Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. David Bechtold Grievance F Y •._. n . . � � . �. . . . CITY OF ROSE�O'ONT ` LXECIITIVE S'UN�2ARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 AGENDA ITEbl: DAVID BECHTOLD GRIEVANCE AGENDA SFsCTION: OLD BUSINESS PREPARED BY: THOMA.S D. BUR.T AGENDA ��� � / A CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ATTACF�iENTS: RESOLUTION APPROVED BY: .. ...� Attached is the findings of fact regarding the grievance of David Bechtold as prepared by city attorney, Charlie LeFevere. RECObIl�tENDE:D ACTION: Motion to adopt RESOLUTION MAItING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION IN THE GRIEVANCE OF DAVID BECHTOLD. COUNCIL ACTION: n r . _ , RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION IN THE GRIEVANCE OF DAVID BECHTOLD WHEREAS, a grievance proceeding requested by former city employee, David Bechtold was held befare the city council on August 1, 1994 and continued to its regular meeting of August 9, 1994; and WHEREAS, at the grievance proceedings of August l, David Bechtold and his attorney stated the basis for Mr. Bechtold's grievance and presented testimony and argument in support of his position; and � WHEREAS, the city administrator presented testimony and evidence in support of the ciry's decision to lay-off Mr. Bechtold and not to rehire him for another position. NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of a11 records available to the city council and arguments and evidence presented at the grievance proceeding on August l, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby makes the following Findings of Fact,Conclusions and Decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The grieving party, Mr. David Bechtold was employed by the City of Rosemount from September 5, 1983 until June 19, 1994. 2. Prior to the time of his lay-off, Bechtold was employed as the park and recreation director. - 3. On June 6, 1994, Mr. Bechtold was given notice by the ciry administrator that he would be laid off and that his last day of work would be June 11, 1994. 4. On June 7, 1994, af an open public meeting, the city council eliminated the position of park and recreation director in an administrative reorganization of the city and laid off Mr. Bechtold. The council also awarded Mr. Bechtold two months severance pay in the amount of$9,101.60. As a part of the reorganization the council also eliminated the position of Community Center Manager. After eliminating these positions there were no other employees serving in the same class of positions as the position from which Mr. Bechtold was laid off. A new position, Park and Recrearion/Communiry Center Director, was created to oversee the work ' CLL75237 RS215-12 1 � o , . of both of these former departments. Mr. Jim Topitzhofer, the former Community Center Manager was appointed to this newly created position. 5. The notice given to Mr. Bechtold was that of two working weeks, counting both the day of notice and the last day of employment, from notice on June 6 to the last day of employment of June 17. This method of calculating notice was consistent with past city practice. 6. Following notice of his lay-off, Bechtold requested a grievance proceedings, pursuant to city code, with the city administrator and later to the city counciL 7. City code section 2-2-4 defines the duties of the city's park and recreation committee as follows: 2-2-4: POWERS AND DUTIES: A. Advice and Recommendations: The Committee shall have the duty to advise the City Council in the acquisition and maintenance of parks, playgrounds and other public lands. It sha11 also have the duty of making recommendations and supervising the City recreation system. ,The Committee shall recommend to the Ciry Council expansion and plans far the development of the City park and recreation system. The Committee sha11 further make recommendations as to desired regulatory ordinances and make recommendations as to any matters relating to the park and recreation system of the City. B. Investigate Needs of System: The Committee shall have no power to '� make coniracts, levy taxes, bonow money or condernn property, but shall have the full power and responsibility to invesrigate requirements and needs of the City park and recreation system and to assist the Council in formulating the terms of the procedure for accomplishing that goa1. (Ord. VIII-1, 10-5-71) 8. The city council did not consult with the park and recreation committee in connecrion with the city's reorganization including the elimination of the position of parks and recreation director, nor did it consult with the committee about the hiring of Mr. 7irn Topitzhofer to fill the newly created department head position of community center/pazks and recreation director. The city council has not consulted with the committee on such administrative or personnel matters in the past 9. Prior to the action by the city council on June 7, 1994 to eliminate the position of park and recreation director, the Mayor and each of the city council members had separately discussed the reorganization with city administrator Thomas Burt. However, during these discussions, Administrator Burt did not share with any of the councilmembers the views of the athers and did not attempt to forge a consensus or arrange for a predetermined result at the later open public meeting. Action was taken by the ciry council to eliminate the position at the open public meeting of the city council on June 7, 1994. CLL75237 2 RS215-12 . � . � 10. As a department head Mr. Bechtold was subject to minimum supervision. He reported to the city administrator, but since Mr. Bechtold was a department head, he was responsible for running his depaztment, and daily made independent and autonomous decisions. Mr. Bechtold was responsible for the overall planning, coordination, management af personnel, budgeting and finances of the department. The two divisions of the pazks and recreation department were recreation and park maintenance, the supervisors of which reported to Mr. Bechtold. 11. Mr. Bechtold was responsible for determining the types of recreational programs and activities that would best serve the needs and interests of residents, a�d he was uitimately responsible for the operation, staffing, budgeting of all city recreation programs. Mr. Bechtold was responsible for long range planning of pazk needs and served as the staff liaisan to the master parks plan committee. He was responsit�le for establishing city recreation programs which included the responsibiliry of setting softball user fees, tiny tot fees, park user fees, park shelter fees and other miscellaneous fees. With regards to park maintenance, David Bechtold was ultimately responsible for the maantenance and upkeep of a11 the city parks and city bikeways and walkway trails which also included parks facilities, athletic fields, cominunity parks, neighborhood parks and park shelters. The park maintenance supervisor reported directly to Mr. Bechtold usually on a daily basis. 12. Mr. Bechtold was responsible for the overall development of parks in the city, and he was responsible for short and long range planning of pazk needs. He annually recommendeti to the Parks &Recreation Committee and to the ciry council the amount for park dedication fees for new subdivisions. 13. In his role as a department head, Mr. Bechtald represented the city at meetings at the county level and served as coordinator between the city and local youth associations such as Rosemount Area Athletic Association and Rosemount Area Hockey Association. Mr. Bechtold also attended meetings with representatives from School District 196 and served as staff liaison to RAP. 14. In 1994; Mr. Bechtold had the responsibility for formulating and managing a general operaring budget in the amount of$559,551, a revenue producing budget for the various recreation programs in the amount of$63,100, and also recommended expenditures from the ciry capital improvements budget in the amount of $25,000. 15. David Bechtold's job description as parks and recreation director required minimally a college degree with eight to ten years of experience in pazks and recreation ar a related field. 16. Mr. Bechtold, as parks and recreation director, performed administrative and professional duties of his department in his role as a department head. One of his administrative duties was exercising supervision over the entire parks and recreation depart�nent. Furthermore, as the department head, Mr. Bechtold managed the department with practically complete freedom and relatively infrequent reference to the ciry administrator for advice and instructions,'even when unusual problems arose. CLL75237 Rsz�s-�z 3 � Y f i 17. Mr. Bechtold made recommendations to the city council for hiring of employees within his department and these recommendations were based upon Mr. Bechtold interviewing candidates, working with the administrative assistant to put together job descriptions for positions in his department and for screening applicants for interviews. In conjunction with these responsibilities, Mr. Bechtold provided input on salaries for positions within his depart�nent 18. Mr. Bechtold provided supervision and direction over the entire parks and recreation department. At the rime of Mr. Bechtold's layoff, he provided immediate supervision to the parks maintenance supervisor, two prograrnmers and the secretary for the department. He also performed written evaluations of the employees he had immediate supervision over, and these evaluations were not approved by the ciry administrator even though sometimes Mr. Bechtold would provide the evaluations to the administrator. Mr.Bechtold reviewed and signed performance evaluations that supervisors within his department prepared on other employees. As an example, he would review, make additional comments and sign the evaluation for employees in the park maintenance department. 19. Since the parks and recreation director position is the highest level position within the department, it is critical that the employee posses a thorough knowledge of the parks and recreation field and also have considerable experience in the application of principles and techniques in solving unusual and difficult problems. The employee's management and professional abilities must be of the highest level. 20. At the time of Mr. Bechtold's layoff the park maintenance supervisor, two programmers and a secretary were under his direct supervision. Mr. Bechtold also provided overall direction to four pazk maintenance employees and vaziaus seasonal employees hired throughout the year for recreational programs and park maintenance. 21. As director of parks and recreation, Mr. Bechtold's duties were completely different from other employees with regazds to managing the recreadon progra.ms, park ` maintenance, park development and staff liaison to various pazks and recreation committees. 22. Since city of Rosemount is a P1an A Statutory City, the Rosemount City Council ultimately ratifies the recommendations made by a department head for hiring and terminating employees. However, Mr. Bechtold had the authority to hire and terminate seasonal and temporary employees and to'set wage rates for these position: Many times employees wauld be ` working before the wage sheets would be signed for payroll. The wage sheets are not authorization for hiring employees but rather a way ta inform payroll of a new employee and the wage the employee was hired at. These part-time employees were not taken to the ciry council for approval and were taken to the city administrator only for the purpose of approving wage ' rates which were already set. ' 23. When the city administrator was hired, it was suggested that he take a look at the organizational structure of the city. To accomplish this, he asked each department head to make available to their employees the existing organizational structure and to ask their employees to provide input and recommend changes. City Aciministrator Burt advised that he received a number of organizational charts from the employees and all but two were exactly the same with regards to a single parks and recreation department. City Administrator Burt felt this wasn't CLL75237 4 RS215-12 � +.�► . much of a surprise when surrounding metropolitan area cities and other departments around the state have a single department; and Rosemount was unique with two. It was felt that many employees were doing too many duplicating ta.sks. Additionally, City Administrator Burt felt that the money saved by combining the depaztments could be put back into programs. 24. The posirion held by Mr. Bechtold was truly abolished and a new position was created, and Mr. Bechtold's position does not exist as it once did. 25. City Administrator Burt advised and the council finds that the decision to hire Jim Topitzhofer for the new position was based on credentials of Jim Topitzhofer and David Bechtold and a good faith determination that Jim Topitzhofer was the best and most qualif'ied person for the position. Ciry Administrator Burt stated he realized his recommendation might not be the most popular one, but he based his recommendation on what was best for the city. Burt went an to state that Mr. Bechtold's time in the position was considered, but 7im Topitzhofer was more well rounded in his experience in recreation and his ability to run a multi-million dollar community center. Mr. Burt sta.ted that he and Mr. Bechtold had a meeting in March to discuss the parks and recreation deparmient and Mr. Bechtold freely discussed his experience with him about community education, his experience with school districts and his former employment. Mr. Burt felt Mr. Bechtold freely discussed his background because he was quite proud of it. David Bechtold's background and experience, including his length of service with the City, were considered. 26. The city administrator's recommendation to hire Mr:Topitzhofer was based in part on a determination that Mr. Bechtold had a management sryle that was very autocratic which stifled the growth of his employees' creativity and ultimately the development of his department and the programs provided to residents. Mr. Burt advised that many of Mr. Bechtold's employees came to Mr. Burt unsolicited and expressed cancerns about Mr. Bechtold's past performance, management style and past practices. Mr. Burt stated these were all taken into cansideration. Mr. Burt stated that he did not look in Mr. Bechtold's personnel file because he had been told by an employee that there were comments made about Mr. Bechtold's past performance in the file, and Mr. Burt stated that he did not want his opinions to be tainted by evaluations performed by the former city administrator. Therefore, Mr. Burt stated that he observed Mr. Bechtold on a daily basis which was easy to do since their offices were close, and Mr. Bechtold did not move to the communiry center unril the end of his employmen� with the city. City Administrator Burt stated that he and Mr. Bechtald had ongoing communicatians on current,past and future issues. Mr.Burt advised that one of Mr. Bechtold's supervisors informed him that this person could no longer work with Mr. Bechtold, and if Mr. Bechtold got the new position, this persan would qui� Mr. Burt also learned from department heads of their concerns about Mr. Bechtold's management style and his inability to perform. Mr. Burt stated this information was provided to him unsolicited. City Administrator Burt told of one instance when another department head informed him that David Bechtold was discussing with other employees reorganizational discussions which staff who attended the department head meetings were requested to keep confidential. City Administrator Burt advised he had to talk to Mr. Bechtold about passing on information from the department head meetings. 27. With regards to age discriminatian, City Administrator Burt thought that David Bechtold and Jim Topitzhofer were about the same age since he never looked in their personnel CLL75237 RS215-12 S . �►~ , files and didn't consider age an issue. Mr. Burt explained that he took into consideration each of their abilities to perform their jobs. Although David Bechtold was excellent in park development, Mr. Burt felt 7im Topitzhofer was also go� at it and more capable than David Bechtold when it came to running a community center and recreational programs. 28. City Administrator Burt stated that although the position was not advertised or posted nor was a job description written, David Bechtold had a very good opportunity to be considered for the position. There were only two candidates for the position,David Bechtold and Jim Topitzhofer, and both were aware that only one of them would fill the position. Burt stated that if the city would have advertised, he's not sure the outcome would be the same. Both candidates had appro�mately three months to prove themselves and to meet with him. Burt sta.ted that in fact David Bechtold provided him with a memorandum during the reorganization process which provided recommendations for placement of him in other positions if he was not hired for the department head position. Burt also described input he received from other staff members about David Bechtold that he first found shocking. Later after reviewing Bechtold's personnel file, Mr. Burt found that some of the comments made by city staff were similar to comments written by the former city administrator. Burt talked about his meeting with Mr. Bechtold when Mr. Bechtold provided him with a copy of the parks master plan, talked about this association with RAHA and RAAA and attended school district and RAP meetings with Mr. Bechtold. City Administrator Burt concluded that Mr. Bechtold was given extensive consideration for the position, but Mr. Topitzhofer was the best and most qualified. CONCLUSIONS l. City Code, Secrion 2-2-4 does not provide or require that the city council should seek advice or comment from the park and recreation committee on personnel matters or on the administrative organization or reorganization of city departments. The council does not interpret the term "recreation system" as used in Section 2-2-4 to include such administrative matters. 2. The city council did not violate Minnesota Statutes, § 471.705, the state Open Meeting Law, with respect to its decision to eliminate the positions of park and recreation director and Cornmunity Center Manager and to create the position of Park and Recreation/Community Center D'uector, or its decision to lay off Mr. Bechtold, its decision to hire Mr. Topitzhofer for the newly created position. 3. Mr. Bechtold's former position of park and recreation director was a department head position within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, § 197.46. 4. Mr. Bechtold was not discharged for disciplinary reasons. He was laid off when the position of park and recrearion director was eliminated in a bona fide administrative reorganization of city administrarion. The eliminated position no longer exists. 5. Mr. Topitzhofer was appointed to the new positian of Park ' and Recreation/Community Center Director,rather than Mr. Bechtold,because of the good faith belief that Mr. Topitzhofer was better qualified to fill the position. The decision was made on the basis of legitimate, non-discriminatory, management concerns and not on the basis of age. The city did not violate state or federal age discrimination laws in the-selection of Mr.Topitzhofer. CLL75237 L RS215-12 V . i ..�� ' . � � . � . . 6. The city did not violate section 1 of the city personnel policy in the selection of Mr. Topitzhofer. 7. Mr. Bechtold was given full and fair consideration as a candidate for the newly created position of Park and Recreation/Community Center Director. The decision to hire Mr. Topitzhofer was made on the basis of inerit and fitness and without unlawful discrimination. The selection of Mr. Topitzhofer did not violate city personnel policy section 4. 8. In hiring Mr. Topitzhofer, rather than Mr. Bechtold, the ciry gave full and fair considerarion to Mr. Bechtold length of service. After the layoff of Mr. Bechtold, there were no other employees serving in the same class of position since both the park and recreation director and the Community Center Manager positions were eliminated. Therefore, the ciry did not violate City Personnel Policy Section 21 which requires that length of service be considered in certain layoff positions and that no permanent employee may be laid off when there aze temporary,provisional or probationary employees serving in the same class of position for which the permanent employee is qualified. 9. The length of notice of layoff which was given to Mr. Bechtold was consistent with past practices in interpreting how time is computed under the Ciry's Personnel Policy. In any case, however, if the two week's notice provision af City Personnel Policy Section 21 were interpreted so as to require more days of notice than was actually given in this case, Mr. Bechtold was more than adequately compensated by the two-months' severance pay which was awazded to him by they city. Therefore, the council concludes that there was no violations of the twa weeks' notice provision of section 21. DECISION The city's decisions to reorganize the city's administrative structure by eliminating the position of park and recrearion director and community center manager and creating the new position of park and recreation/community center director, to lay off Mr. Bechtold and to appoint Mr. Topitzhafer to the newly created position are conf'umed,ratified and approved in aIl respects. war c enomy, ayor usan s , ity er , CLL75237 R5215-12 7