Loading...
02-27-1985 ~ o o CITY OF EDGEWATER MERIT BOARD MEETING February 27, 1985 Minutes Vice Chairman Gross called the Merit Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. ROLL CALL Betty Billups Walter Gross Cecelia Stevens Anthony Fanale Frank Carignan Excused Present Present Present Present Also present: Connie Kinsey, City Clerk/Administrator APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Fanale moved to approve the January 23, 1985 minutes, seconded by Mr. Carignan. Motion CARRIED 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS Letter to Council regarding appointment of Safety Director Mrs. Kinsey pointed out the difference between Mr. Vandergrift, Director of the Civil Defence and the Safety Director. Mr. Vandergrift is a City employee whereas Mr. Sheridan would be the same as an engineer. The City does not give him a job description; his duties come under his contract. His duties are explained in detail in the safety program which the Council has previously adopted. Mr. Sheridan has advised that he will be putting in approximately 16 hours a week, Mrs. Kinsey noted. Mr. Carignan commented that the initial cost of the program and the hours put in will, in the long run, save the City, from injury alone, a lot of money. The other members were in agreement. Mr. Gross said he was just concerned that the Safety Director could not go out and spend $2,000 as a department head can now do and it was pointed out that he cannot do this. Mrs. Kinsey also noted that the position of safety director will be phased out and the job will be turned over to the department heads. OLD BUSINESS The monthly evaluation report for January, 1985 was briefly reviewed. NEW BUSINESS Discuss probationary period for promoted employees, per Frank Carignan's request The members referred to the Merit Pay Plan, page 3, Sec. 2. Mr. Fanale questioned what happens if an employee is promoted and it is found that he is not suitable for the position. Mr. Carignan discussed the situation of an employee being promoted and then is asked to stay in that position on a probationary period for 90 days. It was his opinion that a 30 day probationary period is sufficient to know if an employee can perform his job. A company (or City) is defeating their purpose when they put pressure over a person's head and don't give him a chance. He asked for the views of the other Board members. Mr. Fanale suggested that perhaps the plan should be rewritten to give the option to either the employee or the employer to stay or return to the previous position. Asked for her views, Mrs. Kinsey said that in the office, most jobs run on a one-month cycle, and it takes~30 days to do the job one time. Mr. Gross said that it was his feeling that if a person is promoted it is because it is felt that person can do the work. Mr. Carignan said that a department head would have to be very sure the employee could do the job before he made the promotion. ~ o o Mr. Fanale moved that the wording to be changed that only new employees will be on probation for 90 days, and those who are promoted will not have to be on probation for 90 days. Mr. Gross seconded the motion. Mrs. Kinsey said that they have three labor contracts they must address and in those contracts it is 90 days. She said that they could not change anything in a contract until negotiation time. Mr. Fanale October 1. and he has this. Mr. brought up first talk asked when the new contract would be negotiated and was advised Mr. Carignan said that he~s already asked for the contract asked for a meeting with the Union representatives to discuss Fanale suggested that the motion include that this should be at renegotiation time. It was agreed that Mr. Carignan should to the City Council about the proposed change. The motion was restated to change the plan from 90 days probation to 30 days for promoted personnel and a letter is to be sent to the City Council for their discussion. The motion CARRIED 4-0. City Clerk's request for job description for position of Lieutenant and placing said position on Merit Pay Scale. The City Clerk reported that the Council, by motion, has eliminated the position of Deputy Police Chief. The job description of Deputy Police Chief was formerly adopted in the job description package that the Merit Board sent to them. The City Council has instituted the position of Lieutenant but the job description for lieutenant has not been prepared, Mrs. Kinsey said. It was felt that a city this small would not have a deputy police chief and a lieutenant, therefore, the job description for lieutenant could be the same as that which they presently have for deputy police chief. Mr. Fanale moved that the job description for the position of lieutenant should remain identical to the job description for the deputy police chief. Mr. Carignan seconded the motion, which CARRIED 4-0. Next to consider was the salary for that position. Mrs. Kinsey pointed out that on the merit scale the position of deputy police chief was not listed, mainly because the position had never been filled. Mr. Gross recommended to the Board to set the permanent staff lieutenant at a salary of $18,500 a year. Mrs. Kinsey reminded those present that they must conform to the merit pay scale. The present scale was discussed at length. Mrs. Stevens moved that the lieutenant position should start at a grade 16. Mr. Gross seconded the motion, which CARRIED 4-0. This recommendation will go to the City Council. On another matter, Mr. Gross recommended that a letter go to the Council with the classification of a corporal in the Police Department. The reason is that a step from police officer to sergeant is too big of a step. He is in favor of a man working up to the position of sergeant. Mr. Gross made this into a motion and Mrs. Stevens seconded it for the sake of discussion. Mr. Gross said that in his opinion there should be a corporal exam. Mrs. Kinsey said that at the time this subject came up previously it was stated that this position is common in a department of 30 or more members. But when you get below 30 members in a unit there are not enough slots to fill the corporal slot. The positions in the Police Department and the need for this position were discussed at length. Mr. Gross argued that out of the three shifts there is always a bad one where they could use the corporal. As the department grows they could put on another corporal, he suggested. It was suggested that a change of this type should wait until a new chief comes in. Mr. Gross withdrew his motion and Mrs. Stevens withdrew her second. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Gross mentioned that he was not called about the Safety Meeting last week. Mrs. Kinsey said that it is on the calendar. It was changed to the Wednesday prior to the Merit Board meeting. Mrs. Kinsey suggested that the members stop in City Hall and get a copy of the calendar from Sue Koser. Merit Board Meeting February 27, 1985 - 2 - ~ o o There being no further business to corne before the Board, Mrs. Stevens moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Fana1e. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor Merit Board Meeting February 27, 1985" - 3 -