Loading...
05-25-1983 ~ Q o CITY OF EDGEWATER MERIT BOARD MEETING May 25, 1983 Vice Chairman Bates called the meeting of the Merit Board to order at 7:00 P.M. in the conference area of the Community Center. ROLL CALL Betty Billups Robert Bates Ray Troian Dr. Roland Bazin Debbie Sigler Nancy Blazi, City Clerk Excused Present Present Present Present Present Also present: Councilwoman Bennington Councilman Spencer Vice Chairman Bates welcomed Dr. Bazin to the board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was agreed that approval of the April minutes should wait until our next regular meeting, due to the fact that Mr. Troian was absent and could not vote yes, also Dr. Bazin was not a member of the board and he could not vote on the minutes either. COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Sigler read an excerpt from the City Council meeting May 16 at which time the Council adopted Resolution 83-R-44 appointing Dr. Roland Bazin, Jr. to the Merit Board. Vice Chairman Bates suggested that we wait until a full board is present before we hold nominations for the chairmanship. This was agreed upon by the board members. OLD BUSINESS Safety Program Committee Mrs. Sigler read a note from Mrs. Billups regarding safety checks being made from time to time by the safety committee. It was the consensus of the board that this will be one of the duties of the committee. Mrs. Blazi brought up the suggestion that the committee meet one after- noon a month rather than at night. This way the employees who are on the committee would not be asked to come back after working all day, and also we will not get into an overtime situation. After further discussion on what days would be best for the board members, Mrs. Sigler made a motion that the safety committee meet the fourth Tuesday of each month at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Troian seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Mrs. Blazi informed the board that the gentleman from Management Risk was recently in the City and made a very favorable report of his findings. She also suggested that the committee may want to consider some type reward for the department going the longest period of time without any accidents or safety violations. (.) o Merit plan Mrs. Sigler reported to the board that she and Mrs. Blazi met with the Department Heads today and went over this package with them. Several recommended changes were discussed. The supervisors felt that a new employee should be hired in under the first step of the classifica- tion they are applying for, until the supervisor can determine. whether that individual is qualified. The supervisors also felt that a three month probation period was perhaps too long and they could determine within thirty days whether a person is going to work out. Councilwoman Bennington pointed out certain risks that the City is taking by lowering the probationary period; not only would it be costing the City more money but also a person would be put on the insurance policy perhaps too soon. Example, an existing illness may not show up in a month where in three months the supervisor may become aware of it. The individual may not like his job and stay only long enough to receive all of the benefits. Councilman Spencer questioned whether this should a?ply to Department Heads. His feeling was that supervisory personnel should have more time to prove themselves. This was'also the feeling of the board members. Mrs. Sigler explained that the supervisors felt an individual would have more incentive to pass their probation for the increase in their salary rather than for the benefits. Although we do have excellent benefits with the City, there are some employees who may not care as much about the insurance, etc. as they are in need of the money. Reading from the proposed merit policy there is a paragraph regarding the hiring of an individual whose qualifications must be determined before classifying them, as well as a paragraph for the individual whose qualifications are known to be above average. Mr. Troian stated that anyone is covered under pre-existing; if you have coverage, are injured and have to leave the job the next day, you are entitled to the full benefits for that particular condition. Mrs. Blazi stated that she would check with the insurance clerk to see if the City would be responsible for keeping such a person on the City's insurance policy; it may be that the three month proba- tionary period is set because of some restrictions by insurance companies. Mrs. Sigler stated she understands the point Councilwoman Bennington is making about the probationery period and maybe a compromise could be met... hire someone in a few steps below what they say they are qualified for until their classification can be determined, after thirty days classify that person, which may mean an increase in pay, however leave them on probation to receive their full benefits after three months. Presently the probationary period is spelled out in the union contracts and in order to change this it will have to be renegotiated. Mrs. Blazi informed the board that the union would not accept a plan where employees would fall between the steps. We will not be able to grant the 1%, 2%, and so forth; we will have to determine what grade received on the evaluation would call for the entire merit step increase. She added that all of the Department Heads and supervisors have to get "tougher" on their evaluations. At this time Mrs. Blazi went'over some of the points on the evaluation forms which were discussed with the Department Heads and how the grading, procedure would work. . o o Mrs. Sigler explained that the chart on page 2 of the proposed policy can not be used. It will have to be worded where an employee receiving a certain grade will be increased a full step. There has to be some- thing added in the event an employee does not receive that "grade" he can be re-evaluated. However, at that time, if they have improved enough in the weak areas and are awarded a step increase, it will not be retroactive. Councilman Spencer made the suggestion that supervisors should be choosy with merit increases. Every employee should not receive a merit increase; this does not give much incentive to them. Perhaps there should be a number put on how many merit increases are allowed each supervisor. Mrs. Blazi stated that this was discussed with the Department Heads, and it is agreed that evaluations have to be handled better in the future. She added that an explanation sheet was prepared and given to the supervisors regarding how evaluations should be considered. Mrs. Sigler objected to a specific number being put on the amount of merit increases allowed to the department; however, it does not give an employee much incentive to work a little harder when they know everyone is going to get a merit increase. The evaluations should be handled objectively and perhaps with these specific guide- lines being set there will be less merit increases handed out. Mrs. Blazi pointed use documentation. work, proving that below average. out that the supervisors are being educated to The evaluations should be backed up with paper- the individual is outstanding, or that they are Councilwoman Bennington questioned whether Department Heads hold meetings with their employees going over the rules and regulations. Mrs. Blazi said she does not know how often this is done, however it is a good idea and perhaps supervisors should attend more of the Department Head meetings. There was discussion among the board members and the Council members as to the re-evaluation procedure; whether it is necessary and how long it should be before it is done. Chairman Bates felt a supervisor should have the prerogative to decide whether a re-evaluation is in order. Dr. Bazin suggested that a specific procedure be set up so that no one can claim discrimination because their supervisor did not re- evaluate them. It was agreed that everyone should have the option of being re- evaluated upon their request and that the time period should be ninety (90) days. The next evaluation would be the six months performance evaluation, which does not determine a merit increase; it is just a review for the employee to realize what they should be working on to prepare for their yearly evaluation. The oppor- tunity to receive a merit increase would come at the yearly evaluation. Mrs. Blazi and Mrs. Sigler went over the evalution form changes that were recommended by the Department Heads. There were several items that the individual can be graded as "meeting standards" and no higher. This will change the grade value of the evaluation; a new form will be typed up and given to the departments for further review. Vice Chairman Bates pointed out that he still wants to be able to see other pay plans to compare to this. He feels this should be included with the Council's package and he would like to review it himself. He would like written information. -3- o o Mrs. Blazi explained the information she has from other cities of near the same size as ours, in a lot of instances, does not have job titles to compare with ours. She will write to two or three of the cities and ask for their pay plans and scales. She added that from what she has seen our salaries are comparable. There was discussion among the board members and the Council members as to what cities we should ask. It was decided that South Daytona be one of the cities due to their location. Longevity was discussed and agreed that this should be part of the plan. NEW BUSINESS None BOARD COMMENTS Vice Chairman asked if there were any further comments. Dr. Bazin asked a question regarding the wording in the Safety Policy. He thought perhaps there is a typographical error on page 2, under Injury Leave. Should it read " the employee may utilize his accrued leave" or "the employee may not utilize his accrued leave"? Mrs. Blazi said this could be a misprint; she will have to check. The wording should be exactly as it is in the Personnel Guide. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Troian made a motion to adjourn, being seconded by Mr. Bazin. Meeting adjourned 8:55. Minutes submitted by: Debbie Sigler -4-