct a closed session.
(Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

 

 

Closed Session I started at 1:21 p.m. in City Hall, Room 400 and the following were present:

 

 

 

President Donald A. Casper

 

Vice President Morgan R. Gorrono

 

Yu-Yee Wu Sheridan, Commissioner

 

Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer, CSC

 

Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney

 

Lizzette Henríquez, Civil Service Commission

 

 

 

Closed Session I ended at 1:38 p.m.

 

 

 

 

V.

Reconvened in open session at 1:39 p.m.

 

 

 

 

A)

Vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session.  (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a). (Action Item)

 

 

 

 

Action:

The Commission voted not to disclose any and all discussions held in closed session.  (Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

 

 

Action:

1)  The 1998 Q-35 Assistant Inspector Eligible List is still in effect.  (Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of President Casper on his vote

In their written submissions to this Commission, the Department of Human Resources and the Police Department have argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to interpret the October 26, 1998, Stipulation and Order regarding selection procedure for the 1998 Q-35 Assistant Inspector examination, which Stipulation and Order was entered by the Federal District Court in the Consent Decree litigation.  No, we do not have jurisdiction to interpret the Court’s order.  However, the Civil Service Commission was a party to that litigation; the Civil Service Commission was the first named defendant.  Consequently, the Civil Service Commission is of course bound by all orders of the Court entered in that litigation.  While it is not within our jurisdiction to interpret the Court’s order, we have the task of determining what are our responsibilities and duties under the Order.  If the Order applies to us, we must take action in compliance with the Order.

 

Now the Order affects the Q-35 list in several ways. The principal way in which the Order affects the Q-35 list is the list’s duration.  Its duration, as stated by the Court, is not without ambiguity.  It can be read in several ways.  One way is this: the Q-35 list shall remain in effect for four (4) years.  However, if and when a new Q-35 list is adopted, whether before the expiration of four (4) years or after four (4) years, the Q-35 list expires.  Well, that reading cannot be said to comport with the intentions of the parties.  Under that reading, the City could have cut off the list after, let’s say, the expiration of two (2) years by holding another Q-35 examination.  That could not have been the intent of the parties at that time.

 

In determining what the Commission’s duty is under the Order, we can and should look to the conduct of the parties following the entry of the Order.  Under Sections 212.5 and 212.6 of the Civil Service Commission Rules, a discrete eligible list in the Police Department has a maximum duration of four (4) years.  If the Q-35 list remained active beyond four (4) years, that could only have been because the Court Order entered on October 26, 1998, so provided.  As brought out in today’s hearing, there is no civil service mechanism for extending a discrete eligible list in the Police Department beyond four (4) years, but the parties acted as though the list were still active.  The parties so acted perhaps under a misapprehension of what Civil Service Rules allow. It really is unclear what the parties apprehensions where, but it is clear what the parties conduct was.  And their conduct was to proceed as though the list were still active.  Nothing has been presented to this Commission which justifies or explains the statement made in the Frequently-Asked-Questions handout the handout which was distributed when the Q-50 plan was rolled out – namely, that the Q-35 list would expire in November of 2006.  That being the case, we must consider the Q-35 list as still an active list.

 

 

 

 

VI.

Vote on whether to assert the attorney – client privilege and hold closed session to confer with legal counsel pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10 (d) (2) and California Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation.  (Action Item)

 

 

 

 

Action:

The Commission voted to conduct a closed session.  (Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

 

 

Closed Session II started at 4:18 p.m. in City Hall, Room 400 and the following were present:

 

 

 

President Donald A. Casper

 

Vice President Morgan R. Gorrono

 

Yu-Yee Wu Sheridan, Commissioner

 

Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer, CSC

 

Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney

 

Lizzette Henríquez, Civil Service Commission

 

 

 

Closed Session II ended at 5:17 p.m.

 

 

 

 

VII.

Reconvened in open session at 5:28 p.m.

 

 

 

 

A)

Vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session.  (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a). (Action Item)

 

 

 

 

Action:

The Commission voted not to disclose any and all discussions held in closed session.  (Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

 

 

Action:

2a) First is: that the hearing of this matter be continued, and that at a further hearing the Commission address the issues of whether the assignments of the Q-50 Sergeants to work traditionally performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors as described in the class specifications for the latter two ranks were proper.  Furthermore, that if the Commission formally finds that the assignments were improper under Civil Service Commission Rules, that the Commission examine and make a decision regarding the appropriate remedies.

2b) Second is: that the Commission ask the Chief of Police, between the date of this hearing and the date of the next hearing on this matter, to refrain from further assigning Q-50 Sergeants to work traditionally performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors, as such work is described in the class specifications for the latter two ranks.  (Vote of 3 to 0)

 

 

IV.

Adjournment

 

 

 

6:36 p.m.