01/16/1984
Proceedings of the Civil-Service Board Meeting held January 16, 1984 in the Personnel
Office at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Mrs. Helen Herman, Chairperson Gerald Weimer, City Manager's Office
Mr. Tom Chenoweth, Member Frank Kowalski, City Attorney
Mrs. Mary D. Kane, Member H. Michael Laursen, Personnel Director
Mr. Louis Hosch, Member Jeffrey Harper, Asst.
Mr. Nugent Walsh, Member Jane Craig, Secretary
Visitors: Mrs. Alice Bush, Engineering
Mrs. Jean Cesta, Engineering
Mr. Bill Symons, Engineering
Ms. Gretchen Bush, Library
Mr. Glenn Perry, CWA President
Chairperson Herman called meeting to order.
Mary Kane moved that Helen Berman be appointed as Chairperson for 1984. Seconded by
Louis Hosch and motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Chenoweth moved that the Minutes of meetings of May 12, 1983 and November 14, 1983 be
' approved. Seconded by Mr. Hosch and motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held relative to the responses received from the City Manager and the
Chief Assistant City Attorney regarding the differences in the percentage increases given
to City employees in October. Mary Kane stated she had a ,concern with some,Accounting
Clerks II receiving 8% while others in the same class only got 6%. Nugent Walsh stated
.F
he,found some difficulty in this also when the cost of living had gone to a set figure for
everyone. He reflected this could be construed as some form of discrimination or unfair
labor practice. Question was raised as to the PERC Certification which listed jobs
fir, ;'...:' •. ,; eligible for union coverage and whether this list was checked when the increases were
granted. Director responded that the adjustments for union employees are the product of
t,`? collective bargaining and are not referred to by the City as cost of living increases,
but-as employee wage adjustments. Both the 6% and 8% wage adjustments exceeded the cost
of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index. He also noted that the original PERC
listing from approximately 1975 had never been amended although many classification and
'r'.•'' organizational changes had occurred over the years. The determination as to which employees
should re'ceive'8% based on their meeting the criteria provided in the State Statutes for
defining confidential employees was made by the Director, Gerald Weimer of the Manager's
Office and Prank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney.
Mr. Kowalski related that the criteria considered in making the determination of who is
a confidential employee was made on the basis of the work the person performed and in no
way related to the quality of the individual's performance.
.; Mary Kane and Nugent Walsh requested that copies of the list used by the City to identify
confidential employees be provided to them.
Board discussed the scheduled dismissal appeal of Donald Geeck. Members expressed concern
to the'Director that Mr. Geeck's letter to the Board requesting a hearing was not for-
warded to them. Mr. Walsh expressed a concern as to whether the use of a Hearing Officer
was appropriate in this instance. His concern was two-fold: first, there is a question
as to whether Section D [Section 25.04(d)] differentiates between hearings that go to a
- 2 -
Civil Service Board Meeting January 16, 1984
Hearing Officer and to the Board, and,secondly, why the Board did not select a Hearing
Officer from a list of five names provided by the City Commission [Section 25.05(a)).
Section D provides that employee grievances relating to discipline or job discrimination
are to be heard by the Hearing Officer, but information had not been provided to indicate
whether the dismissal of Mr. Geeck was for either of these reasons. Director noted that
in his opinion the dismissal was based on discipline problems, but some aspects of
Mr. Walsh's questions should be deferred to Mr. Kowalski as a legal question.
Mr. Kowalski advised the Board that it is not a good idea to discuss any pending
disciplinary case in any detail. Extraneous information related to the case might tend
to influence the Board to make a pre-determination based on material that might not be
entitled to use in making their decision. He noted that the employee in question was not
i an attorney, however., that the employee had complained that he was terminated for discipli-
nary reasons for violating civil service rules and disciplinary action guidelines and he
is appealing that termination. That is the action that goes first to a Hearing Officer
and then comes back to the Board.
With respect to the second part of Mr. Walsh's question, Director stated that the Board
(in the past) had relied on a Legal Opinion which was provided after the original
Ordinance was passed and which was continued to be relied upon since the current Ordinance
4:....:. is a duplicate of the one for which the Opinion was written. The Legal Opinion noted
that the Ordinance provides two methods of appointment of a Hearing Officer. One method
E. is by the Board from a list submitted by the City Commission and the second is for the
:r • , .
Commission to contract with the State. When the second method is utilized, the Legal
. Opinion noted that it was not necessary for four additional names to be provided to the
Board. Mr. Walsh moved that Mr. Laursen verify the 1977 City Attorney's Opinion as to
whether there is any change.in the reading of Section 25.05, Sub-section A and the
respective duties of the Civil Service Board, the City Commission and the City Manager.
£: Motion was seconded by Mary Kane and carried unanimously.
Board discussed whether the.Hearing scheduled for Mr. Geeck should be postponed until
f' the Legal Opinion was received. It was determined that in fairness to the employee,
' he should be given the option. Director is to contact Mr. Geeck and give him the option
` of delaying the Hearing until after the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting or with
proceeding with the Hearing; as currently scheduled.
Chairperson Herman brought up the matter of the effect of individuals being hired under
Grants and how such employment related to the classified service employee. Director
related a recent incident which occurred in the Library in which a Grant funded employee
was to be tran3ferred to a regular City position and the potential unfairness of such
an action. Chairperson Herman asked that the staff propose a rule amendment or new rule
which would clearly reflect that individuals could not benefit over other eligibles due
to their previous appointment to a non-regular Grant funded position. Mr. Chenoweth
moved and Mr. Hosch seconded a motion that this be done. Motion carried.
Alice Bush and Jean Cesta expressed their dissatisfaction with the 6% increase ranted
to some employees while others received 8%. She related that many employees did not
waixt to have a union but that they had been informed (in the mid-1970's) that it was
necessary. She stated.that City M.Inagement said you must join or you will have no
representation.
Board Members expressed their appreciation to Mrs. B«sh for her comments and noted that
any employees were welcome to bring their concerns to the Board.
°i
Ln.,
1
i
7.7,1
1.?t 1..•e?',ek ? ' ,
3
Civil Service Board Meeting January 16, 1984
a
Ch airperson.summarized the meeting by noting that the Board has requested the Director
to. do .three things: ' (1) provide. the list of thoseemployees defined by the City as
,;f.%,..'', .confidential•,to Mr. Walsh and Ms, Drew; (2) to verify the 1977 Legal Opinion relative
to the. selection of Hearin officers; and (3) to propose a rule amendment which relates
to time-limited' positions which are funded by Grant monies.
There.being'no further business, meeting was adjourned.
Next regular meeting is scheduled for March 19, 1984.
-Respectfully ttbmitted,
:s
aurse
Secretary ` a d Personnel Director
? •3?.ipt :Irk, .. - .. .. .. ? ? ? .t ? •
nq-
{ : ?qy miff e; v :?;
3U
10
QU,
.tr,?l1:'1S''??'?_.,...?7,...__...._.?.._?._._..___.._r......,......_..........,.... .Y...... _. _,. .,_ 1.,.. .. ?....._ .t. a?; _.. i.. ?_........ .r a:. ?n ?.i- ...., at' eC. .. .... ?_, .?_„ ,».i.;r'.il`1t?...,.?..?..e_.?l ?"???f,Ya.^? w
i°
`.a