HB 135A: STATE PERSONNEL HEARINGS - 1997 General Session

When state employees are terminated, suspended without pay, or RIFed (RIF = Reduction In Force), they have a right to appeal the decision.

Prior to HB 135, appeals were held before a three-person panel. HB 135 proposed to change this by:

• appointing a state personnel hearing officer;
• prohibiting the hearing officer from considering fairness issues (i.e., why an individual was terminated, as opposed to how);
• requiring agencies to only "substantially" comply with personnel rules;
• authorizing the agency to appeal rulings favorable to the employee to District Court, thereby putting pressue on employees not to contest their case because of the expense of a court case;
• charging employees who lose their appeals with the costs of both parties;
• allowing a state agency to impose lesser discipline on an employee if the agency lost the appeal.

Proponents of HB 135 argued that the three-person Personnel Review Board was unfair to management.

They testified that the state usually lost appeals because the standards to support disciplinary matters were unduly rigid and difficult to prove. Supporters also testified that HB 135 would save taxpayers’ money by having only a hearing officer instead of a panel.

Opponents of the bill argued that the three-person review board is doing a good job, and that changing to a one-person system would greatly lessen the likelihood of discovering the just course of action in the appeal.

Opponents also pointed out that removing fairness issues from the appeals process missed the point entirely, and that to potentially saddle an employee with the costs for both parties in a hearing would effectively shut down all appeals, no matter how legitimate.

After the bill’s first hearing before the House Rules & Procedures Committee, the committee directed the Attorney General’s office and the Wyoming Public Employees Association to work out compromise amendments.

The negotiations resulted in a substitute bill, HB 135A, which provided for:

• selection by both parties of a hearing officer (if agreement cannot be reached the case will be heard by a hearing officer from the Office of Administrative Hearings);
• peremptory challenge of the assigned hearing officer by each side and further challenges under the Rules of Civil Procedure for cause;
• consideration of just or good cause (why an individual was terminated, not how);
• a requirement for state agencies to comply, not "substantially" comply, with personnel rules;
• a prohibition on state agencies from taking lesser disciplinary action against an employee if the agency loses a hearing;
• state payment of all costs of the administrative hearing, regardless of which side prevails;
• the state to appeal decisions to district court. If an action is taken to the district court by the state (after having lost the administrative hearing), the loser in court would have to pay the full cost of the appeal for both parties. (This was included to prevent the state from automatically appealing every decision it loses, thereby breaking employees with legal costs.)

HB 135A handily passed both houses after these amendments, 51-8 (1 excused) in the House, and 28-2 in the Senate.