Amended 3/21/06
COUNTY SERVICES
March 7, 2006
Minutes
Members Present: Andy Schor, Debbie DeLeon, Dianne Holman, Dale Copedge, Mike Severino, Don Vickers and Board Chairperson Victor Celentino
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jared Cypher, Harold Hailey, Nervy Oliver, David Easterday, Bob Moore, Rick Terrill, Steve Hummel, Jamie McAloon-Lampman, Mike Hughes, Steve Dawes, Dawn Perry, Sally Auer and others
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schor at 7:04 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing.
Approval of the February 21, 2006 Minutes
MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 21 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Additions to the Agenda
8. Comm. Thomas – Request to Waive Attorney-Client Privilege regarding February 3, 2006 Letter
Limited Public Comment: None
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE A CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
2. Parks Department – Resolution Authorizing that an Application be made to the Michigan Department of natural Resources for a Natural Resource Trust Fund Grant to Develop a Non-Motorized Pathway in Meridian Township
4. Health Department – Authorization for a 90-Day Leave of Absence
5b. Facilities Department – Resolution Authorizing Entering into a Contract with Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer & Associates to Prepare Specifications for Three Major Projects at the Ingham County Correctional Facility
6c. Human Resources Department – Resolution Approving the Michigan Nurses Association Collective Bargaining Agreement
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Boards/Commissions Presentation – Agricultural Preservation Board Interview
The Committee interviewed Laurie Koelling for a vacancy on the Agricultural Preservation Board.
MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. VICKERS, TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF MS. KOELLING TO THE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Circuit Court/Family Division – Resolution to Reorganize Management Staffing of the Ingham County Circuit Court, Juvenile Division
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO REORGANIZE MANAGEMENT STAFFING OF THE INGHAM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, JUVENILE DIVISON.
Mr. Easterday explained that the Juvenile Program Director position is currently vacant due to a retirement. The Human Resources Department conducted an analysis of the Juvenile Division Management. Based on the analysis, the Human Resources Department has recommended an increase in the annual salary for two management positions and to move a Senior Court Officer position to a Child Care Funded position. The Juvenile Program Director – Level 11 position, will be increased to Level 13; and, the Deputy Court Administrator/Juvenile Division – Level 14 position will be increased to Level 16.
Comm. Copedge asked if the Juvenile Division had an opportunity to interview applicants for the vacant position. Mr. Hailey explained that existing employees must be considered first in this situation.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5a. Facilities Department – Resolution Authorizing Entering into a Contract with Nelson Trane for Improvement to Air Handling Controls at the Ingham County Correctional Facility
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH NELSON TRANE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR HANDLING CONTROLS AT THE INGHAM COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
Chairperson Schor asked if the County realized Nelson Trane would be using proprietary software when they were awarded the original contract. Mr. Terrill stated the original contract was secured prior to his time as manager. He further explained Trane was selected based on its qualifications and performance through a competitive bid process.
Chairperson Schor suggested the County question vendors about the issue of proprietary systems. The Committee supported Chairperson Schor’s suggestion.
Comm. Severino requested an update regarding Trane’s performance when such information is available.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Commissioner Thomas – Request to Waive Attorney-Client Privilege
Comm. Thomas explained he would like access to the February 3, 2006 letter from the County Attorney to himself regarding the Veterans Affairs Committee. He stated he would provide Sen. Murphy with a copy of the letter which explains the County’s process for making appointments to the Veterans Affairs Committee.
Comm. Holman asked what Comm. Thomas would gain from the actual letter from the County Attorney’s office. Comm. Thomas explained the Attorney’s opinion is succinct regarding the issue and the law.
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. DELEON, TO WAIVE THE COUNTY’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE REGARDING A FEBRUARY 3, 2006 LETTER FROM COHL, STOKER, TOSKEY & MCGLINCHEY, P.C. TO COMM. MARC THOMAS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Human Resources Department
a. UAW Grievance Hearing
Mr. Hailey explained that the employer must start this hearing since the employee has been discharged. The employer is to explain why such action was taken.
Ms. McAloon-Lampman, Animal Control Director, stated she takes her position very seriously. Terminating an employee is the most difficult part of her job. Ms. Perry, Employee, had received numerous written and verbal requests for written medical verification regarding her leave. The Employee did not indicate a misunderstanding of the requests.
Ms. Perry was quite adamant about what she was going to or not going to provide. The Employee and her union representative responded to each request by stating she was not required to provide what was required and, therefore, would not submit any further medical details.
On July 28, 2006, Ms. Perry was allowed to use sick time for the remainder of the day. Ms. Perry did not report to work on July 29, 2006, nor did she notify the Director or the Deputy Director of her absence. The office received a fax from Ms. Perry’s physician the afternoon of July 29 informing the office that “Dawn is unable to return to work due to medical reasons starting 7-29-05 through 8-20-05.”
Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she contacted Ms. Perry on July 29 and informed her that her medical documentation was not sufficient per the Family Medical Leave Act. She was told she would need to submit further documentation. Ms. Perry was okay with that and then the conversation ended.
Deputy Director Hummel sent Ms. Perry the standard form used for FMLA by this department. Line three of the form clearly states “You will be required to furnish medical certification of a serious health condition.” Ms. Perry had three extensions for completing the form.
Ms. McAloon-Lampman called Ms. Perry’s home on August 15, 2005 to inquire about the medical paperwork and to confirm her return to work on August 21, 2005. Ms. Perry was not home at the time so a message was left.
A second phone message was left on August 16, 2005. Ms. Perry returned the call on the same day and stated she would not return until August 30, 2005 and that a doctor’s excuse would arrive soon. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she informed Ms. Perry at that time that additional medical verification was required beyond what she had already submitted. Ms. Perry insisted she was not required by law to give out that information and that we would not get anything other than what her doctor had already sent.
A written request for the required documentation was sent to Ms. Perry via certified mail on August 17, 2005. According to the Post Office, Ms. Perry received this communication. This request indicated an August 24, 2005 deadline for submitting the additional information.
Mr. Larkins, Ms. Perry’s Union Representative, phoned Ms. McAloon-Lampman on August 19, 2005. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated Mr. Larkins informed her that Ms. Perry was not required to respond to her requests for “further medical details because under HIPPA she does not have to disclose the nature of her illness.” Ms. Perry was not comfortable disclosing the nature of her illness. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she asked Mr. Larkins to advise Ms. Perry to keep in contact with her employer. Mr. Larkins indicated during that phone call that he would have Ms. Perry communicate with her employer. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she asked Mr. Larkins to put his response in writing. A written response was not received and Ms. Perry did not communicate with her employer.
The Animal Control Department received a certified letter from Ms. Perry requesting another extension for August 16, 2005 through August 30, 2005. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she phoned Ms. Perry at home on August 25, 2005 regarding the August 24 deadline. The phone was not answered.
The Department received another extension from Ms. Perry’s doctor extending her time off until September 21, 2005. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she made a sixth and final attempt by including the same form she was requesting her to submit from her doctor to expedite the matter. This request was sent via certified mail and was posted as attempted delivery on August 31 and September 5. The item was not picked up by Ms. Perry. The letter remained at the Post Office until September 15, 2005.
Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated a termination letter was sent by certified mail to Ms. Perry on September 15, 2005. This letter was also left unclaimed.
Mr. Dawes, UAW International Representative, stated Ms. Perry returned from vacation on July 28, 2005. She was addressed by her Employer regarding difficulties on the job. Ms. Perry denied any allegations of wrong-doing on her part. Ms. Perry was told on that same day that investigations would continue.
Ms. Perry was placed on medical leave by her doctor from July 29, 2005 through August 20, 2005 due to medical reasons. Ms. Perry’s Employer informed her she would be placed on FMLA. Mr. Dawes stated the physician’s medical certification form was never sent to Ms. Perry. According to the FMLA, if an employee does not meet the requirements within 15 days, he/she may be terminated.
Comm. DeLeon asked if Ms. Perry pursued the long-term disability option. Ms. Auer stated an employee must be off work for 90 days to qualify for short-term disability benefits. Chairperson Schor asked if Ms. Perry was aware that she had to request the medical form. Mr. Dawes stated Ms. Perry assumed the original notification from her doctor indicating she would be off work from July 29 through August 20 was adequate notification. Ms. Perry first received the medical form on August 30, 2005.
Chairperson Celentino asked if the address on the termination letter is correct. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated Ms. Perry was notified of the communication via certified mail on August 31, the second notice was dated September 5, 2005. Ms. Perry received two certified mail notifications but she did not pick up the letters.
Chairperson Schor asked if Ms. Perry was notified that her leave was not granted when she did not pick up her mail at the Post Office. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated her department went above and beyond its requirements in this situation. The Department was only requesting medical validation of Ms. Perry’s claim.
Mr. Hailey explained the County has a policy which states that when an employee is off for a serious medical condition, he/she will be placed on FMLA immediately. Ms. Perry could have submitted the required medical verification at any time during the process. Chairperson Schor asked why the County did not send the required form; and, why didn’t Ms. Perry ask for clarification regarding the request. Mr. Hailey stated Ms. Perry never responded to the first notification from Ms. McAloon-Lampman. He further stated the County has a policy and procedures in place for employees who will be off work for more than three days.
Ms. Auer explained that Ms. Perry was advised by her union of the actions taken by other union employees regarding medical leave.
Chairperson Schor asked why Ms. Perry did not respond to the phone messages she received from Ms. McAloon-Lampman. Ms. Auer stated Ms. Perry would fax another copy of the original doctor’s note to her Employer in response to those messages. Comm. Copedge asked why the Animal Control Department assumed Ms. Perry would receive the required medical certification from her physician. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated the August 17 letter to Ms. Perry detailed the process to be used when filing a claim for medical leave. She further stated the issue was never just about the form. Ms. Perry was adamant that she did not have to disclose why she was off work.
Comm. Copedge asked why the Employer did not immediately send Ms. Perry the medical form. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated she thought the physician’s office would have the required form. Comm. DeLeon stated Ms. Perry was not aware of when the timeline started. She should have been allowed more time to respond to the requests of the Department. Ms. McAloon-Lampman asked if certified-mail is considered sufficient delivery of notice. Comm. Copedge stated his fellow employees at the State are provided with the medical certification form to be taken to their physicians.
Comm. Severino stated the initial presumption in this type of situation is always for the employee. This time, however, the employee was sick at home but could not pick up the certified letters. The fact that Ms. Perry did not pick up her certified mail may be a question of good faith. Mr. Dawes stated she may not have picked up the mail due to human error. The Post Office may not have left notification for the first certified letter.
Ms. Perry stated she could not answer the question of why she did not answer the door or the phone.
Comm. Holman asked what additional information the Department would receive from the medical certification form. Ms. McAloon-Lampman explained the form is very detailed. Comm. Holman stated she believes there are many other issues here than the form issue. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated the termination was based on Ms. Perry’s failure to reply to the Department’s requests.
Mr. Hummel stated the Department has accepted doctor notes in previous medical leave situations when those notes are clear and precise.
Chairperson Schor asked why Ms. Perry did not provide additional medical verification as clearly requested from the Department. Ms. Perry stated she was informed by Mr. Larkins that the original doctor’s note was sufficient per the requirements of HIPPA. Chairperson Schor asked if HIPPA provides that an employee does not have to provide adequate medical information. Ms. Auer stated HIPPA does not require employees to provide a diagnosis to their employers. Ms. Perry did not provide additional medical information due to personal concerns.
Chairperson Schor stated this Committee would address the County’s role regarding the medical form at a future meeting.
Comm. Copedge stated it would be nice if this issue could be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. This Committee should not err where the employee would be severely affected.
The Committee continued the discussion regarding the notices sent to Ms. Perry. Comm. Thomas asked if Ms. Perry received the certified mail notification. Ms. Perry stated she did not receive the notification.
Mr. Hailey informed the Committee of their options for resolving this matter. The Committee could uphold the employee’s discharge, the employee could be reinstated with back pay or the employee could be reinstated without back pay. The Committee discussed the options.
MOVED BY COMM. SEVERINO, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO REINSTATE THE EMPLOYEE WITHOUT BACK PAY.
Comm. DeLeon asked why Ms. Perry should not receive back pay. Comm. Severino asked why she should be paid when she was off work for a long period of time. Ms. Perry was paid for her sick and vacation hours. Comm. DeLeon asked if Ms. Perry had exhausted her leave. Mr. Dawes stated her leave ended on August 28, 2005.
Comm. Copedge asked why Ms. Perry’s case did not come before this Committee in November. Mr. Dawes explained Ms. Perry and the union wanted to resolve the issue before bringing it before this Committee. Mr. Dawes then stated there are other options for this Committee to consider. He stated Ms. Perry could be reinstated with partial back pay or she could be offered a buy out package.
Mr. Hailey asked when Ms. Perry was medically able to return to work. Ms. Auer stated Ms. Perry could have returned to work on September 21, 2005.
Comm. Holman stated mistakes were made by both parties. This case should be resolved in a manner that would not adversely affect either party. Comm. Severino explained Ms. Perry also received unemployment while she was off work. He further stated he did not understand the concept of Ms. Perry receiving back pay for the period she was not working.
Chairperson Schor restated his preference to reinstate Ms. Perry with one month back pay for the time when the discussions were ongoing. He then asked if there would be issues for Ms. Perry returning to work at the Animal Control Department. Ms. Perry stated there would be issues because she has lost her job and her retirement benefits. She would like to remain with the County but in a different department. Mr. Dawes stated he would work with Mr. Hailey to find a different position for Ms. Perry. Ms. Perry does have five years with the County. Mr. Hailey informed Ms. Perry that if she is reinstated, she would not lose her seniority or her retirement benefits.
Chairperson Schor asked Ms. McAloon-Lampman if she would have any concerns if Ms. Perry is reinstated in her department. Ms. McAloon-Lampman explained that as a result of the previous investigation, Ms. Perry would face disciplinary action on her return. The disciplinary action would not include termination. Mr. Dawes stated he could work with Ms. McAloon-Lampman to resolve the disciplinary concerns.
Comm. Thomas asked if Ms. Perry would return to the Department if that is the determination of this Committee. Ms. Perry stated she would return to the Department if that is the determination. Chairperson Schor suggested Ms. Perry return to the Animal Control Department and then the disciplinary issues can be addressed.
Comm. Copedge asked Ms. Perry if she would be happy with one-month back pay. Ms. Perry stated her termination was not her fault. Ms. McAloon-Lampman did not want her to return to work. Comm. Copedge asked about the range of disciplinary actions Ms. Perry would face upon her return. Ms. McAloon-Lampman stated the action would be above a written reprimand. Ms. Perry would be required to attend the CARES program and a written warning would be placed in her personnel file. The County would pay for the program but not for Ms. Perry’s time in the program.
Comm. Vickers stated a large of part of this issue relates to miscommunication on both sides of the issue. The parties need to get beyond the hard feelings and move forward.
Comm. DeLeon expressed her concern about reinstating Ms. Perry. She then stated she would be comfortable approving one month back pay because Ms. Perry received unemployment.
(The Committee recessed at 8:53 p.m.)
(The Committee was called back to order at 9:07 p.m.)
Mr. Hailey proposed that Ms. Perry remain on unemployment for another two to four weeks and she will resign upon her return to work. Ms. Perry would receive two months severance pay. The Committee discussed this proposal.
Comm. Severino withdrew his original motion. Comm. Holman withdrew her support of Comm. Severino’s original motion.
MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO ALLOW THE EMPLOYEE TO CONTINUE ON UNEMPLOYMENT FOR TWO TO FOUR WEEKS, SHE WILL RESIGN AT THAT TIME AND WILL RECEIVE TWO MONTHS SEVERANCE PAY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hailey stated he would draft an agreement for the employee and the union to sign.
b. Labor Relations Update
Mr. Hailey informed the Committee that five contracts have been settled and there are still eight contracts to be negotiated. Two contracts will be on this Committee’s next agenda for approval. The settled contracts run through 2008.
Chairperson Schor commended Mr. Hailey on his efforts to settle the contracts.
7. County Services Committee – Discussion Item – Draft Resolution to Establish a Policy on the County Orientation of County Appointees to Certain Boards and Committees
This item will be rescheduled for the Committee’s next meeting.
Announcements
Chairperson Schor informed the Committee that he may not be present for this Committee’s March 21, 2006 meeting.
Comm. Copedge expressed his wish that the County would consider how its policies are being followed. Mr. Hailey stated elected officials do not routinely follow County policy.
Public Comment: None
The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Neff