Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Feb 27, 2012
Regarding the demotion of John Mattes, I think the city attorney is going to begin earning that $30K bump.
Lawsuit, Lawsuit, Lawsuit.
Will this city ever get its act together?
We're not going to save $30K with the demotion of John Mattes. We will end up spending $150K. Wait and see.
on what grounds do you think Mr. Mattes will sue? Age discrimination? Nope, his position was eliminated and he was retained. A younger person was not put into that position. Racial discrimination? Don't think so. Religious discrimination? Not likely. Sexual orientation discrimination? Also, not likely. Maintaining a hostile work environment? He's never complained about it before. In fact, some complaints have been about him. So, even though anyone can sue for anything, Mr. Mattes would be wasting his money (if he can find an attorney to take the case) and the town will have to spend very little dealing with him.
The Mattes lawsuit will cost a lot more than $150,000. Mr. Mattes was a whistle blower. He complained about the police department under Ed Flint taking the tantrums of rich residents too seriously, destroying the morale of the officers in his department, and was demoted for it. This is part of his work with the union. This is against the law. The rich residents can file lawsuits against the police department, so can Mattes.
Mattes was demoted because his supervisorial position was eliminated. Sure he can sue. He'll be wasting his money.
High Costs = another of Atherton's finest heard from.
High... I missed the whistleblower part.
"Mr. Mattes was a whistle blower. He complained about the police department under Ed Flint taking the tantrums of rich residents too seriously, destroying the morale of the officers in his department, and was demoted for it."
The rich residents just happen to be his employers also known as the taxpayers.
I think keeping an Officer on the APD after it became public knowledge he committed a crime against an Atherton resident destroyed the morale of the officers.
They eliminated the position NOT him.
John is a $140K employee regardless of what position they put him in.
John's union is going to have a field day and the other department personnel will be watching closely and silently cheering him on. If they do this to John and get away with it they can do it to anyone.
Colonel "Klunk" and the council have really stepped in it this time and and what great legal advice they received from our underpaid city attorney.
If I lived somewhere else I'd be laughing my a _ _ off.
pay is based on position, not who you are and what your percieved value is. His $140k position was eliminated and he was allowed to move to a lower paid position. They could have just as easily laid him off. In that case he might have had a leg to stand on in a law suit. He's got nothing now. How's that law suit filed by the city employees that were all laid off going? Oh, that's right. There isn't one. One guess why. Good luck to him.
The elimination of this position was a wise and prudent decision - and I am confident that anyone who sues on this matter will end up not only empty handed but also out of pocket.
In reply to Menlo Voter and Peter.
Sorry, I don't share your opinion. We'll have to wait and see what John elects to do and then how it plays out.
If it were me, I know the direction in which I would proceed and am extremely confident that I would prevail.
Before anyone sues Atherton on this matter I recommend that they spend some time with Conners to understand his philosophy regarding not caving in to every lawsuit that might be tossed at the Town and with Chief Flint to appreciate what a highly credible witness he would be in any trial. And of the other side you have what????
Someone's been riding the gravy train for years and it has hit the end of the line. Flint is slaying the sacred cows 1 by 1.
Just the California Government Code section that deals with layoffs and demotions aka the Law.
Of course this is considered foreign matter in these parts.
I have no doubt Mattes is going to sue. He's sued Atherton, or threatened to, for far less money in other issues. Check the council packets on the web.
He was only a $140K per year employee because his buddy Glenn Nielsen invented a ridiculous job for him. With Guerra and Devlugt gone, he's also Nielsen's last lifeline into the department, so Nielsen can still run it remotely. Apparently Nielsen has been coming into the police department quite often to keep his tentacles in it.
This whole episode represents the worst in how unaccountable and out of control a city government can be. He was getting an extra $30K a year to be a supervisor, and the job was rigged up so that any time he spent "supervising" was overtime? That's crazy. I applaud Atherton for making the right decision.
Now the town needs to get ready to stand up to a few bullies. It's going to happen, and we all know what the right response needs to be. If Atherton caved on this lawsuit, it will never be able to get its financial budget balanced.
" California Government Code section that deals with layoffs and demotions aka the Law."
Please post the relevant sections so that we can all share/or not your confidence.
From an employent lawyer's web site:
"Representing union employees can be extremely complex, and many employment lawyers do not handle claims by union members. "
Peter, You're smart find it youself.
Hint: "California Government Code, layoffs and demotions".
Peter, Mr. Mattes doesn't need to hire an employment lawyer. He's got the police union behind him. In fact, he's the VP of the Atherton Police Officer's Association. They'll get him a lawyer.
The showdown between Atherton and the police union definitely had to happen someday. That day is now. Let's see how it plays out.
"find it youself." Don't you just love how some people bend over backwards to contribute to an intelligent discussion! And "youself" exemplifies their own contribution.
As for the law, it looks like Conners and Flint did their homework:
"19997.8. (a) In lieu of being laid off an employee may elect
demotion to: (1) any class with substantially the same or a lower
maximum salary in which he or she had served under permanent or
probationary status, or (2) a class in the same line of work as the
class of layoff, but of lesser responsibility, if a class is
designated by the department."
No other rights for the demoted employee are provided in 2010 California Code
Government Code, Article 2. Layoff And Demotion. Now I know exactly why Rodney declined to post this information himself - a poorly executed bluff.
How much money will the union be prepared to waste to contest the fact the this employee exercised his right to demotion and as a result is receiving a very nice salary and accruing superb retirement benefits?
Peter, here I don't want you to tax yourself.
(a) Any employee replaced by such demotion has the same
option of demotion afforded by Section 19997.8 as if his or her
position had been abolished or discontinued.
( I don't think the department complied with Section 19997.8)
Except as authorized by the department under the provisions of
Section 19837, any employee demoted pursuant to this article shall
receive the maximum of the salary range of the class to which he or
she is demoted; provided, that such salary is not greater than the
salary he or she received at the time of demotion.
My educated guess is that the salary amount in the salary range that John was demoted to is not the maximum amount of that salary range.
A true misreading of the relevant law -
(a) Any employee replaced by such demotion has the same
option of demotion afforded by Section 19997.8 as if his or her
position had been abolished or discontinued."
The employee in question was NOT replaced by a demotion Sec 19997.9, but did himself elect to be demoted per Section 19997.8. This is why it is always so helpful in any intelligent discussion to have the facts. And why Rodney declined to post the relevant section.
Peter, you honestly believe that John elected to be demoted?
Obviously, you don't know John Mattes.
I'll wait for the next installment before commenting further.
You have a nice day in that cloudless sky world you reside in.
"you honestly believe that John elected to be demoted?"
Yes. The alternative was to be laid off, so per "19997.8. (a) In lieu of being laid off an employee may elect demotion" he wisely elected demotion, retaining a job that is paying well and with great pension benefits at a time when many others are unemployed.
And the union is going to spend how much to challenge this very comfortable outcome when so many other public employees who belong to the same state wide union have been laid off?
If Mattes sues he doesn't stand a chance. If the union is going to pay for a lawyer for him then a law suit is probably more likely as he won't have to come out of pocket. Mattes has nothing to lose in that scenario. One has to wonder about the inteligence of the leadership of the police union if they do pay for a lawyer for him though as all it will do is cost the union money for nothing.
That is really unbeleivable when just a few months ago the city of Atherton let most of the public works department go.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Atherton: Lindenwood
- Atherton: Lloyden Park
- Atherton: other
- Atherton: West Atherton
- Atherton: West of Alameda
- Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
- Menlo Park: Belle Haven
- Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
- Menlo Park: Downtown
- Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
- Menlo Park: Felton Gables
- Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
- Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
- Menlo Park: other
- Menlo Park: Park Forest
- Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
- Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
- Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
- Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres
- Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
- Menlo Park: The Willows
- Menlo Park: University Heights
- Portola Valley: Brookside Park
- Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
- Portola Valley: Ladera
- Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
- Portola Valley: other
- Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
- Portola Valley: Westridge
- Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
- Woodside: Emerald Hills
- Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
- Woodside: Kings Mountain/Skyline
- Woodside: Mountain Home Road
- Woodside: other
- Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
- Woodside: Woodside Glens
- Woodside: Woodside Heights
- Woodside: Woodside Hills
- Belle Haven Elementary
- Corte Madera School
- Encinal School
- Hillview Middle School
- James Flood Magnet School
- La Entrada School
- Las Lomitas School
- Laurel School
- Menlo-Atherton High School
- Oak Knoll School
- Ormondale School
- Willow Oaks Elementary
- Woodside High School
- Woodside School
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Teavana Palo Alto closes
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 4,197 views
What Freshmen Should be Thinking About College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 18 comments | 3,382 views
Waiting on the Edge of Death
By Chandrama Anderson | 8 comments | 2,041 views
Welcome Back Sugar Addict
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,799 views
Menlo Park Playing Nicely
By Paul Bendix | 1 comment | 388 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Menlo Park
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 The Almanac
All rights reserved.