View other events for the week of 8/15/2011
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
|SF City Hall-Speak-Out At Civil Service Commission Against Age Discrimination By City|
|Date||Monday August 15|
|Time||2:00 PM - 4:00 PM|
|Import this event into your personal calendar.|
|San Francisco City Hall rm 400 San Francisco Civil Service Commission|
|Organizer/Author||United Public Workers For Action|
SF city workers will speaking out about the systemic discrimination against SF City planning department workers and Micki Callahan, director of the San Francisco Human Resources Department who has engaged in a cover-up of the discrimination and now wants to investigate herself for wrong doing.Added to the calendar on Monday Aug 15th, 2011 8:05 AM
8/15 SF City Hall-Speak-Out At SF Civil Service Commission Against Age Discrimination By San Francisco Planning Department and Micki Callahan Director Of SF Human Resources
Speak-Out Against Age Discrimination By San Francisco Planning Department and Micki Callahan Director Of SF Human Resources
Monday August 15, 2011 2:00 PM San Francisco City Hall rm 400 San Francisco Civil Service Commission
Public workers and supporters of the San Francisco civil service merit system will be speaking out against the blatant discrimination by the San Francisco City Planning Department managers and Micki Callahan, Director of Human Resources on Monday 2:00 PM at San Francisco City Hall. The Planning Department management in a prima facia act of discrimination targeted five senior planners in the department. The agency said that they were terminatedor harassed out because of the circulation of alleged porno email. The Department has admitted that they did not investigate the use of the circulation of the email by younger employees despite requests. The department is seeking to eliminate many of the long term IFPTE Local 21 staff in an effort to terrorize the staff in order to kowtow to developers in San Francisco. The discrimination and destruction of protections of public workers in San Francisco is a direct threat to the public and communities in San Francisco who face a Planning Department that is ignoring the planning rules and procedures in their effort to push through billion dollar speculative developments and the developers who fund members of the Board Of Supervisors and the Mayor.
Micki Callahan has also violated a sealed arbitration agreement by releasing information publicly in order help buttress her Department's case
against the age discrimination charges.
The United Public Workers For Action UPWA is calling for the rehiring of all the retaliated employees and an independent investigation of both the San
Francisco Planning Department and the Department of Human Resources. We also call for the removal of Micki Callahan for a cover-up
of the illegal discrimination against San Francisco City Workers.
We also demand that IFPTE Local 21 stand up for the victimized workers instead of working in complicity and collusion with management. The failure of the top union officials of the Local to oppose the discrimination against the members of the local is a clear case of malfeasance and failure to represent the members.
Callahan has also had ethics charges filed against her for using San Francisco City resources to illegally lobby to change the pension and healthcare
benefits of San Francisco City workers. Micki Callahan, the board of Supervisors and the Mayor are pushing a reactionary attack on the retirement benefits and the restructuring of the Health Board to take away the right of City worker representatives to have any control of increased costs for retirees.,Callahan has also sought to eliminate city wide bumping if there were layoffs. This also was a violation of the San Francisco City Charter which prohibits city staff from proposing changes in the charter of the City and County of San Francisco. These measures which were stopped in part by a campaign of the United Public Workers For Action when dozens of San Francisco workers attended meetings of the commission to oppose these proposals.
Additional information at
San Francisco Senior Planner Report On Discriminatory Practices, her termination and Age Discrimination At SF Planning Department
Statement on 8/18/2011 by Cecily Jaroslawski
Good Afternoon Commissioners, C.J. appealing HR Directors denial of my age discrimination complaint. Given the last minute, unexplained changes of the HR staff report, I am not sure which staff report has been submitted to the Commission for review, but both reports include testimony and information that was required to be confidential and privileged and on the advice of union counsel am requesting this information be stricken from the record and removed from public access. In the most recent staff report, I refer to the unsubstantiated statement on page 2, that the CAO Investigator, according to Exhibit B of the staff report, found me to be one of the most prolific senders of inappropriate email content. Exhibit B makes no such statement or inference. This continued violation of the arbitrator’s order by referencing disputed testimony from arbitration is malicious. Thank you.
SLIDE #1 – COVER SHEET
On May 18, 2010, I was terminated from employment as a Planner III with the City/County of San Francisco, after almost 11 years of exemplary service. I was fired, according to the City, for violating city policy regarding misuse of the email system. I contend and have documented that while I was disciplined for violating city policy, I was terminated for budgetary reasons, to protect less-costly employees from pending layoffs during the FY 2009-10 budget deficit, effectively circumventing seniority provisions and violating CSC Rule 121. I further argue that the Director engaged in discriminatory and disparate treatment in terminating me, and four other employees over age 50, without due process or progressive discipline.
Rather than repeating what is already in my Appeal before you, as contained on pages 19 – 36 of the June 20, 2011 HR staff report, I’d like to address the continued misinformation by HR, in their staff reports and as presented at the last Commission meeting, which clearly disqualifies HR as an objective party and invalidates the HR Director’s actions to date. Since HR has presented distractions from the issue, I feel I must address these, unfortunately, making for a much longer presentation than planned.
Pursuant to section 103.4 of the Civil Service Rules, this commission has the discretion to override or depart from any provision of the CSC Rules in order to effectuate an appropriate remedy for discrimination in an appeal.
Based on presented facts, I respectfully will be requesting the following remedy:
1. Uphold my appeal;
2. Require a full investigation not by DHR but an independent third party; and,
3. Reinstate me, on an interim basis if necessary (CSC Rules § 103.4).
SLIDE #2 – DHR VIOLATIONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The HR Director, at the last meeting, spoke of the need to maintain “confidentiality” to protect the privacy of separated and other disciplined employees. However, my privacy has been repeatedly violated.
1) Previously mentioned, the initial DHR Staff report violated the arbitrator’s “Protective Order:” It disclosed sealed confidential records from my closed arbitration hearing.
All that I wish to add regarding DHR’s violation, is that they were selective in what information they presented for the Commission to review. Most of the arbitration evidence and testimony, including the missing pages of one witness testimony, had been omitted from the initial staff report and that, under cross examination, DHR’s chart was shown to be substantially flawed. As such, both staff reports are missing a substantial amount of information vital to my case that only a full investigation would disclose.
I would also like to add that the latest DHR staff report remains in violation of the arbitrator’s protective order as mentioned earlier.
I refer to the unsubstantiated statement on page 2 of the staff report, that the CAO Investigator, according to Exhibit B of the staff report, found me to be one of the most prolific senders of inappropriate email content. Exhibit B makes no such statement or inference. This continued violation of the arbitrator’s order by referencing disputed testimony from arbitration is unacceptable.
2) Contrary to DHR policy, confidential information in June 20th DHR staff report was NOT redacted:
· On pg. 7 – My home address & personal email address - NOT redacted
· On pg. 59 – My home address & phone # - NOT redacted
· Names on my email chart were not redacted by HR
3) During the earlier email investigation, my name was released to the press as well as the general public; Confidentiality during DHR email investigation was often used as a threat to intimidate employees into maintaining silence; and HR Investigative Interview process for me was totally secretive, conducted under threat of discipline to keep confidential, unlike later interviewees.
SLIDE #3 – INVALID TERMINATION
I maintain that the City’s pretense for my termination, is totally unsubstantiated and based on corrupted and missing data and other disputed factors, as discussed in my Appeal.
My termination, purportedly, for sending more emails than others is:
1. INCONSISTENT and UNSUBSTANTIATED :
a) Chart 1 – Appellant’s “Chart” (discussed in later slide):
• The City selected which emails to include, spanning over four years showing the widespread participation of many others who received and/or sent the very same email and does not contain any comprehensive comparison of email activity.
b) Chart 2 – “CPC Investigative Summary”:
The CPC Investigation Summary that HR presented at my union arbitration and included in the latest HR staff report is another piece of hugely incomplete and manipulated information, which was totally refuted by my union attorney. While DHR has already breached the confidentiality of arbitration, I am not interested in doing the same. What I can say about the Chart, without violating the confidentiality of arbitration, is the following:
· This particular chart continues to be falsely presented as evidence used in my termination, which is NOT possible, given that it contains activity that did not occur until well after my termination. The Chart was prepared as an after-the-fact justification of illegal actions already taken by the Planning Director to meet the 2009/10 budget deficit that required 6 layoffs. Further, DHR now claims for the first time, that I was fired because my email activity was greater than all others in my class because I sent 20 or more emails. This threshold of 20 emails as a measure for termination never before existed before arbitration and was disputed.
· There is no evidence OR analysis in any of City’s formal pre-termination documents that my email behavior was compared to any others. Email comparison could not have been known because the City terminated me and four others well before most of the email investigation was completed. The CPC chart was completed many months after termination.
· Omitted from the Chart and staff report are dates that the chart was prepared and time period for the email quantities. All of this was discussed and disputed at arbitration, but due to confidentiality cannot be revealed unless an investigation is ordered by the Commission.
· DHR has NOT provided any evidence as to what standards were used to collect and prepare the information in the Chart and is inconsistent with my termination binder.
· While the chart shows the widespread employee participation in the email culture, it does not address the age of persons disciplined.
The Chart is labeled “CPC Investigation Summary” which I contend stands for the City Planning Commission (CPC), suggesting that the Planning Commission has played a role in the email investigation and/or terminations.
a) At the time of my termination, the City claimed sending and receiving emails was an equal offense.
b) Since my termination, City officials have presented conflicting, evolving explanations for my termination and additional unsubstantiated, post-termination explanations were presented at arbitration
1. Violation of City policies regarding computer/emails
2. No difference in offense in terms of sending or receiving
3. Most egregious (email quantity and duration)
4. Most far-reaching (arbitration)
5. Greatest volume on day of forensic profile (arbitration
SLIDE #4 – DHR NEUTRALITY INVALID
DHR’s claims of impartiality and/or neutrality are untrue. DHR has played a leading role in my email investigation, interrogation (investigative interview), termination, age discrimination complaint and appeal, all resulting in heavily biased, negative outcomes. DHR has been anything but objective.
This slide cites just a few examples including:
1) EEO Programs Sr. Specialist/EEO Investigator acting as a “neutral fact finder” while reporting to the HR Director; and
2) Untrue statements and intentional distractions of the issue within the staff reports as well as conflicting statements by HR, see on this slide.
Page 6, June 20, 2011 DHR staff report:
Appellant’s “chart shows that younger planners only received inappropriate email but did not send such.”
“Significantly, Appellant’s chart shows that employees over 40 years old and under 40 years old were not terminated for conduct she alleged was similar to hers.”
SLIDE #5 – INCONSISTENT DISCIPLINES
At the top of this slide is a quote from Director Callahan made at the last meeting, which I argue is an untruth. There was no consistency whatsoever in the disciplines meted out by the Planning Department.
Director Callahan (June 20, 2011): “It is our belief that the City was entirely consistent in discipline that was administered, and it was based on the nature of the transgressions and the involvement of the individuals.”
Despite my limited access to disciplines of other employees, colleagues report that disciplines have been entirely inconsistent. Many were NOT disciplined at all. The inconsistency has bred enormous uncertainty in the Department and because of this, combined with the ongoing intimidation and forced secrecy about disciplines by senior management, many current employees fear they could be just as easily terminated next for no rational reason(s).
This slide cites a few other examples.
SLIDE #6 – Email Chart
Per the last meeting, the next two slides include the missing piece of information, linking the involvement of younger planners, which HR has had. This slide contains what DHR has referred to as one of my two “Charts,” included on pages 30 and 61 of the June 20, 2011 DHR staff report. This chart is based on the information from the City and shows how widespread the email participation was within the department, including the former Planning Director.
1) 46 other employees (including 12 managers) in my termination binder alone received or sent 1 or more of the very same City policy-violating emails:
• Only 4 were terminated – all over age 50
• At least 2 employees were actually promoted! – both under 40
Please note, I did not redact the names because HR had previously included them in their staff reports.
This Chart represents 33 emails, over a period of greater than 4 years, selectively placed by City in my termination binder as pretense for termination
Each email is numbered from left to right in order by sequence in my termination binder and shows that 46 other employees, sorted by rank, who also received or sent the very same emails. Also provided are total # of emails per employee on the right side of table and total employees per email along the bottom
The table also identifies the email sender, when known, as the City mysteriously withheld this information for over 50% of the emails. One of the emails is not connected to me and three others represent duplicate images. Most significantly, as I previously mentioned, none of the emails came from my computer. All of this raises serious doubt as to the integrity of the information presented by the City.
ü = DENOTES FIRED OR FORCED TO RETIRE (ALL OVER 50).
DHR falsely claims in its latest staff report that this Chart shows that I sent more emails than others. To the contrary, it shows that 46 OTHER EMPLOYEES (12 MGRS), ABOVE AND UNDER AGE 40, WHO RECEIVED OR SENT one or more of THE VERY SAME EMAILS USED BY THE CITY AS PRETENSE TO FIRE ME. However, only 4 others were terminated or forced to retire, all over age 50.
SLIDE #7 –EMPLOYEES UNDER AGE 40* WHO RECEIVED OR SENT THE VERY SAME EMAILS WHO WERE NOT TERMINATED
In response to false statements made by HR at the last meeting and in the staff reports, this slide demonstrates evidence of younger planers participation who were not terminated and instead, promoted. One employee was promoted twice, both times during the DHR email investigation to ZA, the other to Assistant ZA, two very senior positions within the Planning Department. HR attempts to argue these two employees sent fewer emails, however, many of the persons terminated also sent fewer, but were over the age of 50.
This slide alone meets the final criteria for a prima fascia case.
SLIDE #8 – DHR MISINFORMATION – ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
At the top of this is a comment by Ms. White made at the last Commission meeting, in which she denies statements made by Commissioner Moore, and on the bottom half are the actual statements by Commissioner Moore as provided in the DHR staff report:
This slide shows that Commissioner Moore did, in fact, utter the phrase “value for the dollar” at the infamous Planning Commission meeting when discussing the benefits of younger planners.
Ms. White’s presentation on June 20th:
Commissioner Moore did not “state that younger employees offer more bang for the buck or value for the dollar as Ms. Jaroslawsky misquotes her”
“I hope it is not just last in, first out, because you have spent quite a bit of time in getting some very talented young people and it’s also for us together to look at where we’re going as we move into the future. I hope that it is not only the younger and most recent planners who are being targeted for these layoffs.”
“I’d just like to make a comment that I’ve seen a lot of talent in new, younger people. I’ve seen a lot of ability for hands-on rising to the occasion across disciplines and across the somewhat always implied silo thinking, which happens in any organization. I’d like to at least express to the unions….., that there is indeed being paid attention to value for the dollar.”
Additionally, Ms. White had incorrectly stated at the last meeting that the Planning Director had “sort of cancelled out” Commissioner Moore’s statements by saying he cannot consider age in layoffs. I argue that the Director’s comment had no such cancelling effect on Commissioner Moore’s statements, given alone the sequencing of these public statements. Commissioner Moore had continued to praise the abilities and talents of younger planners and uttered “value for the dollar” not before but after… and in spite of… the Director’s comment.
SLIDE #9 – DHR MISINFORMATION: ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
At the top of this slide is another quote from Ms. White made at the last Commission meeting, incorrectly describing the limits of authority of Planning Commissioner Moore:
Ms. White said that Commissioner Moore’s “role is limited to deciding matters relating to the City Planning Code.”
The bottom half of this slide shows excerpts of Sect. 4.102 of City Charter, titled “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – POWERS AND DUTIES.” This Section of City Code, which is applicable to all City Commissions, provides at least three instances, contrary to the statements by Ms. White, where the authority of the Planning Commission extends beyond the Planning Code:
1) The Planning Commission approves the Department budget as a recommendation to the Mayor
2) The Planning Commission is involved in the appointment of its Department Head, in that it submits a list of 3 applicant’s names to the Mayor for consideration.
3) The Planning Commission plays a role in a mayoral termination of the Department Head.
Contrary to HR’s statements, the Planning Commission does approve the Planning Department budget and participates in the hiring and/or firing of the Planning Director, per City Charter.
SLIDE #10 – DHR MISINFORMATION: ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
At the top of this slide is another quote from Ms. White made at the last meeting, which incorrectly describes the authority of Planning Commissioner Moore:
Ms. White said that Commissioner Moore “lacks authority to decide personnel matters for the Planning Department.”
FACT: Planning Commission budget decisions directly affect personnel (staffing levels)
This slides shows an excerpt of PC minutes for February 18, 2010, when the last Department budget was approved. As indicated in the excerpted minutes, the Planning Commission modified the budget to affect staffing levels in historic/cultural preservation; evidence of the Commission’s direct influence over personnel matters.
Should the question be asked why then didn’t the Commission also specify in its approval that the 6 pending layoffs, as discussed, be applied more equitably, i.e., to include older employees, which is what Ms. Anita Sanchez had actually alluded to at the last Commission meeting, the very simple answer is: “BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL!”
SLIDES #11 – DHR MISINFORMATION: ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
TRUTH: THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DOES SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION
This slide contains Section 2, titled “Director of Planning,” as excerpted from the Planning Commission’s Rules and Regulations. While this may not be an ordinance, it is the official operating policy for the Planning Commission and clearly describes, by definition, that the Planning Director serves at the pleasure of the Commission…”
While this role is policy and not ordinance driven, as a reminder to the Commission, I was purportedly fired for violating policy, not any ordinance or laws.
The purpose of the three previous slides (#12 thru #14) is to show, contrary to statements by Ms. White, that:
1) Commissioner Moore does, in fact, have the authority which extends beyond Planning Code;
2) Commissioner Moore does, in fact, have the authority to directly influence the Department budget and to affect staffing levels;
3) Commissioner More most certainly does have influence over the Planning Director’s decisions.
SLIDE #12 – AGE DESCRIMINATION
I Contend that:
1. Planning Commissioner Moore:
a) There was unequivocal preference by Commissioner Moore that age should be a consideration in layoffs during the budget discussion that included the layoff of 6 employees.
b) Not before…but after…and in spite of Director Rahaim’s explanation that layoffs must occur by seniority, Commissioner Moore persisted with her praise of younger planners, and the need to pay attention to “value for the dollar.” One of the talents referenced by Commissioner Moore was that of younger people to rise above “the somewhat always implied silo thinking,” which she apparently believes is lacking in older employees. Silo thinking is often considered old-fashioned and traditional, associated with old school thinking.
If asked to provide a definition:
“silo thinking” - simplistically means “vertical thinking, or the way in which people in a large organization tend to think first of the needs of their departments before the needs of the organization as a whole.”
c) The Commissioner’s viewpoint was not a solitary opinion. According to SF Bay Guardian (as indicated on pages 22, 23 and 29, original DHR staff report), not one, but “…several commissioners expressed hope” that younger planners wouldn't be the first to go.
2. Age-based, fiscally-coordinated terminations – the fact is, that 3 months after it was determined that six layoffs were required, 4 of the terminations were completed before the FY ending June 30, 2010 (1 on very last day!). The last termination and one, forced retirement were completed less than 6 weeks into new FY. A total of six employees.
3. The Planning Director concealed the age-based terminations by exploiting and distorting the involvement of 5 of these employees in the Department’s longstanding, permissive email culture, which at the time had received not only local but national exposure.
4. Termination under the ruse of sexually explicit emails also satisfied the Mayor’s Office public declaration for “maximum disciplinary action...” and other needs, as noted in the appeal.
SLIDE #13 – IF THE COMMISSION ORDERS AN INVESTIGATION; DHR INCAPABLE OF IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION
This slide shows a flow chart of the HR Department and the extensive involvement of DHR staff, who participated in every aspect of my case, proving their inability to be unbiased.
DHR staff and, in particular, the Director are much too involved in my case and biased against it, as documented in my submitted Appeal and subsequent presentations. The obvious influence of the Director over her subordinate staff, despite any presumed claims that the EEO or other divisions within the Department can function independently, eliminates any opportunity for objectivity from within the Department. The HR Director has already denied my complaint AND recommended denial of my appeal, while fully aware of the involvement of younger planners. To expect any other outcome from the Director or elsewhere from within the HR Department, should an investigation be ordered, is unrealistic.
Any further investigation by any DHR staff would:
• Be equivalent to Department investigating itself
• Assure that the truth will never be brought to light
I therefore request that an investigation be conducted by an independent, outside third party
SLIDE #14 – SUMMARY
My appeal documents the City’s efforts to falsely portray me as one of the most unregretful and unrepentant email offenders of all time as an effort to cover-up the true explanation for termination, that of age discrimination.
I have never denied that I violated city policy and did not deserve to be disciplined, however, my termination was extremely excessive and unwarranted. I maintain that while I was disciplined for violating city policy, I was terminated because the Planning Department sought to circumvent seniority provisions, and avoid laying-off younger less-costly employees, in order to balance the FY 2009-10 Department budget, effectively violating CSC Rule 121. The City exploited and distorted my involvement in the Department’s then-permissive and pervasive email culture to conceal the Planning Director’s decision to balance the Department’s budget deficit by eliminating older, higher paid staff.
A. I have met the requirements for a prima facie case:
1. Appellant is a member of a protected category;
2. Appellant has suffered an adverse employment action; and
3. Appellant has suffered an adverse employment action because of membership in a protected category as documented by age discrimination by an appointed City official and City employee, and demonstrated that at least two other employees in an unprotected (age) class were not treated the same while participating in the same activity.
B. Based on presented facts, I respectfully request the following remedies:
4. Uphold the appeal;
5. Require a full investigation not by DHR but an independent third party; and,
6. Reinstate Appellant, on an interim basis if necessary (CSC Rules § 103.4).
Offer up suggestions for investigation request on next slide
I thank you for your time.
SLIDE #15 – INVESTIGATION REQUEST
Full investigation not by DHR but an independent, outside third party of the City’s email investigation procedures followed, identifying the following:
1. Where/If complaint was filed and whether promoted.
2. Standards/criteria/procedures and date established, followed for selection of each employee investigated, interviewed, and discipline level applied, regardless of rank or Department.
3. Age, job classification, extent/type of email policy violation, extent and outcome of investigation and interviews conducted per employee*, regardless of rank or Department.
4. Email quantities sent and received and period of email activity investigated per employee*.
5. Source and method of emails gathered per employee* and period represented.
6. Investigations and disciplines for activity other than sexually explicit emails.
7. Beginning and end dates for email investigation.
8. Cost of email investigation to taxpayers.
*includes any contractor, advisor, other adjunct support staff, who had access to a City computer
United Public Workers For Action
There has been a prima facia case of discrimination against senior SF City Planners are SF city workers are demanding that there be an outside investigation of the Planning Department and Micki Callahan, Director Of Human Resources. Callahan has said she will investigate herself.