Former Lucerne County Human Resources Director Disputes Board Comments on Hiring Process

Former Lucerne County Human Resources Director Angela Gavlick has publicly disputed some of the county council’s recent comments regarding the hiring of a corrections officer.

“Obviously, some council members still want to have power and control in hiring. Unfortunately for the taxpayers and employees of Lucerne County, it is still mired in politics,” Gavlik said in an email read during public comment at a council meeting on Tuesday.

Gavlik said he was “troubled” that several council members said during the Feb. 28 council vote that they wanted to hold a vote confirming the head of the unit because they didn’t like the process that followed. Gavlik quit her county job last month after more than six years of human resources oversight because she got a position outside the county’s government.

Board members Tim McGinley and Stephen J. Urban unsuccessfully tried to remove the vote on the head of the department from the agenda on February 28 and then put it on the table, but neither of the colleagues supported these moves.

McGinley said he had a problem with the process used to introduce candidates to the council, saying later that council members met with the candidate in an executive meeting just before the meeting and were then due to vote that evening.

“I think our procedure should be reviewed,” McGinley said during a Feb. 28 meeting.

Urban said he had “too little time” to answer any questions and concerns and that he did not receive a full resume. He went on to cite other complaints, saying that the day before this meeting, he learned that someone had applied but had not been questioned. Urban also argued that the Principal Solicitor should “remain neutral” and not sit on the panel that interviewed candidates.

“It’s really not a merit-based hiring system if someone hasn’t been given the opportunity to even interview someone who applied who actually used to work in that district too,” Urban said.

He called the process “stinky” and called for a fresh start, arguing that the problems he found were a “reflection” of the county’s administration, including “a former HR officer.”

But Gawlik said the process followed was defined in the personnel code adopted by the county council.

“We use this process for all published vacancies. This is the process we’ve been using to hire four department heads since 2017, and it’s the same process we’ve followed during the 6.5 years I’ve been with the district,” she said in a post. “If the council doesn’t like what’s in the code, you as a body have the right to change it.”

Gavlik also addressed Urban’s opinion that someone didn’t get an interview.

“Not all candidates are interviewed for positions, nor should they be,” Gavlik said.

She included a section of the HR code that is followed to determine who starts the interview process.

During the initial phase of the exam, the HR department should work with the relevant department’s hiring manager to evaluate and rank candidates using the appropriate criteria. It states that, to the extent possible, the identity of applicants being tested should be hidden from any examiner until the examination is completed.

As part of the subsequent selection phase, Human Resources certifies the list of top-rated candidates to the hiring manager, who must then select one of the three highest-ranked candidates to fill the vacancy.

Gavlik said Urban questioned the HR director’s influence on whether a candidate who didn’t pass the interview could move forward in the process.

“The HR director does not dictate who will be interviewed or determine who to hire. To suggest that the next step was unduely influenced, Mr. Urban is clearly not informed,” Gavlik wrote.

Addressing another issue raised by Urban, Gavlik said Principal Solicitor Harry W. Skene had been interviewed for the last three divisional head hirings.

“The Principal Solicitor works very closely with all department heads. It is logical that he participated, ”she wrote.

Gavlik said that “unfortunately, some members of the district council either do not understand or choose to ignore the code.”

“The current code was written precisely to exclude politics from the county’s hiring and to allow the administration to handle day-to-day operations,” she wrote.

After the letter was read aloud on Tuesday, Urban said he wanted to reply because she called him by his first name.

He said the man who didn’t have the interview was a captain at the county jail. He stuck to his position that the Chief Solicitor should not participate in interrogations.

McGinley said Wednesday that he did not contest part of the process used to determine the nominee, but rather the steps taken as part of the board’s approval. In years past, McGinley said the nominee was publicly polled by the board, which provided greater transparency and understanding for both the board and the public.

At the February 28 meeting, six of the 10 board members voted in favor of appointing James Wilbur as head of corrections: John Lombardo, Carl Bienias III, Kevin Leskavage, Brian Thornton, Gregory S. Volovich, Jr., and Chris Perry.

Council members McGinley, Urban, LeAnn McDermott, and Matthew Mitchell voted against, with all four saying their decision was not personal against Wilbur.

McDermott said she couldn’t support confirmation because board members can’t see all summaries and statements. Mitchell said he shared the opinion of other colleagues who voted against.

In response, Thornton said that the board members had every opportunity to check Wilbur. He said he received Wilbur’s resume a few days before the meeting and took advantage of an invitation to question Wilbur personally about his experience and current problems that might exist in prison.

While the District Manager recommends candidates for the eight department head positions under the self-government charter, council approval is required for these hires.

Contact Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or tweet @TLJenLearnAndes.