×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Washington Community Corrections Officer’s Pay Reduction for Failure to Perform Duties
The State of Washington Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) has held that pay reduction for a Community Corrections Officer who failed to properly classify and monitor offenders, complete offender tracking reports, complete field itineraries, and comply with supervisory directives, and make recommendations to the court that exceed the authority of the department was appropriate.
Before the PAB was the appeal Michael Alice, was a Community Corrections Officer 2 in the Spokane Valley office. Alice’s supervisor discovered the above liked deficiencies after doing an audit of Alice’s case files. She discontinued assigning him cases, ordered him to correct the classification errors, catch up on overdue work, and to meet with her weekly to review cases and establish goals for his performance.
Three months later, an annual performance evaluation for Alice occurred. He failed to comply with the earlier directives and was even further behind in his work. He was to cure the problem prior to a May 2000 “Special Evaluation.” That evaluation found problems to still exist. Another special review was conducted on July 19, 2000.
At that review, it was found his workload had not decreased, in part, because he failed to close 42 cases that were past their maximum expiration of supervision. Errors were found in 125 of Alice’s case files.
The PAB found that Alice’s actions were insubordinate, that he willfully violated established policies, and he exhibited gross misconduct. It held the “three month reduction in salary” was appropriate. See: Alice v. Department of Corrections, PAB No: RED-00-0042 (2002). The PAB ruling is in the brief bank.
Before the PAB was the appeal Michael Alice, was a Community Corrections Officer 2 in the Spokane Valley office. Alice’s supervisor discovered the above liked deficiencies after doing an audit of Alice’s case files. She discontinued assigning him cases, ordered him to correct the classification errors, catch up on overdue work, and to meet with her weekly to review cases and establish goals for his performance.
Three months later, an annual performance evaluation for Alice occurred. He failed to comply with the earlier directives and was even further behind in his work. He was to cure the problem prior to a May 2000 “Special Evaluation.” That evaluation found problems to still exist. Another special review was conducted on July 19, 2000.
At that review, it was found his workload had not decreased, in part, because he failed to close 42 cases that were past their maximum expiration of supervision. Errors were found in 125 of Alice’s case files.
The PAB found that Alice’s actions were insubordinate, that he willfully violated established policies, and he exhibited gross misconduct. It held the “three month reduction in salary” was appropriate. See: Alice v. Department of Corrections, PAB No: RED-00-0042 (2002). The PAB ruling is in the brief bank.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Alice v. Department of Corrections
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | PAB No: RED-00-0042 (2002) |
| Level | Administrative Agency |
| Injunction Status | N/A |