HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Civil Service Board - 07/20/2022MINUTES
583rd CIVIL SERVICE BOARD HEARING
1201 LEOPARD ST., CITY HALL
HUMAN RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM
July 21, 2021
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dr. Beth Rauhaus, Chairperson
Dr. Deborah Sibila, Member
Gerald Avila, Member
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Eyvon McHaney, HR Director
Gabriel A. Rodriguez, Attorney II
Alexander Garcia, Attorney II
Monica Saenz, Sr. HR Analyst
Dr. Beth Rauhaus called the 5 83rd Civil Service Board hearing to order at 9:12 am.
Item #1:Review and approve the minutes of the 5 82nd Civil Service Board
hearing held on January 14, 2019.
Item #2:Review and consider the appeal filed by Billy Sibley, Animal Control
Officer, on his tennination.
Ms. McHaney moves to approve Item #1. Mr. Avila makes motion to approve. Dr. Sibila seconds the
motion.
Dr. Rauhaus moves to Item #2 and reads item #2.
Dr. Rauhaus swears in the witnesses.
Mr. Rodriguez invokes the rule.
City Attorney Gabriel A. Rodriguez makes the opening statement about the termination of Billy Sibley on
June 8, 2021. Mr. Sibley served as an Animal Control Officer and was terminated for a violation of various
City policies but most importantly Mr. Sibley was terminated for the City policy regarding the seizure of
abandoned animals in connection with previous matters for which he has been disciplined. The City will
show that a pattern of poor decision making, and performance made Mr. Sibley a liability to the City. Mr.
Sibley was put on notice that his actions were detrimental to the department and undermined the integrity
of the City as an organization. Mr. Sibley received a Letter of Reprimand and a one-day suspension prior
to his termination in an effort to correct conduct that was substandard. Rather than correcting his behavior,
Mr. Sibley continued to display poor judgement making in carlying out his duties. I ask that you take into
account the previous discipline that was given, the timeframe in which the discipline occurred and find that
he was given a fair opportunity to change his behavior and he chose not to. The City will highlight why
these behaviors cannot be tolerated in Animal Care Services. The City relies on employees who are reliable,
trustworthy and make good decisions
Mr. Billy Sibley makes his opening statement. I would like to address the primary incident that led up to
my termination. It was a Sunday at the end of my shift. We had gotten dispatches from CCPD requesting
Animal Control to seize an animal because the owner was arrested at the Marbella Apartments. I was
responding to the call dispatch told me CCPD had cleared and that the apartment Managers would be in
route to assist. Once they were there they talked about the condition of the dog, and I was led to believe
that pretty much the owner of the dog had been arrested. I was let in by the Managers. The dog was a
bloodhound mix, eyes were infected, about 80% hair loss and completely infested with fleas. A lot of
argument that will be made is that this dog did not meet criteria for exigence. Which in a way is true under
TX state law but I'm just giving you a description of what I have seen. I took the dog and impounded it
onto the truck. Sometime after the Manager informed me that the tenant was actually not arrested. Maybe
someone else from the apartment was, they weren't exactly clear. At that time, I call my field supervisor
Vanessa Scarbrough and let her know the situation. She stated if it does not meet the requirements for
exigence then it needs to be returned due to it not being a legitimate seizure. At this time the apartment
manager had cleared and refused to open the apartment. They stated because of the condition of the dog,
they refused re-entry. I took the animal to Oso VCI-I for treatment, and it was returned and impounded to
the facility. To my knowledge I believe it was returned to the owner the next day. It was a mistake, but it
was based on a lot of miscommunications. I don't like the narrative that I am unethical or incompetent and
I don't feel that it is credible for termination.
The City calls Joel Skidmore as a witness for the City.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Mr. Skidmore to state his name and position for the record, then goes on to question
the witness. Mr. Rodriguez asks how long he has been with the City in which he replies a little over two
years but has been in Animal Control for a little under twelve years in various positions. Mr. Skidmore
acknowledges that as the Program Director he oversees upholding policies and directions. He also
acknowledges his responsibility to maintain records within the department. Exhibit C is reviewed. The
document is a Letter of Reprimand issued on 10/28/2020 and is said to be a true and correct copy. The
Letter of Reprimand shows a pattern of continued negligence and violation of policy regarding working
time such as clocking in and out during on call shifts. Mr. Skidmore clarifies the policy stating each officer
is assigned a day to work on call. Shifts start at 7 pm and end up to 7 am. They are to take a City truck and
phone home and respond to emergency calls. Mr. Rodriguez asks how Mr. Sibley violated this procedure.
Mr. Skidmore explains that for this particular incident in lieu of clocking out at the end of his regular shift
he went straight into his on-call shift and went into overtime. He did not receive permission to work
overtime. Mr. Rodriguez asks what the purpose of this policy is in regard to the department's budget. Mr.
Skidmore explains to maintain accurate records on whether officers are working standard overtime or on
call hours and ensure they are abiding by City policy. He then verifies the signatures on the document to be
his and Mr. Sibley's and the date of 10/28/20. They begin to examine Exhibit D. This is a Contemplated
Disciplinary action issued on 12/17/2020. Mr. Skidmore explains that the document is for continued
negligence of duties. He explains that there was an issue with continued violations of accurately reflecting
work in government documents such as calls worked. He was also addressed about a deceased possum and
taking an injured kitten to an after-hours animal emergency room. Exhibit E, an investigative packet, is
reviewed and determined to be a true and correct copy. They review a copy of the bill from the Veterinarian.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Mr. Skidmore to clarify the policy regarding Animal Care Officers seeking outside
Veterinary treatment. All officers are to take animals to after hour care until stabilized and they can be seen
by the City's Veterinarian. There is also an allotted amount as the City has their own staff. Officers are to
seek approval from supervision who makes the determination if treatment is approved. Mr. Rodriguez asks
if Mr. Sibley obtained approval prior to seeking treatment in this case, the answer was no. They go on to
review the questionnaire completed by ACS during an investigation by the employee being investigated.
They review page 2 question 4 which reads, are you certified to euthanize animals in which Mr. Sibley
answers yes. They review question 9, when Oso questioned you about euthanizing the feline, why didn't
you bring the feline back to CCAC to avoid charges for services you could complete yourself, in which he
answered 1 agreed to prevent stress to the animal. They review question II, why did you impound the
possum that was dead on arrival, in which he answered at the time I was unclear as to if dead animals were
to be impounded. They review question 12, is it practice referring to solid waste to dispose of deceased
animal pick up unless it is a cruelty case, in which he responded yes. They identify the signatures to be
Billy Sibley and Vanessa Scarbrough. They move on to Exhibit A. They determine the date of the document
to be 06/08/2021 and confirm the signature to be Mr. Skidmore's. Mr. Rodriguez asks what the basis for
which this document was issued to Mr. Sibley to which he answers continued negligence in the performance
of his duties as an animal care officer. He goes on to say this was the incident that led to the termination of
employment due to the illegal seizure and impoundment of an animal. He also states that it was a violation
of training of proper seizure and impoundment of animals provided to Mr. Sibley. He received cruelty
training on 04/29/2021 in which there is a section outlining the seizure of animals under the health and
safety code which is state law. It also covers the 4th amendment that protects citizens from undue searches
and seizures. Mr. Rodriguez asks to discuss the City's policy on seizing an animal that has been deemed
abandoned. Mr. Skidmore explains there is a proper procedure to establish that an animal is abandoned
unless there is an exigency. Proper protocol is to leave proper notices at the address the animal is located
followed by obtaining a warrant. Mr. Rodriguez summarized by saying there are two different ways an
animal can be seized; 1. Obtaining a warrant and going through proper channels and 2. In an exigence
scenario. Mr. Rodriguez asked for an explanation of exigence. It is if the officer feels the animal would not
survive the 24 hours needed to properly and legally obtain a warrant to seize the animal. The City's policy
is to ensure we are transparent in operating within state, local and federal laws so that we do not put
ourselves in situations that are against the law. Animals are considered property in the state of Texas and
the laws in place to legally seize property otherwise it is considered theft. Examining Exhibit G, another
questionnaire filled out by Billy Sibley and acknowledged by Vanessa Scarbrough. Reviewed question 3,
how did you come into the custody of the K9, in which he responded by giving the address and approval of
apartment management. It also asks if he received supervisor approval in which he answered no. They
discuss the dates of the incident which occurred on May 23,2021 and the investigation the followed started
on May 27, 2021. Mr. Rodriguez asks if less than a month earlier Mr. Sibley was in cruelty training which
addressed the 41 amendment in which the answer was yes. According to the 4th amendment, what is needed
to enter someone's residence? Mr. Skidmore answered with a warrant. They discuss question 11, what does
exigency mean and did the condition meet the criteria. Mr. Sibley answered, exigency is the likelihood that
the animal may die within 24 hours and no, the canine did not meet the criteria. The questionnaire goes on
to ask, do you believe you violated this citizen 4th amendment rights as well as Health & Safety Code
82 1.022, in which he answers I believe I did because of miscommunication on my part and not being
assertive enough with apartment managers. Another question asked was, what is the potential for liability
for the City should that owner come back and say the City took his property, he answers with it leaves us
open for a lawsuit. Mr. Rodriguez asks, did you consider previous discipline and timeframe when deciding
to terminate Mr. Sibley in which he answers with I did. Ultimately what was your concern with Mr. Sibley
continuing his employment with the City? Mr. Skidmore states that he believed Mr. Sibley could continue
to violate policies and continue to be a liability for ACS and the City as a whole.
No further questions of the witness. Mr. Rodriguez passes the witness to Mr. Sibley for questioning.
Mr. Sibley asks Mr. Skidmore if he had knowledge of CCPD officers going into apartments without a
warrant and taking dogs. Mr. Skidmore responds with he would not know CCPD standard operating
procedures as they are a different entity than ACS. Mr. Sibley explains that he has personal knowledge and
has been there when it has happened. Mr. Sibley asks if there is a third level in which an animal can be
seized other than exigence and abandonment which is known as an arrest seizure. Mr. Skidmore
acknowledges this to be true. When asked why that hadn't been brought up before Mr. Skidmore explained
that because it was established that the owner not been arrested. Mr. Sibley asked if Mr. Skidmore felt that
he was under the impression that the owner had been arrested. Mr. Skidmore responded with I don't know
what your impression was at the time, but I feel like you should have done your due diligence. Mr. Sibley
then asked about the response to the incident with the feline at VCA, was there any follow up to determine
why those charges occurred. Mr. Skidmore responded with those charges should have been disclosed to the
supervisor at the time of the incident so that they could have been approved.
No further questions of the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez calls Sheni Eldridge as the next witness for the City.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Ms. Eldridge to state her name and position for the record, then goes on to question the
witness. Ms. Eldridge has been with the City for 9 years and in Human Resources for a combined 28 years.
Mr. Rodriguez providing a document identified as the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Board.
They explain that within the document there is a list of items which are the basis for termination and
disciplinary actions within the Civil Service. Ms. Eldridge explains that the basis is to provide employees
rules and regulations to follow. Mr. Rodriguez asks if it is department by department on how these rules
are applied. Ms. Eldridge explains that departments contact HR for guidance. They provide the information
on the infraction of the policy and HR refers to the rules and regulations to ensure there has been a violation
before they move forward with any disciplinary action. The department requests a disciplinary action and
HR confirms that it meets the criteria that they violated a policy and then we move forward. Mr. Rodriguez
asks if it is her statement today that HR is consulted prior to making the ultimate decision to take whatever
disciplinary action in which she responds with yes. Mr. Rodriguez hands over Exhibit A and asks if some
of the Rules or causes are listed within the termination letter, she responds with yes sir. He asks if prior to
the issuance of the termination letter the matter was reviewed with HR, she responds with yes. Mr.
Rodriguez asks if the rose to the level in which HR felt comfortable that the termination was warranted.
Ms. Eldridge responds with yes; we supported the decision.
There are no further questions for Ms. Eldridge. Mr. Rodriguez passes the witness to Mr. Sibley for
questioning.
Mr. Sibley asks if in her capacity with HR she can give clearance to just terminate or does she encourage
the department to terminate. Ms. Eldridge explains the department reaches out to HR with an idea of what
disciplinary action they would like to issue. HR reviews the information and either supports the decision or
recommends another course of action.
There are no further questions for Ms. Eldridge.
Chairperson asks that Mr. Sibley makes any statements that he would like to make.
I would like to discuss some of the Exhibits One was regarding time. Before we had on call shifts that
started later after our initial shift. We worked from 8 am to 7pm then the on-call shift began at 7pm. If you
had a priority call or emergency call and you are already on shift you just take the call. I'm not going to
wait until 7pm to clock out then go out there. The problem was not returning to the facility. I understood
why it seems bad time wise, but I even said anything as far as overtime I am happy to dismiss it. I tried to
make it clear to Joel (Skidmore) that I wasn't trying to cheat time. I don't recall having other issues with
that after the reprimand. There is another document that talks about taking multiple calls at the same time.
The reason this happens is when you have so many calls in the system, they are prioritized some that must
be responded to immediately. A lot of times the level of documentation that goes into each call you don't
have time to complete that so what happens is you work multiple calls at the same time. Anyone can tell
you that everything is so understaffed and just behind. The dead possum thing was just a misunderstanding.
A lot of times we go to calls and I know the procedure is to put in a call for solid waste if there is a dead
animal, but you don't know it's dead until you get there. Sometimes to me it's just the citizens expected to
us to take the dead animal. Even though it's a solid waste issue it did not seem like a big deal to me. After
that incident Mr. Skidmore educated me it's a big deal because of the way data is entered and I understood.
The other Exhibit about the cat seen at Oso VCA admittingly I didn't get supervisor approval, but I was
under the impression that it would not exceed the cap amount because the Vet wanted to keep the cat there.
The next day the cat took a turn for the worse and they wanted to euthanize and told me we wouldn't be
charged. There were 2 or 3 Vets and I put their names in my notes. It was a supervisor communication
issue. A lot of these are after hours and the on-call supervisor doesn't necessarily answer the phone. Mr.
Skidmore has told me 1 can call him directly and I probably should have done that. The initial incident of
the seizure of the dog Mr. Skidmore was talking about exigence criteria only. He gives examples of
exigence and abandonment. There is also seizure for arrest. We get those a lot. The person arrested has no
next of kin, so we have to come and get the animal. This is how I responded to the call that was put in that
day. Did it meet exigence, no but from everything that I gathered from CCPD and the apartment managers
was that the person was arrested. It was highly unlikely that it would end up in court and if it did the person
would not have looked good because the dog was in such poor condition. The possum and data entry errors
are fluff to add to these reprimands. The real problem that comes into play with VCA is money. To me this
field shouldn't be about money. I admittingly made a lot of mistakes but there is a lot of good I did as well.
I worked through the pandemic. I came in on days off because 6 to 8 officers were out with Covid. I worked
some good cases. It's unfortunate that out of the 95% of good things I did I am being judged on the 5% of
the bad. What really makes me mad is being accused of being unethical. I know a lot of operations in the
City especially with animal care are based on political occupation. There are things that happen, citations
dismissed, and calls prioritized because of political stature. My closing is I didn't necessarily come here
with any intentions of getting my job back, Ijust wanted to state my piece and that's about it.
Mr. Rodriguez recalls Joel Skidmore as the witness for the City.
Regarding the circumstances Mr. Sibley mentions as an arrest seizure, is that at the direction of CCPD? He
answers, if CCPD does arrest someone and there is no next of kin, they notify' us. In this situation Mr. Sibley
admits that CCPD was not on scene when he arrived. He should have called the responding officer or
someone in charge to determine if in fact that person arrested was the owner of the dog. In this circumstance
he took the work of apartment management staff who had no authority to grant permission to seize the
animal.
No further questions of the witness.
Mr. Avila has some questions for Mr. Skidmore.
Mr. Sibley was counseled, and he wrote in his notes that the Vet said they would not pass the amount and
yet another Vet said the same thing. Did Ms. Scarbrough follow up with the hospital? Mr. Skidmore
explains that the charges should have been mitigated to begin with. Mr. Sibley did not communicate that
the animal was even at Oso. The condition of the animal should have followed proper protocol to euthanize
to prevent pain and suffering which Mr. Sibley is trained to do.
Dr. Sibila has some questions for Mr. Skidmore.
Have there been any other animal control officers illegally seize animals? Mr. Skidmore explains not to his
knowledge. There may have been concerns with attempted seizures but we as leadership have been able to
step in and ensure that doesn't happen. I know he (Sibley) brought up CCPD doing that but as I stated, I
am not aware of their operating procedures.
Mr. Avila has some questions for Mr. Sibley.
Since you have been at the City over a year, have you been counseled about your performance? You
mentioned you did a lot of good, were you ever provided anything in writing. He may have some text from
Mr. Skidmore praising him for ajob well done. Mr. Sibley answers with no. When asked if he received an
annual review, he answered no.
Chairperson requests a 5-minute recess.
ebo ibila, Mem
Civil Service Board
Eyvon
CiWice goard
Returned from recess at 10:19am
Mr. Rodriguez gives his closing statement for the City. Mr. Rodriguez states that the City has implemented
reasonable policies to protect the employees and citizens of Corpus Christi. Mr. Sibley was aware of such
policies and chose to disregard those policies. He unlawfully seized the animal on May 23, 2021, exposing
not only the City, but himself as well to potential lawsuit. Mr. Sibley had just received training on April 29,
2021, and less than a month later unlawfully seized an animal. The City was left with no choice but to
terminate employment to prevent future exposure to liability. The City requests that Mr. Sibley's
termination be upheld.
Mr. Sibley gives his closing statement. Getting back to the original incident, the truth is I made a mistake.
It wasn't a lucid decision on my part. I didn't just say I'm going to violate these rules, it was a mistake.
They talk about the severity of the mistake, but the truth is it happens to others as well. I don't say that to
say it's justified; I am just saying it does happen. Sometimes animals are seized without proper cause, it
happens. The day before this incident I was on call until midnight and I believe that was a factor because I
was tired. I think this is being painted much more severely than what is. My intention is to save my
character. I am not unethical; I am not malicious and everything I do is for the right reason. I made a
mistake; it is what it is. If anything, I can say there was some incompetence but unethical is an exaggeration.
Dr. Rauhaus calls for closed session at 10:29 am.
583rd Civil Service Board hearing is called back in session at 10:52 am.
Motion was made to uphold the termination of Billy Sibley.
The 583rd Civil Service Board hearing adjourned at 10:53 am.
r. Beth Rau aus, Chair
Civil Service Board
Gera vila, Member
il Service Board