LAKEPORT, Calif. – The attorney for a correctional officer who the Board of Supervisors voted last week to reinstate to her job is asking the board for assistance in making sure the decision takes effect and the sheriff puts her back to work.

Attorney Sean Howell of the law firm Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller and Johnson sent the board a letter on Monday asking for the help on behalf of his client, Melissa Wallahan.

Wallahan and Howell went before the board last week to ask for her to be reinstated, which was the recommendation of the hearing officer in the case.

Howell told Lake County News that Wallahan was terminated for a matter not related to her employment in June 2011.

Following those statements to the supervisors, the board went into closed session at the March 6 meeting.

They emerged to vote 5-0 in support of an intended decision to accept the arbitrator’s recommendation that Wallahan be given her job back based on a finding that there was no just cause for the discipline imposed, and that she should be given full back pay.

“So that effectively puts her back to work,” Howell said.

At the time it reversed Sheriff Frank Rivero’s decision to terminate Wallahan, the board also directed county counsel to return at an upcoming meeting with findings of fact in the case. Once the board approves those findings, the decision becomes final.

However, has not responded to Howell’s requests for information about when Wallahan can go back to her job.

“He’s not responded to anything, so I’m taking that as a refusal to comply with the board’s decision,” said Howell.

The board is reportedly set to discuss Wallahan’s case again in an untimed closed session on Tuesday.

Regarding the board’s March 6 vote, Rivero told Lake County News in a Monday e-mail, “The Board’s ruling was tentative.”

He also said employee disciplinary matters are confidential and referred this reporter to County Counsel Anita Grant, who already had told Lake County News she could not comment on Wallahan’s case.

While the board’s decision should have settled the matter, Howell’s Monday letter to the board said Rivero has failed to respond to Howell’s correspondence regarding when Wallahan can start work again.

“After the March 6, 2012 decision by the Board of Supervisors I sent a letter to Sheriff Rivero seeking guidance on any logistical matters necessary to facilitate a speedy return to duty for Ms. Wallahan,” Howell wrote. “Additionally, I requested the Sheriff to inform me of his intentions with respect to a start date so Ms. Wallahan can provide her current employer adequate notice of her resignation to make herself ready and available to begin work at the Sheriff’s office immediately. I also left two voice mail messages for Sheriff Rivero. All attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful.”

At the time of her termination last year, Wallahan had worked for the county for two and a half years, said Howell.

Beginning as a dispatcher, Wallahan had quickly moved up through the ranks to become a correctional officer. Howell said she had good evaluations and no disciplinary issues before Rivero took action against her.

“She was a good employee,” said Howell.

Howell could not go into the details of what issue was at the heart of Wallahan’s, only saying it had nothing to do with her employment as a correctional officer and involved a legal issue.

Wallahan was notified last year that she was up for proposed termination. As a result, she was entitled to a Skelly hearing, Howell explained. In a Skelly hearing an employee is offered the opportunity to argue against an intended disciplinary action.

On May 30, 2011, Howell and Wallahan met with Rivero during that Skelly hearing. Rivero at that time told them if Wallahan could get a charge dismissed in a court case she could return to her job, and her unpaid time off would be counted toward a suspension, Howell said.

Rivero gave them a month to accomplish that, which Howell said they did.

“Then he summarily terminated her anyway,” Howell said.

Howell had an email exchange with Rivero confirming that discussion about Wallahan’s reinstatement at the Skelly hearing. He said that e-mail is being presented as evidence to the Board of Supervisors.

Rivero signed Wallahan’s termination order on June 22, 2011. Since then, Howell said Wallahan has been working her way through the lengthy appeals process.

Howell said Rivero didn’t show up to an evidentiary hearing on Jan. 31, in which he was supposed to give testimony on why the termination was necessary.

Rivero told Lake County News in the Monday e-mail, “My staff and I were prepared to testify on January 31, but Mr. Howell and County Counsel did not call us.”

That statement conflicts with that of Howell, who said county counsel tried to get Rivero to attend but he did not.

The correctional officers’ union and the county agreed in the memorandum of understanding that in such appeals cases, matters are heard by a hearing officer or arbitrator, who made the final recommendation the board accepted, Howell said.

Further, Howell said the document gives the board the final decision. “Their decision is actually above the sheriff.”

Unless he’s prepared to take legal action to stop Wallahan’s reinstatement, the sheriff can’t refuse to take Wallahan back under the terms of a memorandum of understanding the county signed with the Lake County Correctional Officers Association, Howell said.

While Rivero could file a writ saying the decision was an abuse of the board’s discretion, “he’s got no case,” said Howell.

Wallahan has been working at a convenience store since losing her job with the sheriff’s office, Howell said.

In his letter to the board, Howell said Wallahan intends to continue the fight for her correctional officer job.

“I sincerely hope the Sheriff’s lack of communication on this matter is not a sign of his refusal to comply with the Board’s decision,” Howell wrote. “If, however, the Sheriff delays, protracts, or fails to comply with the Board’s written decision to return Ms. Wallahan to work with her back pay, my client intends to avail herself, with my assistance, of all remedies necessary to support the decision of this Board. Likewise, my client would appreciate this Board exhausting all remedies available to ensure its decision and order is followed.”

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .