As the TCPO director, Ms. Arevalo questioned having this issue held in open session as she believed it to be a personnel matter. According to county attorney Dennis Wallin's interpretation, the agenda request was one of policy and suggested the matter be taken up in open session. Ms. Arevalo was seeking an understanding from the Commission as to what the descriptions and responsibilities were for TCPO and the County Managers office.
Ms. Arevalo described to Commissioners what she felt was "push back" from the the mangers office. She stated that TCPO had been placed under executive session on prior commission agenda and that she was not informed about it.
"I made a call Friday to Joy and said I see that TCPO is on the agenda, do I need to be there? And she told me no, they're just going to talk to them about to let them know we're not gonna go forward with that, that DB position."
County Manager Joy Riley-Ansley refuted Ms. Arevalo's claims saying , "I told you that it's your department and if you want to be there you are absolutely welcome, I don't think it's necessary that you be there because we needed some clarification on how to move forward with the interview process, is yes, I believe exactly what I told you". Ms. Arevalo stated that "we have a different view of that conversation", to which the county manager nodded.
Arevalo described HR changing job description/position requirements in an employment ad when ad's to hire new staff in the past had been run with no changes at all. She additionally expressed feeling disrespected because the HR failed to discuss changes with her.
HR who is also Deputy County Manager Annette Ortiz stated that she had always been allowed to edit ad copy and suggested that Ms. Arevalo was trying to build a position to hire a current program volunteer. Ms. Arevalo stated that was not the case and offered to share with commissioners the ad copy as she had submitted, copy she indicated was exactly the same as ad's run by prior program director Pat Lincoln. It was also noted that the program volunteer failed to apply by Ms. Arevalo and there was additional discussion as to lack of funding for the position.
According to Ms. Arevalo, she was told by the managers office that with or without funding, that interviews would still take place with or without TCPO's attendance. Questions about interviewing without department heads being involved remain unanswered. She also stated that she felt that the counties "hot seat" interview practice was an interrogation instead of an interview.
Ms. Arevalo described the applicant review board sitting behind the commission table and placing the applicant in a chair in the middle of the room with out a table. It was suggested by Ms. Arevelo that HR supported "hot seat" interviewing because it allowed the panel to determine if an applicant was lying. Ortiz claimed that that the interview procedure was done in such a manner as to observe body language and to see how applicants acted under pressure, not to determin if an applicant was being less than truthful and both Ortiz and Ansley support the "hot seat" interview process.
In the end, it was decided that the managers office was acting as "agents of the commission", that TCPO was bound by counties HR policies, and the only change was that department heads could request a table and chair be used during applicant interviews.
