According to this morning’s skewspaper article written by Coeur d’Alene Press staff writer Jeff Selle, City Attorney Mike Gridley (shown left) will have to decide whether to recommend that the City Council authorize appealing the Dixon decision to the US Supreme Court. Gridley must first review the Ninth Circuit’s decision and judgement to determine if there is any legal basis for an appeal. Maybe he’ll use some CdA Vision 2030 pixie dust for inspiration.
Suppose the City decides not to appeal, or the Supremes deny certiorari if the City seeks the writ, or the City loses in the Fantasyland-on-the-Potomac Court of Last Resort. In any of those eventualities, the City (taxpayers) will be paying.
In its post on February 25, 2012, and then in the update post on March 10, 2012, OpenCdA explained and commented on the process the City government will use to pay for its incompetence with money from our pockets.
Although the Dixon case involved the Police Department, it is symptomatic of a failure of City administration from the top down. We’ve had a Mayor and some City Council members who have chosen to blindly trust administrators and department heads who, in some cases, were hired or retained more for their political fealty than for their professional competence.
We are likely stuck with paying out millions of dollars because of professional incompetence leading to bad decisions by several members of the Mullan Avenue Gang and its wannabe’s on Schreiber Way. And that may be the good news.
The bad news is OpenCdA fears that the Dixon federal lawsuit may lead to more lawsuits. A lot of very good, very capable, very honest City employees have been harangued, harassed, and held back by the go-along-to-get-along gang that caters to the wine-and-cheese tasting party crowd who excel at spending other people’s money. Dixon was smart to engage very capable legal counsel to file his lawsuit in federal court. There may be more.
Having been a stuporvisor, I know there are some elements that must be met before an employee can be fired.
First, the employee must have been aware of the requirements of the job. He must have known the employer’s expectations. Those requirements are usually expressed in the position description and explicit policies, but it is up to the employee’s supervisor to ensure the employee fully and accurately understands them and what it takes to meet them.
Second, the employee must have been properly supervised so that performance can be observed by the person whose job it is to observe: the employee’s immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor is obligated to counsel and correct poor performance as well as recognize and reinforce acceptable or better conduct. Line supervisors must supervise.
Third, the supervisor must regularly and consistently document good and poor performance and must document the corrective action prescribed by the supervisor. The supervisor must also document the employee’s progress or failure to make progress toward achieving the corrective action.
Fourth, if a supervisor observes an employee’s failure to conform to the employer’s expectations and if informal guidance does not lead to satisfactory improvement, the supervisor must discuss that with his own supervisor and in all likelihood be told to formally counsel the employee. That formal counseling must usually be documented in writing and signed and dated by the employee and his supervisor. It is serious.
Fifth, if at some point the employee’s documented record reflects cause for termination, the employee must be notified and advised of any appeal or grievance procedure.
Sixth, if the employee’s supervisor hasn’t properly documented his subordinate’s progress or failure to make progress, then that line supervisor’s failures must similarly be documented. Supervisors who don’t supervise shouldn’t be supervisors.
In other words, an employee can be fired, but there must be an accurate, complete, and employee-acknowledged documented record of every action taken to correct the employee’s deficiencies. There’s a right way and a wrong way to terminate an employee. In many cases, supervisors don’t supervise competently, so they and their bosses try to cut corners to terminate an employee. That is an absolute prescription for failure and a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Comment by Bill — October 26, 2013 @ 3:34 pm