You don’t have to inform them of shit till you institute a disciplinary action
1 Like
The law states that someone needs to be informed, or has the right to be informed of why they are under investigation.
1 Like
I do not believe it does, but hey I could be wrong
1 Like
It’s an amendment that you, yourself amended.
Correction* not “need” but they do have the right; which they shouldn’t. If you’re under investigation, you don’t need to know that, until it is completed.
Right from the Freedom of Information Clause;
“Employees shall have the right to know when and why they are being investigated”
1 Like
So when one department head fires someone for stating they do not support the department head, it makes every department head guilty of it? If you cannot trust a department head in running a department, then they aren’t meant to be a department head in the first place. It is a position that holds insane amount of power and with that power comes trust.
I still believe the appeals board could very well prevent this issue as well.
2 Likes
I was talking to people about the appeals board, and a DCJ didn’t like the idea, and would rather the cases go through the courts. However, my side is; why waste the courts time?
I agree with you on everything you’ve stated however, I’m not sure how we would go about implementing this, without a lot of people being unhappy, or un-supportive of it.
DPS does not want to deal with appeals from departments under DPS, so therefore, a single board for all departments would be best.
edit: going along with Danny; if we aren’t trusting department heads, then the board would determine whether or not the justification of the termination was ethical or not.
1 Like
I don’t think we need another board for the state, this can easily be done through the board of pardons and parole seeing as their duties essentially revolve around exoneration or no exoneration. It can definitely work in my perspective.
Also, as a DCJ, I don’t mind right-to-challenge cases.
2 Likes
I believe it could work as well. One board for pardons, and appeals.
1 Like
Whatever decision is made, do contact the department heads about it though to get their opinion on it at the least. I am sure you can ask the Governor or Lt. Governor to let you talk with the Cabinet members in the Cabinet discord.
Goes to @Cenosity as well, not sure how to reply to two people a once…
1 Like
Employees having rights?
For legal reasons the above is a joke
3 Likes
considering this joke came from the department of defense head, it makes sense.
for legal reasons this is a joke do not kill me
3 Likes
I couldn’t agree more. But unfortunately I do not control the appointment of department heads, nor do I control their confirmation at a state level. And I have no influence over county DHs. Nevertheless, the amount of valid employment rights violations cases I’ve seen in my tenure as a judicial officer and a lawyer is concerning. I repped, a lad a bit back who was fired with evidence that didn’t even show his name or face, no ESU GUI, nothing. Ya know what happens when a specific group keeps abusing a power? We take it away. Ya notice how most of the people bitching here are middle management and people inconvenienced by basic standards? That should indicate to you whose side you’re on, and it ain’t the right or the winning one.
3 Likes
as both a department head and a department employee i disagree with removing right to challenge. the courts are a long ass process and everyone deserves to have their side of things explained before they’re terminated.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
1 Like