Loading...
04-24-1991 Now wI CITY OF EDGEWATER MERIT BOARD REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 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 7:07 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24, 1991, in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members present were: Ms. Karen Grasherger, Ms. Jan Morris, Ms. Shirley Roberts, and Ms. Doris Patterson. Ms. CeCe Stevens was excused. Also present were Karen Rickelman and Councilperson NoraJane Gillespie. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of March 27, 1991 were presented for approval. Ms. Grasberger moved to approve the Minutes. Ms. Morris seconded. Ms. Roberts stated somewhere in the minutes it stated do process instead of due process. Chairman Patterson stated she spoke with the City Clerk who gave her some pointers. She stated the purpose of voting on the minutes is not so much the grammatical corrections but any comments or omissions on the text itself. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Request for Legal Clarification of Merit Board Duties Update Chairman Patterson stated the Attorney has not had a chance to review those materials. She stated she was reprimanded that she has to go through the Manager or the Council to speak to the Attorney because of legal fees. She stated it would have to continue on the agenda. Ms. Grasberger stated as Chairman of one of the boards for the City, we don't have access to the City Attorney unless we go through Council or the Manager. Councilperson Gillespie stated that was news to her. She stated she would ask for clarification. Ms. Morris stated it has always been her understanding that you go through the Manager because the Attorney is going to bill the City for it so they have to have some kind of record of it. Review of News Position Descriptions Ms. Grasberger made a motion to accept as presented the Water Plant Supervisor position and Police Lieutenant position, seconded by Ms. Morris. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. NEW BUSINESS: Invitation to Union Representatives Chairperson Patterson stated the Secretary provided the names of the Union Representatives and sent out memos inviting one representative from each union to address the Merit Board. Chairperson Patterson stated since Ms. Rickelman was there, if members had specific questions they could entertain them at that time. Ms. Grasherger asked her to speak a little bit about the SPEA. 0 1110 SMO Ms. Rickelman then explained the concept of the union she belongs to. Ms. Morris asked if it was not true since the clause about the merit was taken out of there that you can't go to the union at all about the merit system o,r the Cody Study. Ms. Rickelman stated that was her understanding but at the last board meeting they told her she could grieve anything but now she understands the Police Department in their negotiations on the contract, they got classifications of the Police Detectives and one other job upgraded even though it's not in the union contract. Chairman Patterson stated this is the purpose of having the Unions Representatives speak and one reason they are bringing this up is to see how not only the grievance procedure interfaces but also the drug testing and the upgrades which need to be communicated to the parties interested. Councilperson Gillespie stated if the employee is not satisfied with the results of the Merit Board, they have the option to come forward to Council. If the Merit Board enters into a settlement or a ruling that satisfies the grieving employee, then it ends there. She stated the Merit Board is one of the most important functioning boards of the City. They make things equal and fair and just for everyone. She stated they have had a great deal of input from the public and not good. She was told it is a duplicate of Titusville's Cody Report with the name changed. They did not take into the input from the Department Heads who were not put into that properly. It was never received with a City Managers section. Ms. Grasberger asked how much the Cody Report cost the City. Ms. Rickelman stated $5,000. Chairman Patterson stated she is glad they requested legal clarification because it looks like it is something that is going to have some positive repercussion and gain some credibility for Edgewater. Ms. Grasberger stated the board needs to move forward from trying to do its job to doing its job. Chairman Patterson stated if there was no other question about the contract they could move on to the next item on the agenda. Ms. Rickelman stated there are certain requirements for requesting someone to be subjected to a drug test. She stated all new employees are required to take a drug test but as far as spot checking, I think you have a problem with the union. Chairman Patterson asked if all of the union contracts are the same in the way they approach the drug testing. Ms. Rickelman stated she didn't know about the PBA but PEA and SPEA are basically the same. Chairman Patterson asked if drug testing was addressed in the new employee handbook. Ms. Morris stated yes it was. There was quite a discussion on what is considered reasonable cause and who is going to be the judge of that. Page 2 Merit Board April 24, 1991 L Chairman Patterson stated all employees should be tested for drugs on a regular basis and the randomness being they never know when they are going to be tested. Councilperson Gillespie stated that Councilman Mike Hays is a medical technician and he has been checking out the feasibility of the toe nail test. That shows up until in excess of a year use and he has been talking to the companies because they do use it at the hospital where hp is on staff. It is reliable, federally accepted and court tested. The Board went on to further discuss drug testing. Ms. Grasberger asked Ms. Rickelman if the $3.50 a week for union dues across the board regardless of salary grade or income level. Ms. Rickelman stated it is $3.50 for the general employees and she thought it was still $3.50 for the police. Ms. Roberts made a motion to continue discussion on the grievance procedures and the drug testing at the next meeting, seconded by Ms. Grasberger. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. DISCUSSION ITEMS /CORRESPONDENCE: Memo Requesting Numerical Grade Level and Grade Classification of Job Description and Remainder of Police Lieutenant Job Description Chairman Patterson stated it was discussed above under unfinished business and it has been dispensed with. Memo Inviting One Union Representative From Each Union to Address the Merit Board Chairman Patterson stated this has also been discussed. She stated a memo has been sent out to each union representative and we have heard from Ms. Karen Rickelman this evening and she hopes to see the other members at the next meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Ms. Roberts stated at her first meeting, she felt the job descriptions in the Cody Report are merely job specifications. She stated there is really no criteria to judge one mans work against another mans work. Ms. Grasberger stated the Cody Report is fairly new to the City and from what she has heard it sounds like it was just flip flopped from somewhere else to here and it is very generic. Ms. Roberts stated it is not fair to the employees. Councilperson Gillespie stated the Cody Report doesn't credit the employees for the work they do and it doesn't specifically address the points it should to give them full credit for what they do do. Chairman Patterson asked who ordered the Cody Report. Councilperson Gillespie stated the City Manager. Chairman Patterson asked who has the right to have it reviewed or looked at. Councilperson Gillespie stated she assumed the Council could take it under consideration and she assumes other than that it would be the recommendation of the City Manager and at this time it would be the Interim City Manager. Page Merit Board April 24, 1991 '411w NINO' Ms. Rickelman stated in her department there is not one position description in the Cody Report for keying in payroll. Ms. Morris stated she knows personally her job description was not touched except for changing a couple of words. She stated all secretaries were upgraded to staff assistants. Each and every staff assistant's job is different. Ms. Grasberger asked Ms. Rickelman if she gives each of her employees more of a delineation of what their specific job duties are. She then asked her when they get their annual review that specifically lets them know what is expected of you verses you. Ms. Rickelman stated when she evaluated her people before she was told not to do it anymore was keep a performance log with their pluses and minuses so when it was their evaluation time she would run down the list and she would do their scores accordingly and then she made their goals for the next year. She stated she was told not to do that anymore so she basically does not do that for the evaluation sit down period. She stated with the new management she could probably change back to her old ways. She stated with her people she gives them goals and objectives and she lets them know if she would like them to take some schooling or whatever. Councilperson Gillespie stated when she came on Council there was a former City employee who had been dismissed and had they not had a daily log type record the City could have been in very large trouble. Ms. Roberts stated then Edgewater employees do not sign any position descriptions or signed standards that they have to adhere to at all. If they don't have any standards, how do you measure what they have done. Chairman Patterson stated if this report has vast omissions, which she thinks the City Manager job should certainly be described in the Cody Report. If it is a study of the City, then let's study the City. Ms. Morris asked when the Cody Report was accepted, was it not done by ordinance. Was it not in there that this was to be reviewed yearly. Ms. Rickelman stated it was reviewed in that the union negotiations upgraded the minimum and maximum by ten percent. That is what Mr. Johnson called it being reviewed. The Board went on to talk about the Cody Report. The Board then discussed merit raises and cost of living raises. Ms. Morris made a motion to put this on the next month's agenda and discuss the feasibility of presenting it to the Council for review, seconded by Ms. Roberts. Motion CARRIED 4 -0. Ms. Roberts stated she would bring some examples of position descriptions to the next meeting. The Board then discussed the procedures for creating an ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Ms. Grasberger made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Roberts. The meeting adjourned at B:12 p.m. Minutes submitted by Page 4 Merit Board Lisa Kruckmeyer April 24, 1991