The Joe Vincoli Defense Fund
If you have found this page I trust you know the issues.
A recently passed NC state law gave the 'New Governor' (assumed to be McCrory at the time) the right to take away the previously vested rights of 1,200 state employees.
One of those rights was the right to appeal a state employee's reclassification as a 'managerial exempt' or a 'policy exempt' employee.
Exempt employees can be fired 'at will' by the Governor.
In other words, these 1,200 employees were moved from having the right to a hearing in the event of their dismissal to having no right at all. Further, they were stripped of their right to have a hearing to assess even if they were appropriately reclassified.
As such, the Governor could reclassify a custodian as 'managerial exempt' and the custodian would have no right to question whether or not that reclassification was appropriate.
As Judge Stephens put it, 'The Governor could say that which trash can the custodian empties first is a 'managerial' decision that is critically important to the Governor's administration and the custodian would have no way to appeal that reclassification.' (my paraphrase)
No matter, the custodian is now one of the 'New Governor's' 'at will' appointees.
Toe the line or be fired. Sweep the ash under the rug.
NC GS 126-5(b)
(b) As used in this section:
(1) "Exempt position" means an exempt managerial position or an exempt policymaking position.
(2) "Exempt managerial position" means a position delegated with significant managerial or programmatic responsibility that is essential to the successful operation of a State department, agency, or division, so that the application of G.S. 126-35 to an employee in the position would cause undue disruption to the operations of the agency, department, institution, or division.
(3) "Exempt policymaking position" means a position delegated with the authority to impose the final decision as to a settled course of action to be followed within a department, agency, or division, so that a loyalty to the Governor or other elected department head in their respective offices is reasonably necessary to implement the policies of their offices. The term shall not include personnel professionals.
(4) "Personnel professional" means any employee in a State department, agency, institution, or division whose primary job duties involve administrative personnel and human resources functions for that State department, agency, institution, or division.
I was one of those 1,200.
Here as some of the other state employees deemed to be 'critical' to the Governor's administration:
Child Day Care Program Manager
Facility Maintenance Manager I
Mail Service Center Director
Parking Systems Director
Personnel Officer I
Personnel Analyst II
Personnel Analyst III
Personnel Analyst Ill
Personnel Director I
Personnel Director II
Personnel Officer I
Personnel Officer II
Personnel Officer III
Personnel Supervisor I
Personnel Supervisor II
Physical Therapist I
Social Work Coordinator II
Vehicle/Equipment Repair Supervisor
Zoo General Curator
I was reclassified as 'managerial exempt' even though I managed no one.
The designation of 'managerial exempt' also includes language encompassing positions who manage 'programs' that are important to the Governor.
I did not manage any 'program'.
In fact, at my court hearing the Assistant Attorney General, Tamika Henderson, stated that I was in charge of the 'program that enrolled inmates into Medicaid and that the Department had purchased a computer program that would perform this function so Mr. Vincoli was no longer needed.' (my paraphrase)
So, the state (and the NC AG) is arguing that I was so important to the Governor that I merited reclassification; and yet, a computer program was purchased to perform my job duties?
I have asked State Auditor Beth Wood to ask DPS to provide the 'receipt' for the purchase of that computer program. She has not responded to date.
Most (if not all) of the state employees who were reclassified were just like me.
As a state employee I challenged the constitutionality of that law and, just like the teachers, I won in Wake Superior Court.
And, just like the teacher case, Roy Cooper decided to appeal them both to the NC Court of Appeals.
Cooper (working on behalf of McCrory) lost the teacher case:
So, in spite of that loss, Cooper decides to appeal a similar case that affects 1,200 other state employees?
Yes, your Attorney General, Roy Cooper, has filed an appeal with the NC Court of Appeals challenging Judge Stephen's ruling in the Vincoli vs. State of North Carolina case.
Why, in the world, would Roy Cooper choose to fight against state employees in their effort to keep their property rights?
In order to fund the legal expenses for the appeal in this case I have re-established the "Joe Vincoli Defense Fund". (www.jvdf.org)
I am soliciting contributions (the smaller the better) so that the rights of these 1,200 state employees will be protected from both Cooper and McCrory.
Vested state employees have earned the right under state law to be protected from politically motivated firings.
Contribute now to:
The Joe Vincoli Defense Fund
220 Epping Road
Clemmons, NC 27012
Paypal at firstname.lastname@example.org
This is a legal defense fund and it is not to be considered 'tax deductible' or charitable in any way.
Type your paragraph here.