Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Civil Service Board - 04/10/2003 MINUTES ' FEB-2004 517thCIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING x,- 1201 LEOPARD ST., CITY HALL HUMAN RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM " 01FiCE APRIL 10,2003 \,. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CITY STAFF PRESENT V Cydney Farrar, Vice-Chair Cynthia C. Garcia, Director of Human Resources Erich Wendl, Member Susan Hutson, Asst. City Attorney Dr. Ardys Boostrum, Health Dept. Annette Rodriguez, Health Dept. JoAnn Espinosa, H.R. Sr. Analyst Cynthia Papageorge, H.R. Analyst The 517th Civil Service Board Meeting was called to order at 3:25 p.m. Item#1: Review and approve the minutes of the 516th Civil Service Board meeting held on March 10, 2003. The minutes were approved. ( ) Item #2: Review and consider the appeal of a three-day suspension filed by Michael Selph, Animal Control Officer H,Health Department. The witnesses were sworn in and administered the oath. The City requested the Rule be invoked, and the witnesses were asked not to discuss their testimonies amongst themselves. Susan Hutson requested that Annette Rodriguez, Assistant Director of the Health Department, who had been called as a witness but was not now going to be called, be allowed to sit in as an observer. It was agreed that she could remain as an observer. Susan Hutson also asked that Jorge Cruz-Aedo, Assistant City Manager, and Cherrie Stunz, Director of Animal Control, be allowed to sit in as well. Cynthia Garcia stated that the Rule had already been invoked, and Stan Wilt, Mr. Selph's representative said he preferred they not be allowed unless called as witnesses. Mr. Cruz-Aedo and Ms. Stunz left the hearing. Opening statements were made by Susan Hutson, representing the City. She stated that Mr. Selph breached safety protocol by a poor decision he made in two incidents that happened within a few days of each other last year in September. One decision caused two children under the ages of five to undergo rabies shots. Mr. Stan Wilt, Mr. Selph's representative, made his opening statements by stating that Mr. Selph had not violated any of the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Board. J SCANNED - Mr. Selph was called to testify. He stated that April 12, 2003,would be four years that he had been an Animal Control Officer. He will have been an Animal Control Officer II, two years this August or September. He stated he has taken the course "Basic Certified" as an Animal Control Officer twice. He said he had to be certified within eighteen months of hire. Ms. Hutson stated that he had taken the course for the first time in the year 2000, and the second time in 2003. He was given a different booklet at each training session. On September 7, 2002 Mr. Selph received a call to go out on a "bite-dog" case. When he got there, an ambulance was leaving with two children and he began gathering information from all the witnesses who said they witnessed the attack. The owner of the dog helped him put the dog into the truck, and he then went to Driscoll Hospital to take the parents' statements. He found out at Driscoll that the attacks had been severe. He had a full truck and went back to the office to unload the dog at approximately 4:10 p.m. There was another officer at the facility who opened up the bite case building for him. Mr. Selph explained that there is a main gate, and then another gate where you back-in to unload, and a side gate. He started to unload at the outside gate because he had a full truck, another call pending, and it was faster to unload there. He unloaded the bite case dog first because he was in the very first compartment. When he took the dog out, he put the snare on him and then heard the snare make a"pinging" sound, and the snare let loose of the dog. When he tried to tighten the snare, it wouldn't tighten because it was broken, ( I and the dog got out and took off. He stated,that he had a heavy load that day and he was unloading outside the gate so he could go take care of the other cases. He then went into the facility and told the other officer that the dog had gotten loose. The other officer helped Mr. Selph chase the dog for a little over an hour, but could not catch it. Ms. Hutson presented City Exhibit #1, excerpts from the Texas Department of Health Zoonosis Control Division booklet, copyrighted 1997. Ms. Hutson read from page 4 that stated the dog had to be observed for rabies. She stated in not being able to control the dog, the children were then caused to have to take the rabies shots. Mr. Selph said that depending on the circumstances, it would or would not be reasonable for the parents to have their children take the shots. Mr. Selph said that several times inside the closure, dogs have escaped and some of the snares are defective. He stated at the time, no other equipment was available to catch the dog. Ms. Hutson presented City Exhibit #2 from the Zoonosis Control Division booklet, page 5 which stated, "Unload animals in an enclosed drive-in bay or fenced area to prevent their escape. Take special care when you unload animals that are rabies suspects". Ms. Hutson stated that he had done something he knew he shouldn't have done when he unloaded the dog outside the fenced area, and Mr. Selph agreed. Ms. Hutson stated that three days later, Dr. Boostrum received another complaint regarding an incident that Mr. Selph handled on September 10, 2002. City Exhibit #3 �- was presented—a transcript of a phone call from a Police Dispatcher to him. Dispatcher asked if he could take information on a vicious dog, and Mr. Selph said he could according to the transcript. Ms. Hutson asked if he made any effort to obtain more information from the dispatcher. He stated he did not. He said the Dispatcher is trained to get information and give it to him, which mostly has to do with bite cases since he was trained not to handle vicious dog cases at night. Ms. Hutson asked him what his definition of"vicious" was. He replied that ACO officers consider a call re a "vicious" dog as a stray dog, but that"vicious" could mean anything with teeth. Ms. Hutson presented City Exhibit#4, Contemplated Disciplinary Action memo from Dr. Boostrom to Mr. Selph, dated November 4, 2002. Mr. Selph stated that he does not believe that he did not do his duty on September 10, 2002 when he received a call regarding a loose dog on Capri. Ms. Hutson asked if he thought it was the victim's fault that after he attempted to phone contact her twice, he questioned in the contemplated letter why the victim had not stayed by her phone. She stated that he had no idea what was going on with this woman. Ms. Hutson asked if it was correct that he was told by Jeff Beynon to not respond to loose dog complaints over the weekend; but that Jeff did not tell him not to respond to vicious dog complaints. He said this was not correct, and he had never been given a manual stating this, or an SOP. He said he had seen the TDH manual. Mr. Homer Martinez, former Animal Control employee, had given him a copy of a sheet from the City Animal Control Manual which was admitted as City Exhibit#5. Ms. Hutson asked if Dr. Boostrum had held safety meetings in which she told the ACOs to get all the information needed so a decision could be made as to what to do. Mr. Selph stated that she might have said it after his incident,but not prior to it. Ms. Hutson presented City Exhibit #6, the October 12, 2001 inter-office communication from Dr. Sisley as a reminder to treat all citizens politely. His representative, Stan Wilt, stated that Mr. Selph did not ignore the citizen, but tried to reach her twice. The City rested its' case, and Mr. Stan Wilt presented his case. Mr. Wilt asked Mr. Selph if there is a Standard Operating Procedure that is observed by all Animal Control Officers in how they are to respond to a vicious animal call from the Police Department. Mr. Selph stated as far as he knew if the Police Department was standing by after hours, the ACO's responded to the call, otherwise it carried over to the next day. He said he was trained to not answer loose dogs or vicious dogs at night unless the Police Department is standing by. He said the workload is heavy and they are understaffed. Mr. Selph says he spoke with four or five witnesses at the scene of the September dog attack on the two little girls, and then three more witnesses at the hospital. He said the witnesses told him the woman (the dog owner's mother) let go of the dog and said "sic 'em". She said the kids were throwing rocks at the dog. He stated he and the owner picked the dog up and put him in the truck cage. The dog did not appear vicious at the time. He said the owner could not provide any paperwork as to the dog's shots. When Mr. Seiph attempted to unload the dog at the animal control facility, the snare ° malfunctioned and the dog got away. He called the Police Department and told them he had lost a bite-case dog, then went to the victim's house first and told them what had happened. He gave them his home number, his cell number, his pager number, the animal control number, and the Police Department number and asked them to call if they think they see the dog again. He then went to the dog owner's house and told them what happened and asked them to contact him as soon as possible if the dog came back. Mr. Seiph said that since he has worked at animal control, there have been other bite-case dogs that escaped, but that no one was ever suspended or reprimanded for it. Mr. Seiph said that bite-case dogs are quarantined in the bite-case building in a kennel by themselves. He further stated that "home quarantine" is also allowed sometimes if the animal bits someone on the dog's property, is not allowed to interact with other animals, and is currently licensed and vaccinated. In the September 27, 2002 incident the dog was never recaptured, although the owner stated he had seen the dog after that. The dispatcher said she would have someone from Animal Control call the citizen. Mr. Seiph called twice, but no one answered. Mr. Seiph stated that the snare he uses has been repaired twice. Mr. Wilt asked if prior to today's Civil Service Board Hearing was Mr. Seiph aware of the Animal Control Manual? Mr. Seiph replied he was not aware of the manual, nor had it ever been given to him. Mr. Wilt asked if unloading outside the fenced enclosure had become standard operating procedure as a common practice. Mr. Selph said it had. ( Mr. Angel Hernandez, Field Supervisor at Animal Control, and a 17-year employee of the City was called as a witness. He stated that the term "vicious dog" means danger to him and he would ask Dispatch for more information. If he can't get in touch with the victim over the phone, he would respond to the call anyway. He never told Mr. Seiph not to respond to a vicious dog call at night. He stated that none of his Supervisors had ever told him it was alright to unload a dog outside the gate. He also stated that there had been times that a Police Office was there and helped him capture the dog. He said he had never unloaded a dog outside the fenced facility even with Mr. Selph's assistance. He stated he was aware of the Animal Control Manual and has access to it, and he thinks he did have to sign something stating he was given the manual. Dr. Boostrom was called as a witness. She has been a City employee for thirteen years, and has been the Acting Director of the Health Department since May, 2002. She held safety meetings with the animal control officers, and told them when they went out on calls for vicious animals, they needed to gather information. Mr. Seiph was in these meetings. She found out about the September 7 incident, when Mr. Seiph allowed the dog to escape, from Homer Martinez, the acting manager at that time. She went to the residence of the children who were bitten to talk to the parents. One of the children was bitten above the liver area. In her mind, this was an extremely dangerous dog and she felt this was a serious breach in safety by Mr. Seiph. Dr. Boostrom stated that Mr. Jorge Cruz-Aedo had informed her of a citizen complaint regarding Mr. Selph. She was given a copy of the 911 dispatch call from Mr. Cruz-Aedo regarding the loose dog, and she felt that Mr. Selph should have called back for more information. When she questioned the way he handled releasing the dog into the animal control facility, he told her that it was common practice, and that some citizens that call a vicious dog complaint in, are just complaining about strays. Mr. Wilt asked Dr. Boostrom if she had previous experience in animal control and she stated she had been Director of the San Patricio County Health Department. She stated the rabies vaccine is now administered in an IM (inter-muscular) injection, and not into the stomach area. She was not told that the dog was not turned loose,but that had broken its' restraint. She stated the children did suffer breaks in the skin, and had black and blue marks. Dr. Boostrom stated that Terry Chapa was acting manager at the animalcontrol facility after Jeff Beynon, and that Ms. Stunz holds that position now on a permanent basis. She stated that the Animal Control Manual has been in effect since 1996. Mr. Miguel Liquez was called as a witness. He has been a City employee and animal control officer for five years. He stated he had seen a copy.of the Animal Control Manual about five years ago. He has received vicious dog calls before and has called the dispatcher back for more information. On these types of calls, he would call back at least two times. Sometimes dispatchers have more information and sometimes they don't. He said the Police Department has a habit of calling loose dog complaints, "vicious". He stated he has unloaded bite-case animals outside the closed area, and has seen other ACOs do the same, and he has helped other ACOs do the same. He has never been told by anyone to not role on a vicious dog attack on weekends. Ms.Hutson asked Mr. Liquez if he ever asks questions of the Dispatchers when they call. He said he does. He said he only uses the snare when unloading dogs. He says animals have escaped before due to holes in the fence. Mr. James Butcher was called as a witness. (At this point, Susan Hutson asked that Mr. Hernandez be allowed to go back to work but be available by phone to come back if needed). Mr. Butcher stated he is retired after working in Animal Control for twenty- seven years. He said if he had received a call for a`vicious" dog, he would take that to mean that some dog is eating someone up. He said with a daytime dispatcher when he received the call, he would ask them to call and find out what was going on, and to report I that he was en route to the location. Night time calls had Police backup sometimes. He stated he had unloaded bite-case dogs before outside the gate, but never lost one. He said this was a common practice. He was shown CE#5 and he said it looked like an SOP they may have had at Animal Control. He was asked if he was familiar with the Section C18, "After Hours Calls". Mr. Butcher looked at it and said he was not familiar with it. Ms. Hutson asked Mr. Butcher questions about safety at the animal control facility. Mr. Butcher stated they did not have equipment that was in good working order. The Hearing took a break at 3:25 p.m. and reconvened at 3:32 p.m. Witness Robert Morado was called to testify. He stated his interpretation of a vicious dog was of a dog that could attack you, but he has reported to dog bite calls and found a dog that was not vicious. He stated that before they had new management at Animal Control, they didn't respond to that type of call at night. He said if he receives a call from'the dispatcher re a complaint, he calls the citizen back until he reaches them, but goes on to other calls, and possibly, even calls.the dispatcher back to check the phone number. He says he has never unloaded an animal outside the gate, buthas seen animals escape from inside the gates. He stated he has seen something similar to the animal control manual in the past, but he has never seen or read C18 before. He was told not to respond to a vicious dog report on nights or weekends under the previous management. Witness Juan Ramirez, Animal Control Officer II, was called.to.:testify. A discussion followed regarding vicious dog calls he has received. He has unloaded animals outside the gates before, but not sure if he unloaded a bite-case dog there before. He stated he was not familiar with the manual, nor had he read C18. He knew of no one who had ever been reprimanded before because a dog got loose. He stated the fence was probably about six feet tall. Ms. Hutson asked about the area where the trucks are backed up to unload the dogs. He thinks the gates should be used. He states he does not know if Dr. Boostrom knew that dogs were being unloaded outside the gates. Board Member, Erich Wendl, asked Mr. Selph to give a demonstration of how the snare works, which he did. Mr. Selph stated that his snare was still messed up, and had been messed up the day he used it on the bite-dog case. In that incident, the dog was docile when he got there, and the owner said it was only mean when picked on, as the kids had done. Closing arguments were presented. The Board went into closed session at 4:10 p.m., and reconvened at 4:30 p.m. A motion was made to reduce the suspension to one day and the letter stay in Mr. Selph's file. The City was also cautioned to go out and check the fences and do whatever is necessary to make them sound and solid. The motion was seconded, and the meeting was adjourned. Cynt aC. Garcia, Secretary Andre Lehrman, Chair Civil Service Board Civil Service Board 6/1444-ek Cydney F ar, Vice-Chair Erich Wendl, Member