04/09/1973i'
Proceedings of Civil Service Board meeting held April 9, 1973.
;` :•' The Clearwater Civil Service Board met in regular session on Monday evening,
April 9, 1973 in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall.
Members present: William A. Ramsey, Armand J. Falzone, Cliff Stephens and
Arlie A. Schardt.
..'•,r.' Visitors: M. R. Stierheim, City Manager, Gerald Weimer, Asst. City Manager
Mary Drew, President CEA, Wes Brettel, Paul Kane, Bill Stopher,
Paul Rettig, Miriam Braun, George Odishoo, Edythe Shelton,
Lucile Allen, Chief Pitts, Sarah Wiggins, Attorney Jody Wolfe,
i,. and Attorney Herbert Brown
Chairman Ramsey called meeting to order.
Mr. Falzone moved that the minutes of the meeting of March 12, 1973 be approved as
written. Seconded by Mr. Stephens and motion carried.
Director read a letter from the City Manager to William A. Ramsey, Chairman of the
Board. In the letter the Manager expressed his appreciation and regret to
yr Mr. Ramsey: "Appreciation of your personal efforts directed toward the common goal
,..
of promoping effective and efficient personnel administration within the Civil
Service system; and, deep regret that you now find it necessary to move your
business interest to another community which will deprive the City and its employees
?p of your dedicated service on the Board."
Director reported on assembled examinations conducted.
i/7.-5:F c
Director reported on certifications and appointments.
Director reported on Emergency Appointments.
Director reported on lay-offs, suspensions and dismissals. No Board action necessary.
Mr. Schardt moved that the resignations of Evelyn Brault, Clerk-Typist I, Building
Maintenance Division, Central Services Department, Mai'V. Hallme er Clerk-
.,f,; ? Y Y ? Typist I,
City Clerk Department, Laura Fischer, Account Clerk 1, Finance Department,
Nancy Knick, Clerk-Typist 1, Fire Department, Ruth Parsons, Library Assistant II,
:;.. Libraries Department, Allen Dixon, Asst. Parks Superintendent, Parka & Recreation
Department, Michael McDougal, Janitor, Parks & Recreation Department,
Salvatore Belloise, III, William Gordon, Phillip Quill, Frank Hollister, Buford Griggley:
ar`: John Ferrero, Thomas Dyer and Guy Gardner, Laborers, Parks & Recreation Department,
James A. Murphy, Richard Ehrhart, Don R. Robinson and Patricia 2uker, Laborers,
Forestry Division, Parks & Recreation Department, Matthew L. Carden, Carlotta Swain.,
George Scurlock,, Recreation Assistants, Parks & Recreation Department, Daniel O'Mara,
Police Patrolman, Police Department, Pat W. Cowley, Communications Clerk I, Police
Department,'Judy K. Diermer, Clerk--Typist I, Police Department, Jerry Franklin,
James Lifherd, James McCallion, Gary Woodard, Douglas Sargent and Lindsay J. Vail,
Laborers, Public Service Department, Timothy J. Loop, Frederick W. Bravo,
Harbert M. Finch, Equipment Operators, Public Service Department, Norman Reardon,
Heavy Equipment Operator, Public Service DeParCmento Millard Dietz, Jr. and
__.':" Richard A. Russell, Traffic Serviceman, Traffic Engineering Department, Timothy Jacobs
- 2 -
Civil Service Board Meeting
April 9, 1973
and Wayne Hensley, Laborers, Traffic Engineering Department, Charles H. Rhoades, Jr.,
David R. Bauer, Thomas J. Walker, Jr., Everett W. Harris, Anthony Dix,
Stephen E. Saunders, Samuel Brown, Jr., Ray G. Avera, Jody L. Buerge, Wayne A. Holden,
Julius Siplin, Elmer L. Wallace, Michael P. McGuinness, Allen M. Dugan,
Christopher Brush, Scott L. Veatch, Samuel B. Cobbs, David L. Adams, Gary T. Dugan,
Limmie L. Cole, Kevin A. Keegan, Robert M. Ramsay, Arthur Wilson and Vaughn F. Fields,
Sanitation Workers, Sanitation Division, Utilities Department, William Spain, Sanitation
Driver 11, Sanitation Division, Utilities Department, Richard Rabinsky, Laborer, Gas
Division, Utilities Department, August Kothlow, Dist. Serviceman I, Gas Division,
Utilities Department, David Duhow and Alan Stanek, Laborers, Gas Division, Utilities
Department, Dennis E. Lester, Equipment operator, W.P.C. Division, Utilities Depart-
client, Clinton A. Hendrickson, Jr., W.P.C. Attendant, W.P.C. Division, Utilities
Department, Dennis Sims and Golden Butler, Laborers, Water Division, Utilities
Department be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Stephens and motion carried.
Mr. Stephens moved that the Board divert from the printed Agenda and take up Item #13
as listed thereon. Seconded by Mr. Schardt. Motion carried.
Director prefaced discussion with several comments directed to Item 13. He stated
that it was his belief that three specific questions had been raised by the appoint-
ment of Mr. Janocha as Water Pollution Control Superintendent. They are first, can
an Emergency Appointment be made of a candidate not on the Eligibility List when
others are on the list? He felt that this has become a moot question in that the
City Manager had agreed and adopted as policy that Emergency Appointments will not
be made when an Eligible List is in existence. Secondly, can the Personnel Director
or Board conduct several examinations for a classification and merge resulting
eligibles on a single list? He contended that Section 11 of Division 2 of the City
Charter states that this can be done. Thirdly, is the Rule of Five consistent with
and permissible under the letter and intent of the Civil Service Law? On this
question he noted that the Personnel Director and Civil Service Board as comprised in
1965, along with the Rules Committee that worked with them in developing our Rules
and Regulations, had,felt that the Rule of Five was consistent with the Law. tie further
stated that, "It is my personal opinion that the Rule of Five is a crucial Rule as far
as effective operation and management of the City, that it promotes the merit concept
and at the same time permits some degree of flexibility for management in the
employment: of the best qualified applicants. It is further my personal belief that
while the Emergency Appointment of Mr. Janocha may have been improper, that his
appointment on a probationary permanent basis from the Eligible Register is proper."
Attorney Jody Wolfe, representing the City Employees' Association, stated that they
were trying to solve what has grown, in their opinion, to be a considerable problem
relating ?o the legality of the so-called Rule of Five and the procedures that have
been followed in connection with Emergency Appointments. He briefly summarized past
actions and discussions including that, at the Board meeting of January 8, 1973, a
letter from City Attorney Herb Brown was presented expressing an opinion as to the
Rule of Five and Attorney Robert Tench representing the City Employees' Association
expressed a contrary view to the opinions contained in Mr. Brown's letter. The Board
tabled the matter by a motion with the request that the City Attorney express a
further opinion as to whether the Rule of Five and Emergency Appointment provision
in the Rules were contrary to the Act. At the meeting of February 12, 1973, a letter
3
• Civil Service Board Meeting April 9, 1973
from the Attorney General of the State of Florida'tvas presented to the Board
expressing an opinion that the Rule of Five and the Emergency Appointment Rule
were contrary to the Act itself and were not authorized by the Act and therefore,
they were unlawful." tie related that Mr. Guy Kennedy disagreed with the Attorney
, 1.
General and the Board did not take any action on the conflicting opinions. The
Board then discussed the situation again on March 12th at which time Mr. Stephens
si.. pointed out that the Emergency Appointments of the applicants in the January 8th
' meeting were for the purpose of preserving the status quo until the different
legal opinions could be resolved on this question of the Rule of Five. Mr. Wolfe
continued, "The discussion got a little involved but the discussion stopped because
the Chairman stated that there was no hse in discussing the matter further unless
both sides were represented by Attorneys. We want to settle this matter, not so
<= i,
z;...; much in connection with the particular facts of the Pollution Control Superintendent,
this is not the issue. The thing that is more important is the fundamental
application of the Rule in connection with what the Law allows I think it is
indelibly clear from the minutes that this Board has made no ruling, no determination
y on whether the Rule of Five is in fact a valid Rule or whether the Emergency
Appointment procedure (by extending Emergency Appointments time and time again.)
k..= over the sixty day period is a valid procedure. It's also very clear that it is
this Board's duty and obligation to make such a Rule..." He submitted that "legally,
the position of the CEA is stated in the Attorney General's opinion. Very simply
stated it is that no Emergency Appointment powers exist when an Eligibility List
exists. If there is an Eligibility List there is no power granted in the Act to
_?. make any Emergency Appointments. And also, if any Emergency Appointment is made
w' it is limited to sixty days in duration and there is no power for further extension
in the Act for Emergency Appointments." He commented that the Regulations expand
the possible duration of Emergency Appointments and said, "They state that the
Emergency Appointment may be renewed at the urging of the Director and he has to
come to the Board and have a ratification on that renewal and there is no limit on
the renewal of those Emergency Appointments, yet the Law says, may not be made to
exceed sixty days.' It is plain to see that the Rules under the Regulations are
..,.'; .? directly opposed to what the Law says Clearly in the case of Emergency
Appointments the provisions that they can be extended are not lawful."
f. •7•
Mr. Wolfe concluded his presentation as follows, "I think the only answer to the
present problem is that this Board must change the Rules and Regulations. We would
hope that you would do away with the Rule of Five and that you would do away with
the extended appointment provisions under the Emergency Provisions."
j•?.:,,.,,. City Manager Merritt Stlerheim was then recognized by the Chairman. The Manager
?.,..
said he felt the case of the Janocha appointment was an unusual situation. "The
untimely death of the former W.P.C. Superintendent was an emergency. There is no
single activity in the City that requires more expert direction and supervision than
the operation of our sanitary sewage treatment facility." tie then related, "As far
as I am concerned, the Rule of Five is a very sound and desirable rule because it
provides some flexibility and assurance to management that they have a fairly broad
^,, •.: group to select from." He then called Mr. William Stopher, Utilities Director, who
' read a letter from Richard Sheldon, a city employee in the Water Pollution Control
4..,.,.,, Division, stating that the Director had explained to him why he was not chaser for
'r
3 '.
e
r•_
C,
j?? f o ?•
i;
i?.
Civil Service Board Meeting
-4-
April 9, 1973
the position of Water Pollution Control Superintendent and that he had not authorized
the CEA to act in his behalf to question why he was,not chosen for the position. The
City Manager stated that, as a matter of policy from now on, when there is an
Eligible Register, there would be no emergency appointments. Mr. Stephens commented
to the Manager that he felt concerned over the fact that, when according to our
procedures people have qualified themselves by written and/or oral examination,
the Appointing Authority could take the position that those people are not as qualified
as someone who failed the test. He said this developed from the fact that we had
people who qualified and yet the position was filled on an Emergency basis with
someone who failed. Mr. Sti.erheim stated he felt the situation had become exaggerated.
"I feel this Board has done a tremendous job in preserving the integrity of the Civil
Service system. Ninety-nine percent of the appointments and examinations function
routinely. This is an unusual case . . ." He then reminded the Board that the Civil
Service Board, eight years ago, set up the Rule of Five in response to a provision in
the Act giving them power to adopt Rules and Regulations for the administration of the
Act.
After further discussion, Mr. Stephens said that he was concerned with the legality
of the Board's action and that he could not find anywhere in the Rules where it says
that you have to have five eligible people on the list.
Before Mr. Herb Brown, City Attorney, was recognized, the Director stated that he
felt the Board and the City Manager had settled the question on Emergency Appointments
by both accepting the premise that emergency appointments should not and would not
be made when there are qualified persons on an Eligible List. Director noted that he
"specifically asked at a prior Board meeting if the Board wanted to change that
particular section of Rule 8 which said Emergency Appointments could be made and the
Board said . . . that it should be referred to the Civil Services Rules Committee
for a recommendation to the Board." He also referred to Section 11 of Division 2
of the Charter which provides that as many tests may be held as necessary to provide
eligible lists and names shall be merged from such tests on a single list and said
that "this is what happened In Mr. Janocha's case."
City Attorney Herb Brown read Rule 8, Section 5 (b), "In the event that the Appoint-
ing Authority has less than five available names from which to make his selection
and no additional names can then be certified, he may choose from the certified names
available, may elect to postpone filling the vacancy until names of five available
persons can be certified or may fill the position in some other manner provided by
these Rules. When the names of five available persons have been certified for the
filling of a vacancy, the Appointing Authority shall thereupon make an appointment
from the names so certified." He stated that he felt this should answer Mr. Stephen's
question -- you have to have five names when the Appointing Authority requests it.
He then read from the Attorney General's letter and emphasized that, contrary to an
earlier statement by Mr. Wolfe, the Attorney General "does not mention the Rule of
Five in any way, shape or form or by innuendo."
In response to a question posed by the Director as to whether a time frame exists in
which appointments must be made and whether names from subsequently administered
examinations can be merged with names on a list from a previously administered
examination, Mr. Wolfe made the following statements, "Clearly you can have a new
examination and you can have a new list in that way. Any list passes out of existence
under Section 11 if it's two years old and you're correct when you're saying you
. 5 -
Civil Service Board Meeting April 9, 1973
can have new examinations and revise and put new blood into your list all the time.
If you have a situation where you've got a job that the City Manager doesn't want
to fill with the people available then he can choose not fill the job and not
have it filled at all, but he can't appoint anybody else. If he is going to appoint
anybody to that job the Law says he shall appoint them from the List, and procedurally
he can pump new blood into the list by holding more examinations and getting more
people in. So that the door is not closed to the City Manager. He would have you
believe that he has no choice. He does have a choice. Ile can go out and recruit
people to take a new examination and if they score higher, they're on the list and he
can appoint them." lie then discussed briefly the possible result to the morale of
employees who study and apply themselves for advancement and then are by-passed.
After commenting on several other issues including the intent of the Civil Service Act
with respect to competitive examinations, i.e. whether an examination taken by one
candidate is competitive, and whether someone could file a mandamus suit and require
the Appointing Authority to make an appointment from a list that was in existence;
he finished with a comment that a consensus of the Board, by vote recorded in the
Minutes, was the only way this situation could be settled.
After further comment by Mr. Stierheim, Mr. Schardt moved that the Board adopt the
policy as set forth in the Director's memo of February 21, 1973, i.e. An Emergency
Appointment will not be made when. an eligibility list is available. Seconded by
Mr. Falzone and motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schardt moved that the Board re-affirm Rule 8, Section 5 (b) to wit; "In the
event that the Appointing Authority has less than 5 available persons from which
to make his selection and-no additional names can be then certified, he may choose
from the certified names available, may elect to postpone filling the vacancy until
the names of five (5) available persons can be certified, or may fill the position
in some other manner provided by these rules." Motion seconded by Mr. Stephens for
the purpose of discussion. Motion carried with Mr. Stephens voting "no".
Mr. Stephens.moved that the Board approve Personnel. Director's recommendation that the
question of whether or not extensions of Emergency Appointments as found in Rule 8,
Section 8 are consistent with the Law, be referred to the Rules Conunittee with a
request that they submit a recommendation back to the Board at some future date.
Seconded by Mr. Schardt. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stephens moved that the Board ratify the Director's action in approving the
establishment of a new classification of Mobile Home & Trailer Park Inspector in
Range 52, Salary $298 bi-weekly in accordance with authority granted by the Board
March 12, 1973. Seconded by Mr. Schardt and motion carried.
Mr. Stephens moved that the Board approve City Manager's request to establish a new
classification of Arts and Crafts Supervisor II, Range 50, Salary $284 bi-weekly in
the Recreation Division of the Parks & Recreation Department with ar. initial complement
of one position therein and to abolish one position of Recreation Specialist (Arts &
Crafts) (Permanent, Part-Time). Seconded by Mr. Falzone and motion carried.
1 •
s
f51.
4^5i•1 ?F •??;^ S
e'..4.`?!.. a t
y[i..
I•yFt? fit` ? ry.?1.' .
- 6 -
Civil Service Board Meeting
April 9, 1973
Mr, Stephens moved that the Board ratify the Director's action in establishing
the following additional positions within existing classifications:
Positions Range Salary
1 Party Chief 47 $274 b/w
1 Maintenance Tradeswaxker Ii 46 258 b/w
1 Paint & Body Mechanic 50 284 b/w
1 Utilities Serviceman lI 46 258 b/w
1 Community Center Supervisor 40 224 b/w
1 Janitor (PPT) 31 180 b/w
1 Told. Attendant (PPT) 36 203 b/w
Seconded by Mr. Schardt. Motion carried.
Department-Division
Public Works-Engineering
Central Services-Bldg. Maint.
Central Services-Motor Pool
Utilities-Domestic Service
Parks & Recreation-Recreation
Central Services-General
Marine Department
Mr. Schardt moved that the Board ratify the Director's action in approving the
abolition of one position of Recreation Assistant (PPT) within the Parks & Recreation
Department and one position of Secretary I within the Finance Department, Seconded
by Mr. Stephens. Motion carried.
Mr. Falzone moved that the Board ratify the Director's action in approving extensions
of Emergency and/or Provisional Appointments of:
Michael Paxoby, Central Services Director
Jimmy Waters, Mechanic II
Ken Parmex, Plumbing Inspector I
Mr. Stephens seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion after which motion
carried,
Mr. Schardt moved that the Board approve the placement of George Selvia, Assistant
Traffic Engineer in Step 3 of Range 62 ($421 bi-weekly) in accordance with provisions
of the Executive Section of the Pay Plan. Seconded by Mr. rnlzone. Motion carried.
Mr. Stephens moved that the Board approve the placement of Warren Renando, Senior
Planner in Step 6k of Range 60 ($477 bi-weekly) in accordance with the provisions
of the Executive Section of the Pay Plan. Seconded by Mr. Schardt and motion carried.
Mr. Stephens moved that the Board approve the Personnel Director's recommendation for
meritorious pay increases as outlined in his letter to the Board with the provision
that this policy not include the employees within the Executive Pay Plan.. This
policy reads as follows:
Meritorious pay increases shall be awarded to employees only upon
',the written recommendation of the Department Director, subject to
the review and approval of the Appointing Authority, the Personnel
Director and the Civil Service Board. Criteria for such increases
shall be determined by the Board. The granting of a meritorious
pay increase shall be effected through an addition to the employee''s
basic salary and shall not change the pay step placement of said
employee nor shall it change his regular eligibility date for future
step increases as provided in the current pay plan of the City.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Falzone and carried.
r?
t:
f,
rl
?4 it .r •e ??' ??.
A
- 7 -
Civil Service Board Meeting April 9, 1973
Mr. Stephens moved that the Personnel Director be instructed to review and recommend
at the earliest possible date to this Board, provisions for retroactivity with
regard to this policy. Seconded by Mr. Falzone. Motion carried.
Board reviewed letter presented on behalf of S. Gary Garretson, Communications
Clerk 1, Utilities Department and Director's letter explaining the background
leading to Mr. Garretson's complaint. The Board felt no further action was
necessary. Director's letter is to be provided to Miss Drew, President of CEA so
that she may advise Mr. Garretson of the findings.
Director distributed copies of Tuition Reimbursement Program and City Employees
Handbook.
Utilities Director app&afed before the Board to
policy regarding employment of relatives in the
on such points as recruitment needs, the effect
whether the rule is discriminatory in nature, M
Rule" be deleted from the Rules and Regulations
by Mr. Falzone. Motion carried.
explain why he wanted a change in
Sanitation Division. After discussion
of partial removal of the Rule, and
r. Schardt moved that the "Relative
of the Civil Service Board. Seconded
Mr. Falzone moved that the Board authorize Director to cooperate with the City Manager
to develop and to implement an interim plan for an emergency pay procedure for
employees working out of classification due to critical personnel shortages and to
present that plan to the Board for official action at the next meeting. Seconded
by Mr. Schardt and motion carried.
Mr. Schardt moved that the Board approve Director's request to amend Civil Service
Rule 5, Section.4 (b) to permit candidates to re-take examinations after an interval
of 45 days (rather than present 90 days) and to eliminate the current prohibition
against taking an open competitive examination more than three times. Seconded by
Mr. Falzone and motion carried.
Mr. Schardt moved that an oral examination be added to the written examination for
Deputy Community Relations Coordinator and weighted at thirty per cent (307.) credit-
with.the written portion being weighted at seventy (70%) per cent and that the
passing point for all examinations be lowered to 70"/. retroactive to March 1, 1973.
Seconded by Mr. Falzone. Motion carried.
Mr. Falzone moved that the Board approve the placement of Michael Paroby, Central.
Services Director in Step 2 of Range 72 ($514 bi-weekly) in accordance with provisions
of the Executive Section of the Pay Plan. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
Approved
r: William A. Ramsey
f
.
.5
I f I ,
Respectfully subm ed,
• ? 4 p/
Personn DftectorVt & Secretary