Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-14MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1981 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson reconvened the Closed Session of the Council at 11:00 a.m. on Monday, December 14, 1981, in City Hall Administrative Offices. Mayor Wilson reconvened the Adjourned Meeting of the City Council at 11:34 a.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman James E. McPherson Mayor Pro-Tempore Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman Romeo S. Puluqi Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk Walter Clark, Attorney James L. Hill IA. HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT THE REQUEST OF MR. JAMES L. HILL RELATIVE TO HIS TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA. (Adjourned from the Meeting of December 10, 1981.) Verbatim Transcript: Mayor We've had a request for the introduction of additional public testimony which we've decided to grant. Therefore, we're going to adjourn this meeting to a continuation of the open hearing or the public — the hearing for Jim Hill at 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 17th, and there are some additional people who have requested the opportunity to testify, and we will swear them in and take that testimony and hopefully arrive at a decision after that meeting. With that I adjourn this meeting to 6 p.m. ---yes. Clark May I be heard, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Yes. Clark That - a - Mr. Erwin was kind enough to advise that that might be the recommendation. I would only ask, if possibly, because that date is a very difficult one for us, if there might be a date subsequent to that. I believe that obviously the 24th and 31st might also be difficult for everyone else, but if it would be possible our request would be that the matter, if it is set for further hearing, be set on the 7th of January or a date subsequent thereto. If that is possible, I would also — if that is something that you might consider, but I would like to address some other MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Clark Mayor Clark Mayor McPherson comments if I might. I think the concern that the Council's had that they feel Mr. Hill's entitled to a decision as quickly as possible; we do not want to put it off any longer -- we are sorry we have to put if off this long — Thursday. Have you discussed this with your client? Yeah, I have. We had that request in addition to some objections that we would note for the record — a -- the hearing adjourned last Thursday, and it was our impression — or at least it gave the appearance that deliberations were conducted with the adversary present --the City Manager was present during Council's deliberations. A — it was our impression that the hearing would be totally open and in that sense that part of the hearing was not. Therefore, it is well we are concerned still about being apprised of what evidence exists against Mr. Hill. We have made requests before the last hearing and were apprised it was in the personnel file. We are still unadvised of any evidence against him, and yet it appears that we are now going to another hearing. It was our impression that he was really getting a trial after execution, and now it appears that he is confronted with the situation where he's having evidence introduced really after the trial. And those would be our objections for the record, and we would ask for that additional time for two reasons; one to find out what the evidence is and two, to be able to prepare for it. Thank you. Let me discuss this with Council. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Clark. Do you prefer — I guess I'm throwing it out to you and to the Council to consider -- do you prefer that the hearing be closed — that the information be introduced to you and your client in closed session rather than public session? Discussing that possibility before with Mr. Erwin, I was advised that that procedure was not possible within the structure of the City ordinance. That is a possible consideration that we should rediscuss. It would appear that since we still don't have the additional evidence, the additional time would allow for that consideration to be taken as well. It just seems that giving us another three days in essence to prepare for stuff that we haven't yet seen is a bit short and perhaps that extra time would provide an opportunity to discuss the possibility of changing the nature of the hearing. Let me throw this to the Council — the possibility of us adjourning this meeting to 6 p.m. as scheduled but with the understanding that if Mr. Hill and his attorney are not prepared at that time, we will adjourn to a another date. This would give you an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the information — I don't think we're -- in other words this is information that probably should have come out at the last hearing and therefore I don't see why it would be —if it had come out last week in other words. Mr. Mayor, I don't think it's a case of additional information. I think it's a case of additional witnesses that we're talking about. Mayor It's come out as a result of testimony at the last meeting. -2- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Snyder But was not discussed in closed session. Clark I think the point that may have ---- Mayor It hasn't been in this ---- Snyder I see no objection. Clark The point that's being made that it should've come out the last hearing is exactly the point we're making now. It really should have, and - a - as it's now going to somewhat, I think, prejudice our position, we should be entitled to prepare for it and know what it is. And frankly the date is personally inconvenient for me, as is the 24th of December. I'd be happy to make whatever arrangements to change my schedule if that is the desire of the Council. Puluqi How about another day? If not next Thursday, how about Friday, Monday? Mayor I think the concern of the Council is that it would seem very unfair to drag this over to January or whatever. Puluqi Everyone's going to have a miserable Christmas. Snyder It seems like we ought to get to a decision and get it ---- Mayor What's the quickest ---- Clark What I would ask then is if we may have a full five days after we are presented with the memorandum that Mr. Bouman has advised us exists which will tell us what is the evidence that will be presented. Mayor We don't know what the evidence is. Clark McPherson Snyder That's our point exactly, from our standpoint, as well. We believe we should be entitled to prepare for it or at least know what it is before going into the hearing and if we just ask for those days after we are given that evidence, it would be helpful. 1 think it's some testimony rather than some additional information. We must tell you that this, I think it's fair to say, this came up this morning. We were notified that certain people wished to give testimony with relationship to the statements that were made in the meeting Thursday. We felt at the time that we met once again, they should be entitled to do that. It seems to me that to drag this thing out is difficult for all people concerned, and the quicker we can make a decision, a fair decision, and we don't want to pressure you into a position — Clark No, that's fine. ` Snyder — where you feel that that decision is not fair, but I think that — Dave could turn over to him today — what we have is merely 4 people who want to make a testament -- give testimony. Is that correct Jim and the rest of the Council? Mayor I will ask Mr. Bouman for comment. -3- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bouman Clark I don't know the answer to that question. Dave Erwin couldn't stay, and I think he's the one who'd have to answer that, but what the comment I wanted to make is I'm really a little bit confused by the position Mr. Clark has taken. He wants us to submit, in advance, testimony that we don't even know what it's going to be, but the other night he didn't have any qualms about -- all he wants is five days in advance so he'd have time to study it and be ready to respond. The other night he didn't have any qualms about quizzing me at great length in cross examination type of procedure over material that I hadn't seen at all or if it was distributed, it was distributed about 30 seconds before hand. It doesn't seem fair somehow, Mr. Clark. The relation I'm trying to make here is that of the law, and the law says that we are supposed to be entitled to know what the evidence is against us. Now if in fact you don't know what the evidence is, you don't know what's in the testimony, we are again wondering why he was fired. We have the right under the law to know what those reasons are and to be apprised of those -- what the evidence is as that case says — before the hearing. The cross examination is appropriate for both parties, and I would invite you to do the same of Mr. Hill. My questions of you, I think, related to materials that had been provided us. A letter from a secretary, letters in personnel file, and if you were going to be losing your job over this, you would certainly have a right to this material in advance. We are simply asking that the law be followed in that regard. The law makes it clear that we're entitled to that material. It is frustrating when, as we said, the trial appears to be after the fact and now it appears that evidence is going to be coming into the hearing sort of after the fact as well. We'd just like to know what it is. Puluqi Are you referring to --- Mayor The trial — I can't follow your analogy on the trial: What is after the fact? The hearing has been held. We are merely asking to reopen the hearing to take additional testimony. No decisions have been reached. No verdict has been rendered until such time as all testimony can be obtained and that's all we're asking is that Mr. Hill get a complete, fair and impartial hearing -- that all sides of the issue have an opportunity to be aired, so that there's no lingering testimony, maybe testimony that is ---- Clark I certainly didn't mean to infer that this body has made its decision. I just meant that procedurally, he has been discharged. That is -- this is a post discharge hearing, and the law requires one before discharge. Mayor The request before this body is to have a hearing and set aside that decision. Clark That's right. Snyder That's what we're attempting to do -- is to have such hearing to determine whether or not there is justification for the action that has taken place. All that we're saying that we want to do now is have some additional information so that whatever it is -- remember, we did not close the hearing; the hearing is still in effect. -4- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * Bouman Mr. Mayor. Mayor Mr. Bouman. Bouman It seems to me too — we seem to have a disagreement here as to — between two attorneys — as to what is the law and what constitutes proper and legal procedure. Mr. Erwin, who advises this Council, doesn't seem to agree with Mr. Clark as to whether the procedure we're using is right or wrong. He's telling us that we are entitled to proceed in the manner that has been decided here. Clark Without a hearing before discharge. Well, there may well be a disagreement there, so I would urge the Council to consider the request, but again certainly we will ---- Mayor Could you restate the date that you would like to --- Clark Mayor Newbrander 1'd suggested the 7th of January just looking at the next Thursday -- assuming that Thursday's were the days you prefer -- would be the 24th. I would assume that that as well as the 31st would be difficult days for everyone, but if the Council has another date to suggest, I certainly would yield to it. I think basically we have before us a request to alter the date from December 17th, and we're not necessarily locked into Thursday. What's the pleasure of the Council as far as should we adjourn as planned to December 17th at 6 p.m. and hope that Mr. Clark can make arrangements to be here, or should we select another date? Mr. Mayor, I think everyone would be happy to get this thing resolved. I would like to try to stick to next Thursday. Mayor Councilman McPherson? McPherson I'd like to get it settled too. If it's an unsurmountable problem for Mr. Clark, I'd be willing to make a change in it. I would certainly not like to spend too many weekends thinking about it. Mayor Councilman Snyder? Snyder Well I think the point that we're trying to create and indeed having this hearing is indeed just that and it was your request that it be an open meeting or hearing. We're trying to establish the fact that we are indeed trying to be fair and make the best adjudication of this matter that we know how to make. We have been at it for some time now; we feel that all we are doing is continuing the hearing to assure ourselves that our decision is adequate and proper. I have no objections of any reasonable change in date, but I feel tht in fairness to all, it should be concluded as reasonably rapdidly as it can be. Any date in the immediate vicinity of that date would be satisfactory to me. I have no hangup that it has to be that date. It was merely that that was a public hearing that we had to attend to be here and it seemed proper. Any reasonable date is satisfactory to me. Mayor Councilman Puluqi? -5- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Puluqi Clark The reason I would prefer the 17th is because it would give the same people that were here on the prior open hearing to be here again because it is a regular public hearing of the City of Palm Desert. However, if he cannot be prepared by then; I'm willing to make an exception. However, as quickly as possible, and I'm going to take time off my work to be here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but I would hate to see it carried until after Christmas. I don't know how much time you need. I'm not an attorney, unless you have conflict or problems with other court cases, I -- I appreciate those concerns, and I'll submit it with the arguments. Again, our reason for wanting to be prepared is simply to get the notice of what the evidence is. Puluqi I don't ---- Mayor Clark We can advise you probably no more than the fact the names of four individuals who want to give testimony to us. We won't get the testimony until such time as you do. We have no advance notice as to one side or the other. We don't believe that anyone in the City has the benefit of that testimony. If the City didn't have the benefit of the knowledge of what that testimony was, queries as to its relevancy. If it's not the reason he was fired, how is it relevant now? We are only asking to know what it was was the reason he was fired so we then as -- Snyder Because they were here at the meeting when you brought up all these allegations. Clark Mr. Hill is the one I understand who has allegations made against him, and those allegations are the basis for his being fired. Snyder I don't know that. Clark The hearing I think would be to determine whether or not there is cause for firing. If the testimony relates to that then it would seem he should be advised as to what those reasons are. But then again, if it's not known what is contained, and certainly this body would know would be the advisary — the charging individual -- if it's not known, then I would assume that that wasn't the reason he was fired. Snyder Mayor We can't tell you. I can tell you frankly that all we know is 4 people have come forth and -said that they would like to be given the opportunity to testify, and inasmuch as the hearing is not indeed closed, we felt it proper that they should. And then we're going to make our decision. The reasons that we've been given for the firing are 1) incompetency, inefficiency and poor administrative practices. The testimony may or may not substantiate any one of those charges. Until we hear that testimony, we will not know. We will have to wait and get that testimony and then see and weigh it against the charges. I guess that's where we stand. Clark Thank you. -6- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Puluqi Did we settle on a date? Snyder Did you give us an alternate date? Clark I would submit with what I have said and assume that the 17th will be set. My only request again is that we be given the additional time again after we are apprised of what the evidence is, but apparently that's not going to happen -- so ---- Mayor So you're apprised at the same time we are. Clark Yeah. Puluqi I think what he's trying to say -- Clark That's fine. We'll accept that it's set for the 17th. Mayor I think one of the concerns I had at the beginning when we were trying to make an adjustment was that you indicated that was a difficult date for you personally to be here. Clark It is, and I assume that because of my extensive correspondence with the City Attorney asking for discovery that it would be likely that an additional period of time would be permissible within which that discovery could be provided. But I don't believe that it is the Council's intent to provide discovery, but really for everyone to learn at the same time what the evidence is and inasmuch as ask the ruling of the Council and I don't think there's any reason to belabor the point. Snyder So the date is satisfactory to you then under those conditions. Clark Subject to the other objections I have mentioned, and --- Puluqi May I ask you a question? Clark Certainly. Puluqi Are you referring to — am I between the lines seem to read that you are saying that after these people testify, that you would like an opportunity to rebuttal that after that, is that it? Discuss it or what? Mayor I think — Clark What I'm really saying is that ordinarily when you're charged with murder, you're not just given a complaint that says "we charge you with murder". The charging agency has an obligation to tell you who you murdered, when you murdered them, and give you all the facts that they have so that you don't go into a hearing and are confronted for the first time with witnesses who you cannot cross examine because you haven't had an opportunity to investigate the case against you. Those are called rules of due process, and they apply to these kinds of hearings. The first rule is that the hearing should be before the firing; the second rule is that the hearing should give, before the hearing you should have an opportunity to know what the facts are that support the charges. And that's all we're asking for is to know what it is that is the reason that he was fired so that we can investigate it before we are confronted with -- and it's -7- MINUTES ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Snyder Mayor Snyder . Mayor incredible to me that that testimony isn't even known to anyone else. If it's the reason he was fired, we should know what it is. But I think — I apologize for belaboring the point. As I understand it, it's testimony relative to the testimony that was given here Thursday night in an open hearing. That's all we know. I think your point is duly noted, Mr. Clark, and with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting --- I so move to adjourn this meeting to -- would it still be 6 o'clock? 6 p.m. Snyder I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting until 6 o'clock the evening of the 17th, 1982 — 81. Mayor For the purpose of reopening the public hearing. Snyder Yes, the public hearing. McPherson Second. Mayor There's a second. All those in favor, signify by saying AYE. McPherson Aye. Snyder Aye Newbrander Aye Pulugi Aye Wilson Aye Mayor ATTEST: Opposed? We stand adjourned to 6 p.m. December 17th. (Adjourned 12:40 p.m.) SHEILA R. GIGAN, CITylZLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT LIFORNIA -8- _ 7 _, O Y �lir[LSON,`MAYOR