Judicial Council Watcher
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PAULA J. NEGLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No: Unassigned
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA and
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURT,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
DEPOSITION OF
LURA FRANZELLA
June 29, 2009
Reported by Jennifer F. Milne, CSR No. 10894
1
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
4 KUMIN & SOMMERS, LLP
5 JOSEPH CLAPP, ATTORNEY AT LAW
6 870 Market Street, Suite 1142
7 San Francisco, CA 94102
8 (415) 434-4500
9
10 FOR THE DEFENDANT, REPRESENTING JUDICIAL COUNCIL:
11 WILEY, PRICE & RADULOVICH, LLP
12 IAN P. FELLERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
13 1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 310
14 Alameda, CA 94501
15 (510) 337-2810
16
17 FOR THE WITNESS:
18 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
19 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
20 TIM J. EMERT, ATTORNEY AT LAW
21 455 Golden Gate Avenue
22 San Francisco, CA 94102
23 (415) 865-8919
24
25
2
1 I N D E X
2 EXAMINATIONS
3 PAGE
4 Examination by Mr. Clapp 4
5 Examination by Mr. Fellerman 190
6
7 EXHIBITS
8
9 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
10 1 "Personnel Policies and Procedures
11 Manual" 19
12 2 "Memorandum" dated "February 22, 2008" 58
13 3 "Personnel Action Request" 98
14 4 "Request to Fill" 117
15 5 "Senior Labor and Employee Relations
16 Officer" 120
17 6 "Job Description" 121
18 7 "Job Description" 132
19 8 "Employment Opportunity" 133
20 9 "Employment Opportunity" 135
21 10 "Senior Labor Relations Negotiator" 148
22 11 "Labor Relations Negotiator" 154
23 12 "Labor Relations Negotiator" 154
24 13 "Memorandum" dated "April 22, 2008" 158
25 14 "Personnel Action Request" 160
3
1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on June 29, 2009,
2 commencing at the hour of 10:11 a.m., at GOLDEN STATE
3 REPORTING & VIDEO, 3800 Watt Avenue, Suite 201,
4 Sacramento, California, before me, Jennifer Milne, a
5 Certified Shorthand Reporter, empowered to administer
6 oaths and affirmations pursuant to Section 2093(b) of
7 the Code of Civil Procedure, personally appeared
8 LURA FRANZELLA,
9 a witness herein, who, having been duly sworn, was
10 examined and testified as follows:
11 EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q Could you give us a thumbnail background of your
14 educational history, please.
15 A High school graduate.
16 Q Okay.
17 A College at California State University
18 Sacramento.
19 Q Okay. And after that, would you give us a
20 rundown -- quick rundown of your work history.
21 A Certainly. I'll skip the first two years. It
22 was really like administrative, mail room, supervisor,
23 that kind of thing.
24 In 1990 -- or 1988, I went to work for the State
25 Office of AIDS. It was kind of my first analytical type
4
1 of work. I was there seven years. For five years I was
2 with California Public Retirement System, CalPERS, as
3 the ombudsman.
4 Q Can I stop you right there.
5 Is that in Sacramento here?
6 A Yes. All of my work history is in Sacramento.
7 Q No problem.
8 A In the mid -- I lose track of time at this
9 point. But after five years at CalPERS, I worked for
10 the Department of Personnel Administration. I was the
11 administrator of the State's Defined Contribution Plan
12 called the Savings Plus Program.
13 And the last year that I worked, I worked for
14 the Administrative Office of Courts. I worked there
15 July the 9th, 2007, and separated there June 13th, 2008.
16 Q Okay. Let's go back to the -- when you were
17 working for the Savings Plus -- is that what you called
18 it?
19 A Yeah, Savings Plus Program. I administered the
20 Defined Contribution Plan, which was a 401(k), a 457,
21 and a part-time seasonal temporary plan.
22 Q And by "administered," just generally speaking,
23 what were you doing?
24 A I was the plan administrator.
25 Q Okay. And your job before that was?
5
1 A The ombudsman for the California Public
2 Employees Retirement System. My specialty was in the
3 health benefits program.
4 Q So I would take it that if anybody has some sort
5 of problem they would come to you --
6 A Yes.
7 Q -- and you could try to troubleshoot it and
8 figure out what the problem was?
9 A Yes. In retirement or continuation of health
10 benefits under retirement or appeals regarding coverage
11 of your health plan.
12 Q Okay. And then the job before that was?
13 A The California State Office of AIDS. It's where
14 the AIDS program, HIV was administered. I was community
15 planner for the AIDS program.
16 Q Okay. And generally as a community planner,
17 what were you doing?
18 A Developing community response plan to HIV
19 disease and AIDS. And I worked with counties, all 58
20 counties, in developing response plans to HIV. In the
21 early 1990s when the Ryan White -- the federal Ryan
22 White legislation was passed, I implemented that in
23 California and sat on various committees to deal with
24 AIDS in California.
25 Q Okay. As you probably recognize, I'm mostly
6
1 interested in your work with the AOC. So let's talk
2 about that.
3 You worked there for a little less than a year.
4 Had you been planning to work that short period of time?
5 A My initial plan was to work at the AOC for three
6 years.
7 Q And did that fit in with some sort of retirement
8 plan; is that it?
9 A Yes.
10 Q You had to qualify for something in three years?
11 A No. It would just give me 40 years of service.
12 Q 40? Wow. Congratulations.
13 A 37 -- it would have been 39 and a half years.
14 Once you get to 40 years, there's diminishing returns
15 continuing to work.
16 Q And you being the Savings Plus administrator
17 would certainly know all about that, I take it?
18 A I spent a lot of time developing expertise
19 around retirement.
20 Q Okay. At the AOC, what was your job?
21 A I was a senior manager with responsibility over
22 classification/compensation, what's called the Judicial
23 Services Unit and Trial Court Benefits.
24 Q And that was your job the entire year or almost
25 a year that you were there?
7
1 A Yes.
2 Q And who did you report to?
3 A Ernie Fuentes.
4 Q His position?
5 A Division director. I believe that was the
6 class.
7 Q Okay. And the division would be the HR
8 division?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you were a senior manager. Was that over
11 some sort of a subclassification of HR? Was there some
12 sort of name for, you know, your domain?
13 A Senior manager over classification/compensation,
14 Trial Court Benefits and Judicial Services Unit. It was
15 all stretched together.
16 Q I gotcha. Let's take each one.
17 Classification -- first of all, what is
18 classification? What's the function?
19 MR. FELLERMAN: It's vague and ambiguous.
20 MR. CLAPP: You can go ahead and answer. I
21 should stop you.
22 Every so often he may make some objections,
23 which is for legal reasons. Later on he may want to
24 argue about whether or not it's a proper question.
25 But you can go right ahead and answer.
8
1 MR. EMERT: And every now and then I may make
2 objections since I'm representing her as a former
3 managing employee.
4 You listen to my objections more, but you can
5 still go forward. As counsel said, go forward.
6 THE WITNESS: Employers have what's known as a
7 classification plan where individual jobs are classified
8 in some way to identify what the job is going to be
9 doing. For instance, a secretary, an office assistant,
10 a human resource analyst. It's a way for the employer
11 then to appropriately identify what people are doing and
12 develop job descriptions from that. Each position
13 has -- or each classification has a specification that
14 goes along with that.
15 BY MR. CLAPP:
16 Q All right. You said a lot. I'm not sure I get
17 it. So you have to -- I have to apologize. I'm a
18 little dense about things like this so bear with me,
19 please.
20 So each position, if I understand it, has a
21 classification; is that right so far?
22 A Yes.
23 Q So as an example, if I was -- I don't know, a
24 truck driver, there might be 15 truck driver positions
25 with a classification of truck driver?
9
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. And you indicated that there was -- there
3 would be a job description for the classification?
4 A No. There would be a classification
5 specification. It's very broadly defined.
6 Let me give HR analyst, human resource analyst,
7 as an example.
8 Q Okay.
9 A Human resource analyst within the Administrative
10 Office of the Courts could be used in a multitude of
11 ways, recruitment in actually developing
12 classifications. So the classification specification is
13 very broadly defined what a position can do or what an
14 employee can do.
15 Q Is there a job description apart from the
16 classification specification?
17 MR. EMERT: Vague and ambiguous.
18 Are you asking in general or specifically at
19 AOC?
20 MR. CLAPP: Of course at AOC. You mean as
21 opposed to GM; is that what you're asking?
22 MR. EMERT: Well, she's sort of describing the
23 general process. You asked if there is a job
24 description for a particular document.
25 MR. CLAPP: I'm talking about AOC.
10
1 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object as compound with
2 respect to the multiple classification. The answer may
3 be different depending on what job you're talking about
4 in the AOC.
5 MR. EMERT: If you understand the question he
6 asked, go ahead and answer. If you really don't
7 understand, you can ask him to repeat it now that the
8 lawyers have all jumped in here.
9 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that question.
10 BY MR. CLAPP:
11 Q Sure. I'm just trying to find out, is there a
12 job description or is that separate from a
13 classification specification? I'm trying to get the
14 lingo basically.
15 MR. FELLERMAN: Same objection.
16 THE WITNESS: At the AOC, there's not a job
17 description that goes with every job classification
18 specification.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q Okay. So every classification would have a
21 specification; is that how it would work?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And jobs are called positions?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Would there be job descriptions for some
11
1 positions?
2 A Rarely.
3 Q So generally speaking for any particular
4 position, what we would find would be a classification
5 specification and no other job description?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. Now, as part of the classification
8 function -- I may have asked this, but I'm not sure if I
9 did.
10 How many people are working in the
11 classification group?
12 A At the time I was there -- when I first started,
13 there was a supervisor and two analysts. And when I
14 left, we had just two analysts.
15 Q And is it their function basically to create and
16 update the classification specifications?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So if some manager somewhere wanted, for
19 example, to create a classification or a position, they
20 have to be classified within some sort of
21 classification?
22 A Yes.
23 Q That would be the job of a classification group?
24 A Yes. The manager would come to me or to the
25 analyst and describe what they want done and then we
12
1 look to see if there was a classification already in
2 existence or if something needed to be created.
3 Q I see. I think I see. Let me see.
4 So if a manager wanted to say, "Geez, I needed a
5 widget maker," he'd come to you. And you'd say, "Geez,
6 whiz, a widget maker" -- you know, you'd look at the
7 duties of that particular widget maker and say, "Well,
8 we have a classification that fits," or if you don't,
9 you'd have to create a new classification.
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Next group you talked about is
12 compensation?
13 A Yes.
14 Q First of all, how many people are in
15 compensation?
16 A Same group.
17 Q Oh, same group?
18 A Classification/compensation really go hand in
19 hand. They're really -- they don't stand separately.
20 Q I see. So it's classification and compensation?
21 A Classification and compensation.
22 Q I guess -- I'm trying -- I think I'm following.
23 Part of the classification function would be creating a
24 salary wage for that position?
25 A Yes.
13
1 Q And that would be the essential function of
2 compensation is creating salary ranges to associate with
3 classifications?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. Judicial Services Unit, what is that?
6 A It's -- in California, we have 1500 judges who
7 are elected officials.
8 Q Really?
9 A Yes.
10 Q I didn't know that.
11 A Yes. There's about 1500. And because judges
12 are elected officials, they're really not employees of
13 the Administrative Office of the Courts. I mean they're
14 elected officials. And they also have some very -- they
15 have their own retirement plan. The judicial --
16 judges -- JRS, Judges Retirement System. There's a unit
17 of employees within the AOC that specialize in the needs
18 of judges in retirement planning. Mostly it has to do
19 with planning for retirement. So there's two-- there's
20 three employees --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- that sort of deal with individual needs of
23 judges.
24 Q Okay. So individual needs and the biggest need
25 was retirement plan, I take it?
14
1 A Right. Attorneys coming -- you know, you all
2 being attorneys, if you're appointed to being a judge,
3 what does that really mean to you if you work at the
4 county, if you worked in private industry? What does it
5 really mean to take on a judgeship and compensation and
6 benefits that went along with that? But ultimately, the
7 real question is, how does it impact you as you retire?
8 Q Okay. The last you talked about was Trial Court
9 Benefits?
10 A Yes. Trial courts in California are -- I refer
11 to them as public agencies. There's 58 trial courts.
12 There's 58 counties. There's 58 trial courts. They're
13 autonomous. They're not part of the counties. That
14 changed in the early '90s. They used to be part of the
15 county. Now they're their own employer with some
16 relationships with the Administrative Office of the
17 Courts. And there's some benefits that the AOC
18 attempted to provide or tried to consolidate benefits.
19 A good one is Workers' Compensation. The courts banded
20 together, sort of in a coalition, and we administered
21 Workers' Compensation for them.
22 At the time I was there, there was a self-funded
23 health plan that some member of the courts -- I want to
24 say 13, but I could be wrong -- who actually
25 participated in a self-funded health plan that the AOC
15
1 administered. And then another number of the courts
2 participated in a vision plan and some participated in a
3 dental plan. These were benefits for the trial courts.
4 Q Trial courts, in my head, what I'm hearing,
5 which may be right or wrong, are for the employees of
6 the trial courts other than the judges?
7 A Yes. Judges are elected officials so they have
8 their --
9 Q That was the Judicial Services Unit?
10 A -- unit. Yes.
11 Q So Judicial Services would deal with the judges.
12 Trial Court Benefits are all the other trial court
13 employees?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Which I take it, in my head -- see if I get it
16 right -- are things like bailiffs, court reporters,
17 clerks?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay.
20 MR. EMERT: Counsel, some of the things you
21 listed are county employees. Some are court employees.
22 Commissioners are court employees. I'm not sure how
23 relevant it is to any of this we're talking about,
24 though.
25 MR. CLAPP: I don't know.
16
1 MR. EMERT: The witness looked at me. I don't
2 mean to give testimony but --
3 MR. CLAPP: You can let me know.
4 MR. EMERT: It's just --
5 MR. CLAPP: I don't think it's relevant at all.
6 I'm just curious for background.
7 MR. EMERT: There are some -- the bailiffs, for
8 example, that's security. That's almost always provided
9 by the counties. So the guys with guns are county
10 employees.
11 MR. CLAPP: Okay.
12 MR. EMERT: And there's a few other non-court
13 employees. Judges are not employees of anybody.
14 They're elected officials so -- they're employed
15 constitutionally. Commissioners are employees. Enough
16 of Court 101.
17 MR. CLAPP: Okay. I appreciate it.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q Okay. So you left the AOC in June of -- a year
20 ago. Almost exactly a year ago.
21 How come you left?
22 A Personal reasons.
23 Q You don't want to share those reasons? If you
24 know, it's not required.
25 A It was no secret. I did not agree with the
17
1 management style of Ernie Fuentes.
2 Q What was his management style that you did not
3 agree with?
4 A He didn't demonstrate any leadership qualities.
5 Q Okay. Can you, you know, expand on that. Tell
6 me what you mean.
7 A Yes. Well, I wanted -- I will work for people
8 who want to use a management team. Ernie didn't
9 generally use his management team. He made decisions
10 that I found to be unethical.
11 Q Okay. I'm sure we'll discuss those. Let's go
12 to a slightly different area.
13 I'm curious about personnel policies. I have a
14 portion of a Personnel Policies Manual here. I didn't
15 do the whole thing, but the parts I'm interested in.
16 Before I give it to you, you're familiar with
17 the Personnel Policies Manual?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And do you know who created it? Let me give it
20 to you because I'm not trying to be tricky.
21 MR. CLAPP: Let me mark as Exhibit 1 portions of
22 the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual.
23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 was marked
24 for identification.)
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've seen it.
18
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q Okay. And do you know who created this?
3 A It was created by the Administrative Office of
4 the Courts. It was maintained by the human resources
5 division. It was there when I was employed, but I don't
6 know exactly who created it.
7 Q Who was responsible for maintaining it?
8 A The human resources division.
9 Q Would that be Ernie or would that be some group?
10 A No. It -- I mean there was an analyst, of
11 course, who maintained the typing of it and just
12 dissemination of it. But if there was a policy that
13 needed to be established or a policy that needed to be
14 amended or updated for some reason, then it was the
15 responsibility of the HR Division. But, you know,
16 developed in direct oversight and reviewed by other
17 division chief and also by the appellate court. So it
18 applied to the appellate courts, as well.
19 Q Okay. Who in HR would be -- if you know, would
20 be responsible for either changing policies or creating
21 new policies?
22 A There wasn't any one particular person
23 responsible for that. It's just issues came up. The
24 analyst -- to be honest, I can't remember her name. She
25 would be given an assignment. For instance, the one on
19
1 the front, if we were going to make some change to
2 recruitment, she would be given instructions to change
3 it to reflect whatever the new policy we wanted to put
4 in place. And this document would be routed through all
5 the division chiefs and the appellate courts for
6 comments and ultimately given to sign off by the Chief
7 Justice.
8 Q On the first page -- I'm just curious about the
9 dates. It indicates, as you may see, July '95. Updated
10 March 2008.
11 My assumption is that this was a policy that was
12 updated in 2008?
13 A It's -- the Personnel Policies Manual is updated
14 on a continual basis.
15 Q When the manual would be updated, would the
16 first page reflect the last revision?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So if I had a series of these, we can see that
19 this one would be the one that was in effect from March
20 of 2008 to, say, November of 2008 if we found the next
21 one being, you know, revised in November of 2008?
22 MR. EMERT: Vague and ambiguous. You mean,
23 these as a piece of paper or these as an electronic
24 document?
25 MR. CLAPP: Well, I meant as a piece of paper in
20
1 my head. But that's a good point.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q This is kept electronically?
4 A It's posted electronically on the AOC's internal
5 website intranet. I always get these confused. The
6 intranet is the internal website.
7 Q Okay.
8 A And I'm certain in the past hard copies were
9 made and distributed. But in the electronic age, for
10 the most part is now maintained on the intranet.
11 Q Okay. Fair enough. Let's go to the first page,
12 I guess, which is 2.6.1:1, Staffing. At first it talks
13 about "Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment of
14 Employees."
15 Are these all within your bailiwick?
16 A No.
17 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q Pardon me? The answer was no?
20 A No.
21 Q Any of them -- recruitment, selection or
22 appointment, any of them within your bailiwick?
23 A No.
24 Q What is recruitment as to what they're referring
25 to here?
21
1 A There was a unit in human resources called
2 recruitment. And this was a group of people that went
3 through recruiting employees. If I had a vacancy, I
4 would go to them, and they would help me go through the
5 process of recruiting. But that responsibility did not
6 fall under me.
7 Q Who was in charge of recruitment?
8 A Felicia something -- Nadia. She's since
9 married. I'm sorry. After a year, I've sort of
10 forgotten a lot of people's names, but her first name
11 was Felicia.
12 Q Is selection separate from recruitment?
13 A No. Recruitment and selection and the
14 appointment are all held in one unit.
15 Q Also all under Felicia, I take it?
16 A Yes.
17 Q My guess is that recruitment would be the
18 process of either posting or somehow advertising the
19 fact that a vacancy exists; selection is the process of
20 selecting among viable candidates for that position; and
21 appointment is the actual offering of a hire and
22 acceptance of a hire by that candidate?
23 A Yes.
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
22
1 Q Okay. And then on the second line it talks
2 about "Appointment Authority."
3 Do you know what that refers to?
4 A The hiring authority.
5 Q Who would that be?
6 A In most cases, it would be -- the ultimate
7 decision maker would be the division chief.
8 Q The division chief, for example, in human
9 resources, that would be Ernie Fuentes?
10 A Yes.
11 Q It also talks about "Budget Management
12 Guidelines in Effect."
13 Do you know what that is?
14 A For instance, in these times, there would be a
15 possibility of a freeze, no new hires or no promotions
16 or, you know, whatever the budget constraints might be.
17 Q Was it some sort of a periodic document called a
18 budget management guidelines?
19 A Not that I'm aware of.
20 Q Okay. I'm getting old. I can hardly read any
21 more.
22 Let me go to 2.7.1:1, Employment Status,
23 basically. It talks about "Job Classification."
24 I imagine these are the policies that would
25 directly affect your job?
23
1 A Yes.
2 Q It says, "Job classification refers to the
3 process of grouping positions within an organization."
4 What does that mean?
5 MR. EMERT: Objection. The document speaks for
6 itself. The witness has already testified her
7 understanding of classification. We can go through and
8 read the whole thing, but I'm not sure how productive
9 that is.
10 So if you can understand the question, go ahead
11 and answer it.
12 (Brief interruption.)
13 MR. CLAPP: I should turn mine off, too.
14 MR. FELLERMAN: Sorry about that.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm not sure
16 what more I can say.
17 BY MR. CLAPP:
18 Q Is it the process of determining what kind of --
19 what kind of classifications you need within the AOC; is
20 that it?
21 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q It says, "Classification studies are
25 undertaken."
24
1 Who does the classification studies?
2 A If there had been a classification study of the
3 employees in the AOC, I would have done it at the time I
4 was there.
5 Q It says "to classify the duties and
6 responsibilities of newly created positions."
7 Classified in what sense? What has to be done?
8 A If I could use an example.
9 Q Sure.
10 A The AOC has a division that actually is going
11 out to build courthouses, court construction. I hope I
12 have their names correctly. I've forgotten a lot of
13 them. There was a whole new responsibility for the
14 Administrative Office of the Courts. They were not
15 contractors to build buildings.
16 My staff and I were spending a significant
17 amount of time talking with the court construction
18 division about the kinds of classifications that we
19 would need. Up until that point we didn't need a
20 sanitary engineer or an interior design special
21 consultant or, you know, someone that knew about
22 windows. So in that case, we were developing new
23 classifications for the AOC.
24 Q Okay. That makes sense.
25 The next bullet point here is "to determine the
25
1 relationship between and among jobs in an organization."
2 What does that mean?
3 A Starting to address, you know, fairness of pay
4 or comparable pay issues. The levels of responsibility
5 should determine the compensation. You have to have
6 some space between. I mean if you have various levels
7 of secretaries, you have to have a stepping process so
8 that there's some relationship between compensation and
9 responsibility, and making sure that you don't end up
10 with classification compression to where people are --
11 classifications are overlapping in their compensation.
12 So there's some relationship to actually
13 responsibilities. The more responsibility you have, the
14 greater your compensation.
15 Q So are we talking about things like steps? If
16 we have a secretarial classification, there might be
17 more than one level of secretary?
18 A Yes. And attorneys, for instance, I believe in
19 the AOC there's five levels. Attorney A, B, C, D, E,
20 some number there. You know, with education, experience
21 moves you between those levels and moves you up. And
22 then there's -- generally, what you would see is some
23 standards between those levels, you know, 5 percent
24 break or 7 percent or whatever it is that generally
25 apply through the organization. So if you have a
26
1 Secretary I, II, and III, there might be a 5 percent
2 difference from the top of one to the top of the other.
3 And attorneys you may find a similar kind of stepping.
4 Q So would these be promotional ladders?
5 A Generally they're promotional. Sometimes it's
6 just time and space. There's kind of a term for that.
7 Attorneys are just a classic example. Fresh out of law
8 school, you're appointed to an A. And two years later,
9 you get a B and C unless there's something that
10 prohibits that, you know, some performance issue. But
11 generally it's just a movement through the
12 classification.
13 Q Okay. So a classification such as attorney,
14 then -- I'm trying to follow and see if I get it right.
15 There might be -- there might be several
16 classifications, like five classifications of attorneys;
17 is that what you're saying?
18 A Yes. Just years makes the movement.
19 Q And each one -- for example, attorney A would
20 have, A, its own salary range and, B, the minimum
21 qualifications for that classification?
22 A Yes.
23 Q So the next one up would have a higher salary
24 range at a spacing of 5 percent or something that you
25 were indicating plus a slightly more increased minimum
27
1 classification, experience, things like that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q I see. Would this -- classifying the duties and
4 responsibilities of related -- is it fair to call them
5 related classifications? What do you call, first of
6 all, attorneys which have, say, five classifications
7 within it?
8 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object that it misstates
9 her prior testimony that she defined the five
10 classifications.
11 MR. CLAPP: I thought I did. Let's get that
12 straight.
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q When we talk about attorneys, isn't it true that
15 there's five different classifications?
16 A Again, I have to think about this, but I believe
17 that there are at least five within the AOC.
18 Q The number is not interested -- the way I
19 understood what you're telling me -- I'm just trying to
20 process this.
21 We have, you know, a number of classifications
22 called some kind of attorney, A, B, C, D, E, which may
23 be five, maybe more. But these are each individual
24 classifications and there might be several positions
25 within each of those classifications?
28
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. All I'm trying to do right now is get the
3 lingo here.
4 Is there something for that whole super
5 classification of attorney?
6 A Generally, in that particular case it's just
7 called attorney and then the ranges within it. There
8 would be a human resource analyst. There would be a
9 court services analyst. And within those -- for
10 instance, in the court services analyst, there's a court
11 service analyst and a senior court service analyst.
12 There's a series of two.
13 Q Okay. All right. Let's take -- I think I get
14 it. I do. Let's see if I do.
15 For HR analyst -- and we may have two different
16 classifications of HR analyst, senior and HR analyst?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And so there might be any number of HR analysts,
19 and any other number of HR -- senior HR analysts?
20 A Yes.
21 Q As part of the classified duties and
22 responsibilities for the HR analyst, then, you would
23 have had to set out salary ranges for the HR analyst and
24 the senior HR analyst and also created minimum
25 qualifications for each of those classifications?
29
1 A Yes.
2 Q Would you also describe whether or not there was
3 any kind of supervisorial authority between the two?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And what kinds of levels of supervisorial
6 authority are there?
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous and compound
8 with respect to position.
9 MR. EMERT: You can answer if you understand the
10 question.
11 You're asking specifically about an HR analyst?
12 Do you want specifics?
13 MR. CLAPP: I'm asking generically because I
14 think it's generic, but I could be wrong.
15 MR. EMERT: Go ahead. If you understand the
16 question, answer it. If you think you need
17 clarification, you ask for that.
18 THE WITNESS: So in the very beginning of the
19 classification document, the specification, just about
20 always the first thing you would say is "Under the
21 direction of" or "Under the supervision of" or -- you
22 know, just to begin with, you start out with what their
23 reporting responsible is and who -- not who individually
24 but how they would report. For instance, with an HR
25 analyst that worked for me, it would say, "Under the
30
1 direct supervision of the senior manager."
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q And that would be in the HR analyst --
4 A It's called the class spec.
5 Q The class spec?
6 A Just shorthand for classification specification.
7 Q Wouldn't they all be the same? I mean all HR
8 analysts would report to a senior manager, for example?
9 A Or whatever -- it might say to a supervisor. It
10 may be a little bit more generic because every division
11 within the AOC may have a different organizational
12 structure.
13 Q Sure.
14 A HR analysts are unique to human resources. They
15 didn't work anyplace else within the AOC. But the court
16 services analyst -- and I hope I have that class
17 right -- may work in a multitude of divisions. So in
18 those cases, you would have to change it a bit,
19 possibly, to say that it worked for a supervisor or a
20 division chief or -- you may just run it all together,
21 saying "Under the direction of a supervisor,"
22 generically could be anybody.
23 Q That's what I'm a little confused about.
24 Because we wouldn't have a different class spec for, you
25 know, the HR analyst over here and the HR analyst over
31
1 here. We would have the same class spec?
2 A Yes. Generally it would be the same class spec.
3 So part of it is -- part of my responsibility is kind of
4 look at those things and clean them up a bit because
5 some of them had gotten a little dated. But it was
6 generally just a statement you would make in the very
7 beginning of the classification as to who you're
8 reporting to, what your level of responsibility would
9 be.
10 Q Okay. Fair enough. I'm curious next about
11 2.7.3:1. It talks about "Regular and Temporary
12 Employment." And the first bullet point talks about a
13 "Special Consultant."
14 Can you tell me what a special -- is this a job
15 class -- excuse me -- a job classification, special
16 consultant?
17 A Special consultant didn't have a class
18 specification. A special consultant could
19 hypothetically be anybody that worked in the mail room
20 or worked for the Chief Justice. I mean it was a
21 very -- the salary range went from zero to $16,000 a
22 month. It could be anything.
23 Q Sort of a catch-all?
24 A Yes.
25 Q If you don't have anything else, we could put
32
1 somebody as a special consultant?
2 A For special needs, you would hire a special
3 consultant.
4 Q And this is a temporary position?
5 A Some of the individuals that were in the special
6 consultant classification have been put in that
7 classification for a number of years. So I would not
8 say it would be temporary.
9 Q Do you know if they are categorized as regular
10 employees or temporary employees? Let me step back.
11 Let me withdraw it.
12 My understanding from reading this is that
13 employees, among other classifications, one way they're
14 classified is either regular or temporary; am I correct
15 so far?
16 MR. EMERT: Vague and ambiguous. I just want to
17 make sure. You used the word "classification" as
18 opposed to --
19 MR. CLAPP: Category. Let's go with category.
20 MR. EMERT: Or job classification with a capital
21 C.
22 MR. CLAPP: Good point.
23 MR. EMERT: We're using the --
24 MR. FELLERMAN: This refers to "category" so
25 maybe not use the word "classification."
33
1 MR. CLAPP: That's why I used "category."
2 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm sorry. What's the question
3 now?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I kind of lost it.
5 MR. CLAPP: Fair enough.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q My understanding is one way of categorizing
8 employees is as regular or temporary; am I correct in
9 that?
10 A And to be perfectly honest, it's a very strange
11 concept. It was -- it was not one I was familiar with
12 before coming to the AOC.
13 When you look at regular status, it seemed to be
14 more tied to the budget cycle or the budgeting of a
15 position. It was a position that was going to be around
16 for a long time. The individual coming in to interview
17 for it would want to know, "Am I being hired on a
18 permanent basis" because there's certain benefits that
19 you get as a permanent employee than you would -- in
20 this case kind of stated as regular than a temporary
21 employee. And temporary would be something that was --
22 maybe -- it had to do with funding. The temporary
23 funding of a grant or federal dollars. Again, like a
24 court construction, those positions are funded through
25 bond money. So it's really important for the employee
34
1 to know, are they employed through any permanent basis
2 receiving permanent benefits or if you're on a temporary
3 basis -- there's actually a few benefits that you don't
4 receive. So it's -- it has to do more with funding.
5 Q Okay. You said a lot.
6 Lawyers are like this. We have to go back over
7 and over things. That's our occupational disease. I
8 apologize.
9 I think you were talking, you know, generically.
10 You weren't confining this as to special consultants?
11 A No. That's true.
12 Q Okay. So an employee when they were hired,
13 regardless of their position, one thing they'd want to
14 know, if I understand correctly, is "Where is the money
15 coming from to pay me? Is it on a part-time budget
16 process? Is the funding going to run out or is it going
17 to be continuing?" Is that what you're saying?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And if it was -- I said "part-time." I didn't
20 mean part-time. I meant temporary in duration.
21 And if they found out that the funding source
22 would stop at, say, two years down the road, something
23 like that, would they be classified, then, as a
24 temporary employee?
25 MR. EMERT: Categorized?
35
1 MR. CLAPP: Yes. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q And if they were categorized as a temporary
5 employee, which might even be two or three years down
6 the road --
7 MR. FELLERMAN: I object as compound with
8 respect to which employee we're talking about.
9 MR. CLAPP: Any employee. Anybody who was told
10 that their funding source would expire in the future, is
11 my understanding.
12 THE WITNESS: It is a very difficult concept to
13 get. I agree.
14 Initially, if you were to -- if I were to
15 interview and hire you, and you said to me, "How long is
16 this appointment?" and I would say, "Well, you know, we
17 have a limited term. We have limited funding. It's 12
18 months, and you would be appointed on a temporary basis
19 because I have no guarantee of continuing funding."
20 Q Okay.
21 A On the other hand, I could employ you on a
22 regular basis, what they call regular status, because
23 you're general funded or you're federal matching fund,
24 some other way in which we feel like the funding is more
25 on a temporary basis.
36
1 And I don't mean to expand on this more than the
2 question. Then people move from position to position,
3 and their appointment status follows them.
4 MR. EMERT: Counsel, I don't want to offer
5 testimony.
6 THE WITNESS: It's a complicated business.
7 MR. EMERT: The issue of funding, it's not as
8 clean as your fundings for 12 months. You're funded
9 under a grant. The grant could be changed in any
10 legislature or could go on for years. But because
11 you're under a grant fund as opposed to, as the witness
12 said, general fund, you're temporary because, then, the
13 plug could be pulled whenever the legislature or whoever
14 is doing the funding. So I'm not offering testimony. I
15 just want clarification on this point.
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's just -- it's a very
17 difficult concept to kind of describe.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q Okay. And I think you're doing a good job. I'm
20 getting the idea.
21 A In some cases, if you're a temporary -- if you
22 have a temporary appointment, there's certain benefits
23 that you're not entitled to depending on the
24 classification that you're in. So it's a funding issue
25 more than anything else.
37
1 Q When you're appointed, typically you're given a
2 letter of appointment?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Does that come out of recruitment?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So Felicia is probably the person I should talk
7 to about this?
8 A Yes.
9 Q At any rate, when you're given a letter of
10 appointment, would it specify whether it is a regular or
11 temporary appointment?
12 A I'm not certain because I didn't do them.
13 Q Okay. But I think what you're telling me is
14 that if you are -- if you are given a temporary
15 appointment that you would have less or different
16 benefits than if you have been provided a regular
17 appointment?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound with respect to which
19 positions specifically we're talking about.
20 MR. EMERT: If you understand it. In terms of
21 categories, is temporary less than regular?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. A student assistant is a
23 temporary employment. A student assistant is not
24 eligible for a whole array of benefits.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
38
1 Q You mentioned something I wanted to ask about
2 and see if I understood it.
3 You said that sometimes people over their, you
4 know, career would receive one kind of appointment,
5 would transfer over to a different position, but they
6 would keep their status as either regular or permanent
7 when they moved over?
8 A For the most part you can keep your regular
9 status. Again, this is such a nuance to budgeting.
10 If I were an HR analyst doing classification and
11 compensation, and I then took a position in recruitment,
12 and I'm still an HR analyst -- and it could be that that
13 recruitment position is funded through court
14 construction through the Bond Act. And it is not a
15 long-term -- considered permanent funding because court
16 construction is a short term. But as an employee, I
17 would not lose those benefits that I had as a regular
18 employee. Again, it's a very fine nuance, and it really
19 has to do with non-industrial disability leave and
20 something else. I've kind of forgotten what that little
21 nuance is.
22 But, as an employee, I didn't lose much of
23 anything else. If I'm already a regular employee, I
24 don't lose those benefits. If I'm -- if I had been
25 appointed to temporary and then I went to a regular
39
1 position, I would be entitled to those benefits forever.
2 It's just a very fine nuance of the budget and the
3 benefit program.
4 Q Okay. I think what you're telling me, and I may
5 be wrong, that if you ever got into a permanent
6 position, thereafter you would continue to be a termed
7 permanent position even if you moved over to a -- excuse
8 me. I said "permanent."
9 A Regular, yes.
10 Q I'll start again.
11 I think what you're telling me, that if you ever
12 got into a regular position, you would remain a regular
13 position even if you moved over to what would have been
14 a temporary position otherwise?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. Under special consultant in the middle of
17 this page, which is 2.7.3:1 of the "Personnel Policies
18 and Procedure Manual," it talks about how -- "Unless the
19 selection process for a temporary position has been
20 competitive." I want to start with that part.
21 Do you know what that means, the selection
22 process being competitive for a position?
23 A Let me find it.
24 Q In the middle of the page there, the last
25 sentence.
40
1 A Okay. I've read it now. Could you repeat the
2 question.
3 Q I'm just trying to understand what it means to
4 have a competitive selection process?
5 A A competitive selection process is the position
6 that was advertised in some way, opened for individuals,
7 a variety of individuals, to submit applications and to
8 compete in the process.
9 Q So this implies to me that sometimes special
10 consultants would be appointed without a competitive
11 selection process?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. So is this true that when a special
14 consultant was appointed to a position without the
15 competitive selection process, they could not transition
16 to regular status without an open recruitment in
17 competition?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation. Lacks
19 foundation. Compound.
20 MR. EMERT: Are you asking the witness to
21 interpret what her understanding of this policy is or
22 actual practice?
23 MR. CLAPP: Okay. Either one.
24 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm having a harder time
25 with the special consultant class because but there was
41
1 so few of them. But it isn't uncommon to have a -- hire
2 a temporary clerk for whatever reason, needed somebody
3 to work in the mail room.
4 If a position, a permanent position, or what we
5 call a regular position were open -- again, as a
6 temporary employee, in many of these classifications,
7 they were not elegible for benefits. This is the key
8 problem.
9 MR. CLAPP: I gotcha.
10 THE WITNESS: So they worked in the mail room.
11 They were a temporary clerk in the mail room. A
12 position becomes available, either new money or someone
13 left, you can't just -- couldn't just take that
14 temporary person and put them into that position unless
15 there was a competition to begin with in hiring them as
16 a temporary clerk.
17 Student assistants were generally advertised on
18 the AOC website. We would hire student assistant or
19 graduate student assistant. They graduated from
20 college. There was a vacancy. They did an open
21 competition. We could put them into a permanent or a
22 regular position at that time if the initial position
23 was competitively recruited.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q Okay. So they had to go through a competitive
42
1 process at some point, either in the original time they
2 became temporary or when they moved over to the regular
3 position?
4 A Yes. Yes.
5 Q Okay. The next one is 2.8.3:1. It talks a
6 little about "Transfer Policy." And mostly -- again,
7 I'm just interested in the lingo, what things mean.
8 The first sentence talks about how "A transfer
9 occurs when an employee moves between" -- it talks about
10 "agencies, units, assignments or classes to a
11 classification with approximately the same salary level
12 and the same level of duties and responsibilities."
13 Do you know what is meant by agencies or units
14 or assignments or classes?
15 MR. EMERT: I would object for lack of
16 foundation. This witness hasn't testified she has any
17 working knowledge of this particular policy. So if we
18 can establish that, then her answers will have a
19 different meaning.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q Do you understand what this means?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Okay. What does this mean?
24 A Are you asking --
25 Q When we talk about --
43
1 A -- for agencies unit?
2 Q Exactly.
3 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm going to object as compound.
4 MR. CLAPP: Go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: Units, for instance, are between
6 classification/compensation and recruitment within the
7 unit of a division. Again, a division may have five
8 administrative assistants. One works in the recruitment
9 unit and the other one works in classification and comp.
10 And there's a vacancy and somebody wants to transfer
11 from one unit to the other. It's internal within the
12 division.
13 Assignments, using the court services analyst as
14 an example, currently someone is working on a committee,
15 one of the Judicial Council committees. And their
16 interest is different and they want to work on a
17 different committee. So they work in the same division.
18 They work in the same unit, but they want to work on
19 different committees. So the assignment changes. It's
20 not a transfer of a position. It's just assigning of
21 the work that's being done.
22 Between agencies -- and I'm not certain if
23 I'm -- between the appellate courts, for instance --
24 again, these policies apply to the appellate courts, as
25 well. So moving from one appellate court to another
44
1 appellate court would be a change within the agency or
2 from the appellate court into the AOC.
3 Q So the AOC would be an agency?
4 A Yes.
5 Q The group that you headed up -- again, the whole
6 name of it was classification/compensation, et cetera?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Would that be considered a unit?
9 A Each one of those would be considered a unit,
10 classification/compensation. Again, it's one thing.
11 Q Okay.
12 A Judicial Services Unit and the Trial Court
13 Benefits Unit.
14 Q I see. And when it talks about employee moves
15 between classes, is that talking about classifications?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. So when -- you know, I'm trying to think
18 of an example to make it clear in my mind.
19 If we had a human resource analyst
20 classification, they moved to something else that was a
21 different classification but comparable, that would be
22 moving between classes?
23 A Yes. Secretaries, for instance, and
24 administrative assistants. There's -- they do very
25 similar jobs, different classifications, but very
45
1 closely aligned to one another.
2 Q Okay. At the very -- at the bottom of the
3 thing, it talks about -- the last sentence, it talks
4 about a PAR form. I'm sure you know what a PAR form is,
5 Personnel Action Request form.
6 What is that?
7 A It's a form.
8 Q What's the purpose of the form?
9 A It provides basic information, name of the
10 employee, classification, appointment date.
11 Q And who creates these forms?
12 A The person who -- the form itself is completed
13 by generally the hiring manager.
14 Q Okay. Below that -- it says, I think, "Revised
15 3/3/08." My guess, and hopefully you can confirm, that
16 it means that this particular policy, this page, was
17 changed on March 3, 2008.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Next page, 3.1:1 talks about "Salary Structure."
20 It talks about "The Judicial Branch Classification and
21 Pay Schedule delineates salary ranges."
22 My guess is that that's your job to set forth
23 the salary ranges that are included within the Judicial
24 branch classification and pay schedule?
25 MR. EMERT: Vague and ambiguous. Counsel, when
46
1 you ask questions, it's my guess that -- can you simply
2 ask a question to make it a clearer record.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q That's a true statement that that's your job?
5 A Yeah, that was my job.
6 Q And the Judicial Branch Classification and Pay
7 Schedule, did that come out on any kind of periodic
8 basis? Monthly? Yearly? Anything like that?
9 A No. It was posted on the intranet.
10 Q So was it updated continuously?
11 A It was only updated if there was --
12 Q A change?
13 A -- a change, yes. Salaries generally didn't
14 change on a continuous basis. They're usually tied to a
15 budget cycle.
16 Q Budget cycle, I presume, is annual?
17 A Yes. July to June.
18 Q July 1 to June 30th?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Was that the State fiscal year?
21 A Yes.
22 Q So, again, in general now -- I presume that all
23 things being, you know, happy as opposed to the present,
24 you know, downturn we have now that the -- on June -- on
25 July 1st, the salary ranges would typically have the
47
1 increase across the board?
2 A If there was a general across-the-board cost of
3 living, then the schedule was updated to reflect that.
4 Q So in what we'll call regular times rather than
5 distressed times -- because who knows what's going on
6 now -- what we would, I think, expect to see is on July
7 1 salary ranges would go up across the board. And
8 throughout the year, as you either -- you know, do
9 classification studies, various positions would be moved
10 up, created, salary ranges might be adjusted; is that
11 all safe to say?
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
13 THE WITNESS: If a new classification were
14 created, at the time it was created we would have
15 updated this schedule to reflect the new whatever --
16 sanitary engineer --
17 MR. CLAPP: Sure.
18 THE WITNESS: -- whatever it was.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q And this is all on-line, right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q On the intranet?
23 A On the intranet.
24 Q So if we -- so in September, say, we created the
25 sanitary engineer, you know, job classification, we'd
48
1 find that in the September update that we have that
2 particular classification with its associated salary
3 range in the on-line Judicial Branch Classification and
4 Pay Schedule?
5 A Yes. You would see an updated -- you would see
6 a date on the schedule, revised whatever day it was, the
7 date that we posted that information.
8 Q Would the class specs be part of this?
9 A You would have needed a class spec to create a
10 compensation to go with it, yes.
11 Q I got that. I think I got that.
12 Would that be part of the Judicial Branch
13 Classification and Pay Schedule on the intranet?
14 MR. EMERT: You mean -- vague and ambiguous.
15 You mean would it be posted there --
16 MR. CLAPP: Yeah.
17 MR. EMERT: -- or referenced?
18 THE WITNESS: It's -- this pay schedule, if
19 you --
20 MR. EMERT: The witness is pointing to the
21 document for Pay Schedule.
22 THE WITNESS: If you click on "attorney" -- if
23 you just point and click, it will take you to the
24 classification spec or you could find that separately,
25 but it would link -- the two documents were linked.
49
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q So they're both on-line on the intranet?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And they're linked to each other?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. Let's go to 3.2.1:1, "Salary Offer
7 Policy." Now, you would have been affected by this
8 policy for the people you hired for your unit, right, or
9 your units? You have three units, right? I'll step
10 back. I'm asking multiple questions.
11 Under you, you had three units?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. So when you made salary offers, you would
14 have to comply with the Salary Offer Policy; is that
15 right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q But it wasn't your responsibility to create or
18 have anything to do with salary offer creation or of the
19 Salary Offer Policy?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
21 Are you asking whether she created this policy?
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q You didn't create -- you didn't have anything to
24 do with propounding the policy, but you had to implement
25 it?
50
1 A Correct.
2 Q Okay. It talks about how the entry-level salary
3 for new hires has to be set at the minimum of a pay
4 range. And that was the general policy?
5 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Compound. It
6 misstates the document with respect to what the document
7 says and best evidence rule --
8 MR. EMERT: You can ask the --
9 MR. FELLERMAN: -- with respect to the document
10 in general, and not always.
11 MR. CLAPP: I think I said general.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q Generally speaking, new hires are hired at the
14 minimum of a pay range; isn't that correct?
15 A Correct.
16 Q And then it says -- but that's not always the
17 case. If higher salaries are warranted, you can --
18 managers can recommend to the appointing authority
19 higher salary ranges.
20 Managers would be somebody like you?
21 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound. And best evidence
22 rule.
23 MR. CLAPP: I'm trying to figure out what they
24 mean by salaries.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
51
1 Q Would that be somebody like you?
2 A What they mean by salary or what they mean by
3 managers?
4 Q No. No. The managers.
5 A The hiring manager.
6 Q So would that be the head of the unit?
7 A Yes. Whoever the manager and supervisor would
8 be.
9 Q Is there a difference between a manager and a
10 supervisor?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What's the difference? What's the manager and
13 what's a supervisor?
14 A Supervisor generally supervises a small number
15 of people within a unit. For instance, in
16 classification/compensation, at one point there was a
17 supervisor over these two analysts.
18 A manager has a broader scope of responsibility.
19 It doesn't generally do the day-to-day supervision of
20 time sheets and vacation requests. A manager is really
21 trying to manage the program. There's a level of
22 responsibility.
23 Q Okay. So it would be the managers who do the
24 recommending rather than supervisors?
25 A It depends within the division, the
52
1 organizational structure that you're dealing with.
2 Q Gotcha. "Appointing Authority" in this context,
3 do you know what that means?
4 MR. EMERT: You're looking at the first sentence
5 of the second paragraph?
6 MR. CLAPP: I am, yes. All I'm trying to do
7 is --
8 BY MR. CLAPP:
9 Q I'm trying to figure out, you know, who's
10 recommending to whom that somebody should get hired at
11 something higher than a minimum of the range. That's
12 all I'm trying to do.
13 A The appointing authority -- this process --
14 again, I was not over recruitment. But this process
15 would have gone through the -- it would have
16 initially gone -- if it were not within human resources,
17 assuming that it was a different division, it would
18 have -- a memo would have gone to Ernie Fuentes as the
19 division chief, a recommendation to give a higher
20 salary. Ernie would have approved it or disapproved it
21 or worked out with the division chief what it should be.
22 And ultimately it was signed off by Bill Vickrey,
23 V-i-c-k-r-e-y.
24 Q And Bill Vickrey, what's his position?
25 A What is he called? I lost track.
53
1 Q Functionally, he's, what, head of AOC?
2 A He's the head of AOC. He's the executive
3 officer or something. The title escapes me.
4 Q Okay. You said that's how it worked if it was
5 outside HR, I believe.
6 A Right.
7 Q How about if the hire was inside HR?
8 A Ernie still had to go to Bill Vickrey to have
9 that approved. It's just they didn't have another
10 division to go through.
11 Q I've gotcha.
12 So ultimately, I think what you're telling me
13 is, Bill Vickrey has to sign off on this?
14 A On exceptional hires, yes.
15 Q And exceptional hires being higher than --
16 paying a new hire more than the minimum of a pay range?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So if I understand this second paragraph, then,
19 somebody, the manager, would have to recommend to Bill
20 Vickrey in writing that a salary higher than the minimum
21 up to the midpoint should be given to the new hire?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Best evidence rule.
23 Misstates the document. Compound.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q Is that right?
54
1 MR. EMERT: Counsel, I think that misstates her
2 testimony. Ultimately it's Bill Vickrey with steps in
3 between. She testified it goes to Ernie Fuentes and
4 then to Bill Vickrey.
5 If that's encompassed in your question, there's
6 no objection.
7 MR. CLAPP: I'll step back. I'm really not --
8 I'm really just trying to understand how you guys work.
9 From the outside, it's -- you know, it's not as evident
10 as it is from the inside when you deal with it day after
11 day.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q So all I'm trying to figure out -- if you're
14 going to hire somebody, you know, and you're going to
15 pay them up to the median of the salary range rather
16 than the minimum amount, ultimately, something in
17 writing would have to go over to Bill Vickrey for his
18 approval?
19 A Yes.
20 Q I'm going to the third paragraph now. It seems
21 like things go up as things get more necessary.
22 In exceptional circumstances, what we can do is
23 give the new hire the top of the salary range, again,
24 based upon a written recommendation. It has to go in
25 this case from -- it has to have Fuentes' approval as
55
1 well as Vickrey's approval?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. Let me go to the last page I have here,
4 which is 3.2.2:1. I'm interested in the bottom of the
5 page where it talks about "Salary Enhancement." I want
6 to see if I can understand what this policy means.
7 It talks about how the discretion of the
8 appointing authority, which, at least in my mind, so far
9 I'll assume is Bill Vickrey -- how an incumbent
10 employee's salary may be increased to 10 percent upon
11 initial appointment to an executive classification. And
12 I want to see if I can understand that.
13 Do you know what they mean by "an executive
14 classification"?
15 A Say it's a promotion from a senior manager to a
16 division chief. A senior manager is not an executive
17 classification, but the assistant division chief and the
18 division chief are executive classification.
19 Q So this refers to things basically above your
20 personal pay scale?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. That's fair enough.
23 MR. CLAPP: Is this a good time to --
24 MR. EMERT: An excellent time for a break.
25 Counsel, these pages are sequential?
56
1 MR. CLAPP: No. No.
2 In fact, let me say this for the record: As you
3 can see on the pages, they're not. The Bates stamps,
4 for example, is 3178 as the first one, and it goes to
5 3193, et cetera. That's the Bates stamps. The page
6 numbers for the policy are in the upper right, 2.6.1:1.
7 MR. EMERT: From that point, the document speaks
8 for itself. It's not sequential.
9 MR. CLAPP: It is not sequential. I just
10 brought the ones that I wanted to talk about rather --
11 MR. EMERT: Rather than a hard copy?
12 MR. CLAPP: Right.
13 MR. EMERT: Break?
14 MR. CLAPP: Yes. Let's take a break.
15 (Brief recess.)
16 MR. CLAPP: Let's go back.
17 I want to show you as Exhibit 2 -- it looks to
18 me like a memorandum instituting things such as a hiring
19 freeze.
20 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked
21 for identification.)
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q This is something you received somewhere right
24 around February 22 of 2008, I presume?
25 A Yes.
57
1 Q And it was a freeze that was effective
2 immediately?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Let me go to the second page. It talks about
5 the cost-saving measures for fiscal year seven and
6 eight, which my guess would be from -- seven and eight
7 would be -- was that July 1 -- what is that?
8 A July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008.
9 Q So it was for the year that was in effect right
10 then?
11 A Yes.
12 Q So basically it was for the rest of the year
13 from February until June 30th?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Did it get reinstituted for the next year?
16 A I don't know. I separated --
17 Q But at least not to your knowledge -- not at the
18 time that you left?
19 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
20 MR. EMERT: If you have knowledge, you can
21 testify.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I just don't know.
23 BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q Okay. It talks about how there's a freeze on
25 hiring not including candidates who received a pending
58
1 offer of hire.
2 Do you know what that means?
3 A Yes. Candidates that were -- had already gone
4 through the process and just hadn't appeared yet -- I
5 mean they had an offer pending.
6 Q Okay. And an offer pending is an offer in
7 writing?
8 A I believe so. You need to ask Felicia.
9 Q A freeze on reclassifications. I'm not sure I
10 understand what that means. Can you tell me what that
11 means -- I'll step back.
12 We talked about classifications. I think I
13 understand classifications. What I don't know -- if
14 there's something different. What is a
15 reclassification?
16 A Giving you an example of an HR analyst being
17 an -- sometimes it's referred to as a promotion, a
18 reclassification from HR analyst to senior HR analyst.
19 The job has been reclassified.
20 Q Oh, okay. I think I get it.
21 So it wouldn't be, for example, a promotion.
22 The one above it would be a particular person who was an
23 HR analyst was then promoted to a senior HR analyst.
24 That's what a promotion would be.
25 A I would say sometimes the difference between
59
1 promotion and reclassification is not clear.
2 Q But let me go back. If somebody was an HR
3 analyst and they moved over to a senior HR analyst, that
4 would be a promotion?
5 A In some cases, that could be. In other cases it
6 would just be a reclassification of duties that would
7 result in that person being promoted.
8 Q Wouldn't the whole position be reclassified?
9 A Job duties would be reclassified.
10 Q I see. If we have -- if we have a
11 classification, let's take -- we have class specs for a
12 particular classification.
13 And wouldn't a reclassification be taking the
14 class specs and changing it for that particular
15 classification?
16 A No.
17 Q All right. Can you explain it because I really
18 don't get it.
19 Do you know what a reclassification is?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
21 MR. CLAPP: I know, and I apologize.
22 MR. EMERT: Say it again, talk slowly. You can
23 do whatever description is necessary.
24 THE WITNESS: If a supervisor came to me and
25 said that this employee, Jim, whoever that might be, is
60
1 an administrative assistant and we want to reclassify
2 that position to a staff analyst, they would need to
3 provide a justification as to what the duties are. Then
4 I would -- if the new duties were that of a staff
5 analyst, we would reclassify that position. In that
6 case, it results in a promotion for the employee if the
7 employee met the minimum classifications for the new
8 classification.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q Okay. I think I get it. So if Jim went from
11 one classification of administrative analyst or whatever
12 you call it, assistant --
13 A Administrative assistant.
14 Q -- to a different classification, it was a
15 higher classification, that would be a promotion?
16 A In that case it would result in a promotion.
17 Q Okay.
18 A If some things run in series, human resource --
19 HR analyst and senior HR analyst, it's a series. It's a
20 natural progression. It is not a natural progression
21 from administrative assistant to a staff analyst. It's
22 not the same career ladder, career path.
23 So it is -- a reclassification of a position may
24 result in a promotion to the employee. If they're
25 reclassifying a vacant position, it doesn't result in a
61
1 promotion because they go out and they recruit for the
2 new classification.
3 Q Okay. Good enough. It talks about a freeze on
4 the establishment of new positions.
5 "Establishing new positions," what does that
6 mean?
7 A It's a position that doesn't exist today. Every
8 position has a number associated with it. And, again,
9 using court construction as really the best example,
10 they couldn't come in and then establish more sanitary
11 engineers. They've got six. That's what they're going
12 to have. They couldn't establish more positions.
13 Q Okay. So the classification of sanitary
14 engineer had already been established, but they
15 couldn't -- they had six of them. But they couldn't add
16 a seventh. They couldn't establish a new position?
17 A Correct.
18 Q That seventh sanitary engineer?
19 A Correct.
20 Q This may be outside of your bailiwick or it may
21 not. I don't know.
22 Is there a process of establishing new
23 positions? Somebody says, "Gee, whiz. I need a widget
24 maker or a sanitary engineer"?
25 A There's a couple of ways, yes.
62
1 Q Can you just generally tell me how that works.
2 A You identify the need for a new position.
3 Q Can I interrupt?
4 A Uh-huh.
5 Q I apologize.
6 Who is doing the identifying? The manager?
7 A The manager, the division, the supervisor,
8 somebody who needs more people. It's usually a
9 supervisor or a manager.
10 Q Okay. One of those people will identify the
11 need?
12 A And establishing the position is really finding
13 the money to pay for it. And so if it's special funds
14 like they've written a grant and they've received
15 funding through Robert Wick Foundation or a federal
16 grant or somehow received a grant, they need to still
17 establish a position. So they go and identify what the
18 need is, what the position would be doing, what
19 classification we have to fit that, and then work more
20 with finance than HR at this point to establish a new
21 position. If it were to be done through general fund
22 money, there's a process through the legislative process
23 called a budget change proposal or a finance letter to
24 get more funding through the State's financing process.
25 Q Okay. Well, this has to be routed through you
63
1 to classify the position?
2 A Yes.
3 Q So the manager, among other things, "Gee,
4 whiz" -- like I said, a widget maker and then they'll
5 have to go to you to say, "What classification should
6 this widget maker be?"
7 A They would come and say, "I have a need. This
8 is what it is." We would look at the existing
9 classifications that we have and align the new position
10 with one of those classifications.
11 Q Or create a new classification if necessary?
12 A If necessary, yes.
13 Q Okay. Below that, it talks about "Increases to
14 Position, Time-Based." Last bullet point there, which
15 is complete gibberish to me.
16 Do you know what this means?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. What does it mean?
19 A If I were an employee working three-fifths time
20 and now I want to come back to full time.
21 Q So it refers to part-time employees?
22 A Part-time is different.
23 Q Oh, really?
24 A Time-based is a 40-hour workweek, and I have a
25 number of employees that wanted to work four-fifths or
64
1 three-fifths or half time. It's just your time-based.
2 Q So they're not considered part-time if they're
3 half time?
4 A No. They're considered time-based.
5 Q Okay. Are there part-time employees other than
6 the time-based employees?
7 A There were part-time employees.
8 Q I don't know if it matters to me, but I'll
9 figure it out, anyway.
10 So we have employees who are full time and
11 they're 40-hour-a-week employees, right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Then we have some employees who are time-based,
14 that might be some percentage of that?
15 A Right.
16 Q And then we have part-time employees, which is
17 something else entirely?
18 A Yes. Seasonal clerk, a student assistant,
19 park -- there's a time-based and part-time seasonal and
20 temporary. They don't work 40-hour work weeks. They
21 don't have a permanent employment, but they're
22 temporary.
23 Q Okay. So as far as the position time-based,
24 what that refers to is if somebody is working, say, 30
25 hours a week, we can't increase that person to 40 hours
65
1 a week?
2 A Correct.
3 Q That's where the freeze is?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. It talks -- below that, the next
6 paragraph, it talks about how when there's positions
7 that are critical, essential, urgently needed, blah,
8 blah, blah, there's an exemption process requires
9 reviewed by the AOC finance director and by the chief
10 deputy director.
11 First of all, who is the finance director and
12 who's the deputy director?
13 A The finance director was Steve Nash and the
14 executive director was Ron Overholt.
15 Q Okay. And the exemption process, was that
16 reduced to writing, that particular process, to your
17 knowledge?
18 A Yes.
19 Q So there will be some sort of document that says
20 this is the exemption process for -- for what? I guess
21 to hire, promote, reclassify, establish new positions or
22 increase the position time-based after the hiring
23 freeze -- after the freeze, excuse me?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did that document -- do you know the name of
66
1 that document by any chance, the exemption document?
2 A It's a memo.
3 MR. EMERT: Vague and ambiguous.
4 Are you asking was a special document created
5 for this process, or was a document used for this
6 process?
7 MR. CLAPP: Is it different?
8 MR. EMERT: Yeah. An exemption document that
9 already exists could be used as opposed to creating one
10 just for this process.
11 MR. CLAPP: Okay.
12 MR. EMERT: I think there's some confusion on
13 that.
14 MR. CLAPP: Good point.
15 THE WITNESS: There was a document already in
16 existence that we revised in some way.
17 BY MR. CLAPP:
18 Q At this time?
19 A At this time to answer more questions or
20 something.
21 Q Okay. So there had been an ongoing exemption
22 process. Contemporaneous with the freeze, that process
23 was amended?
24 A Yes.
25 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object to the extent it
67
1 misstates her testimony. She said the form was amended.
2 I don't know if the process was amended.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q So what we should have -- was it some sort of a
5 memo that we're talking about?
6 A Yes, it's a memo.
7 Q All right. So --
8 MR. EMERT: What is a memo? The process?
9 MR. CLAPP: I'm going to ask that.
10 MR. EMERT: Okay.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q We should have, I think -- again, I'm trying
13 to -- we should have two memos at least: one that
14 predates February 22nd that sets forth an exemption
15 process; and one sometime right around February 22nd,
16 which revises it?
17 A I'm sorry. I really don't --
18 Q Fair enough. I'm trying to find out what
19 paperwork there would be that would describe this
20 exemption process. That's all.
21 A It's a -- it was a form, and I apologize. I
22 don't know if it was a form number, but it was a form
23 that the supervisor made, whoever completed, that answer
24 the series of questions.
25 Q Okay. So before February 22nd, there was some
68
1 sort of exemption form. And that exemption form was
2 revised somewhere around February 22nd?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. Was there some sort of memo or something
5 else that would describe how the form was to be filled
6 out?
7 A No.
8 Q Any instructions or anything like that?
9 A No. The form was fairly self-explanatory.
10 Q Next bullet down talks about "usage of salary
11 and contract temporary help or other contracted
12 personnel to backfill," blah, blah, blah.
13 I'm trying, again -- I'm just interested in
14 lingo here.
15 Is there -- there seems to be a difference
16 between salary temporary help and contract temporary
17 help; is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What is a salary temporary help and what is a
20 contract temporary help?
21 A A salary temporary help would be someone who's
22 on the AOC's payroll hired in a temporary position
23 receiving a salary. AOC also contracts with an outside
24 employment firm, I don't know the name, to provide some
25 temporary help, contracted employees.
69
1 Q It talks about other contracted personnel.
2 Do you know what other contracted personnel
3 would be?
4 A No, I don't.
5 Q Okay. We've talked earlier about special
6 consultants.
7 Would that be a salaried temporary help?
8 A Special consultant would be an employee of the
9 AOC receiving a salary.
10 Q So would that be a salary temporary help?
11 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Asked and answered
12 not only in this last question but earlier on when she
13 testified about consultants who have been for years with
14 the AOC.
15 THE WITNESS: Am I supposed to answer?
16 MR. EMERT: If you can answer, go ahead.
17 THE WITNESS: Some individuals have been in
18 special consultant classification for a number of years.
19 They weren't temporary. They weren't part time. They
20 weren't salaried individuals in the classification of
21 special consultant.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q Would those people -- so were those special
24 consultants regular employees?
25 A Yes.
70
1 Q And then have all the benefits that we talked
2 about that regular employees would have rather than
3 temporary employees?
4 A Yes.
5 Q So is this true: A special consultant might be
6 regular or might be temporary?
7 A It could be either one.
8 Q And would we know --
9 MR. EMERT: Counsel, I've got a hearing aid.
10 Can you take your hands away from your mouth when you
11 talk?
12 MR. CLAPP: Certainly. I apologize.
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q So if a special consultant was temporary or a
15 special consultant was -- what's the opposite -- not
16 permanent -- regular, would that be reflected in his
17 offer of hire?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation. Lacks
19 foundation.
20 THE WITNESS: Since I didn't do the offer of
21 hire, I can't say.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q Would that be -- do you know what it would be
24 reflected on, what kind of paperwork it might be
25 reflected on? What kind of records would reflect --
71
1 whether a special consultant was regular or temporary?
2 A It would be on the notice of -- I'm getting my
3 acronyms confused here.
4 On the PAR, the Personnel Action Request, it
5 would -- when they were appointed on the payroll system,
6 there's a form, and I apologize. I can't think of the
7 number at this point. But that would indicate whether
8 it was a permanent or regular or temporary -- regular or
9 temporary appointment.
10 Q So there's a PAR and there's some other form; is
11 that what you're saying?
12 A Yes. The payroll unit uses this form.
13 Q All right. I want to talk a little bit about
14 Jim Duncan.
15 Do you know who Jim Duncan is?
16 A Yes.
17 Q He was, when you first got there, labor
18 negotiator in the, what, Labor and Employee Relations
19 Unit?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And at some point somebody came to you and asked
22 to reclassify his position; is that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Who and when?
25 A Scott Gardner came to me -- I'm sorry. I don't
72
1 have the exact dates. It was probably in December of
2 2007.
3 Q Okay. And Scott Gardner is who?
4 A He works in Labor and Employee Relations. He
5 has some classification. I don't know the title.
6 Q Fair enough. So in December, Scott comes to you
7 and says what?
8 A He told me that Jim Duncan was planning to
9 retire sometime in 2008. He wanted to retain Jim
10 Duncan, encourage him to stay longer. We talked about
11 options for a salary increase or classification,
12 creating a new classification. It was something that
13 would entice Jim to stay.
14 Q Okay. He was already at the high end of his
15 salary range?
16 A He was at the max as a labor negotiator.
17 Q His position was labor relations negotiator?
18 A Yes. Yes.
19 Q Does that mean that he can't get more than that
20 in that position?
21 A The max is the max of the salary arrangement.
22 He can't get paid higher.
23 Q Did Scott talk about -- he said, "Okay. I want
24 Jim to stay here, working here."
25 Did he have suggestions of how he could pay him
73
1 more money?
2 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
3 MR. CLAPP: Go ahead and answer.
4 THE WITNESS: His first suggestion was paying
5 him a retention bonus, which the AOC doesn't have a
6 policy on retention bonus. Increasing the salary range
7 was the next option. We would have needed to have a
8 justification and done some salary surveys to justify
9 increasing the salary range or creating a new
10 classification known as senior labor relations
11 negotiator. Needed a justification as to what that
12 position would be, what that classification would do.
13 It would be different than what he was doing then.
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q For increasing the salary range for the labor
16 relations negotiator position, he would need a
17 justification and a salary survey?
18 A I would have done a salary survey to see what is
19 being paid in the marketplace.
20 Q Okay. How about when you're creating a new
21 position? Would you also have to have a justification
22 and a salary survey?
23 A If it's a new position with an existing
24 classification, we wouldn't need to do a salary survey.
25 Q Yes. My fault.
74
1 I thought that one of the -- one of the
2 possibilities was creating a new classification.
3 A If we created a new classification, we would
4 have needed to know what that was, what the duties were,
5 and we would have done the salary survey to see what
6 that type of work was paid in the marketplace.
7 Q There's three things that I'm slightly confused
8 in my head, and I tried to unconfuse things as much as
9 possible.
10 One is you talk about a justification and then
11 we talked about duties, and we had the salary survey.
12 Is the justification -- what is the
13 justification?
14 A The justification would be what is the need for
15 a new classification? Tell me what that is. Why do you
16 need a new classification? What would the duties be
17 that are significantly different than the duties -- or
18 significantly duties and different than the jobs the
19 person is currently performing.
20 Q So at least in my head that's the relationship.
21 The determination of the duties is part of the
22 justification for creating a new classification?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Or increasing the salary range of an existing
25 classification?
75
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. I think I get it.
3 So one of the things you talk about with
4 Mr. Gardner about Jim Duncan was to give him a retention
5 bonus.
6 Was there -- did you discuss, you know, how much
7 and for how long that he would -- "he," being Jim
8 Duncan -- would stay for that particular bonus?
9 A We talked about a bonus, but it was not in the
10 policy and procedure manual. So that was the end of the
11 conversation. There was nothing more to be said because
12 we didn't have a policy that covered that.
13 Q So you told Mr. Gardner, "We just can't do
14 that"?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. Another possibility was increasing the
17 salary range. Tell us -- what did you guys talk about
18 increasing the salary range?
19 A It's something we could look into. I would
20 instruct our compensation analyst to do a quick survey
21 of the marketplace to see if there was something out
22 there that would lead us to believe that we were
23 underpaying that whole classification.
24 Q I hate to interrupt. I do.
25 But by whole classification, at this point we're
76
1 talking about labor relations negotiator?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay.
4 A I'd talk to Scott about doing that. I said it
5 would take a few weeks, if it was something that we
6 could do. But we didn't move any farther than that,
7 just having that discussion.
8 Q Why not?
9 A Again, this was our first discussion. I said,
10 "These are the things we could consider but" --
11 Q Also laying out the possibilities?
12 A These are the things that we could think about
13 doing or discuss about doing. You know, this was just
14 the first discussion about what to do to retain Jim
15 Duncan, and these were the possibilities. These are
16 things that we could talk about farther.
17 Q Okay. Let me get an overview of how long, you
18 know, this whole process of discussing what to do about
19 Jim Duncan took.
20 Obviously, you had this first conversation. How
21 long did it -- did the process last before you guys
22 decided what to do?
23 A I had a first discussion with Scott sometime in
24 December. A second meeting with Scott and Ken Couch,
25 who was hired, I believe, in January of 2008. Ken and
77
1 Scott and I talked about it again sometime in January of
2 that year. That was the last conversation that I had
3 with them.
4 These were the possibility -- we went over the
5 same possibilities. Bonus was not an option since we
6 didn't have a policy. We could look at creating a
7 senior labor relations negotiator if there were
8 responsibilities at that level. And then we could look
9 at a salary survey.
10 Q Okay. I take it that there was two
11 conversations in total: the initial one with Gardner
12 and a second one in January with Gardner and Couch?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. So in both of them you said, "Well, we
15 can't do a retention bonus," right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q "We could look about increasing the salary range
18 but would have to do" -- "would have to get" -- what, a
19 salary survey, right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q What did they say about that?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm going to object. Are we now
23 on to the second conversation with Couch --
24 MR. CLAPP: That's a good point.
25 MR. FELLERMAN: -- and Gardner since you said
78
1 "they"?
2 MR. CLAPP: Good point. I'll withdraw it.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q Lawyers tend to be ridiculously methodical, and
5 I'm one of the worst.
6 Let's talk about these categories one at a time.
7 In December, the first time you talked to Duncan, on
8 that particular topic, you said --
9 MR. FELLERMAN: You mean Gardner, not Duncan?
10 MR. CLAPP: I do.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q In December, when you talked to Gardner about
13 the topic about, "Gee, whiz, one thing we can do is, you
14 know, possibly increase the salary range but we'll have
15 to do a salary survey," what did he say about that?
16 A It was just the topic of the conversation. We
17 didn't move any farther than this was an option.
18 Q The second time you had the conversation, which
19 is now in January with Couch and Gardner, what did you
20 guys say?
21 A Same thing. We had the same conversation. We
22 talked about these are the things that we could do.
23 These are things I would look into doing if that's the
24 direction we wanted to go.
25 Q Did they -- did they indicate that they wanted
79
1 to go in that direction?
2 A No.
3 Q So it's just still "We're exploring
4 possibilities" at this point?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. Another possibility is to create a new
7 classification of senior labor relations negotiator,
8 right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And is it true that in December when you
11 broached this -- "you" being you and Gardner -- broached
12 this, again, it was just something that was a
13 possibility?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Same true in January when the three of you
16 talked about it?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So at the time that the three of you talked in
19 January, there hadn't been any decision made about what,
20 you know, direction you wanted to go in?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Okay. So you told them to create a new
23 classification as a senior labor relations negotiator,
24 what you needed to do is get a justification from
25 somebody, Gardner, Couch?
80
1 A At this point it would have been from Ken Couch
2 because this position reported to Ken Couch.
3 Q Good point.
4 MR. EMERT: When you say "this position" --
5 THE WITNESS: Or this classification. I'm
6 sorry.
7 MR. CLAPP: I'm right on it. I think I'll
8 clarify.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q Let's go back to the labor relations negotiator
11 position.
12 That is something that they contemplated
13 reporting to Gardner --
14 MR. FELLERMAN: Can you read that question back
15 for me, please.
16 MR. CLAPP: I'll restate it.
17 MR. FELLERMAN: Sure.
18 MR. EMERT: The current labor negotiator
19 position.
20 MR. CLAPP: The one that Jim Duncan was in.
21 BY MR. CLAPP:
22 Q Okay. That was something that was reporting to
23 Gardner?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So is it true that if we're going to do the
81
1 justification for increasing the salary range for Jim
2 Duncan's position, that that would be something that
3 would be performed, the justification would be performed
4 by Gardner?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. And then the second position we talked
7 about, which is the senior labor relations negotiator
8 position, was contemplated that it would report to
9 Couch?
10 A Ken Couch had been hired in January, and it
11 wasn't a position. It was a classification.
12 Q Okay.
13 A I know.
14 Q Thanks for correcting me.
15 A Ken Couch was hired as a senior manager, I
16 believe, on January 4th or early in January of 2008.
17 And the labor negotiators reported directly to Ken Couch
18 at that point.
19 Q Okay. I think it's okay.
20 So up -- see if this is true. There's two labor
21 negotiators, Paula Negley and Jim Duncan, right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And up until Couch was hired, the two of them
24 reported to Duncan; is that correct?
25 MR. FELLERMAN: Duncan?
82
1 MR. CLAPP: I'm sorry. I can't keep this
2 straight.
3 MR. EMERT: Counsel, if I might offer --
4 MR. CLAPP: Sure.
5 MR. EMERT: -- that the labor relations
6 negotiators both reported to Scott Gardner and his
7 function. Ken Couch was hired -- I believe it was
8 sometime in October. But as of the first of the year,
9 all labor relations negotiators reported to him and not
10 to Scott Gardner.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q When the labor negotiators' positions began
13 reporting to Couch rather than to Gardner, would there
14 had to have been a PAR reflecting that fact?
15 A No.
16 Q How would that be reflected, if at all, in the
17 paperwork?
18 A There wouldn't have been paperwork. We -- the
19 employees would have just been instructed to report to a
20 different supervisor.
21 Q Okay. So if I understand this -- I'm trying
22 to -- when you had your first conversation with Gardner,
23 which you think was December, do you know if that was
24 before or after Couch had been hired?
25 A I've just lost track of when Couch was hired.
83
1 Q Sure.
2 A He may have been -- I just don't know. I
3 remember it in January.
4 Q Fair enough. At any rate, let's go to the
5 conversation you had with the three of you, being you,
6 Couch, and Gardner.
7 At that point, you understood that the labor
8 negotiators reported directly to Couch, right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. So at that point, one of the -- one of
11 the options we're discussing is we can take the labor
12 negotiator position, expand the salary range so that the
13 maximum has -- the ceiling has been lifted and basically
14 pay Jim Duncan the ceiling, right?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And you're saying, to do that, what we need
17 is -- among other things, is a justification and a
18 survey.
19 Now I'm back to -- a justification would be
20 performed by Couch, right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. Then down to the next option, we could
23 create a brand-new classification of senior labor
24 relations negotiator, which would also need a
25 justification which would tell us, among other things,
84
1 the duties, the increased duties, that justify the
2 classification. And you'd have to do a salary survey,
3 right?
4 A Yes.
5 Q That's what you told them?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. And the justification would have to come
8 from Couch?
9 A Yes.
10 Q All right. So what did they say about that,
11 "they" being Gardner and Couch?
12 MR. EMERT: You're talking about the January
13 meeting?
14 MR. CLAPP: Yes, January meeting.
15 THE WITNESS: Again, we were just having a
16 discussion. They went away with these were the
17 instructions with things that they needed to do. We
18 didn't make any final decisions or -- you know, it
19 was -- again, it was just a discussion.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q Okay. Were there any E-mails or writings or
22 memos that were reflecting this conversation?
23 A Not between myself, no.
24 Q I'll ask about the other one, too. The December
25 one with you and Gardner.
85
1 A No.
2 Q Okay. Was there any follow-up on this meeting?
3 A Not from the January meeting, no.
4 Q So what happened to Duncan?
5 A He was reclassified to a special consultant -- I
6 don't know the date.
7 Q I presume it was soon after this meeting you've
8 had with Couch and Gardner?
9 A Or it was after that meeting.
10 Q But I mean soon after. Like we're talking days
11 rather than months?
12 A Probably. I just don't know.
13 Q Okay. Were you at all involved in reclassifying
14 him to a special consultant?
15 A No.
16 Q The steps to reclassify him as a special
17 consultant, would somebody have had to fill out some
18 kind of paperwork to do this?
19 A There would have been a memo from Ernie Fuentes
20 to Bill Vickrey justifying the appointment of Jim Duncan
21 to a special consultant.
22 Q So Bill Vickrey would have had to approve this?
23 A Yes.
24 Q You didn't discuss this particular possibility
25 in either of your meetings with Couch or with Gardner,
86
1 right?
2 MR. EMERT: This possibility being special
3 consultant?
4 MR. CLAPP: Yeah.
5 THE WITNESS: In the meeting with Ken Couch and
6 Scott Gardner, Ken asked me what a special consultant
7 classification was. I said it's a -- I think my words
8 was "a catch-all position within the AOC." It had no
9 classification specifications. It had a salary range of
10 zero to $16,000 a month. There were probably a half
11 dozen people within the AOC currently within that
12 classification. And there really wasn't much -- you
13 know, there were no defined rules around using it.
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q I believe you discussed using special
16 classification to reclassify Duncan?
17 A Yeah. Special consultant?
18 Q Yeah. Thank you.
19 MR. EMERT: You want to repeat the question for
20 the record, then.
21 MR. CLAPP: Sure.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q Did he ask whether or not it would be possible
24 to reclassify Duncan to be a special consultant?
25 A Yes, he asked if that was possible.
87
1 Q What did you say?
2 A I said no.
3 Q And why did you think that it was not possible?
4 A I needed the same paperwork. I needed
5 justification as to why we would reclassify Jim Duncan.
6 And because the salary range ran from zero to $16,000 a
7 month, we would still have to establish a survey of some
8 sort to match up with whatever justification was used
9 for the special consultant.
10 Q Did either Gardner or Couch come back to you
11 with any justification or request for a salary survey or
12 anything for this position?
13 A No.
14 Q Did Vickrey talk to you about this?
15 A No.
16 Q Were you -- did you know that some memo went to
17 Bill Vickrey about this?
18 A I knew after the fact.
19 Q Who told you after the fact?
20 A Evelyn Ramos.
21 Q What did she tell you?
22 A I was reviewing the staffing report, the monthly
23 staffing report that comes out. I noticed that Jim
24 Duncan's name then had special consultant, and I asked
25 Evelyn -- Evelyn was the supervisor over the payroll
88
1 piece of classification/comp. She told me that Ernie
2 had given her the memo signed off by Bill Vickrey to
3 reclassify Jim Duncan to a special consultant.
4 Q Did you talk to anybody else about this?
5 A No.
6 Q Okay. Let's talk about David Wolf. I'm sure
7 you know who he is?
8 A Yes.
9 Q At some point you learned that Couch was seeking
10 another labor relations negotiator; is that right?
11 A I knew they were advertising for a labor
12 relations negotiator, yes.
13 Q Recruiting --
14 A Yes, recruiting. Yes. Uh-huh.
15 Q -- that's the term.
16 And just to get the time frame here, how long
17 after you found out that -- I presume it was after --
18 that Duncan had been reclassified as a special
19 consultant?
20 A It may have been March of 2008.
21 Q Do you know if it was before or after the
22 freeze?
23 A I don't recall. I don't recall.
24 Q Okay. So anyway, you know that they were
25 advertising basically for Duncan's prior position,
89
1 right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q The job that -- the job that Duncan was doing,
4 did it change at all when he became the special
5 consultant?
6 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation. Lacks
7 foundation.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q How would we find out? Was there anything in
11 writing that would indicate what his job duties are?
12 MR. EMERT: When you say "job duties," Duncan's
13 new ones or the labor relations negotiator?
14 MR. CLAPP: Whatever he's doing as a special
15 consultant.
16 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
17 THE WITNESS: The memo between Ernie and Bill
18 Vickrey may explain what Jim Duncan was doing.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q Okay. At any rate, let's go back to David Wolf.
21 You found out they're recruiting.
22 Would they have had to go to you for any reason
23 as part of their recruiting process?
24 A No.
25 Q That doesn't come through
90
1 classification/compensation, et cetera?
2 A No.
3 Q Okay. Did you learn that an offer had been made
4 to him?
5 A No.
6 Q Okay. At some point you learned that he was
7 hired, right?
8 A At some point I knew we were trying to hire him.
9 Q At some point you knew they were trying to hire
10 him?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did you know there was a problem in hiring him?
13 A I knew that there was some discussion going on
14 regarding a salary.
15 Q Okay. Discussion among whom?
16 A This was in the managers meeting that would have
17 included Ernie Fuentes, Ken Couch, Jeanie Cayhill.
18 MR. EMERT: Cayhill (pronunciation).
19 THE WITNESS: Cayhill. I'm sorry. Somebody
20 will have to spell that. And myself.
21 It was a managers meeting.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q Okay. Why don't you relate to me about what you
24 recall about that conversation?
25 A It was our bi-weekly managers meeting. David
91
1 Wolf's name came up. I asked who was he. Ken or Ernie,
2 I don't recall who, said that he was the individual that
3 they were recruiting as the labor relations negotiator.
4 And there was some discussion about the salary. I was
5 told that he was not willing to come in at the salary
6 range of the labor negotiations position classification.
7 Q Okay. Did they say anything else?
8 A There was some discussion in that meeting about,
9 you know, salaries at the AOC were underpaid, that this
10 particular classification wasn't paying enough to
11 recruit the talent they were seeking in the
12 organization. They've been unsuccessful on a number of
13 occasions recruiting for this classification. And,
14 again, we talked about how to change salary ranges.
15 Just kind of the process we would go through. They
16 wanted -- he wanted to be paid more than what was being
17 offered.
18 Q That sounds similar to me to the conversation
19 you had previously.
20 Were they saying, "Gee, whiz, how can we go
21 about, you know, raising the ceiling on this particular
22 classification?"
23 A That was -- that was the discussion we were
24 having in the managers meeting.
25 Q My guess is you would be saying exactly the same
92
1 thing, "I need a justification, and I need a salary
2 survey"?
3 A Well, to do a salary survey from an existing
4 classification, I wouldn't need a justification as to
5 why it was different than the existing one. We would do
6 salary surveys on existing classifications to see if we
7 were meeting the marketplace.
8 Q I see. There's no -- good point. I get it.
9 A Point of inquiry.
10 Q You don't need a justification. The
11 classification is already justified?
12 A Yes.
13 Q What you need is a salary survey to see whether
14 or not you're paying competitive rates?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. I presume you said, "We can do a salary
17 survey, but it would take a few weeks," right?
18 A It would take several days.
19 Q Several days?
20 A Uh-huh.
21 Q What did they say about that?
22 A We didn't make any decisions in that meeting.
23 Ernie said he'd get back to me as to what he wanted me
24 to do.
25 Q Okay. Was there any other options that were
93
1 discussed in this particular meeting?
2 A No.
3 Q So nothing was put in your in-basket, I take it,
4 you know, "We had at this meeting a discussion of this
5 particular problem." You told them, "Well, if we wanted
6 to increase the ceiling, what we have to do is do a
7 salary survey." And Ernie says, "We'll get back to
8 you"?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did he ever get back to you?
11 A He did not, no.
12 Q Anybody else?
13 A I met, again, with Ken Couch. Probably that
14 afternoon or the next morning, he and I met again to
15 talk about the classification, the salary. At this
16 point I was aware that Jim Duncan had moved in to the
17 special consultant classification. Ken and I briefly
18 talked about David Wolf in that kind of classification,
19 and I said no because he responded to a recruitment for
20 a labor negotiator. So, again, this was just kind of a
21 brainstorming session around what was some
22 possibilities. Again, same possibilities.
23 Probably the next day, Ken Couch came back to me
24 and said that he wanted to create or establish a
25 classification known as the senior labor relations
94
1 negotiator. And I -- again, we repeated many of the
2 things that we talked about before. He told me this is
3 what Ernie wanted to do. I said, "Well, we can start
4 working on that if that's what Ernie instructed me to
5 do." We then -- Ken scheduled a meeting between Ken,
6 Bill Casley (phonetic), who's deputy chief counsel -- I
7 may have the title incorrect there -- for the
8 Administrative Office of the Courts and myself to talk
9 about creating that classification, you know, repeating
10 a lot of issues around the salaries. It was just
11 determined that we were going to create a new
12 classification.
13 Q Okay. This is probably pretty close to a good
14 time to break for lunch. Before we do, I want to, at
15 least in my own mind, getting the meetings here.
16 So we had our managers meeting. That same
17 afternoon, you had a meeting with Couch where you go
18 over possibilities. The next day, you have another
19 meeting with Couch.
20 A Ken came back to me the next day and said that
21 Ernie wanted me to establish a new classification, yes.
22 Q And then -- okay. And then there was another
23 meeting between you and Couch and Casley?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Any other meetings? I'm going to go through
95
1 these meetings, you know, in some greater detail. I'm
2 getting a list as best I can right now.
3 Any other meetings of significance up to the
4 creation of this senior labor relations negotiator
5 position you can recall?
6 A After the meeting with Casley and Couch, I met
7 with the classification analyst, Ducle, D-u-c-l-e. And
8 he and I also met separately with Bill Casley.
9 Q "Separately" meaning?
10 A Just the two of us met.
11 Q So a three-way meeting?
12 A Yes. Yeah, the three of us met with Casley.
13 All of this was in the same time span of three or four
14 days.
15 Q And are we talking March time frame?
16 A You know, I believe so. But, again --
17 Q Fair enough.
18 A -- I've just kind of forgotten.
19 Q Okay. Any other meetings?
20 A No.
21 MR. CLAPP: All right. This is probably a good
22 time to take a quick break or a longer break if you'd
23 like.
24 Let's go off the record.
25 (Luncheon recess.)
96
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q You know, what I think I'll do is I have a bunch
3 of documents, which I suspect you don't know anything
4 about, but you may. So it might go real fast. If you
5 have something you can tell me, that's great. If you
6 can't, that's fine, as well.
7 MR. EMERT: Remember, you are under oath so you
8 don't need to speculate. If you know it, say it. If
9 you don't -- with some people, "I don't know" is a hard
10 answer to give.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q At any rate, Exhibit 3 is, I believe, a PAR
13 for -- well, that's what I think it is. We'll talk
14 about it more.
15 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 was marked
16 for identification.)
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is a Personnel Action
18 Request form.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q Okay. And let me just go -- so I understand the
21 form itself, let me go through, you know, some of the
22 boxes and see what it is. I'll ask you really obvious
23 questions.
24 The top left it says, "Action Effective Date."
25 My presumption is whatever the heck this is doing is
97
1 doing it as of March 1st, 2008?
2 A Yes.
3 Q It says "Contact Person: Khin Chin." A, what
4 does a contact person mean and, B, who is Khin Chin?
5 A Khin Chin worked in the human resource office.
6 I am sorry; I can't remember his classification. He was
7 sort of the budget person. He worked --
8 Q Okay.
9 A -- directly for me.
10 And the contact person is who -- this document
11 is going to be routed to a number of places. And as it
12 moves through, if there's questions regarding it, this
13 is the person you call back, and it could be a variety
14 of people.
15 Q So he basically coordinates getting all the
16 signatures?
17 A Yes. Yes.
18 Q Upper left, it talks about "Action Requested,
19 check all boxes that apply."
20 In this particular one, it says "Recruitment,"
21 "Job Reclass" or "Recruitment/Hire" and "Reports to
22 Change." Let's take those.
23 Recruitment means that a position is being --
24 excuse me -- a position is being recruited; is that
25 right?
98
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. Would we know whether this was a vacant
3 position or a newly created position?
4 MR. EMERT: Based upon this form?
5 MR. CLAPP: Yeah.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q Would the form tell us that?
8 A Yes. By looking at the form, I can tell you
9 it's an existing position.
10 Q And that's because over on the right it has the
11 column that says "Existing Information"?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So that would mean that the existing information
14 was for the old position -- excuse me; I'm not sure if
15 it was the old position.
16 A The existing position.
17 Q The existing position. Okay.
18 And then the box where it says -- there's
19 several job reclass boxes. And my guess is those mean
20 that the position jobs and job positions are the same
21 thing so that the position is being reclassed into a
22 different classification.
23 A The box that says "Job Reclass" -- the one
24 that's marked, right, "Job Reclass for
25 Recruitment/Hire."
99
1 Q Let me step back because that's not quite my
2 question.
3 A Okay.
4 Q There's four boxes for a job reclass. Forget
5 the ones that are checked. I'm trying to get the
6 overall concept. If -- we have one of the boxes saying
7 job reclassification, right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q That means that the position is being
10 reclassified?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Okay. And then there's various reasons why it
13 might be reclassified: administrative change, a class
14 review, a recruitement/hire, change in assignment?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. So when it says "Job Reclass for
17 Recruitment/Hire," what does that mean?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm going to object as vague and
19 ambiguous. Are you asking her in general what that
20 means when it -- that box is checked off, or were you
21 asking specifically about this reclassification that's
22 reflected on this document?
23 And to the extent it's the latter, I object that
24 it lacks foundation that she had any knowledge about
25 this or was involved at all in this particular job
100
1 reclass evidenced by Exhibit 3. So the basic objection
2 is vague and ambiguous.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q You can go ahead.
5 Do you know what this means?
6 A This box that's checked "Job Reclass for
7 Recruitment and Hire," leads me, as the person looking
8 at this form, to look at the next box, A -- I'm sorry--
9 B. And I would look at the classification code and
10 title and I would see that it's being reclassified from
11 a labor relations negotiator to a senior labor and
12 employee relations officer.
13 Q Gotcha. Okay. And then the bottom box where it
14 says "Reports to Change," would that reflect the fact
15 that if we look under B where it says "Reports to," the
16 numbers are changed?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. So basically if I understand it, then, B
19 is explaining box A?
20 A Yes.
21 Q On this particular one, let's go through B,
22 then. So we've got "Position Information." We have
23 "PeopleSoft Position Number." So the existing position
24 was the 1793 and it's still going to be 1793; is that
25 right?
101
1 A Yes.
2 Q What is a PeopleSoft position number?
3 A PeopleSoft is a human resource tracking tool,
4 some software program that the AOC uses to track
5 positions.
6 Q Okay. Does every position -- I'll take that
7 back.
8 A classification -- let's talk about Human
9 Resource Analyst I or, you know, the beginning resource
10 analyst. That's a classification. And there might be
11 several positions within that classification, right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Would each position have its own separate
14 number?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So if we had five of them, there would be five
17 different numbers?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. So each position will have a unique
20 number, then?
21 A Yes.
22 Q All right. So this particular position is
23 number 1793 in your PeopleSoft software program?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And the "Agency Unit Number" is this number
102
1 156651, is that AOC?
2 A The 156 tells me it is the AOC, and the 56 --
3 MR. EMERT: 651.
4 THE WITNESS: 651 -- I only have one good eye to
5 see with -- tells me the unit. In this case, that would
6 be the HR number.
7 BY MR. CLAPP:
8 Q So this tell us it's HR in the AOC?
9 A Yes.
10 Q "Classification Code/Title" and there's a number
11 and then a title. So I presume that the code 32 -- 3732
12 for the existing position is going to be changed to
13 3820. And the title labor relations negotiator is going
14 to be changed to senior labor and employee relations
15 officer?
16 A Yes.
17 Q The classification code, my guess is that each
18 classification will have its own number?
19 A Yes.
20 MR. EMERT: Is that a question?
21 MR. CLAPP: It is a question.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q So the labor -- for example, here we know that
24 there was at least, when you came on board, two labor
25 relations negotiators. So their classification would be
103
1 3732 but each one, Paula and Jim Duncan, would have a
2 different position number?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. Can we tell the -- for this -- this
5 doesn't have anything to do with who's filling this
6 particular position; is that right?
7 A Correct.
8 Q So this is simply taking a position that was a
9 labor relations negotiator position and changing that
10 particular position to a senior labor and employee
11 relations officer?
12 A Yes.
13 Q "Position Time Base" is full time, right? "FT"
14 means full time?
15 A Yeah. Yes.
16 Q "Reports to," I presume -- my guess is, is that
17 1313, for example, is a position number under
18 PeopleSoft?
19 MR. EMERT: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
20 I'm just trying to get a clear record here. You're
21 saying I think this is. Can you frame it in the way of
22 a question so the record is clear about what she is
23 answering?
24 MR. CLAPP: That's fair enough.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
104
1 Q 1313 would be PeopleSoft position number?
2 A Yes.
3 Q As well as 1452?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Do you know who 1313 would be and 1452 would be?
6 A No.
7 Q All I have to do is look up PeopleSoft and go
8 under the PeopleSoft program, and it would tell me,
9 right?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Actually, is that true? Would it tell me the
12 position or the person or both?
13 A It would tell you the person that's in that
14 position.
15 Q If somebody -- for example, here's my curiosity.
16 Let's take a widget maker who is 1457 or something. If
17 that person left and was replaced, would that still be
18 1457?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Is there a -- it's the position that has a
21 number, not the employee?
22 A Well, the employee that sits in that position --
23 Q Has its own number?
24 A -- has that number.
25 Q Does the employee have a separate number for a
105
1 particular employee?
2 A No.
3 Q Okay. So the -- is the position that has a
4 number and somebody, whoever fills it, will have that
5 position number?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. And I'm sure "Location" is San Francisco?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And below that it has "Employee Information."
10 And what I can glean from this is that this particular
11 position is currently unfilled?
12 MR. EMERT: Is that a question?
13 MR. CLAPP: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 MR. EMERT: The court reporter can pick up your
16 intonation that frames it as a question.
17 MR. CLAPP: I understand.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q Let's go to box C. It talks about "Funding for
20 Requested Action."
21 Can you give me an overview of what this box is
22 all about.
23 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object that it's vague and
24 ambiguous with respect to what you're asking in general
25 or more specific with respect to this document. If it's
106
1 the lateral, I'll object that it lacks foundation. It
2 calls for speculation. It has not been established that
3 she had anything to do with the preparation of this
4 document.
5 BY MR. CLAPP:
6 Q I'm asking in general. Right now I'm trying to
7 find out about Personnel Action Request.
8 A This document where it says estimated cost -- or
9 "Estimated Ongoing Costs," the 7,126 --
10 Q Uh-huh.
11 A -- is the monthly salary or the midrange of
12 salary. And the 21,628 would be the annualized cost.
13 Remember, we're just dealing with the, what we call,
14 budget year or fiscal year.
15 So from filling -- if it were filled on March
16 1st, 2008, it would cost $21,628 through June 3rd.
17 Q Okay. And then the D box has to do with the
18 necessary approvals?
19 A Yes.
20 Q On this -- first of all, let's ask that
21 question.
22 Do you happen to know anything about this
23 particular one?
24 A Well, in looking at it, I can look at it and say
25 who signed off on it.
107
1 Q Have you seen this before?
2 A This particular --
3 Q Yeah.
4 A -- document?
5 I don't think so, no.
6 Q Would that be something that would have to go
7 through you, for example?
8 A It would have gone through me or the analyst
9 that worked through me because it was a
10 reclassification.
11 Q Okay. So if there was -- and the analyst who
12 would have been --
13 A Ducle.
14 Q That would be Ducle?
15 A Yeah. I'm thinking he was hired by February,
16 yes.
17 Q Okay. Let's just go and see if we can
18 understand who signed it.
19 Do you see -- do you recognize the signature
20 for "Unit Manager"?
21 A That would have been Ken Couch.
22 Q Next is -- "Division Director" is Jeanie
23 Cayhill?
24 A Yes.
25 Q What division would she be the director of?
108
1 A She wasn't. She was deputy director of human
2 resources.
3 Q So she was right under Ernie?
4 A Yes.
5 Q "Office of Budget Management" which says
6 "Signature Attached." We don't have here.
7 Do you know who that would have been?
8 A It would have been Stephen Nash, but I don't
9 know who it is.
10 Q "Executive Office."
11 Do you recognize that signature?
12 A No, I don't.
13 Q "Human Resources"?
14 A That would have been Ernie.
15 Q So that's Ernie's signature?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. And just at the very bottom, "Requisition
18 Number," et cetera, et cetera, that's all blank.
19 Do you know what that's for?
20 A This document would have been given to the
21 recruiters, and they had a tracking system. And that's
22 called the "Requisition Number" so they can track the
23 recruitment. Each recruitment is given an ID. And as
24 the applications are received for this position during
25 the recruitment process, the recruiter would check that
109
1 the minimum qualifications have been met.
2 Q That's the MQs?
3 A Yes. And the 607 -- this is a form number --
4 actually, the 607 is a State Controller's document
5 because the AOC is paid through the State Controller's
6 system. The 607 is a form number that's ultimately
7 filled in there.
8 MR. EMERT: Let the record reflect the witness
9 is pointing to a section of the document when she's
10 talking about the 607 number.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q Okay. Let's get back -- now let's get specific
13 to this particular one.
14 This is a reclassification -- so we have an
15 existing position of labor relations negotiator, which
16 we want to recruit for and reclassify, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And at least for the reclassification part, you
19 would be involved?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Misstates her
21 testimony. She said either herself or an analyst under
22 her.
23 BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q Well, under your authority, right?
25 A Yes.
110
1 Q Did you have to -- what would you or your
2 analyst have to do with respect to this particular PAR?
3 A I would -- either I or Ducle would have looked
4 at the justification for reclassing from a labor
5 relations negotiator to a senior labor and employees
6 relations officer.
7 Q I see. So that justification would have come
8 from Couch?
9 A It would -- Ken Couch -- he may have assigned it
10 to Khin Chin, but, yes, it would have come from Ken
11 Couch.
12 Q If I recall correctly, it was the manager who
13 has to do the justification?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And that would have been Couch?
16 A Yes.
17 Q When we're talking about justifications, what
18 are we talking about? Are we talking about a one-page
19 document. How thick, I guess, are we talking about?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object that it's compound.
21 Vague and ambiguous as to what positions has been
22 discussed.
23 MR. CLAPP: Just in general.
24 MR. FELLERMAN: And I'll object that it's
25 compound.
111
1 MR. CLAPP: Fair enough.
2 Go ahead.
3 THE WITNESS: As long as it's long or short as
4 needed to be to justify our classification. What was
5 the reason to reclassify? If you can answer that, you
6 could do it in a paragraph or longer.
7 BY MR. CLAPP:
8 Q So this justification -- a justification memo,
9 is that what it would be?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And it would go to either you or Ducle.
12 Would you have to sign off on it yourself or
13 would Ducle have that authority?
14 A I would have signed off on it. He would have
15 brought it to me.
16 Q Would you just -- how would you indicate your
17 approval or disapproval for that matter?
18 A If I had approved it, I would have signed it.
19 And on the very bottom margin --
20 MR. EMERT: Witness is indicating the bottom of
21 the document, Exhibit 3.
22 THE WITNESS: There wasn't a place for me. I
23 would have just signed off on the bottom margin.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q I see. And you would have just said "Okay" or
112
1 something like that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And dated it, I presume?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. So when you had the justification memo,
6 would you keep a copy of that?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And where would you put the justification memo?
9 A We had -- in classification/compensation, we had
10 a tracking system that we created. And we would have
11 scanned this document.
12 Q Scanned being the PAR?
13 A And the justification. Everything attached to
14 it, and we would have stored it electronically under
15 this position number.
16 Q Was there some period of time in which you would
17 keep these? Was there any document destruction policy
18 or anything like that?
19 A This would have been an electronic document.
20 There was no retention schedule. We would have kept it
21 forever.
22 Q Okay. You talked about attachments.
23 Are there particular attachments to PARs?
24 MR. EMERT: When you say "attachments," are you
25 talking about the signatures in specifics?
113
1 MR. CLAPP: No. No, I wasn't. I thought I
2 heard her say that she was detailing the documents that
3 would be scanned in.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q And, I think, I may be wrong. You talked about
6 the justification. I think you said the PAR and the
7 attachments.
8 A This is the PAR; this is the Personnel Action
9 Request. Attached to this would have been a
10 justification memo.
11 Q Okay.
12 A And because there's a reporting change, there
13 would have been an org chart showing the reporting
14 relationships. And in this case because it says "Office
15 of Budget Manager, Signature Attached," there was
16 something attached that the budget people signed off on.
17 Q Gotcha. So all that would have been scanned in?
18 A Yes.
19 Q How about if -- was there ever a time when you
20 refused to okay a justification memo?
21 A During my employment, was there a time that I --
22 Q Yes.
23 A Yes.
24 Q Would you, likewise, indicate on the PARs form
25 that it's not approved?
114
1 A Yes.
2 Q And then would you file it the same way?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Looking at this particular one, do you know if
5 you ever approved or disapproved this particular
6 Personnel Action Request or reclassification request?
7 A My signature is not there. I never saw this
8 document.
9 Q Do you know where -- you would have it in your
10 tracking system if, you know -- typically if you got a
11 PAR with a reclassification request, you'd put it in
12 your classification system, tracking system.
13 Do you know if there's any other systems that
14 would maintain the PAR?
15 A When the position is filled, the completed PAR
16 and the supporting documentation, resume, whatever else
17 would be, would be given to the payroll staff, Evelyn
18 Ramos or her staff. And this would go to the personnel
19 file for the employee hired.
20 Q Would it be -- was this electronically?
21 A No, this is hard copy.
22 Q Hard copy. I'm so old-fashioned. You'd think
23 by now we all figure out what's electronic. Everything
24 in my mind is hard copy.
25 Okay. So the physical pieces of paper would be
115
1 under the realm of Evelyn Ramos?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you know if there's any retention policy for
4 the hard copies?
5 A I believe the AOC uses the same retention policy
6 for the Executive Branch and this is 25 years.
7 Q Was the retention policy reduced to writing?
8 A There should be a records retention schedule.
9 Q Okay.
10 A Evelyn Ramos maintained that.
11 Q Okay. All right. Let's -- that took longer
12 than I thought.
13 Here I have something that's called "Request to
14 Fill." I don't know if you have any idea what this is.
15 If you do, that would be great.
16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 was marked
17 for identification.)
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q Look it over, but I'm going to ask basically, to
20 begin with, two questions: One, if you could tell me
21 about the form; and, two, if you can, if you can tell me
22 anything about this particular one?
23 A This form is completed by the recruitment
24 analyst, whoever did the recruitment process. In this
25 case it was Laura Pellegrini.
116
1 Q It was somebody who reported to Felicia?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. And do you know what the purpose of this
4 form is?
5 A It's the ultimate sign-off to hire David Wolf.
6 Q Okay. So, again, to get to the form, typically,
7 AOC was going to hire somebody. You'd have a request to
8 fill. It would be signed by the appropriate hiring
9 manager; is that safe to say?
10 A No. This is signed by -- this is Ernie. This
11 one is for justification for hire above the minimum
12 but...
13 Q I don't mean to interrupt.
14 A Okay.
15 Q But I think that's not true, and I'll tell you
16 why because the way I look at the salary range, he's
17 being hired for the minimum for this.
18 MR. EMERT: The witness is simply reading the
19 document, Counsel.
20 MR. CLAPP: Okay. I don't mean to interrupt.
21 Go ahead.
22 THE WITNESS: I've lost track of what the
23 question is.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q Me too, and that's completely my fault. So
117
1 let's step back. Let's talk about the form itself.
2 Who would be the one who would sign the form?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Again, I'm going to object lacks
4 foundation that she's involved in the preparation of
5 these forms.
6 MR. EMERT: Do you have knowledge of who'd
7 usually sign this form in the work that you did at AOC?
8 THE WITNESS: Unless it was hiring above the
9 minimum, it was just completed by the analyst, in this
10 case Laura. That was it.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q Do you recognize this particular signature?
13 A Ernie's.
14 Q This is Ernie's signature?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. Going down on some of these things, it
17 says there's a requisition number and a PeopleSoft
18 number.
19 Did the requisition -- every time there was a
20 requisition, would that have a tracking number?
21 A This requisition number would tie back to the
22 Personnel Action Request where there is a place for the
23 requisition number, yes. Every recruitment had a
24 requisition number.
25 MR. EMERT: Witness is indicating at the bottom
118
1 of Exhibit 3, "Requisition Number."
2 MR. CLAPP: I'm missing it.
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Bottom portion, bottom left
4 portion where it says "Requisition Number."
5 BY MR. CLAPP:
6 Q I see. That's not filled in?
7 A Right. Right.
8 Q I gotcha. Okay. I think I'm seeing blah, blah,
9 blah, blah.
10 MR. EMERT: Is that a direct quote, Counsel?
11 MR. CLAPP: I sure the heck hope not. One of
12 the bad things about our jobs, we then read what we
13 speak, and it's unbelievably embarrassing how badly you
14 speak.
15 Okay. That's all I want from this.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q Let me show you what I think is a class spec,
18 but I don't know. I think it's a class spec for a
19 senior labor and employee relations officer.
20 MR. CLAPP: Our number is?
21 THE REPORTER: 5.
22 MR. CLAPP: 5.
23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 was marked
24 for identification.)
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
119
1 Q Am I correct?
2 A Yes, this is classification specification.
3 Q Okay. So this would have been something that
4 was prepared -- this would have been prepared in
5 February of 2007; is that right?
6 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation. Lacks
7 foundation.
8 MR. EMERT: Is there anything in this document
9 that indicates to you a preparation date?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. February 2007, top right.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q So this would have been prepared by your, what,
13 predecessor?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Who is that, by the way?
16 A Roland Nelson.
17 Q Okay. Let me show you something I don't have
18 the slightest idea if you've ever seen before.
19 It says -- at least at the start it says it's a
20 "Job Description."
21 MR. CLAPP: Number 6.
22 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 was marked
23 for identification.)
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q My first question is, have you ever seen this
120
1 before? My second one is, whether you have or not, do
2 you know what this is?
3 A Well --
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
5 MR. EMERT: Which question do you want her to
6 answer before?
7 MR. CLAPP: The first one.
8 MR. EMERT: Have you seen this specific document
9 before?
10 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I've seen this
11 particular document.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q Okay. Do you know -- have you seen this kind of
14 form before?
15 A Yes.
16 Q What is this?
17 A It's a job description.
18 Q Okay. What's the difference between a job
19 description and a class spec?
20 A The class spec is a broad definition of what an
21 entire classification can do. Again, an HR analyst can
22 do a number of different things. Each position, though,
23 needs to have a job description describing what that
24 person does in that job.
25 Q It's starting to become clear. That's what you
121
1 were telling me beforehand that I didn't get.
2 Okay. So does every job -- does every position
3 have a job description?
4 MR. CLAPP: Calls for speculation.
5 MR. EMERT: Asked and answered. She earlier
6 said that very few at AOC have job descriptions.
7 BY MR. CLAPP:
8 Q Is that right?
9 A Correct.
10 MR. EMERT: Is that right what I said or --
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q Fair enough.
13 So a few jobs have job descriptions. Why is it
14 that some have job descriptions and some don't?
15 MR. EMERT: If you know, you can answer the
16 question.
17 THE WITNESS: The AOC had, for a number of
18 years, not prepared job descriptions. And as a
19 classification manager, I just felt compelled to
20 implement a job description for every single position
21 that we were recruiting for.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q I see. Actually, I may not see.
24 When you came on board -- when you came on
25 board, did any jobs have job descriptions?
122
1 A Not that I'm aware of.
2 Q So this is an initiative of yours?
3 A Yes.
4 Q The initiative is, at least for those that we're
5 recruiting for, we should have a job description?
6 A As a starting -- yes.
7 Q When did you -- when did you create this
8 initiative?
9 A I started asking for job descriptions early on
10 in my employment, within the first few weeks. I was
11 involved in hiring a person. We didn't have a job
12 description, and we wrote one. That's when it started.
13 And I gradually implemented that as I moved...
14 Q Okay. So who would be responsible for creating
15 a -- here I am. I want to fill a position.
16 Who was responsible for creating the job
17 descriptions?
18 MR. EMERT: You mean in general or this
19 particular one?
20 MR. CLAPP: Good point. I'll step back. He's
21 making good points.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q During your basically year there, you made this
24 demand that people start creating job descriptions for
25 positions that you're filling. I'm just asking, who
123
1 would be creating the job description?
2 A Writing the job description would be supervisory
3 manager.
4 Q Okay. And it looks to me like this job
5 description was on a form; is that correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Did you create the form?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Was the job description, when it was created,
10 then, retained in that tracking system you talked about,
11 at least your tracking system?
12 MR. EMERT: You mean the tracking system she
13 referred to, the PARs?
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q The tracking system that I was referring to was
16 the one for compensation and classification.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. On the first page here -- first of all,
19 let me go to this: Have you seen this particular job
20 description before?
21 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
22 MR. CLAPP: Did she? I can't remember.
23 THE WITNESS: I must add, I don't recall. I
24 looked at a lot of them.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
124
1 Q It would be surprising if you recall all of them
2 from a year ago.
3 At the bottom, we have a drive designation,
4 "G:\HR\LR," et cetera.
5 Do you understand the pathway?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Can you decipher it for me?
8 A The G drive is a general IT -- the G drive was
9 the drive assigned to HR. It's in the folder known
10 under human resources labor relations/employer relations
11 folder. Ken Couch was the owner and then he restored it
12 under a job -- under a file name known as labor
13 relations officer, "04/09/08," and it's a new document.
14 Q You said the G drive is an HR drive. Does that
15 mean that those who were employed in the HR department
16 had access to the G drive?
17 A To the G drive and then each one of these is a
18 subdirectory and there are some -- the access gets more
19 limited as you move along.
20 Q Okay. So if you're in the HR department, you'd
21 have access to at least some parts of the G drive but
22 not all parts of the -- of the G drive?
23 A Right.
24 Q Unless you're probably at the top of the totem
25 pole and you probably have access to everything?
125
1 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q Is that right?
4 A I don't know. I don't know.
5 Q Good enough. On this particular one, when there
6 was a job description, would anybody from your group
7 have to approve it?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Again, it would be either Ducle, I presume, or
10 you?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you ultimately would have to sign off on it?
13 A I would not have signed off on this piece of
14 paper. But in the tracking system, it would have said
15 whether we approved or disapproved.
16 Q Okay. So in the tracking system, how would we
17 find out whether or not you personally -- you approved
18 this particular job description?
19 A In the tracking system, it would include my
20 initials or Ducle's.
21 Q Would that be in some sort of document, like the
22 PARs or something like that?
23 A No.
24 Q Would it be on this piece of paper?
25 A No. We would have scanned this and --
126
1 Q "This" being the job description?
2 A I'm sorry. We would scan the job description
3 in, again, linked it to the tracking system, and I would
4 have put my initials and the date that I approved it or
5 disapproved it. Our initials and the date would be
6 there.
7 Q What document would that be on?
8 A It would be on the tracking system. It's just a
9 column on the tracking system. If you think of an Excel
10 document, it's just a cell in there that would have had
11 my initials on it.
12 Q I see. So this wouldn't be something you'd do
13 by hand?
14 A No.
15 Q This would be something you would do with
16 keystrokes on a computer?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. So if we wanted to find out, for example,
19 whether or not you personally had approved or
20 disapproved this particular job description, the only
21 way we can do that is to go back to your tracking system
22 and look and see whether or not there was an approval
23 from you?
24 A Yes.
25 MR. EMERT: Misstates her testimony. She didn't
127
1 say that would be the only way. That would be one way.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q Would there be another way?
4 A I just don't recall.
5 Q Okay. And I did ask this question. I
6 apologize.
7 Did you say you put the date there, as well?
8 A Yes.
9 Q On the first page, in the next to the last box
10 there, it says "Supervision Exercised."
11 Do you see that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And there's several boxes, four boxes.
14 Well, what does this refer to?
15 MR. EMERT: You mean each of the four boxes?
16 MR. CLAPP: Well, I'm going to ask about each of
17 the four.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q What kind of information are you trying to
20 elicit?
21 A What supervisorial responsibility this job would
22 have.
23 Q Okay. And by "None," I think it's pretty
24 obvious. Whoever this senior labor relations or --
25 excuse me -- take it all back.
128
1 If somebody checked "None," that means that
2 whatever the job was, they wouldn't supervise -- have
3 any supervisorial authority over anybody?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Okay. And then there's levels of supervisorial
6 authorities progressively higher after that; is that
7 right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. Why don't you tell me what a lead person
10 means and supervisor means and a manager in terms of the
11 degree of supervision exercised.
12 A It is progressive. The lead person could -- has
13 higher level of responsibility, could lead special
14 projects, provide direction to staff. A supervisor
15 would have direct supervising responsibility, approved
16 time sheets, performance reports, approve vacations,
17 actually have the direct responsibility of the employee
18 -- of an employee. The manager, again, is just the next
19 level up and has a broader scope of responsibilities.
20 Q Would the lead person hire and fire?
21 A The lead person?
22 Q Yeah.
23 A No.
24 Q How about discipline?
25 A No.
129
1 Q How about the supervisor?
2 MR. EMERT: How about --
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
4 MR. EMERT: When you say "how about," you mean
5 the --
6 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
7 MR. EMERT: -- question you asked previously?
8 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q Could the supervisor hire and fire?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And then, I presume, other forms of discipline,
13 as well?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Would the manager -- a manager -- I'll take that
16 back.
17 And I presume the manager would do, as well; is
18 that right?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Would a supervisor have more than one level of
21 employees reporting to them?
22 A Different classifications, for instance?
23 Q No. I mean -- I presume a manager has, you
24 know, some supervisors and then some employees, you
25 know, below that. So there's three rungs.
130
1 I'm just curious whether or not that's how it's
2 structured where a supervisor has one rung of employees
3 reporting to them?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And a manager could have multiple layers?
6 A The manager could have multiple supervisors
7 report to them.
8 MR. CLAPP: Let me show you, as Exhibit 7,
9 another job description. This one appears to be for a
10 labor relations negotiator.
11 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 was marked
12 for identification.)
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q And my possible only question will be, have you
15 ever seen this before?
16 A I don't recall.
17 Q When they recruited for -- they recruited for a
18 labor relations negotiator position in, what, January,
19 February of '08; is that right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Did anybody create a job description for a labor
22 relations negotiator position in connection with that
23 recruitment?
24 A I don't know.
25 Q Okay. Let me give you another document. It
131
1 says "Employment Opportunity for a Senior Labor and
2 Employee Relations Officer."
3 MR. CLAPP: And my number is --
4 THE REPORTER: 8.
5 MR. CLAPP: 8.
6 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8 was marked
7 for identification.)
8 THE WITNESS: Okay.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q Have you seen this before?
11 A I don't recall.
12 Q Do you know what this is?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What is this?
15 A It's an -- I would call it an opportunity
16 bulletin. It's an -- electronically posted on an AOC's
17 vacancy posting list. You click on that link, and you
18 get this document that they're advertising for or
19 recruiting for.
20 Q So my guess is this is part of the recruitment
21 process; is that right?
22 A Yes. Yes.
23 Q So the person to talk to about this would be
24 Felicia, right?
25 A Yes.
132
1 Q So this would be a job for a Job Requisition
2 3238; is that how it works?
3 A Yes.
4 Q So if I was at the AOC, for example, whenever
5 time this was current, I could go on to, what, the
6 website and look at vacancies and see that there's a
7 Requisition 3238 for a senior labor and employee
8 relations officer?
9 A I'm not exactly for sure if you would see the
10 requisition number, but you could see that they were
11 recruiting for a senior labor and employee relations
12 officer, yes.
13 MR. EMERT: The witness has testified she hasn't
14 seen this before so you're talking generally?
15 MR. CLAPP: I am indeed.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q Do you know if recruitment keeps track of
18 requisitions?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Again, electronically?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Again, it looks like another opportunity
23 bulletin; isn't that what you called it?
24 A Yes. I mean, that's what I called it. It's an
25 opportunity bulletin.
133
1 Q You call it that. That's better than what I
2 call it. This is one for a senior attorney.
3 THE REPORTER: Number 9.
4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9 was marked
5 for identification.)
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q My first question is -- I -- you haven't seen --
8 there's some handwriting on it. You haven't seen the
9 handwriting, have you?
10 A No.
11 Q Let's just leave that out.
12 Other than -- look it over. Have you seen this
13 before?
14 A This particular --
15 Q Yeah.
16 MR. EMERT: Putting aside the handwriting.
17 THE WITNESS: Oh, I have seen an advertisement
18 for a senior attorney, yes. An opportunities bulletin
19 for senior attorney.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q For this particular one?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
23 MR. EMERT: If you could tell by looking at the
24 document. Have you seen this specific document? I'll
25 point your attention -- at the bottom there's a G drive
134
1 designation.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q Let me direct your attention -- the first
4 paragraph it talks about senior attorney for HR labor
5 unit. So it's not just senior attorney. It's somewhere
6 in America, you know. It's a very particular senior
7 attorney job.
8 A Again --
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Hold on. We don't even have a
10 question.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q The question is, have you seen this particular
13 one before?
14 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
15 THE WITNESS: I can't say.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q Okay. At any point, did you recall anybody
18 discussing the recruiting for a senior attorney position
19 in the labor unit?
20 A No.
21 Q In connection with all the discussion with David
22 Wolf, do you recall anybody using -- raising that option
23 that maybe we could hire him as a senior attorney in the
24 labor unit?
25 A No.
135
1 Q How about at any point? Do you recall anybody
2 discussing whether they could hire Scott Gardner as a
3 senior attorney in the labor unit?
4 A No.
5 Q Okay. I got myself off track here. I want to
6 go back to the meetings that I listed just before lunch
7 here.
8 I think you told me everything you had to tell
9 me about the managers meeting. That same day you
10 remember you had a meeting with Ken Couch in the
11 afternoon.
12 Do you recall that meeting?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. Why don't you tell me what the two of
15 guys said?
16 MR. FELLERMAN: She testified it was later that
17 day or the next day.
18 MR. CLAPP: I think it was later that day. It
19 doesn't matter. Whenever it was.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q All I'm curious about is who said what to whom?
22 A Ken and I were continuing this discussion around
23 hiring David Wolf. I was getting clarification as to
24 what they actually had advertised or recruited for
25 because I was not over recruitment so I wasn't tracking
136
1 that on a daily basis. I wanted --
2 Q Can I stop you?
3 A Uh-huh.
4 Q Did you say open recruitment? It was not an
5 open recruitment?
6 A No. I wanted to know more about the
7 recruitment. I just -- again, it was not an area that I
8 had any responsibility for. I didn't really care what
9 they were recruiting for.
10 Q Uh-huh.
11 A But now that there was interest in hiring David
12 Wolf, I wanted to know more or understand exactly what
13 had been posted. If there was a candidate pooled, if
14 they go through an interview process, I wanted to know
15 about the process that they had gone through and find
16 out more about what -- you know, what it is that we were
17 trying to do to hire David Wolf. And if the money -- if
18 the issue was money, why was that? What did we want to
19 do?
20 Q Okay. And how did he respond?
21 A Well, he talked about the recruitment and
22 that -- if I recall correctly, there were two or three
23 candidates, David and maybe two others. He said the two
24 other people did not have the same qualifications as
25 David Wolf, and he wanted to hire David Wolf.
137
1 Q Okay. So you understood that they posted for a
2 labor relations negotiator position?
3 A Yes.
4 Q That Wolf would not take the position that had
5 been offered to him?
6 A That was my understanding.
7 Q Okay. Did they say what was the salary range?
8 A That he was not -- he was not willing to accept
9 the salary range that had been included in the
10 recruitment.
11 Q At any part of the salary range; is that right?
12 A He wanted more than the top.
13 Q All right. At that follow-up meeting, did you
14 have any other discussions about what options they had
15 to try to hire him for more money than the top of the
16 salary range?
17 A We rediscussed -- we went over the same options
18 that we talked about with Jim Duncan.
19 Q Okay.
20 A The labor relations negotiator had a minimum and
21 a maximum salary range. This was not what's called a
22 deep class. A deep class is, you know, like an HR
23 analyst, a senior HR analyst, a supervising HR analyst,
24 for instance. The labor relations negotiator was a
25 one-class series. There was not another classification
138
1 in existence. And we talked -- you know, again, we
2 talked very briefly about a recruitment bonus. Since we
3 didn't have a retention bonus, the thought was maybe
4 there was a way to give a recruitment bonus. And the
5 policies and procedures don't have an allowance for that
6 either.
7 And then we started talking about other
8 classifications. Whatever classification that Scott
9 Gardner was in -- and I just don't remember the
10 classification that he was in -- we talked about that.
11 But that was the description of the work being performed
12 was not really labor negotiations so that classification
13 didn't work. There was a classification that someone
14 named Jason -- and I apologize, I don't remember his
15 last name. Some kind of attorney appeals classification
16 that he was in and that didn't work for. Plus they
17 wanted Dave Wolf to be -- in looking at the
18 classification for a labor relations negotiator is what
19 they wanted Dave Wolf to be, given the work described as
20 a labor relations negotiator.
21 Q Does Jason, the attorney, the appeals
22 attorney -- do you know what unit he was in?
23 A He worked in labor, as well.
24 Q Okay. So at that follow-up meeting later in the
25 afternoon or whatever it was, from the managers meeting,
139
1 how was it left?
2 A I left it with they were going to offer the job
3 to Dave Wolf that he was going to be a labor relations
4 negotiator at the salary range that it had been
5 advertised.
6 Q Okay. Then I believe you told me the next day,
7 something like that, you had another discussion with Ken
8 Couch?
9 A Ken Couch came back into my office. He said
10 that he had met with Ernie Fuentes. Ernie instructed
11 Ken to work with me in establishing a new classification
12 known as senior labor relations negotiator.
13 Q And what did you say about that?
14 A I asked Ken to describe to me what it is that
15 that classification would do that would be significantly
16 different from the labor relations negotiator
17 classification that was in existence.
18 Q And what did he say?
19 A His first response was he really couldn't give
20 me an answer. His answer was, "I really don't have
21 anything different that this person would do." And so
22 we kind of started to brainstorm to try and see if there
23 was something that we could work with that would create
24 another level, another level in that series of
25 negotiators. The problem -- we just couldn't identify
140
1 anything significantly different.
2 (Brief interruption.)
3 MR. CLAPP: I apologize.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q Where I wanted to interrupt was, we're still
6 talking about that one conversation; is that right?
7 A It's the conversation I had with Ken after Ernie
8 had instructed him to work with me in creating a new
9 classification.
10 Q Great. So you were brainstorming, couldn't come
11 up with anything different.
12 What else occurred, if anything, in that
13 conversation?
14 A I went away with nothing more to do. I told Ken
15 he should give it some thought, come back to me in a
16 couple of days when he had an opportunity to really
17 identify what a senior labor relations negotiator would
18 do.
19 Q Okay. All right. Your next conversation was
20 what about this topic?
21 A Oh, you know, the days are sort of faded and
22 fuzzy. But either that same day or within another day,
23 I received a meeting notice. It was set up as an
24 electronic meeting. I was to meet with Ken Couch and
25 Bill Casley to talk about senior labor relation
141
1 negotiator.
2 Q All right. Before we get to that -- and I'll
3 get to that real quickly.
4 Did you have any like E-mail correspondence or
5 anything like that about this with anybody?
6 A No.
7 Q Did you ever have any phone calls with anybody?
8 A No.
9 Q Did you ever contact Ernie saying, "Why are you
10 directing me to create this position?"
11 A I stopped in Ernie's office briefly and said
12 that I had met with Ken. And I was letting him know
13 what our progress was.
14 Q Okay. All right. Let's go to the meeting with
15 Mr. Casley.
16 Where did this occur?
17 A In the conference room in human resources.
18 Q Were there any notes or agendas or anything like
19 that?
20 A There wasn't an agenda, no.
21 Q Did you take any notes?
22 A I'm sure I did.
23 Q How about the other meetings we're talking
24 about, which is, I guess, the one -- you had a couple
25 more with Ken before this and the managers meeting.
142
1 Would you have had notes of any of those?
2 A No.
3 Q All right. So you think you took notes of this
4 meeting with Casley and Couch?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Do you still have those notes?
7 A No.
8 Q What happened to them?
9 A I'm sure I threw them away.
10 Q How long did the meeting last about?
11 A Probably 90 minutes or more.
12 Q Okay. All right. So tell me what happened.
13 Who said what?
14 MR. FELLERMAN: Hold on one second. Can we take
15 a break for a second? I want to talk you, if we could.
16 MR. EMERT: Are you in the middle of a question,
17 Counsel?
18 MR. CLAPP: If you want a break -- in fact, this
19 is a good time to take a break.
20 MR. EMERT: I have 2:30.
21 MR. CLAPP: Sure.
22 (Brief recess.)
23 MR. CLAPP: All right. So we're back on.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q I believe you had a meeting notice and a meeting
143
1 in the conference room with Couch and Casley?
2 A Yes.
3 Q So what happened?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm going to object on the
5 grounds of attorney-client privilege with respect to
6 communications to or from Mr. Casley.
7 MR. EMERT: Mr. Casley is the assistive general
8 counsel at AOC. And I would assert that it is
9 attorney-client privilege where the witness is a current
10 employee. I would instruct you not to answer the
11 question. Because you are no longer an employee, I'm
12 simply requesting that you not answer. The privilege is
13 held by AOC, and we are not waiving in regards to what
14 this third-party witness has to say.
15 BY MR. CLAPP:
16 Q All right. Go ahead and you can give me your
17 answer.
18 A As you see, I'm questioning myself for a moment.
19 Q Sure. Take your time.
20 A I won't answer the question.
21 Q Can you tell me what Mr. Couch said or what you
22 said?
23 MR. FELLERMAN: Again, I'm going to assert the
24 same objection. It's within the context of meeting with
25 counsel. And the conversation, would be our position,
144
1 is covered by attorney-client privilege. We would
2 object to any -- when you asked about what was said at
3 that meeting on the grounds of privilege.
4 MR. EMERT: I would reassert that anything that
5 happens in a meeting when counsel is present is
6 privileged and instruct you accordingly.
7 THE WITNESS: And I would say it was the same
8 discussion I had with Ken Couch on two other occasions.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q Okay. Well, let's make it quick. Let's go on
11 to -- I can't remember.
12 Do we have any other meetings about this similar
13 topic? I can't remember if this was the last one, and I
14 can't read my notes.
15 A Ducle and I also met with Mr. Casley a day or
16 two later.
17 Q What was said at that meeting?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Attorney-client
19 privilege.
20 MR. EMERT: Who was present at that meeting?
21 THE WITNESS: Ken, Bill Casley, Ducle and
22 myself.
23 MR. EMERT: I would instruct the same thing. I
24 didn't hear you mention Mr. Casley.
25 MR. CLAPP: Okay.
145
1 THE WITNESS: And I would say it's a repeat of
2 every other meeting I had.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q Okay. Any other meetings?
5 A We did write a job class specification for a
6 senior labor relations negotiator. I met with Ken Couch
7 on that. I met with Fuentes with that. The
8 classification analyst, her name was Nancy Riddel,
9 R-i-d-d-e-l, I believe. She did a very quick market
10 survey for a compensation analyst. She and I talked
11 about that on several occasions over the next few days.
12 And we finally established a compensation to go along
13 with the senior labor relations negotiator.
14 Q Okay. Why did you create a senior labor
15 relations negotiator class spec?
16 A Because that's what Fuentes instructed me to do.
17 Q Was there any justification memo for that
18 position or that classification?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you tell him that you needed a justification
21 memo?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you tell everybody that you needed a
24 justification memo?
25 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
146
1 MR. CLAPP: The answer was yes?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q Anybody say why they wouldn't do a justification
5 memo?
6 A Ernie said he wouldn't do it.
7 Q Did he say why?
8 A No.
9 Q Okay. My guess is that this is the
10 classification memo you're talking about.
11 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10 was marked
12 for identification.)
13 MR. FELLERMAN: She said classification
14 specification, not classification memo.
15 MR. CLAPP: Thank you. That is exactly right.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q This is the class spec we're talking about?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm sorry. What exhibit are we
19 on now?
20 THE REPORTER: 10.
21 BY MR. CLAPP:
22 Q So this is something that you and Ducle and
23 Nancy Riddle put together?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And this would have been completed in April of
147
1 2008?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you know when you started?
4 A It would have been in March. Maybe late
5 February, early March.
6 Q And how long did it take to put the whole thing
7 together?
8 A About two weeks.
9 Q How did you -- let me take that back.
10 How did you determine what were the duties of
11 this position?
12 A In my conversations with Ken Couch, the -- he
13 told me that the senior labor relations negotiator would
14 serve as a lead and where it has "Class
15 Characteristics," that last sentence, "Incumbent will
16 also act as primary business developer and liaison to
17 trial court management," those are the two functions
18 that were different from the labor relations negotiator.
19 And that's what Ken told me this individual or this
20 classification would do.
21 Q When did he tell you this in the sequence of
22 things?
23 A It came out in all those various discussions.
24 And this is sort of bringing that down into two
25 sentences. In various conversations, this was the theme
148
1 that kept coming up, and we finally got it into two
2 sentences.
3 Q Okay. And the two sentences, can you point me
4 to them?
5 A Under "Class Characteristics" --
6 Q Uh-huh.
7 A -- the -- actually, it's after the semicolon.
8 "This class is distinguished from labor relations
9 negotiator in that the latter provides lead direction
10 and work review to assigned staff." And then "The
11 incumbent will also act as primary business developer
12 and liaison to trial court management." That bit of
13 that paragraph.
14 Q Okay. And do you know what it means to provide
15 lead work review to the staff? How is that different
16 than a labor relations negotiator?
17 A The labor -- the existing labor relations
18 negotiator did not have a lead component to it. It was
19 a one-series class, and it didn't have a lead function.
20 And this, then -- the lead function allows this
21 classification to provide some direction to subordinate
22 staff.
23 Q Did you understand who the subordinate staff
24 would be?
25 A There was only one other person in the labor
149
1 relations negotiation classification.
2 MR. EMERT: In fact, I should object; vague and
3 ambiguous as to time.
4 What time are you talking about when you're
5 asking how many there were?
6 MR. CLAPP: She's creating --
7 MR. EMERT: In April of 2008?
8 MR. CLAPP: Yeah.
9 THE WITNESS: In April of 2008, there was one
10 person in the labor relations negotiator classification.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q Okay. So if I understand it, then, the senior
13 would be the lead over the one labor relations
14 negotiator?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Primary business developer, what does that mean?
17 A I do not know.
18 Q Okay. So if I get it, that's what Ken told you
19 to put in here and you did?
20 A Yes.
21 Q What it means -- you don't know what he's
22 talking about?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Did you ask him?
25 A No.
150
1 Q "...liaison to trial court management in
2 initiating new work," do you know what that means?
3 A The AOC provided services to the trial courts.
4 One of the services was labor negotiation. And labor's
5 function was to have labor negotiators available to the
6 trial courts. And the best way I can describe this is
7 this was to build that business, to get more courts to
8 use the services of the AOC.
9 Q I think I understand. Let me tell you what I
10 think I understand.
11 Not all courts would use the labor negotiators?
12 A Correct.
13 Q And so the idea was to convince more county
14 courts to use labor negotiators?
15 A Correct.
16 Q All right. Any other meetings that you can
17 recall about this particular -- what do we call this,
18 creation of a senior labor relations negotiator
19 classification?
20 A No. No.
21 Q So this is called a classification, right, of a
22 new position?
23 A Classification -- it's just a new
24 classification.
25 Q Let me see if I can figure out the -- you would
151
1 track the paperwork related to this classification in
2 your tracking system?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And that paper would be -- you know, you would
5 have the class spec, right?
6 A This is the class spec.
7 Q You have this class spec.
8 What other documents would be involved in that?
9 A The supporting documentation of the salary
10 survey.
11 Q Salary survey. Would this have -- would this
12 new classification have what is some kind of a
13 classification number or something like that?
14 A Yes. Uh-huh. The "Class Code" at the top of
15 this says "3859."
16 Q I see.
17 A That's a new number.
18 Q I see. So this particular classification,
19 senior labor relations negotiator as Class Code 3859, if
20 I went to your tracking software, I can punch in Class
21 Code 3859 and it would find everything related to the
22 creation of this classification?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Which would be at least this class spec and the
25 salary survey?
152
1 A Yes.
2 Q Anything else you can think of?
3 A That's all that would be there.
4 Q Would there be things somewhere else?
5 A No. That's all there would be -- on this,
6 that's all there would be.
7 Q Period?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. While we're at it, let's talk about the
10 labor relations negotiator --
11 MR. CLAPP: I'm on 11?
12 THE REPORTER: Yes.
13 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11 was marked
14 for identification.)
15 MR. CLAPP: While I'm at it, I'll hand you
16 another one, which is 12.
17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 12 was marked
18 for identification.)
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q You're familiar with both of these?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And my guess is that the labor relations
23 negotiator, Number 11, is the class spec for labor
24 relations negotiator at the time you came on board. And
25 12 is how it was then revised by you in April of 2008?
153
1 A Yes.
2 MR. EMERT: This would be my last objection of
3 how you're phrasing your question. From here forward,
4 when you say it's your best guess, her answer is yes or
5 no is not as to what your guess is, but as to the truth
6 as to what you actually say?
7 MR. CLAPP: Whatever.
8 BY MR. CLAPP:
9 Q Okay. Let's talk about 12.
10 Why did you revise the labor relations
11 negotiator position in April of 2008.
12 A If you go back to 11, under "Class
13 Characteristics," the beginning sentence there says
14 "Labor relations negotiator is a single-level
15 professional classification." When we establish the
16 senior labor relations negotiator, then it is no longer
17 a single-level professional classification. It is,
18 then, a professional classification.
19 Q So now it's a series?
20 A It's a series.
21 Q We have the negotiator and the senior
22 negotiator?
23 A Yes.
24 Q So it was part and parcel with the
25 reclassification of the senior or the creation of the
154
1 class spec for a senior labor relations negotiator
2 position?
3 A Yes.
4 Q So if we went to your tracking code, we could go
5 and put in 3732; we would find the labor relations
6 negotiator class spec, that's number 11, and some kind
7 of a survey, salary survey, for that?
8 A No.
9 Q Oh, we wouldn't?
10 A For --
11 Q I'm sorry. The one that was back in 2005.
12 A We didn't -- when this class spec was amended in
13 April of 2008, we did not change the salary.
14 Q There's no salary survey at that time?
15 A Right. Right.
16 Q I'm going back. And, you know, I presume that
17 this position was created somewhere, like, May 2005; is
18 that the correct way to read this, Number 11?
19 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was created
21 then. It was in existence in May of 2005.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q All I'm trying to do is figure out what I --
24 what would be in the tracking, you know, survey. If I
25 looked under Class Code 3732 would be Exhibit 11,
155
1 correct?
2 A No. The tracking system was established with
3 me.
4 Q So if something had been created before then, we
5 wouldn't have this class spec in your tracking system?
6 A No, you wouldn't.
7 Q All right. So what would -- if we punched in
8 3732, here's what we would find. We would find Exhibit
9 12?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And that's it?
12 A Yes.
13 Q There wouldn't be any salary survey because you
14 didn't do a salary survey at that time?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Would Exhibit 11, the prior class spec for labor
17 relations negotiator, would that have been kept in some
18 other fashion other than in your tracking system?
19 A These are all housed electronically. It was not
20 a process for maintaining multiple revisions. So if a
21 class had been changed several times over a number of
22 years, couldn't -- at least I couldn't in the time I was
23 there ever go back to what the initial classification
24 said. So I didn't know what it changed over the number
25 of years.
156
1 Q So all you could find was the latest revision?
2 A Correct. Uh-huh.
3 Q What about salary surveys?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
5 THE WITNESS: Salary surveys, there had been a
6 number of analysts doing that over a number of years.
7 Some maintained good hard copies and some didn't. So I
8 don't know how many are still in existence.
9 MR. CLAPP: Okay. Continuing with my paperwork,
10 Number 13. This seems to be something signed by the
11 Chief Justice.
12 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13 was marked
13 for identification.)
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q Do you know what this is?
16 A Yes.
17 Q What is this?
18 A It's a memo from the Chief Justice to the State
19 Controller establishing a classification.
20 Q Okay. So this is establishing the senior labor
21 relations negotiator position that you created a class
22 spec for?
23 A Yes.
24 Q I want to see if I can understand what, if any,
25 paperwork there would be in between your class spec and
157
1 Justice George.
2 Once you create a class spec, what's the next
3 step in the process to get it approved?
4 A So using the senior labor relations negotiator
5 as an example --
6 MR. EMERT: That's Exhibit 10, she's talking
7 about.
8 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 10, this classification,
9 with a memo and the memo would have been from Ernie
10 Fuentes to Bill Vickrey articulating the need for a
11 senior labor relations negotiator.
12 In that same package, there would be a memo from
13 Bill Vickrey to the Chief Justice repeating in many ways
14 what the memo from Ernie to Bill said. Then those class
15 specs, the memo from Ernie to Bill, the memo from Bill
16 to the Chief Justice would all go to the Chief Justice.
17 And this would cover it for him to sign off on the
18 original.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q Sign off on the original is what you're talking
21 about, Exhibit 13?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Do you know what would happen to these memos,
24 the ones from Ernie and the ones from Bill?
25 A They should be in the personnel file of the
158
1 person that we hired. So in this case, they could be or
2 should be in Dave Wolf's. If it's not there, Evelyn
3 Ramos, as the supervisor of the payroll system, would
4 file them in her own hard file somewhere. But Evelyn
5 would have kept it.
6 Q Okay. Let me show you my next exhibit, which I
7 think is 14.
8 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 14 was marked
9 for identification.)
10 BY MR. CLAPP:
11 Q This is another PAR.
12 Have you seen this before?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Can you tell me what this is?
15 A It's PAR, Personnel Action Request.
16 Q And what's occurring in this particular
17 Personnel Action Request?
18 A It's --
19 MR. FELLERMAN: Object that it's vague.
20 MR. EMERT: If you understand the question, go
21 ahead and answer as to what you see in the document.
22 THE WITNESS: It was reclassifying David Wolf
23 from a special consultant to a senior labor relations
24 negotiator.
25 BY MR. CLAPP:
159
1 Q Okay. So had Wolf been hired as a special
2 consultant?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Let me go back to Exhibit 3 for a second. If I
5 interpret this correctly -- and I want it confirmed if I
6 do -- in both of these PARs, we're talking about the
7 same position, 1793, right?
8 A Correct.
9 Q Okay. So before March of 2008, this particular
10 position was a labor relations negotiator?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And then the position became a senior labor and
13 employee relations officer?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And that was a reclassification?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you have to sign off on that
18 reclassification?
19 A I didn't.
20 Q That's right. You didn't.
21 Did you know that this had occurred?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Who told you that this had been reclassified?
24 A I believe Jeanie told me.
25 Q Jeanie Cayhill?
160
1 A Jeanie Cayhill, yes.
2 Q Did you complain to anybody that this had been
3 reclassified without your approval?
4 A I told her I didn't appreciate it.
5 Q And then at some point this senior labor and
6 employee relations officer would have been reclassified
7 as a special consultant?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Does that require your approval?
10 A It should have.
11 Q And I take it you didn't approve it?
12 A I never saw the document.
13 Q But there should be some PAR reclassifying the
14 position 1793 senior labor and employee relations
15 officer as a special consultant?
16 A I'm going to answer that kind of lengthy for a
17 second.
18 Q Okay.
19 A If this was completed -- if this Exhibit 3
20 actually went through the entire process and had had a
21 person put into that senior labor relations officer,
22 then it would be in a tracking system. What I don't
23 know, by looking at this, is if that really happened.
24 Q Oh.
25 A It could -- I'm sorry. I just have to speculate
161
1 for a second. It could be that this position number
2 1793 was never really truly reclassified to senior labor
3 and employees officer. And it stopped during the
4 process, and it was established or reclassified to a
5 special consultant.
6 The final step of this -- Evelyn Ramos was in --
7 the payroll system would only do the final steps of
8 anything when there was a body to put into that position
9 because the paperwork with the Controller's Office was
10 so onerous. These were internal documents. There was
11 not a need to really bring it to completion unless there
12 was an appointment.
13 Q I think I'm following right on the beam here.
14 Once there was an appointment, there was
15 paperwork that had to be sent to the Controller's
16 Office?
17 A Yes. Correct.
18 Q And Evelyn was stuck doing that job?
19 A Right.
20 Q So let me see if I can, you know, deduce things
21 accurately.
22 As of, you know, the end of April of 2008, we
23 can deduce from Exhibit 14 that position 1793 was filled
24 by David Wolf as a special consultant?
25 A Yes.
162
1 Q What we don't know from this information is
2 whether he -- whether he ever filled the position of
3 senior labor and employee relations officer?
4 A Correct.
5 Q So he might have been hired as a senior labor
6 relations and employee officer or he might have been
7 hired as a special consultant? We just can't tell?
8 A I don't know.
9 Q We should be able to have a Personnel Action
10 Request that would tell us, you know, what his position
11 was at the time that he was hired, wouldn't we?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. Here's where I'm puzzled. If I
14 understood the -- you know, the back and forth that you
15 were having with Couch and Fuentes and everybody, you
16 had several options.
17 One of the things you talked about was "Well,
18 gee whiz, we could hire him as a special consultant."
19 And basically you said "No, you can't," right?
20 A That's what I said, yes.
21 Q Did anybody ever tell you that he was put into
22 the position as a special consultant anyway?
23 A No.
24 Q So when you saw this PAR request, Number 14, was
25 this a surprise that he was in that position?
163
1 A I had heard through the grapevine that he was
2 now a special consultant.
3 Q Did you ever hear through the grapevine that he
4 was a senior labor and employee relations officer?
5 A No.
6 Q Okay. In the discussions you had with them, did
7 they broach the subject that he might be hired as a
8 senior labor and employee relations officer?
9 A Again, I have to think. It's been a while.
10 Q Of course.
11 MR. FELLERMAN: I'll object to the extent it's
12 been asked and answered previously. The discussion
13 previously about the position.
14 THE WITNESS: In my discussions with Ken Couch,
15 we tried to look at lots of options, and this may have
16 come up. I don't recall it particularly because it
17 wasn't -- if I recall correctly, this senior labor and
18 relations employee officer was a classification of one
19 person and that was Scott Gardner. And I've kind of
20 forgotten the salary ranges, but the salary range was
21 much higher, it seemed, than the labor relations
22 negotiator. So, again, a lot of this is a little cloudy
23 at this point. But if we had talked -- if this had been
24 part of the discussion, I would have said it would have
25 been inappropriate because the job they wanted him to do
164
1 was not the classification that this is.
2 MR. CLAPP: Okay. Let's go to 14.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q So in the sequence of things, a little over a
5 week before, Judge George, Justice George, had approved
6 the senior labor relations negotiator classification.
7 So what four -- what 14 is doing is transferring Wolf
8 from special consultant into that particular position?
9 A Yes. Into that classification.
10 Q Into that classification.
11 The position -- the PeopleSoft position number,
12 is that staying the same?
13 A It's the same from Exhibit 3 where we were
14 talking about PeopleSoft position number 1793. In
15 Exhibit 14, it's still position number 1793.
16 Q Okay. So even after this, it's 1793?
17 A Yes. It's going to be 1793.
18 Q Gotcha. Okay.
19 At the top, Emily Butkos's name is crossed out,
20 and I think her phone number is crossed out. Is that
21 right?
22 A Right. It's not -- it's an S.
23 Q Oh, Sutkos?
24 A Sutkos. Yes, it's an S.
25 Q What is her position?
165
1 A She was the administrative assistant to Jeanie
2 Cayhill.
3 Q Do you have any idea why they crossed out her
4 name and put in Khin Chin and Ken Couch's?
5 A If somebody really had a question about this
6 PAR, calling Emily, she would have just triaged the
7 question and gone and found Khin or Ken. So it just
8 made more sense to put the real contact person in there.
9 Q Do you know who put the real contact -- do you
10 recognize the handwriting?
11 A No, I don't.
12 Q Let's go to signatures. "Unit Manager," was
13 that Ken Couch's signature?
14 A Yes.
15 Q "Division Director," is that Ernie's signature?
16 A Yes.
17 Q "Office of Budget Management," whose signature
18 is that?
19 A I don't recognize it.
20 Q The "Executive Office" isn't signed.
21 Is that because this is not a supervisory
22 position in hire?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Because it's a lead. It's not a supervisor; is
25 that it?
166
1 A Correct.
2 Q "Human Resources," again, Ernie's?
3 A Yes.
4 Q It says, next to that, "Per Lura Franzella, this
5 does not need a freeze exemption, administrative change
6 only."
7 Whose handwriting is that?
8 A I don't know.
9 Q Is that true that it's something that you told
10 somebody?
11 A That, I don't recall.
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Object to the last question as
13 compound and vague.
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q The freeze exemption would have been referring
16 to the freeze that we talked about earlier that -- the
17 freeze of hiring and promotions, et cetera, that come
18 out in February?
19 A Yes. Exhibit 2.
20 Q So we talked about the freeze exemption process.
21 Do you know if this creation of the senior labor
22 relations negotiator position required a freeze
23 exemption?
24 A It was a reclassification. It should have
25 required a freeze exemption.
167
1 Q Can you think of any reason why you would have
2 told anybody why you wouldn't need a freeze exemption?
3 A I don't recall.
4 Q Okay. At the bottom, it looks to me like your
5 signature. "Okay" on "May 6, '08"; is that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What -- why are you okaying this?
8 A I'm okaying the classification of senior labor
9 negotiator and Dave Wolf can be appointed to it.
10 Q And at some point -- I think -- my memory is
11 much worse than yours so I apologize.
12 You described how you had signed at the bottom
13 of one of these things -- do you remember?
14 A Yes.
15 Q -- when you okayed a reclassification or
16 something.
17 Is this an example of what you're talking about?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. To the right -- 607 -- is 607 a number
20 sign? Is that --
21 A Yes.
22 Q "JC-176," do you know what that refers to?
23 A That's the initials of the payroll specialist.
24 One of Evelyn's staff. Again, I just don't recall many
25 of their names. Probably her own tracking system.
168
1 Q And above that, there's some --
2 A Wait a minute. Let me back up just a second.
3 Now that I think about it, it's the Judicial Council
4 176. Again, this is complications with the State's
5 payroll system. And because we're using the State
6 Controller's payroll system that's really created for
7 the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Council has to
8 sort of work through some of the nuances of that. This
9 is a code to the Controller.
10 Q Okay.
11 A It's a code to tell them to do something.
12 Q Above that, there's some letters that I can't
13 quite read and numbers.
14 Do you know what those mean?
15 A The first three digits, 156, again, is the
16 agency code that the Controller's Office has assigned to
17 the Judicial Council. Department of Health would have a
18 department code, DMV, so on. The Judicial Council is
19 156. 651 means it's human resources. The 3859 ties
20 back to the class code for the senior labor relations
21 negotiator. And the dash 001 -- this is just a
22 sequential number assigned to these positions. 001 is
23 the first one. If we had a second one, we would name it
24 two and the third one would be three.
25 Q It makes sense.
169
1 At the bottom there's a 201. Do you have any
2 idea what that is?
3 A The -- this went through finance in some way.
4 And this would have been their tracking number on their
5 Excel spreadsheet.
6 Q All right. Let's talk about Paula Negley for a
7 little bit. I'm sure you know who she is.
8 A Yes.
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Joe, before we get into
10 Ms. Negley, can we make a stop to the facilities?
11 MR. CLAPP: Sure. This is a good time.
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Thanks.
13 (Brief recess.)
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q All right. I'm interested in my client who's
16 Paula Negley.
17 While you were there, did you ever have any
18 discussions with anybody about Paula Negley? "There"
19 being at the AOC, I mean.
20 A There were discussions regarding Paula Negley.
21 Q Did you ever have any with Ernie Fuentes?
22 A Yes.
23 Q How about Ken Couch?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Others?
170
1 A Scott Gardner.
2 Q Let's talk about Ernie first.
3 What was the occasion that you had a
4 conversation with Ernie about Paula?
5 A Paula came up in our conversations at our
6 managers meetings, getting updates of different
7 negotiations, for instance, or issues within the AOC.
8 (Brief interruption.)
9 MR. CLAPP: Excuse me.
10 BY MR. CLAPP:
11 Q Any discussions with Mr. Fuentes about Paula's
12 performance?
13 A In the spring of 2007 --
14 Q 2007 or 2008?
15 A 2008, I'm sorry.
16 Q A year ago, right?
17 A I'm sorry. 2008.
18 Q Why don't you tell me what were the topics?
19 What did you guys talk about?
20 A When the discussions regarding retaining Jim
21 Duncan -- again, this came up in a managers meeting,
22 talking about retaining Jim Duncan. Various
23 conversations that I had with Scott and Ken regarding
24 that. And in the managers meeting, when I was aware
25 that Duncan had been transferred into a special
171
1 consultant position and, you know, I asked Ernie in that
2 meeting "What do you plan to do about Paula?" that she
3 had already -- at least she had told me that she was
4 going to file a discrimination complaint. And I asked
5 Ernie what his plans regarding that were. And he said,
6 "Nothing." That she wasn't -- she could appeal whatever
7 she wanted. They -- again, it was more of an offhanded
8 comment. "If she doesn't like it here, she could
9 leave."
10 Q Now, this was when Jim Duncan was transferred to
11 being a special consultant?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So it was before David Wolf was hired?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Okay. Any other discussions about Paula Negley
16 with Mr. Fuentes?
17 A There were always -- always issues that come up
18 around travel claims. Paula was -- you know, had some
19 real concerns about how travel claims were processed,
20 the timeliness of them. And this was an aggravation to
21 Ernie. And he, again, would say, "If she doesn't like
22 the way travel claims are being processed, she should
23 find another job."
24 Q When he said this, was this just the two of you
25 or was this --
172
1 A No. This was at a manager meeting. And at one
2 time at the managers meeting, in a larger group of
3 participants, the supervisors, as well, were in the
4 meetings and that included Evelyn Ramos, Haroko Negada
5 (phonetic), and Khin Chin were in a number of these
6 meetings, Ken Couch, myself, Jeanie. You know,
7 personnel issues were discussed.
8 Q I'm getting the impression, and maybe a false
9 impression, that Mr. Fuentes said this on several
10 occasions?
11 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous as to what
12 you mean by "said this."
13 MR. CLAPP: "This" being "If she doesn't like
14 it, she ought to leave."
15 THE WITNESS: It was said on a number of
16 occasions.
17 BY MR. CLAPP:
18 Q In these manager meetings?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Do you know what the problem was with the travel
21 expense claims?
22 A The timeliness of processing them.
23 Q Who was responsible for processing travel
24 expense claims?
25 A The accounting office.
173
1 Q Do you know who in accounting?
2 A Pat Haggerty or her staff. She was the manager.
3 Q Okay. How about -- can you remember any
4 discussions with Ken Couch about Paula Negley?
5 A In my discussions with Ken regarding Jim Duncan
6 and discussions around the hiring of Dave Wolf, Paula
7 Negley came up in all those conversations and
8 classification that she was in. And she was in the
9 labor relations negotiator classification and creating
10 new ones or doing something different with that, that
11 would have, you know, some effect on Paula.
12 And, you know, my philosophy is try to prevent
13 problems. So we needed to approach these
14 reclassifications or appointments in such a way that we
15 could avoid problems with employees. And Ken had a very
16 similar attitude that "We can do what we want. And if
17 Paula doesn't like it, she should find another job."
18 Q Similar to Ernie, you mean? You said "similar."
19 I presume it was similar to Ernie's rather than similar
20 to your attitude?
21 A Oh, no. Similar to Ernie's. The attitude of
22 "If you don't like what we're doing, you can always find
23 a different job."
24 Q How about Scott? Did you have any discussions
25 with Scott about Paula?
174
1 A The very first day that I started to work at the
2 AOC, there is a process that HR uses in the first couple
3 of days of employment where you meet with -- this is
4 every employee -- where you meet with all the
5 supervisors, all the managers to get a sense of what's
6 going on in the division where you work. It's kind of
7 an orientation.
8 My first five minutes of talking with Scott
9 Gardner, he was talking about the labor relations
10 negotiators and Jim Duncan and Paula, kind of what they
11 were doing. They were out of the office a great deal.
12 And he said to me, "If Paula comes to you with
13 complaints about her travel claims, just don't talk to
14 her. She doesn't like the way we process travel claims
15 around here."
16 Q That wouldn't be part of your bailiwick, would
17 it?
18 A No.
19 Q That's all accounting, right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Other than that first time, did you have any
22 discussions with Scott about Paula?
23 A And I have -- again, time is sort of --
24 Q Fuzzy?
25 A -- fuzzy.
175
1 Paula came to me at some point to talk about the
2 salaries, the salaries for the labor relations
3 negotiator, the salary ranges. And, again, this
4 wasn't -- I had to say this wasn't uncommon that
5 employees would come to me and try to find out how they
6 can get increases in salary or change their salary range
7 or do something about the salary range. You know, I
8 said, "I don't know what we could do. Generally this
9 has to come through the manager, but I'll be happy to
10 talk to Scott and see if there's some history." So this
11 must have happened, you know, within the first few
12 months of my employment before I really understood all
13 what was going on.
14 I went back to Scott and he told me, "Oh, she
15 complains about her salary all the time. Just don't pay
16 any attention to this." It was his -- his statement or
17 belief was that what we compensate labor relations
18 negotiators was more than adequate.
19 Q When you had those manager meetings, would he be
20 a participant in those meetings?
21 A Initially Scott was in all of the meetings. It
22 wasn't until probably January or so in 2008 it got too
23 encumbersome. There was just too many people in it. It
24 was refined down to Jeanie, Ernie, Ken, and then myself.
25 There was the division chief, the deputy, and the two
176
1 senior managers who had responsibilities for everything
2 else. And everybody else at that point was excluded.
3 Q Okay. I can't quite recall what you said
4 earlier, and I apologize about that. I sort of remember
5 you talking about a managers meeting where there was a
6 discussion about whether or not labor relations
7 negotiators were adequately compensated. And somebody
8 expressed the feeling that they weren't adequately
9 compensated; am I right?
10 A I don't recall that.
11 MR. FELLERMAN: Misstates her testimony.
12 MR. CLAPP: That's what I'm trying to find out.
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q You didn't have any discussion like that in a
15 managers meeting? It could be just fantasizing.
16 A Not that in particular. We were talking about
17 David Wolf's -- the issue of David Wolf wanting a
18 different compensation. And at that point we were
19 trying to -- the discussion was the labor relations
20 negotiator -- the compensation that they had was not
21 what David Wolf was looking for.
22 Q Okay. Did you ever have any discussions about
23 Paula with Jim Duncan?
24 A Jim Duncan?
25 Q Yeah.
177
1 A No.
2 Q How about anybody else at the AOC; I mean, while
3 you were there?
4 A Right after David Wolf was hired and put into
5 this classification, the senior labor relations
6 negotiator, he talked with me about what can lead do,
7 what are the scope of responsibilities for a lead and
8 types of direction he could give to Paula.
9 Q Okay. And what did you tell him?
10 A Well, it was, you know, broadly defined. It was
11 how much Ken Couch would delegate to David. Ken was the
12 supervisor or the manager, in this case. He had a lead.
13 He could delegate as much responsibility as he wanted to
14 David with the exception of performance reports,
15 approving time off, vacation. Primarily two things:
16 the performance report and the time sheets.
17 Q Okay. Did you ever have any discussions with
18 either Ernie or Ken about Paula's performance at Kern
19 County, more specifically about a health insurance plan
20 and a third-party administrator?
21 A I had discussions with Ken and Jeanie. I was
22 not following labor relations. I didn't know -- it was
23 of no interest to me. But the Kern came up because of
24 their proposal to move to a self-funded health plan.
25 Since the AOC was administering a self-funded
178
1 health plan, and there's certainly a lot of liabilities
2 in doing that, when I heard that Kern would be offering
3 one, I brought that up at a managers meeting that it
4 seems odd to me that we know what the pitfalls are of
5 self-funded plans, and what's in place to protect Kern?
6 I understand the role of the AOC is not directly to look
7 over Kern, but what's put in place to protect that?
8 And Ken and Ernie and Jeanie all kind of looked
9 at me like, "What are you talking about? We're not
10 aware that this discussion is going on." And I said,
11 "Well, I had a call from an attorney in Los Angeles."
12 Again, I don't know her name. They work for the AOC.
13 They asked questions about planned documents. And a day
14 or two passed, maybe less than that, maybe an afternoon
15 passed, and Ken Couch came to me and said "Oh, this is
16 not good news." He said to me "Paula will have to take
17 the fall on this one." Whatever that meant. And Jeanie
18 Cayhill came to me late that afternoon -- it was
19 probably close to 5:00 -- asking if Ken has talked to
20 me. I said, "Really briefly." Well, you know, she
21 said, "It's more than likely Paula will be gone next
22 week. She'll have to take the fall for Kern."
23 Q Did you talk to Ernie about this?
24 A No.
25 Q What was Jeanie's attitude? Was she happy?
179
1 Sad? Upset?
2 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
3 MR. EMERT: If you could tell by her physical
4 gestures that you can reasonably conclude, you can
5 answer.
6 THE WITNESS: I felt both Ken and Jeanie were
7 gleeful.
8 BY MR. CLAPP:
9 Q Gleeful that Paula was going to go?
10 A Yes.
11 Q When did this occur?
12 A It must -- you know, it must have been in May
13 sometime. It may have been towards the latter part of
14 May. I'm not -- you know, that last month of May is not
15 real clear in my memory at all.
16 Q Was -- Wolf was already on board?
17 A Yes. Dave was already on board. I couldn't --
18 he was someplace for the month of April or somebody in
19 the month of April. And then in May he was the senior
20 labor relations negotiator. So, you know, it had to be
21 in that time frame. But I believe it was in May.
22 Q Did you talk to Wolf about this matter?
23 A No.
24 Q So the only people that you remember talking to
25 was the managers meeting, which you would have had with
180
1 Ernie --
2 A Jeanie.
3 Q -- Jeanie and Ken --
4 A Yes.
5 Q -- and you?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And then you independently talked to both Ken
8 and Jeanie thereafter?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. She wasn't -- Paula wasn't gone the next
11 week.
12 Did you inquire how come she wasn't?
13 A No. She wasn't gone. And --
14 Q Did you ask anybody what happened?
15 A Jeanie had instructed Evelyn Ramos, who worked
16 for me, to pull Paula's personnel file. Evelyn and I
17 had no idea what that was about. A few days later, they
18 returned the personnel file without any further
19 comments.
20 Q Okay. Do you recall talking to anybody else
21 while you were there about Paula?
22 A Paula in particular or --
23 Q Yeah. I'm just casting a broad net. That's
24 all.
25 A Haroko Negada, who was the supervisor of Trial
181
1 Court Benefits, came to me one morning after Dave Wolf
2 had been hired and said that she had been at California
3 Pizza, which was very near the AOC, having lunch. She
4 overheard a conversation between Ken and Dave Wolf that
5 concerned Haroko because they had said some very
6 disparaging things about Paula. And Haroko was -- she
7 was distraught about this. And she asked for my advice
8 as to what she should do with this piece of information.
9 And I said, you know, "I'll be happy to meet with you
10 and Ken Couch, if that's what you want. We can talk
11 with Ernie or you can choose to do nothing. Whatever
12 you want to do." She and I had no further discussions
13 about that.
14 Q Did she say what disparaging things Wolf and
15 Couch had said?
16 A She told me that Ken Couch had instructed Dave
17 Wolf to get rid of Paula, and that they were going to
18 put pressure on her until she quit.
19 Q Did she say how Wolf responded?
20 A No. If she did, I don't remember if she told
21 me.
22 Q You had a discussion with Margaret Murray,
23 right?
24 A Margaret Murray?
25 Q The investigator.
182
1 A She's the attorney hired to investigate --
2 Q Exactly.
3 A Yes.
4 Q Is that in person or over the telephone?
5 A Over the phone.
6 Q How long did the conversation last?
7 A An hour or so, maybe. Maybe a little bit
8 longer.
9 Q Did you tell her what Haroko had told you?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did you tell her about Ken being gleeful about
12 Paula -- about the fact that Paula was going to be gone
13 soon --
14 A Yes.
15 MR. FELLERMAN: Lacks foundation.
16 MR. CLAPP: -- after Kern County?
17 MR. FELLERMAN: Lacks foundation.
18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I just -- I'm
19 sorry. I don't recall.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q Fair enough. Why don't you give me a quick
22 overview of what you can remember telling her.
23 A We talked -- that appeal or that complaint
24 regarding -- that she was talking -- talking to me about
25 was the reclassification of Jim Duncan to a special
183
1 consultant. And, you know, she asked me what did I know
2 about it? What process did the AOC do to reclassify
3 him? What is a special consultant? What do they do?
4 You know, I kind of repeated a lot of what we've talked
5 about today.
6 Q Okay. Do you recall anything else that you guys
7 talked about that we haven't chatted about?
8 A At this moment, I just don't recall.
9 Q Fair enough. Okay. Since you left -- since you
10 left there, have you had any other conversations about
11 Paula or her complaints with anybody else?
12 A Paula has called me on several occasions. You
13 know, three or four --
14 Q Okay.
15 A -- to talk about what was going on with her.
16 She called me when Margaret Murray's decision was
17 finally issued. She talked to me in the summer last
18 year a bit more about the process of creating the senior
19 labor relations negotiator. It was -- we've talked
20 probably four times over the last year.
21 Q Okay. Anybody else -- have you talked to
22 anybody else about any of this?
23 A No.
24 Q Mr. Fellerman, for example?
25 A No, I've never talked to him. Never. Oh, you
184
1 know, I may have Linda Foya (phonetic). Linda Foya and
2 I had a conversation before Margaret --
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Before you get into the context
4 of that conversation, I'm going to assert an
5 attorney-client privilege with respect to any
6 communication you had with Linda Foya.
7 MR. EMERT: I would advise you the same thing.
8 If that conversation -- and I believe you had
9 conversations with me in the context of the --
10 THE WITNESS: I did talk with you. Yes, I did.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q I take it Linda Foya is an attorney?
13 A Yes.
14 Q With the AOC?
15 A With the AOC, yes.
16 Q And you had this conversation after you left the
17 AOC?
18 A Before and after.
19 Q I see. So you had more than two conversations
20 or just two?
21 A Just probably two.
22 Q Telephone calls?
23 A Yes.
24 Q About how long?
25 A In the AOC, it was probably very short, three
185
1 minutes or so. The last time it was over an hour. I
2 remember that because I was on vacation.
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Just what you wanted to do on
4 vacation.
5 MR. EMERT: Hang on. Is that when she came down
6 to see you?
7 MR. CLAPP: Her travel expenses. A pitcher of
8 margaritas as a business expense.
9 BY MR. CLAPP:
10 Q So you had a couple of conversations by
11 telephone 30 minutes or so. Once before you left and
12 once after you left?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right. She called you?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Let's talk about the second one. This is when
17 you're on vacation. So it was approximately 2008.
18 A November of last year, 2008.
19 Q All right. So what did you say?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Attorney-client
21 privilege communication.
22 MR. CLAPP: How is that possible? She's not,
23 you know --
24 MR. FELLERMAN: She's a control agent of the
25 AOC. She's speaking within her capacity as control
186
1 agent of the AOC.
2 MR. CLAPP: She's an employee --
3 MR. FELLERMAN: She would have no knowledge
4 about any of this but for her status as a control agent.
5 MR. CLAPP: Excuse me. She's a -- she's not.
6 MR. FELLERMAN: I'm simply asserting the
7 instruction, Counsel.
8 MR. EMERT: And I would echo with it. She is as
9 a senior employee, former employee as a controlling
10 agent.
11 Communications with counsel we'd consider
12 privilege. I ask you not to waive the privilege.
13 THE WITNESS: And I won't.
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q Was there any correspondence between Linda Foya
16 and you?
17 A No.
18 Q Okay. And you've had conversations with
19 Mr. Emert, I take it?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Emert (Pronunciation).
21 MR. CLAPP: I'm sorry. I keep saying Emert.
22 MR. FELLERMAN: That calls for a yes or no
23 rather than --
24 THE WITNESS: I would say yes. I've talked to
25 him before but I --
187
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q Did you talk to him about any of this anyway --
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection.
4 MR. CLAPP: Let me finish my question.
5 BY MR. CLAPP:
6 Q I presume you knew him back when you were
7 working there?
8 A Never met him before today. I'm sure I would
9 have remembered.
10 MR. CLAPP: I take it -- you should take that as
11 a compliment.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q Did you have conversations with him on the
14 telephone before today -- well, let's step back -- while
15 you were working there?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Anything about having anything to do with any of
18 the stuff we've been talking about?
19 A I don't think so. I don't think so.
20 Q Okay. So when was the first time you talked to
21 him about anything that remotely related -- interested
22 in here today?
23 A We talked last week. This is Monday, right?
24 Yeah, last week.
25 Q Okay. He called you?
188
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. So what did he say?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection. Attorney-client
4 privilege communication. I'm sure he was acting as her
5 counsel.
6 MR. EMERT: Same situation when counsel is
7 dealing with ongoing litigation in particular as a
8 controlling agent. Ms. Franzella is in that capacity
9 even though she's left. But we can still assert the
10 privilege on her behalf. I ask you not to waive it.
11 It's AOC's privilege.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q Well, did you contact Mr. Emert to request
14 representation?
15 A No.
16 Q Have you signed any kind of retainer agreement
17 or anything like that?
18 A No.
19 Q I just want to get one thing quite clarified.
20 MR. EMERT: You're dancing around the --
21 MR. CLAPP: I don't mean to dance. I just want
22 to understand.
23 If I understand what you're telling me, you
24 assert the privilege that you represent her based solely
25 on the fact that you represent the AOC, and she's a
189
1 former control member of the AOC; is that it?
2 MR. EMERT: Privilege is asserted on behalf of
3 AOC because she is a controlling agent in the capacity
4 that she did serve, yes.
5 MR. CLAPP: Sorry about all this technical --
6 MR. EMERT: We're making the record clean.
7 MR. CLAPP: You're not trying to assert that you
8 personally represent her, for example, as her attorney?
9 MR. EMERT: That is correct.
10 MR. CLAPP: Okay.
11 MR. EMERT: And I have not made that
12 representation. It's in her capacity.
13 MR. CLAPP: Yeah. I just want to get it
14 straight. That's all.
15 I think I'm really close to being done. If we
16 can take one second, I think I'm finished.
17 I am done. Thank you very much for your help.
18 MR. FELLERMAN: So let's go off the record.
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
22 Q Ms. Franzella, I introduced myself to you
23 before. My name is Ian Fellerman. I'm representing the
24 Judicial Council and the AOC in this matter.
25 The -- although we are changing questioners,
190
1 your testimony that you'll be giving in response to my
2 questions is still being given under penalty of perjury.
3 Do you understand that?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And I'd just like to go over some brief
6 admonitions before we go forward. You've been doing a
7 great job so they're probably not necessary, but I'm
8 going to go through them anyway to make sure -- make
9 sure I finish my question before you respond to it. And
10 please continue to answer audibly with response to any
11 question that I ask. You've been doing that perfectly
12 all day.
13 A Okay.
14 Q So just keep doing what you've been doing.
15 Also, if you don't understand any question that
16 I ask, please tell me you don't understand it, and I'll
17 either rephrase it or I'll ask you what you don't
18 understand about it. Otherwise, if you answer a
19 question, I'll assume you understood the question.
20 Okay?
21 A Okay.
22 Q At some point in time down the road, you'll be
23 given an opportunity to review your deposition
24 transcript and make any changes that you feel are
25 necessary to your deposition testimony. However, if you
191
1 do later make any changes to your deposition testimony,
2 the fact that those changes and those changes themselves
3 may be commented upon later in this action by either
4 counsel.
5 Do you understand that?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. Finally, since your deposition today is
8 being given under penalty of perjury, it can be used
9 later in this action including at time of trial or by
10 way of motion.
11 Do you understand that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Thank you.
14 Prior to the AOC, did you ever have any
15 responsibility, at a prior employer, for determining
16 whether to create or approve new classifications?
17 A During my employment with the Department of
18 Personnel Administration, as the administrator of the
19 Savings Plus Program, I also had an 18-month overlapping
20 assignment where I was the chief of personnel -- you
21 know, the Executive Branch is termed a little different.
22 HR is more referred to personnel -- over the
23 department's personnel division. And job classification
24 was part of my responsibility there.
25 Q And approximately when was that 18-month period?
192
1 A Again, time gets a little fuzzy. I believe it
2 was April of '05 through July or August of '06. And --
3 yes, I think that's it because -- yeah. In that time
4 period.
5 Q All right. And aside from the period of April
6 '05 to July or August of 2006, did you ever have
7 responsibility, prior to the AOC, for creating or
8 approving new classifications?
9 A Only during the time at DPA.
10 Q Only for that April '05 to July '06 time period?
11 A In that time period.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Yes.
14 Q Thank you. And did you, in fact, create or
15 approve any new classifications during that time period?
16 A No.
17 Q Were any potential classifications submitted to
18 you for -- strike that.
19 Did you reject any proposed classifications that
20 were made during that time period?
21 A I worked extensively on various information
22 technology classes. But none of those were completed
23 during that time period.
24 Q Okay. So the actual issue of approving or
25 rejecting a proposed classification never arouse during
193
1 the 18-month stint when you were chief of personnel,
2 correct?
3 A Correct.
4 Q All right. So would it be correct to say that
5 the first time you ever actually evaluated whether to
6 create new job classifications or changing job
7 classifications was at the AOC? Would that be accurate?
8 A Creating new ones, that would be accurate.
9 Changing, no. Through my work career, I've worked
10 extensively with personnel offices on job descriptions
11 and classifications.
12 Q And that would be for people under your
13 supervision?
14 A Yes.
15 Q When you would want to change their
16 classification, you would submit a request for that
17 change to someone?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. And they would approve or reject that
20 proposed change, correct?
21 A Yes. Yes.
22 Q All right. But in that situation where you
23 would propose a change for job classification, you
24 weren't the ultimate job decision maker; somebody else
25 was, correct?
194
1 A Correct.
2 Q Do you know what the criteria was at the State
3 of California for approval of new classifications?
4 A Yes.
5 Q What were the criteria?
6 A Because the State is represented through
7 bargaining units, it was generally a bargain process.
8 And it required sign-off through the State Personnel
9 Board.
10 Q And do you know what any of the criteria --
11 strike that.
12 Do you know what the criteria were for creation
13 of new classifications at the State of California when
14 you worked for the Department of Personnel
15 Administration?
16 A I'm sorry. I'm confused about "criteria."
17 Q Do you know what requirements or criteria were
18 looked at in determining whether to create a new job
19 classification at the State?
20 A Just the same as we talked about at the AOC.
21 Justification for new classification. Someone or some
22 organization would have to justify it.
23 Q Do you know what the criteria were that the
24 State looked at in determining whether a sufficient
25 justification were made?
195
1 A There was not a checklist. It was certainly
2 done on a case-by-case basis.
3 Q If a particular job entailed performing new or
4 additional responsibilities over an existing
5 classification, would that be a criterion that would be
6 looked at at the State when determining whether to
7 create a new job classification?
8 A I'm sorry. You completely lost me on that one.
9 Q Sure. Not a problem. It could very well be the
10 lateness of the hour and the words I used. So at any
11 time you don't understand a question, by all means
12 please say it.
13 A Uh-huh.
14 Q If a particular job involved additional or new
15 duties and responsibilities beyond those of an existing
16 classification, would that be a criterion that would be
17 looked at at the State to determine whether to create a
18 new job classification?
19 A Either create a new job classification or revise
20 an existing one.
21 Q Okay. Do you know whether the State had any
22 senior classifications whether it be a base level and
23 there would be a senior level in terms of the
24 classification?
25 A Sorry. It's going to be a long answer.
196
1 Q Sure. Please.
2 A The AOC has a layer of classifications known as
3 the seniors: senior HR analyst, senior labor, senior
4 court services analyst. That layer does not exist in --
5 we call it the Executive Branch. It just doesn't exist.
6 The Executive Branch, there's an entry-level staff
7 analyst, a journey level, journey called associate. And
8 at that point, the promotion is to a supervisor. At the
9 AOC, there's this additional layer called "senior."
10 Q So the senior level classification didn't exist
11 at the executive level, correct?
12 A That is correct.
13 Q So the first time you ever had to deal with that
14 senior level classification was at the AOC; is that
15 right?
16 A That is correct.
17 Q Aside from what's in the personnel -- the
18 policies and procedure manual of the AOC, did you ever
19 receive any written direction or instruction regarding
20 criteria or factors to look at in deciding whether to
21 issue a new classification or a reclassification?
22 A None.
23 Q And did you ever receive any oral instruction or
24 direction at the AOC with respect to the factors or
25 criteria to look at in determining whether to create a
197
1 new classification or a reclassification?
2 A Oral instructions?
3 Q Yes.
4 A No.
5 Q Aside from the senior labor relations negotiator
6 position that you signed off and approved in April of
7 2008, were you involved in creating or approving any
8 other new classification during your tenure at the AOC?
9 MR. CLAPP: I'm going to object. I think it
10 misstates her testimony.
11 You can go ahead.
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Go ahead.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes.
14 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
15 Q What other new classifications were you involved
16 in approving?
17 A And, again, time has sort of taking its form
18 here.
19 Within the court construction division, there
20 were half a dozen different kinds of classifications
21 that we worked on: structural engineering, interior
22 design, some others -- at this point, I've completely
23 forgotten.
24 Q They're all within the construction area?
25 A We were working in the construction area. We
198
1 were also working on revising classifications within the
2 information technology division, the IT division.
3 Q Did you actually approve any new classifications
4 in the IT division during your tenure at the AOC?
5 A I didn't approve the two that were provided to
6 me.
7 Q So there were two that were provided to you and
8 you disapproved both of those?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Why did you disapprove of those proposed
11 reclassifications in the IT department?
12 A They were duplicative of classifications that
13 existed. They fit in a grouping already.
14 Q All right. And other than the two proposed
15 classifications in IT, the other classifications that
16 you did approve at the AOC other than the senior labor
17 relations negotiator position or dealing with
18 construction, correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. So would it be correct to say, then,
21 that the only classification, new classification, or
22 reclassification that you approved within the HR
23 division was that of senior labor relations negotiator?
24 A Yes.
25 Q What was your understanding of what the criteria
199
1 were at the AOC for approving a new classification or a
2 reclassification of any existing position?
3 A There was no criteria.
4 Q And so would it -- what factors did you
5 personally look at in making decisions whether to
6 approve or disapprove either a new classification or a
7 reclassification in those situations where you dealt
8 with it, for example in construction or IT or HR?
9 A In the IT in particular, looking at
10 reviewing what they were proposing to establish, it was
11 duplicative of something else. If a classification
12 already exists, if a grouping exists to establish
13 another one, just at a higher pay scale, I would not
14 approve it. It was just duplicating something that
15 existed.
16 In the court construction, it was much more
17 difficult. Again, these were classifications that we're
18 not generally familiar with in the AOC. And several of
19 those classifications had been in that pipeline being
20 established for a long period of time, and we just
21 needed to bring those to some closure. They were truly
22 new duties, new responsibilities that didn't exist
23 anywhere else.
24 Q Do you recall what the proposed classifications
25 were in the IT?
200
1 A Data systems analysis or something called
2 project manager analysis. It was just names on top of
3 things that existed.
4 Q Because the proposed classifications in IT were
5 duplicative of the duties that already existed in the
6 existing classifications, you rejected those proposed
7 new classifications, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Would you agree that if a classification did
10 have new or additional duties that did not exist in
11 another existing classification, that that would be a
12 factor to be looked at in determining whether to approve
13 the new classification or reclassification?
14 A Yes.
15 Q I'd like you to take a look at Exhibit 1 that
16 Mr. Clapp showed you, the Policy and Procedure Manual.
17 Turn to the classification section, 2.7.1.
18 This is the only written policy you're aware of
19 that AOC set forth instructions with respect to
20 approving new classifications or reclassifications,
21 correct?
22 A I don't recall if there is one that was unique
23 to reclassification. I'm not certain if there was or
24 wasn't. But this job classification -- again, I've seen
25 this on a number -- I've seen this one. There could be
201
1 one on reclassification. I just don't remember.
2 Q Okay. And did you ever ask anyone at AOC
3 whether there were any criteria for deciding whether to
4 create a new classification or a reclassification?
5 A No.
6 Q Since there was nothing in writing that's set
7 forth in the criteria where you didn't receive any oral
8 instruction as to what the criteria were, how did you,
9 in your own mind, decide whether to approve
10 classifications or disapprove a classification?
11 A Again, if it's -- if it's duplicative, if
12 it's -- managers who frequently come to me and say they
13 needed a new classification, but they couldn't
14 articulate why. And when you ask for a justification to
15 justify what it is, what are the duties required, are
16 they different, what's new about them, what's
17 significantly different from what's existing, even in
18 conversations, couldn't get those questions answered.
19 That's what I would be looking for in a justification
20 memo.
21 Q And if a position did involve what you would
22 consider to be significant or new additional duties,
23 that would be appropriate basis for which to approve a
24 new classification or reclassification, correct?
25 A Significant duties?
202
1 Q Yes.
2 A Yes.
3 Q And under the AOC's policy, positions are
4 assigned a particular classification according to the
5 duties and responsibilities of the position, correct?
6 A I'm sorry. Would you say that again?
7 Q Yeah. Under the AOC's policy, positions are
8 assigned to a particular classification according to the
9 duties and responsibilities of the positions, correct?
10 A Yes. Yes.
11 Q Okay. Do you know what criteria, if any, the
12 AOC used with respect to putting somebody into a senior
13 classification?
14 A There was none.
15 Q Did you ever ask anybody what the criteria were
16 for somebody to qualify for a senior classification?
17 A I did ask.
18 Q Who did you ask?
19 A I asked Jeanie.
20 Q What did she say?
21 A There is none.
22 Q Except for with respect to the senior labor
23 relations negotiator position, were you ever asked to
24 approve or disapprove the creation of a new senior
25 classification or a reclassification with the title of
203
1 senior?
2 A No.
3 Q And the senior classification is used in various
4 positions in the AOC, correct?
5 A There's a senior level in almost everything.
6 Q Okay. Senior classification at the AOC is
7 generally based on the fact that the person in the
8 senior classification supervises or provides
9 responsibility over the people in the non-senior
10 classification, correct?
11 MR. CLAPP: I'm going to object. Compound.
12 Why don't you make it one or the other?
13 MR. FELLERMAN: Go ahead.
14 MR. EMERT: If you understand the question, you
15 can answer. If not, ask for clarification to make sure
16 that you answer the question that's asked.
17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Now I've lost my train
18 of thought. Say it again.
19 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
20 Q Sure. The senior classification at the AOC is
21 generally based on the fact that the person in the
22 senior classification is providing some level of
23 supervisory responsibility over the people in the
24 non-senior classification, correct?
25 A The senior classification either have a lead
204
1 component to them or state they do the most sensitive or
2 complex project manager.
3 Q Okay. So at the AOC, senior classification is
4 used for people who are either acting in a lead capacity
5 over people in the non-senior classification or
6 performing some form of specialized or complex duties,
7 correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q So then if a person is acting in a lead capacity
10 over someone below them or is performing complex or
11 specialized duties, it would be appropriate for them to
12 be given a senior classification, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, under Section 2.7.1 of the Personnel
15 Policies and Procedures Manual, job classifications can
16 be created to prepare for a recruitment or new hiring,
17 correct? Looking at the fifth bullet point under 2.7.1.
18 A The fifth bullet "to prepare for recruitments,"
19 yes.
20 Q Similarly under 2.7.1 of the manual, new job
21 classification can be used to revise a particular job so
22 that it conforms with changes in organization structure
23 or practice, correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And similarly under Section 2.7.1 of the manual,
205
1 reclassifications appropriate to classify the duties and
2 responsibilities and newly created positions, correct?
3 A Correct.
4 MR. CLAPP: Excuse me. Reclassifications? It
5 says "classification." I don't understand that part.
6 You mean a classification is appropriate for that? You
7 wouldn't have a reclassification if you had a prior
8 classification.
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Joe, you can ask your questions
10 after I'm finished.
11 MR. CLAPP: I don't care. I think what he said
12 didn't make sense.
13 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
14 Q Under 2.7.1, new classifications can exist to
15 classify the duties and responsibilities of newly
16 created positions, correct?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Okay. So then nothing in the personnel policies
19 manual in the AOC prohibits the creation of a
20 classification to fit the particular duties of a
21 particular hiring provided that hiring has duties and
22 responsibilities that correlate with that
23 classification, correct?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Now, one of the senior positions that exist at
206
1 the AOC is with respect to senior labor and employee
2 relations officer, correct?
3 A Is that the one we've been talking -- senior --
4 Q Yeah.
5 A That's not the senior labor -- yes, that
6 classification exists, yes.
7 Q That's the one that Scott Gardner --
8 A Scott Gardner, yes.
9 Q Okay. Do you know what additional duties were
10 in the classification of senior labor employee relations
11 officer as compared to the classification of labor and
12 employee relations officer?
13 A I really would need to sit down and look at the
14 two specs together.
15 Q And similarly another classification at the AOC
16 has a senior status, a senior human resources analyst,
17 correct?
18 A Correct.
19 Q Do you know what additional duties and
20 responsibilities a senior HR analyst has as compared to
21 the class spec of just a regular HR analyst?
22 A The difference is they can lead. And it also
23 says it does the most highly sensitive or complex
24 analysis or projects.
25 Q Okay. So, then, if somebody was hired to lead
207
1 the labor relations negotiators or to do complex or
2 specialized work, it would be appropriate in that
3 situation to classify them as a senior labor relations
4 negotiator, correct?
5 A The labor relations negotiator classification
6 already had a lead component to it and was compensated
7 at a level that was the most complex and highly skilled
8 of the work.
9 Q If a senior labor relations negotiator's duties
10 included providing lead responsibility over the labor
11 relations negotiator -- or that would be an appropriate
12 reason to classify the person as a senior labor
13 relations negotiator, correct?
14 A It's duplicative of the class spec that was in
15 existence that allowed for a lead component in it
16 already.
17 Q The lead -- strike that.
18 The labor relations negotiator classification
19 did not provide full responsibility over other labor
20 relations negotiators, correct?
21 A It had a lead component to it.
22 Q Did the labor relations negotiator
23 classification spec include acting as a lead over other
24 labor relations negotiators?
25 A It did not state that.
208
1 Q Okay. And if someone did have the
2 responsibility of providing lead responsibilities --
3 strike that.
4 If a person's position included the
5 responsibility of providing lead direction over labor
6 relations negotiators, that would be a permissible
7 reason to classify that person in the senior labor
8 relations negotiator classification, correct?
9 A Not --
10 Q Given that the labor relations negotiators did
11 not have such a responsibility.
12 A The lead component by itself was not sufficient
13 to establish a senior classification.
14 Q Okay. That was your -- that was your judgment
15 that you rendered, correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right. Are you aware of any other
18 classification at the AOC that involved a senior title
19 where the person acting in the senior capacity had
20 additional responsibility above simply acting as a lead
21 over the person in the non-senior classification?
22 A The senior classification required more
23 experience; the minimum qualifications were higher.
24 Besides being the lead, they also had to be
25 doing the higher level of work and more complex work.
209
1 Q Okay. Would it be accurate to say the issue
2 whether a particular position that the AOC should be
3 given a senior classification is somewhat discretionary?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Now, you left in June of 2008, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you know what duties David Wolf actually
8 performed after he started working as a senior labor
9 relations negotiator?
10 A Between when he was appointed to that in May of
11 2008 and the time I left, I don't know what he was
12 doing.
13 Q And I take it that after the time you left, you
14 also don't know the actual duties that Mr. Wolf was
15 performing; is that correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q Do you acknowledge from any source, even
18 hearsay, as to what additional duties Mr. Wolf was
19 performing after you left?
20 A No, I don't.
21 Q So Ms. Negley never told you what additional
22 duties he was performing?
23 A No.
24 Q I'm going to give you a laundry list of duties
25 that Mr. Wolf -- I'm going to want you to assume that
210
1 Mr. Wolf was doing. And I'm going to ask you if he was,
2 in fact, performing all those duties, whether that would
3 fall within the -- justify having a classification of
4 senior labor relations negotiator. Okay? I'm giving
5 that to you as a long preface that you understand where
6 I'm going when I ask you the question. Okay?
7 MR. EMERT: Do you understand it so far?
8 THE WITNESS: I do.
9 MR. CLAPP: I'll object that we're assuming
10 facts not in evidence.
11 MR. FELLERMAN: That's fine.
12 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
13 Q So --
14 MR. EMERT: That means this is a hypothetical.
15 Just answer accordingly.
16 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
17 Q If Mr. Wolf's actual duties at the AOC included
18 acting as a lead over both labor relations negotiator
19 classification and the senior HR analyst position,
20 giving assignments to the labor relations negotiator
21 classification, approving any assignments worked on by
22 the labor relations negotiator classification, providing
23 advice and counsel to clients of the labor relations
24 negotiator, reviewing and approving requests for time
25 off of labor relations negotiator classification,
211
1 reviewing time sheets and expense reports of labor
2 relations negotiator classification, monitoring and
3 reviewing the work of the labor relations negotiator
4 classification, participating in the AOC's human
5 resources leadership team, participating in the labor
6 relations aspects of the court's transition to a
7 statewide HR software platform, participating in the
8 review and revision at the AOC's policies and
9 procedures, revising the stride contingency plan of the
10 AOC, revising the employer/employee relations policy of
11 the AOC, developing various job descriptions for labor
12 relations negotiators and senior HR analyst and the
13 administrative coordinator and planning for the annual
14 labor relations academy put on by the HR division, would
15 that justify having a classification of senior labor
16 relations negotiator, the person also performing the
17 labor relations negotiator duties?
18 A I would say that that position is a supervisor.
19 Q So even higher than a senior labor relations
20 negotiator?
21 A When you talk about time sheets, performance,
22 reviewing expenditures, those kinds of things, that is
23 the role of the supervisor.
24 Q So if that person is performing all of those
25 functions, they would qualify for even a higher level
212
1 than a senior labor relations negotiator, correct?
2 A I would also need to compare that laundry list
3 against what the labor negotiator is doing, the existing
4 labor relations negotiator, and see if there's some
5 duplication and also other classes within the unit to
6 see what they're doing to see if that's duplicative or
7 if it's done at different levels.
8 Q So if you take out the duties of reviewing and
9 requests for time off and reviewing the time and expense
10 reports and looked at all the other duties I gave you,
11 can you tell me whether you would agree that if Mr. Wolf
12 actually performed all those additional duties that that
13 would be sufficient for having a classification of
14 senior labor relations negotiator?
15 A I would say I can't answer the question.
16 Q Okay. If Mr. Wolf actually performed all those
17 additional duties and responsibilities, would that, in
18 your mind, justify him getting paid more money than
19 someone who was just a labor relations negotiator?
20 MR. CLAPP: Assumes facts not in evidence.
21 MR. EMERT: You can answer it as a hypothetical
22 question.
23 THE WITNESS: A labor relations negotiator has a
24 salary range, top and bottom. It's very broadly defined
25 what that individual or what that person can do under
213
1 it. You can't pay them more in that same
2 classification.
3 And, again, back to the laundry list of what you
4 said, I can't answer that question independent of
5 looking at the entirety of the work being done -- not --
6 extending by itself is not the way to review that.
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Okay.
8 THE WITNESS: We need to look at the bottoms and
9 the tops and the unit as a whole to see -- or the
10 responsibilities as a whole within the classification
11 structure.
12 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
13 Q Okay. If you review the classification for
14 labor relations negotiator, would you be able to tell me
15 whether those additional duties and responsibilities
16 would qualify to have a classification of senior labor
17 relations negotiator?
18 A Since that decision was already made -- it's
19 already been made. I already approved that
20 classification.
21 Q And why did you approve that classification?
22 A Because I wasn't going to fight Ernie over it.
23 Q Okay. But my question is -- I understand the
24 decision has already been made, but I'm asking you to
25 act independently of that.
214
1 A Uh-huh.
2 Q So if you review the senior -- excuse me. If
3 you review the senior labor relations negotiator job
4 classification, would you be able, then, to determine
5 whether a person who did all the duties and
6 responsibility that I gave you in that laundry list
7 would justify having a classification of senior labor
8 relations negotiator?
9 A I would need to look at more than that.
10 Q What else would you need to look at other than
11 the classification of senior labor relations -- excuse
12 me -- aside from the classification of labor relations
13 negotiator?
14 A Because -- and, again, back to this particular
15 unit -- this unit and this group of individuals, what
16 was Jim Duncan doing? Under special consultant, what
17 was he doing? I don't know. And that was sort of one
18 of the gray areas. If he was doing exactly what you
19 have described that the senior labor negotiator was
20 doing or the duties they wanted done, what was he doing?
21 What was Scott and Jason doing that possibly overlapped
22 what this was? And what was the senior manager doing?
23 You have to look at the entirety before you just create
24 a classification.
25 Q That's what you would do when you would review
215
1 any request for a classification reclassification is
2 look at what the duties were of everybody in the entire
3 unit?
4 A Or at least those that are surrounding that --
5 that immediate classification, yes.
6 Q So you believed that the duties that were
7 performed by the senior labor and employee relations
8 officer or the -- you said Mr. Couch as the senior
9 manager -- would be relevant to determining whether
10 Mr. Wolf's additional duties were sufficient to justify
11 a classification of senior labor relations negotiator;
12 is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. The job description that exists for the
15 senior labor relations negotiator that have already been
16 previously marked as Exhibit 10 is the language that's
17 used --
18 MR. EMERT: Counsel, you're referring to
19 classification or the description?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: The classification.
21 THE WITNESS: This is the classification
22 specification. It's not a job description.
23 MR. FELLERMAN: Correct. Classification
24 specification.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
216
1 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
2 Q The language used there under "Class
3 Characteristics," is that typical of the type of
4 language that's used for a senior classification and
5 other positions, namely of providing lead direction and
6 work review and/or performing and coordinating complex
7 and specialized work?
8 A It is similar, yes.
9 Q Okay. So other senior classifications would
10 have similar language at the senior person, whatever
11 position would either provide lead direction and work
12 review to assign staff and/or perform and coordinate
13 complex and specialized work, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And do you know what Ms. Negley's duties were
16 after you left the AOC?
17 A No.
18 Q And do you know what her duties were while you
19 were at the AOC?
20 A Well, I have to assume the duties that were
21 described in the class specification.
22 Q Other than assuming that her duties were those
23 set forth in the classification specification, do you
24 actually know what duties Ms. Negley was actually
25 performing as a labor relations negotiator?
217
1 A No.
2 Q Do you actually know what duties Mr. Duncan was
3 performing as a labor relations negotiator?
4 A No.
5 Q Do you actually know what duties Mr. Duncan was
6 performing as a special consultant?
7 A No.
8 Q Do you actually know what duties Mr. Gardner was
9 performing as a senior labor and employee relations
10 officer?
11 A No. There were no job descriptions.
12 Q You previously testified in Mr.
13 Clapp's questioning that you retired early -- or before
14 you initially planned on retiring.
15 Why did you retire early?
16 A I separated from the AOC. I didn't retire until
17 after I left. I separated on June 13th, which is not a
18 retirement.
19 Q And so you -- did you ever notify the AOC that
20 you were leaving as part of a retirement?
21 A No. I just told them I was resigning.
22 Q Okay. Did you ever provide anyone at the AOC
23 with any reason as to why you were retiring?
24 A No. I told them I was separating.
25 Q Strike that.
218
1 Did you ever provide anyone at the AOC a reason
2 why you were resigning your employment?
3 A Yes.
4 Q To whom did you provide an explanation?
5 A I provided a resignation letter to Ernie
6 Fuentes.
7 Q What was the reason you provided to Mr. Fuentes
8 as to why you were retiring -- resigning? Excuse me.
9 A At the time I was resigning I had been offered a
10 position as an executive director for a nonprofit
11 organization.
12 Q And is that the reason why you resigned from the
13 AOC was because you were offered that position?
14 A I left the AOC because I chose not to work for
15 Ernie Fuentes.
16 Q Okay. Why did you choose not to work for
17 Mr. Fuentes?
18 A His management style and mine were not
19 agreeable.
20 Q In what way?
21 A I believe he had no ethics. He didn't operate
22 ethically.
23 Q And what did he do that caused you to believe
24 that he did not operate ethically?
25 A In the case of Jim Duncan, I would have expected
219
1 Ernie to come back to me and say he disagreed with my
2 recommendation. That was certainly within his purview
3 but he was going to do something different. He bypassed
4 me completely and instructed a subordinate staff to do
5 something and instructed her not to tell me.
6 In the hiring of a student assistant -- that has
7 a very long story associated with it -- but ultimately
8 provided benefits to a student assistant that she was
9 not eligible for. And I discussed that with Ernie on
10 several occasions that it was -- it was not to be done,
11 and he -- he provided benefits to a student assistant
12 who was not eligible for them. He promoted an employee
13 who did not meet the minimum qualifications for a
14 promotion. The event regarding -- all the events
15 leading up to the hiring of David Wolf to me were
16 distasteful. And Ernie and I had already had some
17 disagreements on how to proceed with the Trial Court
18 Benefits Program around the self-funded plan. And I
19 found his manner to not -- not be ethical.
20 Q Starting with the first issue, you said with
21 respect to Mr. Duncan he disagreed with your
22 recommendation.
23 What was your recommendation with respect to
24 Mr. Duncan?
25 A Mr. Duncan -- Ernie and Ken and Scott Gardner --
220
1 the point regarding Mr. Duncan is they just wanted him
2 to stay on. They just wanted to retain him for some
3 period of time, a year, three years; whatever amount it
4 was. And he was at the top of his salary range. A lot
5 of people are at the top of their salary range. You
6 don't reclassify them to special consultant for the
7 purpose of just paying them more money.
8 Q You said he disagreed with your recommendation.
9 My question was, what was your recommendation with
10 regard to Mr. Duncan?
11 A There was nothing to be done with Mr. Duncan.
12 Q So your recommendation with respect to
13 Mr. Duncan was don't change his classification or pay
14 him more money, correct?
15 A There was no policy to allow for that.
16 Q Okay. And you said he bypassed you and
17 instructed the subordinate staff not to tell you.
18 Who is the subordinate staff that you're
19 referring to?
20 A Evelyn Ramos.
21 Q And Ms. Ramos told you what Mr. Fuentes told her
22 to do?
23 A He gave her the memo that was approved by Bill
24 Vickrey to appoint Jim Duncan to a special
25 classification. She did that because that's what he
221
1 directed her to do.
2 Q And you told -- did she tell you that he told
3 her not to tell you?
4 A I didn't find out about it until the next
5 staffing report which was kind of a monthly report that
6 comes out that shows where people are, what things
7 happened. And I noticed Jim Duncan was now classified
8 as a special consultant. And I went to Evelyn and asked
9 "When did this happen?" She told me when it was. And I
10 said -- I was surprised. And I said, you know, "Who
11 instructed you to do this?" She said "Ernie and he said
12 not to tell you" or "not to discuss it with you."
13 Q And the student assistant you're referring to,
14 what was that person's name?
15 A I don't remember.
16 Q A man or a woman?
17 A A woman. A young girl.
18 Q Why was that person not entitled to benefits in
19 your mind?
20 A She is a student assistant. She's part-time,
21 seasonal, and temporary. There is -- remember, the AOC
22 has -- does not administer its own benefits. It is part
23 of the CalPERS retirement system, for instance. It does
24 not administer its own dental plan, vision plan, and
25 those kinds of things.
222
1 So the rules that apply to the Executive Branch
2 apply to the AOC, as well, around eligibility for
3 benefits. To be eligible for benefits, you have to have
4 a certain type of appointment. And the student
5 assistant doesn't have that type of appointment.
6 Q Did you ever ask Ernie why he gave benefits to
7 that student assistant?
8 A After -- yes, I did.
9 Q And what did he tell you was the reason or
10 reasons?
11 A When they had posted that vacancy -- again, it
12 was some type of recruitment. The recruiter had put the
13 standard language around benefits on the recruitment
14 notice. Felicia was not in the office at the time. The
15 recruiter had not been trained on how to properly post
16 those announcements.
17 The day the student appeared and I talked with
18 her for the first time, she was talking about having all
19 these benefits. I said, "No, you're a student
20 assistant. You're not entitled to health benefits."
21 Generally that's what people talk to me about.
22 I went to Ernie and he said, "Well, we have to do
23 that since that's what we posted. And if we don't give
24 her these benefits, she's entitled to sue us." And I
25 said, "I don't believe that to be true. She is a
223
1 student. She's just been hired. Let's talk with
2 general counsel and see what our rights are." And he
3 refused to do that. But he can't give her benefits that
4 she's not entitled to under the law, under the CalPERS
5 law. The -- under CalPERS, you have to have a certain
6 appointment to meet entitlement for benefits.
7 Q Do you know whether that student assistant
8 ultimately did end up getting the benefits?
9 A She did not enroll in health and dental because
10 she had coverage through her mother, I believe. But the
11 big cost has to do with retirement. Under --
12 Q Do you know whether she actually received
13 retirement benefits?
14 A Yes. The employer made the contribution for
15 retirement benefits because that's just part of the
16 budgeting process.
17 Q And other than that, do you know whether the
18 student assistant received any other health benefits?
19 A She didn't enroll in health and dental. And she
20 wasn't entitled to non-industrial disability but she
21 wouldn't have had an opportunity to use that anyway.
22 But she accrued vacation and sick leave.
23 Q And you indicated that the --
24 MR. EMERT: Counsel, it's nearly 5:00 o'clock.
25 So when you get to a natural breaking point, I would
224
1 invite you to do so.
2 MR. FELLERMAN: Sure. Let me just finish this
3 one issue; then we'll adjourn.
4 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
5 Q And the third issue is you said that he promoted
6 an employee who did not meet the minimum qualification
7 for the promotion.
8 Who was that person?
9 A The first name is Monica. I'm sorry. Her last
10 name escapes me.
11 Q What was her position pre-promotion?
12 A First she was HR analyst.
13 Q What was her position after the promotion?
14 A She was promoted to senior HR analyst. And then
15 she was promoted to supervisor. There may be more of
16 the title than that.
17 Q Did you disagree with both of those promotions
18 or just one?
19 A The supervisor promotion when we were doing the
20 PAR -- the PAR for the promotion and looked at the
21 minimum qualifications, she didn't meet the minimum
22 qualifications for her initial appointment to the AOC.
23 And this happens, for instance, with attorneys. It's
24 not common, but it's not uncommon that an attorney will
25 get hired and be appointed in the series C and really
225
1 only meet the qualifications for B or something.
2 Oversights happen.
3 Again, there's nothing in the Policies and
4 Procedures Manual that addresses mistakes. But
5 generally what you would do is you would hold the
6 employee in the classification they're in until such
7 time that they met the minimum classifications. You
8 don't promote them further along. You keep them in this
9 classification.
10 Q So you disagreed with both promotion decisions?
11 A I disagreed with the supervisor, one, because
12 that was my first opportunity to really look at the
13 person's application and look at her resume. And my
14 first question to Jeanie --
15 MR. EMERT: Cayhill.
16 THE WITNESS: -- Cayhill was, "How did we hire
17 this person to begin with? Under what criteria did we
18 promote her? And now that we're in the second
19 promotion, how do we do that when she did not meet the
20 minimum qualification of the first hire?"
21 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
22 Q What did Jeanie say in response?
23 A All of these things were done before her time,
24 and she took no responsibility for it.
25 Q Did you ever discuss the promotion with Ernie?
226
1 A I did discuss it with Ernie, and he told me if I
2 couldn't be part of the management team, I could
3 probably find another job.
4 Q Did Ernie ever provide you with a reason or
5 reasons as to why the promotion occurred?
6 A None.
7 Q Did you ask him why he did it?
8 A His statement was --
9 Q My question was you. Did you ask him why he did
10 it?
11 A I said, "What is this person doing?" The other
12 problem was what was the person going to do. They were
13 a senior HR analyst. Okay? Now that they were going to
14 be a supervisor, what were they doing -- who were they
15 going to supervise because there was no staff, and what
16 was the job that they were going to do? There was no
17 job description to go along with it and no staff.
18 Q Did he respond to that question?
19 A His response was "I can do what I choose."
20 MR. FELLERMAN: All right. We are at 5:00
21 o'clock, and I had promised to adjourn at 5:00. We'll
22 all -- we'll recommence this, consistent with
23 everybody's calendars, especially yours, since you
24 indicated you're going to be leaving town.
25 We'll recommence after you come back for a date
227
1 that's convenient for your calendar and Mr. Emert's
2 calendar and Mr. Clapp's calendar. Mr. Emert will be
3 back in touch with you to arrange a schedule of that.
4 Thank you very much for your patience and your time
5 today. I appreciate it very much.
6 MR. CLAPP: Thank you very much.
7 THE REPORTER: Mr. Clapp, would you like this
8 transcribed?
9 MR. CLAPP: Absolutely, yeah.
10 THE REPORTER: Mr. Fellerman, would you like a
11 copy of the transcript?
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Yes, please, with a condensed
13 and ASCII and a ribbon on it and nice bow.
14 THE REPORTER: Did you want a copy?
15 MR. EMERT: No. That's okay.
16 (Deposition concluded at 5:00 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
228
1 CASE: NEGLEY vs. JUDICIAL COUNCIL, et al.
2 DATE: June 29, 2009
3
4 Please be advised I have read the foregoing deposition,
5 and I hereby state there are:
6 (Check one)
7 ____________ NO CORRECTIONS
8 ____________ CORRECTIONS ATTACHED
9
10
11 ___________________________________
12 LURA FRANZELLA
13
14 ___________________________________
15 Date Signed
16
17
18 ---o0o---
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
229
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4 I, Jennifer F. Milne, CSR #10894, a Certified
5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California,
6 do hereby certify that, prior to being examined, the
7 witness named in the foregoing deposition was by me duly
8 sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
9 but the truth; that said deposition was taken down by me
10 in shorthand at the time and place named therein and was
11 thereafter transcribed under my supervision; that this
12 transcript contains a full, true and correct record of
13 the proceedings which took place at the time and place
14 set forth in the caption hereto.
15 I further certify that I have no interest in the
16 event of this action.
17
18 EXECUTED this 10th day of July, 2009.
19
20
21 ____________________________
22 JENNIFER MILNE
23
24
25
230
1 GOLDEN STATE COURT REPORTING
3800 Watt Avenue, Suite 201
2 Sacramento, California 95821
Phone: (916) 489-5900
3
4 July 10, 2009
5 LURA FRANZELLA
C/O TIM J. EMERT, Esq.
6 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
455 Golden Gate Avenue
7 San Francisco, CA 94102
8 Re: NEGLEY vs. JUDICIAL COUNCIL, et al.
Date of Deposition: June 29, 2009
9
The transcript of your deposition taken in the
10 above-entitled matter has now been completed. The
original transcript will be held in this office for 35
11 days from the date of this letter before it is sealed
and forwarded to the deposing attorney. You have the
12 right to review, sign, and make corrections to your
transcript within the 35-day period by coming to our
13 office. Please call the above number to make an
appointment for your review. It is standard policy not
14 to release the original transcript and complimentary
copies are not provided.
15
If you are represented by an attorney, I advise that you
16 contact your attorney to discuss the matter. You may
read your attorney's copy of the transcript and forward
17 any changes to our office by letter or by filling out
the correction page included in the transcript. If you
18 are an independent witness and have any questions,
please contact the attorney who requested you to testify
19 or this office for further instructions.
20 There is no need to contact this office if you do not
wish to read your transcript.
21
22 Very truly yours,
23
24 GOLDEN STATE COURT REPORTING
25 cc: All Counsel
231
Part 2 of 2
232
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA
3 ---oOo---
4 PAULA J. NEGLEY,
5 Plaintiff,
6 vs. No. CV 08 3690 MHP
7 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
an Administrative Office of the
8 Courts,
9 Defendant.
________________________________/
10
11
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF LURA FRANZELLA
16 VOLUME II
17 (Pages 232 to 335, inclusive)
18
19 Taken before SANDRA M. LEE
20 CSR No. 9971
21 October 1, 2009
22
23
24
25
233
1 I N D E X
2 PAGE
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. FELLERMAN 235
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. CLAPP 287
5
6
7
8
9
E X H I B I T S
10
DEFENDANT'S PAGE
11
A Request for Exemption (Authorized 285
12 Positions)
13 B Lura Franzella's resignation letter dated 287
May 28, 2008
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
234
1 DEPOSITION OF LURA FRANZELLA
2
3 BE IT REMEMBERED, that pursuant to Notice, and
4 on the 1st day of October 2009, commencing at the hour
5 of 10:44 a.m., in the offices of the Administration
6 Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San
7 Francisco, California, before me, SANDRA M. LEE, a
8 Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared LURA
9 FRANZELLA, produced as a witness in said action, and
10 being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon examined as
11 a witness in said cause.
12 ---o0o---
13 APPEARANCES:
14 For the Plaintiff:
15 JOSEPH CLAPP
Kumin Sommers LLP
16 870 Market Street, Suite 1154
San Francisco, California 94102
17
For the Defendant:
18
TIM J. EMERT
19 Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
20 455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
21
For the Defendant:
22
IAN P. FELLERMAN
23 Wiley, Price & Radulovich, LLP
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 310
24 Alameda, California 94501
25
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
235
1 LURA FRANZELLA,
2 resworn as a witness,
3 testified as follows:
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. FELLERMAN:
5 Q. Good morning, Miss Franzella. Again, I
6 thanked you off the record, but let me thank you on the
7 record for coming out to San Francisco for this. I
8 appreciate it very much. I know it's not a short jaunt.
9 Much appreciated.
10 This is a continuation of your deposition that,
11 I think, started back in June, so it's been a while.
12 And so let me just remind you that the same ground rules
13 that applied to the first session of your deposition
14 apply equally today.
15 You understand that, of course?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the most important thing is to remember
18 that although we're sitting in an informal setting in a
19 conference room, your testimony today is given under
20 penalty of perjury just like it has been throughout.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. A couple of things. You did a really good job
23 last time, my recollection is, in waiting for the
24 question to be finished before you interposed your
25 answer. Please continue doing that because the court
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
236
1 reporter can only take down what one of us is saying at
2 any given time.
3 Okay?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And also, as I think you've been doing a fine
6 job all along, continue to answer audibly with spoken
7 words rather than with shakes of the head or inaudible
8 sounds such as "uh-huh" or "huh-uh," just again so we
9 can have a clear transcript on the record.
10 Okay?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Let's get right into it. I'll try not to take
13 up too much of your time.
14 Aside from the inquiries that you received
15 regarding Wolf and Duncan, did you ever receive any
16 requests while you were at the AOC about classifying or
17 reclassifying someone as a special consultant?
18 A. With the exception of Wolf and Duncan, I did
19 have a request. And, again, it's been such a long time,
20 I've forgotten many of the players. But I did have a
21 request from the division that does education -- Tim,
22 you may have to help me.
23 MR. EMERT: You're the witness. You have to do
24 that.
25 THE WITNESS: Whatever the division is that
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
237
1 does court education, they had an employee there that
2 they wanted to reclassify to a special consultant.
3 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
4 Q. Was that employee classified as a special
5 consultant while you were at the AOL?
6 A. The request came in, and I denied it, and they
7 did not pursue it.
8 Q. Do you recall why you denied that request?
9 A. The division could not provide any supporting
10 documentation as to what the employee would be doing
11 than what they were doing currently as a court services
12 analyst or senior court services analyst. They couldn't
13 provide any additional information.
14 Q. Fair enough.
15 And so because from all appearances, the
16 person's duties were going to remain the same, you
17 denied the request to make them a special consultant?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did they indicate why they wanted to make that
20 person a special consultant with their duties being the
21 same?
22 A. The person had been in that job for a number of
23 years, had been at the cap of the salary for a number of
24 years. They told me they felt that this was an
25 appropriate reclassification as a way to compensate her
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
238
1 more.
2 Q. Other than that issue -- and, again, you don't
3 remember the person who was involved in that?
4 A. I just don't recall the person's name.
5 Q. Fair enough.
6 Aside from that situation, were you ever
7 involved in any other request or inquiry about
8 classifying or reclassifying someone as a special
9 consultant while you were at the AOC?
10 A. I was in a couple of meetings over a few weeks
11 where we were talking about special consultants and the
12 utilization of that classification within the AOC, and
13 those meetings were with the human resources director,
14 Ernie Fuentes and Jeanne Caughell and, again, a few of
15 the other deputy directors that I just don't -- Ken
16 Carne and someone else, but I can't recall their name.
17 Q. But other than general discussions about the
18 subject of special consultants, were you ever involved
19 in any other situation where you were asked to approve
20 or disapprove a request to classify or reclassify
21 someone as a special consultant besides Wolf, Duncan and
22 this person in court education division?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Aside from the inquiry that you received with
25 respect to Wolf and Duncan, did you ever receive any
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
239
1 request to classify or reclassify a senior position -- a
2 classification that was going to have a senior title in
3 front of it while you were at the AOC?
4 A. That didn't already have a "senior" in front of
5 it?
6 Q. Correct.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you receive any training at the AOC
9 regarding the criteria or standards to use in
10 classifying or reclassifying a position?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So would it be accurate to say that your
13 knowledge with respect to what standards or criteria to
14 use in classifying or reclassifying a position at the
15 AOC was informed by the personnel procedures manual and
16 your prior experience in the executive branch?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, the special consultant classification at
19 the AOC was occasionally used for unusual or special
20 situations, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Including situations where an employee might be
23 working on a special project requiring particular
24 expertise, correct?
25 A. I cannot say.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
240
1 Q. Are there any specific criteria in the
2 personnel procedures manual for the special consultant
3 classification?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. I'll just show you what was previously marked
6 as Exhibit 1. This policies and procedures manual was
7 marked by Mr. Clapp. And if you'd like, look through
8 the classification policies and see if that refreshes
9 your recollection at all.
10 It's my understanding there are no specific
11 criteria in the manual for special consultant
12 classification, but correct me if I'm wrong.
13 A. I'm sorry. Could you restate that last...
14 Q. Sure.
15 There are no specific criteria or standards in
16 the personnel policies and procedures manual for the
17 special consultant classification, correct?
18 MR. CLAPP: This is not the entire manual.
19 MR. FELLERMAN: It includes the policy dealing
20 with classification, but you're correct. If you like, I
21 can give you the entire manual.
22 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
23 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
24 Q. I'm trying to refresh your recollection.
25 A. Right. Thank you. Again, it's been a while
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
241
1 since I've had to think about these things.
2 Q. I can completely understand.
3 A. The job classification that's on 2.7.1:1 is
4 from, what I recall, the entire description of job
5 classification. There's nothing specific to any
6 classification.
7 Q. There are no specific criteria in that
8 personnel policies and procedures manual for the special
9 consultant classification, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. There's no other written documentation that
12 you're aware of that sets forth any criteria or
13 standards for the special consultant classification,
14 correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So would it be accurate to say that whether a
17 person is placed in a special consultant classification
18 is ultimately up to the management's discretion as to
19 whether that's appropriate or not in a specific
20 circumstance?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. There were several people in the special
23 consultant classification while you were at the AOC,
24 correct?
25 A. Yes.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
242
1 Q. And do you recall who was in that
2 classification while you were at the AOC?
3 A. I don't recall their names. I do recall
4 looking at a staffing report where I want to say eight
5 to ten people were classified as special consultants,
6 and I was starting to review that paperwork as I was
7 leaving.
8 Q. But as you sit here today, given the time
9 passing, you don't remember who any of those people
10 were?
11 A. Yes. I can't remember their names.
12 Q. Do you know why each person that was then in
13 the special consultant classification was placed in that
14 classification?
15 A. Why each person was?
16 Q. Right.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know the reason why any of the people
19 that were then in the special consultant classification
20 had been placed in that classification?
21 A. I found no documentation to support any
22 appointment to special consultant.
23 Q. I appreciate that.
24 But did you ever know why any of the people in
25 the special consultant classification were actually
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
243
1 placed in that classification?
2 A. I cannot recall their names. I did discuss the
3 classification and people in it with Jeanne Caughell.
4 Q. And did Miss Caughell tell you why any of the
5 people that were then in the special consultant
6 classification had been placed previously in that
7 classification?
8 A. Two of them -- again, I can't recall the
9 names -- she specifically told me were placed in that
10 classification because they had capped out at the salary
11 range, and the division wanted to provide higher
12 compensation.
13 Q. Miss Caughell informed you that at least two of
14 the people that were then special consultants at the AOC
15 had been placed in that position as a way of getting
16 them money beyond the max of the range of the
17 classification they had previously been in, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And she had indicated to you that that was past
20 practice at the AOC before you took over, correct?
21 A. She just indicated it had been done.
22 Q. She didn't indicate that there was any -- that
23 she felt that there was any problem or issue with that
24 having been done for that reason, correct?
25 A. No. She did indicate that she felt that that
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
244
1 was inappropriate.
2 Q. She did?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Other than the two people that Miss Caughell
5 told you had been put into that classification as a way
6 of getting them additional money, do you know why any of
7 the other people who were in the special consultant
8 classification at the AOC had been placed in that
9 classification?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. And do you know whether a salary survey was
12 done before the people in the special consultant
13 classification at the AOC had been given the salary they
14 received?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Do you know whether any written justification
17 memo was ever provided in connection with making any of
18 the other special consultants or putting them into that
19 special consultant classification?
20 A. I looked at the personnel file of everybody
21 that was in the special consultant classification at
22 that time. I found nothing in anyone's file that
23 supported that appointment.
24 Q. So you didn't find any justification memos or
25 memos setting forth the reasons why they were placed in
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
245
1 that position, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. The salary range for the special consultants
4 ranges from zero to $16,000 a month, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. There's nothing in the personnel policies and
7 procedures manual that specifies the criteria for paying
8 special consultants or how much to pay a special
9 consultant, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And there's nothing else in writing that you're
12 aware of at the AOC that sets forth standards or
13 criteria for determining how much to pay a special
14 consultant, correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So then nothing in the personnel policies and
17 procedures manual precluded the AOC from placing Mr.
18 Duncan in the special consultant classification,
19 correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Similarly, nothing in the personnel policies
22 and procedures manual precluded paying Mr. Duncan
23 whatever salary they paid him as a special consultant,
24 correct?
25 A. Correct.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
246
1 Q. Similarly, nothing in the personnel policies
2 and procedures manual precluded Mr. Wolf being
3 classified as a special consultant, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Under Section 2.6.1 of the personnel policies
6 and procedures manual, while job openings were generally
7 posted, alternative recruiting methods may be employed
8 at the discretion of the division director, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 MR. CLAPP: Can you tell us where you're
11 looking?
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Yes. 2.6.1.
13 MR. CLAPP: Can you give us the paragraph
14 you're talking about?
15 MR. FELLERMAN: No. I don't have that offhand,
16 Joe.
17 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 2.
18 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
19 Q. And then -- in any event, your answer was
20 "correct," right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then while -- okay. Are you aware of any
23 alternative recruiting methods that were employed at the
24 AOC while you were there -- strike that.
25 First of all, you were in charge of
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
247
1 recruitment, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Nonetheless, were you aware while you were at
4 the AOC of any alternative recruiting methods that were
5 employed at the discretion of the division director in
6 lieu of posting job openings?
7 A. The only alternative that I was aware of was
8 using a headhunter consulting firm to fill certain
9 positions.
10 Q. Did you ever ask anyone in recruiting what
11 alternative recruiting methods they used to recruit
12 people?
13 A. I did. I asked one of the recruiters. The
14 general public posting that the public could see on the
15 intranet, and then there was internal recruitment. And
16 it could be limited to a division. It could be limited
17 to the employees in the AOC that was not posted in a
18 public way, but was posted for employees.
19 Q. Again, I understand you weren't in charge of
20 recruitment, but while you were employed at the AOC, did
21 you have any knowledge of any employees at the AOC
22 placed into positions without having outside postings?
23 A. Outside to the public --
24 Q. Correct.
25 A. -- or outside to internal?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
248
1 Q. First let's start outside to the public.
2 A. No.
3 Q. How about -- are you aware of any people being
4 placed in a position at AOC without having an internal
5 posting or just having an internal posting?
6 A. An internal posting was a common occurrence.
7 Q. A job would be filled simply by doing an
8 internal posting to other employees as opposed to an
9 external posting?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. So under Section 2.6.1 of the personnel
12 policies and procedures manual, while job openings were
13 generally posted, the division director at his
14 discretion had authority to not post, correct, by
15 employing an alternative recruitment method?
16 A. Using an alternative recruitment method,
17 correct.
18 Q. You say the personnel policies and procedures
19 manual leaves a certain amount of discretion to
20 management regarding recruitment in hiring?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the manual in general sets forth broad
23 strokes without setting forth the details of
24 implementation in general, correct?
25 A. Yes.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
249
1 Q. Now, the AOC obtained an exemption to hire Mr.
2 Wolf as a senior labor employee relations officer,
3 correct?
4 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand "The AOC
5 received an exemption."
6 Q. An exemption was obtained -- I shouldn't say
7 the AOC obtained an exemption.
8 An exemption was obtained to hire Mr. Wolf as a
9 senior labor employee relations officer, correct?
10 A. Not that I'm aware of.
11 Q. And are you aware of whether approval was
12 obtained to change the position that has formerly been
13 held by Mr. Duncan into that of senior labor employee
14 relations officer?
15 A. Mr. Wolf was hired as a special consultant.
16 Q. Are you aware whether approval was ever
17 obtained to change Mr. Duncan's or the second labor
18 relation negotiator position into that of senior labor
19 employee relations officer at any time?
20 A. And I cannot answer to the specifics of the
21 position number itself, whether Mr. Duncan's position
22 number was used or not. The position was established
23 for the senior labor negotiator.
24 Q. And my question actually didn't deal with the
25 senior labor negotiator. It dealt with the senior labor
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
250
1 employee relations officer.
2 So my question is: Do you have any knowledge
3 as to whether one of the two labor relations negotiator
4 positions was reclassified as senior labor employee
5 relations officer while you were at the AOC?
6 A. And I don't recall the classification, so if
7 you could clarify. Is that the classification that
8 Scott Gardner was in?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. So with that clarification, do you know whether
12 either of the labor relations negotiator classifications
13 was reclassified to that of senior labor employee
14 relations officer while you worked at the AOC?
15 A. I don't think so.
16 Q. Do you know whether there was sufficient amount
17 of money in the HR budget to allow the hiring of Mr.
18 Wolf at the salary that he was paid as senior labor
19 relations negotiator?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I know this is before your employment started,
22 so I understand what you don't know.
23 Do you have any knowledge as to whether Mr.
24 Gardner was placed into his senior labor employee
25 relations officer position without posting -- external
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
251
1 posting or competitive recruitment?
2 A. There was not an external posting or
3 recruitment.
4 Q. Now, you reported to Ernie Fuentes, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He was your supervisor, so to speak, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. He was higher up in the food chain or the
9 organizational hierarchy of AOC, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it was within his authority as division
12 director to ask you or instruct you to create a class
13 spec for the senior labor relations negotiator position,
14 correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Ultimately the chief justice approved that
17 senior labor relations negotiator classification,
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the general specs used in the senior labor
21 relations negotiator classification, namely acting as a
22 lead over people in the non-senior class and performing
23 complex specialized duties, were consistent with the
24 specs of other senior classifications within the AOC
25 generally, correct?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
252
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And no policy in the personnel policies and
3 procedures manual was violated in changing Mr. Wolf's
4 classification from special consultant to labor
5 relations negotiator, was there?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Duncan was paid less
8 than Mr. Wolf?
9 A. I don't recall.
10 Q. As of April 2008, did you have any knowledge of
11 Mr. Wolf's prior work experience?
12 A. I had read his résumé, yes.
13 Q. Based on his résumé, did you ever form any
14 belief as to whether Mr. Wolf had more prior work
15 experience applicable to the senior labor relations
16 negotiator position than did Miss Negley?
17 A. Could you go back to the beginning of that
18 question?
19 MR. FELLERMAN: Court Reporter, could you
20 please read it back?
21 Thank you. It may have been long-winded.
22 (Record read.)
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
25 Q. While you were employed at the AOC, do you have
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
253
1 knowledge of anyone other than Mr. Wolf being hired at
2 more than ten percent above the minimum salary
3 established for the classification?
4 A. Not to my knowledge.
5 Q. Now, you were hired at ten percent above the
6 minimum salary for your classification, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And were you ever informed why they paid you
9 ten percent above the minimum?
10 A. I asked for it.
11 Q. Was your understanding that they gave it to you
12 based on the salary that you had at the executive branch
13 before coming over to the AOC?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did they ever give you any reason as to why
16 they gave you that ten -- gave you a salary ten percent
17 above the minimum?
18 A. Because I said I would not come for less.
19 Q. And you feel it was appropriate they pay you
20 ten percent above the minimum?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. There was no violation of any policy by doing
23 that, correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Now, under the Section 3.2.1 of the personnel
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
254
1 policies and procedures manual, in certain situations --
2 why don't you go ahead and read it to yourself before I
3 ask you a question. It's difficult to ask you a
4 question and have you look at the policy at the same
5 time.
6 Let me know when you're finished, please.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. Now, looking at the third paragraph of Section
9 3.2.1 of the personnel policies manual, the starting
10 salary of a new hire may be increased up to the maximum
11 of the salary range for that classification based on
12 exceptional qualifications, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And there's nothing set forth in the policy
15 regarding what constitutes exceptional qualifications,
16 correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Instead, under the policy, paying a higher
19 salary is within the discretion of the appointing
20 authority after consulting with the HR division,
21 correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. While you were at the AOC, was there ever a
24 situation where a hiring was done for a certain
25 classification and then before that position was filled
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
255
1 that position was reclassified to another
2 classification?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you know whether that had ever occurred
5 prior to you working at the AOC?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Someone told you previously that there had been
8 such situations?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And who did you get that information from?
11 A. Roland Nelson. I hope I have the right name
12 correct.
13 Q. Did Mr. Nelson indicate to you that in those
14 prior situations where that occurred whether there was a
15 new posting for the reclassified position as opposed to
16 simply using the prior applicant pool to fill the
17 reclassified position; did he tell you one way or the
18 other?
19 A. He told me that in the past the situation had
20 presented itself and that what he would always recommend
21 is the position be at least reposted --
22 Q. Did he indicate -- I'm sorry.
23 A. -- at the classification that they were hiring
24 at.
25 Q. Did he indicate whether that recommendation was
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
256
1 followed and whether, in fact, they had reposted the
2 reclassified -- reclassified position?
3 A. In a few cases, it was followed, but not on
4 every occasion.
5 Q. So Roland indicated to you in the past there
6 had been situations where they were seeking to fill a
7 position, and then the position they were seeking to
8 fill got reclassified and that the AOC used the prior
9 applicant pool rather than reposting for that
10 reclassification, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then he told you there were other situations
13 where they reposted for the reclassified position,
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There was nothing in the personnel policies and
17 procedures manual that required reposting for the
18 reclassified position, correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Did anyone at the AOC, including Mr. Fuentes or
21 Mr. Couch or Mr. Gardner, ever discuss with you their
22 opinion regarding Mr. Wolf's qualifications and
23 experience?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Under Policy 3.2.1 of the manual, a manager may
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
257
1 consider an applicant's current compensation in arriving
2 at a salary recommendation, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Similarly, a manager may consider the quantity
5 and quality of the applicant's prior work experience in
6 arriving and determining compensation to pay the
7 applicant, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Similarly, under the policy, in determining
10 salary, management may also consider existing staff
11 salaries, correct?
12 A. Existing staff salaries?
13 Q. Yeah. I'm looking at the second paragraph when
14 it talks about factors that may be considered, including
15 a reference to comparisons with current staff salary
16 alignments.
17 And so following up on that, would it be
18 accurate to say that under the compensation policy set
19 forth in the manual, management may consider current
20 staff salaries in determining what salary to pay a new
21 hire, correct?
22 A. Looking at the salary range, yes.
23 Q. Another factor management could look at is the
24 applicant's particular subject matter expertise,
25 correct?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
258
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Do you know what Mr. Wolf's compensation was
3 prior to starting at the AOC?
4 A. I don't -- I don't recall. I did know it. I
5 just don't recall.
6 Q. At the time that you were discussing this whole
7 issue, you were aware of what his salary was at the
8 time?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And do you have a recollection that it was
11 significantly higher than what the AOC was offering?
12 A. I recall it was higher.
13 Q. How much higher, whether it was significant or
14 not, you can't recall?
15 A. Doesn't register at this point.
16 Q. Fair enough. We're going back quite a ways.
17 No surprise there.
18 Now, you participated in preparing the senior
19 labor relations negotiator class spec before it was
20 approved by the chief, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tell me how that worked, whether Duc Le took
23 the initial draft edit and you revised it, or were you
24 involved in preparing the initial draft. Just take me
25 through the process of how the class spec for the senior
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
259
1 labor relations negotiator position was prepared.
2 A. Duc and I worked on it jointly. I wouldn't say
3 that I drafted it or he drafted it. We discussed it at
4 length together. I actually recall typing it, so I
5 probably drafted it.
6 Q. And it was based, in part, on what Ken Couch
7 indicated to you the duties of that position were
8 envisioned to be, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And were you similarly involved in doing the
11 salary market survey for the senior labor relations
12 negotiator position, or did Nancy Ridell do that on her
13 own?
14 A. Nancy Ridell did it, but as her supervisor, I
15 worked again with her. We met together to discuss the
16 results.
17 Q. And then based on your review of Miss Ridell's
18 salary survey, you determined what the appropriate
19 salary range would be for the senior labor relations
20 negotiator position, correct?
21 A. I don't recall it in that order.
22 Q. Please tell me whatever order it happened, the
23 salary issue.
24 A. I had met with Ken Couch and Ernie Fuentes.
25 They told me what they wanted to pay Dave Wolf, and they
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
260
1 instructed us, Nancy and I, to do a salary survey that
2 would support that.
3 Q. Then Nancy did the salary survey?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you reviewed the salary survey?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did she appear to have done an accurate
8 salary survey of comparable positions in other regions?
9 A. In my opinion, there was not enough information
10 to support the salary survey. It was not comparable --
11 we were forcing comps to meet that.
12 Q. Do you recall what comps she used for the
13 senior labor relations negotiator position?
14 A. Again, I may have forgotten part of this.
15 There was a position in the City and County of San
16 Francisco and another position somewhere in the Bay
17 Area.
18 Q. And those positions were positions as senior
19 labor relations negotiator or equivalent?
20 A. They didn't have the same title. They were
21 working in labor relations and some negotiations. But
22 it's not uncommon for employers not to release the
23 details of those duties. It's difficult to find exact
24 matches.
25 Q. Do you believe that Miss Ridell made a
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
261
1 good-faith effort to find as close a match as she could
2 for the senior labor relations negotiator salary survey?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And were you aware of any additional
5 information that would have been relevant to the survey
6 other than what she had in there?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Then based on the salary survey she did, did
9 that justify the salary range you had for the senior
10 labor relations negotiator position?
11 A. I would like to go back to state that we were
12 told what the salary range needed to be, so we found
13 positions that supported it.
14 Q. And did the salary survey that Miss Ridell
15 prepared support the salary range that was ultimately
16 put in place for the senior labor relations negotiator
17 position?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you ultimately approve the salary range for
20 the senior labor relations negotiator position in your
21 capacity as senior manager over compensation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I'd like to briefly go over, if I may, with you
24 conversations you've had with Miss Negley over time.
25 First of all, I'd like to focus on any conversations you
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
262
1 had with Miss Negley between the time period of, say,
2 December-ish 2007 until you left the AOC.
3 Did you speak with Miss Negley at any point in
4 time during that time period that you can recall?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you speak with her on a relatively regular
7 basis?
8 A. No.
9 Q. What would be your best estimate as to the
10 approximate number of times the two of you talked during
11 that time period or in frequency how often you spoke
12 with Miss Negley during that six- or seven-month time
13 period from December '07 until you left the AOC?
14 A. Maybe six times.
15 Q. And do you recall any of those conversations?
16 A. I -- I recall one very specific conversation.
17 Q. Why don't you tell me about that?
18 A. At the time that we established the senior
19 labor relations negotiator -- get all the titles
20 straight -- that did affect the classification Miss
21 Negley was in. Because when I read that class
22 specification, it said that the series was a one-series
23 classification. It specifically stated it was one -- it
24 was not a series of things. It was a one-series
25 classification labor negotiator. When we created or
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
263
1 established another one in the series, we had to modify
2 her class specification to say that it was multi-series.
3 That had been an oversight on my part until
4 some morning when I came in, I was finishing a package,
5 I made that change. It was considered an insignificant
6 change, so it did not need to be approved by the chief
7 justice. I felt the employee had the right to know that
8 we had changed the class specification she was in and
9 discussed it with her and gave her a copy of that spec.
10 Q. And you told her the class spec had been
11 changed, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you tell her why it was changed?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Why?
16 A. We had established a senior classification that
17 the chief justice had just signed off on.
18 Q. Had Mr. Wolf started at the AOC at that time?
19 A. Yes. Because he was appointed the prior month
20 as a special consultant.
21 Q. Had he started working at the time you spoke to
22 Miss Negley about it?
23 A. I don't recall the date that Mr. Wolf was put
24 into that classification. I don't recall if it was May
25 1st or May 15th. I just don't recall the date that he
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
264
1 was actually appointed to that position.
2 Q. He started there on May 1 as human labor
3 relations negotiator.
4 Do you recall whether this conversation with
5 Miss Negley happened before or after May 1?
6 A. It happened the day after the chief justice
7 signed the classification, whatever date that was.
8 Q. Fair enough.
9 And did Miss Negley say anything in response
10 when you told her that you changed the class spec and
11 why you changed it?
12 A. She asked for a copy of the other class spec,
13 the senior class spec. And since we'd already posted
14 that to the intranet, I directed her to that posting.
15 Q. Anything else you said to each other in that
16 conversation aside from what you've testified to?
17 A. We had -- we did discuss the appointment of
18 Dave Wolf, yes.
19 Q. And what, if anything, did you say to her in
20 that conversation regarding the appointment of Dave
21 Wolf?
22 A. Again, the timing may be a little peculiar, but
23 that he had been appointed in the special consultant
24 classification and that he would be appointed to the
25 senior as soon as we had all the paperwork in order.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
265
1 She asked if we had posted that position, and I said I
2 did not believe we had.
3 Q. Anything else you recall either of you saying
4 to each other in that conversation relating to the
5 appointment of Dave Wolf?
6 A. Not that I recall.
7 Q. Anything else you recall saying to Miss Negley
8 at any time between December '07 and the time you left
9 the AOC?
10 A. We had some other conversations about job
11 descriptions. I don't recall the timing of that.
12 Q. Do you recall what was discussed between you
13 and Miss Negley regarding the subject of job
14 descriptions?
15 A. Did we have job descriptions for the positions.
16 Q. And you told her no?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Any other issues you recall discussing with
19 Miss Negley between December 2007 and June 2008 or any
20 other conversations you remember having with her?
21 A. Other than just probably pleasantries, I don't
22 recall.
23 Q. Nothing else stands out in your mind; you can't
24 recall anything else you said to her during that time
25 period or anything she said to you during that time
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
266
1 period?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Fair enough.
4 How about since you've left the AOC;
5 approximately how many times have you spoken to Miss
6 Negley?
7 A. I spoke to her after I left to make sure she
8 had my contact information because I knew she would need
9 that. And we spoke probably in October or November
10 of -- where are we at now? -- 2008 regarding her appeal
11 or complaint about the appointment of Jim Duncan to the
12 special consultant classification.
13 Q. I'll get into the various conversations.
14 A. Probably that. Around Christmas of that year,
15 we talked. It wasn't district related. It was about
16 Christmas ornaments or something. In February of this
17 year, we talked again.
18 Q. Have you spoken to Miss Negley since February?
19 A. She and I had lunch in Sacramento recently
20 because she was working there and...
21 Q. Any other conversations with Miss Negley since
22 February other than lunch in Sacramento?
23 A. I don't recall any others.
24 Q. And so right around the time you left, you
25 contacted her to give her your contact information?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
267
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You said that you knew she would need it.
3 Why did you feel she would need your contact
4 information after you left?
5 A. She had already told me that she would be
6 filing a complaint or a grievance or an appeal or
7 whatever it was labeled.
8 Q. Before you had left, had you had a discussion
9 about her complaint?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Before you left, you indicated to her you would
12 be willing to assist her in connection with her
13 complaint?
14 A. No.
15 Q. After you left, did you indicate to her that
16 you were willing to provide assistance to her in
17 connection with her complaint?
18 A. She asked if I would be willing to be deposed
19 or interviewed or whatever was going to happen, and I
20 said yes.
21 Q. Other than that, was there any discussion of
22 any assistance you were going to provide in connection
23 with her complaint?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Then when you said in October or November of
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
268
1 '08 you had a conversation with her, was this in person
2 or over the phone?
3 A. It was on the phone.
4 Q. Who called whom? If you remember.
5 A. I'm sure she called me.
6 Q. What do you recall her saying to you on that
7 occasion?
8 A. Again, I apologize. So much of this is sort
9 of... We were talking about Jim Duncan and the use of
10 special consultants within the AOC. It was just kind of
11 broadly -- a discussion about just special consultants
12 within the AOC.
13 Q. Do you remember anything she said on that
14 subject?
15 A. Not really. Sorry.
16 Q. Do you recall anything you said to her about
17 that subject in that conversation?
18 A. That the special consultant series was a very
19 peculiar series within the AOC. It, in my opinion, had
20 a potential for a great deal of abuse.
21 Q. Anything else you recall saying to her in that
22 conversation about any subject?
23 A. Not that I recall.
24 Q. Anything else you recall her saying to you in
25 that conversation about any subject?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
269
1 A. I'm sorry. I just don't remember much more
2 about the conversation.
3 Q. Fair enough.
4 Then you said you had a conversation at
5 Christmas. Was that in person or over the phone?
6 A. Over the phone.
7 Q. Do you recall who called whom?
8 A. Paula called me.
9 Q. Did she call to wish you a happy Christmas?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did she ask you about your grandchildren?
12 A. My granddaughter. We were talking about --
13 Q. Your granddaughter. I apologize.
14 A. We were talking about my granddaughter and
15 Christmas and the making of a Christmas ornament.
16 Q. So just social chitchat?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did she discuss at all her personal life with
19 you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And other than engaging in social chitchat,
22 anything else you recall about that conversation?
23 A. Not in that conversation, no.
24 Q. February of this year, you had another
25 conversation with her; is that right?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
270
1 A. In February of this year, the written outcome
2 of the discrimination complaint regarding Jim Duncan and
3 the special consultant series -- I'm not exactly sure
4 what all that encompassed, but I was curious about the
5 outcome of that. We met in Woodland. I was in Woodland
6 for a birthday party.
7 Q. You were interested in finding out what the
8 outcome was of the discrimination complaint regarding
9 Jim Duncan's situation?
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. Why were you interested in that?
12 A. Because I had been interviewed regarding it.
13 Q. By Margaret Murray?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You wanted to find out what happened?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. You met with her in Woodland?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At a coffee shop or restaurant, or something?
20 A. Starbucks, yes.
21 Q. What do you recall Miss Negley saying to you in
22 that conversation?
23 A. She provided me with a copy of the written
24 report or the part that was public.
25 Q. The executive summary that had been provided to
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
271
1 her?
2 A. It was more than two or three pages, so maybe
3 it was more than that.
4 Q. Do you recall approximately how many pages it
5 was?
6 A. Thick. I don't know. 20 pages.
7 Q. Fair enough.
8 She gave you a copy?
9 A. I didn't take a copy. I read her copy.
10 Q. I see.
11 Then after you read the copy of Margaret
12 Murray's report, did you have any discussion with Miss
13 Negley?
14 A. We talked about the results, yes.
15 Q. What do you recall her saying to you regarding
16 the report or the results?
17 A. She certainly didn't agree with them.
18 Q. Other than specifying she disagreed with them,
19 do you recall anything else she said regarding the
20 report or the results?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And what, if anything, did you say to her after
23 reading the report?
24 A. I was -- I was personally appalled with the
25 results.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
272
1 Q. Why were you appalled with the results of
2 Margaret Murray's report?
3 A. I guess I just didn't agree with her results.
4 Q. And you expressed that to Miss Negley?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Anything else you recall saying to Miss Negley
7 during this conversation?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Approximately how long did this conversation
10 last at the Starbucks in Woodland?
11 A. Oh, about an hour.
12 Q. Did you also engage in social chitchat during
13 part of this time?
14 A. Not a lot of social chitchat, no.
15 Q. Mostly it was devoted to the report and
16 discussing the report?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Have you socialized with anyone at the AOC
19 since you left?
20 A. Jim Niehaus and I have. He since has retired.
21 Laura Pellegrini, who has moved to Sacramento. I've had
22 conversation with Mark Gaudette and some with Duc Le,
23 Hiroko.
24 Q. Then you indicated that you'd had lunch in
25 Sacramento recently with Miss Negley.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
273
1 Approximately when did that happen?
2 A. Probably in June.
3 Q. Of this year, 2009, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And who called whom to arrange that?
6 A. Paula called me.
7 Q. And she indicated she was going to be in
8 Sacramento so she suggested getting together?
9 A. She was working in Sacramento, and we were
10 talking about locations and things she was working on in
11 her current employment, and we agreed to have lunch.
12 Q. Where did you meet for lunch?
13 A. Cafe Bernardo.
14 Q. Approximately how long did this lunch meeting
15 last with Miss Negley?
16 A. About an hour.
17 Q. What do you recall saying to Miss Negley during
18 this meeting?
19 A. We talked about her current employment.
20 Q. What did she tell you about her employment?
21 A. That she was working for -- I don't recall the
22 organization. She was working in the world of labor
23 negotiations again.
24 Q. Did she tell you what her duties were with
25 whatever employer she had?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
274
1 A. Just labor negotiations.
2 Q. Did she tell you whether she was happy in this
3 new job or not?
4 A. She seemed satisfied.
5 Q. Other than telling you about her new job, was
6 there any discussion at that luncheon about the AOC or
7 Miss Negley's experience at the AOC?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did she tell you why she was no longer working
10 at the AOC?
11 A. She'd been terminated.
12 Q. She told you that, correct?
13 A. Other people had already told me that.
14 Q. What did Miss Negley tell you was the reason
15 she was terminated?
16 A. Retaliation.
17 Q. Did she tell you what she felt she was
18 terminated in retaliation for?
19 A. Disclosing or -- through the discovery process,
20 there were some documents that she disclosed that the
21 AOC found objectionable or confidential or privileged
22 documents. I'm not exactly sure what the AOC had found
23 at that point. They had discharged her, because she had
24 disclosed documents.
25 Q. That's what she told you was the reason for her
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
275
1 termination, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Any other discussion you had with Miss Negley
4 during this lunch meeting in Sacramento relating to the
5 AOC at all?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Anything else you recall saying to Miss Negley
8 during this luncheon?
9 A. We talked about people that we knew in common,
10 Jim Neihaus in particular. I asked her a bit about Jim
11 Duncan and the death of his wife and how things were
12 going with that. One of the employees had come to work
13 in the Sacramento office, and we were talking about
14 Laura Pellegrini. Just people we had in common.
15 Q. Social chitchat?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Any conversation with Miss Negley since that
18 luncheon in Sacramento?
19 A. I believe we have spoken once since then, and
20 it may have -- it was not long after the first
21 deposition. And she just called to thank me for giving
22 my time.
23 Q. After the first day of your deposition?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. After the first day of your deposition, Miss
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
276
1 Negley called to thank you, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you discuss your deposition with her?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did she discuss it with you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Other than your deposition or during your
8 deposition, have you had any conversation with Mr.
9 Clapp?
10 A. He called me -- we've probably spoken once I
11 know of and maybe twice on the phone just to arrange
12 schedules.
13 Q. And what did you and Mr. Clapp discuss during
14 the conversation you had with him in the parking lot
15 after the first day of your deposition?
16 A. We talked a bit about the deposition, kind of
17 my impression of it.
18 Q. What did you tell him your impression was?
19 A. First of all, it was very long. I was
20 certainly unclear as to where the whole thing was going.
21 Q. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Clapp in
22 the parking lot about any of the facts of the case or
23 anything about your personal involvement or what you
24 knew about when you were with the AOC?
25 A. Outside of the questions he'd asked me during
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
277
1 the deposition or what you asked me about, I talked to
2 him a bit about just sort of the climate of the AOC.
3 Q. What did you tell Mr. Clapp?
4 A. That the -- in my experience -- in the year
5 that I was there, I found the standards within the AOC,
6 at least within human resources, to be nonexistent, that
7 it was an intimidating workplace to be in, that I was
8 certainly appalled at the way the employees were treated
9 and the intimidation Mr. Fuentes used.
10 Q. You told all that to Mr. Clapp in the parking
11 lot?
12 A. We talked about that, yes.
13 Q. Anything else you recall saying to Mr. Clapp in
14 the parking lot that related in any way to the AOC?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What, if anything, do you recall Mr. Clapp
17 saying to you in the parking lot?
18 A. I'm trying to remember.
19 Q. Sure. It's been three months.
20 A. It's been three months. He seemed to agree
21 with what I was saying.
22 Q. Other than agreeing with what you said, do you
23 recall anything he said to you?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you recall whether he asked you any
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
278
1 questions?
2 A. I don't recall. I don't believe he did.
3 Q. Other than telling you about the climate at
4 AOC, do you remember anything else related to AOC?
5 A. No.
6 Q. When you started at the AOC, was your intention
7 to stay three years?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That is correct?
10 A. I'm sorry. Yes.
11 Q. And other than that conversation with Mr.
12 Clapp, have you had any other conversations with Mr.
13 Clapp relating to the AOC outside of your deposition?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did Miss Negley call you when you got back from
16 your trip to Guatemala to ask you about your trip?
17 A. I went to Guatemala in August or September of
18 2008, and our conversation was after that, because the
19 October conversation, or November, sometime in there, we
20 talked a bit about Guatemala, so it had to have been
21 after my trip.
22 Q. Before you left the AOC, did Miss Negley ever
23 call you at home to engage in social chitchat?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Before Miss Negley left the AOC, can you
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
279
1 remember discussing your granddaughter with Miss Negley?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You resigned from the AOC around June 13 of
4 '08, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When did you make the decision to resign
7 approximately?
8 A. I had decided by April of 2008 that I would
9 resign sometime.
10 Q. When did you announce it approximately?
11 A. Two or three weeks prior to June 13th. It was
12 probably three weeks.
13 Q. Sometime in late May?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What did you tell everyone was the reason you
16 were resigning?
17 A. I had been offered a position with a nonprofit
18 organization.
19 Q. Did you tell anyone at the AOC that you were
20 retiring as opposed to resigning?
21 A. I was resigning, and retirement came in July.
22 Q. Why was that? Explain that to me.
23 A. Well, it has to do with the retirement formula.
24 The defined benefit is based on final compensation,
25 years of service and age. And on July the 10th of 2008,
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
280
1 I was 55 and a half, and so I needed to wait until I was
2 55 and a half. It's all about the retirement formula.
3 Q. You certainly had experience with that, so you
4 knew the ins and outs of that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So you ended up retiring on July 10, 2008,
7 correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And so after you left the AOC, I'm sorry, you
10 went where?
11 A. I'd been offered a position with a nonprofit
12 organization.
13 Q. What was that organization?
14 A. Project Ride.
15 Q. Did you actually start working for that
16 organization?
17 A. No, I did not.
18 Q. Why did you end up not working there?
19 A. They were able to find a better executive
20 director. I would have been the interim.
21 Q. At the time you left the AOC on June 13, did
22 you have a job offer from them?
23 A. Not a formal job offer, no.
24 Q. Did you ever receive a formal job offer from
25 them?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
281
1 A. No.
2 Q. Have you worked anywhere since resigning from
3 the AOC?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You effectively have been retired since you
6 left the AOC?
7 A. From bureaucracy, yes.
8 Q. At least no gainful employment for earnings?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Not that you're not active in other ways.
11 When you -- as of the day you left the AOC, was
12 it your expectation you would start working for this
13 Project Ride or not?
14 A. My expectation was that I would help recruit
15 for an executive director.
16 Q. And get paid for it or not?
17 A. Yes. There would be some compensation.
18 Q. Your expectation when you left is that you
19 would have a short-term assignment for Project Ride to
20 just get a new executive director in on a permanent
21 basis, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. By the way, have you reviewed any documents in
24 preparation for your deposition?
25 A. No.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
282
1 Q. Have you spoken with anyone in preparation for
2 your deposition today other than arranging where to be
3 and when to be and the technicalities of it? Have you
4 ever spoken with anyone regarding your anticipated
5 testimony here today or preparing you for it?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Other than the Murray report, did Miss Negley
8 ever provide you with anything she ever wrote relating
9 to the AOC?
10 A. Yes. And I believe I had this before I left in
11 June of 2008. It was a lengthy e-mail or memo regarding
12 the self-funded plan in Kern County.
13 Q. Miss Negley provided that to you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Other than her memo regarding Kern's
16 self-funded plan, did Miss Negley at any time, either
17 while you worked at the AOC or after you left the AOC,
18 ever give you any documentation relating to the AOC?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Since she's left the AOC, has she given you any
21 documentation relating to the AOC or anything she wrote
22 other than the Murray report?
23 A. No.
24 Q. While you were at the AOC, did Miss Negley give
25 you anything she wrote or anything else relating to the
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
283
1 AOC other than this Kern memo?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did Miss Negley ever give you a copy of the
4 complaint she filed with the EEOC, or Department of Fair
5 Employment & Housing?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Has Ms. Negley ever given you any internal
8 complaint -- internal written complaint that she's
9 submitted to the EEOC regarding her allegations?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did Miss Negley ever give you a copy of her
12 lawsuit in this action?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Has Mr. Clapp ever given or shown you any
15 documents other than the deposition exhibits he showed
16 you during the first session of your deposition?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you ever reviewed any part of Miss
19 Negley's deposition transcript?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did Mr. Clapp or Miss Negley ever tell you what
22 any of her deposition testimony was?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Have you reviewed any other deposition
25 transcripts that were taken in this action?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
284
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of any testimony
3 given by any other person in this action?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Other than Mr. Wolf, Mr. Wolf's
6 reclassification, did you approve any other
7 reclassification at the AOC?
8 A. Employees' reclassification from one
9 classification to another?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. On approximately how many other occasions did
13 you approve employee reclassifications?
14 A. Probably a couple of dozen times during that
15 year, at least.
16 Q. Were any of those reclassifications done
17 because the duties of the position had changed?
18 A. All of them were done because the duties of the
19 position had changed.
20 MR. FELLERMAN: I just have a couple of
21 documents. I'll mark as Exhibit 15 a document Bates
22 stamped as 113 through 115.
23 MR. EMERT: Defendants' 15?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Actually, I said 15. I should
25 mark it as Defendants' A.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
285
1 (Defendants' Exhibit A marked for
2 identification.)
3 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
4 Q. Miss Franzella, take a moment to review
5 Exhibit A and let me know if you've seen any of these
6 documents before.
7 A. I don't see where I've signed off on this. I
8 would say I have not seen it.
9 Q. How about the two pages that are attached to
10 the first page; have you seen either of those documents,
11 pages before?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Fair enough.
14 Looking at the first page of the document, in
15 looking at this document, does this document refresh
16 your recollection at all as to whether you knew that one
17 of the two labor relations negotiator positions was
18 reclassified to senior labor employee relations officer
19 during your employment at the AOC?
20 A. That's what this document would have done.
21 Q. But does this document refresh your
22 recollection as to whether you knew about that while you
23 worked at the AOC? I understand you don't recall seeing
24 this document.
25 What I'm asking is whether reviewing this
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
286
1 document refreshes your recollection as to whether you
2 knew this had happened while you were at the AOC.
3 A. No. I didn't know this had happened.
4 Q. Fair enough.
5 Looking under Section D where it talks about
6 justification for exemption, if you could read that to
7 yourself and let me know when you're finished.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. And while you worked at the AOC, did anyone
10 ever provide you with this or any type of similar
11 justification for changing Mr. Wolf's position or
12 changing the labor relation negotiator position to a
13 different classification?
14 A. It was my understanding that the senior labor
15 employee relations officer was a one-person
16 classification.
17 Q. That wasn't my question.
18 My only question is: Whether while you were at
19 the AOC, did anyone ever provide you with this or a
20 similar explanation as to why they wanted to change the
21 labor relations negotiator classification to a different
22 classification? That's all.
23 A. At some point during the hiring of Dave Wolf,
24 Ernie discussed with me reclassifying -- using the
25 senior labor relations officer classification as the
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
287
1 appropriate classification to hire Dave Wolf into.
2 Q. But my question is whether anyone ever provided
3 you with the justification that's set forth in this
4 document or similar justification for changing that
5 classification.
6 A. Not that I recall.
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Thank you. You can hand that
8 to the reporter.
9 I'm going to mark as Exhibit B Miss Franzella's
10 resignation dated May 28, 2008.
11 (Defendants' Exhibit B marked for
12 identification.)
13 BY MR. FELLERMAN:
14 Q. Is Exhibit B a copy of the resignation
15 letter you submitted to Mr. Fuentes on or about May 28,
16 2008?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You can hand that document in.
19 MR. FELLERMAN: Thank you, Miss Franzella. I
20 have no further questions. I appreciate your coming all
21 this way for us.
22 (Recess taken.)
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q. Thanks very much for coming down here.
25 If you could look at the request for exemption,
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
288
1 Exhibit A, again, you've seen this form before; is that
2 correct?
3 A. I've seen the form before, yes.
4 Q. Do you know -- and this is to this particular
5 one, to reclassify a position from labor relations
6 negotiator to the senior labor employee relations
7 officer?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Can you give me an overview of how a request
10 for exemption typically would work; what's the process
11 for getting a request to reclassify a position from one
12 classification to another? I guess what we're doing
13 here is reclassifying a position from one classification
14 into another classification; is that right?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What are we doing here?
17 A. There's a process, and this is the beginning of
18 a process. This is really -- the scope of this form was
19 limited to the fiscal analysis.
20 Q. Let's begin with the whole process.
21 How does it begin?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous. You mean
23 the reclassification process?
24 MR. CLAPP: Uh-huh.
25 MR. EMERT: You have to speak orally.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
289
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q. The process you were just talking about.
3 A. The AOC -- at the time of this document, which
4 is February the 28th, 2008, the AOC was in a hiring
5 freeze. To fill any position, you needed fiscal
6 approval first. So this form that says "Request For
7 Exemption (Authorized Positions)" was the beginning of
8 the process that the division -- in this case, it
9 happened to be human resources -- submitted a request to
10 the budget office first that said, "We have a position,
11 we want to fill it and this is how we're going to pay
12 for it." The fiscal analysis is the part that's
13 attached here.
14 Q. So are you saying that this -- there's more to
15 it than just the fiscal analysis?
16 A. Yes. After the fiscal analysis is completed --
17 because it made no sense to do a complete justification
18 for reclass if there was no money. In this case, what's
19 happened is the division is asked to reclass the labor
20 relations negotiator to senior labor employee relations
21 officer, and the cost is going to be something. And
22 attached to this, then, is the analysis that the budget
23 analyst would have done, but said, yes, there's
24 sufficient funds.
25 Q. Is it saying there's sufficient funds for the
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
290
1 remainder of the fiscal year or sufficient funds on an
2 ongoing basis?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Best evidence rule.
4 Go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: The current year cost, there's in
6 C, in the section known as C, funding for requested
7 action. The current year, if they had filled this
8 position on March the 1st, or whatever the projected
9 date was, would have cost $7,128 more than the existing
10 position. And then for the budget year, which would
11 have been the fiscal year '08-'09, the additional cost
12 was $21,628. They're doing both. They're doing the
13 current year and the budget year. What the budget
14 analyst is saying is, yes, there's sufficient funds to
15 cover current year plus budget year.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q. I'm confused about that.
18 So the budget year is from when to when?
19 A. The fiscal year is July 1 to June 30th of any
20 year. When you're standing inside this year, it's
21 considered the current year. And in this case, the
22 current year would have been fiscal year '07-'08,
23 because they were projecting to fill this position on
24 March the 1st, 2008, and then the budget year would have
25 been July 1, 2008, through June -- have I got my years
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
291
1 confused here? -- the next fiscal year. So we had the
2 fiscal year of 2007-'08, and then '08-'09. The budget
3 year is the next year, the next fiscal year.
4 Q. Right now we're in fiscal year what?
5 A. '08-'09.
6 Q. So looking at the top part, then, I think what
7 you're telling me is that for the remainder of the
8 current year, which would be from February to the end of
9 June, they expected that this reclassification would
10 cost $7,000, and that for the following years it would
11 cost 21,000?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The funding would be out of the general fund;
14 is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So when it says -- let's go down to the
17 signature pages.
18 It says -- I presume that the signatures go
19 from left to right in sort of the sequence of events?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So it was initiated by Jeanne Caughell who
22 was -- that's Jeanne Caughell's signature there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So she would have been the one to initiate it,
25 correct?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
292
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Then it goes to -- that's Stephen Nash's
3 signature?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So he had to approve it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Above that, there's a signature.
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know who that is?
11 A. Marcia Cabrillo.
12 Q. What's her position?
13 A. She was the budget analyst for the human
14 resources division.
15 Q. Who would have prepared the financial impact
16 analysis; would that have been Khin Chin?
17 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
18 You can go ahead and answer.
19 THE WITNESS: No. In this case, it would have
20 been the top right-hand corner on the fiscal impact
21 page. The analyst, his last is Kennedy. It would have
22 been the fiscal analyst in fiscal division.
23 BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q. Someone who reports to Nash?
25 A. Yes.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
293
1 Q. The first page where it says "Contact Person:
2 Khin Chin," do you know why he would be the contact
3 person?
4 A. He was just -- he was the fiscal person for the
5 human resources division. Everything fiscal went
6 through him.
7 Q. You indicated you had not -- you have not seen
8 this report, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Would it be typical in your job to see this
11 particular request?
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
13 THE WITNESS: It would not have been necessary
14 for me to see it.
15 BY MR. CLAPP:
16 Q. Next -- the signature line over, is that Ernie
17 Fuentes' signature?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. To the right of that, whose signature is
20 that?
21 A. I don't know. Bill Vickren or Ron Overholt.
22 Q. You don't recognize the signature?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So let me see if I get this.
25 So the first step is to -- in getting a request
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
294
1 for exemption -- an exemption from the hiring freeze; is
2 that what the exemption is from?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. At this point in time, it would have been to
5 get a fiscal analysis of how we're going to pay for the
6 position, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which is what we have so far in Exhibit A?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What's the next step?
11 A. Once it's approved by the executive officer,
12 then it would go back to the division, and the division
13 would then write a justification for reclassification
14 supporting the duties -- the duties from the difference
15 between the labor relations negotiator and the senior
16 labor employee relations officer.
17 Q. Was that done?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
19 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q. Did you ever see such a justification?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. Would that -- was there a form such as this,
24 request for exemption form, for this justification?
25 A. Yes.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
295
1 Q. Did the justification have a sequence or series
2 of approvals?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who would have had to approve the
5 justification?
6 A. The initiating division.
7 Q. In this case, it would have been HR, right?
8 A. Yes. Then this division chief, or division
9 director, would have had the ultimate signoff. It did
10 not need to go through -- it would not have needed to go
11 through the executive office again because they'd
12 already approved the fiscal part.
13 Q. Would your reclassification department have
14 anything to do with the justification, creating the
15 justification?
16 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
17 THE WITNESS: As the senior manager over
18 classification compensation, I would have signed off
19 approved or disapproved any reclassification.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q. So the approval box would include the
22 initiating division, the division chief, which I presume
23 is Ernie Fuentes in this case, and you?
24 A. I would have -- I would have signed off first.
25 I would have given it to Jeanne Caughell, and she would
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
296
1 have had the ultimate signoff or Ernie depending on how
2 they worked it out.
3 Q. Do you know what the name of this form is
4 called?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Did you sign such a form?
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't remember signing anything
9 to reclassify a labor relations negotiator to a senior
10 labor employee relations officer.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q. Would that -- would that end the process; once
13 we got the budget information, once we got the
14 justification, was that the end of the process for
15 getting an exemption, or are there more steps?
16 A. The exemption to advertise for the position,
17 to announce a job opening, this fiscal part would have
18 needed to have been approved first. There was a lot
19 of confusion between the recruitment analysts and the
20 HR analysts as to what the next step should be. If
21 the recruitment analysts had advertised for this
22 classification and then hired someone and we didn't have
23 a supporting reclassification and classification, then
24 we would have to write one while the potential candidate
25 was still not sure whether they'd been hired or what
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
297
1 they had been hired into.
2 So what we were trying to do and work in
3 cooperation with the recruitment analysts is when they
4 got this approval that -- before they announced the job
5 opening, they would contact the classification analyst.
6 And we would make sure all the reclassification
7 documentation was in place first, then announce the job
8 opening and recruit.
9 Q. Are we talking now about this particular
10 reclassification or reclassifications in general?
11 A. Reclassifications in general.
12 Q. So in reclassifications in general during the
13 freeze, then, if I understand correctly, the process,
14 which is a 50/50 proposition at best, first we would
15 have -- we would go through the fiscal side, make sure
16 we had money for the position, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q. Then we would go and -- go through the
21 classification process to get a justification to justify
22 the reclassification of a position into a new
23 classification; is that correct?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
298
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q. Then the recruitment people would go through a
3 process to recruit for that position?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
5 THE WITNESS: Correct.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q. As part of the recruitment process, what would
8 they do?
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Lacks foundation.
10 THE WITNESS: The recruitment analyst would
11 draft the job opportunities bulletin, the notice that
12 would be posted to describe the position they were
13 recruiting for and do the general recruitment activity,
14 gathering applications, reviewing applications,
15 scheduling, et cetera.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q. For the position that ultimately Mr. Wolf
18 filled, who was working -- who was the recruitment
19 person in charge of that?
20 A. Laura Pellegrini.
21 Q. Who did she report to?
22 A. I think at this time she was reporting directly
23 to Ken Couch because Felizia whatever her last name was
24 was on maternity leave.
25 Q. This request for exemption form, Exhibit A,
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
299
1 would this be placed in the employee's personnel file?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. How about the justification?
4 A. If there was one, yes.
5 Q. How about whatever job postings there were?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was the request for exemption document, the
8 fiscal document, would that be kept in any other file?
9 A. Khin Chin would have kept a copy in his own
10 files, I'm sure.
11 Q. Did you consider the request for exemption form
12 confidential?
13 A. This request for exemption?
14 Q. Yes.
15 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 BY MR. CLAPP:
18 Q. Let me go to Exhibit 1, the personnel policies
19 and procedures manual, for a second. I'm curious -- on
20 page 2.7.3:1, I'm curious about the first bullet --
21 right above the first bullet. It talks about other
22 categories of temporary employment, and it talks about
23 various categories, including special consultant. It
24 talks about at the end "Unless the selection process for
25 temporary status position has been competitive,
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
300
1 individuals in these positions may not transition to
2 regular status unless they compete in an open
3 recruitment process and are selected to fill a regular
4 status position."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was the selection process for the position Mr.
8 Wolf filled as special consultant -- was that
9 competitive?
10 MR. FELLERMAN: Lacks foundation.
11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q. Would it be, therefore, improper for him to
14 transition to a regular status without open recruitment?
15 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation, lacks
16 foundation, argumentative.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q. Senior labor relations negotiator, was that as
20 a regular status?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Was there any open recruitment process for that
23 position?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Why is it improper to -- for an individual who
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
301
1 is a special consultant in a position or temporary
2 position to transition without an open recruitment?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Lacks foundation.
4 THE WITNESS: That's what the policy says you
5 can't do.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q. I get that, but I'm trying to find out the
8 reasoning behind it.
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation. If she
10 has any knowledge about the reasoning behind it.
11 THE WITNESS: It's -- we're focusing a lot on
12 the special consultant. Just overall, these types of
13 appointments, the student assistant, the temporary
14 clerk, the temporary kind of positions, it was not
15 uncommon that someone knew someone and they were hired
16 to work in the mail room as a student assistant or a
17 temporary clerk. Then a position became vacant, but
18 since they had not competed initially for employment,
19 the need for some kind of competition still existed.
20 And so if you hadn't competed to get into the
21 organization in some way, you needed some sort of
22 competition ultimately to get a permanent appointment.
23 Best practices would be a way of dealing with that.
24 BY MR. CLAPP:
25 Q. I think you told me -- I could be wrong again,
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
302
1 so don't take my recollection as gospel.
2 I think you told me at some point that the
3 survey process for justifying the salary that was
4 ultimately paid to Mr. Wolf as a senior labor relations
5 negotiator was somewhat truncated; is that a fair
6 statement?
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous, asked and
8 answered, misstates her prior testimony.
9 THE WITNESS: Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Couch told me
10 what salary ranges they wanted and instructed me to do a
11 salary survey that would support that.
12 BY MR. CLAPP:
13 Q. My question is slightly different, and that
14 is -- I'll start again.
15 Typically how long would a salary survey take
16 in a period of time?
17 A. Oh, some can be done in an afternoon or a day
18 depending on the classification.
19 Q. I see.
20 How long for a classification like this,
21 senior labor relations negotiator, would you expect it
22 to take?
23 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
24 THE WITNESS: Since it was a new
25 classification, we had no starting point. A week or
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
303
1 two.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q. It takes longer with new classifications,
4 generally speaking, than ones already with a starting
5 point?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How long did this one take?
8 A. An afternoon.
9 Q. Now, as part of the salary survey, there would
10 have to be some sort of -- was there some sort of form
11 for creating the salary survey with boxes, signature
12 lines?
13 A. Not a specific form. It was a memo from Nancy
14 Ridell to me or me to Ernie.
15 Q. Did you send a memo to Ernie about this
16 particular salary survey?
17 A. I would have sent something. I don't recall
18 what -- if it was a memo or a worksheet or a document of
19 some sort. It would have been something.
20 Q. To justify.
21 If I understand what you're telling me, it was
22 not merely the salary that he was ordering you to
23 justify, but also the range; is that correct?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound and asked and
25 answered.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
304
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q. There's a salary and then a salary range;
3 they're different?
4 A. There's a top and bottom.
5 Q. That's what I consider to be a salary range.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Fuentes was telling you, you know, "I want
8 you to have a salary range for this position"; is that
9 right?
10 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
11 THE WITNESS: He wanted to make sure that a
12 certain salary fit within a range.
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q. He had a certain salary that he was telling
15 you; is that what it is?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And he wanted you to find a range that would
18 encompass that salary?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You had some discretion on the bottom and the
21 top of the range; is that it?
22 A. Some, yes.
23 Q. Did you have to have -- to do the salary range,
24 did you have to get the salary within the top ten
25 percent or something like that? Excuse me. I'll take
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
305
1 that back. That was awkward.
2 You have to justify a salary. Does that imply
3 that the salary range has to be some numbers?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
5 THE WITNESS: You have to take into
6 consideration the surrounding classifications, so we
7 knew what the labor negotiator was making. We knew
8 what -- whatever Scott Gardner -- the senior labor
9 employee relations officer's salary range was. So we
10 needed to find a salary range that fit with the existing
11 salary ranges. They don't stand by themselves. So,
12 yeah, it was a combination of what we already knew about
13 the existing salary ranges in the AOC and similar
14 classifications and what was available -- what
15 information was available from the outside.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q. Is there some sort of rule of thumb or
18 something like that for the percentage of money that a
19 senior position would get over the first-level position?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Compound with respect to
21 "position."
22 THE WITNESS: There's -- there's a rule of
23 thumb within a series. If you have a secretary 1, 2 and
24 3, for instance, there would be some overlaps from the
25 top of one to the bottom of the other. It's usually
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
306
1 somewhere between five and seven and a half percent that
2 they would overlap.
3 BY MR. CLAPP:
4 Q. Would that be true if there's only two in a
5 series?
6 A. So if you only have a secretary 1 and a
7 secretary 2?
8 Q. Right.
9 A. Yes. There would be a similar --
10 Q. Overlap.
11 When we're talking about labor relations
12 negotiator and senior labor relations negotiator, we're
13 talking about a series of classifications?
14 A. It then became a series, because before it was
15 a single-series class. By creating the senior, then we
16 had a two-series class. You have to take into
17 consideration what the labor negotiator was being paid,
18 the salary range. Not particularly what an employee is
19 paid but the range.
20 Q. So if I understand what you're telling me, that
21 sort of implies the floor of the second position would
22 be somewhere, like, an overlap of 5 to 7.5 percent?
23 MR. FELLERMAN: Let me object here. Lacks
24 foundation and vague and ambiguous.
25 You can answer.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
307
1 THE WITNESS: Generally the top of the first
2 range and the bottom of the second range would overlap
3 somewhat.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q. So generally speaking, the floor of the higher
6 series, higher position, would be about five to seven
7 and a half percent below the ceiling of the lower
8 position?
9 A. Generally, yes.
10 Q. In your experience, have you ever been ordered
11 to justify a salary when you start doing a salary
12 survey?
13 A. Prior to this occurrence?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. No.
16 Q. You thought that was pretty darn improper,
17 right?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Argumentative, leading.
19 THE WITNESS: I thought it was inappropriate.
20 BY MR. CLAPP:
21 Q. You indicated that you made the decision to
22 separate from the AOC in April of '08.
23 Was this one of the reasons?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered in the first
25 session, vague.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
308
1 THE WITNESS: The standards were very
2 questionable to me, and I couldn't continue to work
3 under them.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q. Was the fact you were being ordered to justify
6 a preordained salary with a salary survey one of the
7 standards that led you to decide to quit in April of
8 '08?
9 A. It was one of the occurrences.
10 Q. We talked about Margaret Murray and how she
11 talked to you about some of the complaints that Paula
12 had.
13 I'm curious if you've talked to anybody else
14 investigating any complaints about the AOC, so my
15 question is: Have you?
16 A. I've had one other attorney contact me
17 regarding an employee complaint.
18 Q. How about any agencies like the Department of
19 Fair Employment & Housing?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Anybody else talk to you about any complaints
22 at the AOC?
23 A. A reporter from the Sacramento Bee.
24 Q. Anybody else?
25 A. Honestly, I just don't recall. There could
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
309
1 have been, but I just don't recall.
2 Q. Anybody from the AOC?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
4 THE WITNESS: Employees within the AOC?
5 BY MR. CLAPP:
6 Q. Exactly.
7 A. I've had a number of employees talk to me about
8 the AOC, yes.
9 Q. Anybody like Mr. Fuentes, Mr. Couch; anybody in
10 a management position?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Let's go through these.
13 First of all, there was some attorney. Who was
14 that?
15 A. At this moment, I don't recall his name. It's
16 on an envelope sitting on my desk at home. I haven't
17 opened it up yet.
18 Q. I take it there's some correspondence from the
19 attorney?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Have you talked to the attorney yourself?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On the telephone?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell us what you two talked about?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
310
1 A. About an employee who is filing a grievance
2 against the AOC.
3 Q. At DFEH, who did you talk to?
4 A. Some analyst there.
5 Q. Do you know what they were investigating?
6 A. They were --
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Hold on a second.
8 I'm going to object now on the grounds of the
9 employee's confidential right of privacy to the extent
10 it doesn't pertain to Miss Negley.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q. Go ahead.
13 A. Jackie Murphy was the employee.
14 Q. Was that the employee who retained an attorney
15 to file a grievance?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The reporter you talked to from the Sacramento
18 Bee, what did he -- I presume it's a he. Shows my
19 sexism. Was it a he or she?
20 A. It was a he.
21 Q. Do you know who he was?
22 A. No. He did tell me his name. I just don't
23 remember it.
24 Q. What did the two of you talk about?
25 MR. FELLERMAN: Again, I'll object and assert
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
311
1 employee's confidential right to privacy to the extent
2 the discussion did not pertain to Miss Negley. It
3 pertained to another employee.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q. Go ahead and tell us.
6 A. Actually, we did not talk about Paula or Jackie
7 in particular.
8 Q. What did you two talk about?
9 A. We talked about --
10 MR. FELLERMAN: Same objection to the extent
11 the discussion involved any employee's personnel matters
12 other than Miss Negley.
13 THE WITNESS: We talked about some of the
14 newspaper articles already shown in the Sacramento Bee
15 regarding the Administrative Office of the Courts and
16 its hiring freeze and fiscal issues.
17 We then talked about an employee who was hired
18 through a temp help agency. And, again, I truly
19 apologize for the names. I just don't -- I don't track
20 names generally, so I just don't remember. It was an
21 employee that was hired prior to my employment through a
22 private agency who had embezzled money.
23 All of this came to light just about the time I
24 was coming to the AOC. And the reporter wanted to know
25 if I had any information about that, which I had very
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
312
1 limited information, so we didn't talk a lot about it.
2 He had talked to a number of employees before
3 talking with me. He had specific incidents about
4 promotional opportunities for certain employees over
5 others, general dissatisfaction with the human resources
6 division. It was a pretty broad discussion about AOC.
7 BY MR. CLAPP:
8 Q. In our earlier discussion we had, we talked
9 about the manager meetings that you attended.
10 As I recall, and I may be recalling
11 incorrectly, those tended to occur on a biweekly or
12 monthly basis, something along those lines?
13 A. Biweekly.
14 Q. Biweekly.
15 In any of the manager meetings, was there any
16 discussions about Paula Negley?
17 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered previously.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q. Any discussions about her that you would have
21 considered confidential?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous.
23 THE WITNESS: In the manager meetings, there
24 was not only Ernie and Jeanne and Ken Couch and myself,
25 but Evelyn Ramos, Hiroko Nagata, Khin Chin, at some
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
313
1 point Felizia whatever her last name is.
2 BY MR. CLAPP:
3 Q. Nava?
4 A. Yes.
5 None of them had any need to be part of a
6 discussion regarding any employee that didn't work for
7 them. Paula didn't work for them.
8 Q. In these manager meetings, were there
9 discussions about personnel matters of employees?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Including Paula?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Including other employees who didn't work for
14 the individuals you're talking about?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you feel that was improper?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Argumentative, leading.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q. Did you discuss the fact you thought discussing
21 confidential matters in front of these other employees
22 was improper with anybody?
23 A. I discussed it with Jeanne Caughell.
24 Q. How about with Mr. Fuentes?
25 A. No.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
314
1 Q. So what did you say to Jeanne Caughell?
2 A. I told her I was very surprised at the tone of
3 the meetings and that discussing employees in the
4 meeting that were someone besides their supervisor or
5 people in their direct chain of command just seemed to
6 be inappropriate to me.
7 Q. When you say "the tone of the meeting," what
8 are you referring to?
9 A. Anytime you talk about a specific employee, it
10 should be very limited to the people who need to know.
11 Q. And were there discussions about performance
12 deficiencies of these employees?
13 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague, compound.
14 BY MR. CLAPP:
15 Q. You can go ahead.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What kind of -- can you give me an idea of what
18 kind of discussions about these employees was held in
19 the meetings that you felt was inappropriate?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Constitutional right of
21 privacy. Objection with respect to discussions about
22 other employees.
23 MR. EMERT: To the extent you have specific
24 recall of meetings, you can offer testimony.
25 THE WITNESS: Jackie Murphy was a common item
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
315
1 of discussion in these meetings. Her performance was
2 discussed at length. There was an employee that worked
3 for Evelyn Ramos, and we seemed to spend -- again, I've
4 forgotten her name. Celia, I believe. Employees that
5 were on alternate work schedules were frequently
6 discussed. Paula was discussed.
7 BY MR. CLAPP:
8 Q. What was said about Paula that you can recall?
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered in the first
10 session.
11 THE WITNESS: I don't recall performance issues
12 from the very beginning. I recall there was a lengthy
13 discussion around travel claims or outstanding travel
14 claims and money owed her from travel and that she had
15 been making a ruckus, as Ernie said, about getting paid.
16 She needed to be brought into line, and he instructed
17 Scott Gardner to talk to her about that.
18 BY MR. CLAPP:
19 Q. By "brought into line," what does that mean?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
21 THE WITNESS: To stop contacting the accounting
22 office about overdue claims.
23 BY MR. CLAPP:
24 Q. What do you recall being said about Jackie
25 Murphy?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
316
1 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection; employee's
2 constitutional right of privacy.
3 THE WITNESS: What seemed to get confusing for
4 me was the different -- Ernie didn't seem to understand
5 the difference between reasonable accommodation and
6 performance. And almost every discussion that we had
7 regarding Jackie started with his complaint that she
8 wore tennis shoes to work and that he felt that that was
9 inappropriate and it was not professional. He went on
10 at great length about that.
11 When I said, "This is reasonable accommodation.
12 If you don't think it's reasonable, then you need to
13 deal with it," then they would get into some performance
14 issue. He just couldn't seem to keep reasonable
15 accommodation and performance issues separate.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q. This other employee you're talking about,
18 Celia, what was discussed about Celia that you can
19 recall?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection; employee's
21 constitutional right of privacy.
22 THE WITNESS: Celia for a number of years had
23 had very unique work hours. It had been approved by a
24 previous deputy director. She could start work at 6:00
25 in the morning to 3:00. She had this commute to
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
317
1 Fairfield or someplace. She was going through some
2 personal issues, and so she was having a lot of time
3 off.
4 He wanted her work hours changed, and he wanted
5 her not to be off as much as she was. And Evelyn Ramos,
6 who was her supervisor, was trying to deal with that.
7 But my statement to him was "If you don't like the hours
8 that she works, we need to notify her we're going to
9 change them and give her reasonable time to make that
10 accommodation and stop that." But anybody that works
11 something different from 8:00 to 5:00 -- he just didn't
12 like anybody working something different.
13 BY MR. CLAPP:
14 Q. When you talked to Jeanne Caughell about the
15 tone of the meetings was inappropriate, the performance
16 of employees in front of too many people, how did she
17 respond?
18 A. She actually agreed and said that they'd fallen
19 into this habit and that we should be more cognizant of
20 that in the future.
21 Q. When did you have this conversation with her?
22 A. Oh, within a couple of months of my starting.
23 Q. Did things get better or just continue?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
25 THE WITNESS: It pretty much continued until
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
318
1 Ken Couch was hired. And February or March, we changed
2 these biweekly meetings to really just be the management
3 team of Ernie and Jeanne, Ken and myself.
4 BY MR. CLAPP:
5 Q. If I can sum up, from the time you were hired
6 to the time of February of '08, there were biweekly
7 manager meetings in which, among other topics, you
8 talked about the performance of employees --
9 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
10 BY MR. CLAPP:
11 Q. -- correct?
12 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
13 THE WITNESS: Not at every meeting, but at
14 some, yes.
15 BY MR. CLAPP:
16 Q. Was it as frequent -- would it be fair to
17 characterize it as a fairly frequent occurrence?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But then in 2008, February of 2008, when the
20 participants in the meeting was limited to the
21 management team, did the discussion about other -- about
22 the performance of employees continue?
23 A. Not as much.
24 Q. I take it sometimes yes, but not nearly at the
25 frequency it had before February '08?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
319
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. In our previous meeting together, you discussed
3 the hiring of a student assistant that you said had a
4 long story behind it.
5 Do you recall the name of that student
6 assistant?
7 MR. FELLERMAN: Employee's constitutional right
8 of privacy.
9 THE WITNESS: Alecya. No idea what her last
10 name was.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q. Medina?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was her story or her situation discussed in any
15 of these manager meetings?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Before February of -- well, she wasn't hired
18 until March of 2008, right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. There was a hiring freeze at the time?
21 A. I believe the hiring freeze went on February
22 1st or March 1st. I can't recall.
23 Q. Are you telling me you can't recall whether or
24 not she was hired just before or just after the hiring
25 freeze?
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
320
1 A. I think she was hired just before. I think
2 there was a commitment made just before the hiring
3 freeze was put in place.
4 Q. In your testimony, you said there was a long
5 story associated with the hiring of this student
6 assistant.
7 I'm curious: What is this long story?
8 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection; employee's
9 constitutional right of privacy.
10 THE WITNESS: I was not party to the
11 recruitment process. I did not look at the job
12 announcement at the time they announced a vacancy for
13 student assistant. It wasn't until we actually had the
14 hiring document and were getting -- Evelyn Ramos, who
15 worked for me, was putting the employee into the payroll
16 system that she brought to my attention that in the job
17 announcement it indicated that the employee would be
18 eligible for a whole array of benefits. And as a
19 temporary employee, she was not eligible for that array
20 of benefits. I discussed that with Ernie. We had
21 several discussions, probably four or five. She was not
22 eligible for health, dental, vision benefits or
23 retirement contributions. He insisted that we appoint
24 her in such a way that she would be eligible.
25 (Recess taken.)
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
321
1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Fuentes and I discussed this
2 on several occasions. He insisted that we appoint
3 Alecya and provide her all of the benefits that she was
4 not entitled to -- was not eligible for.
5 BY MR. CLAPP:
6 Q. Did he tell you why he wanted to do this?
7 A. He didn't want to be embarrassed by having to
8 go to the Office of General Counsel to see if we could
9 not provide the benefits that were posted on the job
10 opportunity bulletin.
11 Q. Did he have a relationship with anybody else at
12 the AOC?
13 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
14 THE WITNESS: In my -- in part of the
15 orientation of staff, the first day on the job they meet
16 with all the supervisors. In my first discussion -- my
17 first meeting of Alecya, she was in my office. I asked
18 her where she came from. She indicated I think it's
19 Kern County, but whatever county Jeanne Caughell had
20 worked at previously. Jeanne and her mother were
21 friends.
22 BY MR. CLAPP:
23 Q. Had Jeanne gotten her this job?
24 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation.
25 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
322
1 BY MR. CLAPP:
2 Q. Is that the long story associated with this
3 hiring?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q. You indicated that he promoted an employee who
8 did not meet the minimum qualifications for promotion,
9 "he" being Ernie Fuentes.
10 Who is this?
11 MR. FELLERMAN: Objection; employee's
12 constitutional right of privacy with respect to their
13 personnel matters.
14 THE WITNESS: Monica -- I don't recall her
15 last.
16 BY MR. CLAPP:
17 Q. Fiorentini?
18 A. Fiorentini, yes.
19 Q. When did he do this?
20 MR. FELLERMAN: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: He promoted Monica to supervising
22 human resources analyst. I'm not sure about the
23 classification. It was a supervising classification. I
24 met with Jeanne and Ernie. I told them my objections to
25 promoting an employee at all without some kind of
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
323
1 announcement that a job was going to be in existence,
2 that we didn't even have duties for a supervisor. How
3 are we going to justify to the employees that this
4 person was being promoted? Not that management doesn't
5 have the discretion to do things, but you still have to
6 deal with the fallout from employees.
7 They instructed me that this is what they were
8 going to do and they wanted me to do it, so I started
9 pulling the paperwork together to support this
10 promotion. And in reviewing Monica's original résumé or
11 application for employment within the AOC, in my review
12 she didn't even meet the minimum qualifications to be
13 hired initially into a human resources analyst
14 classification.
15 Also on that résumé, she had stated that she
16 had graduated with a four-year degree in May of 2006,
17 and the résumé I had in front of me at that moment said
18 that she would graduate -- her graduation was pending
19 May of 2008. So I called Monica, and I asked her what
20 was the correct date.
21 And she said, "Oh, I won't be graduating until
22 May of 2008."
23 I said, "Well, what did you say back in 2006?
24 Your résumé said you had your four-year degree."
25 She said, "Well, Jeanne and Ernie knew I didn't
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
324
1 have my degree."
2 So we kind of got into a long discussion about
3 Monica's minimum qualifications to even be hired
4 initially and then to be promoted two more times. But
5 in my opinion, she had falsified her first application.
6 BY MR. CLAPP:
7 Q. Was there -- she was promoted two times?
8 A. She went from a human resources analyst. She
9 was promoted to a senior human resources analyst and
10 then a year later to a supervisor -- if there's a
11 classification for analyst, I don't recall, but it was a
12 supervising position, was the second promotion.
13 Q. So when you got involved, it was on the second
14 promotion; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. For the minimum qualifications for the first
17 position, we'll call it the human resources analyst,
18 that she didn't have, was that a degree?
19 A. A degree or seven years of experience in lieu
20 of a degree. The minimum qualifications was a four-year
21 degree and three years of experience in the field of
22 human resources or seven years of experience in the
23 field of human resources.
24 Q. When you originally looked at this and saw that
25 she didn't have the minimum qualifications, were you
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
325
1 looking at her original résumé?
2 A. I had the original résumé in her personnel
3 file, and I was trying to document -- to support the
4 promotion to supervisor. And just reviewing both
5 applications, in the first application she clearly
6 stated that she had a four-year degree, and she didn't.
7 Q. Is that the minimum qualifications that was
8 missing; she didn't have seven years of experience
9 because she didn't have a four-year degree?
10 A. She didn't have seven years' experience. If
11 she had seven years' experience in human resources, she
12 would have met the minimum qualifications. But her
13 employment prior to coming to the AOC, there was nothing
14 in that application that indicated she had any human
15 resources experience, certainly not seven years' worth.
16 Q. So she had basically no human resources
17 experience and no degree; is that what you're telling
18 me?
19 A. No degree and very limited HR experience. If I
20 recall, I probably could have credited her 24 months.
21 She ran a mini mart. She supervised employees at a mini
22 mart someplace. She worked for a recruiting firm in
23 South Africa for a short period of time. She had no
24 human resources experience, at least not seven years'
25 worth.
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
326
1 Q. So being generous, you're saying you could have
2 credited her with two years' human resources experience?
3 A. Yeah. I think it was two years.
4 Q. She indicated that Jeanne and Ernie knew she
5 didn't have a degree.
6 Did you talk to Jeanne and/or Ernie about that?
7 A. I didn't talk to Ernie. I did talk to Jeanne,
8 and she wouldn't answer my questions. She told me she
9 hadn't reviewed the application when Monica was
10 initially hired. She assumed Roland Nelson had reviewed
11 it. I called Roland. He said he didn't review anything
12 regarding Monica, and he was told just to appoint her,
13 and he did.
14 Q. Who told him to appoint her?
15 A. Jeanne.
16 Q. Did Monica have a relationship with anyone at
17 the AOC?
18 MR. FELLERMAN: Calls for speculation, vague.
19 MR. EMERT: You can testify if you know.
20 THE WITNESS: I didn't know.
21 BY MR. CLAPP:
22 Q. Did you go back to Jeanne and say, "Why did you
23 tell Roland to appoint her?"
24 A. No. In my initial conversation with Jeanne, I
25 pointed out what the problem was. I gave her some
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
327
1 alternatives. I said the first thing we need to decide
2 is are these grounds for dismissal. And in any other
3 instance, I believe it would have been grounds for
4 dismissal.
5 If you don't dismiss, then the next alternative
6 was to hold the employee in the classification until
7 they met the minimum qualifications for that
8 classification. This had happened before in the AOC,
9 and it had happened with attorneys getting into the
10 ranges at the wrong time. So they would hold an
11 attorney for an extra year in the range until they met
12 the minimum qualifications.
13 My recommendation to Jeanne was hold Monica in
14 the classification she was in until she met the minimum
15 qualifications, and that would have been another five or
16 six years or however long it needed. She said she
17 wouldn't do that, that Ernie wanted to promote her, and
18 that's what we were going to do.
19 At that point, that's when I called Roland to
20 see if there was some piece of this I had missed. And
21 he said no, that Monica was hired through a temp help
22 agency, she worked a few months and he was told to
23 appoint her to an HR analyst and didn't review her
24 minimum qualifications at that time.
25 Q. When she was hired as an HR analyst, do you
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
328
1 know if there was an open competition for that position?
2 A. I don't know. I wasn't there at the time.
3 Q. The person to talk to would be Roland?
4 A. He wasn't in recruitment either. Whoever was
5 in recruitment. Roland was the classification comp
6 analyst.
7 Q. So she was in the position of a senior HR
8 analyst.
9 What were the MQs for that?
10 A. The MQs for that are eight years of experience
11 or a four-year degree with four years of experience or
12 one year as an HR analyst.
13 Q. How about the MQs for the supervising HR
14 analyst?
15 A. One year as a senior HR analyst.
16 Q. So you talked to Jeanne, and she said, "We're
17 not going to hold her in the class until she is there
18 for a sufficient period of time to get promoted. We're
19 going to promote her right now because that's what Ernie
20 says to do."
21 Did you ask her why Ernie wanted to promote
22 her?
23 A. Ernie had already announced to the courts at a
24 quarterly meeting that he had with some court that they
25 were establishing this high-level position to work on a
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
329
1 strategic plan and to identify needs for the courts. He
2 had promoted Monica to that position. He'd already
3 announced that to the courts.
4 Q. One of the other things you talked about, you
5 said you had some disagreements with Ernie about how to
6 proceed with the trial court benefits program around the
7 self-funded plan.
8 Could you elaborate on what those disagreements
9 were?
10 A. When I was hired, one of my primary
11 responsibilities was to do an analysis of the
12 self-funded plan and come up with recommendations for
13 making it viable, because it had already been determined
14 or it was obvious that the plan could not sustain itself
15 any longer. The Administrative Office of the Courts was
16 supporting the plan to the tune of a million dollars a
17 year.
18 I met with Ernie on a couple of different
19 occasions to talk about how to get -- how to wind the
20 plan down because the premiums were increasing. We
21 didn't see an end to that. Some courts were pulling
22 out. They could get better deals with, I understand,
23 health insurers.
24 Ernie's instructions to me were that Bill
25 Vickren wanted this plan to succeed, and I needed to
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
330
1 find a way to make it succeed. We discussed it at
2 length. I told them there was no way to make it
3 financially viable without support from the court, the
4 Administrative Office of the Courts. We probably
5 discussed that at length on three different occasions.
6 Not only was it not paying for itself, but it didn't
7 really have the oversight necessary to administer a plan
8 like that within the Administrative Office of the
9 Courts. We just didn't have the expertise necessary to
10 administer the plan.
11 Ultimately the fiduciary responsibilities lay
12 on the chief justice that the Administrative Office of
13 the Courts was administering a health plan for employees
14 that did not work in this organization. And the courts
15 themselves had no fiduciary responsibility, but that lay
16 actually within the judicial council.
17 I couldn't understand how the AOC got there to
18 begin with, but it could not continue. And the premiums
19 were just going to be outrageous starting in -- that
20 would have been 2009, because they're done on a calendar
21 year. But until the very end, he was saying that the
22 plan needed to be sustained because that's what Bill
23 Vickren wanted.
24 Q. When the senior labor relations negotiator
25 position was created, this was, if I understand it, the
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
331
1 higher in a series for the labor negotiator
2 classification series, right?
3 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague and ambiguous, asked and
4 answered.
5 MR. EMERT: If you understand the question, go
6 ahead and answer.
7 THE WITNESS: There was a classification of
8 labor negotiator, and it was a single series. Then we
9 established a second classification of senior labor
10 relations negotiator.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q. So there's now a series, right?
13 A. There's a series of two, yes.
14 Q. Is there a name for this family of positions --
15 excuse me -- for this family of classifications?
16 MR. FELLERMAN: Vague.
17 THE WITNESS: It would be the labor negotiator
18 series.
19 BY MR. CLAPP:
20 Q. We had a labor negotiator series and two
21 classifications within that series would be the proper
22 way to talk about it?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. When the higher of a series -- a higher
25 position in a series or a higher classification in a
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
332
1 series is open, is there any policy concerning whether
2 that has to be posted so that those in the lower
3 position can apply for it?
4 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered previously,
5 best evidence rule with respect to policy on posting.
6 THE WITNESS: There was never an announcement
7 that a job opening -- there was a job opening for a
8 senior labor relations negotiator. There was no way for
9 any employee to know there was a job opening for that
10 classification.
11 BY MR. CLAPP:
12 Q. But my question is more general.
13 Was there any policy anytime that there was
14 going to be the higher level of classification opening
15 up -- I presume that would be a promotional opportunity
16 for those in the lower classification; is that correct
17 so far?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Was there any kind of policy that when an upper
20 level opened up, it had to be posted so that the
21 lower-level people could know about it and apply for it?
22 MR. FELLERMAN: Asked and answered and best
23 evidence rule with respect to what the policy says in
24 the manual or posting requirements.
25 MR. EMERT: If you have an understanding what
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
333
1 the policy dictated, answer the question.
2 THE WITNESS: There was no policy to address
3 that.
4 MR. CLAPP: I think that's all the questions I
5 have. Thank you.
6 MR. FELLERMAN: Thank you very much.
7 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at
8 1:37 p.m.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
334
1 SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT
2
3 I, the undersigned, LURA FRANZELLA, do hereby
4 certify that I have read the foregoing deposition and
5 find it to be a true and accurate transcription of my
6 testimony, with the following corrections, if any:
7
8 PAGE LINE CHANGE
9 ____ ____ __________________________________________
10 ____ ____ __________________________________________
11 ____ ____ __________________________________________
12 ____ ____ __________________________________________
13 ____ ____ __________________________________________
14 ____ ____ __________________________________________
15 ____ ____ __________________________________________
16 ____ ____ __________________________________________
17 ____ ____ __________________________________________
18 ____ ____ __________________________________________
19 ____ ____ __________________________________________
20 ____ ____ __________________________________________
21 ____ ____ __________________________________________
22 ____ ____ __________________________________________
23 ____ ____ __________________________________________
24 ____________________________
LURA FRANZELLA Date
25
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
335
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 )
3 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )
4
5 I, SANDRA M. LEE, do hereby certify:
6 That LURA FRANZELLA, in the foregoing deposition
7 named, was present and by me sworn as a witness in the
8 above-entitled action at the time and place therein
9 specified;
10 That said deposition was taken before me at said
11 time and place, and was taken down in shorthand by me, a
12 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California,
13 and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
14 that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true
15 and correct report of said deposition and of the
16 proceedings that took place;
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunder subscribed
18 my hand this 23rd day of October 2009.
19
20
21
22
23 _____________________________
SANDRA M. LEE, CSR No. 9971
24 State of California
25
Aiken Welch Shorthand Reporters Lura Franzella 10/1/2009
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- weight watcher cake recipe
- is the judicial system broken
- judicial opinion in a sentence
- judicial opinion examples
- judicial power in a sentence
- parts of a judicial opinion
- sample judicial opinion
- define judicial authority
- judicial sentence example
- broken judicial system
- judicial fiji vacancy
- jefferson county texas judicial records