Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1218th csc minutes1218th REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1218th Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, November 16, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: Cheryl Altis, Custodian Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works Rosemary Dawes, Laborer Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Edwin Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II William Kuchera, Custodian Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Jeffrey Michael, Equipment Operator II Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian Roger Ponder, Custodian Walter Rost, Custodian Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau Steve Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Seeman, Secretary, AFSCME Union Local 192 Thomas Stadler, Custodian Robert Stevenson, Police Chief Jim Sturgill, Construction Worker II Cheryl Wallman, Senior Engineering Inspector David Wallman, Equipment Operator III Ken Widmer, Custodian Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works Karen Worley, Program Supervisor Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-170 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1217th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, October 19, 2005, be approved as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-171 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the correspondence of November 1, 2005, from Jo Ann Polovich, Custodian, as approved for submission by Robert J. Beckley, Director of Public Works, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence for ninety (90) days, subject to submission of appropriate medical documentation. Paget 121 SN Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-172 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the correspondence of November 3, 2005, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting an open - competitive examination for Police Officer II and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of the announcement, an applicant must: 1. Be a citizen of the United Stales or resident alien with the right to work in the United States. 2. Be at least 21 years of age. 3. Have been awarded an Associate Degree in Law Enforcement or Police Administration or a Bachelor Degree in any non -Criminal Justice discipline. 4. Possess normal hearing, normal color vision, and normal visual functions and acuity in accordance with the Civil Service Commission approved visual acuity standard adopted January 17, 2002 as attached. By the closing date of the announcement, each applicant must submit a written statement from a physician, optometrist, or ophthalmologist giving the applicant's visual acuity in each eye corrected and uncorrected. (Eye examination must be within six (6) months from closing date of the announcement.) Surgically corrected vision may not be acceptable, i.e. radial keratotomy. 5. Be one of the following: a. A Certified Michigan Police Officer; OR b. Certifiable as a Police Officer in the State of Michigan, subject to verification by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) approved training academy; OR c. Be currently enrolled in an MCOLES approved training academy and certifiable by hiring date. 6. Be free from any physical defects, chronic diseases, organic diseases, organic or functional conditions, or mental and emotional instabilities which may tend to impair the efficient performance of duties or which might endanger the lives of others or the individual employee; and have received an MCOLES physical agility certificate within twelve (12) months from the closing dale of the announcement. 7. Possess and maintain a valid Michigan motor vehicle operators or chauffeur's license. 8. Not be an immediate family member of a swam officer employed by the Livonia Police Department. (Immediate family member includes: Spouse, Child, Step - Child, Mother, Father, Sister, Step -Mother, Step -Father, Sister-in-law, Brother, Brother-in-law, Aunt, Uncle, First Cousin, Grandparent, Grandchild, or member of the Employee's household.) Page 121M Regular Meeting November 16,2005 PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test — 50% Interview — 50% Psychological Evaluation — Pass/Fail Background Investigation — Pass/Fail Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-173 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the correspondence of November 3, 2005, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting an open - competitive examination for Police Service Aide and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of this announcement, applicants must: Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in the United States; and Be at least eighteen (18) years old; and Have a high school diploma or a valid equivalency certificate, and Possess and maintain a valid Michigan driver's license; and Not be an immediate family member of a sworn officer employed by the Livonia Police Department. (Immediate family member includes: Spouse, Child, Step - Child, Mother, Father, Sister, Step -Mother, Step -Father, Sister-in-law, Brother, Brother-in-law, Aunt, Uncle, First Cousin, Grandparent, Grandchild, or member of the Employee's household.) Be free from any physical defects, chronic diseases, organic diseases, organic or functional conditions, or mental and emotional instabilities which may lend to impair the efficient performance of duties or which might endanger the lives of others or the individual employee; and Possess an MCOLES Physical Agility certificate dated within twelve (12) months of the closing date of this announcement. Possess normal hearing, normal color vision, and normal visual functions and acuity in accordance with the Civil Service Commission approved visual acuity standard adopted January 17, 2002 as attached. By the closing date of the announcement, each applicant must submit a written statement from a physician, optometrist, or ophthalmologist giving the applicant's visual acuity in each eye corrected and uncorrected. (Eye examination must be within six (6) months from closing date of the announcement.) Surgically connected vision may not be acceptable, i.e. radial keratotomy. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test — 50% Interview — 50% Psychological Evaluation Pass / Fail Background Investigation Page 121 Bth Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-174 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the correspondence of November 3, 2005, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting an open - competitive examination for Police Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of this announcement, applicants must: Be a citizen of the United Slates, or a resident alien with the right to work in the United States; and Have a High School Diploma or a valid equivalency certificate; and Possess and maintain a valid Michigan Drivers License; and Have either at least five (5) years previous full-time work experience as a certified Police Officer or coordinator of a police/public safety vehicle fleet for a municipality, county sheriff or state police department; and Not be an immediate family member of a swom officer employed by the Livonia Police Department. (Immediate family member includes: Spouse, Child, Step - Child, Mother, Father, Sister, Step -Mother, Step -Father, Sister-in-law, Brother, Brother-in-law, Aunt, Uncle, First Cousin, Grandparent, Grandchild or member of the Employee's household.) Have the ability to lift and load/unload various equipment items with a gross weight of approximately seventy-five (75) pounds. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test -50% Interview -50% Psychological Evaluation Pass / Fail Background Investigation Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-175 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the correspondence of November 15, 2005, from Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian, requesting an extension for Temporary Clerk I employees, and having discussion with Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve a six-month extension for four (4) Temporary Clerk I employees. The Commission received and fled the Status of Temporary Employees Report for October 2005. Pages 121M Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 Ms. Lillibridge stated that in light of the approval of Ms. Monroe's request to extend the Clerk I positions, and regarding the Custodians, there are two (2) Union Local 192 Clerk I positions in Community Resources, that have been there a year. Ms. Lillibridge inquired if those have come to the Civil Service Commission for extension. Also, in the Treasurer's Office, the Tax Clerk 1, that is going on one (1) year in December. Mr. Biga replied that the positions in Community Resources were posted, giving people an opportunity to transfer and that he would double-check with the Department regarding extending those individuals. He added the written examination for Tax Clerk I is taking place on the 29th of November. Mr. Biga added that in the future if any of these come up for six (6) month temporary assignments, the Department will be contacted in advance to see if an extension is necessary. In accordance with the resolution in the previous AFSCME Union Local Grievance about postings, all positions will be posted to allow permanent employees to move to the available vacancy before hiring temporary employees. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-176 RESOLVED, That having reviewed City Council Resolution 501-05 establishing the classification and salary grade for the classification of Police Service Aide, and having discussion with Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby concur with the Council action establishing this classification with the same salary range approved by the City Council. Robert Biga, Human Resources Director stated he had a letter from Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works indicating what the situation is regarding filling Custodian positions and stating he anticipates vacancies and the two current temporary Custodians will have an opportunity to fill them on a permanent basis. Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated the Union wrote a Grievance regarding the filling of Custodial positions and they have the understanding that this should lead to these people becoming full-time, but they don't have a timeframe. Mr. Grzembski added that it has been a year. Mr. Wilson responded that there was a grievance written with regard to this matter and it is at the Step 1 level right now with a Step 1 response. The remedy being sought in that grievance look away the authority of the Civil Service Commission to review these temporary appointments, so that grievance was not going to be answered in the manner the Union wanted. Ms. Mahoney confirmed the grievance would not be coming before them for action. Mr. Grzembski reiterated they were looking for a timeframe because that was part of the response, if these positions get filled, then they may become permanent. Mr. Wilson replied that what was being sought as a remedy in the grievance cannot be accepted. Page 121M Regular Meeting November 16,2005 Mr. Campau inquired if Mr. Wilson knew approximately when these positions were going to be filled. Mr. Wilson responded that they would be looking for a certification from the eligible list and one of the positions will be posted. A current employee has accepted one position, which created an opening for one of these two people. They have to fill the second one and hopefully that will create a second opening for the other temporary employee. Mr. Tatigian inquired if the Union did not want the Commission to approve this. Mr. Grzembski inquired if he meant the extension. He added that the Union wants those people to be among their membership. Mr. Tatigian stated they did not have a choice what comes before the Commission. Mr. Grzembski inquired if the extension would be for another six (6) months. He added that would be a year and a half and that's a long time. Mr. Campau inquired if the Union wanted the Commission to approve the extension or not. Ms. Mahoney clarified that the concern of the Union was how long it was going to take. Mr. Grzembski added that was why this issue was brought up last month. Cheryl Altis, Custodian, stated the positions are needed, these people are really good employees, and it has been a year and one month as of the 21 x. She didn't think there should be another extension because if they are working now, they should be filled. Mr. Tatigian replied that if they didn't extend this, the employees may be out of work. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-177 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the request for extension of Temporary employees in Custodian positions, and having discussion with Cheryl Altis, Custodian (PPT); Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service; and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby concur in the request to extend the employment of two (2) Temporary Custodian employees for six (6) months. The Commission received and fled the Non -Resident report as of November 2005. The Livonia Police Officer's Association advised that LPOA Grievance 05-426 was going to arbitration; therefore, no action is needed. There were no reported expiring eligible lists for the month of December 2005. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-178 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Deputy Police Chief (1212 p.). Page l 1218th Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 Receive and File: a. Council Resolutions from the meeting of October 12, 2005, with minutes to be approved on October 26, 2005: CR 500-05 RESOLVED, that having considered the report and recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, dated September 27, 2005, submitted pursuant to Council Resolution 412-05, in connection with a resolution adopted by the Civil Service Commission on July 20, 2005, wherein the Commission recommended that the classification of Police Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator become a permanent full-time unrepresented classification, to be filled through an open -competitive examination, the Council does hereby concur in the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and hereby approves the establishment of the classifcation of Police Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator, with the following pay range: Step 1 Step 1.5 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 $37,440.00 $38,188.80 $38,937.60 $40,497.60 $42,120.00 1,440.00 1,468.80 1,497.60 1,557.60 1,620.00 18.00 18.36 18.72 19.47 20.25 CR 501-05 RESOLVED, that having considered the report and recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, dated September 27, 2005, submitted pursuant to Council Resolution 413-05, in connection with a resolution adopted by the Civil Service Commission on July 20, 2005, wherein the Commission recommended that the classification of Police Service Aide be established as a permanent, full-time unrepresented classification, to be filled through an open - competitive examination, the Council does hereby concur in part in the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and does hereby approve the establishment of the classification of Police Service Aide, with the following pay range: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 $23,067.20 $24,481.60 $25,896.00 $27,310.40 $28,724.80 $887.20 $941.60 $996.00 $1,050.40 $1,104.80 $11.09 $11.77 $12.45 $13.13 $13.81 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 $30,139.20 $31,553.60 $32,968.00 $34,424.00 $1,159.20 $1,213.60 $1,268.00 $1,324.00 $14.49 $15.17 $15.85 $16.55 FURTHER, the Council does hereby refer this matter to the Civil Service Commission for its concurrence. b. Affirmative Action Report for October 2005. Page 1218th RegWar Meeting November 16,2005 Mr. Wilson requested to take an agenda item out of order. He stated the Commission should notice that there was no Step 2 response from Management in AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #05-25 because the grievance was settled. At the step 2 meeting the employees' Foreman made an impassioned pitch for them, indicating that lines of communication had greatly improved, he felt the employees had learned from this and that the behavior would not be repeated. It was this reason the offer was made to reduce the written reprimands down to oral reprimands. The offer was accepted. In good faith, Management removed the written reprimands from the employees' file, new oral reprimands were drawn up and all that was needed was for the employees to sign the reprimands. Two employees signed the oral reprimands and the third employee refused to do so. So the written reprimand was Teff on file. If the agreement to resolve this grievance is not being followed, this grievance needs to be returned to step 2. In the future, Mr. Wilson will draw up a written settlement agreement that all parties are going to sign. In this matter the Union can discuss it with the employees and they can decide if the settlement is acceptable or not, if not the Union can submit the grievance for a written step 2 response. This way the Civil Service Commission can have the benefit of the answer with all the facts and citing all the pertinent Departmental Rules and contracts. If it is not acceptable to them, then we could return in December on this matter, but would like this returned to step 2 so a written answer can be provided. Mr. Tatigian clarified that two out of the three people accepted the oral reprimands. Mr. Tatigian stated that two of the three issues are moot already. Mr. Biga concurred. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Trejo or Mr. Sydor were in attendance at the meeting. Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward responded no. He stated he thought there was a step 2 meeting held September 20, 2005 to discuss the grievances. Two employees signed the reprimands, but Ms. Jamieson refused to sign the oral reprimand. Two of the reprimands were reduced to orals, but since Debra didn't sign the reprimand, hers remained a written reprimand. The Union wanted to see hers reduced to an oral. Usually, the form states "employee would not sign." Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Hoffman agreed that with regard to Mr. Trejo and Mr. Sydor, that there was nothing for the Civil Service Commission to consider. Mr. Hoffman agreed. With reference to Ms. Jamieson, apparently Management reduced it to an oral reprimand; she just refused to sign it. He inquired if that was correct. Mr. Wilson replied that they attempted to reduce it to an oral reprimand, but she would not acknowledge it and she would not sign it. Mr. Tatigian inquired if she had to sign it in order for Management's action to be effective. Mr. Wilson responded that was part of their settlement, to get an acknowledgement that they were reducing it down to an oral reprimand. Mr. Tatigian stated that whether or not she signs, she can't do anything about it. She can't grieve it, she can't appeal it and she can't do anything more about it. Mr. Wilson stated she apparently has done so, because it was being addressed. Mr. Wilson stated this was brought to the Civil Service Commission for a step 3. Ms. Mahoney stated if she had signed, they wouldn't be here and there would be an oral reprimand in her file which would be removed after six (6) months. A written reprimand would be out of her file. She inquired if Ms. Jamieson understood that because it is here as a grievance, the grievance will be in her file for longer than anything else in her file. Mr. Hoffman stated she did understand. Ms. Mahoney stated she'd rather have a written reprimand rather than a grievance. Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II, stated the she accepted the six-month, but the reason they were here was when they asked her to sign it she said no, just as she did with the first one. Usually what happens is the supervisor writes "employee refused to sign," dates and initials it. Page 121 Bth Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 Ms. Mahoney stated there were a couple options; either the employee recognizing that the grievance in her file will reflect the fact that she had a written reprimand and we can proceed with this avoiding step 2 or we can refer the grievance to step 2. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Wilson would object if the Civil Service Commission reduced this to an oral reprimand. Mr. Wilson slated the Department already has and if the Commission is going to hear this grievance the Department would want to have benefit of a written step 2 answer. The department was seeking acknowledgement of the fact that this disciplinary action was reduced to an oral reprimand. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and adopted, it was 05-179 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #05-25, dated August 31, 2005, regarding written reprimands and after discussion with Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director; Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator 11; and Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, the Civil Service Commission does hereby reduce the grievance for Ms. Jamieson to an oral reprimand. AYE: Campau and Tatigian NAY: Mahoney Mr. Biga clarified that since this is an oral reprimand; it will be removed from the file after six (6) months. The fact that the grievance was written, means it will be in the file forever. Mr. Grzembski stated he was unaware that grievances went in the personnel file. Mr. Biga replied that it just goes in a file, not necessarily in the personnel file. There will always be a record of the matter. If there had been no appeal, after 18 months, a written reprimand is removed; and with an oral reprimand it is removed after six (6) months. Ms. Mahoney recommended that in the future, if the Civil Service Commission is to hear any grievance, it ought to go through appropriate steps. Mr. Campau inquired what remedy the Union was seeking regarding AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance 05-29, from Jim Sturgill, Engineering Assistant I (TA). Mr. Campau also wanted to know if the Civil Service Commission had the authority to do what the Union was asking. Mr. Biga replied that the Civil Service Commission has the authority to reopen the probationary period. They could grant status based upon satisfactory completion of the probationary period; however, the Civil Service Commission may not want to be in a situation to substitute their judgment for that of the Appointing Authority. Mr. Campau stated the Civil Service Commission has never seen Mr. Sturgill work and he didn't think they could do what the Union was asking. It was clarified that Mr. Sturgill was still working, but in his permanent classification in the Department of Public Service. Mr. Sturgill had been on a seasonal assignment in the Engineering Department and he was on an eligible list. If an employee passes the probationary period for a classification on a seasonal assignment for a classification for which they were on an eligible list, they could get status in that classification. Page 10 1218th Regular Meeting Novenber 16, 2005 Mr. Campau clarified that the Union was asking the Commission to grant Mr. Sturgill status. Mr. Biga stated the Civil Service Commission could extend his probationary period the next season if they post the position again, he could go back in and if he satisfactorily completed that extension, he could be given status. Concurrent with that the Civil Service Commission could extend the eligible list so that the eligible list would be in effect at the time that assignment occurs. Mr. Washington informed the Civil Service Commission that the eligible list for Engineering Assistant I had expired. Ms. Mahoney stated that if they were to extend his probationary period, he would have the opportunity if an Engineering Assistant I was needed for next season, he would be eligible to be placed in it. Mr. Biga added that the Civil Service Commission could grant special exception due to the circumstances. Mr. Tatigian clarified that Mr. Sturgill is a Construction Worker 11 in his permanent position and he has worked for the City for a long time, but he was assigned to the Engineering Assistant I position on a seasonal basis. Mr. Sturgill explained that this was actually a pay cut, but he wanted to acquire status in the Engineering Assistant I classification. Ms. Mahoney stated Mr. Sturgill would have obtained status if he went into the temporary assignment and passed his probationary period. When he goes back into being a Construction Worker 11 and when there is an open position in Engineering, he would have status for thatjob. Mr. Tatigian stated Mr. Sturgill worked in the temporary assignment for a period of six (6) months and the department didn't rate his job performance satisfactorily at the end of the six (6) month period. Mr. Schoonover confirmed that was correct. Mr. Tatigian continued by stating that it was really up to the Department to decide if his performance was acceptable or not. Ms. Saylor stated the Union's issue was the unfairness of the ratings and how they had been set up. Mr. Tatigian inquired why they gave him the job in the first place and Mr. Schoonover replied that he finished number one on the test. Mr. Campau reiterated that he could not overturn the department's evaluation, but what he could do is give Mr. Sturgill another chance. Mr. Tatigian inquired if he wanted another chance. Mr. Campau staled the Commission could grant a 3 -month probationary period, and upon successful completion of that he could have his status. Mr. Tatigian stated he would support that, but he wanted to ask Mr. Sturgill if he wanted to put an additional three (3) months effort into it to convince the powers that be that he was the guy for this job. Mr. Sturgill replied he didn't think there was any convincing anyone and he stated no. Ms. Saylor added that at the end of the attachments that Ms. Wallman gave to the Union on November 7, 2005, the day before election, there was a final statement which she found very inflammatory. She also said it looked like slander to her. She defined and explained her findings in the dictionary for the word for "slander." She stated Ms. Wallman's comments were inflammatory and libelous and also stated he deserved an apology for this and she wanted something done about it. Ms. Mahoney clarified if what the Union was grieving was a need for an apology that issue is different than the subject of the grievance. Ms. Saylor disagreed because the Union felt that Page 11 1218th Regular Meeting November 16, 2005 there was no time to do anything about the apology since they just received the response on November 7. Ms. Mahoney stated she understood what Ms. Saylor was saying but they could not act on that issue as an addendum to the grievance. Ms. Mahoney stated any apology should not be a part of this meeting. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Ms. Wallman wanted to comment. Ms. Mahoney stated the Commission needs to hear the grievance because the employee said he doesn't want to have to go back to prove his ability to perform, he just wants to be given status based on what has occurred. Mr. Campau stated they can't do what the Union was asking, so why hear the grievance. Mr. Tatigian stated he would support that but he would still like to hear from Management. Ms. Saylor slated she realized that the request was for granting Mr. Sturgill status, but it was based on the ratings not being done in a timely manner. She continued that employees are made to follow Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations. She inquired why Management wasn't made to do the ratings every two months so every person is treated fairly. She staled Mr. Sturgill's first rating was not given to him until six (6) weeks late; the second rating was not given to him until three (3) weeks before the end of his probationary period, allowing no time to recover. Ms. Saylor cited Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations RULE 32, ETHICS, which pertains to being treated in an extreme unfair manner. She also cited Civil Service Commission RULE 17 PROBATIONARY PERIOD, which gives a timeframe for rating individuals every two (2) months. Ms. Mahoney reiterated that the Union wasn't before the Commission grieving that the Civil Service Commission Rules were not followed relative to Mr. Sturgill's evaluations and probation reports, but that may have been something they could have dealt with. Ms. Mahoney staled she would be very interested to know why that time lapsed and inquired of Management why this occurred, especially when it appeared that performance was deteriorating. Mr. Wilson responded that in their response it was stated that the first report was dated by the Senior Inspector on June 13, 2005 and presented on July 26, 2005. The Department was in the heat of the construction activity and during subsequent months, the second rating was put together in early August. The Senior Inspector was on vacation for the latter part of July and returned on July 29, 2005. As a result of vacation scheduling, the third rating was done on September 22, 2005. Ms. Saylor interjected that the vacation ended in July and it took a whole month before the second rating was given. That rating was due on July 22, 2005. The first rating was given on July 6, 2005. If there was problem with Mr. Sturgill's performance for the period of May 22, 2005 until July 22, 2005, the Union expected Management would approach the employee, but this never occurred. Mr. Tatigian stated it doesn't change the final evaluation. The Commission is not in the field and the employee is at the mercy of the person doing the evaluation. That is why the Civil Service Commission offered to grant an additional three (3) months, but the employee didn't Page 12 1210th Regular Meeting Novenber 16, 2005 want it because he doesn't feel he can change the mind of anybody in a position to evaluate him. Mr. Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, staled one of the biggest reasons they were here was because the ratings were so late and Mr. Sturgill didn't have time to correct any problems. Mr. Tatigian again stated they were willing to grant Mr. Sturgill the additional three (3) months to overcome that, but he didn't want it and asked what the point was. He stated Mr. Sturgill felt he would be set up to fail again. Mr. Schoonover added that if the ratings would have been on time, he would have had time to correct his problems. Ms. Mahoney inquired of Mr. Beckley if other probationary evaluations were late due to the construction activities and Ms. Wallman's vacation. Mr. Beckley stated it was very common throughout the Department that ratings are not always on time due to vacation schedules, work activities and it takes time to develop the reports, and to schedule a time to meet. Ms. Mahoney inquired when an employee appeared to be on a downslide, does Management have to wail for a formal evaluation to mention to the employee there are issues that need to be worked on. Mr. Beckley responded that it doesn't have to wait, nor did it. He added there were many exchanges where problems were brought to Mr. Sturgill's attention and no action was taken to correct it. Mr. Sturgill disagreed. Mr. Tatigian stated he had never seen a grievance that had as much paperwork as this and there were still many unanswered questions. First Mr. Sturgill said he was set up for failure. Mr. Tatigian inquired why. Mr. Sturgill's union representative states it is personal dislike. Mr. Tatigian questioned why they put him in the position to begin with if he was set up to fail. He understood Mr. Sturgill was first on the list, but there are ways around this. Mr. Schoonover inquired what Mr. Tatigian meant by his last comment. Mr. Tatigian replied that you could get rid of people a lot quicker than waiting six (6) months if you're really going to do that. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-180 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance M05-29, regarding James Sturgill's probationary ratings as Engineering Assistant I (TA) and having discussion with Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works; Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director; Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Steven Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; James Sturgill, Construction Worker II; and Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the request to grant Mr. Sturgill status in the classification of Engineering Assistant I. Page 13 1218th Regular Meeting Noven aer 16, 2005 Ms. Mahoney stated there was one additional item for the Agenda. Mr. Biga is due his second evaluation in November. Mr. Wilson inquired if there was another grievance on this agenda. Ms. Mahoney replied no. Mr. Biga stated it was requested to be tabled by the union because they were not able to be present. Rosemary Dawes inquired if they were going to address NB -7, the announcement of the Equipment Operator I examination. Ms. Mahoney responded no, because it was pulled from the Agenda at the request of the Department. Mr. Biga stated it was placed on the Agenda as a follow-up item and the Department had not prepared its recommendation yet, so it was removed. Ms. Dawes inquired if this wasn't brought before the Civil Service Commission last month with the recommendation it be put on this month's Agenda. Mr. Biga stated it was on the Agenda but the Department had not responded yet. Ms. Dawes inquired if they could have an answer as to why it wasn't. Mr. Biga replied the Department was still considering options. Ms. Dawes inquired what the options were. Ms. Mahoney interjected that at this point there was no additional information handed out to them on New Business 7 and this was not an appropriate time to discuss it. The Department didn't have a request and so the item will proceed to the December Agenda. Ms. Dawes inquired if they can request it be placed on the December Agenda. Mr. Tatigian stated they should ask Mr. Wilson because he attended the October meeting. Mr. Biga stated the department has the right to decide whether it's going to request a promotional exam or not and when. No department has to request an examination. Ms. Mahoney clarified that until the Department comes before the Commission, an examination will not be announced. Mr. Biga confirmed the issue had to come back to the Civil Service Commission to set the qualifications and parts of examination and weights. Mr. Wilson inquired if they could go back to address AFSCME Union Local grievance 05-33, from Alex Kwasniuk. He stated the Department was not made aware of the request to withdraw the grievance. Mr. Campau stated the grievance was not being withdrawn, it was being postponed. He asked if the Union notified Management that they were asking for this to be postponed. Mr. Campau stated this is looking silly and inquired what was going on with the Union and the Department. Mr. Biga stated the Union has an obligation to let Management know when it wants to withdraw a grievance. Mr. Grzembski asked to make one more comment regarding the Equipment Operator I examination and stated that it seemed to be urgent at the October meeting that the open - competitive examination for Equipment Operator I be approved. Page 14 1218th Regular Meeting Novenber 16, 2005 Mr. Tatigian staled they actually directed that a promotional examination be announced, but they cannot make the Department go promotional if they want to leave it vacant. Ms. Mahoney clarified the Civil Service Commission can request that it be announced as a promotional examination but the Commission can't put a timeframe on when the department has to do that; that is their prerogative. Mr. Grzembski stated they would just like to see it filled by their people if it still needs to be filled. Mr. Biga stated that by Charter, the Department has the right to ask for an open -competitive or promotional exam. The last time an Equipment Operator I was hired, it was from an open -competitive list. Steve Schoonover was hired off an open - competitive Equipment Operator I list; other people have been promoted, so the Department has had the opportunity to go both open -competitive and promotional. Mr. Tatigian stated that by Charter, whenever possible, the department should go promotional. Mr. Biga clarified it also states for the good of service, the Department may go open -competitive rather than promotional. Mr. Beckley left the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Wilson commented at last month's meeting the department was considering establishing another entry level point into the Department. When it was reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and the determination was made to fill the position on a promotional basis, the department needed to review if this was the proper level for an entry position. They would be happy to have discussions with representatives of Union Local 192 in this regard. He continued he was sure Mr. Biga would serve as a conduit for that. Cheryl Altis, Custodian (PPT), stated that if the position has been filled already by a person on a temporary assignment. They are good enough for that position and they have been doing the job, why that person wouldn't be recommended for that job. Ms. Mahoney reminded everyone that they made their recommendation of a promotional opportunity. The question is at what point is the Department going to deal with it. Mr. Biga stated the Department could come back and say that they want to fill some other classification as an entry level in lieu of Equipment Operator 1. Mr. Tatigian stated the Civil Service Commission is here to listen to appeals. Mr. Biga continued that the Department has filled many positions by promotion in the bargaining unit and outside the bargaining unit. It has also filled them open -competitively. For example, Supervisory positions have been filled via the promotion route; Foreman positions have been filled through the promotion route and these positions been filled through the open -competitive route as well so either is possible. Mr. Tatigian stated that he personally favors promotion within the City whenever and however possible. Mr. Washington pointed out there was a recent examination for Sign Foreman on an open -competitive basis and the individual who was appointed was an employee in the department. Ms. Jamieson, Equipment Operator II, commented that Mr. Biga and Mr. Washington mentioned Foremen and Supervisory positions. The Union's concern was the department is attempting to fill bargaining unit positions via open -competitively rather than by promotion. Ms. Mahoney redirected discussion back to Mr. Biga's step increase and inquired if they could approve this, based on when the Mayors evaluation is completed and whatever is allowed, if Page 15 1218th Regular Meeting Ntrvenber 16, 2005 they can pre -approve the step increase for Mr. Biga so this can be taken care of before the end of the year. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-181 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Mayor's recommendation for a step increase for Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an increase to Step 3, effective November 29, 2005, for Robert Biga, pending the completion of the evaluation by Mayor Jack Engebretson. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Chairperson Mahoney wished everyone Happy Holidays and reminded everyone the December meeting was changed to December 14, 2005. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner