Score: -14
(0/6/14)
Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Sacramento County Civil Service Commission Issue
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The votes of three of the five commissioners are required to decide an appeal from disciplinary action. Therefore, where only three hear an appeal, all three must vote unanimously to reach a decision. In such a case, there is a significant incentive for each of the three commissioners to reach the same decision. Such an incentive is inconsistent with the duty of each commissioner to exercise his or her individual judgment and consideration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
A minimum of four commissioners should hear appeals from disciplinary action except in the event of compelling circumstances. In no case should a vote be changed for the sole purpose of reaching a decision.
F2
The Commission affords too much consideration in its determination of proper discipline to historical consistency. This policy is at odds with its duty to determine in each case the discipline which is “appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances” of that case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Commission should determine whether the discipline imposed is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case under review, and should afford less weight to consistency of the proposed disciplinary action with 13 Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 507, 513-514 14 Gov. Code §19572(t) 15 An inference is the result of reasoning from evidence. It does not fall outside the record, but is simply a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. (Evid. Code §600(b); and Cf., 74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 70, 71n3 (1991)) 7 disciplines imposed in previous cases. The exceptions are cases involving substantial claims of discrimination based on race, sex, religion or national origin.
F3
The Commission’s Rules do not define a formal recusal policy to be followed in the event of an actual, potential, or appearance of, bias in a particular case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Commission should adopt and enforce a recusal policy to be followed in the event of actual, potential, or the appearance of bias. Each commissioner should be independently responsible under the policy for the decision to recuse or not to recuse himself or herself from each particular case.
F4
The Commission, by its own rules, does not allow itself the ability to consider information contained in the full transcript of a disciplinary appeal hearing before a hearing officer. The transcript contains “all relevant facts and circumstances” which the Commission should be able to consider in making a final decision. The hearing officer’s proposed decision may contain only those facts and circumstances deemed pertinent to that officer’s proposed decision, and rarely contains “all” of the relevant facts and circumstances. By limiting the basis for its review only to the material in the hearing officer’s proposed decision, the Commission has limited its ability to make a duly informed final decision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Commission should amend its rules to preserve its option to consider information contained in the full transcript of the case under appeal, and to maintain its option to hear any case with or without a hearing officer, or if previously heard by a hearing officer, to rehear the case with or without a hearing officer.
F5
The Commission, by its own rules, has precluded any argument on appeal from a disciplinary action relating to evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were raised or could have been raised before the hearing officer, or to the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of a witness. Thus, the hearing officer’s determinations as to all issues of evidence, procedure, or law, including the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of witnesses, are not subject to review by the Commission. By refusing to consider any such argument, the Commission has ceded too much of its authority and responsibility to exercise its own judgment in making a final decision, to the discretion of the hearing officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Commission should amend its rules to allow for argument before the Commission relating to evidentiary, procedural, and legal issues, raised before the hearing officer, including descriptions of evidence, weight of the evidence, and credibility of witnesses.
F6
Improper interpretations as to the elements of proof were applied in one or more of the cases reviewed related to the following causes for disciplinary action: (a) “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to [the employee’s] agency or employment”, and 8 (b) “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Commission: (a) should not require proof of actual discredit to the employee’s agency, when deciding whether there was a “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the [employee’s] agency or employment”, and (b) should not require proof of an actual adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position, when deciding whether there was a “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.” Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.