Appeal - Hunter 12-20-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeal by Jason E. Hunter of Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Decision of Code of Ethics and Conduct Complaint against the Human Resources Board In accordance with the City of Riverside Resolution No. 22461 — Code of Ethics and Conduct — the following shall serve as a formal appeal of the Adjudicating Body regarding the above - referenced ethics complaint, file September 9, 2013, and heard on November 15, 2013, and December 13, 2013. It is appellant's contention that the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Body were made in clear error and abuse of discretion. As to the first cause, Creating Trust of local Government: The Adjudicating Body ( "AB ") ignored the fact that the members of the Human Resources Board ( "HRB "), serving as a quasi - judicial panel, had a serious obligation to appellant to understand the basic tenets of local, State, and U.S. law regarding due process and disciplinary proceeding procedures. The AB found that the HRB was unprepared for this hearing, and delegated its responsibilities to an all -too- ready-to- take - charge City Attorney, but instead placed this blame on city staff. While appellant agrees there is significant fault on behalf of staff, he believes the HRB also had a fiduciary duty to him to make sure he was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial tribune. It is clear from the videotape of the disciplinary hearing that the appellant believed there were clear violations of his rights taking place, and yet these are never even minutely addressed by the HRB. The Adjudicating Body did not consider the fact that all post- hearing attempts to cure the defects presented to the HRB after the May 13, 2013, hearing, including his Motion for Reconsideration of June3, 2013; letter to HRB Chairman Powell of May 16, 2013, and additional pleadings at subsequent HRB open hearings were simply ignored. The AB chose to ignore Section 804 of the City Charter stating that Boards must meet monthly, so that the public has an adequate opportunity to voice its concerns regarding city operations. As to the second cause, Making Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions: The Adjudicating Body admits the City Attorney took over the meeting at times. The Adjudicating Body recognizes the HRB was not prepared for the disciplinary hearing. Given these two admissions, how can the HRB have made fair, unbiased decisions? As to the third cause, Treating Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner: The AB admits the HRB and city were remiss in providing transparent and easily comprehended protocols, rules, and outline in a timely fashion to the appellant. The AB seemed to ignore that the advocating Deputy City Attorney seemed well prepared for this hearing in terms of time limits the appellant was ignorant to. Hence, the City Attorney's office seemed to receive preferential treatment in preparation for the disciplinary hearing. The AB admits procedural defects most likely happened during the course of the disciplinary hearing, but does believe the HRB had a responsible to at least slow down the proceedings to investigate the appellant's claims of such. Appellant finds this logic flawed. As to the fourth cause, Ensuring that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside: