1
00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:39,000
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right, we are live.

2
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:41,767
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay, we're going to call the August 3,

3
00:05:41,767 --> 00:05:45,367
2026 State Personnel Board meeting to order.

4
00:05:45,667 --> 00:05:48,667
I'll take the roll. Baldree?

5
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,600
KATHY BALDREE: Present. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

6
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:57,000
KIMIKO BURTON: Here SUZANNE AMBROSE:

7
00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:01,200
Matosantos? ANA MATOSANTOS: Here. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

8
00:06:01,967 --> 00:06:03,967
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Here.

9
00:06:04,967 --> 00:06:08,967
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis? DR. GAIL WILLIS: Present.

10
00:06:08,967 --> 00:06:11,600
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Meetings of the State Personnel Board

11
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:13,600
are open to the public except when specifically noticed

12
00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:15,633
otherwise. In accordance with the Meeting Act, Board

13
00:06:15,633 --> 00:06:17,400
may take action on any item listed on the agenda

14
00:06:17,400 --> 00:06:19,500
unless listed information only. Time is approximate,

15
00:06:19,500 --> 00:06:21,700
subject to change and agenda items

16
00:06:21,700 --> 00:06:23,433
may be taken out of order to accommodate

17
00:06:23,433 --> 00:06:26,400
speakers and maintained a quorum. SPBs modify

18
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,700
this board meeting procedures in accordance with Senate Bill

19
00:06:29,700 --> 00:06:31,700
544 regarding remote participation

20
00:06:31,933 --> 00:06:34,967
under Bagley Keen, a live broadcast

21
00:06:34,967 --> 00:06:36,667
only video conference stream of open sessions

22
00:06:36,667 --> 00:06:39,967
may be accessed on the SPB website and interactive Webex.

23
00:06:39,967 --> 00:06:42,367
Teleconference of open sessions

24
00:06:42,367 --> 00:06:46,233
may be accessed by audio and video or by audio phone.

25
00:06:46,233 --> 00:06:50,433
All that information is on the website.

26
00:06:50,967 --> 00:06:54,400
Public comments may be made by attending the San Francisco

27
00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:56,933
teleconference location, the Sacramento public

28
00:06:56,933 --> 00:07:01,133
viewing location for in person commenting. Actually, I think

29
00:07:01,133 --> 00:07:03,767
we have the teleconference location down in LA today,

30
00:07:03,767 --> 00:07:07,733
so you can attend by in person in LA or in Sacramento,

31
00:07:07,733 --> 00:07:11,333
or you can attend via interactive

32
00:07:11,833 --> 00:07:14,833
Webex teleconference or by emailing

33
00:07:16,933 --> 00:07:19,333
oardmeetingcomments@spb.ca.gov.

34
00:07:21,933 --> 00:07:24,767
During the public comment period, WebEx attendees

35
00:07:24,767 --> 00:07:28,567
may submit a comment by raising your hand to alert the host.

36
00:07:28,567 --> 00:07:30,767
All in listeners wishing to participate by phone

37
00:07:30,767 --> 00:07:33,933
may press *3 to raise or lower their hand.

38
00:07:33,933 --> 00:07:35,433
During the public comment period,

39
00:07:35,433 --> 00:07:38,133
commenter will be provided microphone and camera access

40
00:07:38,133 --> 00:07:40,300
so they may address the board and afterwards

41
00:07:40,300 --> 00:07:43,700
the commenter will be returned to observation only status.

42
00:07:43,700 --> 00:07:45,733
If there are any members of the public attending

43
00:07:45,733 --> 00:07:49,200
via Webex who wish to present comments to the board, please

44
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:52,000
raise your hand now and we'll call on you during the public

45
00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:54,467
comment period. Emailed comments will be read

46
00:07:54,467 --> 00:07:56,900
aloud or summarized during the public comment

47
00:07:56,900 --> 00:08:00,400
period under information discussion items on the agenda.

48
00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:02,467
Copies of all emailed comments will be published

49
00:08:02,467 --> 00:08:04,800
after the minutes for the meeting are approved

50
00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:06,733
at the following board meeting and our meeting facilities

51
00:08:06,733 --> 00:08:09,933
are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

52
00:08:09,933 --> 00:08:13,500
All right, recorded the Executive Officer.

53
00:08:13,500 --> 00:08:15,900
I'm happy to report that we partnered

54
00:08:15,900 --> 00:08:18,733
with DevOps and CalHR and we have gone

55
00:08:18,733 --> 00:08:24,133
live with our new hiring guide for state hiring

56
00:08:24,700 --> 00:08:26,933
managers and we've gotten some good

57
00:08:26,933 --> 00:08:31,133
positive press on it thanks to Gava.

58
00:08:32,700 --> 00:08:36,900
Sally Lee is in our audience today.

59
00:08:38,867 --> 00:08:42,900
She did all the heavy lifting on it with,

60
00:08:42,900 --> 00:08:46,767
of course, you know, Nick Maduro's vision.

61
00:08:46,767 --> 00:08:50,533
So we really appreciate all of your efforts and I think

62
00:08:50,533 --> 00:08:53,867
it's going to go a long way in accelerating state hiring.

63
00:08:53,867 --> 00:08:57,467
So that's my report. Chief Counsel.

64
00:08:57,867 --> 00:09:00,867
ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL: Nothing to report.

65
00:09:01,867 --> 00:09:04,867
SUZANNE AMBROSE: CalPERS Report. DR.

66
00:09:05,100 --> 00:09:07,200
GAIL WILLIS: Yes, CalPERS update.

67
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:10,800
July 2026 CalPERS Board of Administration off

68
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:13,133
site was held on July

69
00:09:13,133 --> 00:09:16,333
13th through the 15th in Monterey, California.

70
00:09:16,333 --> 00:09:18,533
The Board of Administration participated in the following

71
00:09:18,533 --> 00:09:20,933
educational sessions. Geopolitical Discussion,

72
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:27,670
Global Public Equity Active Management Process, AI from

73
00:09:27,670 --> 00:09:30,833
the Asset Managers Perspective, The New Operating Environment

74
00:09:30,833 --> 00:09:32,833
Clinical Quality and

75
00:09:32,833 --> 00:09:36,433
Behavioral Health Contracting agency health regents.

76
00:09:37,367 --> 00:09:41,567
AI and primary care fiduciary and battling

77
00:09:42,300 --> 00:09:44,300
king trade 2027-2032

78
00:09:46,833 --> 00:09:50,833
strategic plan development session and also a best

79
00:09:50,833 --> 00:09:52,833
day at CalPERS.

80
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:57,000
The upcoming board meetings.

81
00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:00,567
The CalPERS Board Administration's next

82
00:10:00,567 --> 00:10:02,500
meeting is scheduled for September

83
00:10:02,500 --> 00:10:04,833
14th through the 16th in the Fechner Auditorium.

84
00:10:04,833 --> 00:10:08,833
That concludes my report. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay, great.

85
00:10:08,833 --> 00:10:10,800
Do any board members have any new business?

86
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:16,800
And do we have any public comments? Did we receive

87
00:10:18,800 --> 00:10:21,800
anything? Okay. Brad, did we receive anything?

88
00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:25,800
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No public comment, no WebEx comments.

89
00:10:25,800 --> 00:10:28,800
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Consent items .

90
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:33,000
Approval of the draft summary open and close

91
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:35,567
minutes from the July 13, 2026 board meeting.

92
00:10:35,567 --> 00:10:37,967
Is there a motion?

93
00:10:39,800 --> 00:10:42,800
KATHY BALDREE: So move. DR. GAIL WILLIS:

94
00:10:42,800 --> 00:10:45,800
Second SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion's been made seconded.

95
00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:47,800
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

96
00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:51,400
KATHY BALDREE: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

97
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:56,400
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

98
00:10:56,800 --> 00:11:00,400
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

99
00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:04,400
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis?

100
00:11:04,767 --> 00:11:06,767
DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

101
00:11:06,767 --> 00:11:10,367
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion passes. Hearing items.

102
00:11:14,767 --> 00:11:17,167
We have two requests

103
00:11:20,767 --> 00:11:22,233
to consolidate. So we have first one

104
00:11:22,233 --> 00:11:25,233
is request to consolidate the Lottery Manager Sales

105
00:11:25,233 --> 00:11:27,733
classification into the Sales Operations Series class

106
00:11:27,733 --> 00:11:33,133
back and then the second one is to consolidate

107
00:11:33,267 --> 00:11:36,767
the Investment Officer CalPERS and Investment Officer CalSTRS

108
00:11:36,767 --> 00:11:38,767
series classifications back.

109
00:11:38,767 --> 00:11:41,767
Is there a motion to approve those?

110
00:11:41,767 --> 00:11:45,967
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So move. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.

111
00:11:47,767 --> 00:11:49,633
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion made and seconded.

112
00:11:49,633 --> 00:11:51,733
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

113
00:11:51,733 --> 00:11:55,333
KATHY BALDREE: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

114
00:11:55,733 --> 00:11:59,333
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

115
00:11:59,733 --> 00:12:02,733
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

116
00:12:02,733 --> 00:12:06,333
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis?

117
00:12:06,733 --> 00:12:08,733
DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

118
00:12:08,733 --> 00:12:11,333
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion passes. We have request to abolish

119
00:12:11,333 --> 00:12:15,667
list eligibility. We have 11 of those department of Forestry

120
00:12:15,667 --> 00:12:20,733
and Fire Protection's request to abolish the Cook Specialist

121
00:12:20,733 --> 00:12:24,267
1 eligibility list and the Cook Specialist

122
00:12:24,267 --> 00:12:27,200
2 eligibility list and the Fire Apparatus Engineer

123
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:29,667
eligibility list and the Fire Captain

124
00:12:29,667 --> 00:12:31,133
eligibility list.

125
00:12:31,133 --> 00:12:34,733
And then Kelly Jarv's request to abolish the

126
00:12:34,733 --> 00:12:38,333
Assistant Industrial Hygienist, Associate Industrial Hygienist,

127
00:12:39,667 --> 00:12:42,667
Senior Industrial Hygienist eligibility list,

128
00:12:43,700 --> 00:12:45,967
their request to abolish the Legal Support Supervisor

129
00:12:45,967 --> 00:12:49,700
series eligibility list and then California Correctional

130
00:12:49,700 --> 00:12:52,433
Healthcare Services request to abolish

131
00:12:52,433 --> 00:12:56,000
the Clinical Psychology Intern eligibility list,

132
00:12:56,000 --> 00:12:58,000
the Licensed Vocational nurse,

133
00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:00,400
California Department of Corrections

134
00:13:01,467 --> 00:13:03,867
and Rehabilitation eligibility list,

135
00:13:05,100 --> 00:13:08,700
the Public Health Nurse 1 Correctional Facility

136
00:13:09,700 --> 00:13:14,500
eligibility list and then Department of Motor Vehicles

137
00:13:15,700 --> 00:13:18,200
request to abolish the Driver Safety Manager

138
00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:19,700
1 eligibility list and State Hospitals

139
00:13:19,700 --> 00:13:22,133
request to abolish the Senior Psychologist

140
00:13:22,133 --> 00:13:24,700
Health Facility Supervisor eligibility list.

141
00:13:24,700 --> 00:13:29,500
Is there a motion? KIMIKO BURTON: So move.

142
00:13:29,700 --> 00:13:31,667
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.

143
00:13:31,667 --> 00:13:33,667
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion been made and seconded.

144
00:13:33,667 --> 00:13:37,267
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

145
00:13:37,667 --> 00:13:40,667
KATHY BALDREE: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

146
00:13:40,667 --> 00:13:44,267
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

147
00:13:44,667 --> 00:13:48,267
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

148
00:13:48,667 --> 00:13:52,267
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis?

149
00:13:53,667 --> 00:13:56,670
DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

150
00:13:58,667 --> 00:14:01,667
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion passes. Okay.

151
00:14:11,667 --> 00:14:13,667
ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL: All right. We have the oral

152
00:14:13,667 --> 00:14:15,667
argument.

153
00:14:18,667 --> 00:14:20,667
SUZANNE AMBROSE:

154
00:14:25,633 --> 00:14:28,633
Okay. Okay, great. So we're

155
00:14:33,633 --> 00:14:37,500
going to call the case of Brian Rodriguez

156
00:14:37,500 --> 00:14:39,900
versus California Department Corrections

157
00:14:40,100 --> 00:14:43,700
rehabilitation SPB case number 25-11 62A.

158
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:49,600
We're going to have oral argument on this matter.

159
00:14:49,667 --> 00:14:52,467
Welcome. Before we begin with the oral argument,

160
00:14:52,467 --> 00:14:54,167
may have the parties and or the representatives

161
00:14:54,167 --> 00:14:57,167
introduce themselves to the record.

162
00:14:57,633 --> 00:15:01,670
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:Okay. Thank you. My name

163
00:15:01,670 --> 00:15:03,267
is (Inaudible) representative with American Federation

164
00:15:03,267 --> 00:15:06,267
of State County Municipal Employees.

165
00:15:06,633 --> 00:15:09,633
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're having a hard time here.

166
00:15:09,633 --> 00:15:12,600
Let's be moved up there.

167
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:14,600
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let's move this over.

168
00:15:14,600 --> 00:15:16,600
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

169
00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:21,900
Okay. We're gonna try to switch out the.

170
00:15:21,900 --> 00:15:23,600
Okay. Can you test what it sounds like?

171
00:15:23,600 --> 00:15:25,600
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

172
00:15:32,600 --> 00:15:35,000
Test. Is that better

173
00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:43,600
for the members in LA?

174
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:46,600
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Thank you.

175
00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:52,433
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Okay. Can you state

176
00:15:52,433 --> 00:15:54,633
your name for the record again? RAFA GARCIA: Yes.

177
00:15:54,633 --> 00:15:56,600
My name is Rafa Garcia and I am a union representative

178
00:15:56,600 --> 00:16:00,600
with the American Federation of State County Municipal Police.

179
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:05,800
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Did everybody hear that clearly? Thank you.

180
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:09,567
Okay. BRIAN RODRIGUEZ: My name is Brian Rodriguez.

181
00:16:09,567 --> 00:16:11,567
BRETT BARCELLOS: Brett Barcelos, B A, R, C, E,

182
00:16:11,567 --> 00:16:16,300
L, L, O S for the department. SUZANNE AMBROSE: All right.

183
00:16:16,300 --> 00:16:22,300
The board invited the parties to present arguments on material

184
00:16:25,367 --> 00:16:27,933
issues in this appeal. All the parties may raise

185
00:16:27,933 --> 00:16:30,900
arguments framed by the issues in the case. The parties

186
00:16:30,900 --> 00:16:33,133
are requested particularly address the following issue.

187
00:16:33,133 --> 00:16:35,567
What is the proper penalty for the proven misconduct?

188
00:16:35,567 --> 00:16:37,900
Each side is allotted 10 minutes to present

189
00:16:37,900 --> 00:16:43,300
its argument with an additional five minutes. All right.

190
00:16:56,533 --> 00:16:58,533
BRETT BARCELLOS: So me.

191
00:16:58,533 --> 00:17:01,833
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Yes. BRETT BARCELLOS: Okay.

192
00:17:01,833 --> 00:17:05,533
Are we ready to go? SUZANNE AMBROSE: Yes.

193
00:17:05,533 --> 00:17:07,533
BRETT BARCELLOS: Very good. Good morning.

194
00:17:07,533 --> 00:17:10,833
Brett Barcellos, appearing on behalf of CDCR.

195
00:17:10,833 --> 00:17:13,533
The board requested argument this morning

196
00:17:13,533 --> 00:17:18,333
regarding the propriety of the penalty if proven.

197
00:17:18,633 --> 00:17:21,300
If the proof of misconduct

198
00:17:21,300 --> 00:17:24,567
is accepted respectfully, the department submits

199
00:17:24,567 --> 00:17:27,533
the dismissal remains the only and proper penalty.

200
00:17:27,533 --> 00:17:30,400
The issue before the board today is not whether appellant

201
00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:33,233
engaged in misconduct. The ALJ sustained multiple

202
00:17:33,233 --> 00:17:36,100
causes for discipline, including inexcusable,

203
00:17:36,100 --> 00:17:38,467
neglected duty, discourteous treatment,

204
00:17:38,467 --> 00:17:41,733
willful disobedience and other failure of good behavior.

205
00:17:41,733 --> 00:17:44,967
The issues whether six months suspension adequately,

206
00:17:44,967 --> 00:17:47,833
adequately protects the public service.

207
00:17:47,833 --> 00:17:52,330
The department argues that it does not.

208
00:17:52,667 --> 00:17:54,933
Under Skelly, the board considers three factors

209
00:17:54,933 --> 00:17:57,767
in determining appropriate the harm or potential

210
00:17:57,767 --> 00:18:01,567
harm to the public service, the circumstances surrounding

211
00:18:01,567 --> 00:18:05,800
the offense and likelihood of reoccurrence. But most

212
00:18:05,800 --> 00:18:09,000
importantly, Skelly instructs that the harm to public service

213
00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:13,000
is overriding consideration. Applying those factors compels

214
00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:16,330
one conclusion. Dismissal is the appropriate penalty.

215
00:18:16,330 --> 00:18:20,500
The harm here extended far beyond the inappropriate

216
00:18:20,500 --> 00:18:24,700
workplace relationship. The case involved a licensed

217
00:18:28,500 --> 00:18:31,400
clinical social worker who knowingly violated

218
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:34,333
CDCR's nepotism policy by concealing

219
00:18:34,333 --> 00:18:37,100
a romantic relationship with an intern.

220
00:18:37,100 --> 00:18:39,467
Assigned to work under his professional

221
00:18:39,467 --> 00:18:41,633
guidance. The policy exists for one reason.

222
00:18:41,633 --> 00:18:44,267
To prevent exactly what occurred here.

223
00:18:44,267 --> 00:18:47,467
It protects both the employee and the integrity

224
00:18:47,467 --> 00:18:50,933
of the department by ensuring that personal relationships

225
00:18:50,933 --> 00:18:52,467
do not compromise professional

226
00:18:52,467 --> 00:18:56,670
judgment or create conflicts of interest.

227
00:18:56,300 --> 00:18:58,833
Rather than disclose a relationship and allow

228
00:18:58,833 --> 00:19:00,833
management to address the conflict

229
00:19:00,833 --> 00:19:03,833
appropriate appropriately, Appellant concealed it.

230
00:19:05,433 --> 00:19:07,367
When the relationship deteriorated.

231
00:19:07,367 --> 00:19:10,400
He attempted to solve the problem by pressuring

232
00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:12,467
Ms. Nelson, not himself,

233
00:19:12,467 --> 00:19:14,867
to bear the consequences of the misconduct.

234
00:19:14,867 --> 00:19:19,233
He repeatedly pressured her to leave the RHU unit.

235
00:19:19,233 --> 00:19:23,433
He suggested that she use Low Census as the explanation

236
00:19:23,433 --> 00:19:28,433
for leaving, despite knowing that was not the true reason.

237
00:19:28,433 --> 00:19:33,233
When Ms. Nelson repeatedly explained that leaving Rhu

238
00:19:33,433 --> 00:19:35,367
could jeopardize her internship, delay

239
00:19:35,367 --> 00:19:38,833
her graduate graduation, and significantly impact

240
00:19:38,833 --> 00:19:43,467
her career, the appellant continued to pressure her.

241
00:19:43,467 --> 00:19:46,233
The result was not simple potential harm.

242
00:19:46,233 --> 00:19:48,933
It was actual harm. Ms. Nelson ultimately left

243
00:19:48,933 --> 00:19:52,000
the RHU because she feared appellant would jeopardize

244
00:19:52,000 --> 00:19:54,133
her internship and professional future.

245
00:19:54,133 --> 00:19:56,167
That is precisely the type of harm

246
00:19:56,167 --> 00:19:58,800
the CDCR's nepotism policy is designed to prevent.

247
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:01,200
The department's internship program

248
00:20:01,433 --> 00:20:04,433
depends upon interns believing they will be fairly evaluated

249
00:20:04,433 --> 00:20:07,967
professionally and free from personal influence.

250
00:20:07,967 --> 00:20:10,800
When a licensed clinician abuses

251
00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:15,000
this relationship for personal reason, public confidence,

252
00:20:15,900 --> 00:20:20,100
the department's professionalism and integrity is undermined.

253
00:20:20,333 --> 00:20:21,900
The harm here is substantial.

254
00:20:21,900 --> 00:20:25,500
The circumstances of the offense demonstrated

255
00:20:27,267 --> 00:20:30,400
a continuing course of intentional misconduct.

256
00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:32,967
This was not an isolated lapse in judgment.

257
00:20:32,967 --> 00:20:36,800
It was a continuing course of intentional misconduct.

258
00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:40,400
The appellant knowingly entered into a prohibited relationship.

259
00:20:40,400 --> 00:20:43,000
He intentionally concealed that relationship.

260
00:20:43,000 --> 00:20:46,400
When the relationship began affecting the workplace,

261
00:20:46,400 --> 00:20:47,800
he did not report the conflict. Instead,

262
00:20:47,800 --> 00:20:50,400
he attempted to manipulate the situation.

263
00:20:50,400 --> 00:20:53,567
By convincing Ms. Nelson to leave the unit.

264
00:20:53,567 --> 00:20:56,500
He suggested a false explanation for her transfer.

265
00:20:56,500 --> 00:20:58,167
He threatened to go to her supervisor

266
00:20:58,167 --> 00:21:01,333
if she refused. Even after repeated

267
00:21:01,333 --> 00:21:04,700
leave, she explained that doing so could threaten

268
00:21:04,700 --> 00:21:06,367
her internship, future career.

269
00:21:06,367 --> 00:21:11,670
He still persisted despite their agreement that there

270
00:21:11,670 --> 00:21:15,000
would be no physical displays of affection in the workplace.

271
00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:17,467
Appellant intentionally kiss Ms. Nelson while at work,

272
00:21:17,467 --> 00:21:19,367
violating a clearly established workplace

273
00:21:19,367 --> 00:21:21,567
boundary in the Department's EEO

274
00:21:21,567 --> 00:21:24,567
policy prohibiting unwanted physical contact.

275
00:21:26,467 --> 00:21:28,767
Each of these actions required a deliberate choice.

276
00:21:28,767 --> 00:21:32,867
Each represented another decision to place appellant's

277
00:21:32,867 --> 00:21:35,900
personal interest ahead of the department

278
00:21:35,900 --> 00:21:37,933
policy and his own professional obligations.

279
00:21:37,933 --> 00:21:40,933
Viewed collectively, this conduct demonstrates

280
00:21:42,133 --> 00:21:46,333
not mere poor judgment, but an intentional

281
00:21:46,433 --> 00:21:49,330
disregard for the standards expected of a licensed mental

282
00:21:49,330 --> 00:21:52,633
health professional entrusted with supervising others.

283
00:21:52,767 --> 00:21:54,967
The proposed decision concludes that there is little

284
00:21:54,967 --> 00:21:57,633
likelihood of recurrence because of impelling

285
00:21:57,633 --> 00:22:01,833
expressed remorse and had no prior discipline.

286
00:22:02,333 --> 00:22:06,333
Members of the Board. Respectfully, the Department

287
00:22:06,333 --> 00:22:08,700
submits this analysis gives too much weight to post

288
00:22:08,700 --> 00:22:11,167
invasion investigation mitigation and too little

289
00:22:11,167 --> 00:22:14,933
weight to what appellant's actual conduct demonstrates.

290
00:22:14,933 --> 00:22:18,700
The likelihood of reoccurrence is not measured by whether

291
00:22:18,700 --> 00:22:20,533
an employee later expresses regret.

292
00:22:20,533 --> 00:22:25,333
It is measured by the employee's con what the employee's conduct

293
00:22:25,333 --> 00:22:28,333
reveals about his judgment when confronted with competing

294
00:22:28,333 --> 00:22:31,333
personal and professional obligations. Throughout

295
00:22:31,367 --> 00:22:33,333
this relationship, every significant

296
00:22:33,333 --> 00:22:34,833
decision appellant made favored protecting

297
00:22:34,833 --> 00:22:39,330
himself over complying with the Department policy.

298
00:22:40,300 --> 00:22:42,267
He concealed the relationship.

299
00:22:42,267 --> 00:22:47,670
He concealed his violation of the nepotism policy.

300
00:22:47,167 --> 00:22:50,867
He attempted to persuade another employee to provide

301
00:22:50,867 --> 00:22:54,330
false explanations for leaving the unit.

302
00:22:54,330 --> 00:22:56,767
He continually pleasure pressured that employee

303
00:22:56,767 --> 00:22:59,533
after learning that his demands threatened her career.

304
00:22:59,533 --> 00:23:01,100
The Pattern the pattern here demonstrates

305
00:23:01,100 --> 00:23:04,100
something important. When the appellant's

306
00:23:04,300 --> 00:23:08,100
personal interests conflict with the department policy,

307
00:23:08,100 --> 00:23:10,800
he repeatedly chose his personal interest.

308
00:23:10,800 --> 00:23:15,600
That pattern, not his later expressions of remorse,

309
00:23:16,300 --> 00:23:18,500
is the best predictor of future conduct.

310
00:23:18,500 --> 00:23:21,967
The concern is not whether appellant

311
00:23:21,967 --> 00:23:23,767
will engage in another workplace relationship.

312
00:23:23,767 --> 00:23:26,330
The conduct is whether, when faced with another conflict

313
00:23:26,330 --> 00:23:28,967
between the department's policy and the pen's own

314
00:23:28,967 --> 00:23:32,833
interest, the department can reasonably rely upon him

315
00:23:32,833 --> 00:23:36,267
cannot reasonably rely upon him to make the correct

316
00:23:36,267 --> 00:23:40,467
professional decision based upon the proven misconduct.

317
00:23:43,267 --> 00:23:45,100
Department reasonably concludes that it could not trust

318
00:23:45,100 --> 00:23:47,500
the appellant to put

319
00:23:47,800 --> 00:23:52,600
the department in front of his own interests.

320
00:23:52,867 --> 00:23:56,467
Here, the department of the appellant

321
00:23:58,267 --> 00:24:00,733
occupied a position requiring extraordinary

322
00:24:00,733 --> 00:24:02,667
professional judgment.

323
00:24:02,667 --> 00:24:05,267
As a licensed clinical social worker,

324
00:24:05,267 --> 00:24:09,267
he was expected to recognize professional boundaries,

325
00:24:09,267 --> 00:24:13,267
appreciate power and balances, exercise sound ethical judgment,

326
00:24:13,267 --> 00:24:16,267
and serve as a mentor to developing clinicians.

327
00:24:16,267 --> 00:24:17,700
Instead, he exploited the very relationship

328
00:24:17,700 --> 00:24:19,633
he was entrusted to manage professionally.

329
00:24:19,633 --> 00:24:23,330
This case is ultimately about trust. The issue

330
00:24:23,330 --> 00:24:26,233
before the board is not whether appellant possesses technical

331
00:24:26,233 --> 00:24:31,567
skills necessary to perform the duties of a social worker.

332
00:24:31,567 --> 00:24:35,233
The issue is whether department can reasonably,

333
00:24:35,233 --> 00:24:37,670
reasonably rely upon him to exercise sound judgments

334
00:24:37,670 --> 00:24:41,233
when his personal interests conflict with his professional

335
00:24:41,233 --> 00:24:43,400
responsibilities based on those fine.

336
00:24:43,400 --> 00:24:48,330
Based on those findings, the answer is no.

337
00:24:48,330 --> 00:24:50,267
The Department is not required to continue employing

338
00:24:50,267 --> 00:24:53,600
a licensed professional after it has reasonably

339
00:24:53,600 --> 00:24:56,233
lost confidence in that professional's judgment.

340
00:24:56,233 --> 00:24:58,433
Nor is it required to risk future

341
00:24:58,433 --> 00:25:01,433
harm to employees, internship programs,

342
00:25:01,533 --> 00:25:04,233
or public service in the hope that similar

343
00:25:04,233 --> 00:25:06,633
misconduct will not occur again.

344
00:25:06,633 --> 00:25:09,233
The department acknowledges that the appellant

345
00:25:09,233 --> 00:25:13,233
had no prior formal discipline and later explained remorse.

346
00:25:13,233 --> 00:25:15,733
Those are important mitigating considerations.

347
00:25:15,733 --> 00:25:19,200
However, they do not outweigh the seriousness of the proven

348
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:22,800
misconduct. A previously clean disciplinary record

349
00:25:23,667 --> 00:25:26,567
does not excuse intentional violations of multiple

350
00:25:26,567 --> 00:25:29,800
department policies. Nor does remorse expect

351
00:25:29,800 --> 00:25:33,400
after the discovery restore the department's

352
00:25:33,800 --> 00:25:36,800
confidence in appellant's professional judgment.

353
00:25:37,800 --> 00:25:41,200
The fact that several allegations were not sustained

354
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:43,200
does not diminish the seriousness

355
00:25:43,200 --> 00:25:46,200
of the ones that were. The sustained findings alone

356
00:25:46,200 --> 00:25:48,600
establish intentional violations involving

357
00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:52,800
Inexcusable and neglected duty, willful disobedience,

358
00:25:53,200 --> 00:25:55,233
discourteous treatment and conduct discrediting

359
00:25:55,233 --> 00:25:57,633
the department standing alone.

360
00:25:58,200 --> 00:26:01,200
Those findings fully support the dismissal.

361
00:26:01,200 --> 00:26:03,267
And I'll close with the department

362
00:26:03,267 --> 00:26:04,833
dismissed appellant.

363
00:26:04,833 --> 00:26:09,633
Not because he engaged in a workplace relationship.

364
00:26:10,167 --> 00:26:12,367
Because what he chose to do after that relationship

365
00:26:12,367 --> 00:26:15,733
created a conflict with his professional

366
00:26:15,733 --> 00:26:19,333
obligations. He knowingly violated department policy.

367
00:26:19,433 --> 00:26:21,733
He concealed those violations. He attempted to protect

368
00:26:21,733 --> 00:26:25,167
himself by pressuring another employee to sacrifice her own

369
00:26:25,167 --> 00:26:28,167
professional future. He repeatedly placed his own

370
00:26:28,167 --> 00:26:32,500
interest above the interest of the department and above

371
00:26:32,500 --> 00:26:35,533
the career of an employee he was entrusted to mentor.

372
00:26:35,533 --> 00:26:37,330
Under Skelly, the overriding considerations

373
00:26:37,330 --> 00:26:40,500
is the protection of public service.

374
00:26:40,500 --> 00:26:42,167
The circumstances here demonstrate

375
00:26:42,167 --> 00:26:45,567
a continuing course of intentional misconduct.

376
00:26:45,567 --> 00:26:47,867
The pattern of appellant's

377
00:26:47,867 --> 00:26:50,200
decision making established a significant likelihood.

378
00:26:50,200 --> 00:26:53,200
When confronted with another conflict

379
00:26:53,333 --> 00:26:57,833
between his personal interests and the department policy.

380
00:26:57,833 --> 00:27:00,133
He will again place his own first.

381
00:27:00,133 --> 00:27:03,133
Under those circumstances, the department reasonably lost

382
00:27:03,133 --> 00:27:06,133
confidence in appellant's professional judgment.

383
00:27:06,133 --> 00:27:10,333
Yeah, one quick. A six month suspension

384
00:27:12,733 --> 00:27:15,867
may recognize the serious of the misconduct.

385
00:27:15,867 --> 00:27:19,133
But it does not restore the judgment,

386
00:27:19,133 --> 00:27:21,833
trust and confidence necessary for continued

387
00:27:21,833 --> 00:27:26,330
employment in his position. Thanks. SUZANNE AMBROSE:

388
00:27:26,133 --> 00:27:30,133
Do any board members have any questions?

389
00:27:30,133 --> 00:27:32,733
DR. GAIL WILLIS: I have a question.

390
00:27:32,733 --> 00:27:37,133
How long did the appellant continue the misconduct?

391
00:27:37,133 --> 00:27:39,133
BRETT BARCELLOS:

392
00:27:42,133 --> 00:27:45,433
Looks like it was over two to three month period.

393
00:27:45,433 --> 00:27:49,633
I believe it was August, September, October,

394
00:27:50,567 --> 00:27:54,167
ending and beginning of November. DR.

395
00:27:55,367 --> 00:28:00,167
GAIL WILLIS: Okay, thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Council,

396
00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:03,100
can you address the issue raised by appellant.

397
00:28:03,100 --> 00:28:06,600
That the policy was more advisory than required.

398
00:28:06,600 --> 00:28:09,600
And the role of appellants.

399
00:28:14,100 --> 00:28:16,100
Appellant's role in decisions around employment?

400
00:28:16,100 --> 00:28:18,100
BRETT BARCELLOS: Well,

401
00:28:18,467 --> 00:28:21,467
you know, the department concedes that appellant's

402
00:28:21,467 --> 00:28:25,167
role was not strictly supervisory in that he,

403
00:28:25,167 --> 00:28:31,167
you know, he wasn't there to hire or fire her.

404
00:28:33,100 --> 00:28:38,767
But he was there as a person to mentor Ms. Nelson.

405
00:28:38,767 --> 00:28:42,367
And that relationship created a power

406
00:28:46,670 --> 00:28:49,133
imbalance because Ms. Nelson's internship supervisors

407
00:28:49,133 --> 00:28:52,733
are going to come to the appellant and ask

408
00:28:52,733 --> 00:28:54,600
him, how is Ms. Nelson doing?

409
00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:58,300
He was going to have a say in her performance.

410
00:28:58,300 --> 00:29:02,670
He is going to have a say in the effectiveness

411
00:29:02,670 --> 00:29:05,300
of her abilities in the position.

412
00:29:05,300 --> 00:29:07,670
So even though

413
00:29:07,670 --> 00:29:11,500
he may not have been her, you know, quote boss.

414
00:29:11,500 --> 00:29:15,670
He was definitely in a position of authority

415
00:29:15,670 --> 00:29:17,700
in that his interpretations of her performance

416
00:29:17,700 --> 00:29:20,670
were going to be weighed in her evaluations.

417
00:29:20,670 --> 00:29:22,670
SUZANNE AMBROSE:

418
00:29:27,330 --> 00:29:29,433
Any other questions? Okay.

419
00:29:34,330 --> 00:29:37,600
Whenever you are ready. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.

420
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:39,300
Members of the board, if for whatever reason

421
00:29:39,300 --> 00:29:42,330
you can't hear me. Well, if you could let me know.

422
00:29:42,330 --> 00:29:44,900
We had some technical issues earlier on.

423
00:29:44,900 --> 00:29:47,967
So we are here for state Personnel Board to specifically

424
00:29:47,967 --> 00:29:52,330
look at the variety of six month.

425
00:29:52,330 --> 00:29:55,767
The modification to a six month suspension.

426
00:29:55,767 --> 00:29:58,733
And the ALJ did address this issue when ALJ

427
00:29:58,733 --> 00:30:01,600
referred to Department of Parks and Recreation

428
00:30:01,600 --> 00:30:04,000
versus State Personnel Board,

429
00:30:04,100 --> 00:30:07,330
where it gave three factors that could cause

430
00:30:07,330 --> 00:30:09,733
the State Personnel Board to modify a penalty.

431
00:30:09,733 --> 00:30:11,733
And very importantly,

432
00:30:12,330 --> 00:30:14,330
number three is the cause of discipline is proven,

433
00:30:14,330 --> 00:30:17,633
but is insufficient to support the level of punitive action

434
00:30:17,633 --> 00:30:20,000
taken. And with that, the appellant

435
00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:22,633
request that the SPB continue to revoke

436
00:30:22,633 --> 00:30:24,700
the dismissal and it should be overturned

437
00:30:24,700 --> 00:30:27,533
because the respondent failed to meet

438
00:30:27,533 --> 00:30:31,000
his burden of proving that the appellant committed

439
00:30:31,000 --> 00:30:33,367
all of the alleged misconduct that made

440
00:30:33,367 --> 00:30:36,800
the dismissal an appropriate level of discipline.

441
00:30:36,800 --> 00:30:40,533
The appellant, Mr. Rodriguez, should also be provided

442
00:30:40,533 --> 00:30:43,000
with a just and proper outcome because there was.

443
00:30:43,000 --> 00:30:45,667
There were many charges, but not all of the charges

444
00:30:45,667 --> 00:30:48,733
were the reasons that ultimately came to the modification.

445
00:30:48,733 --> 00:30:52,700
And of the six charges, the ALJ dismissed two.

446
00:30:52,700 --> 00:30:54,567
And those are, as the LJ also noted,

447
00:30:54,567 --> 00:30:56,800
they are two of the most

448
00:30:56,800 --> 00:31:00,000
serious charges, dishonesty and unlawful discrimination,

449
00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:02,600
including harassment. So today we're not asking

450
00:31:02,600 --> 00:31:04,967
the board to excuse any of the conduct.

451
00:31:04,967 --> 00:31:07,300
Rather, we're asking the board to exercise its authority under

452
00:31:07,300 --> 00:31:10,900
the California Constitution and the government

453
00:31:10,967 --> 00:31:12,667
code to determine whether dispute dismissal

454
00:31:12,667 --> 00:31:16,533
is the appropriate penalty. And ultimately, we ask

455
00:31:16,533 --> 00:31:18,967
the board to consider whether permanent

456
00:31:18,967 --> 00:31:21,833
separation from the state services necessary or whether

457
00:31:21,833 --> 00:31:24,467
a lesser penalty adequately protects

458
00:31:24,467 --> 00:31:26,967
the interest of the state. While recognizing

459
00:31:26,967 --> 00:31:30,800
the circumstances in this case. Here, we believe that dismissal

460
00:31:30,800 --> 00:31:33,967
is disproportionate with the things that occurred

461
00:31:33,967 --> 00:31:36,367
within this case. One

462
00:31:38,967 --> 00:31:41,533
of the things that does have to be considered

463
00:31:41,533 --> 00:31:43,967
is the harm to public service,

464
00:31:43,967 --> 00:31:46,500
which we believe is limited in this case.

465
00:31:46,500 --> 00:31:49,233
One of the biggest things is the nepotism policy.

466
00:31:49,233 --> 00:31:52,000
And it was already discussed that the, the appellant

467
00:31:52,000 --> 00:31:55,733
was not in a supervisory capacity, and the nepotism

468
00:31:55,733 --> 00:31:59,330
policy specifically addressed that portion of it.

469
00:31:59,330 --> 00:32:01,700
And then it talks about employment

470
00:32:01,700 --> 00:32:04,100
decisions, decisions which is.

471
00:32:04,600 --> 00:32:07,933
Which was referred to as providing feedback,

472
00:32:07,933 --> 00:32:10,167
providing input. So one of the things

473
00:32:10,167 --> 00:32:13,367
regarding that is that the types of questions that were being

474
00:32:13,367 --> 00:32:15,600
asked were no different than you would ask any other

475
00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:17,933
co worker something that like a correctional

476
00:32:17,933 --> 00:32:20,533
officer would be asked. How is somebody doing?

477
00:32:20,533 --> 00:32:23,767
You know, they're doing good. It's no different in this case.

478
00:32:23,767 --> 00:32:26,933
And that is what's on record as well,

479
00:32:26,933 --> 00:32:28,767
that the type of feedback that was actually solicited

480
00:32:28,767 --> 00:32:32,667
was provided was regarding nothing more than what a co

481
00:32:32,667 --> 00:32:37,933
worker would be asked and a co worker would provide.

482
00:32:37,933 --> 00:32:41,500
This is also a place where an internship program

483
00:32:41,500 --> 00:32:44,333
had not been active in several years.

484
00:32:44,333 --> 00:32:45,900
And so essentially,

485
00:32:45,900 --> 00:32:49,900
it would be the equivalent of a new internship program

486
00:32:49,900 --> 00:32:53,000
beginning from scratch, which means that people

487
00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:55,567
weren't trained up to the way that they should have been.

488
00:32:55,567 --> 00:32:58,667
This is especially Important because in The SPB

489
00:32:58,667 --> 00:33:01,667
decision MM95.01 they specifically speak

490
00:33:02,200 --> 00:33:05,400
about there's no proof that appellant received

491
00:33:05,400 --> 00:33:09,500
notice of the current sop. The record does not support

492
00:33:09,500 --> 00:33:11,900
the charge of failing to follow operational procedures.

493
00:33:11,900 --> 00:33:14,900
Similarly here, while there is a policy here,

494
00:33:14,900 --> 00:33:17,900
there was no specific training on how this potential training

495
00:33:17,900 --> 00:33:19,867
could impact the appellant when they're around

496
00:33:19,867 --> 00:33:26,000
how they should be interacting with them. And this is largely

497
00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:29,400
because this was a new program within the area

498
00:33:29,400 --> 00:33:33,667
because of the long time that there had been no program.

499
00:33:33,667 --> 00:33:35,667
Further, Mr.

500
00:33:38,867 --> 00:33:40,867
Rodriguez has been a state

501
00:33:40,867 --> 00:33:43,867
employee for eight years with no disciplinary action.

502
00:33:43,867 --> 00:33:46,333
This is a huge mitigating factor here.

503
00:33:46,333 --> 00:33:49,633
So then based on this the fact that Mr. Rodriguez violated

504
00:33:49,633 --> 00:33:52,567
many of the allegations of the dishonesty.

505
00:33:52,567 --> 00:33:54,867
The ALJ addressed that in the matter

506
00:33:54,867 --> 00:33:57,200
when discussing dishonesty and then

507
00:33:57,200 --> 00:33:59,200
the unlawful discrimination.

508
00:34:00,700 --> 00:34:05,500
And he through the eight years he's demonstrated

509
00:34:05,533 --> 00:34:08,267
a good commitment to public service.

510
00:34:08,267 --> 00:34:11,700
So that should not be overlooked that the mitigating factors

511
00:34:11,700 --> 00:34:13,367
are something that should be weighed

512
00:34:13,367 --> 00:34:15,300
because this is a lapse in judgment.

513
00:34:15,300 --> 00:34:17,567
The relationship still was not considered

514
00:34:17,567 --> 00:34:20,533
was not specifically considered as a way that we believe

515
00:34:20,533 --> 00:34:23,700
the policy was intended to be because of what I

516
00:34:23,700 --> 00:34:26,433
had just mentioned that he was not a direct

517
00:34:26,433 --> 00:34:30,200
supervisor. The type of feedback that he did provide was no more

518
00:34:30,200 --> 00:34:32,133
than any coworker. And then the next

519
00:34:32,133 --> 00:34:35,700
factor that's looked at is also the likelihood

520
00:34:35,700 --> 00:34:38,167
of recurrence which we also believe

521
00:34:38,167 --> 00:34:41,000
is minimal. Mr. Rodriguez had mentioned that he took

522
00:34:41,000 --> 00:34:44,167
responsibility for his actions and the ALJ also correctly

523
00:34:44,167 --> 00:34:48,167
had the opportunity to look at the witnesses determined

524
00:34:48,167 --> 00:34:52,267
the credibility and the judge also determined that there

525
00:34:52,267 --> 00:34:55,833
was a low likelihood of recurrence

526
00:34:55,833 --> 00:35:01,833
under the circumstances. In one of the other cases the

527
00:35:05,833 --> 00:35:08,833
SPB decided. 0305JH the SPB decided that an incident

528
00:35:08,833 --> 00:35:11,000
involving appellant and his wife

529
00:35:11,000 --> 00:35:13,670
was of a highly personal and emotionally charged

530
00:35:13,670 --> 00:35:15,333
nature and is unlikely to recurrent similar

531
00:35:15,333 --> 00:35:17,733
here the moments where they were having

532
00:35:17,733 --> 00:35:20,200
discussions towards the end of their relationship

533
00:35:20,200 --> 00:35:23,800
they were one of a highly emotionally charged

534
00:35:23,800 --> 00:35:26,167
nature and therefore should SPV should also be ruling

535
00:35:26,167 --> 00:35:28,800
similarly that it's unlikely to recur.

536
00:35:28,800 --> 00:35:34,200
Also many of the conversations that are being spoken

537
00:35:34,800 --> 00:35:37,233
of occurred during a private time.

538
00:35:37,233 --> 00:35:40,833
And also many other mitigating factors

539
00:35:44,800 --> 00:35:48,800
which the employee has accepted the responsibility, expressed

540
00:35:48,800 --> 00:35:51,200
remorse and also cooperated with the investigation.

541
00:35:51,200 --> 00:35:56,600
Mr. Rodriguez also did provide information about his personal

542
00:35:58,500 --> 00:36:03,433
history during that final week where he was still on site

543
00:36:03,433 --> 00:36:06,800
where he spoke about having a sleep

544
00:36:06,800 --> 00:36:08,900
disorder that caused anxiety.

545
00:36:08,900 --> 00:36:13,100
And this is something that was really affecting

546
00:36:13,100 --> 00:36:15,767
him that week where he wasn't sleeping very well.

547
00:36:15,767 --> 00:36:17,767
And so this medical condition

548
00:36:17,767 --> 00:36:20,900
should also be weighed in in the final decision

549
00:36:20,900 --> 00:36:22,900
whether modification

550
00:36:23,467 --> 00:36:26,767
is necessary and to show that the likelihood

551
00:36:26,767 --> 00:36:30,330
of recurrence is low since he also spoke

552
00:36:30,330 --> 00:36:32,900
about some of his the things that he's done to change

553
00:36:32,900 --> 00:36:36,300
so that he doesn't have the same issue of not having sufficient

554
00:36:36,300 --> 00:36:38,300
sleep. And then

555
00:36:38,367 --> 00:36:43,667
also the penalty of dismissal is too severe given the conduct.

556
00:36:43,667 --> 00:36:46,767
SPB has looked at and has decided on many

557
00:36:46,767 --> 00:36:49,267
cases where when unlawful discrimination

558
00:36:49,267 --> 00:36:52,667
is not present and dishonesty is not present that the SPB

559
00:36:52,667 --> 00:36:55,733
has ruled that termination may be too severe.

560
00:36:55,733 --> 00:37:01,133
There's several examples such as Cable Moore 9612cc 9421TW

561
00:37:04,733 --> 00:37:06,500
9420 Robert Jenkins 9318.

562
00:37:06,500 --> 00:37:08,500
So

563
00:37:12,733 --> 00:37:15,633
those are all cases where state for snowboard

564
00:37:15,633 --> 00:37:17,100
has looked at them.

565
00:37:17,100 --> 00:37:19,133
And under that framework we think

566
00:37:19,133 --> 00:37:21,167
that it would be appropriate to look at that similar

567
00:37:21,167 --> 00:37:23,233
framework where when the two of the most severe matters

568
00:37:23,233 --> 00:37:27,533
are dismissed, that SPB also decides that dismissal

569
00:37:27,533 --> 00:37:31,133
is too severe under those circumstances.

570
00:37:33,200 --> 00:37:35,200
We

571
00:37:37,733 --> 00:37:41,733
also requested the state personnel board give

572
00:37:41,733 --> 00:37:44,600
consideration to the ALJ because they had the opportunity

573
00:37:44,600 --> 00:37:47,700
to look at the facts as they're coming in.

574
00:37:47,700 --> 00:37:51,233
They had the opportunity to see people in real time

575
00:37:51,233 --> 00:37:54,467
as opposed to having to make any other determination.

576
00:37:54,467 --> 00:37:56,933
We believe that ALJ had the best

577
00:37:56,933 --> 00:38:00,700
opportunity to take a look and ALJ ultimately

578
00:38:00,700 --> 00:38:03,167
determined that six months was an appropriate

579
00:38:03,167 --> 00:38:06,700
penalty for this situation and that dismissal

580
00:38:06,700 --> 00:38:09,233
would be way too severe. And then ultimately

581
00:38:09,233 --> 00:38:12,833
the pointing authority did not establish

582
00:38:15,700 --> 00:38:17,533
that employee can no longer be trusted. It was it's even

583
00:38:17,533 --> 00:38:21,330
been said that six months does show that severity here.

584
00:38:21,330 --> 00:38:23,700
And like we said, we're not asking

585
00:38:23,700 --> 00:38:26,300
the state personnel board to excuse Mr. Rodriguez.

586
00:38:26,300 --> 00:38:28,967
We're simply asking for a just improper

587
00:38:28,967 --> 00:38:33,767
outcome here. And six months is equivalent of

588
00:38:35,700 --> 00:38:38,233
approximately 50% pay which does go to show

589
00:38:38,233 --> 00:38:40,300
the conduct there was not something

590
00:38:40,300 --> 00:38:44,000
that the department will tolerate. And that

591
00:38:44,000 --> 00:38:47,667
is some that is a lesson that Mr. Rodriguez has learned

592
00:38:47,667 --> 00:38:51,667
through this that it can come at such a cost.

593
00:38:51,667 --> 00:38:53,867
And we do hope that the personnel

594
00:38:53,867 --> 00:38:57,667
board gives great consideration to the ALJ.

595
00:38:57,667 --> 00:39:02,367
And there's also no evidence that progressive discipline

596
00:39:02,367 --> 00:39:07,667
would not have been effective here. And so we thank

597
00:39:07,667 --> 00:39:10,433
you for your time and we hope that you can give great

598
00:39:10,433 --> 00:39:14,330
way to the ALJ's determination and

599
00:39:16,667 --> 00:39:18,667
modify revoke the dismissal and modify it.

600
00:39:18,667 --> 00:39:20,400
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Thank you. Thank you.

601
00:39:20,400 --> 00:39:22,667
Do any board members have any question?

602
00:39:22,667 --> 00:39:24,667
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

603
00:39:36,633 --> 00:39:38,633
I just want to make sure they can hear you.

604
00:39:38,633 --> 00:39:41,633
Yes, we change the speakers. SUZANNE AMBROSE:

605
00:39:41,633 --> 00:39:43,633
Do any board members have any question?

606
00:39:43,633 --> 00:39:45,533
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We heard him. No questions.

607
00:39:45,533 --> 00:39:48,533
No questions. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay.

608
00:39:50,330 --> 00:39:52,867
Okay. Mr. Barcellos, I guess you have five

609
00:39:52,867 --> 00:39:55,867
minutes for rebuttal. BRETT BARCELLOS:

610
00:39:59,633 --> 00:40:03,833
I would just reiterate this. This case

611
00:40:05,567 --> 00:40:07,967
is not about the relationship.

612
00:40:07,967 --> 00:40:09,967
It's

613
00:40:11,633 --> 00:40:14,200
about how the relationship was handled.

614
00:40:14,200 --> 00:40:18,400
It's about what occurred when the relationship

615
00:40:20,600 --> 00:40:22,600
deteriorated. The appellant

616
00:40:26,600 --> 00:40:29,667
essentially wanted Ms. Nelson to go away.

617
00:40:29,667 --> 00:40:32,367
He wanted to get rid of her. To use his own words.

618
00:40:32,367 --> 00:40:35,400
If he can't have her, he doesn't want to see her.

619
00:40:35,400 --> 00:40:37,733
It put her in a significantly,

620
00:40:37,733 --> 00:40:39,733
to

621
00:40:41,600 --> 00:40:44,000
a significant disadvantage professionally.

622
00:40:44,233 --> 00:40:48,200
There absolutely was an imbalance of power

623
00:40:48,200 --> 00:40:51,200
in the relationship with the appellant

624
00:40:51,200 --> 00:40:53,600
acting as a mentor. The appellant

625
00:40:53,600 --> 00:40:57,633
absolutely was going to have feedback to give

626
00:40:57,633 --> 00:41:00,300
Ms. Nelson's supervisors. The appellant absolutely

627
00:41:00,300 --> 00:41:02,900
violated CDCR policy and he absolutely put

628
00:41:02,900 --> 00:41:07,633
his own interest in front of that of the department.

629
00:41:07,633 --> 00:41:10,330
The department feels that

630
00:41:15,567 --> 00:41:21,567
in any other kind of situation or incident where the appellant

631
00:41:21,567 --> 00:41:25,767
is faced with putting his personal interest

632
00:41:27,167 --> 00:41:30,267
before that of department policy, he will absolutely

633
00:41:30,267 --> 00:41:33,800
choose to be self serving in his decisions.

634
00:41:33,800 --> 00:41:38,600
That's why the department is asking to uphold

635
00:41:39,670 --> 00:41:41,133
a dismissal as just improper.

636
00:41:41,133 --> 00:41:45,933
That concludes my rebuttal. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Board members

637
00:41:47,167 --> 00:41:49,567
have any questions for Mr. Barcellos?

638
00:41:49,567 --> 00:41:51,567
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

639
00:41:54,567 --> 00:41:59,133
Thank you. And one of the things that the ALJ

640
00:41:59,133 --> 00:42:02,133
did address was the comment of can't have her.

641
00:42:02,133 --> 00:42:04,533
And the ALJ also, we believe rightfully

642
00:42:04,533 --> 00:42:08,533
concluded that it was taken out of context of note as well.

643
00:42:08,533 --> 00:42:11,833
At one point, prior to needing to be separately

644
00:42:11,833 --> 00:42:14,567
and with an institution, it was talked

645
00:42:14,567 --> 00:42:19,967
about in the proceedings that there was a moment

646
00:42:21,330 --> 00:42:23,433
where Dr. Nelson did

647
00:42:26,533 --> 00:42:30,133
yell at Mr. Rodriguez, which then

648
00:42:31,330 --> 00:42:34,533
led to the following circumstances of not being

649
00:42:34,533 --> 00:42:36,533
able to work within the same environment.

650
00:42:36,533 --> 00:42:39,533
So it wasn't something that occurred out of nowhere.

651
00:42:39,533 --> 00:42:41,200
There's also the continued

652
00:42:41,200 --> 00:42:44,700
push about the nepotism policy. But even

653
00:42:44,700 --> 00:42:47,100
the managers didn't know what needed to be done.

654
00:42:47,100 --> 00:42:49,500
There was an email exchange that was discussed

655
00:42:49,500 --> 00:42:53,933
in the hearing as well between Dr. Alexander,

656
00:42:53,933 --> 00:42:57,300
which is one of the chiefs on site

657
00:42:57,300 --> 00:43:00,700
where they were requesting advice and where the advice

658
00:43:00,700 --> 00:43:04,200
was simply to have one of them go to a different unit.

659
00:43:04,200 --> 00:43:07,833
And they didn't really know how to deal with the situation.

660
00:43:07,833 --> 00:43:10,500
And ultimately that didn't occur

661
00:43:10,500 --> 00:43:15,500
because it wasn't disclosed by either party at that point.

662
00:43:15,500 --> 00:43:18,333
And then we go back down to the point

663
00:43:18,333 --> 00:43:21,933
as well that with the nepotism policy being vague,

664
00:43:21,933 --> 00:43:23,933
it was also confusing to the appellate

665
00:43:23,933 --> 00:43:26,833
whether that was something that needed to be brought

666
00:43:26,833 --> 00:43:31,633
up at that point. And so we ultimately

667
00:43:32,133 --> 00:43:35,633
believe that the goal of the discipline here

668
00:43:35,633 --> 00:43:42,233
is to ensure that the appellant is not doing anything of similar

669
00:43:42,233 --> 00:43:46,967
nature in the future. And we did say that we're

670
00:43:46,967 --> 00:43:48,467
not asking to excuse the conduct,

671
00:43:48,467 --> 00:43:51,867
but we are asking for a just improper

672
00:43:51,867 --> 00:43:54,200
outcome to come into play. Here. And so we appreciate

673
00:43:54,200 --> 00:43:56,467
your consideration on this matter.

674
00:43:56,467 --> 00:44:00,670
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Any questions from any board members.

675
00:44:00,670 --> 00:44:02,670
Okay.

676
00:44:04,467 --> 00:44:07,467
Well, we want to thank you both matters being submitted.

677
00:44:07,467 --> 00:44:09,467
(Inaudible) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

678
00:44:12,467 --> 00:44:15,633
Thank you. Is there a maximum amount of time

679
00:44:15,633 --> 00:44:19,833
where it takes (Inaudible). Okay, thank you.

680
00:44:25,467 --> 00:44:28,933
SUZANNE AMBROSE: We're going to move into close

681
00:44:28,933 --> 00:44:31,330
sessions, and we'll come back in the open

682
00:44:31,330 --> 00:44:34,433
session at the completion of the close session.

683
00:44:34,433 --> 00:44:36,433
[ CLOSED SESSION ]

684
01:15:16,233 --> 01:15:18,233
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. We are live.

685
01:15:18,233 --> 01:15:20,800
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay, so we're back in open session.

686
01:15:20,800 --> 01:15:25,200
I'll take us through the rest of the agenda. My understanding

687
01:15:25,200 --> 01:15:28,633
the board was just to approve the Draft Regulation,

688
01:15:28,633 --> 01:15:30,633
Section 548.5, 548.40, 548.41, 548.43, 548.52

689
01:15:43,200 --> 01:15:45,200
and 548.120.01. Is there a motion?

690
01:15:45,200 --> 01:15:49,400
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So move. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.

691
01:15:50,200 --> 01:15:51,633
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Move made and seconded.

692
01:15:51,633 --> 01:15:55,200
Is there any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

693
01:15:55,200 --> 01:15:57,200
KATHY BALDREE: Aye.

694
01:16:00,200 --> 01:16:02,200
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

695
01:16:08,200 --> 01:16:11,200
ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL: (Inaudible) SUZANNE AMBROSE:

696
01:16:12,200 --> 01:16:14,600
Well, she's there, but...

697
01:16:15,167 --> 01:16:18,167
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's frozen on my end as well.

698
01:16:18,167 --> 01:16:20,167
SUZANNE AMBROSE:

699
01:16:23,167 --> 01:16:29,167
Okay. Hello? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah, just go ahead and

700
01:16:35,167 --> 01:16:38,767
call. Okay. Okay. Can you hear

701
01:16:49,167 --> 01:16:52,167
us? Yeah. Okay, no problem.

702
01:16:54,167 --> 01:16:57,167
Okay, so we're voting on the regulations.

703
01:16:57,167 --> 01:17:00,167
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now we're back.

704
01:17:00,333 --> 01:17:02,333
Okay, SUZANNE AMBROSE:

705
01:17:05,133 --> 01:17:07,133
Okay, we're voting

706
01:17:10,133 --> 01:17:12,133
on the regulation. Sorry.

707
01:17:12,133 --> 01:17:15,733
ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL: She came back on.

708
01:17:16,133 --> 01:17:19,133
SUZANNE AMBROSE: She's on, she's on my phone here.

709
01:17:19,133 --> 01:17:23,133
KIMIKO BURTON: Well, I appeared back, so I'm muted.

710
01:17:23,133 --> 01:17:25,133
But I'll keep the call open just in case

711
01:17:25,133 --> 01:17:27,133
the computer glitches again. Sorry.

712
01:17:27,133 --> 01:17:29,767
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Sounds good. Okay.

713
01:17:29,767 --> 01:17:31,533
All right, so let's start then again, we're

714
01:17:31,533 --> 01:17:34,133
voting on the regulations. Your turn. You're up.

715
01:17:34,133 --> 01:17:36,233
KIMIKO BURTON: So I heard everything.

716
01:17:36,233 --> 01:17:40,133
We're about to do the roll call vote, and that's when I...

717
01:17:40,133 --> 01:17:42,000
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. So roll call vote.

718
01:17:42,000 --> 01:17:46,133
So Baldree voted, aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

719
01:17:46,133 --> 01:17:49,733
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

720
01:17:50,133 --> 01:17:53,733
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

721
01:17:54,100 --> 01:17:56,100
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye.

722
01:17:56,100 --> 01:17:59,100
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis? DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

723
01:17:59,100 --> 01:18:00,867
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Motion passes.

724
01:18:00,867 --> 01:18:02,833
The A cases, A1 through A10. It's my understanding

725
01:18:02,833 --> 01:18:05,133
the board wishes to adopt all proposed decisions.

726
01:18:05,133 --> 01:18:08,100
Is there a motion? KIMIKO BURTON: So move.

727
01:18:08,100 --> 01:18:10,100
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

728
01:18:10,100 --> 01:18:12,400
Second SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion has been made and seconded.

729
01:18:12,400 --> 01:18:14,100
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

730
01:18:14,100 --> 01:18:17,700
KATHY BALDREE: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

731
01:18:18,100 --> 01:18:21,700
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

732
01:18:22,100 --> 01:18:25,100
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

733
01:18:25,100 --> 01:18:28,700
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis?

734
01:18:29,100 --> 01:18:31,100
DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

735
01:18:31,100 --> 01:18:32,800
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Motion passes.

736
01:18:32,800 --> 01:18:34,667
It's my understanding the board wishes to deny

737
01:18:34,667 --> 01:18:37,100
all three petitions for rehearing B1 through B3.

738
01:18:37,100 --> 01:18:39,100
Is there a motion?

739
01:18:39,100 --> 01:18:43,300
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So move. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.

740
01:18:44,670 --> 01:18:47,367
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion has been made and seconded.

741
01:18:47,367 --> 01:18:49,670
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

742
01:18:49,670 --> 01:18:51,670
KATHY BALDREE: Aye.

743
01:18:51,670 --> 01:18:53,533
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton? Burton? Hello?

744
01:18:53,533 --> 01:18:55,533
Can you

745
01:19:13,670 --> 01:19:16,333
hear me? KIMIKO BURTON: I can. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay,

746
01:19:16,333 --> 01:19:19,567
so we're voting on the denial of the petitions for rehearing.

747
01:19:19,567 --> 01:19:22,567
Okay, Burton? KIMIKO BURTON: Aye.

748
01:19:23,670 --> 01:19:26,667
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos? ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye.

749
01:19:27,670 --> 01:19:30,667
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly? SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye.

750
01:19:31,670 --> 01:19:34,330
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis? DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

751
01:19:34,330 --> 01:19:35,733
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Motion passes.

752
01:19:35,733 --> 01:19:37,567
It's my understanding. The board's ready to issue

753
01:19:37,567 --> 01:19:39,330
the decision in E1. Is there a motion?

754
01:19:39,330 --> 01:19:42,633
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

755
01:19:43,330 --> 01:19:46,330
Second SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion then made and seconded.

756
01:19:46,330 --> 01:19:48,330
Any discussion? Roll call vote. Baldree?

757
01:19:48,330 --> 01:19:51,633
KATHY BALDREE: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton?

758
01:19:52,330 --> 01:19:55,330
KIMIKO BURTON: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos?

759
01:19:55,330 --> 01:19:58,633
ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye. SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly?

760
01:20:00,330 --> 01:20:02,330
SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye.

761
01:20:02,330 --> 01:20:05,330
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis? DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

762
01:20:05,330 --> 01:20:07,733
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Motion passes.

763
01:20:07,733 --> 01:20:09,400
It's my understanding the board wishes to approve

764
01:20:09,400 --> 01:20:11,967
all of the G's. G1 through G7, J1 and K1.

765
01:20:11,967 --> 01:20:14,330
Is there a motion?

766
01:20:14,330 --> 01:20:18,233
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So move. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.

767
01:20:19,330 --> 01:20:20,867
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?

768
01:20:20,867 --> 01:20:24,000
Roll call vote. Baldree? KATHY BALDREE: Aye.

769
01:20:24,000 --> 01:20:27,600
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Burton? KIMIKO BURTON: Aye.

770
01:20:28,000 --> 01:20:31,600
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Matosantos? ANA MATOSANTOS: Aye.

771
01:20:32,000 --> 01:20:35,600
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Westly? SHAWNDA WESTLY: Aye.

772
01:20:36,000 --> 01:20:39,000
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Willis? DR. GAIL WILLIS: Aye.

773
01:20:39,000 --> 01:20:40,800
SUZANNE AMBROSE: Okay. Motion passes.

774
01:20:40,800 --> 01:20:43,000
That concludes our business for today. Anything else?

775
01:20:43,000 --> 01:20:45,000
Anyone? Meetings adjourned. Thank bye.

776
01:20:45,000 --> 01:20:47,000
ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL: Thank you.

777
01:20:47,000 --> 01:20:49,400
KATHY BALDREE: Bye, everyone.