Loading...
11-16-1988 /'. ~ ': . o o ~ CITY OF EDGEWATER f'.1ERIT BOARD November 16, 1988 7:00 p.m. City Hall MINUTES 'Ihe rreeting of the Merit Board was called to order at 7 :00 p,:m. by the Chainnan, Russell Gold, in the City Hall of the City of Edgewater. ROIL CALL Members present were: Ruth Garvey, Keith Denton, Harry Jones, Pat DiLeva and Chainnan Russell Gold. Also present were: William POvITers, City Manager; Dennis Fischer, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer; Carl OVerstreet, Public Works Superintendent; David Jones, Fire Safety Inspector; Cathleen Bouchard, Vincent , Perrotta, and Dominick Fazzone, Mary Ann Vendrasco, Payroll/Personnel/Insurance Clerk. Mr. Gold announced there was no unfinished business this evening. NEW BUSINESS REMOVAL OF CERTAIN PAPERS FRCM PERSONNEL FILE, (:SUX;. DEPARIMENT), DAVID JoNES. Mr. Gold called upon Mr. Jones to make his statements. Mr. Jones stated he 'was surprised, when going through his personnel file, to discover nothing to show his educational documents and resume submitted in 1984 and he wished to submit this again and have it go in his file, where it should be. Mr. Jones went on to explain he carne before this Board for the removal of documents, starting with perfonnance evaluations and re-evaluations, of which he and Mr. Fischer were in complete disagreement. Mr. Jones said he and Mr. Fischer had arrived at an agreement to rerrove the perfo:rmance of evaluations, along with the yearly evaluation attached and a letter which Mr. Jones felt was completely out of context. Mr. Jones said Mr. Fischer then submitted a revised evaluation, and it was Mr. Jones I s under- standing the first one would have been rerroved from his file. Mr. Jones said he did not know the City policy of removal of documents from the personnel files and'requested it be done. Mr. Jones added the ninety (90) day re-evaluation did not go into his file and he did not receive his increase and will not, until this matter is cleared. Mr. DiLeva asked Mr. Gold what the policy is as to removing papers from a personnel file. Mr. Gold answered he did not know whether they were automatically removed after one year or not; that same State agencies do, but he does not know what Edgewater' s policies are. Mr. Harry Jones added, in looking at page twelve (12) of the manual, it says "An employee may apply to the Merit Board for removal of any document in the employee's personnel file which the Merit Board detennines to be irrmaterial, impertinent, or slanderous . . ." and Mr. Jones continued he believes the Board has to first detennine if it is, and if so, make a recarrnendation based on that. Mr. Gold asked hOvlT Mr. Jones felt any of this was slanderous to him, as nothing presented so far was running him dOvlTn to the public, was not holding him to ridicule to the public, and he just wanted Mr. Jones IS opinion how this was slanderous. Mr. David Jones stated a letter fram an insurance canpany explaining his actions dealing with clients was entirely wrong" that a statement saying Mr. Jones was exceeding his duty as a fire inspector by giving legal advice was wrong; that an incident involving Mr. Lee Jones, saying Mr. David Jones was uncontrollable, was wrong, as Mr. Fischer was not even present that day to say what Mr. Jones's actions were. Mr. David Jones gave a short description of his background, stating he had never received such a degrading evaluation in his life and believes it is slanderous, of fens i ve and impertinent. Mr. Denton asked Mr. Fischer if it was his intention to get rid of the first appraisal and attached letter and Mr. Fischer answered he had talked with Mr. Jones about it and they agreed Mr. Fischer would write a re- evaluation and send it to Mr. Kelly, then Actinb City Manager. Mr. Denton said if that was the understanding, it would wipe out half of the problems here. Mr. Powers stated if the Board would look at the original August 5, 1988 evaluation, it was signed by the Interim City Manager at the time, and the Department Head does not have the authority to remove sanething like that; that it was approved by the then Acting City Manager and, therefore, no one belOvlT that position has the authority to remove or not remove. Mr. POvITers also added his copy of the evaluation had not been checked for are-evaluation, and there was a procedure for re-evaluation' in ninety (90) days. Mr. Powers continued. the re-evaluation may not have been the numerical o o score the irrlividual desires, but nCMhere does it say the re-evaluation in ninety (90) days will autanatically take you above the ninety (90) day merit increase, and he does not see where the proper procedures were follo.ved requesting the ninety (90) day re-evaluation. Mr. Harry Jones said he doesn It believe the Board is in a position to say what kind of an evaluation should' be given and whether or not certain papers should be rerroved. Mr. David Jones said he is here to inform the Board of inequities in the system. Mrs. GaJ:vey stated Mr. Jones and Mr. Fischer have had quite a few difficulties for SCIre time and Mr. Jones said yes, Bliling Officials and Fire Inspectors always have a problem with meeting of the minds on Cede requirements. Mr. Gold stated the Board should nON cane to a decision as to reccmnending or not recarmending and asked if there were any nore questions. A discussion continued as to procedures and Mr. Harry Jones then asked Mr. PcMers if, with the information the Board has on hand, Mr. Fischer were to cane to him today or tarorrON and ask him to remove this information fran that file, could that be accanplished? Mr. PcMers answered there is a mechanism for a re-evaluation and even if this was rerroved, you still have the second evaluation, which did not grant a merit; that there is even a third evaluation, and none of these covered the perioo needed after the first one. Mr . PcMers continued there is no continuity in his records; there is a time gap. Mr . Harry Jones then stated based on the information the Board has, and the fact there is not apparent coverage in the evaluation to justify the rerroval, he would make a notion the Board deny the rerroval from the records of any papers. Mr. Gold asked for a second. Due to lack of a second, the notion died. Mrs. Garvey said she would like to have it clear in her mind, what will hapPen if it is denied and Mr. Gold said the papers will stay in the file. Mr. Gold again asked the Board IS desire and there was a short discussion of a ninety (90) day re-evaluation not beinq requested but was done and was still not sufficient to make any difference. Mr. PcMers said he thinks it is a very generous situation where an employee gets an evaluation, and if he doesn't like it, he can be re-evaluated in ninety (90) days. Mr. Denton said he believes the last piece of paper should be taken out as agreed; that the revised dates have to be fixed to cover the perioo it should and leave the rest of it alone. Mr. PcMers said it cannot be left alone, as there is a third evaluation in there and he is not entitled to a third evaluation. Mr. Gold then asked the wish of the Board as there was a notion made and did not pass. Mrs. Garvey asked if it is going to be i.rnp::>ssible to rerrove it from the files anyway, why make a notion not to remove it. Mr. Gold said we have to be on record. Mrs. Garvey then asked Mr. Harry Jones to make his notion again. Mr. Denton suggested it would be better for Mrs. Garvey to make a notion to reconsider the original one and Mrs. GaJ:vey made a notion to reconsider the previous notion, seconded by Mr. Harry Jones. Mr. DiLeva then asked the secretary to read the original notion, and she read "I nove we deny the re:roval, fran the record of the papers". 'Ihe notion to reconsider the original notion was DENIED 3-2, Mr. DiLeva and Mr. Gold voting No. Mr. Gold then announced the notion was denied, the papers will remain in the records or personnel file. REMOJAL OF CERI'AIN PAPERS FRCM PERSCNNEL FILE (PUBLIC IDRKS DEPT.) MR. VINCENT R. PERRO'ITA . Mr. Gold called upon Mr. Perrotta and said the letter Mr. Perrottc.. . had su1:mi tted was self-explanatory and Mr. Perrotta said it was not the way it haPPened. He said he and his blohelpers were picking up (garbage) at Guava Drive July 23, 1988 where he picks up to 28th Street when he was called on the radio and asked if he r.ad picked up at 2048 Guava and his reply was he had picked up Guava twe.11ty (20) minutes before. Mr. Perrotta said he has several witnesses to these calls but his main concern was the letter he received fran Mr. Carl Overstreet, Public Works Director, which he believes contained slanderous statements and embarrassed him with his co-workers. ~. Perrotta said he had many letters fran co-\Vorkers and people on his route who would verify his integrity. Mr. Perrotta asked the Merit Board have this letter removed fran his file as his farriJ.y n2~-:;2 ',.as sla."1dered and his four percent increase was denied. Mr. Gold said it was hard to believe Mr. Perrotta would be denied his increase on the basis of this one incident. A discussion continued as to whether the Merit Board is in a position to say whether a Supervisor is wrong as the Board does not knON what Mr. Perrotta does; that the Board cannot tell the Supervisor he was wrong in his evaluation. Mr. Perrotta said the main gist of the whole problem is, there was a mistake made in the office and no one will admit it. 'Ihe Board continued discussion as to whether this one instance caused Mr. Perrotta his merit raise and Mr. Perrotta said defini tel y yes. Merit Board Minutes of Novanber 16, 1988 Meeting -2- o Q Mr. Denton stated that fran the letter, this is a Group III offense which is "discharge", and asked Mr. OJerstreet if he was prepared to discharge for this offense. ;.and Mr. OJerstreet replied he could have but if he intended to fire Hr. Perrotta he wculd have done so at the time he wrote the letter. Mr. Denton then asked Mr. PcMers if he had had a chance to review this at all and Mr. PcMers said yes, and asked Mr. Perrotta hON long he has been driving. Mr. Perrotta answered five (5) years and Mr. PcMers then asked hCM long on '. same route. Mr. Perrotta answered aboJ.t bNo (2) years. Mr. PcMers then asked Mr. Perrotta if he didn't knCM where his route is and Mr. Perrotta said that is not the question, but Mr. PcMers said that is the question. Mr. PcMers continued the call had stated 2048 Glava and Mr. Perotta should have knONn that was not his route and instead of saying he picked up Guava twenty minutes ago, he should have said that was not his route. Mr. Perrotta answered they go by numbers; he couldn't carry hundreds of numbers in his head. Mr. Dcminick Fazzone of 302 Paradise lane stated in answer to Mr. PcMers, Mr. Perrotta has a certain roote, divided in half by ~ drivers, and when he received the call, he believed it was in regard to his route and he should never have been asked that question originally. Mr. Fazzone also said, going back to what Mr. Gold said, the incident should not have deprived him of his rreri t increase if he deserved it. Mr. Fazzone stated Mr. Perrotta's integrity in April was mcu:ked five (5) and twl rronths later, it was marked two (2), and this was the appraisal after he received the letter. Mr. Fazzone added he wanted the Board to knON Mr. Perrotta goes arOtll1d Shangri La Village, and the same for other areas, in ten (10) minutes, so anyone to say this man is an embarrassment to the City does not knON the City of Edgewater. Mr. Gold said regardless of anything being remJVed or not, it woold not change the evaluation. Mr. Perrotta did not agree with this statEID2.I1t, saying he himself did not make the mistake - the office did. Mr. Denton added the evaluation was for over-all performance not this one incident, but Mr. Perrotta said he believes Mr. Denton is wrong, as slanderoos statements were made against him . After serioos discussion, Mr. Harry Jones rroved the Board take no action in this case. He believes it is apparently an official document, delivered and placed in the office personnel file and the Merit Board has no authority to request its raroval. After further discussion. it was the Board's decision the \'.Drds tlno authority to rem:::we it" be stricken, and the motion would then be accepted. Mrs. Garvey asked why, if we can remJVe this, can we not remove Mr. David Jones's, but Mr. Gold said we have no second on our motion. Mr. Denton then seconded the IIDtion. Mr . Gold asked for questions and Mrs. Garvey said she was canpletel y confused. Mr. Denton stated according to the COOe, the Merit Board can remove any personnel files, although there are arguments to the contrary, if the three criteria are rret; if it is imnaterial, impertinent or slanderous. He stated he didn't believe Mr. Jones's was and he doesn ,It: think this case is. Mr. Gold asked for a vote and asked the secretary to again read the motion, which read "I rrove the Merit Board take no action in this case., It was apparently an official document delivered and then placed in the personnel file:." After roll call, the Motion was DENIED 4-1, Mr. DiLeva voting NO. . 'Ihe Board then took a recess at 8: 45 and Mr. Gold called the rreeting back to order at 8 :50 and asked the Board to go on to the next item on the agenda, but Ms. Catherine Bouchard, Administrative Clerk I, Utilities Department, asked to be heard next as she had a previous apfDintment, to which the Board agreed. A discussion then ensued as to WATER DISTRIBurION TOCHNICIAN, GRADE 5, and . ArMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, Grade 7, were already in the budget. Mr. PCMers said he had looked at the description of Administrative Assistant and it is the sarre as Administrative Secretary I. Ms. Bouchard stated she had extensive canputer training, and rv~. PcMers said the day of the typewritier is dying and all these positions will have canputers . After an in- depth discussion of these ~ positions, Mr. PcMers said we should consider chang:rng Adrrlllustrative Assistant to Administrative Secretary I. Mr. Jones rroved the title Administrative Secretary I, Utilities, and the Water Distribution Technician be accepted, seconded by Mr. DiLeva. M::>tion CARRIED 5-0. 'Ihe Board then returned to the next job description, BUILDING, ELECI'RICAL MEX:HANICAL, PLtMBING INSPEl:'IDR. Mr. Jones said in looking over this description, nothin in there says anything about having a license but Mr. Dennis Fischer, &1ilding Inspector /COOe Ehforcenent Officer, said a certification rrust be obtained within a twelve (12) rconth perioo. As to qualifications, Mr. Fischer said you determine fran the job history and resume hCM rruch extensive knONledge the person has, and to be certified as an inspector for the state, you have to be certified through three (3) different agencies. -3- Minutes of the Noverrber 16, 1988, Merit Board Meeting o o Mr. Fischer continued discussing qualifications and duties of this new p::>sition and Mr. Denton rroved this position be accepted as presented, seconded by Mr. DiLeva. M::>tion CARRIED 5-0. SAFElY DIREC'IOR/COOE Th'FORCEMENT OFFICER was then annOill1ced by Mr. Gold, and Mr. PoNers said there is to be a sentence added " . . . will \\Drk under the super- vision of the Planning Director for Ccx:1e Enforcement and will rep::>rt to the City Manager on safety functions. II After discussion Mr. Denton rroved this position be accepted, seconded by Mrs. Garvey. Mr. DiLeva asked if he should abstain fran this, a conflict of interest, and Mr. PoNers said no. the M::>tion CARRIED 5-0. 'Ihe Merit Rep::>rts and Accident reports for the ITDnth of CCtober were reviewed by the Board . with explanations of accidents by Mr. DiLeva, Safety Inspector/ Assistant Ccx:1e Enforcement Officer. 'Ihere being no further business before the Board, Mr. Jones rroved the meeting adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Garvey. 'Ihe meeting adjourned at 9 ~33 p.m. Minutes submitted by r::xJrothy C. Garrity, Secretary -4- Merit Boa!'d Minutes of November 16, 1988, Meeting.