U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2013, 01:55 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Since it wasn't handled with tact and discretion, I am wondering if there is a very specific reason, i.e., the public outcry for Jones' resignation made handling it in a public manner politically attractive, at least in the eyes of voters who feel he should have been fired before now.

So maybe it was a deliberately employed strategy. I have seen this type of thing happen before.
I know I've answered this after your post but just to stress. The board cannot act in secret. The manner in which they act is one issue but doing in with full lights is not a choice.

While Pat may have been planning the demise (that had already begun) I'm sure she would have rather have done it privately. It just wasn't possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2013, 05:10 PM
 
841 posts, read 1,237,512 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
The board can not meet privately like that. .
Yes they can. They can discuss the matter in executive session (as long as the executive session is in the agenda), assign the personnel matter a non-descript personnel exhibit and vote on that exhibit publicly without naming the employee. I've been involved in parliamentary procedure for a decade and I've seen it done numerous times in order to protect an employee's privacy rights. After the meeting, the employee is told privately of the action. In the case of Jones, for example, the commissioners could have planned another executive session after the vote to inform Jones privately that he was the subject of Exhibit A that was just voted upon.


N.C. Statute 143‑318.11 regarding allowed closed ("Executive") sessions:

To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.

Again, I'm no fan of Jones but the commissioners seemingly unnecessarily mudded their hands in this.

Last edited by lowercountry; 05-08-2013 at 05:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:08 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438
Are you saying that the law allows a public vote on an item not disclosed in public? And who meets with Jones to tell him he's fired?

How are these extra steps less muddling? Pat may not have been codial enough but I assume she was following attorney's advise on steps to take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,004,073 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
I know I've answered this after your post but just to stress. The board cannot act in secret. The manner in which they act is one issue but doing in with full lights is not a choice.

While Pat may have been planning the demise (that had already begun) I'm sure she would have rather have done it privately. It just wasn't possible.

I see that lowercountry has corrected your misunderstanding about sunshine law and open meetings. There are ways to handle things without the drama and still well within the law, which lowercountry has explained, so I won't repeat it.

ETA: sorry - I mistook the Pat you were referring to so have sinced edited that reference out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:25 PM
 
841 posts, read 1,237,512 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Are you saying that the law allows a public vote on an item not disclosed in public? And who meets with Jones to tell him he's fired?

How are these extra steps less muddling? Pat may not have been codial enough but I assume she was following attorney's advise on steps to take.
To answer your question: in regards to personnel matters (among other allowed items), yes. The employee's right to privacy is allowed to be protected. As far as who meets with Jones... generally it is the superior of the employee that handles that discussion.

And how does it make it less muddled? Because the commissioners seem to have gotten a bit of egg on their collective faces with the manner in which it was handled. It all seemed unsightly and unprofessional. Could they legally do it the way that did it? Sure. But they also legally could have made it a personnel matter and not looked quite so cumbersome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:55 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
I see that lowercountry has corrected your misunderstanding about sunshine law and open meetings. There are ways to handle things without the drama and still well within the law, which lowercountry has explained, so I won't repeat it.

ETA: sorry - I mistook the Pat you were referring to so have sinced edited that reference out.
Wow that's pretty arrogant coming from you. I'm sorry if I made you cross.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:58 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowercountry View Post
To answer your question: in regards to personnel matters (among other allowed items), yes. The employee's right to privacy is allowed to be protected. As far as who meets with Jones... generally it is the superior of the employee that handles that discussion.

And how does it make it less muddled? Because the commissioners seem to have gotten a bit of egg on their collective faces with the manner in which it was handled. It all seemed unsightly and unprofessional. Could they legally do it the way that did it? Sure. But they also legally could have made it a personnel matter and not looked quite so cumbersome.
I agree with your opinions in the matter but who is his superior?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:59 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowercountry View Post
To answer your question: in regards to personnel matters (among other allowed items), yes. The employee's right to privacy is allowed to be protected. As far as who meets with Jones... generally it is the superior of the employee that handles that discussion.

And how does it make it less muddled? Because the commissioners seem to have gotten a bit of egg on their collective faces with the manner in which it was handled. It all seemed unsightly and unprofessional. Could they legally do it the way that did it? Sure. But they also legally could have made it a personnel matter and not looked quite so cumbersome.
And what RIGHT to privacy does he have? Rights are defined. Show me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 07:19 PM
 
841 posts, read 1,237,512 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
And what RIGHT to privacy does he have? Rights are defined. Show me.
They are covered by a number of North Carolina statutes for public employees, including (but limited to) North Carolina General Statutes 162A-6.1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
I agree with your opinions in the matter but who is his superior?
In this case it would be the chair, who leads the public body that employs him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 07:48 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,638,593 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowercountry View Post
They are covered by a number of North Carolina statutes for public employees, including (but limited to) North Carolina General Statutes 162A-6.1.



In this case it would be the chair, who leads the public body that employs him.
That's a weak response. You are alleging that his rights were violated. There is no other reason to say he has the right to be protected but you won't specifically show in the law where this is?

And how is this a parliamentary issue?

And who says the chair has that authority to do so outside a public meeting?

I'll ask the SOG. I assume you know who they are.

Since you now wish to cover yourself by stating I should read the entire body of the law of the State of NC I will stay that the 3 page law you mentioned only pertains to personnel records. It has nothing to do with what happened last night. I am attempting to constrain my discussion to that of the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about "rights" such as how many pee breaks he's entitled to or what the minimum wage is for him then kindly start another thread.

If you wish to debate the specifics of what happens last night then please be specific.

G.S. 162A
6.1. Privacy of employee personnel records
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top