Resolution No. 1929 RESOLUTION NO, 1929
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT ADOPTING PRO-
POSED DECISION OF HEARING OFFICER
SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL OF TERRY B.
GUILD.
WHEREAS, the General Manager of SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT terminated the employment of Terry B. Guild with said
District on July 29, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, said Terry B. Guild filed his appeal of said
termination with this Board of Directors at its regular meeting on
August 1, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, after "meet and confer" negotiations between the
attorney for said Terry B. Guild and the recognized employee
organization, Stationary Engineers, Local No. 39, and the attorney
for said District, appeal procedures were adopted by this Board of
Directors for employees terminated by the General Manager of said
District as more particularly set forth in Resolution Nos. 1898
and 1902, and for the appeal of said Terry B. Guild as more parti-
cularly set forth in Resolution No. 1903, all of which were agreed
to by said Terry B. Guild through his attorney; and,
WHEREAS, a hearing on the appeal of termination of said
Terry B. Guild in accordance with said procedures adopted was duly
4 011► held on August 29, 1974, before Coleman E. Stewart, a Hearing
Officer agreed upon to hear the matter by said Terry B. Guild and
this Board of Directors through their respective attorneys; and,
WHEREAS, said Hearing Officer, Coleman E. Stewart, has
prepared a proposed decision In the Matter of the Dismissal of
Terry B. Guild together with a memorandum opinion in support thereof,
•
416" which decision and memorandum were received by the District on
September 27, 1974, and filed by the Clerk of the District as
a public record on September 30, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, said proposed decision and memorandum opinion
in support thereof, was mailed certified to said terminated employee
Terry B. Guild on September 30, 1974, and to his attorneys as well
as each member of this Board of Directors, together with a notice
that the matter of taking any action specified in said Resolution No.
1903 on said proposed decision would be considered at an adjourned
regular meeting of this Board of Directors, October 10, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, each member of this Board of Directors has read
and considered said proposed decision and memorandum opinion in
support thereof, and said decision was fully read in adjourned
meeting of said Board of Directors, October 10, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, this Board of Directors had explained in an
adjourned regular meeting of said Board, October 10, 1974, each of
the courses of action it might take upon said proposed decision;
and,
WHEREAS, the terminated employee Terry B. Guild
was present with a ;local 39 Steward, at the adjourned meeting of this
Board on October 10, 1971, and no written or oral statement was
presented on his behalf, except an appearance by Local Union 39
Steward, Harry Hansen;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
%by 1. The proposed decision of Coleman E. Stewart, Hearing
Officer, dated September 18, 1974, In the Matter of the Dismissal
of Terry B. Guild is hereby adopted in its entirety. A copy of
said decision and memorandum opinion in support thereof, is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit A, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof.
2.
,
2. The punitive determination of dismissal of Terry B.
Guild from employment with SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT on
July 29, 1974, by the General Manager of said District is ordered
sustained.
3. The President of the Board of Directors of SOUTH TAHOE
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT is ordered and authorized to sign said
original proposed decision of Coleman E. Stewart, Hearing Officer,
as the decision of this Board of Directors, The Clerk of said District
is directed to sign and attest to the signature of said President
and affix the seal of the District thereon. The Clerk is further
directed to attach .a certified copy of this Resolution to said
decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting of
v1 the Board of Directors of SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT on
this 10th day of October, 1974, by the following vote:
AYES: Directors Wakeman, Fesler, Kortes,
Hegarty and Ream
NOES: None
ABSNET: None
COe
/s/ Robert Wakeman
ROBERT WAKEMA.N, -'resident
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
ATTEST
lart
• • ,A„ pct er - .e ,=Tar.
,,. Sal VAHOE PUBL / UTILI , '; DIS CT
Certificate
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. 1929, which was duly and
regularly adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Board
3.
i •
% lw of Directors of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, El Dorado
County, California, held on the 10th day of October, 1974, by the
following vote:
AYES: Directors Wakeman, Fester, Kortes,
Hegarty and Ream
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4/1. /
(SEAL) • i • � 1� _i«i i ` , • ..r.
SO $ H AHOE PUBLfUTILI w DI IICT
i
%1r
Silky
. 1
Filed with South Tahoe Public
Utility District as a public recor4
Sept. 30, 1974
tiavdee'l et-aeJelar._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
10
11
In the Matter of the Dismissal of
12 )
the
13 1
TERRY B. GUILD )
14 ) DECISION
15
• 16 The appeal of TERRY GUILD from the punitive determination
17 of dismissal as an employee of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY
18 DISTRICT came on for hearing on the 29th day of August, 1974,
19 at the hour of 11 :45 a.m., before COLEMAN E. STEWART, Hearing Offic;r
20 sitting alone. The District was represented by JOHN C. WEIDMAN
21 and LEE H. SCHUERING, Attorneys at Law, and the appellant was
22 represented by MATHEW B.F. BERIN an Attorney at Law.
23 Evidence, both oral and documentary was adduced and
24 reported, and after oral argument the appeal was submitted for
k w 25 decision.
26
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW .
P. 0. BOX 906 1)
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
9564B
Ohre
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 The following facts are found to be true:
3 1. November 1973. Refused to get sample of activated
4 sludge for microscopic bacterial examination and
5 instruction at the request of the Plant Engineer John
6 Gonzales.
7 2. May 1974. Refused for a temporary period, the order of
8 the Plant Engineer in an emergency situation, to
9 immediately get lime to neutralize acid spilling on the
10 District grounds from an acid tanker.
11 3. May 7, 1974. In violation of specific directive by
12 Plant Engineer John Gonzales that television would no
13 longer be allowed at District Plant, watched television
14 in the Operator's lounge.
15 4. Spring 1973. Temporarily refused order of Plant
16 Engineer to work incineration building operator shift.
17 5, Spring 1974. Refused order of Plant Engineer John
18 Gonzales to run dissolved oxygen sample from the
19 aeration basins to determine control for the activated
20 sludge process.
21 6. July 10, 1973. Refused order of Plant Engineer Gonzales
22 to use new method of calculating the percentage of
23 calcium ozide as recommended by the Line Institute to
24 determine when to waste lime or to add new lime for
25 phosphorus removal.
26
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW /
P. O. BOX 306 1`
661 SIXTH BT.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
.. rw
1 7. November 1972. Violated instructions of Plant Engineer
2 in ordering dumping of 4,300 gallons of caustic soda
3 in sewer line at once disrupting treatment plant process.
4 8. a. February 8, 1973. Unable to determine proper
5 settings for return and waste activated sludge.
6 b. June 21, 1973. Unable to restore carbon dioxide
7 generator burner to service.
8 c. August 24, 1973. Unable to determine proper
9 settings for pre- chlorination and waste activated
10 sludge.
11 9. May 1974. Recommended dumping acid from leaking acid
12 tanker on ground rather than to feed slowly into pond
13 number one - recommended procedure would have damaged
14 plant equipment and entered a storm drain flowing
15 directly to Trout Creek.
16 10. June 1974 and July 1974. Referring to Plant Engineer
17 John Gonzales, stated he would not work for a Mexican,
18 and would not let a Mexican tell him what to do, again
19 referring to John Gonzales.
20 11. November 24, 1973. Unable to take immediate corrective
21 measures when main plant water supply line (10 -inch
22 diameter) ruptured.
23 12. December 13, 1973. Unable to take immediate corrective
24 action when boiler pressure dropped off.
4110, 25 13. February, March and April 1974. During this time period
26 Mrs. John (Barbara) Gonzales answered several telephone
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 306 ( 3 )
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN. CALIFORNIA
95648
* p w
1 calls at her home from Terry Guild while he was at work
2 to ask Mr. Gonzales questions about plant operation.
3 Sometimes Mr. Guild prefaced his remarks with:
4 1, Referred to John Gonzales as a "wetback ".
5 2. How do you like being married to a blond Mexican?
6 Mrs. Gonzales remembers Mr. Guild calling at 5:30
7 to 6:30 P.M. at least once a week in March 1974, and
8 also during February and April 1974.
9
10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW •
11 1
12 Appellant TERRY GUILD is guilty of the following
13 disciplinary offenses:
14 1. Incompetency,
15 2. Inefficiency,
16 3, Insubordination,
17 4. Discourteous treatment of a fellow employee.
18 II
19 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT did not violate the
20 provisions of Section 3506 of the Government Code.
21
22 DECISION
23 The punitive determination of dismissal of appellant,
24 TERRY GUILD, as of July 29, 1974, is hereby sustained.
25 DATED AND SIGNED this I /day of September, 1974.
26 /� �z
C/
COLEMAN E.T Cb1em n E. SteN4art,
LAW
ATTORNEY A AT LAW
P. 0.60x 306 Hearing Officer Presiding.
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648 (4)
r I 4
1 The foregoing decision is hereby adopted as the decision
2 of the Board of Directors of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRIC?
3 this 10th day of October 2 1974.
4
5 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
6
e/ Cadij 04
7 President
8
101 /e0O
9 Secretary
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 206 (5)
661 SIXTH T.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
. Filed with South Tahoe Public
Utility District as a public
record Sept. 30, 1974
460' ZaZt.d - //I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
10
11 In the Matter of the Dismissal of ]
TERRY B. GUILD
12 ] MEMORANDUM OPINION
13
14 TERRY GUILD, an employee of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC
15 UTILITY DISTRICT was dismissed as of July 29, 1974. The letter of
16 termination of that date states the following grounds for such
17 action:
18 1. Incompetency (frequent improper decisions
19 on plant operation and gross operational
20 errors).
21 2. Inattention to duty and failure to perform
22 assigned duties.
23 3. Discourteous treatment of fellow employees
24 and supervisors.
25 4. Refusal on several occasions to carry out
26 duties included in job description and re-
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( 1 )
P. O. BOX 906
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN. CALIFORNIA
95648
1 quested by supervisor.
2 5. Willful and persistent violation of District
3 policies adopted by the Board of Directors.
4 Subsequently, Guild was furnished a Bill of Particulars
5 dated August 13, 1974, and a supplemental Bill of Particulars
6 dated August 20, 1974.
7 A preponderance of the probative evidence introduced
8 herein requires the determination that the following incidents
9 setforth in the Bill of Particulars are true, to -wit:
10 1. November 1973. Refused to get sample of activated
11 sludge for microscopic bacterial examination and
12 instruction at the request of the Plant Engineer John
13 Gonzales.
14 2. May 1974. Refused for a temporary period, the order
15 of the Plant Engineer in an emergency situation, to
16 immediately get lime to neutralize acid spilling on the
17 District grounds from an acid tanker.
18 3. May 7, 1974. In violation of specific directive by
19 Plant Engineer John Gonzales that television would no
20 longer be allowed at District Plant, watched tele-
21 vision in the Operator's lounge.
22 4. Spring 1973. Temporarily refused order of Plant
23 Engineer to work incineration building operator
ihe 24 shift.
25 5. Spring 1974. Refused order of Plant Engineer
26 John Gonzales to run dissolved oxygen sample from the
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW /
P. 0. 80X 306 1` )
661 SIXTH 8T.
LINCOLN. CALIFORNIA
__956418
1 aeration basins to determine control for the activated
2 sludge process.
3 6. July 10, 1973. Refused order of Plant Engineer Gonzales
4 to use new method of calculating the percentage of
5 calcium ozide as recommended by the Lime Institute to
6 determine when to waste lime or to add new lime for
7 phosphorus removal.
8 7. November 1972. Violated instructions of Plant
9 Engineer in ordering dumping of 4,300 gallons of caustic
10 soda in sewer line at once disrupting treatment plant
11 process.
12 8. a. February 8, 1973. Unable to determine proper
13 settings for return and waste activated sludge.
14 b. June 21, 1973. Unable to restore carbon dioxide
15 generator burner to service.
16 c. August 24, 1973. Unable to determine proper
17 settings for pre- chlorination and waste activated
1 sludge.
19 9. May 1974. Recommended dumping acid from leaking acid
20 tanker on ground rather than to feed slowly into pond
21 number one - recommended procedure would have damaged
22 plant equipment and entered a storm drain flowing
23 directly to Trout Creek.
24 10. June 1974 and July 1974. Referring to Plant Engineer
25 John Gonzales, stated he would not work for a Mexican,
26 and would not let a Mexican tell him what to do, again
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 `
P. 0. BOX 306 1
661 BIRTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
1 referring to John Gonzales.
2 11. November 24, 1973. Unable to take immediate corrective
3 measures when main plant water supply line (10 -inch
4 diameter) ruptured.
5 12. December 13, 1973. Unable to take immediate corrective
•
6 action when boiler pressure dropped off.
7 13. February, March and April 1974. During this time
8 period Mrs. John (Barbara) Gonzales answered several
9 telephone calls at her home from Terry Guild while he
10 was at work to ask Mr. Gonzales questions about plant
11 operation. Sometimes Mr. Guild prefaced his
12 remarks with:
13 1. Referred to John Gonzales as a "wetback ".
14 2. How do you like being married to a blond Mexican?
15 Mrs. Gonzales remembers Mr. Guild calling at 5:30
16 to 6 :30 P.M. at least once a week in March 1974, and
17 also during February and April 1974.
18 Finding 8 (b) is in legal effect "diminimus ". An
19 accurate criticism would be that Guild did not shut down the carbon
20 dioxide generator burner. Restoration to service was a major
21 problem for the manufactors of this item, and Guild could not
22 reasonably be expected to make the adjustments or repairs to
23 provide the continuous service required.
24 Finding 3 "watching television in the men's lounge;'
25 is not of major importance but it has the cummulative effect of
26 establishing Guild's attitude of disrespect for a superior
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. 0. 60X 306 (4)
661 SIXTH 6T.
LINCOLN. CALIFORNIA
95640
4
1 administrator, John Gonzales.
2 Findings 8 (a) , (b) (c) , 9, 11, and 12, establish a
3 degree of incompetence which, standing alone, would not support
4 a determination of dismissal, but become significant in the
5 evaluation of the prospect of improvement in competency when
6 considered in relation to the findings of insubordination.
7 Findings 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (first sentence), and 10
8 disclose a degree of insubordination which strongly supports the
9 determination to dismiss. Guild's attitude created an intolerable
10 situation. It is apparent from the evidence adduced that Guild
11 had developed a hostile attitude toward Gonzales, the plant
k ir 12 engineer, who was a supervisor in rank above Guild. The best
13 measurement of this hostility is revealed in the testimony that
14 Guild declared, on one occassion, with reference to a request by
15 Gonzales that Guild secure a sample of activated sludge that
16 Gonzales could "go to hell and get his own sample ", and that on
17 one occasion with reference to Gonzales "that he would not work
18 for a fucking Mexican and would not let a Mexican tell him what
19 to do ". Such an attitude could result only in the decision to
20 terminate Guild's employment.
21 The defense in opposition to the validity of the dismissal
22 rests on two primary issues:
23 1. The Bill of Particulars, if established as true,
24 does not support the finding of "Dismissal For
25 Just Cause".
26 2. The dismissal was motivated by the Board of Director
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( )
P. O. BOX 306
681 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
9564B
1 hostility to the Operating Engineers Union #39 being
2 brought in as the representative of the employees
3 of the district, and that the dismissal was a punitive
4 action taken against Guild as an employee who was
5 active inthe program to secure approval of the union.
6 The formal decision in this proceeding finds against
7 the appellant employee in both issues.
8 Sub - section 8 of Section 34, of ordinance 162 of the
9 District following an introductory sentence reads as follows:
10 "The tenure of every employee shall be during good
11 behavior, and any employee may be dismissed, demoted or
12 otherwise disciplined for any of the following causes":
13 (8) Incompetency, inefficiency, insubordination,
14 inattention or dereliction of duty, discourteous
15 treatment of the public or of fellow employees,
16 physical attack or fighting, or any other wilful
17 failure of good conduct tending to injure the public
18 service, or wilful or persistent violation of District
19 policies adopted by the Board of Directors.
20 Reference may be had to Section 19572 of the Government
21 Code defining causes for discipline of public employees. This
22 section setsforth in part the following causes: (b) incompetency;
23 (c) inefficiency; (e) insubordination; (h) intemperance;
24 (m) discourteous treatment of public or other employees;
i ie 25 (o) wilful disobedience; (q) violation of this part or board rule.
26 . . . . . . .
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( " F/�
)
P. O. BOX 306
661 SIXTH BT.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
1 Guild was not incompetent to such a degree as to seriousl
2 impair his performance of routine activities, but was of such a
3 nature as to require serious consideration to the continuance of
4 his employment. He lacked the required competency to act in an
5 emergency. Aside from his failure to shut down the carbon dioxide
6 generator burner, the evidence discloses that Guild did not exercis
7 competent judgment with reference to findings 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 (a),
8 8 (c), 11, and 12. With a proper attitude toward improvement
9 Guild could have applied himself to a pursuit of technical in-
10 formation that would have assured an acceptable proficiency.
11 However, as above indicated, his hostile attitude toward Gonzales
12 forestalled an opinion on the part of management that he would
13 acquire such a degree of competency...
14 His discourteous treatment of Gonzales does not require
15 elaboration, (34 -e). It is of such a serious nature as to demand
16 his severance from the employment roll of the District. Failure
17 to discipline Guild for this conduct would encourage like conduct
18 on the part of fellow employees, who, at one period of time, were
19 engaging in the "silent treatment" toward Gonzales. The motivation
20 for this attitude appears to have resulted from Guild's accusation
21 of Gonzales that Gonzales was "spying" on the men to secure grounds
22 for discipline. Further stimulation might very well have turned
23 the "silent treatment" to overt acts of hostility.
24 Guild's insubordination and disobedience, when considered
25 in connection with his hostility toward Gonzales, constitutes the
26 most serious aspect of this proceeding. The " wilful disobedience"
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( )
P. O. 00X 306
661 BIXTH BT.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
•
1 which constitutes a ground for discipline of an employee connotes
2 a specific violation of a command or prohibition. Peters vs
3 Mitchell, 35 Cal Rep. 535. Statutory terms "insubordination" and
4 " wilful disobedience" as grounds for the discipline of employees
5 overlap, and, so far as they are distinguishable, disobedience
6 connotes a specific violation of a command or prohibition, while
7 insubord L'ation implies general course of mutinous, disrespectful
8 or contumacious conduct: Coomes vs State Personnel Board, 30 Cal
9 Rep. 639. The conduct of Guild was both a violation of a command a d
10 mutinous, disrespectful conduct.
11 Guild's defense of "union discrimination" is not sustaine4.
12 It is true that as of July 29, 1974, three employees of the Distric
13 were dismissed. It is also true that these three employees were
14 the ones most active in causing Operating Engineers Local No. 39
15 to become the bargaining agent for the employees of the District,
16 however, the evidence fails to disclose any prejudice against this
1 7 union other than a declaration on the part of one member of the
18 Board of Directors that he opposed the bringing in of the union.
19 This was not the attitude of the Board as evidenced by its co-
20 operation in the acceptance of the union without a formal vote
21 of the employees, thus accelerating the establishment of the
22 union's jurisdiction by at least two months, and, moreover, it is
23 reasonable to conclude that Guild's attitude toward Gonzales was
24 accelerated by the realization that the merger of the Employees
rr 25 Association with the union was about to take place, and that his
26 activity to undermine Gonzales from within the union might be
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 306 (8)
661 BIRTH BT.
_INCOLN, CALIFORNIA
9564B
.
1 afforded more formidable support than he could expect from the
2 Employees Association. Aside from the immediate problem presented
3 by the union's defense of the three employees in question the
4 District may reasonably expect a better employer - employee
5 relationship in the future through the presence of the union.
6 Considerable evidence was admitted on behalf of the
7 defense to establish that other employees of the District, who
8 had not been disciplined, were guilty of disciplinary offenses.
9 This evidence is not relevant to the determination of the charges
10 setforth in the Bill of Particulars. That other employees were
11 guilty of disciplinary offenses does not exhonerate Guild. The
12 evidence was relevant only to the issue of "union discrimination ".
13 No one employee was shown to have been guilty of disciplinary
14 offenses, either in number or as serious in consequence, as those
15 established against Guild. Had disciplinary proceedings been
16 instituted against any one of such employees the discipline
17 imposed, of necessity, would have been less severe.
i8 Finally, the contention that the employee "appraisals"
19 of Guild fail to reflect any disciplinary act on the part of
20 Guild and that, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that
F1 after Guild succeeded in bringing in Engineers Local 39, managemen
22 then undertook to "build a case" against Guild. This contention
23 lacks validity. The rationalization of the favorable appraisals
24 as opposed to the disciplinary Bill of Particulars lies in the
25 management structure and the atmosphere that prevailed after the
26 hiring of Gonzales. Gonzales was a young engineer just out of
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ^
P. O. BOX 306 9 )
661 BIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
•
t
1 college. He has presently been with management as a plant engineer
2 for two and one half (2 1/2) years. He is by birth half Mexican
3 and half Irish. He was the representative of management who
4 reviewed the appraisal reports of the employees. This position
5 of authority disturbed Guild and he made his attitude known to the
6 other employees. The record does not affirmatively disclose that
7 the other employees resented Gonzales by reason of his ancestry,
8 but they did develop the attitude of the "silent treatment ". It
9 was in this atmosphere that Gonzales was called upon to function,
10 not only as the plant engineer, but as an administrative super -
11 visor. For this latter assignment Gonzales had not been specifi-
12 tally trained, and he failed to realize the necessity of his
13 active intervention in reviewing appraisal reports. He took the
14 attitude that if the employees rating supervisor gave him a
15 favorable report it was not his responsibility to intervene and
16 derogate that report if he had an adverse opinion. In this
17 attitude he was in error. However, the evidence discloses that
18 both he and the general manager came under criticism, from both
19 employees and the Board of Directors for being too lenient in the
20 area of supervisory discipline. Both have corrected such latitude.
21 SIGNED this ( day of September, 1974.
22 ' 23 "� f .,L'�' t ; 1 24
Coleman E. Stewart
Hearing Officer Presiding
25
26
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( 10 )
P. O. SOX 706 �/
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
9564B
• i • I
' ,/
jr Nir I hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 1930, which was duly and regularly
adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors
of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, El Dorado County,
California, held on the 10th day of October, 1971.
AYES: Directors Wakeman, Fesler, Kortes, Hegarty
and Ream
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Ale
At • 414
(SEAL) DA MI AIR A * 1, C er
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRI "
...rte