06-22-1988
Q
(.)
(.)
CITY OF EDGEWATER
MERIT BOARD
June 22, 1988 7:00 p.m.
CITY HALL
MINUTES
The Merit Board meeting was called to order by the Chairman Pro Tem,
Russell Gold, at 7:00 p.m.. Mr. Gold called for any additions or
corrections to the minutes of January 28, 1988, as presented by the
secretary. There being none, the minutes were approved as read. Mr.
Gold then announced as Chairman Pro Tem he would accept nominations
for Chairman to serve for the coming year, that is, the balance of
the coming year. Mrs. Garvey moved Mr. Gold serve as Chairman,
seconded by Mr. Jones. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Gold then stated he would accept nominations for Vice Chairman.
Mr. DiLeva moved Mrs. Garvey serve as Vice Chairman, seconded by Mr.
Denton. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
ROLL CALL:
Members present were: Keith Denton, Harry Jones, Ruth Garvey, Pat
DiLeva and Russell Gold. Also present were: Interim City Manager
Dennis Kelly; Accounts Payable/Purchasing Clerk Debbie Sigler;
Payroll/Insurance Clerk Mary Ann Vendrasco; Screening Committee
Chairman Thomas L. Sheridan; P.E.A. Representative Chuck Chamberlin;
Parks & Recreation Director/Buildings and Grounds Maintenance Super-
intendent David Garrett. Mr. Gold introduced Keith Denton and Harry
Jones, new members, and Pat DiLeva, employee representative for this
year.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Gold announced the Longevity Plan was first on the agenda. Mr.
DiLeva stated he had spoken with Mr. Corder, the former employee rep-
resentative, and as yet Mr. Corder had nothing to present. Mr. Gold
stated he recalls making a suggestion as to a pay raise every two years
equal to four percent or one step, and that was before the five extra
steps were added, provided the person had the necessary evaluation,.
but nothing was ever done.
Quite a discussion ensued as to the evaluations being made by department
heads, and if an 85 was give (a passing grade) the City Manager should
not supersede the Department Head. Mr. DiLeva said he believes the
person directly over the employee would know the employee more closely
than the Manager, who would be going by hearsay. Mr. DiLeva then
asked just where we stand at this time and Mr. Gold said the steps
are up to "0".
Mr. Jones added we speak of Merit and Longevity at the same time and
he believes it should be referred to as "step" instead of "merit",
actually, as this is longevity. Mrs. Sigler said she believes "a"
is a merit; that you may have an employee who is good but not out-
standing and work for the City for twenty years and never reach "0",
but they could also get a longevity for those ten years; they may not
have received an 85 but perhaps did extra projects or put in extra
time. Mr. Jones said there should be an incentive to reach a higher
level.
Mr. Kelly stated one of the dilemmas he has experienced in this
business, especially in small organizations such as this one, only
120 employees, is the opportunity for promotion is very, very low
and in most cases non-existent. Discussions continued as to the
different classifications of employees, about 20 or 25, out of 120.
Mrs. Sigler stated since the Merit Plan, some department heads are
are much more demanding than others, but merit raises are coming too
o
o
easily; that 90% of the employees are getting merit increases and
merit should be earned. Mr. Denton said he has a tough time accepting
the fact that one can sit collecting dust and still get longevity;
there should be an incentive to go on and do a better job. Mr. Kelly
said there are no established goals or objectives to be accomplished
the next year, but we are commenting at the bottom of the [evaluation]
sheet what could be done for improvement; for example, a garbage
collector collecting for 220 customers a day could go to 240 to 250
and would qualify for an "X" percent merit increase. Mr. Kelly also
added another goal could be to reduce accident days or increase work
days by reduction of accident leave time; this is something that could
be looked into. Mr. Sheridan stated Longevity, in certain organizations,
is called Seniority; better jobs when a promotion comes up and rewards
of a 5, 10 or 20 year pin. He added if employees do not have the
incentives to go higher, he doesn't see why a taxpayer has to put out
more money.
Mr. Chamberlin, P.E.A. Representative, said you can be here five years
or twenty years and not be able to go any higher; you have reached a
peak, and when you reach that peak you should be entitled to something.
Mr. Denton asked if there is a cap on merit and was told yes; he said
he believes the cap should be removed and if the man is doing the best
he can, that merit should keep going. Mr. Chamberlin said he thought
the suggestion of the merit continuing is a very good one. Mr. Denton
stated going along with the unlimited merit increase, guide lines
should be taken to review these people. Mr. Gold then interrupted
and said we are still talking merit and should get back on to Longevity
and decide something so we can get on to other business. Mr. Jones
then moved we table Longevity until the next regular meeting and, in
the interim, designate someone from among ourselves to contact other
cities and find out what they are doing along the area of longevity
pay increases. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiLeva and CARRIED 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Kelly spoke of the inconsistencies in the adoption of the position
of City Clerk/Administrator. He said he is bringing to the Board for
their recommendation to Council the position of City Clerk, absent the
"slash" Administrator part, which also required the realignment of the
salary range. He stated the Board would find in their packets his
recommendation and also that surveys done on municipalities in the
Volusia County are attached for a salary range. Mr. Kelly continued
this will be a department head type position, some supervision required,
probably not more than three (3) people, depending on growth. He said
if this continues as a supervisory position versus a department head
position , it requires a grade level, a minimum-maximum range;, iGrade 20,
minimum, which is 23,254 and Grade 21, which is 24,419. The Board
continued to discuss the position of City Clerk as to knowledge, skill
and ability to take and transcribe dictation. Mr. Kelly stated he
wanted a job description to cover specific skills and criteria and at
the same time not be locked in. Mr. Gold stated he can go along with
the description of the position at this point and asked Mr. Kelly for
his recommendation. Mr. Kelly said he would recommend the minimum of
$23,296 but does not want to be locked in. After further discussion,
Mr. Jones moved the Board accept the position described as written
and accept the wage recommended by Mr. Kelly. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Garvey and CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Kelly said there would be two things coming before the Board from
his office during the summer; (1) he has been authorized to create the
position of Finance Director which he will present sometime in July and
(2) he is working on a proposal concerning merit raises and may not have
it ready by budget time, but if he does, he will forward it to the Board
and try to schedule it for the next regular meeting.
Mr. DiLeva then spoke on a definite lack of communication and mis-
understandin~ amonq the employees concerning merit, as it seems
everyone gets a. raise; 100% got a 4% raise - but Mr. DiLeva believes
merit should be earned. Mr. Gold said the merit and evaluation sheets
will be brought up later in this meeting.
Merit Board Minutes of
June 22, 1988 Meeting
-2-
"
o
Q
Mr. DiLeva spoke then concerning part time employees, the question
being; if a person is a part time employee,working six hours a day,
he should receive 6 hours for a holiday, not 4 hours. Mrs. Vendrasco
said full time employees receive 8 hours and part time have always
received one-half, or 4 hours. After quite a lengthy discussion
concerning this subject, Mr. Jones moved Mrs. Vendrasco prepare a
statement to the Board concerning part time employees. But Mr. Kelly
said a good portion of municipal operations are now under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Mr. Jones then withdrew his motion and moved
the Board refer the part time employee question back to Staff until
the next regular meeting. Mrs. Garvey seconded the motion and the
motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. DiLeva then approached the subject of an Employee Appreciation
Dinner, or some sort of reward, and after discussion, Mr. Jones stated
he didn't think this subject should come before this Board and Mr.
DiLeva then withdrew his suggestion after Mr. Gold stated the Board
would have to deny this subject.
Mr. Dave Garrett, Recreation Director/Buildings & Grounds Maintenance
Superintendent/then referred to the first subject on his list of
Transfers within the Department, New Job Descriptions, and Part Time
Positions. Mr. Garrett said the position of head lifequard is not new,
but this year a permanent employee wanted the position and, due to his
qualifications, he did move him into the head life guard position
for the summer, retaining his benefits, with the understanding he
will be moved back to his rightful position, a lower..grade of- ~ay.
The head life guard position is a part time temporary position just
for the summer and he would like to modify the original job description
to allow this employee to retain his full City benefits and then be
transferred back to his original position when the swimming season is
over. Mr. Garrett said he would like to have a part time laborer
position to fill in the gap. Mr. Sheridan said Mr. Garrett is hiring
a part time person to fill in for the head life guard, but Mr. Garrett
stated that is not true; we do have another laborer we hired last year
in October and for a while it seems like we are over staffed and then
in the summer we are understaffed. After discussing Mr. Garrett being
able to switch employees and Mr. Kelly drawing a diagram to further'
explain the situation.. (the Head Life Guard position at Grade 7 and
he will go back to Service Worker I, which is Grade 3 and he fully
understands this cut in pay) Mr. Jones stated since we are considering
a job description but for part time temporary position to enable transfer
back to his original job from a higher paying to lower paying job and
then back to higher paying, Mr. Denton moved to accept the description
as it is except for (e) under Requirements, to delete "demonstrate
performance" . The motion was seconded by Mr. Jones', :ctnd' QA:RRIElO 5-0.
The next position of "Life Guard" was discussed and the same action
was taken, i.e., Mr. Denton moved to accept the description as
presented except for (e) under Requirements, to delete "demonstrate
performance". The motion was seconded by Mr. DiLeva and CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Garrett then explained the Concession Stand Worker position as a
new position, 25 hours a week, part time temporary with no benefits @
$4.43 per hour. Mr. Garrett also explained this service used to be
run by volunteers and then the Edgewater Athletic Assn. started to
pay the concession person and when they folded, it was left to the
City to run. The City does have insurance and health certificate.
After discussion, Mr. Denton moved the Concession Stand Worker
Proposal be accepted as submitted, seconded by Mr. Jones. Motion
CARRIED 4-1, Mr. Gold voting No.
Mr. Garrett stated the Part Time Laborer, General Purpose position is
a new one and there is a labor position for Buildings & Grounds and
also Street Department and Water Department, but with all the mowing
done in the summer, Mr. ~arrett would like to have someone he could
fall back on. Mr. Sheridan asked if anyone had ever done a study as
to the cost of bringing contracting into this and Mr. Kelly said not
since he has been here but the question here is the position.
Merit Board Minutes of
June 22, 1988 Meeting
-3-
...
.
o
o
.,..,
Mr. Garrett explained this position is just as it is needed; he
would like to have the position there when the need arises. Mr.
Denton then moved the Board accept the proposal, seconded by Mr.
Jones. The motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Garrett presented another position of Recreation Leader, a part
time temporary, no benefits, summer help as used by other cities,
such as playground leaders, etc. Mr. Garrett said as the City
grows we wi11 need more help. A discussion continued as to the
knowledge and experience needed for this position. Mr. Jones stated
he believed there should be some experience and Mr. Denton believed
"hands on" experience for teaching should be put in there. Mr. Kelly
explained the work planned for the next six months to three years
including the Rotary Park facilities, Whistle Stop Park courts and
the Daytona Beach Community College campus facilities which will be
regional. After further discussion, Mr. Jones moved we accept the
proposed position with the addition of "(h)Must have leadership or
teaching experience, voluntary or paid~", seconded by Mr. DiLeva
and CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Jones moved the Board recess for ten minutes. Mr. Gold so ordered
a ten minute recess from 9:00 p.m. At 9:10 Mr. Gold called the
meeting to order and the Board continued the meeting.
Mr. Chuck Chamberlin then spoke and stated he was very grateful for
the Merit Plan,and he had talked with his supervisor and his department
head on the point system and they agreed perhaps some of it should be
changed. He continued an 85 is quite high and if an employee would
get nothing but 3's, he would only receive 75 and would not get a
raise. Mr. Chamberlin also stated "5" is very unnecessary, as just
what do you have to do to get a 5? He said he was never late on the
job, never took unnecessary days, etc., but still got a 4. Mr. Jones
asked about receiving a "step" increase, when it should be "merit" but
was told it is the same thing. Mrs. Sigler stated she could shed some
light on how they came to the 85; there was no pay scale when she was
the employee's representative; there was an instance when two employees
received outstanding evaluations, one got a raise, the other was told
there was no money in the budget and this came to the Merit Board.
Mrs. Sigler said from then on they worked on information from other
cities, etc. and came up with a pay scale and a six month performance
evaluation along with determining 75 met standards and 85 deserved a
rais~ Mrs. Sigler also said it is almost standard that everyone gets
an 85 and therefore a raise. A lengthy discussion continued as to
someone receiving 87 and someone receiving 95 but they both get the
same amount of merit raise. Mr. Kelly then drew a plan for the Board
concerning the 120 employees who have traditionally received a cost of
living raise which does not depend on evaluations, etc. He stated
getting into the merit, those receiving 85 or higher would automatically
receive what is now 4%. Mr. Kelly described a plan for giving merits
which may solve the problem of an 85 or 95 person, such as one receiving
just 1%, one receiving 3%, etc. The Board discussed this at length and
Mr. Denton then moved the merit plan be left as it is, seconded by Mr.
DiLeva. The motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Gold then asked the Board to read the Merit Reports and Accident
Reports from January through May, 1988. Mr. Gold also read Resolution
87-R-4l to the Board, stating the new procedure for Board appointments.
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. DiLeva moved the
meeting adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Garvey. The meeting adjourned at 9:50
P.M.
Minutes submitted by
Dorothy C. Garrity,
Secretary
Merit Board Minutes of
June 22, 1988 Meeting.
-4-