Loading...
05-22-1991 4100 11 1M0 CITY OF EDGEWATER MERIT BOARD REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 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 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 1991, in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members present were: Ms. Shirley Roberts, Ms. Jan Morris, and Ms. Doris Patterson. Ms. CeCe Stevens was excused. Ms. Karen Grasberger was absent. Also present was Karl Looney, Donna Looney, Karen Rickelman, Jack Corder, Chuck Chamberlin, and Recording Secretary Lisa Kruckmeyer. Bob Polizzi and Jim Hoppe arrived at 7:15 p.m. Tyna Hilton arrived at 7:25 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Roberts made a motion to approve the minutes of April 24, 1991, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Chairman Patterson stated there was a question brought to her about the order of business since there is a long agenda if Mr. Looney's presentation could be moved up on the agenda. She stated they would do the Parks Foreman position first and Mr. Looney's presentation second. Ms. Morris made a motion to alter the order of the agenda as proposed, seconded by Ms. Roberts. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Job Description - Parks Foreman Ms. Roberts asked how many volunteers or contract specialist or how many part time employees this person will be supervising. Chairman Patterson stated it is the Parks Foreman on the left. Ms. Roberts asked what the Recreation Supervisor does and why we need two people to do this. Mr. Corder stated there are two different situations. The Recreation Supervisor coordinates and supervises all of the program activities. The Parks Foreman supervises the crew doing the maintenance work throughout the parks. Ms. Morris made a motion to approve the Parks Foreman position as proposed, seconded by Ms. Roberts. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Karl Looney Request Re: Yearly Evaluation At this time, Mr. Looney made his presentation as to why he should receive a 4% merit increase instead of the 3% he received. Chairman Patterson stated an employee and his job performance are his business and he should be compared as to what he was doing last year not what anyone else was doing. She stated if he has a problem with the eight questions he brought up then he should bring up some facts to back up why or why not things have been done. She stated as far as the Merit Board having any say in evaluating, she's not sure that is their position to take. She stated they are there to hear a grievance if someone feels they have been wronged in their evaluation, she thinks they are out of 4100 11 100 their league. Mr. Looney stated someone should be there to defend himself. If they aren't there they don't have to answer any questions. Ms. Roberts stated the core of all of this is the Cody Report. She stated Mr. Looney needs to know what his duties are and he needs to be evaluated on those duties. When someone gives a lower grade on attitude and integrity, he should have some facts to back that up. Mr. Looney stated if you look at the memo from the City Manager that was sent to them and their responses and answers, they weren't answered. I don't think it is fair to me for me to sit here and say we are going to have to talk to them. They should be here now if they want to talk about it and they are not. Chairman Patterson stated she thinks they need to pursue this further with Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. DeLoach and Mr. Munoz. Mr. Looney stated Charlie George is another operator at the Water Plant that Mr. DeLoach complained about all year. I requested a copy of his evaluation and low and behold he got the same evaluation and he did no where half the work. He also stated him, Jim Hoppe and Dave Thurston never get a fair shake. I don't care what you do or how much you do he doesn't care. Chairman Patterson stated it would be a great benefit if they had the supervisors involved present so they could query them as to these accusations and they are not here. She stated they are not in a position to come to any conclusion with this tonight. Chairman Patterson asked Mr. Looney to summarize why he was there. Mr. Looney stated he wants the 4%. She stated they can only make recommendations based on the information that is brought to them. Mr. Hoppe stated at the Water Plant it is a twenty -four hour operation. Before they had three shifts which they rotated and that is the way things worked. It's not that way anymore. My boss came up with six month shifts which is what he wanted which is convenient for him. There are people stuck on midnight shifts probably forever that don't get the full aspect of the job. Ms. Roberts asked why one position description covers Water Plant Operators B and C. Mr. Hoppe stated different license, same job. Ms. Roberts stated it sounds to her like there needs to be another position description to cover these men if they are doing work that no one else is capable of doing. Mr. Looney stated it's not that they are not capable, they don't know how to do it because they have never had the training. Ms. Morris asked if they are supposed to be trained to do that. Mr. Looney stated the way it works is they used to have rotating shifts every two months. Eventually everybody did everything. Now Mr. DeLoach went to six month shifts. Then he went to pretty much now it's year shifts. They aren't getting rotated and the people aren't learning. We have a midnight shift that really knows no maintenance. Mr. Looney stated all he wants is to be evaluated fairly and he doesn't feel he has been. Mr. Looney then explained his jobs other than daily activities. Page 2 Merit Board May 22, 1991 ime �mw° Mr. Hoppe stated they have a really good crew at the Water Plant but there is a lack of training. Mr. Looney stated on his evaluation it states courses to get a B license' He stated he requested to go to school and so did Jim and they were denied. Ms. Morris asked what the reason was for the denial. Mr. Looney stated he already sent two people and wasn't sending anyone else this year. Not that he didn't have any money he just wasn't sending anyone else. Ms. Morris asked if it was requested in writing. Mr. Hoppe stated it was just a verbal request. Mr. Looney stated he doesn't feel he evaluated him fairly. For the work he did he felt he deserved a 4%. Ms. Morris stated if Rob wanted to answer any questions he would have made himself available tonight. Chairman Patterson stated maybe he felt the things he said in his letters said what he wanted to say and that's the way he left it. Ms. Morris stated that could be but to her what he said in his letter did not answer any of the questions of the City Manager. Ms. Roberts stated she had a problem with the letter from the City Manager. Mr. Looney and Chairman Patterson stated they did too. Chairman Patterson stated in the letter from the City Manager he compares the two employees and I think that is an error in point of view. Her personal feeling is that your evaluation should be based on your work from last year to this year. These questions he is asking he is comparing two people instead of comparing Karl this year and Karl last year. She stated she doesn't think they can change his rating but she does think they can make a suggestion that he be reevaluated based on his performance from last year to this year. She would request a reevaluation and for him to base his decision with facts on each of the points. Mr. Looney stated he asked his supervisor and the department head and they told him to go ahead and go to the Merit Board. Ms. Roberts stated as a supervisor she expects more from an employee that has ten years experience than she does from an employee that has two years experience. Mr. Chamberlin stated the evaluations are a good thing but the personality interferes so much' You could be doing an outstanding job for eleven and a half months and you mess up one time, there goes that whole year' Mr' Looney stated his supervisor still has not sat down and told him why he did not receive a 4%. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Looney asked where he felt he was not graded fairly on his evaluation. Mr. Looney stated integrity, accepts direction, attitude, efficiency, and quality of work. He stated he thinks any of the fours could be a five. Ms. Hilton stated in all reality who is to judge one person's morales against another. Page 3 Merit Board May 22, 1991 Mr. Looney stated if he can't get the supervisor or department head to answer his questions, then he really can't answer the Board's why they are rating him at what. Mr. Hoppe stated it depends on the boss at the time. Ms. Roberts stated she thinks the problem is that there is no position description that tells you what you are supposed to do and you don't have standards you have to meet in order to either achieve your position or exceed your position. Chairman Patterson stated Ms. Roberts has been doing an excellent job with this and asked her for her input as far as pulling this together from a supervisory point of view. Ms. Roberts stated based on what has been heard, she questions the very subjective parts of this and she feels if in fact Karl can give facts of evidence that prove he has done these things he is entitled to this 4 %. Ms. Roberts stated you should have written notes and documentation when you do an evaluation on a person. Ms. Rickelman stated I was told NOT to do that. She stated I had everything to back up my evaluations and I was told NOT to do that any longer. I kept them and I still do them but I just didn't present them at the evaluation time. I had to go on my memory as to what they did. Now I have been told I could resume doing this. I never gave up using them. I just didn't bring them with me to the evaluation session. Ms. Roberts stated she feels that the supervisor should have the authority to do the evaluation but they also should have the documentation to prove their decisions. Chairman Patterson asked if there was a motion on the floor. Ms. Roberts stated she thinks they need to speak to the other people involved. Mr. Looney stated he doesn't feel it is fair to him to say you have to have it. If they wanted it they should have been there. Ms. Morris stated there is nothing from Rob saying why he is not there. Mr. Looney stated if he's not there he doesn't have to answer any questions. Ms. Roberts made a motion that Mr. Looney receives his 4Y. merit raise unless the supervisor can bring documented facts why he should not. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Chairman Patterson made a recommendation to pursue this option of supervisory documentation being kept throughout the working person's time. She stated they would look how to do that at the next meeting and to include it on the next agenda. The board then went back to the first motion. Ms. Roberts made a recommendation that Mr. Looney receive his 4% merit raise unless the supervisor can bring documented facts why he should not, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. At that time, 8 :25 p.m., Karl Looney, Donna Looney, Jim Hoppe, Bob Polizzi, and Tyna Hilton left. Page 4 Merit Board May 22, 1991 Presentation from PEA Union Representative - Chuck Chamberlin Chairman Patterson stated the board was still very much interested in hearing what PEA is and how it interfaces with the City. Mr. Chamberlin stated PEA's primary purpose is to represent members of the PEA for grievances. He stated once an employee is grieved upon he has five days to file a grievance. He goes to his immediate supervisor first and if the supervisor can not settle it then in writing he goes to the department head and if the department head can't settle it, in writing again he goes to see the City Manager. These are members only. If it still isn't settled, then you go through arbitration. An employee who is not a member of PEA has to go through the Merit Board. Chairman Patterson asked if once they begin they have to follow that through. Mr. Chamberlin stated they should stick with it. He stated the organization will not take time to represent a non paying member. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Chamberlin to give an example of a grievance which he did at that time. Ms. Roberts asked what PEA is. Mr. Chamberlin stated Public Employees Association. Chairman Patterson asked how the drug testing affects the PEA. Mr. Chamberlin stated they have no problem with it if it is done accordingly. Ms. Rickelman stated at the last meeting the Board was discussing sporadic testing. In the contract it says you've got to have reason to do a test. Mr. Chamberlin stated you have to have cause and it has to be justified in doing so. Chairman Patterson asked if all employees are tested when they are hired. Mr. Chamberlin stated yes with the new contract. Ms. Roberts stated when she first started she read in the minutes about if an employee is in an accident should they be drug tested. Mr. Chamberlin stated they do that automatically. Chairman Patterson asked if there were any further questions. Ms. Roberts asked how many employees now currently belong to PEA. Mr. Chamberlin stated 36 - 40 he thinks. Ms. Roberts asked how many employees are in the City. The Secretary stated she thought 156 including Council. Mr. Chamberlin left at 8:32 p.m. Request for Legal Clarification of Merit Board Duties Update Chairman Patterson stated they still have no news on this item. Page 5 Merit Board May 22, 1991 Presentation from PRA Union Representative - Larry Westfall Chairman Patterson stated Mr. Westfall is not here tonight. Cody Report Chairman Patterson stated last month we put the Cody Report on the agenda and that they talk about preparing an ordinance requesting improvements be done in regards to the Cody Report. Ms. Morris asked how this new study that is going to be done is going to effect them. Ms. Rickelman stated it's not going to address salaries. It is going to address is the person doing the job doing it efficiently and educational wise is this person suited for this job and department wise is this department staff adequate or are they understaffed or overstaffed. They give you enhancements as to how you can more efficiently operate your department. Ms. Morris asked if that would not maybe reflect on some of these job descriptions. Ms. Rickelman stated she would think so. Ms. Roberts stated she brought some examples of job specifications. She stated the specifications say the things that this person might be doing and should be able to do. The job description actually says what the person is required to do and what they are evaluated on. Chairman Patterson stated the Merit Board spent a lot of time working on the employee handbook and asked where it went. She stated she is not happy to see all of their hard work has disappeared somewhere along the lines. Ms. Morris stated being on the Committee, when they did that it was her understanding it also had to go to the unions to make sure there was no conflict with the contracts. Ms. Roberts made a motion to write a memo to the Acting City Manager to please find out where the employee handbook is, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Ms. Roberts stated she doesn't know where they should go with the position descriptions. Chairman Patterson stated she thinks they need to formulate an ordinance and make a formal request to Council that the City create job descriptions for each and every job. Chairman Patterson stated once the new people are on board probably around September they should start working on this. Chairman Patterson stated she would restate it on the September agenda. Ms. Roberts made a motion to continue on the Cody Report in September using it as a guideline but actually formulating some real position descriptions, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Druq Testing Chairman Patterson stated the Drug Testing was covered with the explanations they received tonight. She stated however it will be in conjunction with the last representative Mr. Westfall and will remain on the agenda. Page 6 Merit Board May 22, 1991 1 60 1 11110 Chairman Patterson stated she would not be able to attend another meeting until August. She stated the only issue that concerns them greatly is getting the legal clarification. If that should come in in the next week she would like to call a special meeting. Ms. Roberts made a motion to reconvene in August, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -U. Citizens Comments Ms. Rickelman stated maybe she needs to approach this reclassification of Finance Officers position and withdraw her request for a hearing. She stated she understood Mr. Munoz sent a memo to the Merit Board back in March. She stated her case was not tabled and it was just pushed to the side. I don't think in all fairness to her, you acted on Mr. Looney's and you haven't acted on mine. Chairman Patterson stated she is very sorry as to what has happened. Ms. Rickelman stated she asked for a hearing and she was denied. Mr. Looney didn't even ask for a hearing and you acted on his grievance. What is the difference between mine and his. Chairman Patterson stated his was within his job. He wasn't trying to get his job reclassified. Ms. Rickelman stated you acted on Rob DeLoach's at the last meeting. You moved him from a 15 to a 17 because there was an error in the Cody Report. That was a reclassification. Chairman Patterson stated that was a reclassification due to an error. Ms. Rickelman stated if she would have had her hearing perhaps it would have come out that hers was an error too but she has yet to get a hearing from this Board. Ms. Roberts stated it was her understanding that they felt if they made a decision and they were overruled then they would lose totally. Ms. Rickelman asked how they could be overruled. Chairman Patterson stated you have to understand Mr. Johnson was City Manager at the time and he made it clear in a memo that if they did not know the legal ramifications of what they were doing that the whole thing could be a waste of time. That is why we requested in writing to the City Attorney. Ms. Roberts stated her personal opinion is they now have an Acting City Manager and if he is willing to take a responsibility for his decision to promote her then we should let him have that responsibility. Ms. Rickelman stated the last two job descriptions haven't gone to Council yet. Chairman Patterson asked if that is supposed to come from this board. Ms. Rickelman stated no one knows to amend their book unless that is done. Page 7 Merit Board May 22, 1991 Ms. Rickelman stated we are in the budget process now. She stated she is maxed out and that is why it is important to her. She stated if she doesn't move up two grades she doesn't get any more money and now as being in charge of the Finance Department she feels it is even more weight on her case. Mr. Munoz has moved up to Acting City Manager and she has taken charge of the Finance Department and yet I am two grades lower than all the other assistants in the City. Chairman Patterson asked Ms. Rickelman if she has received an increase in pay. Ms. Rickelman stated she is at her same rate of pay and she doesn't expect anymore. Her whole thing in coming to the board was she was discriminated against and that is evident in all of the documentation the board has. Chairman Patterson stated if she is more than a Finance Officer than what needs to be changed is not the Finance Officer pay which is adequate but the fact that she is doing a different job and therefore there should be another in between Assistant to the Finance Director. She stated Mr. Munoz needs to look at that and call it a different job and request that it be made a different position. Ms. Roberts asked Ms. Rickelman if she is doing Mr. Munoz's old job. Ms. Rickelman stated she doesn't do all of it. She stated she is disliked throughout the City because she questions purchase orders and other things. She stated if she doesn't do that we get written up by the auditors. She stated it is either she is liked by the people she works with or she is doing her job. To her doing her job properly is more important than being liked. Chairman Patterson stated when the City Clerk was Acting City Manager she received an increase in pay and she asked Ms. Rickelman if she is performing Mr. Munoz work how come she hasn't received an increase. Ms. Rickelman stated the money is not important. Chairman Patterson stated if she is performing in that job there should be some recompense somewhere. Chairman Patterson stated the pay scale is in line with what other Finance Officers are doing in other cities. What we hear from you and Mr. Munoz is that actually Ms. Rickelman is functioning in a higher responsibility therefore it is the job label that is wrong and not so much the pay scale. At this time, the Committee discussed the procedures for presenting job descriptions to Council. Ms. Roberts made a motion to check on where they are at with all of the job classification changes and to do the appropriate paper work involved, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 3 -0. Chairman Patterson asked for a motion for Ms. Rickelman. Ms. Roberts stated she was included in that group. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Ms. Roberts made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Morris. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Kruckmeyer Page 8 Merit Board May 22, 1991 7