HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Personnel Board - Meeting Date: 12/15/2010 CITY OF GLENDALE
PERSONNEL BOARD HEARING MINUTES
JANET PFEIFFER
December 15,2010 @ 6:00 pm
OPEN SESSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Lenox, Chairperson
Ferne Ridley,Vice Chairperson
Terri Leon,Board Member
Richard Westby, Board Member
STAFF PRESENT: Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director
James Brown, Assistant Human Resources Director
Naomi Jackson,Human Resources Administrator
Lorena Sanchez-Zumph, Human Resources Generalist
Katie Douglas,Human Resources Generalist
Marcia Zientek, Management Assistant
WITNESSES: Janet Pfeiffer, Appellant
James Burr Shields,Appellant Attorney
Doug Kukino, Acting Utilities Director
Nick DiPiazza, Respondent Attorney
Richard Levernier
Sheila Reddic
Dawn Slauter
Ron Ervin
Roger Wyatt
OTHERS PRESENT: Christina Parry
Phillis Walker
Herb Haley
Joe Greth
Jacques Brados
David Atchison
Donna Ford Terrell, RPR, RMR, RDR, CRR, Certified Reporter #50250, recorded the record of the
hearing.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (Pages 4 - 6)
Al Lennox, Chairperson, called the Personnel Board Hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
December 15, 2010. Roll call was taken. Janet Pfeiffer, the Appellant was represented by Attorney
James Burr Shields. Deputy City Attorney Nick DiPiazza represented the City of Glendale,Respondent.
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 2
As a note of record, in keeping with Arizona Revised Statutes, 38-431.O1G, all Board Members received
a copy of the revised July 2010 Arizona Open Meeting Laws. The September 15, 2010 Personnel Board
Business Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board and approved.
ORDER OF PROOF (Page 7)
The reading of the Order of Proof was waived by Attorney DiPiazza and Attorney Shields.
PURPOSE OF HEARING
The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony in the matter of the disciplinary appeals requested by
Ms. Janet Pfeiffer, a former City of Glendale Utilities Security Department employee, regarding her
suspension and subsequent termination of employment. On June 2, 2010 Ms. Pfeiffer was served with a
Notice of Intent to Suspend without Pay; and a Notice to Suspend without Pay on June 21, 2010. A
Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment was served to the employee on September 27, 2010. On
October 15, 2010 the employee received her final Notice of Termination.
Ms. Pfeiffer's termination from her position as a Security Officer was based on her continued violations
of City of Glendale Human Resources Policies and Procedures, despite previous disciplinary actions to
correct her behavior. Most recently, Ms. Pfeiffer utilized a personal portable data storage tool (thumb
drive) on a City computer in the Utilities Department Security Monitoring Center (SMC) to download
video clips and other files from the City network, which she took home, without obtaining supervisory
approval. Ms. Pfeiffer's actions presented a viable threat to the security of the City of Glendale Utilities
Department critical infrastructure and constituted major performance deficiencies in violation of City
and departmental policy, including insubordination and inappropriate use of the City's electronic
communication system or networks.
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2010, it was brought to the attention of the Utilities Director Ms. Pfeiffer's "C Drive" on
the shared City computer in the Security Monitoring Center contained a list of file names matching those
of her supervisor and a co-worker. Among these were video clip files titled "Lee June 2, 2010.mpg,"
"Lee June 3, 2010.mpg," "Lee M. 6 03 10 Leaving COG.mpg," "Lee M. June 2, 2010.mpg," "Lee M.
June 3, 2010.mpg," "Lee Plate Camera.mpg," all of which were last modified, or accessed, on June 17,
2010. A number of other file names were also accessed including "Horny.doc," "COG Levernier
Douglas0001.pdf," "Log 7-1-09.pdf," "Martin Vasquez.pdf," and a folder entitled "Richard Levernier,"
on various dates. On August 4, 2010, Information Technology staff examined the shared City computer
in SMC and determined Ms. Pfeiffer had used a personal thumb drive on several occasions and as
recently as August 3, 2010 to access the above-referenced files, in addition to other files.
On June 15, 2010, all Utilities Department Security Officers were issued a document entitled"Protection
of Sensitive Information" which they were to read, sign and return to supervision. Ms. Pfeiffer
acknowledged receipt of this document and returned a signed copy, dated June 21, 2010 to her
management. This document expressly prohibited the use of personal portable data storage tools, i.e.
thumb drives. This document also referenced SMC Standard Operating Procedures which states all
information available in the SMC is sensitive and nothing is to be released without advance supervisory
-2-
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 3
approval. In addition, this document cited Information Technology Policy 100 - Security and Data
Protection, which indicates sensitive data is not to be taken home without prior approval. Furthermore,
the document references City Manager's Directive 26 - Usage of Information Technology which
prohibits employees transferring or removing from the Network any City files or materials which contain
information or material considered or designated by the City to be confidential or privileged, unless
expressly approved by the department head. Finally, this document references Information Technology
Data Extract Request Procedure which states "Data extract requests that may be of a sensitive nature
must be processed consistently and according to this policy... Particular attention must be paid to
requests that deal with sensitive data including the following: City infrastructure that may contain the
location of water lines, sewer lines, communication lines or any facility that provides City services." As
a member of the Utilities Department Security and Safety Division, Ms. Pfeiffer was aware of the
importance of compliance with the above policies and procedures in order to reduce risks and threats to
the City's critical infrastructure.
On August 24, 2010, Human Resources staff met with Ms. Pfeiffer to discuss her violation of City
policy regarding the downloading of files or materials from the City's network. During the course of this
interview she admitted to using her personal thumb drive on the City shared computer to download files,
including video clips of another Utilities' employee. Ms. Pfeiffer stated she downloaded the video clips
as proof of infractions by this co-worker. However, when asked if she reported the employee's alleged
infractions to her supervision, she stated she had not. Ms. Pfeiffer admitted on June 17, 2010 she
knowingly accessed and downloaded video clips dated June 2 and 3, 2010, with full knowledge she was
in violation of the Protection of Sensitive Information document she received on June 15, 2010.
According to City records, Ms. Pfeiffer continued to use her personal thumb drive on a City computer,
regardless of the fact she was instructed, in writing, not to do so. In fact, Ms. Pfeiffer agreed she
shouldn't have used her personal thumb drive on a City computer after getting the document entitled
Protection of Sensitive Information. When questioned further, she admitted to accessing and
downloading information on and after June 21, 2010, the date she subsequently signed the Protection of
Sensitive Information document. She stated several times she was aware she was not to transfer any
documents to a thumb drive or floppy. Additionally, communications from the Information Technology
Department substantiated Ms. Pfeiffer utilized her personal thumb drive and/or removable disk on a City
computer and accessed a number of files.
The incident described above demonstrates continued performance deficiencies by Ms. Pfeiffer after
previous disciplinary action. Her behavior demonstrated she was unwilling or unable to correct her
deficiencies and operate in compliance with the standards established for her position as a Security
Officer. Specifically, in this incident Ms. Pfeiffer received a document designed to protect the integrity
of the security of the Utilities Department and to reduce threats to the Network, including data theft or
loss. She read the document and admitted she understood the document and knew her actions were in
violation of City policy. Despite this, Ms. Pfeiffer chose to blatantly violate policy, not once or twice,
but several times.
The Utilities Department Security Division's mission is to protect the City's critical infrastructure. This
includes water treatment plants, wastewater reclamation facilities and the wastewater collections and
-3 -
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 4
water distribution systems. First and foremost is the protection of the City of Glendale's water supply.
Our residents depend on the City of Glendale to provide them with safe drinking water. In Ms. Pfeiffer's
former position as a Utilities Department Security Officer, she was responsible to protect this vital
resource. Yet she compromised the very system she was hired to protect when she downloaded sensitive
information from the city network and removed it from City premises. The location of cameras, the
layout of critical infrastructures, and ingress and egress to facilities are key components in the hands of
those with malicious intent. Ms. Pfeiffer's continued refusal to obey reasonable orders and directions
were very disturbing to her supervision. In her position, the organization must be able to depend on her
to be in compliance with the standards established in order to be successful in the mission of the Security
Division. Ms. Pfeiffer's actions constitute major performance deficiencies and violate the trust required
in her position as a Security Officer.
VIOLATIONS
Ms. Pfeiffer's conduct demonstrated major deficiencies in violation of City of Glendale Human
Resources Policies and Procedures, City Manager Directives, Information Technology Policy, as well as
Utilities Department Security Monitoring Center (SMC) Standard Operating Procedures and Directives,
including:
Human Resources Policies and Procedures No. 504—Employee Conduct Section I.
Purpose - Employees shall at all times conduct themselves in a way that reflects favorably on the public
they serve. The City upholds, promotes and demands the highest standards of ethics from all of its
employees. Employees should maintain the utmost standards of personal integrity, truthfulness, honesty
and fairness in carrying out their public duties, avoid any improprieties in their roles as public
employees, and never use their City position or power for improper personal gain. All employees are
expected to respect and comply with all federal, state and local laws, including all municipal policies,
rules, regulations, directives and procedures.
Human Resources Policies and Procedures No. 513—Disciplinary Policy:
Major Deficiencies
These acts involve questions of trust or honesty, constitute a threat to the orderly City operations or pose
a threat to the health,welfare or safety of employees or other individuals.
• Continued performance deficiencies after previous disciplinary action
• Major Insubordination
➢ Disobedience or refusal to obey a reasonable order or direction
➢ Continued incidents of minor insubordination
• Conduct unbecoming of a City employee
➢ On or off duty conduct which may bring discredit to employees of the City
➢ Negligence with City property or equipment
• Misuse or inappropriate use of electronic communication system or networks
-4-
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 5
City Manager's Directive 26- Usage of Information Technology
It is prohibited for any employee, contract employee, agent or contractor to transfer or remove from the
Network any City files or materials which contain information or material considered or designated by
the City to be confidential or privileged, unless expressly approved by the employee, contract employee,
agents or contractor's department head.
Information Technology Policy 100, Security and Data Protection
Users Shall:
• Not attempt to override technical or management controls (i.e., carrying sensitive data home on a
floppy disk without prior approval).
• Use only system, software and data for which you have authorization and use them only for
official city business.
• Protect confidential and/or sensitive information from disclosure.
Access Control - All users shall:
• Not use your trusted position and access rights to exploit system controls or access data for any
reason other than in the performance of official duties.
• Stay informed of the City Manager Directives and IT Security policies which are posted on the
City's Intranet.
Information Technology Data Extract Request Procedure
1.0 Sensitive Information
Data extract requests that may be of a sensitive nature must be processed consistently and according to
this policy. Information requests arrive in the Information Technology Department through a variety of
paths, some formal and others informal. Legislative and privacy concerns require increased scrutiny and
diligence when responding to requests for data. Particular attention must be paid to requests that deal
with sensitive data including the following:
1. City infrastructure that may contain the location of water lines, sewer lines, communication lines
or any facility that provides city services.
Utilities Department Security Monitorin s Center Standard 0 s eratin. Procedures:
Sensitivity of Security Information
The mission of the SMC is considered a vital function. Accordingly, the SMC contains sophisticated
equipment and receives a large volume of information. All information available or contained in the
SMC is considered SENSITIVE. This includes, but is not limited to, access control event data,
electronic intrusion detection (alarms) and assessment (CCTV) system information; and police, public
-5 -
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 6
works and Emergency Operations Center radio communications. Please note that all of the outputs/data
from the Utilities Department security systems, including access control, electronic intrusion detection
(alarms) and assessment (CCTV) systems (still and video images) are considered property of the City of
Glendale.
All Security Division personnel are required to maintain the confidentiality of the sensitive information
to which they have access. All requests for information including the arrival and/or departure times of
employees, etc. must be immediately referred to your supervisor. SMC personnel are prohibited from
providing any information, including video screen shots, video clips, access control records, alarm
information, etc. to personnel outside the Security Division without supervisory approval. This
prohibition includes verbal or written descriptions of events observed via CCTV. The bottom line is that
all information available in the SMC is SENSITIVE and nothing is to be released without advance
supervisory approval.
Employee Standards and Requirements
The purpose of the SMC is to provide continuous security monitoring of Utilities Department critical
infrastructure and related assets including watertreatment plants and the water distribution system, water
reclamation facilities and the wastewater collection system. SMC functions include monitoring access
control, electronic intrusion detection (alarms) and assessment (CCTV) systems, inspecting plants,
facilities, vehicles and related operations for security deficiencies, vulnerabilities, hazards and other
problems in order to ensure adequate protection. Utilities Department Security Officers are in a highly
visible position,therefore, it is imperative they:
A. Work effectively and function as a team member.
SMC Duty Log
D. Personnel are required to check the functionality of all equipment in the SMC immediately after
reporting (within the first 2 hours) for duty and periodically (at least every four hours) during
their assigned shift. The functionality checks must be documented (recorded in the log book).
These functionality checks include, but are not limited to, CCTV cameras, graphics displays
(floor plans), video analytics (pop ups), Hirsch, Velocity and Integral connectivity, telephones,
radios, blackberries, etc. The only exception is if unusual conditions (i.e., excessive alarms due
to equipment malfunction or adverse weather, etc.) impede the officer's ability to exercise the
aforementioned. In that case, the unusual conditions must be documented in the log book and the
functionality checks must be conducted as soon as possible after normal conditions exist.
G. Brief restroom breaks are authorized, as necessary. Leaving the building during restroom breaks
is prohibited.
Utilities Department Security Division Protection of Sensitive Information directive dated June 15,
2010
-6 -
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 7
The use of personal portable data storage tools, i.e. thumb drives, etc. is prohibited.
CITY'S OPENING STATEMENT (Pages 8- 10)
Nick DiPiazza,Attorney for the Respondent, gave the City's opening statement.
APPELLANT'S OPENING STATEMENT (Page 10 - 13)
James Burr Shields,Attorney for the Appellant, gave the opening statement for the Appellant.
CITY PRESENTATION (Pages 13 — 60, 68 — 73, 74 - 81, 84 — 92, 103 - 110, 122— 133, 147— 159,
164 - 166)
Nick DiPiazza, Attorney for the Respondent,presented the City's case.
The following witnesses were called to testify for the City. All witnesses were sworn in.
Richard Levernier,Utilities Security Superintendent(Pages 13 - 74)
Sheila Reddic, Help Desk Supervisor(Pages 75—84, 165 - 166)
Douglas Kukino,Acting Utilities Director(85—93)
APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION (Pages 60—68, 73—74, 81 —84, 93 — 103, 111 - 121, 133 — 147,
158— 159)
James Burr Shields, Attorney for the Appellant,presented Ms. Janet Pfeiffer's case.
The following witnesses were called to testify for the Appellant. All witnesses were sworn in.
Ron Ervin, former City employee (Pages 94—111)
Roger Wyatt, Senior Water Plant Operator(Pages 111 - 118)
Dawn Slauter, Water Plant Operations Supervisor(Pages 118— 133)
Janet Pfeiffer,Appellant—former Cityemployee (Pages 134— 164
)
CITY CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Pages 166 - 175)
APPELLANT CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Pages 175—178)
CITY FINAL ARGUMENTS (Pages 178—179)
EXHIBITS
Nick DiPiazza, Attorney for the Respondent, entered the following exhibits into evidence without
objections:
City Exhibit 1 - Security Monitoring Center(SMC)Photographs (GLEN0007 —GLEN0011)
City Exhibit 2 - Written Reprimand, dated 01/16/09
City Exhibit 3 - Notice to Suspend without Pay, dated 06/17/09
City Exhibit 4 - Annual Performance Review, dated 06/20/09
City Exhibit 5 -Zone Four Pump and Booster Station Photographs (GLEN0001 —GLEN0006)
-7 -
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 8
City Exhibit 6 - Email from Rick Barton to Janet Pfeiffer re: FW: Zone 4 4-19-10
City Exhibit 7 - Page from SMC Manual Log, depicting 04/29/10 activity
City Exhibit 8 - City Manager Directive#26—Use of Information Technology, dated 7/1/99
City Exhibit 9 - Information Technology Practice,Policy 100,effective 8/29/04
City Exhibit 10 - Data Extract Request Procedure, effective 08/2008
City Exhibit 11 - SMC Standard Operating Procedure,revised 01/23/09
City Exhibit 12 - Security Division—Protection of Sensitive Information, dated 06/15/10
City Exhibit 13 - Screen Print of Janet Pfeiffer Profile, dated 8/4/10
City Exhibit 14 - City Manager Directive#18—Authorization and Operations of City Vehicles
and Equipment
City Exhibit 15 -Notice of Intent to Suspend without Pay, dated 6/2/10
City Exhibit 16 -Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment, dated 9/27/10
City Exhibit 17 -Pfeiffer Response to NOI to Suspend, dated 6/7/10
City Exhibit 18 —Notice to Suspend without Pay, dated 6/21/10
PERSONNEL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
The Personnel Board deliberated the testimony and voted in Open Session.
Question No. 1 (Pages 179 - 182)
Chairperson Al Lennox called to entertain discussion and/or call for a vote on item number one: Was the
action of the Appointing Officer based on political, religious or racial prejudice?
Board Member Leon expressed her sensitivity to Ms. Pfeiffer's feeling when she was denied a requested
shift change and some of the personal things she was going through at that time. She thanked her for her
candidness and for taking responsibility for her actions that were clearly in violation of policy. Ms. Leon
discussed that Ms. Pfeiffer was aware policies were place for security reasons and despite this, she chose
and admitted she chose not to follow those policies. The question was voted upon and passed
unanimously.
All members present voted no —to sustain on behalf of the City. The action of the Appointing Officer
was not based on political, religious or racial prejudice.
Question No. 2 (Pages 182 - 183)
Chairperson Al Lennox called to entertain discussion and called for a vote on item number two: Did the
City follow its policies and procedures that provide employees with the right to appeal certain
disciplinary actions?
There were no discussions made by the Board Members. The question was voted upon and passed
unanimously. All members present voted yes. The City did follow its policies and procedures that
provide employees with the right to appeal certain disciplinary actions.
Question No.3 (Pages 183 - 184)
-8-
Janet Pfeiffer
Personnel Board Hearing Minutes
December 15,2010
Page 9
Chairperson Al Lennox called to entertain discussion and called for a vote on item number three: Did the
Appointing Officer have just cause to take disciplinary action based on the stated violations of the
Human Resources Policy?
Discussion was presented by Board Member Ferne Ridley. Ms. Ridley stated given the system (Utilities
Security System) is relatively new in computer terms three years and is evolving, maybe there needs to
be more openness on the part of management as to what is a violation and what is not a violation in
terms of what's going on. Ms. Ridley also commented regarding the manual log used in the Security
Monitoring Center, she stated it would be nice if it were computerized. She also recommended the City
take a look at the 12-hour shifts.
The question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members present voted yes —to sustain on
behalf of the City: The Appointing Officer did have just cause to take disciplinary action based on the
stated violations of the Human Resources Policy.
Question No. 4 (Page 184)
Chairperson Al Lennox called to entertain discussion and/or vote on item number four: Does the Board
sustain or not sustain the action of the Appointing Officer, based on the facts and information presented
to the Board?
There were nodi discussions made bythe Board Members. Chairperson Al Lennox called for a vote. The
question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members present voted to sustain the disciplinary •
action of the Appointing Officer, based on the facts and information presented to the Board.
CONCLUSION BY THE CHAIR(Pages 184 - 185)
Chairperson Al Lennox concluded, in reliance on the evidence submitted in this hearing, the Board
found the specific reasons presented to the Board at this hearing do justify the disciplines assessed in this
matter and,therefore, vote to recommend the disciplinary actions be sustained.
The hearing adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Submitted by:
•
Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director
-9-