Polk County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Bill McCarthy Polke County si) Phone (515)323-5400, 1985 NE. 51" Place Pax (S15) 323-5473 Des Moines, lowa 50313-2517 yas polkeountyiowa.gov/sherift To: Sgt. Dan Charleston From: Sheriff Bill MeCarthy Date: 6/23/2017 Re: Towa Code §22.15 ~ Personnel Records ~ Discipline ~ Employee Notifi Sgt. Charleston: In accordance with lowa Code §22.15, you are hereby given Written Notice that information placed in ‘yout personnel file which documents that you either resigned in lieu of termination, were discharged, or ‘were demoted, as the result of disciplinary action, and the documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination, the discharge, or the demotion, will be considered a public record. Polk. County will be legally obligated to make this information available upon an open records request. b-RB-17 Date Bill MeCarthy Polk County Sheriff acknowledge receipt of this leter. ae ay) bral Dan Charleston Date Sergeant ~ Polk County Sheriff's OfficePolk County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Bill McCarthy Polke County Jail Phone (515)323-5400 1985 NE. 51* Place Pax (515)323-5473 Des Moines, ows 50813-2517 swwwpotkcountyiown,gov/sherlf To: Sgt. Dan Charleston From: Sheriff Bill McCarthy Date: 6/23/2017 Re: Discipline Recommendations Sat. Charleston: This letter is in response to the following recommendations for conduct in which you were involved: 1. Incident occurrence: 5/10/2016 ~ Insubordinatio (1) of Demotion Discipline Recommendations (2) of Termination Violation: General Order #4001 —On-Duty Conduct Ill, Rules and Regulations A. The following ru \d regulations ere binding on all personnel: ~The willful neglect or deliberate refusal of any employee to obey any lawful order given by a supervisor shall be considered insubordination, On 5/10/2016, you altered the court trip assignment list and failed to notify your supervisor as previously ordered. 2, Incident occurrence: 6/9/2016 ~ Neglect of Duty and Disharmony Discipline Recommendations (3) of Termination. Violation: General Order #4001 —On-Duty Conduct ML Rules and Regulations A. The following rules and regulations are binding on all personnel: 6. Negleet of Duty: ‘Any employee who intentionally fails to comply, by act or omission, with any law, order, directive, memorandum, policy, procedure, rate or regulation of the Sheriffs Office, or who fails to perform his/her official duties, or who acts in the performance of his/her official dutios in a mannor which could bring discredit upon the Sheriffs Office or upon any employee of the Sheriff's Office, may be considered neglect. 27. Harmony and Cooperation within the Sheriff's Office: Employees shall conduct themselves in a manner that will foster the greatest harmony and cooperation between each other and organizational units of the Sheriff's Office.On 6/9/2016, a deputy directed a comment toward you about information an employee cited in a Human Resources interview. This information was disclosed to you in a separate Human Resources interview. The employee who originally provided the information was present when the remarks between you and the deputy were made —an act of intimidation directed at the employee who informed Human Resources about your actions. 3. Polk County Human Resources — Report of Findings ~ Issued 6/14/2016 Borders on a hostile work environment and exhibits gender bias in the workplace. ‘The Polk County Human Resources Department inquired into allegations from employees (past and present) assigned to the Court Services Division. The allegations included harassment, gender bias, micromanagement, and favoritism, Human Resources concluded your conduct bordered on a hostile work environment and exhibits gender bias in the workplace. However, your conduct on 6/9/2016 alone evidenced harassment and gender bias, Before proceeding further, a time synopsis follows of the process to resolve the 4/22/2016 Insubordination incident, for which you received a two-day suspension: 42222016 Insubordinate actions occurred. 5/5/2016 Notice of Disciplinary Action for your actions on 4/22/2016. 6/8/2016 Your appeal meeting of the 4/22/2016 incident. 6/162016 My letter to you informing you of my decision regarding the 4/22/2016 incident, 6/20/2016 Email notification to you that your appeal to the Civil Service Commission scheduled for 6/24/2016, 6/202016 Your email declining the Civil Service Commission date. 6/21/2016 Your waiver of the necessity to hold the Civil Service Commission hearing within ‘two weeks. 6/23/2016 Email notification to you that the Civil Service Commission hearing date would be either 8/22/2016 or 8/23/2016, 6272016 Your email agreeing to meet with the Civil Service Commission on 8/23/2016 for ‘your appeal of the two-day suspension, 8/23/2016 Civil Service Commission heard your appeal of the two-day suspension, 9/12016 Civil Service Commission affirmed the two-day suspension, 9/29/2016 Your email that you would appeal the Civil Service Commission decision. 9729/2016 My email to you acknowledging your 9/29/2016 email, and stating that I“...will await the resolution of the Polk County Civil Services Commission’s 9/1/2016 decision before proceeding with pending disciplinary matter.” 9/29/2016 Your email acknowledging my 9/29/2016 email, 21232017 Jowa District Court for Polk County dismissed your motion to vacate the Civil Service Commission decisi 3/1/2017 My etter to you stating that the two-day suspension would be scheduled. ‘After the ruling by District Court on 2/23/2017 of your 4/22/2016 Insubordlination case, the process for addressing the above-mentioned disciplinary matters in the present case resumed on 3/1/2017. These matters were placed on hold on 9/29/2016 (as noted in the above time synopsis) because of your appeal of the 4/22/2016 Insubordination incident. A series of emails from 3/1/2017 — 3/15/2017 were exchanged between you and Chief Schneider regarding the resumption of the disciplinary matters. On 3/27/2017, you ‘met with Chief Schneider regarding the 6/9/2016 incident and the Polk County Human Resources — Report of Findings, issued on 6/14/2016. You previously met with Chief Schneider on 5/16/2016 regarding the 5/10/2016 incident.‘The question to be answered regarding the 5/10/2016 incident ~ did you fail to follow an order from ‘your supervisor? On 5/3/2016, you received Notice of Disciplinary Action for your actions in the already-mentioned 4/22/2016 insubordination incident. ‘Seven days later, on 5/10/2016 (the present matter), you again altered the court trip list by reassigning deputies and failed to notify your supervisor Lieutenant of the changes you made. This a repeat of your actions on 5/15/2015 and 4/22/2016 ~ altering the court tip lst by reassigning deputies and failing to notify your supervisor Lieutenant of the changes you made. In both of those instances, your behavior was Insubordination. In the present matter, your letter dated 5/16/2016 to Chief Schneider does not provide an explanation as to why you failed to obey the orders of your supervisor Lieutenant. In your letter, you state “The next day (5- 10-16) at approximately 06:00, I made the appropriate court trip changes to cover for Deputy Williams...” ‘You mention that Sgt. Stevens and Lt. VanHoozer met that morning at approximately 09:30, but as Chief Schneider pointed out in his reply to your letter, you were not present a that meeting. No place in your letter do you state that you had any communication with your supervisor Lieutenant regarding the alterations you made fo the court list until you were called to meet with Capt. Brown and Lt, VanHoozer that day at noon for a taped interview regarding your actions, ‘When I met with you as you requested on 6/13/2017 to listen to your appeal conceming the circumstances of the 9/10/2016 incident, you did not explain your reasons for your behavior or defend your actions. The meeting concluded with you giving me three leiters dated 6/13/2017, one of which pertains to the 5/10/2016 incident. Your letter to me dated 6/13/2017 regarding the 5/10/2016 incident states that you received a text message ‘the provious day from a deputy regarding that deputy’s work availability for 5/10/2016 and you replied to that deputy. Quoting your letter, “acknowledged the text. The next day (5-10-16) at approximately 06:00, 1 made the appropriste court trip changes...” Your statement makes clear that you responded to the deputy, but you did not communicate your actions to your supervisor Lieutenant, as previously directed. ‘You cite in your letter a previous example of notifying your supervisor Lieutenant of a similar sick day request. “I texted Lt, VanHoozer per his request, not policy, and his exact words to me at 05:58 were, ‘handle it like you would normally and thank you for letfing me know.” First, you were directed to notify your supervisor Lieutenant of changes you made to a court trip list and the reasons for those changes. The order to communicate with your supervisor Lieutenant had not been rescinded. Secondly, Lt. VanHoozer’s reply to you was an acknowledgement of you following his directive to you. No where in your letter have you explained why you were justified in failing to follow the order to inform your supervisor Lieutenant of your changes to the court trip list, Altering the court trip schedule without communicating these changes to your supervisor Lieutenant is a continuation of you of failing to comply with the orders of your supervisors, This was a lawful order and you as supervisor should understand the importance of following orders, As I stated in previous ‘communications with you, adherence to the chain of within a law enforcement agency must be observed, Following orders in a Sheriff's Office, Police Department, or similar agency is vital to the efficieney and harmony of any law enforcement agency. 1 concur with the conclusions reached by Lt. VanHloozer, Capt. Brown, and Chief Schneider that your failure to obey an onder from your supervisor was insubordination —a violation of General Order #4001 ~ ‘On-Duty Conduct. Lt. VanHoozer recommended demotion; Capt. Brown and Chief Schneider recommended termination.‘The second question to be addressed concerns the 6/9/2016 incident — did you fail to aet appropriately in the presence of subordinate employees? After receiving reports of your treatment of individuals assigned to Court Staging in May 2016, an inquiry was conducted by Michael Campbell and Lola Evans from the Polk County Human Resources Department and your supervisor Lt. Shawn VanHoozer. During the course of the interviews of employees, individuals ‘were asked if they had encountered mistreatment or inappropriate behavior, and if so, to provide spe examples. In your interview on 6/8/2016, you asked for an example of bad treatment cited by employees involving you. You were provide a specific example, Then next day, 6/9/2016, at Court Staging, another deputy made remarks about that same specific example in a “joking” manner in the presence of you and the employee who had originally provided that information to Mr. Campbell, Ms. Bvans, and Lt. VanHloozer— information which only you and that employee would have known, Lt, VanHoozer noted in the conelusion of his remarks in the Disciplinary Action report that you as a supervisor have a duty to stop any discassion of investigatory remarks among employees, yet you failed to oso. The remarks by the deputy, whether said in a “joking” manner or not, should have been immediately halted by you, but that did not happen. Instead, you neglected your duty to take affirmative action and end those remarks, Furthermore, your inaction fostered « workplace environment in which an employee felt intimidated for voicing her concems and then heard the very concems that she cited “joked” about in your presence. Your discourteous treatment of a fellow employee, who was a subordinate, is a clear violation of harmony within the Sheriff's Office. In tho appeal meeting on 6/13/2017, you did not explain your action or inactions related to the 6/9/2016 Neglect of Duty and Disharmony incident. As noted above, you presented three letters dated 6/13/2017 and the meeting ended. You state in your 6/13/2017 letter concerning the 6/9/2016 incident that there was no corroboration of the General Orders violations. However, your 4/27/2017 lettet to Chief Schneider contradicts your assertion that there is no evidence of the comments made by Deputy VanDePol in front of Deputy Pursley in your presence. In your 4/27/2017 letter to Chief Schneider, you stated that you received your disciplinary notice regarding the General Orders violations for this inciclent and that “Deputy Mark VanDePol did admit to ‘them about making a comment similar to going to lunch and checking the cells for toilet paper...” As to the question, did you fail to act appropriately in the presence of subordinate employees on 6/9/2016, Tconeur with Lt. VanHoozer, Capt. Brown, and Chief Schneider that you neglected your duty and that your actions caused disharmony within the Sherif?'s Office —a violation of General Order #4001 — On-Duty Conduct. Lt, VanHoozer, Capt. Brown, and Chief Schneider all recommended termination, ‘The third matter requiring consideration — the Human Resourees inquiry and the findings related to your workplace conduct. The Polk County Human Resources Department conducted a review and analysis to determine whether allegations by employees within the Court Services Division regarding supervisory staff had merit, These complaints cited harassment, including gender harassment or bias, mictomanagement, and favoritism. Interviews with employees took place in May 2016, After the interview process concluded, Michael Campbell, Polk County Labor Relations Manager, wrote a Report of Findings, in which he stat “As to the issues brought forth regarding gender bias, micomanagement, harassment, and favoritism I find the following, Based on the issues revealed in the investigation and the number of unhappy employees in the court staging area I see no way to reseue the supervisor involved, It appears clear to me that the employces of the division perceive the supervisor is not even handed 4in dealing with issues in the work area, It also is clear that a wide majority of females that work or have worked for him believe he is not fair or respectful of females and especially female deputies.” “The record [ have received seems full of attempts by management to correct the actions addrossed above through counseling and disciplinary action. Repeatedly actions by the Sergeant appear insubordinate to the supervisor demands. Lam convinced moving Sergeant Charleston to another area where hie would be ina supervisory position would not be a viable answer given the reluctance cof the employee to comply with supervisory direction under two separate immediate supervisors and the direction of higher authority. In addition his unsuccessful ability to work with females at this point is very troubling. The insubordinate/insolent nature of the actions of the employee is a ‘major concer as to what to do about this situation. I question, based on the record of actions taken, where this employee would fit in the organization as how does the Employer trust that the employee ‘will follow directives given his record over the last couple years.” “The interview with Charleston seemed to reveal he understands the need for employees to follow directives and what steps may be needed to make sure directives ate followed even though the record would indicate he has not heeded this advice for himself. It also revealed that he had communicated with employees about their interviews before he met with Human Resources. The employees were told to keep the interviews confidential and the supervisor should know these interviews should be confidential. His answers to questions would reveal he answered some questions in a different manner when asked later in the interview. He felt that a few employees (the same employees) were making similar complaints.” “In the opinion of the undersigned this situation is much more than a fow employees raising questionable issues. The numbers of employees expressing concerns should not go unaddressed any longer than needed to make changes. The situation borders on a hostile work environment and is clearly exhibits gender bias in the workplace. 1 strongly believe that the employees of the division deserve a different immediate supervisor as soon as possible.” In his capacity as the Human Resources Labor Relations Manager, Michael Campbell noted specific concems of employees with whom you have interacted with as a supervisor. His concems that you should not be in a supervisory capacity, as well as your “unsuecessfil ability” to work with females stands out. Mr. Campbell’s conclusion that the workplace “...borders on a hostile work environment and is clearly exhibits gender bias...” is very serious. Mr, Campbell’s assessment of the workplace environment involving you cannot be disregarded or ignored. In the already-mentioned appeal meeting on 6/13/2017, you did not explain yourself as it related to the Human Resources inquiry recommendations. You presented three letters dated 6/13/2017 and the meeting ended, as previously noted. ‘The thitd letter you gave to me, dated 6/13/2017 dealing with the Human Resources inquiry and its findings related to your conduct in the workplace, argues allegations and conclusory statements but does not contest the conclusions reached by Michael Campbell, ‘Your inability to follow the ditections of supervisors, your confrontational attitude with those with whom ‘you disagree, and your inappropriate treatment of co-workers are setious deficiencies, have stated to you in the past that discipline in the workplace has several purposes. First, it marks the incident in question as either a violation of agency policies and procedures or employee conduct that is below the requited standard, Secondly, discipline serves to educate an employee as to acceptable workplace practices. ‘Third, the intent of discipline is to correct workplace behavior.is clear that you are unwilling or unable correct your inappropriate behavior and actions. Instead, you have demonstrated a willful failure to properly conduct yourself as.a member of the Polk County SherifP's Office. ‘Your recent history of the inability to follow the orders and directions of your supervisors is documented as follows: * 6/24/2015 — you received a Letter of Reprimand for Insubordination (5/12/2015 incident date); * 7/27/2015 ~ you received a One-Day Suspension for Disrespectful Behavior (6/1/2015 incident date), which was affirmed by the Potk County Civil Service Commission (9/21/2015); * 10/20/2015 — you received a Letter of Reprimand for Neglect of Duty and Insubordination (9/4/2015 incident date); * 6/16/2016 ~ you received a Two-Day Suspension for Insubordination (4/22/2016 ineident date), which was affirmed by the Polk County Civil Service Commission (9/1/2016); District Court dismissed your motion to set aside the Civil Service Commission’s decision (2/23/2017). As noted on pages 3 and 4 of this letter, [concur with the findings of Chief Schneider, Capt. Brown (retired), and Lt. VanFloozer that you violated the General Orders for the incidents cecurring on 5/10/2016 and 6/9/2016, Michael Campbell's Human Resources Department Report of Findings dated 6/14/2016 makes clear that your inability to treat your fellow employees with respect is serious and concerning, as well as your demeanor in the workplace and the resulting environment described by Mr. Campbell. Therefore, the recommendations from your chain of command ate accepted and your employment with Polk County is hereby terminated, subject to your rights under Towa Code Chapter 341 and Chapter 80F. LW tat 6228/7 Bill McCarthy Date Polk County Sheriff Lacknowledge receipt of this letter Abb 687 Dan Charleston Date Sergeant — Polk County Sheriff's Office