Gavlick

Gavlick

Former Luzerne County human resources director Angela Gavlick publicly challenged some recent county council comments regarding the hiring of a correctional services division head.

“It is clear some council members still want to have power and control in hiring. It is unfortunate for taxpayers and county employees that Luzerne County is still mired in politics,” Gavlick said in an email read during public comment at Tuesday’s council meeting.

Gavlick said it was “concerning” to hear a couple council members state during the Feb. 28 council voting session that they wanted to table the vote confirming the division head nominee because they did not like the process that was followed. Gavlick left county employment last month after more than six years overseeing the human resources department because she obtained a position outside county government.

Council members Tim McGinley and Stephen J. Urban had unsuccessfully attempted to remove a vote on the division head from the Feb. 28 agenda and later to table it, with no colleagues supporting these moves.

McGinley had said he had an issue with the process used to present nominees to council, saying later that council members met the nominee in executive session immediately before the meeting and were then expected to vote that same evening.

“I think our procedure needs to be addressed,” McGinley said during the Feb. 28 meeting.

Urban had said it was “too short of a time” to address any questions and concerns and that he had not received a complete resume. He went on to cite other complaints, saying he learned the afternoon before that meeting that someone had applied and was not interviewed. Urban also argued the chief solicitor should be “staying neutral” and not serve on the panel that interviewed applicants.

“That’s really not a merit-based hiring system if somebody’s not afforded an opportunity to even interview that had applied, that actually had worked for this county too previously,” Urban said.

He maintained the process “stinks” and called for it to start over, asserting issues he detected are a “reflection” on the county administration, including the “former individual that was in the HR position.”

But Gavlick said the process that was followed is identified in the county’s council-adopted personnel code.

“It is the process we use for all posted positions. It is the process we have used to hire four division heads since 2017, and it is the same process we have followed during the 6.5 years I worked at the county,” her communication said. “If council does not like what is in the code, you as a body have the authority to change it.”

Gavlick also addressed Urban’s point that someone was not interviewed.

“Not all applicants are interviewed for positions, nor should they be,” Gavlick said.

She included a section of the personnel code, which is followed to determine who proceeds to the interview process.

In the initial the examination stage, the HR department must work with the hiring manager of the applicable department to rate and rank applicants using relevant criteria. To the extent feasible, the identity of applicants being examined shall be shielded from any examiner until the examination is completed, it said.

As part of the subsequent selection stage, the HR department certifies a list of the highest-ranked candidates to the hiring manager, who must then select one of the three top-rated candidates to fill the opening.

Gavlick said Urban questioned the influence the HR Director had on whether the applicant not interviewed would have advanced in the process.

”The HR director does not dictate who gets interviewed nor do they determine who is hired. To suggest that there was undue influence to the next step, Mr. Urban is clearly uninformed,” Gavlick wrote.

Addressing another point raised by Urban, Gavlick said Chief Solicitor Harry W. Skene was on the interview panel for the three most recent division head hirings.

“The chief solicitor works very closely with all the division heads. It makes sense that he participated,” she wrote.

Gavlick said it is “unfortunate that some county council members either don’t understand or choose to ignore the code.”

”The current code was precisely written to remove politics from county hiring and to allow the administration to handle day to day operations,” she wrote.

After the letter was read aloud Tuesday, Urban said he wanted to respond because she singled him out by name.

He said the person not interviewed had worked as a captain at the county prison. He stood by his position that the chief solicitor should not be involved in interview panels.

McGinley said Wednesday that he was not contesting the portion of the process used to determine the nominee, but rather the steps taken as part of council’s confirmation. In past years, McGinley said the nominee was publicly questioned by council, which provided more transparency and insight for both council and the public.

At the Feb. 28 meeting, six of 10 council members voted to confirm James Wilbur’s hiring as correctional division head: John Lombardo, Carl Bienias III, Kevin Lescavage, Brian Thornton, Gregory S. Wolovich Jr. and Chris Perry.

Voting no were council members McGinley, Urban, LeeAnn McDermott and Matthew Mitchell, with all four saying their decision was not personal against Wilbur.

McDermott had said she couldn’t support the confirmation because council members don’t get to see all the resumes and applications. Mitchell had said he echoed the sentiments of other colleagues voting no.

In reply, Thornton had said council members had ample opportunity to vet Wilbur. He said he received Wilbur’s resume several days before the meeting and took advantage of an invitation to personally question Wilbur about his experience and ongoing issues that may exist at the prison.

Although the county manager recommends applicants for the eight division head positions under the home rule charter, council confirmation is required for these hirings.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.