[nfbmi-talk] what does it mean, what did he mean?
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Tue Mar 1 17:46:21 UTC 2011
Certainly the appointment of Larry to the MCB board doesn't constitute
nepotism as you clearly articulate the concept here. But, even more
importantly check out this Michigan civil Service Commission ruling on paid
employees...
banner frame
Banner
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-html-off.gif$3
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-java-on.gif$3
Search
Choose search form
nxt/gateway.dll?f=images$fn=clear-search.gif$3
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-document-on.gif$3
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-results-off.gif$3
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-docresults-off.gif$3
2011/tad%202011-018.htm?f=images$fn=tab-searchform-off.gif$3
banner frame end
contents frame
Contents
contents frame end
main frame
doc-tools frame
Document
Sync Contents
Prev Doc
Next Doc
Prev Match
Next Match
Create Link
doc-tools frame end
doc-body frame
TAD 2011-018 Kurt L. Gorski 1/27/2011
RICK SNYDER
GOVERNOR
State of Michigan
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS
ANDREW P. ABOOD
CHARLES BLOCKETT, JR.
ROBERT W. SWANSON
THOMAS M. WARDROP
STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
JEREMY S. STEPHENS
Office of Technical Complaints
TECHNICAL Review DECISION
Table with 2 columns and 8 rows
In re Technical Appointment Complaint
Date mailed
January 27, 2011
of
TAD 2011-018
Kurt L. Gorski
Ref. No.
2010-06310
Key Word(s)
Appointment
Qualifications/Eligibility
Selection
table end
Basis of Complaint and Relief Requested
The complainant is questioning the appointment of Jeffrey Hoppes to a
limited-term Transportation Maintenance Worker (TMW)-A (9) position located
in the
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). As the desired outcome of his
Technical Complaint, the complainant is seeking the following:
If Jeff and Brent Hoppes falsified their applications, approprate
reprocussions (sic) should follow. If supervision is allowing this to
happen, Repremands
(sic) should be severe.
Background
The MDOT posted a vacancy for a limited term TMW-A (9) position. Both the
complainant and Jeffrey Hoppes applied for and were interviewed for the
position.
Mr. Hoppes was subsequently chosen to fill the position, and his appointment
became effective on December 26, 2010. On December 28, 2010, the CSC Office
of Technical Complaints received the complainant's Technical Appointment
Complaint. On January 20, 2011, the Office of Technical Complaints received
the
MDOT Appointing Authority's comments on the complainant's Technical
Appointment Complaint.
^2Discussion
Chapter 9 of the CSC Rules defines the term Technical Complaint as follows:
Technical Complaint means a written complaint that a technical decision (1)
violated article 11, section 5 of the Michigan Constitution, (2) violated a
civil service rule or regulation, or (3) was arbitrary and capricious.
Chapter 9 of the CSC rules also states that the term technical decision
includes technical appointment decisions, which are defined as follows:
Technical appointment decision means (1) a decision of an appointing
authority appointing a candidate to a position in the classified service or
(2) a decision
of civil service staff certifying or revoking an appointment to a position
in the classified service.
In addition, CSC Regulation 8.04, Technical Appointment Complaints, Standard
A.2.c., states that a Technical Complaint must include:
A complete statement of why the technical appointment decision (1) violated
article 11, section 5 of the Michigan Constitution; (2) violated a Civil
Service
rule or regulation; or (3) was arbitrary and capricious.
To prevail in the Technical Complaint Process, the complainant must show
that the technical appointment decision fits one or more of these three
bases for
granting the relief he seeks. In this case, the complainant has neither
alleged nor shown that the technical appointment decision violated article
11,
section 5 of the Michigan Constitution; violated a CSC rule or regulation;
or was arbitrary and capricious. The complainant, therefore, has not filed a
proper Technical Complaint. This fundamental deficiency notwithstanding, the
complainant's Technical Appointment Complaint will be considered.
In his Technical Complaint the complainant states, in part:
I believe that Jeff Hoppes answered incorrectly to agency wide questions
about family members working at the Grand Ledge facility. Rule 3-1.5
Integrity
of process is what is in question. There are (2) brothers and a cousin that
work at this facility and this promotion of Jeff Hoppes puts him in a
managing
position over his family. If he lied about his family status at MDOT. He's
in violation. If management is overlooking this fact, the supervisors are in
violation.
In response, the MDOT Appointing Authority states, in part:
The NEOGOV application process asks the applicant to respond to the
following question: Are you related to anyone working at the agency in which
you are
seeking employment? This is a standard statewide supplemental question, not
an MDOT generated question, nor a question that MDOT reviews or considers.
Based on discussion with Mr. Hoppes, when he responded to this question he
did not fully willfully withhold that he is related to anyone at the agency,
but rather ^3simply an oversight when reading and responding to the
supplemental questions. He indicated he did not withhold this information
for any other
reason than not completely reading the question and responding accordingly.
When asked directly if he is related to anyone at the facility he indicated
yes, he does have a brother and a 5th or 6th cousin at the facility.
Mr. Hoppes completed the application process through NEOGOV when applying
for a Transportation Maintenance Worker-A position. This position functions
as
a lead work overseeing the work activities of lower-level Transportation
Maintenance Workers at a work site or facility. The position does not have
supervisory
nor managerial authority over lower level positions.
The promotion of Mr. Hoppes to the Transportation Maintenance Worker-A
position does not put him in a managing position over his family members.
Based on all of the information in the record, I am persuaded that the
selection process leading to the appointment of Mr. Hoppes violated no CSC
rule or
regulation, for the following reasons:
· First, as noted by the Appointing Authority, the TMW-A (9)
classification has two concepts associated with it, a senior-level worker
and a lead
worker. The 9-level contains no supervisory concept and, therefore, Mr.
Hoppes cannot be supervising his family members because his position is not
authorized
to supervise anyone.
· Second, there is no existing CSC rule or regulation that
specifically prohibits employees in the classified service from directly
supervising a
family member. CSC Rule 2-8, Ethical Standards and Conduct, acknowledges in
general terms that conflict of interest situations may arise if family
members
are in a position to gain from their relationship with another family member
employed by the same agency. There is, however, no specific CSC rule or
regulation
that universally precludes a supervisor from supervising a family member.
Agencies are free to develop and enforce departmental work rules that may
prohibit
an employee from supervising a family member. Therefore, even if Mr. Hoppes
had been assigned to directly supervise a family member, which is not the
case,
that, by itself, would violate no specific CSC rule or regulation.
· Third, the MDOT Appointing Authority indicates that the MDOT has no
specific agency work rules that would prohibit an employee from supervising
a family member. Therefore, even if Mr. Hoppes had been assigned to directly
supervise a family member, which is not the case, that, by itself, would
violate
no specific MDOT work rule.
· Fourth, the MDOT Appointing Authority indicates that since there is
no MDOT work rule prohibiting an employee from supervising a family member,
and because the position to which Mr. Hoppes was appointed is a
non-supervisory position, the ^4Appointing Authority does not even review or
consider whether
a candidate has even answered the question on the NEOGOV application.
· Finally, if Mr. Hoppes deliberately provided false information with
the intention of deceiving the Appointing Authority or circumventing a CSC
rule or regulation or MDOT work rule, then that would constitute a violation
of CSC Rule 3-1.5. Based on the information in the record and the
circumstances
involved, I am inclined to accept the explanation of the Appointing
Authority and the Appointee that there was no deliberate attempt to provide
false information
and that the information omitted had no effect whatsoever on the selection
process in question. It should be noted, however, for future reference,
that
providing inaccurate information, even inadvertently, can result in an
employment sanction.
In summary, Mr. Hoppes has not been appointed to a supervisory
classification, and his position is not authorized to supervise anyone.
There is no CSC rule
or regulation that specifically prohibits an employee from directly
supervising a family member. Agencies may establish agency work rules that
limit or
prohibit the supervision of a family member if they believe that that
reporting relationship would constitute a conflict of interest or would
otherwise
impair departmental objectives. However, The MDOT has not established any
specific agency work rule that would prohibit an employee from supervising a
family member. The MDOT Appointing Authority is aware of the appointee's
family members, and indicates that this is not a factor that is considered
by
them in the selection process.
Decision
The selection process leading to the appointment of Mr. Hoppes to a TMW-A
(9) position did not violate CSC rules or regulations and violated no MDOT
agency
work rule. There is nothing in the record that would warrant the revocation
of the appointment. The requested relief, therefore, is denied.
/S/
Kenneth Melaragni, Technical Review Officer
Office of Technical Complaints
cc:
Lisa Price, MDOT OHR
Jeffrey R. Hoppes, Appointee
^5
This decision may be appealed if received by the Civil Service Commission's
Employment Relations Board within 28 calendar days of the mailing date on
the
face of this decision (
February 24, 2011) as authorized in Civil Service Commission Rule 8-7,
Appeal to Civil Service Commission. Instructions and form for filing an
appeal, Civil Service Regulation 8.05,
Employment Relations Board Appeal Procedures, and Regulation 8.06,
Computing Time and Filing Documents, can be found at
www.mi.gov/erb.
You must serve a copy of the application for leave to appeal upon the
adjudicating officer for the decision,
Kenneth Melaragni, Technical Review Officer, Office of Technical Complaints,
Capitol Commons Center,
400 South Pine Street, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, MI 48909, and those persons
copied on the decision. A proof of service on all the parties must be
submitted
to the Board with the application. Appeals and inquiries should be
addressed to the Employment Relations Board, Michigan Civil Service
Commission, Capitol
Commons Center, 400 South Pine Street, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan
48909; by telephone, at (517) 335-5588; by fax, at (517) 335-2884; or by
e-mail
to
MCSC-ERB at michigan.gov.
This is a publication of the Michigan Civil Service Commission. The written
document, as published at the time it was issued, is the most authoritative
source of the actual content and format of the decision.
doc-body frame end
main frame end
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan Vendors List" <vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>; "NFB of Michigan
List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:56 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] what does it mean, what did he mean?
>A visitor to the most recent meeting of the National Association of Blind
>Merchants of Michigan expressed the opinion that he would, as he put it,
>"hate to see an NFB-controlled program" in our state and that the NFB of
>Michigan was benefitting from nepotism. I now give you the first three
>definitions of nepotism obtained from Google.com for your consideration.
>
> Does anyone here believe that any of our members or that NFBM enjoys
> special ties of family or close friendship to any of the leaders of state
> government? Could it be that past nepotism on a grand scale is what's
> behind many of the problems we face with the Commission for the Blind
> today?
>
> Read the paragraphs below and then please let us know what you think.
>
>>From google.com, nepotism:
>
> favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by
> giving them
> jobs)
> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
> Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives or friends, without regard to
> their merit.Modern
> Language Association (MLA):"nepotism." The American Heritage New
> Dictionary of Cultural
> Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 10 Aug. 2009. .
> ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism
>
> The favoring of relatives or personal friends because of their
> relationship rather
> than because of their abilities
> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nepotism
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list