 |
 |
Cathy Neville
By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Former Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner Cathy Neville’s bid to get her job back was dealt a blow Monday when a judge tentatively ruled that county officials had the power to fire her.
Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Patrick Broderick wrote that state laws do not prevent counties from taking action against agricultural commissioners who are deemed unfit for office.
“This interpretation harmonizes the statewide and municipal functions, and does not provide for the absurd consequence of a county having to suffer through the term of an ill-equipped commissioner/sealer,” Broderick wrote.
Broderick is scheduled to hear final arguments on the case Tuesday.
County supervisor Efren Carrillo, acting on behalf of the entire five-member board, fired Neville March 22, claiming she created a toxic work environment for employees, lied in a county-led investigation and failed to show leadership on high-profile agricultural initiatives.
Neville subsequently sued the county, contending that supervisors acted illegally in retribution for her politically unpopular decision to fire Amy Cooper, the county’s former director of Animal Care and Control. Cooper has since been rehired.
Neville’s suit is the first test of state laws that refer to early dismissal of agricultural commissioners, who are licensed by the state but hired by counties to four-year terms. As a result, the case is being closely watched statewide.
Broderick did not address the merits of the county’s reasons for firing Neville in his tentative ruling. Instead, he focused on whether the county had authority to take any action at all.
Broderick noted that state law does not regulate how counties discipline or, if necessary, remove a commissioner from office in matters that don’t pertain to that person’s qualifications or license.
But the judge’s tentative interpretation is that counties can take disciplinary action, separate from the licensing process.
Greg Dion, a deputy county attorney, declined comment Monday. Stephen Murphy, Neville’s attorney, also declined comment.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@ ricardo sorentino:
It is you people who need to save face! Union bullying is tough to beat, its true. But this legal questions is quite a bit larger than your petty needs.
I’ll be interested to see what happens in a venue outside this pathetic county in a place where the SEIU has little or no power.
I guess if California wants to give up its power to weigh in on these decisions about ag commissioners, it is welcome to do that. But I’ve never heard of a government of any kind wanting to relinquish power, so, I’m pretty confident this will be overturned.
Horses are not qualified to run county agencies.
RE: TheObserver – “The whole thing stinks. I’m glad there’s such a thing as an appeals court.”
You’re right; it’s your only hope of saving face here. If that doesn’t work out for you, I guess you can always change your user ID here.
@ All:
The whole thing stinks. I’m glad there’s such a thing as an appeals court.
@Observer… Umm, this was a civil case, briefs were filed and reviewed by the judge. A trial doesn’t necessarily have to take place if the judge rules she doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Final arguments were heard today and her case doesn’t hold water. She should just move on and quit wasting the taxpayers money. But she won’t, because she can’t admit that she was wrong.
To The Observer: The Judge didn’t decide this without input. Both sides have already submitted their legal and factual arguments, in writing. The tentative ruling is based on those pleadings. They still have a chance to present oral argument, but their legal arguments have already been submitted. That’s why the Judge is able to issue a tentative ruling. Their oral arguments mights persuade a different results, but not likely. It has nothing to do with ‘whose payroll’ the Judge is on…he’s on OUR payroll!
Wow…even the judge is on board. How can a judge render an opinion before hearing a case? this guy hasn’t even heard the plaintiff’s arguments yet? Who’s payroll is this guy on? SEIU?
small time politics…since this case is decided BEFORE the fact, I look forward to seeing whether Ms. Neville can find an objective judge on appeal.
So the new article is that she’s going to fight the judge…man…really, let’s waste more of our tax dollars. Neville, if you can’t do your job and the county see’s that you can’t and fires you…then leave it at that. Obviously you have some issues!
An ancient Chinese philosopher named Charlie Sheen once said of Neville:
“LOSER!”
Thank you Judge Broderick for doing the correct thing with this Neville mess.
Good Call Judge. This was a no-brainer. Hope the County sues the attorney and her client for wasting our tax payers dollars.
The woman got drunk, ran from the cops, was arrested, convicted, and also did a poor job with the County- AND AS HER ATTORNEY GET THROUGH HIS HEAD, SHE IS AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE – employment law 101.
Duh!
Hey, batter, batter… SWING!
Strike two!
Come on County, throw a no-hitter on this player. Strike her OUT!
Sounds like a common sense ruling to me. If the county is paying her salary, they should have the authority to fire her. I guess whether the firing was justified or not is still to be determined.
Neville deserved what she got. Disgruntled employees often fault bosses for their situation. All to often the Labor people rule in favor of the employee when it is undeserved. As a former employer, I have been victimized by them.