Court Opinion

ID: 9585931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:05:14.648217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:17.236360
License: Public Domain

Judge JOHNSON
concurring.
I concur but wish to point out that although the defendants may have substantially complied with the requirements of Rules II-l and II-8,1 do not believe that the spirit of the rules requiring the granting of an impartial hearing was followed. Prior to granting the plaintiffs a hearing, the City Manager had already exercised his discretion and demoted plaintiffs in rank. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were required to submit to a hearing before the same City Manager who had previously demoted them and whose decision they were seeking relief from.
Rule IV, Sec. 15.0(3) of the City Personnel Policy, “The Grievance Procedure,” provides that the City Manager may conduct the hearing himself or he may refer the matter to a special grievance committee consisting of three classified city employees; one to be appointed by the City Manager; one fellow employee ap*211pointed by the offended employee; and the third, who will act as chairman, to be appointed by the first two appointees. In this case, City Manager Ragland had considered the conduct of the plaintiffs and exercised his discretion in demoting them. Under these circumstances, upon a request for a hearing to review this action, the better practice would be for the City Manager to exercise his discretion under the City Personnel Policy and refer the hearing to a special grievance committee to preserve the appearance and substance of impartiality.