New Hampshire



New Hampshire

Personnel Appeals Board

Fiscal Year 2002

Annual Report

Prepared Pursuant to

NH RSA 21-I:46 VI

By its Members and Alternate Members

Patrick H. Wood, Chair

Lisa A. Rule, Vice Chair

Robert J. Johnson

Philip P. Bonafide

Anthony B. Urban

RSA 21-I:46 VI

The board shall by September 1 of each year submit an annual report to the governor, commissioner of administrative services, and director of personnel. This report shall include a narrative summary of the work of the board during the previous fiscal year. The report shall also include a description of problems related to the personnel system and the board's recommendations for dealing with those problems.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RSA 21-I:45 I, Composition of Board 1

Members/Alternate Members and Date of Appointment 2

RSA 21-I:46 VI 3

Narrative Summary

5 Year History of Appeals Filed 4

Caseload and Docketing 4 - 5

Appeals Filed Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002 6 – 8

Scheduling 9

Observations and Recommendations for

Improvement of the Personnel System

Performance Evaluations 11 – 12

Discipline and Due Process 12 – 15

Summary of Decisions Issued and Disposition of Cases 19 – 21

Acknowledgments 22

RSA 21-I:45  Composition of Board; Compensation; Removal.

“There is hereby established a personnel appeals board as follows:

I. The board shall consist of 3 members, not more than 2 of whom shall be from the same political party. There shall also be 2 alternate members of the board, not more than one of whom shall be a member of the same political party. At least 2 members of the board shall have been gainfully employed as a labor relations or personnel professional for a minimum of 5 years. One member shall have been employed within the public personnel field of employment for a minimum of 3 years. Each member and alternate shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the council for a term of 3 years, and a person appointed to fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term. Each member of the board and alternate shall hold office until his successor is appointed and qualified. The governor shall designate one member as chairman of the board. The board shall elect one member to serve as vice chairman. Either the chairman or vice chairman shall be a member of the New Hampshire bar. No member of the board shall be a member of any state or national committee of a political party, nor an officer or member of a committee in any partisan political club or organization, nor shall hold, or be a candidate for, any remunerative elective public office during his term of office and shall not be otherwise employed in any of the agencies of the state government. “

NEW HAMPSHIRE PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD

Members/Alternates

Terms of Appointment – Listed by Date of Appointment

| |

| |

|ROBERT JOHNSON (r) |

|Hillsborough |

|April 5, 1989 to June 2, 2003 |

| |

| |

|LISA A. RULE (d) |

|Concord |

|October 11, 1989 to June 2, 2004 |

|(October 11, 1989 to June 9, 1999 --alternate) |

| |

| |

|PHILIP P. BONAFIDE (d) |

|Sanbornton |

|March 8, 2000 to September 24, 2004 |

|(Alternate) |

| |

| |

|PATRICK H. WOOD (d) |

|Laconia |

|June 25, 1997 to June 2, 2005 |

| |

| |

|ANTHONY URBAN (r) |

|Berlin |

|June 20, 2001 to September 24, 2004 |

|(Alternate) |

| |

Narrative Summary

Caseload and Docketing

When appeals are received by the Board, they are logged-in and assigned a docket number. That number identifies the fiscal year in which the appeal was received and the nature of the action in dispute. Cases also are assigned an ordinal number, identifying the order of receipt within each category of appeal for that fiscal year. For instance, Docket #2002-T-16 would indicate that the appeal was the sixteenth termination appeal received during fiscal year 2002. Docket #2001-C-5 would indicate that the appeal was the fifth classification appeal received during fiscal year 2001.

The general categories of dispute and the alpha-identifier assigned to each type of appeal are listed below:

C = Classification and reallocation of a position

D = Discipline including letters of warning, withholding of an annual increment, disciplinary suspension, and disciplinary demotion

O = Other applications of the rules (including alleged conflicts of interest with state employment appealable under RSA 21-I:52)

P = Promotion or non-selection to a vacant position

T = Termination from employment (including termination during the initial probationary period and resignation allegedly given under duress)

Five Year History of Appeals Filed

| |FY '98 |FY '99 |FY '00 |FY '01 |FY ‘02 |

|Classification |4 |23 |2 |7 |8 |

|Promotion/Non-Selection |6 |3 |10 |1 |0 |

|Application of the Rules |24 |9 |4 |1 |3 |

|Discipline |15 |25 |8 |10 |13 |

|Termination |18 |22 |17 |16 |19 |

|Total |77 |82 |41 |35 |43 |

Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002, the Board received forty-three new appeals. Thirty of those cases, nearly three-fourths the total number of appeals filed during FY 2002, involved some form of discipline. Disputes over the appropriate classification for certain positions within the classified service and disagreements over the correct interpretation and application of the Rules of the Division of Personnel comprise the remaining eleven appeals.

FY 2002 Termination Appeals

|Termination for Cause |Reason for Termination |New Appeals |

| | |FY 2002 |

|Probationary Termination |Failing to Meet Work Standards |2 |

| |Unacceptable Off-Duty Conduct and Arrest |1 |

|Termination from Full-Time Employment |3rd Warning for the Same Offense in 5 years |1 |

| |4th Warning for the Same Offense in 5 years |1 |

| |5th Warning for Various Offenses In 5 Years |1 |

| |Violation of a Professional Code of Ethics |1 |

| |Forced Resignation |2 |

| |Absence for 3 or More Consecutive Work Days Without Adequate Notice or |2 |

| |Excuse | |

| |Failing to Meet Work Standards |2 |

| |Theft of Valuable Goods or Services and Willful Falsification of Agency|1 |

| |Records | |

| |Violation of a Posted Policy Warning of Termination |4 |

| |Willful Insubordination |1 |

FY 2002 Disciplinary Appeals

|Disciplinary Action Under Appeal |Reason for Discipline |New Appeals |

| | |FY 2002 |

|Letter of Warning* |Violation of Motor Vehicles Laws |1 |

| |Continued Lateness |1 |

| |Failing to Meet Work Standards |6 |

| |Unprofessional Conduct |1 |

|Suspension Without Pay |Sexual Harassment |1 |

| |Willful Insubordination |2 |

*An additional appeal originally filed as an appeal of a letter of warning category was discovered to be a duplicate pleading submitted by the appellant’s representative.

FY 2002 Non-Disciplinary Appeals

|Decision Under Appeal |Nature of the Dispute |New Appeals |

| | |FY 2002 |

|Classification Decision of the Director of |Realignment of salaries to maintain parity between all |5 |

|Personnel |classifications requiring police certification | |

| |Certification of experience required prior to |2 |

| |reclassification of positions to another class series | |

| |Refusal to authorize salary enhancement for additional |1 |

| |positions under the terms of the James O. Decree | |

|Appointing Authority’s Application of the |Involuntary transfer and refusal to release all document |1 |

|Rules |associated with an investigation | |

|Certification Decision of the Director of |Interpretation of experience requirements for |1 |

|Personnel |certification as eligible for promotion | |

|Director’s Certification of Civil Leave |Refusal of the Director to authorize payment of civil |1 |

| |leave for travel time for employee to testify in | |

| |out-of-state trial | |

All Appeals Received Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002

|Docket Number |Appellant Last Name |Appellant First Name |Agency Name |Appeal Dated |

|2002-D-001 |SCHWEITZER |MARY |NH VETERANS HOME |7/10/2001 |

|2002-T-001 |BUZZELL |BERNARD |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |7/27/2001 |

|2002-O-001 |PERKINS |RUSSELL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |7/31/2001 |

|2002-T-002 |HAVENER |JASON |NH HOSPITAL |8/7/2001 |

|2002-T-003 |HODGMAN |TERRY |DEPT OF SAFETY |8/9/2001 |

|2002-T-004 |MATTHEWS |PAUL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |8/14/2001 |

|2002-T-005 |MICHAUD |MARC |NH REGIONAL TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGES |9/11/2001 |

|2002-T-006 |CORDERO |DAMASO |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |9/13/2001 |

|2002-C-001 |LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT | |NH LIQUOR COMMISSION |10/4/2001 |

| |OFFICERS | | | |

|2002-C-002 |LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |10/4/2001 |

| |SERGEANTS | | | |

|2002-C-003 |ASST. CHIEF OF LIQUOR LAW | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |10/4/2001 |

| |ENFORCEMENT | | | |

|2002-C-004 |CHIEF OF LIQUOR LAW | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |10/4/2001 |

| |ENFORCEMENT | | | |

|2002-T-007 |NUDD |LEANNE |DEPT OF JUSTICE |10/29/2001 |

|2002-T-008 |ANNIS |HEIDI |DEPT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION |10/30/2001 |

|2002-C-005 |GRIFFIN |CAROL |NH HOSPITAL |10/31/2001 |

|2002-C-006 |SHOULDIS |VICKY |NH HOSPITAL |10/31/2001 |

|2002-D-002 |SHAUGHNESSY |JOHN |DEPT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT |11/2/2001 |

|2002-T-009 |JENKERSON |HEIDI |NH HOSPITAL |11/8/2001 |

|2002-C-007 |WEIGHTS & MEASURES |N/A |DEPT OF AGRICULTURE, MARKETS & FOOD |11/9/2001 |

| |INSPECTORS | | | |

|2002-D-003 |PERKINS |RUSSELL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |12/3/2001 |

|2002-T-010 |POITRAS |SHARON |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |12/13/2001 |

|2002-D-004 |COULOMBE |BRIAN |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |12/17/2001 |

|2002-D-005 |LATAWIEC |FRANCESCA |OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING |12/17/2001 |

|Docket Number |Appellant Last Name |Appellant First Name |Agency Name |Appeal Dated |

|2002-D-006 |LOVEGREEN |SUSAN |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |12/28/2001 |

|2002-T-011 |SERENO |DAVID |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |1/3/2002 |

|2002-D-010 |THYNG |JOHN |BUREAU OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS |1/3/2002 |

|2002-D-011 |THYNG |JOHN |BUREAU OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS |1/4/2002 |

|2002-T-012 |THYNG |JOHN |DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES |1/9/2002 |

|2002-O-002 |NAHODIL |SCOTT |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |1/14/2002 |

|2002-D-012 |MULLIN |MADELINE |DEPT OF SAFETY |1/22/2002 |

|2002-D-013 |THYNG, JR. |JOHN |DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES |1/22/2002 |

|2002-O-003 |CHASE |LAURIE |DEPT OF EDUCATION |1/23/2002 |

|2002-T-013 |MCDONOUGH |JOHN |DEPT OF CORRECTIONS |2/7/2002 |

|2002-D-014 |COURNOYER |CHARLES |NH HOSPITAL |3/11/2002 |

|2002-D-015 |DEHOTMAN |PRISCILLA |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |3/18/2002 |

|2002-T-014 |MARTIN |JOHN |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |3/28/2002 |

|2002-T-015 |TAYLOR |MELISSA |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |4/22/2002 |

|2002-D-016 |MCLEAN |FRANCES |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |4/29/2002 |

|2002-T-017 |ADDAMS-CONNARTON |LAURA |NH PORT AUTHORITY |5/29/2002 |

|2002-T-016 |DZIURA |ROBERT |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |5/29/2002 |

|2002-T-018 |BURT |JUDY |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |5/31/2002 |

|2002-T-019 |SHAUGHNESSY |JOHN |OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT |6/3/2002 |

|2002-C-008 |ROBITAILLE |RICHARD |YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES |6/28/2002 |

Scheduling

During Fiscal Year 2002, despite a substantial increase in the number of termination appeals filed, the Board was successful in reducing the length of time between receipt of an appeal and the first appearance of the parties at a pre-hearing conference from fifty-four to forty-nine days. That first pre-hearing conference can be a critical step in defining the scope of the hearing, facilitating discussion between the parties, and determining whether the possibility for a settlement agreement between the parties exists.

The Board continues to schedule its cases on a priority basis, trying to hear first those cases involving an immediate loss of income and/or benefits (i.e., termination, demotion, withholding of an annual increment and suspension without pay). In spite of the urgency most often associated with appeals of this nature, any number of factors can cause the parties to request a delay in the proceedings once an appeal has been filed.

On occasion, parties will request that a hearing be postponed pending the outcome of other administrative proceedings that might affect the outcome of the appeal, such as workers compensation appeals and applications for disability retirement. In other cases, parties may need additional time prior to a hearing to formulate their requests for discovery and complete the exchange of information pertinent to the appeal.

Parties may ask the Board to delay scheduling to accommodate settlement negotiations or to accommodate conflicts in the witnesses or the representatives’ schedules. In others, the ultimate disposition of an appeal may be delayed in order to provide sufficient time for the parties to fully present their evidence and argument. By way of example, Docket #2002-T-10, a termination appeal arising out of the Department of Health and Human Services, was received by the Board on December 13, 2001. Within thirty days, the parties had appeared for a pre-hearing conference to outline the scope of the hearing, ascertain the number of witnesses who would be called to testify, and establish a hearing schedule. The parties were not all available for the hearing until March 6, 2002, when the record was opened. The case then took a full six days to complete the public hearing. At the parties’ request, the record remained open until April 17, 2002, when the appellant submitted her last exhibit and the parties produced their written closing arguments. After a review of the evidence, the Board issued its decision 42 days later.

Although the case described above should not be considered typical, cases like it are becoming more common. Appeals that once might have been scheduled for a one-day or a two-day public hearing may now take as many as five or six days to complete.

In an effort to address the problems that such extended proceedings can create for both the employee and the agency, the Board has recently instituted a process involving more extensive pre-hearing conferences between the parties. During those conferences, information can be exchanged in a less formal setting without the need for witnesses to be present. The Board hopes it can assist parties in finding more efficient means of presenting their evidence through jointly filed exhibits, stipulations as to matters of fact or proof, and submission of certain testimonial evidence in jointly filed affidavits. By doing so, the Board believes it can reduce significantly the number of days required to hear individual cases, making it possible to complete cases more quickly and free up hearing dates for timely disposition of other, less complicated appeals.

Observations and Recommendations

For Improvement of the Personnel System

Performance Evaluations

The requirement for agencies to conduct regular evaluations of employee performance is defined by RSA 21-I:42. As noted in the Board’s FY 2001 Annual Report, the success of any performance evaluation system relies on management’s ability to articulate performance expectations clearly and to measure performance not only in terms of job accountabilities but also in terms of anticipated outcomes.

The law requires the employer to provide “specific written performance expectations or criteria developed for the position in question” [RSA 21-I:42, XIII (d)] The evaluation itself must be conducted at least once annually by the employee’s immediate supervisor and is intended to measure the employee’s job performance against those expectations. Most importantly, the law requires that employees be made aware of those expectations in advance of any evaluation, and that employees be permitted to participate in the evaluation process.

Last year, the Board had an opportunity to meet with a committee of Human Resource Administrators who were then in the process of revising the forms used by State agencies for conducting performance evaluations. The process they recommended included an annual review of each employee’s supplemental job description as well a discussion with each employee of the State’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment and the State’s newly adopted domestic violence policy. The evaluation format that they recommended also included benchmarks defining the various levels of performance as more than simply meeting or not meeting expectations.

Whatever form or forms the State eventually adopts, the Board is enormously encouraged to see the evaluation process itself evolve into a system that promotes discussion and involves all employees in a meaningful dialogue and exchange of information.

Clearly defined expectations, honest and timely feedback, and the opportunity for meaningful two-way communication between a supervisor and an employee are critical to successful performance at both the individual and the agency level. The evaluation process must do more than measure an employee’s capacity for completing a series of tasks. It should provide an opportunity for employees to understand their contribution to the agency and explore with their supervisors the means of improving both the quality of work performed and the prospects for enhancing the delivery of services to the citizens of New Hampshire.

Discipline and Due Process

All classified State employees are subject to the Rules of the Division of Personnel as adopted by the Director under the authority of RSA 21-I:43. The purpose of those rules, adopted in 1992 and revised in 1998, is described in part as establishing “…a state system of personnel administration based on merit principles and accepted methods for the recruitment, appointment, compensation, promotion, transfer, layoff, removal and discipline of classified state employees…” [Per 101(a), NH Code of Administrative Rules]. Although not expressly stated, those rules also establish certain due process rights for employees to protect them against violations or misapplications of those rules.

In prior reports, the Board has devoted a substantial amount of its report to the issues of discipline and due process. In light of the fact that roughly seventy-five percent of the Board’s caseload in fiscal year 2002 involved termination from employment or some lesser form of discipline, it continues to be an appropriate focus for discussion.

Of the nineteen appeals arising from the termination of a permanent employee, only three involved a process of progressive discipline. The remaining sixteen terminations of permanent employees resulted from a single incident or offense deemed egregious enough to warrant immediate dismissal without prior warning.

Especially in those cases where progressive discipline is not employed, agencies should take particular care to ensure that employees are afforded every opportunity to understand the nature and extent of the allegations supporting the agency’s decision to dismiss the employee, to review and refute the evidence supporting that decision, and to challenge the decision itself on the grounds of fairness and equity. As the Board wrote in its FY 2001 Report, “a fair and honest exchange of information between the parties is usually the most effective way of avoiding errors. If an agency has misinterpreted the evidence or is unaware of additional evidence, appropriate pre-disciplinary disclosure by both parties could suggest a different course of action and a better resolution for both parties.”

Beyond the question of fundamental fairness, agencies must also be mindful of the liabilities associated with any failure to afford employees the protections of due process. In a 1998 decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the Appeal of Edward A. Boulay (96-085), the Court wrote:

Although NHTI officials met with the petitioner on various occasions, they failed to provide him with all of the evidence on which they based their decision to dismiss him…NHTI's failure to provide the petitioner with this information prior to his dismissal violated Per 1001.08(f)(1) and (4). See Ackerman v. Ambach, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893, 894 (App. Div. 1988) ("The dates and nature of the alleged misconduct must be sufficiently precise, when considered with information available to the charged individual, to allow the presentation of an intelligent defense.")

The board indicated that it was "not persuaded to over-turn the termination solely on the basis of the Institute's alleged violation of Per 1001.08(f)." Instead, the board reinstated the petitioner based on NHTI's failure to provide him with adequate notice. While we agree with the board's decision to reinstate the petitioner, we conclude on the record before us that NHTI violated Per 1001.08(f). Because NHTI violated this administrative rule, the petitioner is also entitled to back pay and benefits pursuant to RSA 21-I:58. Accordingly, we remand for a determination of back pay and benefits.

The appointing authority clearly has the burden to provide the employee with enough information to explain the reasons for the dismissal and to allow the employee an opportunity to refute that information. Per 1001.08 (c), the current version of Per 1001.08 (f), requires the appointing authority, to do three specific things prior to dismissing a permanent classified employee:

(1) Offer to meet with the employee “to discuss whatever evidence the appointing authority believes supports the decision to dismiss the employee;”

(2) Offer “to provide the employee with an opportunity to refute the evidence presented by the appointing authority…” and

(3) Document in writing “the nature and extent of the offense.”

Parties regularly ask the Board to clarify the phrase “whatever evidence the appointing authority believes supports the decision to dismiss,” in light of the standard established by the Court in Boulay. Appellants argue that the appointing authority must provide the employee with any and all evidence the appointing authority had in its possession that might have been considered in the decision to dismiss. Agencies ask the Board to read the rule more narrowly. The Board also has been asked to determine whether the employee’s opportunity to refute or challenge the information provided by the appointing authority must occur at the termination meeting.

Whenever an agency is contemplating disciplinary action, particularly when that discipline may include dismissal, it should pay particular attention to the language from Ackerman v. Ambach that the Court cited in its 1998 Boulay decision: “The dates and nature of the alleged misconduct must be sufficiently precise, when considered with information available to the charged individual, to allow the presentation of an intelligent defense.”

When an agency reaches a final decision to dismiss an employee without allowing that employee to mount an intelligent defense, the agency has arguably violated the employee’s rights to due process as described by the Personnel Rules. While the Board will not necessarily reverse an agency’s decision to dismiss an employee purely on the basis of an alleged due process violation, a decision by the Board coupled with a finding that the agency violated the employee’s rights to due process will, as a matter of law, result in reinstatement with back pay and benefits consistent with the provisions of RSA 21-I:58.

Docket Number |Appellant Name |Appellant First Name |Agency Name |Action Under Appeal |Decisions |Case Decision Date | |2001-T-007 |SWEET |DONALD |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |PROBATIONARY TERMINATION |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT HEARING |7/3/2001 | |2001-T-010 |PREVE |ROBIN |DEPT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT |TERMINATION FOR FALSIFYING REQUESTS FOR OVERTIME |DENIED |11/14/2001 | |2001-T-012 |LORD |ROBERT |PARI-MUTUEL COMMISSION |TERMINATION FOR WILLFUL FALSIFICATION OF AGENCY RECORDS |GRANTED |8/1/2001 | |2001-T-013 |TATE |STEVEN |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |TERMINATION FOR WILLFUL ABUSE, MISUSE, DESTRUCTION OF STATE PROPERTY |WITHDRAWN |8/15/2001 | |2001-T-014 |SHINER |PAMELA |NH VETERANS HOME |TERMINATION FROM PART-TIME POSITION FOR EXCESSIVE ABSENCES |DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION |11/15/2001 | |2001-T-015 |KILCULLEN |HILARY |NH HOSPITAL |TERMINATION FROM PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT AFTER REFUSING TO SIGN WORKPLAN FOR RETURN TO DUTY |WITHDRAWN |7/27/2001 | |2000-P-008 |EMERSON |IRIS |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |NON-SELECTION FOR PROMOTION TO SENIOR RADIO DISPATCHER |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE APPEAL TO COMPLETION |7/30/2001 | |2001-C-003 |CONSERVATION OFFICERS | |FISH AND GAME DEPT |DENIAL OF REALLOCATION FROM S.G. 16 TO S.G. 17 |GRANTED |7/30/2001 | |2001-D-003 |DROWN |BRAD |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |WRITTEN WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |GRANTED |3/20/2002 | |2001-D-005 |DEARBORN |COREY |YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES |SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY |WITHDRAWN |8/8/2001 | |2001-D-007 |PETERS |JOSEPH |YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES |LETTER OF WARNING AND SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY |WITHDRAWN |8/8/2001 | |2001-D-009 |POTTER |DENNIS |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |DISCIPLINARY DEMOTION FROM CORRECTIONS SERGEANT TO CORRECTIONS OFFICER |DENIED |11/14/2001 | |2001-D-010 |WEFERS |MARK |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |LETTER OF WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |GRANTED IN PART |11/14/2001 | |2001-T-006 |O'CONNELL |DENIS |DEPT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION |TERMINATION FOR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT JOB ASSIGNMENT, ABSENCE 3 DAYS, WILLFUL INSUBORDINATION |DENIED |11/14/2001 | |2001-C-005 |CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER | |NH HOSPITAL |DENIED REALLOCATION |WITHDRAWN |11/27/2001 | |2001-C-006 |ASSISTANT CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER | |NH HOSPITAL |DENIED REALLOCATION |WITHDRAWN |11/27/2001 | |2001-C-007 |SECURITY OFFICER | |NH HOSPITAL |DENIED REALLOCATION |WITHDRAWN |11/27/2001 | |2001-T-016 |TODT |RUSSELL |YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES |TERMINATION FROM PERMANENT POSITION AS DORMITORY SUPERVISOR II |WITHDRAWN |7/24/2001 | |2001-P-001 |ASSELIN |LORETTA |GLENCLIFF HOME FOR THE ELDERLY |NON-SELECTION FOR PROMOTION TO MEDICAL RECORDS SUPERVISOR |WITHDRAWN |9/17/2001 | |2001-C-004 |RADIO DISPATCHERS | |NH HOSPITAL |DENIED REALLOCATION |WITHDRAWN |11/27/2001 | |2002-D-001 |SCHWEITZER |MARY |NH VETERANS HOME |LETTER OF WARNING FOR UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR |GRANTED |10/24/2001 | |2002-T-014 |MARTIN |JOHN |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |TERMINATION FOR VIOLATION OF POSTED POLICY |WITHDRAWN |6/18/2002 | |2002-T-005 |MICHAUD |MARC |NH REGIONAL TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGES |TERMINATION AFTER NOTICE OF RESIGNATION PROVIDED |WITHDRAWN |10/3/2001 | |2002-T-006 |CORDERO |DAMASO |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |TERMINATION/FORCED RESIGNATION |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE |12/12/2001 | |2002-C-001 |LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS | |NH LIQUOR COMMISSION |REALLOCATION - DIRECTOR'S REFUSAL TO INCREASE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MORE THAN ONE SALARY GRADE |DENIED |3/20/2002 | |2002-C-002 |LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERGEANTS | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |REALLOCATION - DIRECTOR'S REFUSAL TO INCREASE MORE THAN ONE SALARY GRADE |DENIED |3/20/2002 | |2002-C-003 |ASSISTANT CHIEF OF LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |REALLOCATION - DIRECTOR'S REFUSAL TO INCREASE MORE THAN ONE SALARY GRADE |DENIED |3/20/2002 | |2002-C-004 |CHIEF OF LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT | |LIQUOR COMMISSION |REALLOCATION - DIRECTOR'S REFUSAL TO INCREASE MORE THAN ONE SALARY GRADE |DENIED |3/20/2002 | |2002-T-002 |HAVENER |JASON |NH HOSPITAL |TERMINATION FOR VIOLATION OF BOUNDARY POLICY BY MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH FORMER PATIENT |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT |10/12/2001 | |2002-T-004 |MATTHEWS |PAUL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |TERMINATION FOR THEFT OF VALUABLE GOODS OR SERVICES, WILLFUL FALSIFICATION OF AGENCY RECORDS |WITHDRAWN |11/13/2001 | |2002-O-001 |PERKINS |RUSSELL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER, DENIAL OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION |WITHDRAWN |9/10/2001 | |2002-T-007 |NUDD |LEANNE |DEPT OF JUSTICE |TERMINATION FOR FAILING TO MEET PROMOTIONAL PROBATIONARY WORK STANDARD |WITHDRAWN |11/26/2001 | |2002-T-008 |ANNIS |HEIDI |DEPT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION |TERMINATION FOR ABSENCE OF 3 OR MORE CONSECUTIVE WORK DAYS WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE OR EXCUSE |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED HEARING |12/5/2001 | |2002-D-002 |SHAUGHNESSY |JOHN |DEPT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT |SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR WILLFUL INSUBORDINATION |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED HEARING |3/1/2002 | |2002-T-009 |JENKERSON |HEIDI |NH HOSPITAL |TERMINATION UPON ISSUANCE OF 4TH WRITTEN WARNING FOR CONTINUED UNSATISFACTORY ATTENDANCE |DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED HEARING |12/12/2001 | |2002-C-005 |GRIFFIN |CAROL |NH HOSPITAL |RECLASSIFICATION DENIED RETROACTIVE TO 1999 |DENIED |5/22/2002 | |2002-C-006 |SHOULDIS |VICKY |NH HOSPITAL |RECLASSIFICATION DENIED RETROACTIVE TO 1999 |DENIED |5/22/2002 | |2002-C-007 |WEIGHTS & MEASURES INSPECTORS | |DEPT OF AGRICULTURE, MARKETS & FOOD |REALLOCATION DENIED FROM SG 15 TO SG 17 |DENIED |2/27/2002 | |2002-D-003 |PERKINS |RUSSELL |DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION |5-DAY SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT |WITHDRAWN |2/22/2002 | |2002-T-010 |POITRAS |SHARON |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |TERMINATION FOR VIOLATION OF POSTED AGENCY POLICY |GRANTED |5/29/2002 | |2002-D-004 |COULOMBE |BRIAN |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |LETTER OF WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |DENIED |3/26/2002 | |2002-D-005 |LATAWIEC |FRANCESCA |OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING |LETTER OF WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARD |DENIED |3/26/2002 | |2002-D-006 |LOVEGREEN |SUSAN |DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SVCS |LETTER OF WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |DENIED |5/6/2002 | |2002-O-002 |NAHODIL |SCOTT |CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT |CIVIL LEAVE DENIED FOR OUT OF STATE TRAVEL TIME |DENIED |4/17/2002 | |2002-D-012 |MULLIN |MADELINE |DEPT OF SAFETY |LETTER OF WARNING FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |DENIED |4/24/2002 | |2002-O-003 |CHASE |LAURIE |DEPT OF EDUCATION |REFUSAL TO CERTIFY APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST |WITHDRAWN |3/26/2002 | |2002-T-017 |ADDAMS-CONNARTON |LAURA |NH PORT AUTHORITY |PROBATIONARY TERMINATION FOR FAILING TO MEET WORK STANDARDS |WITHDRAWN |6/20/2002 | |

Acknowledgments

The Board wishes to acknowledge and express its sincere gratitude to the Governor and members of the Executive Council for their continued interest and support.

Governor

Jeanne Shaheen

Members of the Executive Council

Raymond S. Burton, District 1

Peter J. Spaulding, District 2

Ruth L. Griffin, District 3

Raymond J. Wieczorek, District 4

David K. Wheeler, District 5

The Board also wishes to express its appreciation to Commissioner Donald Hill and Personnel Director Thomas Manning for their continuing support. The Board’s work would be impossible to accomplish without the budgetary support and the physical and administrative resources of the Department of Administrative Services and the Division of Personnel. Finally, the Board thanks its Executive Secretary for her help and her advice on ways to make the appeals process accessible to employees throughout the State.

-----------------------

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download