Loading...
09-25-1991 CITY OF EDGEWATER MERIT BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1991 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Merit Board was called to order at 7 :04 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25, 1991 in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members present were: Ms. Cece Stevens, Ms. Erna Cook, Ms. Jan Morris, and Ms. Doris Patterson. Ms. Shirley Roberts was excused. Also present were Karen Rickelman and Mike Tenney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Stevens made a motion to approve the minutes of August 28, 1991, seconded by Ms. Cook. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Legal Clarification of Merit Board duties Chairman Patterson stated she spoke to other people in advisory board capacity and a suggestion was made that perhaps in order to have a true legal clarification it would be best to get a non in- house non - involved attorney. Ms. Stevens asked what are we paying this lady thirty, forty, fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year for. Chairman Patterson stated she can still give her opinion. It was mentioned that there may be something out there where we can find an attorney for no fee that would look at material and simply tell the board the legal clarification. Ms. Stevens stated she didn't agree with Ms. Patterson and this is her job and she should make the decision. Ms. Patterson stated she is not saying that we should not give it to our attorney. Ms. Stevens stated we should give it to her and let her make the decision. Chairman Patterson stated there is nothing wrong with the attorney giving legal clarification. Her being new is a plus. The people she spoke to were pointing out ramifications that could occur. Ms. Stevens stated all she is doing is making a decision on something we have in our code and charter. 1 think she is ethical enough to make the proper legal decision. Chairman Patterson stated she thinks the other matter should be kept in mind that if problems come up as they get legal clarification. She stated they are trying to be fair, objective and they are trying to get to a solution. She wants to get it moving. She said she would be bringing facts to all of the members for their review. She would like to have a decision before the end of the year if possible. Ms. Stevens made a motion to table this item until the next meeting, seconded by Ms. Cook. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. NEW BUSINESS: Request for Grade & Class Description Changes Chairman Patterson read a memo from the Acting City Manager to change the description for Finance Clerk. Ms. Stevens made a motion to approve the upgrade and class description of the Finance Clerk and the Customer Service Representative, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 4 -O. DISCUSSION ITEMS /CORRESPONDENCE: Supervisory Documentation Chairman Patterson read memo asking Acting City Manager to revisit issue of employee performance log. Chairman Patterson stated she would like feedback on the way she restructured the memo. She was trying to show balance for which the board is striving. She asked the board to look at it Ms. Stevens stated the City should have the employee performance log. She thinks it is a good idea. She stated at least if the employee has proved a long the way his job performance is good or bad, when it comes to his performance and when it comes to the merit raise, he may have proof why he can or cannot get his merit increase. Ms. Cook stated she had a handicap because she is new. She does not know the procedure on this. On past experience a supervisor or manager is given a budget. She's stated he's got to divide this. Ms. Stevens stated the budget is not an option to the supervisor who is to get and who is not to get a merit increase. That is not the way it works. Ms. Stevens explained the cost of living and merit raises. Ms. Cook stated a log like this is creating more problems. Chairman Patterson stated the reason she is asking for them to revisit the performance log issue is because if there had been a consistent record of pluses, I'd rather give a person a pat on the back, a chance to take a course, or a chance to redeem themselves. Mike Tenney stated he had an employee that was late all of the time who used all his time and he warned him three or four times and his supervisor warned him twice so the last one that was done we put down if he was late again he would be terminated. We terminated him and we had to hire him back. Chairman Patterson stated that is a good example why you need an employee manual. Mr. Tenney stated if they call in before 7:00 and they have a valid excuse that is fine but when they don't call in and don't come in you can't run an operation. Mr. Tenney stated on every evaluation that is done there is a sheet that comes with it which includes their sick time, personal holidays, holidays, vacation, and time worked without pay. That weighs a big part in an evaluation. Ms. Cook asked if they turn in time sheets at the end of the day. Mr. Tenney stated once a week but it is written on everyday. Page 2 Merit Board September 25, 1991 Ms. Cook stated if you combine these two don't you have that the board is talking about. Mr. Tenney stated at one time we had a performance log and the only headache was it was hard to sit down everyday. As far as a performance log, we need one. Any time a letter is sent in on an employee it goes in their file. Ms. Cook stated you feel this needs to be written down. Mr. Tenney stated yes I do. Chairman Patterson stated the supervisors need unity in the way they are taught to handle these things. Ms. Cook asked why the performance log was stopped. Mr. Tenney stated at the time there was only two people in his department and for him to do thirty a day, there wasn't time to do it. But now things have changed. There are two supervisors under me. Ms. Rickelman stated the performance log we had was part of our original merit system package. It was one of the forms in the package. Then when the Cody Report was done it did away with everything in the old merit package basically. I continued to use mine and I still use my performance logs. 1 was told by the former City Manager not to use it anymore. Chairman Patterson asked how often she documents in these logs. Ms. Rickelman stated if something happens in a day. At the time it happens, she pulls out the log, marks the day and what it was. On a month to month basis, I've got certain things 1 review for my certain of my people and those errors are found by me which are documented. I've been since told I can start using them again but I really never stopped. Ms. Cook asked if there is a pension program. Ms. Stevens stated the City has a very good pension program. We can buy into a 4O1K and the City has good health insurance. Chairman Patterson stated except for the fact that every time I come in I see how crammed these poor secretaries are. I read in the newspaper about some of the plans of the people applying for City Manager and I thought what a good idea to build a new city complex. We desperately need one. I hope these things work out. We do hope they revisit the issue for the things we have discussed this evening. There is a need for documentation to avoid problems and let employees know the people who supervisor them are unified in how they approach it, they are fair in how they observe it and they will pursue matters to their proper conclusion. If the employee has a logical grievance it will be a provable grievance and there will be no problem. Ms. Stevens stated her opinion is she feels she represents the employee not the City. This is what she gets from when the Merit Board was originally started. Merit Board charter & procedural policies Page 3 Merit Board September 25, 1991 Number of people on Merit Board Chairman Patterson stated this ties in with the City Attorney and the homework: she is doing with other cities. There are gaps in the charter and procedural policies. When it comes to having a hearing there should be a set of rules. Issues that need to be addressed and discussed and perhaps write and or make changes to the charter. The Merit Board has gotten off on the wrong track sometimes. They are not paid to advise. They have been asked to advise. The Merit Board wants the employee to feel the Merit Board is a non - partisan group. The Merit Board had a discussion on past grievances. Chairman Patterson stated the items under discussion all tie into the legal clarification. She stated she is asking memhers to make this their homework every month. She will be bringing more information to the board on how three cities operate as far as advisory board, specifically Merit Boards or boards with the same function. She stated there has been a mention made of going to six members. She stated seven is too large. She has no objection to having two employee members. She believes five is a good working number. Ms. Morris stated she thinks having an employee from the working field also is ideal. Chairman Patterson stated she wants feedback from the board. If you know someone on another advisory board bring information back for discussion. Ms. Stevens stated it would be wonderful if everyone got three or four percent merit raises. Then they would have a good City. Chairman Patterson stated it would be better if everyone knew what to do to get that. Chairman Patterson stated when the Merit Board studies the charter they should pay attention to the pro tempore and the person who replaces the chairman. Mike Tenney - Job Description, Pay Grade, Etc. Mr. Tenney stated this is not only him. Other people in the same grade have asked him about this. The Building Official has been here seven years, is a Grade 21 and makes $31,512. The Police Lieutenant has been here fourteen years, is a Grade 19 and makes %32,806. The Assistant Parks & Recreation Director has been here four years, is a Grade 19 and makes $25,584. The Assistant Public Works Director has been here nine years, is a Grade 19 and makes $26,000. Ms. Stevens stated she thinks this is unfair. Mr. Tenney stated according to pay scales and reports you can hire someone at a higher salary if no one else is qualified for that job. In this deal, I have nothing against this man himself but the other people have been here all these years and Karen is in the same boat. It's just not right. Ms. Morris stated this has happened too much with the Cody Report. Chairman Patterson stated this has been born through some problems in the past. Ms. Stevens asked what the board can do. Page 4 Merit Board September 25, 1991 Chairman Patterson stated make a recommendation. Ms. Cook asked if number three, the Assistant Public Works Director has a pay grade of 19. Mr. Tenney stated yes it is the same as the Fire Lieutenant. One has been here for nine years and one is going on two years. The one that has been here two years is making $5,000 more than the one that has been here for nine years. The Fire Lieutenant was hired in at a higher grade. He stated he has nothing against him but he feels this is wrong. Ms. Morris stated some employees especially clerical were hired right before the Cody Report was adopted. They were upgraded. The top out level was upgraded. This happened to her. A girl was hired to help in the office. She was hired as a secretary below her. When the Cody Report came out, she was upgraded three levels above her. She was told she needed schooling and certifications before hers would be touched. She still thinks it was the City Manager. Chairman Patterson stated when that is done it effects a lot of positions and if it is not done in a fashion to try and balance this thing out it causes the problems that happened here. It may have been management or interpretation of the Cody report but somewhere in there they have tipped the scales and messed up some people. Ms. Stevens stated this has to do with fairness and longevity. Chairman Patterson stated it also has to do with economic competition. For some positions, in order to get that skill and that level of experience that person has, you have to give more money. Ms. Rickelman stated there is conception when you hire a department head and you've got a person that has worked here fourteen years that person that has just been hired in even though he is three grades higher than the person that is here for fourteen years should get as much as the person that has been here for fourteen years. To me that is unfair to the employee who has been here fourteen years. They have worked and strived to get where they are and now they are going to hire someone in off the street. He's benefitted from the person who has worked here all these years. That is the purpose of minimum and maximum rates of pay. So you do cap out. The person who is not a department head is going to cap out at a lower rate than the department head is because they are always at a higher grade. In the end they are going to make more than the person that has been here fourteen years because they are capped out and don't get any more money. In the Griffith Study, it was brought out that many employees are upset with the Cody Report and they were hesitant to answer questions from David M. Griffith because they felt they were going to get bad stuff again just like they got from the Cody Report. Mr. Tenney asked Ms. Rickelman if the City spent $65,000 on these two reports. Ms. Rickelman stated %5,000 on the Cody Report and $30,000 on the David M. Griffith report. Mr. Tenney stated the City spent $35,000 on two reports. To me what good did they do. Ms. Rickelman stated there is resentment that the employee who is not a department head is making more than a department head. Even though years of service are greater for the employee than the person now hired. Page 5 Merit Board September 25, 1991 Mr. Tenney stated a department head who has been here for seven years is making $29,120. The Fire Lieutenant has been here two years and is making $31,000. Something needs to be done for the old employees. Chairman Patterson asked does the City warrant having a separate Personnel Manager. Is there enough staff to justify that. Ms. Rickelman stated that position was put in the budget last year but got cut. Ms. Morris asked if Carl ever addressed this to the City Manager. Mr. Tenney stated he had addressed Mr. Munoz and Mr. Overstreet. Somewhere there has got to be a starting and finishing. Chairman Patterson asked Mr. Tenney is the issue why is your pay so low compared to other people with the same grade. Mr. Tenney stated yes. Ms. Rickelman stated part of the reason of Mike's problem is when the Cody came in they upgraded the Assistant Public Works Director from a Grade 15 to a Grade 19 so this minimum maximum spread was higher. The hiring wage was higher and the max out wage was higher. When they hired the Fire Lieutenant, we had the Cody so naturally he started at the minimum of 19 whereas when Mike started he was 15. Mr. Tenney stated the lieutenant did not start at a minimum of 19 he started at a minimum of 27. Ms. Rickelman stated he was hired in for more than a minimum of 19. Mr. Tenney stated way more. Ms. Rickelman stated that is how the big discrepancy occurred within Mike's position and the other position. Ms. Morris asked why he was hired at such a high rate of pay. Mr. Tenney stated that is what I would like to know. Chairman Patterson stated the issue is why is Mr. Tenney's pay so low compared to others in the same position at same grade. Where is the compensation for the length of service. Ms. Stevens stated no the issue is he wants to be compensated. Chairman Patterson stated they are going to have to schedule a hearing. She asked Mr. Tenney if he wanted a hearing. Mr. Tenney stated no but if it goes into a hearing then he will have a lawyer. Ms. Stevens stated he doesn't need a hearing. Chairman Patterson asked if he is wanting a recommendation from the Merit Board. Mr. Tenney stated yes, I feel, after nine years of service and the other gentleman after two years of service making $5,000 more a year, I should be compensated something. I don't feel it is right. Ms. Morris stated he certainly has a lot more employees to supervise. Page 6 Merit Board September 25, 1991 Ms. Stevens made a motion to send a memo to the City Manager in regards to Mike Tenney's grievance on compensation referencing Item 3(1) Page 19 in the Cody Report with a copy to go to Council and attachments to be Mike's letter and page 19 from the Cody Report, seconded by Ms. Cook. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, Ms. Stevens made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Morris. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Kruck:meyer Page 7 Merit Board September 25, 1991