03-27-1991 THE CITY OF EDGEWATER
MERIT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 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
7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 27, 1991, in the Conference Room of
City Hall.
ROLL CALL:
Members present were: Ms. Cece Stevens, Ms. Karen Grasberger,
Ms. Jan Morris, Ms. Shirley Roberts, and Ms. Doris Patterson.
Also present were Acting City Manager Fred Munoz, Karen
Rickelman, Karl Looney, and Debbie Sigler, Recording Secretary.
Chairperson Patterson stated she was going to try and address
everyone by their last name. She stated some of the members
asked her why they were able to vote on the minutes the very
first time. She stated on May 23, 1990, which was her first
meeting she did vote. She stated the approval of minutes is a
routine thing and when she knew she was going to be a member of
the Merit Board, she took it upon herself to familiarize herself
with the recent activities of the board so she had some idea of
what she was voting on.
Chairperson Patterson stated on Page 192 of Roberts Rules it says
in regards to voting for yourself when you are nominated within
the board yet this does not prevent a member from voting for
himself for any office or other position as voting for a delegate
or member of a committee nor from voting when other members are
included within the motion" and that would apply to voting for
yourself.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mrs. Roberts stated on Page 2 there should be quotation marks in
the fifth paragraph around there is nothing in the description
that says and other duties as assigned. She also stated on Page
5 in the seventh paragraph there should be quotation marks around
this came to our attention through a request from Mrs. Karen
Rickelman for a review by the Merit Board of the denial of her
grade reclassification. She also stated, in the next paragraph
should have quotations marks around this has become a problem due
to the fact that the Merit Board was in existence prior to the
City Manager form of government. There is also the consideration
that the City Manager serves as the Personnel Officer. She also
stated in the next paragraph there should be quotation marks
around this has become a problem due to the fact that the Merit
Board duties as outlined in Attachment A were in existence prior
to the City Manager form of government.
Chairperson Patterson asked Mrs. Roberts if she received a copy
of the draft that went to the City Attorney. Mrs. Roberts stated
yes she did.
Ms. Grasberger stated on Page 5 in the fifth paragraph it should
read Ms. Grasberger stated he didn't reject Mrs. Rickelman's he
rejected the recommendation of Mr. Munoz.
Chairperson Patterson stated she was not clear on paragraph 15.
Ms. Grasberger stated they were discussing the lack of number
grades on the three positions that had been presented to them.
She stated she would like it to read Ms. Grasberger made a motion
to request further clarification regarding the numerical grade
classification of the specific grade classification of the
specific grade assignments for each position description,
seconded by Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Grasberger made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected,
seconded by Mrs. Roberts. Motion CARRIED 5 -0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Request for Legal Clarification of Merit Board Duties
Chairperson Patterson stated there has been none so this will
remain on the agenda until such time as we hear.
Pro - Tempore Chairman Election
Chairperson Patterson read the Pro - Tempore section in the by-
laws. She stated they do need a Pro - Tempore and asked the board
to think about it for the April meeting when they would vote.
Chairperson Patterson stated it is a very rare thing for the Pro -
Tempore to have to run the meeting. Mrs. Roberts stated if in
fact Ms. Morris did not want to do it she would volunteer to do
it. Ms. Morris stated it might be best because she has family
emergencies that could take her away at any time.
Chairperson Patterson asked if there is a motion on the floor to
vote. Ms. Stevens so moved, seconded by Ms. Grasberger. Motion
CARRIED 5 -0.
Chairperson Patterson stated let it be noted that Mrs. Roberts is
the new Pro - Tempore Chairman.
Review of New Position Descriptions
Chairperson Patterson stated in reference to this, she pulled out
page 6 and 7 of the Cody Report and as an example, she looked at
the class description of the Fire Chief and she looked at these
items to go by in conjunction with the memo.
Mrs. Roberts stated one of the questions was that there were no
credentials required of the Police Lieutenant or education and
she thought that they were going to send the board members
another copy.
Chairperson Patterson stated she did not request any because of
the changes with the City Manager.
Mrs. Roberts stated after reviewing this she is sure it was just
an oversight because every other position has some sort of
credentialing or education requirements.
Ms. Morris stated it looked like they just forgot to give them
the second page.
Ms. Grasberger stated there still was no numerical grade.
Chairperson Patterson asked if there was a motion on the floor in
regards to the numerical grade.
Ms. Grasberger stated she thought they had to go back to whatever
was said last month and hold themselves to it. She stated they
were requesting further clarification regarding the numerical
grade of the specific three assignments that they have been asked
to review. She stated she doesn't know that they want to proceed
until they get them.
Ms. Grasberger made a motion to postpone the omitted job
descriptions until they receive a numerical grade level and
classification. Chairperson Patterson stated according to
Roberts Rules of Order that she read when discussion starts the
motion died so they are back to square one.
Page 2
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
410 4i1
Chairperson Patterson asked if they were going to make a motion
to vote on one position tonight and to postpone the remainder
until they can get the numerical information.
Ms. Grasberger asked if there will be any delay on getting the
other two if they vote on this one. She asked if they will get
them more expediently if they delay voting on any of them.
Mr. Munoz stated the fact that they vote on one and not the
others shouldn't slow things up and by the same token not voting
on any of them should speed them up.
Chairperson Patterson asked if they entertained a motion from the
floor on voting or is someone going to present a motion. Ms.
Roberts moved that they write a memorandum to the appropriate
person requesting this information for the next meeting, seconded
by Ms. Stevens. Motion CARRIED 5 -0.
NEW BUSINESS:
Memo of invitation to interim City Manager
Chairperson Patterson asked if there was any discussion,
comments, motions to invite him.
Ms. Stevens stated he was there.
Chairperson Patterson stated she is glad he is there, but is
there a motion to invite him in a formal memo.
Ms. Stevens stated she hopes he doesn't feel he has to be
invited to come. She stated they all wish he would come often.
Mr. Munoz stated he does receive an agenda and if he sees
something of interest and he thinks he should be there he will
make himself available.
Chairperson Patterson stated in view of the fact that Mr. Munoz
is there tonight, the memo may seem redundant but she would like
it to go down as a fact that the invitation is open.
Ms. Grasberger stated she would like to move that they formally
thank him and extend an open invitation in writing, seconded by
Ms. Stevens.
Mrs. Roberts asked if his presence at the Merit Board would be in
any conflict with all of this if there was something that came up
that they needed to discuss.
Mr. Munoz stated he didn't know. They are recorded so anything
that is said or that is on the agenda can be heard on the tapes.
Chairperson Patterson stated in the Roberts Rules of Order, if
there are people present who are not members of the board and
they have expertise that the board needs, members have a right to
ask for their comment on a specific issue.
Chairperson Patterson stated the motion for the memo would have
to be remade because it died when they asked the other questions.
The Secretary reread the motion. The motion was to formally
thank Mr. Munoz and extend an open invitation to the Merit Board
meetings, seconded by Ms. Stevens. Motion CARRIED 5 -0.
Ms. Grasberger asked Mr. Munoz if he is not by virtue of the
position he is in now as Interim City Manager a member of each
and every board within the City.
Page 3
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
1110 41100
Mr. Munoz stated he was not sure. He stated he is available to
attend any of the meetings just like the public is.
DISCUSSION ITEMS /CORRESPONDENCE:
Police Lieutenant job description
Classification of specific grade assignments for each position
description
Chairperson Patterson stated they already, by virtue of their
previous discussion, took care of the above items.
Ms. Stevens stated last month there was a big discussion about
whether or not Ms. Rickelman was allowed to talk during a
meeting. She asked Chairperson Patterson what she found out
about that.
Chairperson Patterson stated it says in Roberts Rules that with
all do respect, they are not participants of the board and should
not speak unless they are specifically addressed.
There was some discussion at that time as to whether board
members and Council members vote at their first meetings.
NEW BUSINESS:
Union contracts and how they relate to Merit Board functions and
duties
Chairperson Patterson stated this came about at the last meeting
when we were talking about drug testing and she believes the
reason everyone wanted to discuss these things was to further
understand the contracts and how they relate to the City.
Ms. Morris asked if one of the Merit Board's functions or duties is
to be there for those who are not a member of the union in order
to appeal someone's decision or grievance. Chairperson Patterson
stated yes.
Ms. Roberts stated in an agreement between the City of Edgewater
and the Volusia County Public Employees Association it does list
management rights. She asked if an employee belonged to a union
wouldn't they take their grievance to the union prior to bringing
it here.
Ms. Grasberger stated they do not take it to the union prior to
the Merit Board, they take it to the union or to the Merit Board.
Ms. Grasberger asked Chairperson Patterson if she wanted to get
back to the drug testing issue.
Chairperson Patterson stated not tonight, that issue was tabled.
She stated the reason the union issue came up was because they
found out they have three different contracts and non -union
employees and the situation with the City Manager /Personnel
Director conflict and how everything fits in. She stated this is
a discussion to study how these things tie in, how they effect
the Merit Board and how they effect the things they can and can
not do. She stated the reason they are on the agenda is for the
board to do their homework. She stated they can get copies and
they should study them.
Ms. Roberts stated if in fact they do get the City Attorney to
come one night and speak with them, could she give them some
guidelines. She stated she would like a copy of the contracts so
she can review them.
Page 4
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
Chairperson Patterson stated the Secretary could get them copies
of the contracts.
Ms. Grasberger stated she didn't think the City Attorney would be
coming, she would just respond to them.
Ms. Morris stated the Personnel Manual covers a lot of this.
She stated there are procedures set down for all employees, union
and non -union to follow.
Chairperson Patterson stated the reason for bringing this up is
because the Merit Board usually gets involved in the heat of the
battle and they want to know what is coming. She stated in order
to do that they need to understand how the contracts work, how
they fit into the system and how the Merit Board fits into the
whole picture so they don't give erroneous advice to people.
Ms. Roberts stated she feels like the more they know about what
is going on, including the employees handbook, the better they
are going to do their job.
Ms. Grasberger stated it is important for the new members of the
board to understand and get it clarified enough that they know
they have a description of what the board is supposed to do but
there is that gray area that still exists. She stated once that
is clarified they will be able to move forward.
Ms. Grasberger made a motion that the members receive copies of
the employee handbook and the contracts for their perusal and for
the issue to be tabled temporarily with the possibility of future
motions with regard to the same, seconded by Ms. Roberts. Motion
CARRIED 5 -0.
CITIZENS COMMENTS
Mr. Munoz stated the Merit Board is an important part to the
employees. There are two mechanisms to which an employee can
have a grievance settled. That is of course, the Chain of
Command through the union contract whether it is PRA, PEA, and
SPEA and of course the Merit Board. Some things can be settled
routinely through the Chain of Command. Some are more suitable
through the union and others, not addressing the union, must be
addressed through the merit system, a Merit Board. The union
represents all employees even those who are not members, even
non -union members vote on the election.
Ms. Rickelman stated they vote on the contract.
Mr. Munoz stated they vote on the contract but if they have a
grievance and he's not a union paid member then of course a union
is not ready to give them legal counsel. He doesn't know what
services the union provides other than allowing them to vote.
Basically if none they don't pay they are basically getting a
free ride on all the efforts of the dues paying people.
Ms. Grasberger asked what they vote on.
Mr. Munoz stated they vote on the acceptance of the contract.
Mr. Munoz stated unions are usually the result of management
failure. At some point a union came in because management
failed. In this type of environment, you never know who you are
going to have; you may have a very benevolent manager and you
say well we don't need a union, just about that time you lose
that person and you don't know who you end up with. The union
does provide important functions. Mr. Munoz handed out an
article to the members. One of the functions the Merit Board is
under Section 13.22 Organization for Personnel Administration and
Page 5
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
460 kil
(c)(7) which is hold and conduct hearings involving appeals of
any classified employees from a decision made by supervisor
affecting his employment or terms and conditions hereof. From
this particular article it seems this board would be ideal to do
the predeprivation hearing. You'll notice when you read it that
most people think this sort of hearing is only for someone who is
fired, but the law and the statutes have expanded so it could be
a suspension. If someone gets suspended with no pay for a week,
they could come before you to hear all the facts and make a
determination. A layoff or abolishing of a job is one way to
fire someone. A loss of status could be another thing that is
brought to you. The employees will make a determination where he
is going to have the most chance of success. If he thinks the
chain of command is going to work for him he is going to use
that. If he thinks the union can represent him and they can do
the best job for him then he will elect that avenue. If not he
might come through you. The Merit Board and the City Manager,
the City Manager is the Personnel Officer as assigned by the
Councilmembers. All of the personnel decisions like
classifications have to go through you. You sign off on it, you
review it looking for this equity, review and recommend policies
for safety. Review and recommend a position classification plan
to all merit system employees with the consideration of the City
Manager. So you review and you provide feedback to the City
Manager and also to the councilmembers. In some situations, the
City Manager has a different view than the conclusion of the
Merit Board. The Merit Board presents their finding to the
Councilmembers and then if the City Manager feels otherwise, he
can make his presentation and the ultimate arbitrator would be
the Mayor and Council, who will decide whether your
justifications are a more persuasive argument than my argument.
They basically make the final decision. I wanted to respond to
the issue in reference to Mrs. Karen Rickelman; whether I should
have been the one to come to the Board as the Finance Director.
This developed when Mrs. Rickelman noticed a discrepancy between
her job title, her function, her grading. These are other people
who do not supervise the number of employees that she has on a
daily basis, do not fulfill all the functions that she does on a
daily basis, and there was a discrepancy between her grade level
which is 17 and the grade level of other people of grade 19. She
came to me and presented those facts and I reviewed the material.
I felt yes and then I criticized myself for not having
investigated and pointed this out earlier. One of the problems
was that the Cody Study was not presented to the department heads
for review before it was given to the Merit Board so we had
basically no input.
Ms. Grasberger asked if they can clarify something. Can it be
noted here that you are speaking now, as the supervisor, you are
not speaking now as the Acting City Manager.
Mr. Munoz stated right. He continued, we did get the package.
Initially, in his department, he passed them out to let his
people see what their job description was.
Mr. Munoz stated department heads did not have an opportunity to
review the final report.
Chairperson Patterson reiterated that input was not asked for
from the supervisors before presenting the final Cody Report.
Mr. Munoz stated he remembers quite clearly receiving it and
making copies of each individuals, gave them a copy of it and
shortly within less than an hour he came back and picked them up
and he turned them back. Once we got it back, it was as an
accomplished fact. At any rate, once Mrs. Karen Rickelman made
the assertion 1 looked at it, it made sense. No action was taken
on the initial memo I sent so I made my memo a little stronger
Page 6
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
the second time and no action was taken on it. By her
statements, Karen Rickelman was getting kind of frustrated, she
was waiting to go to the next step, which was to come to the
Merit Board and of course we have been frustrating that process.
Finally I sent my last memo and I thought was going to get
reaction because I made it a very strong and persistent memo. It
needed to be that way to bring it to a head, and of course, a
decision was made not to reclassify. I told Mrs. Rickelman we
went through the process and it is a no. Now if she is still
unhappy with that then she can appeal to the Merit Board and that
is what she did. I don't think you have received it yet, but now
as Acting City Manager, I am sending that request for your
consideration. I think all of the documentation I have provided
makes a very strong case for her to be reclassified. You'll be
getting that because 1 have given it to the City Clerk already.
I feel that I worked at that particular time for the City
Manager, I made my presentation to him, if he disapproved it then
I let my employee know and if they are not happy with that, then
they can appeal because it is the employee appealing. As a
department head I don't have to appeal to you unless it is
something that effects me. I don't have to appeal to the board
for my employees because I work for the City Manager. She has a
chance to come here; you are here for to protect their interests
to make sure the employees are treated fairly. The Merit Board is
a mechanism to take care of some of their grievances. If they
didn't have that I think a lot of them would be very frustrated.
If someone has any questions for me I will answer them to the
best of my knowledge.
Ms. Grasberger stated a question arises whether we need to send a
follow up letter to Acting City Attorney Nikki Clayton because
your comments now create another situation that we need
clarification on. He is in fact the Supervisor who made the
recommendation initially which was overridden by the then City
Manager. He now, as Acting City Manager, wants to override that.
Are we in a position to then get caught in that. I think we are
going to have to follow up on this.
Mr. Munoz stated he didn't know if he was overriding it because
as you know Mr. Johnson said in his memo that he would consider
it again at the next budget.
Chairperson Patterson stated when she spoke to Mr. Johnson in his
office getting information he also pointed out that comes up in
July anyway and we are getting close to that time of year.
Ms. Grasberger's concern about the procedure that we are in the
middle of now is understood. We are waiting for an update from
the City Attorney based on the Code Section and facts that were
stated in our minutes, that the City Manager position came after
the Merit Board was established. Although many cities operate
with both concurrently their charters address that situation.
Ours does not so that is something that we cannot proceed with
until we hear from the City Attorney. Perhaps we could get some
feedback from her and meet again before our regular meeting.
Mr. Munoz stated he thinks the Merit Board can make a decision
with respect to a City Managers decision. You study the facts,
you come up with a determination and, as I said before, when the
City Manager is of a different opinion than the Merit Board, the
final arbitrator is the City Council. So I think your decision
should not be completely influenced by the City Manager. You
would have to look at the fact and decide what determination you
make and that determination may be the same as the City Manager,
but it doesn't necessarily have to be. You may come to a
different conclusion, so I think it is well within your power to
evaluate it and evidently that wasn't done last time because
there was a question of jurisdiction.
Page 7
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
Chairperson Patterson stated that has not been answered and they
can't proceed. To be fair they have to hear from her on that.
The other issue you brought up tonight in the discussion will be
in the minutes for our review next time. We will try to get the
minutes as soon as possible.
Chairperson Patterson asked if there were any other citizen
comments.
Ms. Stevens asked if there were supposed to be two City employees
on the Merit Board.
Chairperson Patterson stated that has not been voted on. It is
coming.
Ms. Stevens asked if that will be decided after the Charter is
voted on?
Mrs. Rickelman stated the board made reference to the fact that
the Merit Board was in existence prior to the City Manager being
in Edgewater. She stated we did have a City Manager when this
was on the Charter ballot. This was voted on in November of 75.
We had Dale Bryant as City Manager prior to that.
Ms. Grasberger stated you didn't have a City Manager /Council form
of government.
Chairperson Patterson stated it was the City Manager /Council
form of government that was not in place at the time. That is
causing us this conflict and we needed to get clarification. The
Chair recognized Mrs. Roberts.
Mrs. Roberts stated she's not sure if she understands all of
this. What she heard the Acting City Manager say was that one of
the functions of the Merit Board was to hear a grievance and then
decide. If we are in disagreement with the City Manager, as
Personnel Officer, then the two of us go to Council and they
decide.
Mr. Munoz stated that is what his envision is. The final
arbitrator of all of these is those members of the Council. Just
like everything else any decision the LDRA board decides on they
can override, they can change or they can concur the decision.
Mrs. Roberts stated in that case we don't really have a problem.
We should hear and make a decision.
Chairperson Patterson stated she agreed with her in the beginning
until she read Mr. Johnson's memo which stated basically if we
weren't careful and didn't do it properly it could be thrown out
on a technicality. We have discussed this at great length and
looked at all of the code items and found that we needed the
legal clarification so as soon as she gives us the staff of
approval we will be happy to decide.
Mr. Munoz asked thrown out on a technicality by who?
Chairperson Patterson stated if you read the language it does
look like a two way meaning and we need a black and white answer.
Ms. Grasberger stated prior to your being an employee of the City
or Elly Johnson being an employee of the City, a long time ago
Ms. Rickelman came before this board. In fairness to her even
though we are delaying this I'd like to see when we make a
decision this time that it has some validity. The last time a
decision was made by this board in relation to Ms. Rickelman we
came to a dead end. We made a decision and it was overridden and
we are trying to avoid that same type of thing again. She stated
she would like to see some legal clarification come once and for
all. Page 8
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
lio
Ms. Rickelman stated the Charter says the decisions and
recommendations of the Merit Board shall be final unless appealed
to the City Council which may reverse such decisions or
recommendation only by unanimous vote of the City Council. The
first problem I think we had was that we sent it to Council for a
vote. It should have been sent to Council with a memo saying
the decision of the board is this. If I didn't like your
decision than I could appeal to the council. I was happy with
the decision of the board but it went to Council in the form of
do you agree or disagree. That was not the question. It should
not have been a question to the Council. It should have been
this is what the Merit Board did. The second problem was it was
put into the City Attorney's hands to get legal clarification.
That was done years ago and still has not been clarified. My
jacket is still the way it was even though the board made a
recommendation to put all the data in in order to kind of negate
those two negative evaluations done on me. My personnel jacket
is still like it was with those negative evaluations. Mr. Munoz
came on board. Mr. Powers was eliminated from his position. I
was reevaluated by my new supervisor and I got my retro merit pay
or whatever as the board recommended. This board I feel is for
the employees. It is not in conflict with the Personnel Officers
duties and responsibilities. That is the purpose of putting this
in the charter so we have some place to go. Because of City
Manager's who performed in ways that employees were biased we
started a union. 1 am the one that started the union for the
City because we had an employee who came into work one day and
was fired. Plus I had to take him to the Merit Board over giving
one employee a certain percentage of pay but there wasn't anymore
for the rest of us. I took him to the Merit Board and I won
that decision also. That is the purpose of this board, so the
employees have some place to go and in that instance we didn't
have a union so 1 brought it to this board. I brought this
grievance to this board because in our union contract it does not
discuss the merit. It does not discuss classification. That was
taken out. So my recourse was here and that is why I came here
but now we are having this controversy over his duties, your
duties. I still don't understand the conflict.
Ms. Roberts stated she had to agree with Ms. Rickelman. She
doesn't understand the conflict either. If in fact it is the
boards duty to review what you've written to us to make a
decision and then present our decision for the Council's
decision. It is just the board's duty to review and come to a
conclusion. That is the way I would interpret it.
Chairperson Patterson stated that is the way it would have been
in the old way but with the City Manager /Council form of
government that changes the rules of the game. We need that
clarification. The memo has been gone for a week and a half and
it is coming soon, the best thing we can say is we are going to
move forward with this. We are not worried about making a
decision, that is not the issue.
Ms. Stevens stated she guesses they were anticipating that if Mr.
Johnson was still the manager, there would have been a problem..
We were just trying to make sure we had full legal ground to say
o.k. Mr. Johnson if you are going to give us a problem, well
have the Attorney settle it.
Ms. Roberts stated then what we are really asking the Attorney to
do is tell us if we make a decision the only people who can rule
it is the City Council.
Chairperson Patterson stated, yes, then we can proceed with our
job.
Page 9
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
Mr. Looney stated he didn't understand any of it. Mr. Munoz is
the City Manager. He is recommending giving it to her so I can't
see why you need all this clarification.
Ms. Grasberger explained that he was also the supervisor who made
the recommendation. He also now is wearing several hats and even
though it takes a little longer to do, we don't now just say
alright, fine we'll forget this and make a decision based on what
he has said tonight because he is the Acting City Manager. I
think we need to protect the decision that is made by the board
with regards to Mrs. Rickeiman.
Mr. Munoz stated that is why it shouldn't be just based on the
City Manager's recommendation. All the documentation that you
see there is quite clear if you look at the job descriptions of
the other people who are grade 19 and you look at the job
functions they fulfill and the job functions of Mrs. Rickelman.
You take in the supervision of seven employees, the evaluation of
seven employees on an annual basis and everything else that goes
with supervising seven people verses someone who doesn't
supervise anyone but themselves. That position holds a grade of
19 you take away the ball bat I think the only conclusion is that
she should be a 19. If the Councilmembers had it before them I
feel certain that they would approve my recommendation.
Chairperson Patterson stated and you understand Ms. Grasberger's
point as well as the circumstances that have led you to be in
this wearing several hats. The decision that we are asking for
is not only for today's problem but it's also to secure the
board's position for future cases. After all we have to remember
that we serve the public and we serve basically all employees and
everyone has the same right. We need to know what that specific
right is once and for all and then we would be delighted to do
our job as a board having some kind of clout in making
recommendations.
Chairperson Patterson asked for any other citizen comments.
Ms. Rickelman stated you made reference to the rules and
regulations. Are we talking of that manual that certain
departments worked on?
Chairperson Patterson stated she is talking general terms. All
of the things that the Code of Ordinances and Charter and
everything that effects what we do. She stated we are supposed
to be getting a copy of all of it.
Ms. Rickeiman stated you will review it and send it on to
Council.
Ms. Grasberger stated they need to be cognizant of everything
that pertains to employees. We can only make a decision based on
the information we have.
Ms. Rickelman, showing the board the Employee guidebook, stated
this is what we used to have and this has been replaced by
something else. She stated she read in the minutes that you all
had changes to the proposed new one of these.
Chairperson Patterson stated this is what we are talking about.
We made our changes and we don't even know what has been
incorporated that we submitted. Just as you would not prepare a
financial statement without getting your ducks in a row we are
not going to assume a body of knowledge we do not have. We are
going to have at least the reference materials we can refer to to
do a good job.
Page 10
Merit Board
March 27, 1991
Ms. Rickelman asked if the new one has been accepted by the board
yet.
Ms. Grasberger stated it is in it's final state for presentation.
There was further discussion about the present whereabouts of
this manual.
There being no further business to discuss, Ms. Grasberger made a
motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Morris. Meeting adjourned at
8 :25 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Lisa Kruckmeyer
Page 11
Merit Board
March 27, 1991