Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1253rd CSC Meeting1253rd REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1253rd Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, October 22, 2008. The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: David Benson, Chief Parks Steward Peter Bryant, Equipment Operator II Melissa Demorest, Attorney for Tom Murphy Ken Grzembski, Park Maintenance Worker I Ed Hoffman, Construction Worker II Patrick Hogan, Director of Public Works William Ivanac, Park Maintenance Worker II Al Jagosz, Park Maintenance Worker III Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II Mark Johnson, Chairperson, Parks and Recreation Commission Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Ronald Campau, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney Harry C. Tatigian Tom Murphy, Administrative Assistant - Facility Manager Steven Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Norm Siira, Equipment Operator III Lyle Trudell, Assistant Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Cathryn White, Chief Assistant City Attorney Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service Audrey Young, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 08-196 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1252nd Regular Meeting held Thursday, September 25, 2008, be approved as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 08-197 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 1, 2008, from Dennis Burklow, Senior Police Officer, and approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting additional family illness days, the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of Mr. Burklow's request to charge six (6) additional family illness days to his sick leave bank. 08-198 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 70% or 70 out of the maximum score of 100 on the written test for Police Service Aide (918 o.c.). 08-199 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the Equipment Operator 1 (1282 p.) eligible list. Paget 1253^ Regular Meeting Oulober22,,2008 08-200 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the Firefighter (915 o.c.) eligible list. 08-201 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 8, 2008, from Dan Putman, Information Systems Manager and approved for submission by Michael Slater, Director of Finance and Jack Kirksey, Mayor, the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of an extension of the probationary period for William Jasman, Computer Administrator I, for six (6) months to April 14, 2009. The Commission received and fled the following: Status of Temporary Employees Report for September 2008. Non -Resident Report as of October 1, 2008. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of October 1, 2008. Affirmative Action Report for September 2008. Expiring eligible lists for the month of November 2008 — Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.) and Park Maintenance Worker 1 (1261 p.). Removal of names from the active eligible list report for the month of October 2008 for reasons indicated: Building Inspector (916 o.c.) Nicholas, Tony Featherston, Paul Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.) Lundquist -Burton, Gail Equipment Operator 111 (1250 p.) Tutor, Brian Locke, Charles Librarian 1 (891 o.c.) Hagen, Carol Gruber, Abby Fulkerson, Natalie Police Dispatcher (913 o.c.) Carlson, Tracey Cameron, Angela Kirk, Brian Seay, Lynne Kos, Kathleen Vendittelli, Lauren McCulloch, Daryl Bush, Deirdre Page 1253^ Regular Meeting 0dober22,,2008 Sewer Maintenance Worker 1 (1268 p.) Sheridan, Philip Water Meter Repairer 1 (1254 p.) Grzembski, Kenneth Water Operations Mechanic 1 (1269 p.) Cloutier, Keith Widmer, Kenneth M. Shinsky, Thomas West, James Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 08-202 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 2, 2008, from Cathy Condon, Program Supervisor, as approved for submission by Dave Varga, Director of Administrative Services, requesting permission to carry over vacation days in excess of the maximum based on a new projected retirement date of November 15, 2011, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve Ms. Condon's request to carry over excess vacation days up to a maximum payout of fifty-seven (57) days as provided by Civil Service RULE 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 08-203 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 6, 2008, from Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service and Patrick A. Hogan, Director of Public Works, requesting a promotional examination for Parks Foreman, 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 Applications will be accepted only from regular employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of this announcement: 1. Are employed in the Public Service Division of the Department of Public Works; and 2. Have a minimum of five (5) years experience in the department; and 3. Possess and maintain a valid motor vehicle operator's license and an acceptable driving record. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test -30% Interview -40% Departmental Rating -30% NOTE: A maximum of the lop ten (10) qualified candidates with the highest passing score on the written test will be invited to the interview part of the examination. Page 1253a Regular Meeting Oulober 22, 2008 Candidates must pass the written test, the Interview, and the Departmental Rating in order to be placed on the eligible list. Ken Grzembski, Park Maintenance Worker I, opposed opening up the Parks Foreman promotional examination to the entire Department of Public Works. He stated that the past announcements listed five (5) years experience in the Parks Division and they don't see the need for the change in that qualification. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Wilson to give his rationale for including the whole Department. Mr. Wilson announced that Mr. Hogan, Director of Public Works, was in attendance and he would speak initially. Mr. Hogan thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. He stated he met with all the workers in the Parks Division and explained that it was not as a result of any feeling on their part that there was a lack of ability, dedication or work effort in the Parks that made them consider the change. It was that over the last couple of years the Department is down about 20% of their budgeted positions. It is expected that number is as high as it's going to be, however there may be more cuts over the next few years as a result of budgetary issues the City is facing. In order for the City to operate with those kinds of constraints, Management needs to be allowed to select individuals across the board for various positions. They wanted all their workers to be sufficiently cross trained so that when positions come open, they had the kind of experience that everyone had. They are not saying the Parks employees can't apply for this position; they just want to see what everybody can do in terms of applying for this position. There is more to being a Foreman than to have knowledge of Parks operations. Management skills, administrative skills, and computer technology skills are necessary and they feel that kind of knowledge and experience can be used in all aspects of Public Works not only in Parks, Roads, or Water. Mr. Campau asked how many employees currently work in the Parks Maintenance section. Brian Wilson replied there were approximately 18. Mr. Wilson added that in the past employees indicated that they were interested in having announcements open to more employees. He further explained that the revenue situation is going to be very grim in the next few years and the employees will have more responsibilities than they have in the past. Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II, Roads, questioned a few things. She stated she is not in Parks Department but she has Parks and Foreman experience. She was #2 on the last Foreman's test and she wasn't afforded the opportunity to market herself for this job, nor was anyone else, outside of the one individual, who is the City electrician. She asked who was doing his job. She stated Ms. Mahoney, at the last Civil Service Commission meeting, asked for an investigation as to why this person was afforded the opportunity to market himself. She asked why open this up if they are in fad, so short-staffed. They have another Foreman, Chris Pargoff, who has one (1) employee under him. She found it interesting that the wife of the person who is doing this job is the secretary to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Zoumbaris and Mr. St. Henry. She reiterated that no one else was afforded the same opportunity as this individual. Then the qualifications changed for the job. She asked the Commission if they honestly believed that this person was not going to get the job. If he was assigned only as Temporary, why would the qualifications change? Page 5 1253^ Regular Meeting Oulober 22, 2008 David Benson, stated he has been with the City for 23 years; 22 of them he has been employed in the Parks Division. He has had every job and obtained status in every position in the Parks Division. He stated he works hard, he likes his job, he comes to work every day because he feels that there is room to move, hoping he could climb the corporate ladder, per se. He stated he was never informed they would be looking for a Parks Foreman, nor was he told he had to market himself. He understood that it is a really tough job for Mr. Hogan and Mr. Wilson in these economic times. He's not upset that somebody from a different Department got this position; he is upset that he didn't get the chance to market himself for the position. He referenced a previous promotional opportunity for Equipment Operator III and he was told he wasn't eligible for because he didn't come up the tier of Roads, he was in Parks. Mr. Tatigian requested Mr. Hogan's response as to what Ms. Jamieson and Mr. Benson have said. Mr. Hogan said that the individuals brought up a number of issues. He resented the implication that they promoted one individual because of where his wife works. Regarding the temporary position, the individual assigned has held a Foreman's position temporarily elsewhere for many hours. Brian Wilson added the individual has been a temporary Foreman and has over a year's experience as a Foreman in the Public Service division filling in for both the Building Maintenance Foreman and the Custodial Foreman. He also clarified that his permanent classification is that of Building Mechanic IV in the Department of Public Works. The employee has been temporarily promoted to Parks Foreman. He, as well as the others, will have the opportunity to sign and test for this position. Mr. Benson commented the he too, had documented time as a Foreman in the Parks Division. Mr. Hogan added that one other thing that was mentioned was somebody declared they were not eligible for Equipment Operator III because he wasn't working in that particular section. That's just the situation they are trying to counter with this change. Ms. Mahoney reiterated the temporary promotion to Parks Foreman was discussed at length at the last Commission meeting. She explained that what they acted on tonight was how the position gets filled permanently. This set of qualifications is ok to be in place. Employees are voicing concerns because the qualifications were approved. She didn't think that this took anything away from anyone applying for this job. She believed the employees' concern is that this person would have a leg up over other people that apply for this job. However, there is a written test, an interview and a departmental rating. She stated she got a little concerned about allegations that there may be nepotism going on in the City. Mr. Tatigian told both Mr. Benson and Ms. Jamieson they would be able to apply and have the opportunity for this regular position. Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, inquired why they couldn't keep the five (5) years within a Parks Department and make it an open -competitive examination? He stated if management sought a truly qualified person that has experience in that Department and yet still meets the criteria to be a Foreman, why can't this be an open -competitive examination? Mr. Campau inquired if a person in the Parks Division would have the upper hand anyway, based on the fact that there is a written test involved? Won't the questions be related to Parks? Brian Wilson replied there would be questions related to general supervision and they would go in front of an interview board and they would have the opportunity to speak about their experience if they pass the written and departmental rating. Page 6 125V Regular Meeting October 22, 2000 Mr. Tatigian staled in his 48 years of government work, he's never heard the Union ask for open -competitive examinations. The Union has always wanted the Commission to favor promotional examinations whenever possible. Mr. Locke responded that the Union's position is that this particular move is just shy from making it an open competitive examination. No" Siira, Equipment Operator III, thought the concern in opening this up, with the way things have been done on the temporary basis, is based on the written and testing procedures with being able to use your departmental rating. A Supervisor can reduce the rating so that scores can be low enough that an individual can be put into that position by manipulating the departmental rating. Mr. Campau reiterated that before they saw Mr. Grzembski awaiting his turn to speak, they had already passed the qualifications for the examination. He asked if there was a motion to rescind their previous action. No motion was made. Mr. Tatigian just couldn't understand how the Union would want to open this up to the general public. Ken Grzembski commented that the number of employees in Parks is not eighteen. He counted about 12 and those employees stay there for that career ladder. Mr. Campau stated the motion had already been passed and they were moving on to the next item. Ms. Mahoney and Mr. Wilson discussed the qualifications for the Equipment Operator II and the change from "Employed in the Public Service Division of the Department of Public Works,' to "Employed in the Department of Public Works," to allow more individuals to apply. Additionally, there is a change to "Have regular status in any classification" as well as the addition of "Must be able to lift in excess of fifty (50) pounds." Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated that the Description of Work for the Equipment Operator II had been changed with the addition of "sanitary and storm sewer maintenance; water distribution system repairs; construction activities; community event set-up activities, etc." "Etc." is an extremely vague and broad term to be added as language to a job description. Also, "An employee in this classification may have overtime work as needed, and is subject to call-in outside normal working hours" per their contract, overtime is not mandatory. He stated the Union would like to see those additions removed. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga if the language in the contract would supersede what's in the announcement. Mr. Biga replied that it would if it was in conflict with it, but it's not in conflict. There is no prohibition of mandatory overtime and it is recognized that the City has the right to schedule overtime and when we don't have enough people, we have the right to mandatorily order someone to come to work. Mr. Locke disagreed with Mr. Biga. He stated the normal work week is described as a normal 40 -hour work week, Monday through Friday. It makes no mention of overtime as part of that. Pagel 125V Regular Meeting Oulober 22, 2008 Mr. Biga stated that could be argued at another venue, but the issue is the labor contract has no prohibition. Under Management Rights, it states that Management has the right to schedule overtime in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Mr. Wilson stated that language is consistent with the language that they already approved in other Public Service classifications, specifically Mr. Locke's classification, Water Operations Mechanic. That language is nothing new, just making it consistent. In regards to the Description of Work, all of those activities are something that Equipment Operator IIs routinely do now. Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated that as an Equipment Operator II, their fear with the addition of the duties listed in the proposed Description of Work is that it is way too vague and the next thing they know, they will be sent to fix a water main break, a career path he chose not to take. By leaving that language in there, then Management would have the right to do that and it could cost someone their job. If DPS Management could explain what the reason for all these changes are for and what their intent is for putting them in, they would reconsider this language. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Wilson why there were additional duties listed on the Description of Work. Mr. Wilson replied that it is descriptive of the work that they are doing. If the word "etc." is a problem, there is a sentence at the end which says, "performs various related duties as assigned," which would take the place of the "etc." He had no objection to removing "etc." Steve Schoonover referenced an announcement for Equipment Operator II of April 27, 2006, listing the new additions in the Description of Work and Mr. Campau clarified that what Mr. Schoonover wanted to go back to was the old Description of Work. Mr. Wilson slated every one of these are activities that Equipment Operator Its routinely perform. Mr. Schoonover wanted to know if there was any assurance that he wouldn't be performing sewer work next week. Mr. Campau replied that if they gave an assignment he didn't think was right, he had the right to grieve it. Mr. Schoonover responded that he would still have to do the work. Mr. Wilson stated they have individuals who will sign for this examination that are not familiar with the job content. He explained that it is merely descriptive of the type of work that an Equipment Operator II would be doing. Debra Jamieson stated she has been an Equipment Operator II for sixteen (16) years. She stated she has never repaired sewers or a water problem. She chose not to go to that Department because she didn't want to have to get any shots. She said that in 2006 the Description of Work was good enough, why wouldn't that be fine? Mr. Biga explained that Equipment Operator Is work in various activities throughout the Department of Public Works, such as snow and ice control, water breaks and sewer maintenance. Mr. Campau indicated that is why new language isn't needed. Mr. Biga added that with the expansion of the Department, they are trying to provide new information to people in Building Maintenance who are now going to be eligible to take this examination, who may not understand all of this. Mr. Wilson explained that Custodians would be the employees Page 125V Regular Meeting Oelober22,,2008 applying for this job. Mr. Biga added they wanted them to know ahead of time they may be assigned to different activities. Mr. Grzembski stated Mr. Wilson said they let people who are eligible for the Temporary Instruction Permit (TIP) take the test. You don't have to have a CDL right away. Those employees are Custodians. They've been allowed to take the test before so if the old posting works, why does it need to be changed? Mr. Campau asked if there was a motion. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Wilson if they couldn't work something out that Management and the Union could live with. Mr. Wilson stated he would certainly be willing to try. The situation with this posting is they are in the middle of a leaf program. Mr. Tatigian clarified that he meant going out in the hallway and figuring it out in the next 5 minutes. Mr. Wilson didn't think that would be possible. Ms. Mahoney compared the old version with the new version and stated the difference is the old version strictly deals with the Equipment Operator operating equipment, and the new one lists of sentences that details the kind of work they might do or the equipment might be driven to do, and there might be a possibility of doing minor repairs on equipment. Apparently, the individuals in the room don't like the definition of what it is they might do. She recommended they accept this with the old Description of Work and with the addition of the sentence, "An employee in this classification may have overtime work as needed and is subject to call-in outside normal working hours and performs various related duties as assigned." Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 08-204 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 30, 2008, from Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service and Patrick A. Hogan, Director of Public Works, requesting a promotional examination for Equipment Operator 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 Applications will be accepted only from employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of this examination: Are employed in the Department of Public Works; and Have regular status in any classification; and Are eligible for either a Temporary Instruction Permit (TIP) for, or have a valid Group "A" or "B" commercial driver's License with Air Brake, and must have or be eligible for, a valid Industrial Truck Driving Permit for operation of a forklift. An employee in this classification is subject to all requirements of the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, as amended; and Must be able to lift in excess of fifty (50) pounds. Page 9 1253^ Regular Meeting October 22, 2008 In order to satisfactorily complete the probationary period, the employee must obtain a valid "A" or "B" commercial license if they have the TIP and obtain a valid Truck Driving permit for the operation of a forklift. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Performance Test -80% Departmental Rating -20% NOTE: Candidates must pass the Performance Test in order to be placed on the eligible list. Pursuant to AFSCME Union Local 192, PROMOTIONS, 20.b., in competitive examinations which include departmental Ratings, the Departmental Rating from 0 to 100 will count as 20% of the examination, but a score of under 70 does not disqualify candidates from continuing in the process. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 08-205 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 17, 2008, from Michael Slater, Director of Finance, requesting a promotional examination for Account Clerk III 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 Applications will be accepted only from employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of this examination: Have regular status as an Account Clerk II. Have at least five (5) years experience in a regular classification. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test -80% Departmental Rating -20% Candidates must pass the Written Test in order to be placed on the eligible list. Pursuant to AFSCME Local 192, PROMOTIONS, 20.b., in competitive examinations that include departmental ratings, the departmental rating from 0 to 100 will count as 20% of the examination, but a score under 70 will not disqualify the candidate from continuing the process. The Commission received a letter on October 2, 2008, from Audrey Young, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, notifying them that the Union has decided to go to Arbitration on AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #08-09, from Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, regarding a one -day suspension. Therefore, no action was taken on this matter. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was Page 10 1253'° Regular Meeting October 22, 2008 08-206 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the police Officer (1285 p.) eligible list. The Commission reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #08-17, dated September 30, 2008, from Ken Grzembski, Park Maintenance Worker I, regarding a perceived denial of a promotion back in 2007. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Grzembski what relief he was seeking and Mr. Grzembski replied that he was looking for the promotion and all back pay. Mr. Campau asked if Mr. Grzembski was serious and what the issue was. Mr. Wilson clarified that this grievance was presented at Step 1 to the Supervisor of the Parks Department and the Supervisor reviewed that grievance with him and he suggested that he go back to the Union and indicate that it probably best be handled at the Step 2 level. He continued that it was never brought forth to him at the Step 2 level, so this grievance was never answered by the Department. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Grzembski why they didn't go to Step 2. Mr. Benson, Chief Parks Steward, responded that the grievance was submitted to his Supervisor, Mr. Moore, who immediately sent it to Step 2. He came back to Mr. Benson with the grievant stating that it was out of their jurisdiction and he should take it straight to the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Campau suggested they go back to Step 2 with Mr. Wilson to see what they could clear up. Mr. Grzembski thought it would be good to be presented now and it might shed some light on some other issues. Mr. Wilson stated that while they would be willing to discuss the grievance, their grievance response was going to indicate the problem with the timeliness as far as the contract goes. Mr. Benson replied that they weren't made aware of this problem until just recently. Mr. Campau asked if Mr. Grzembski was responsible for checking his own personnel file. Mr. Grzembski answered yes. Mr. Campau stated that the fact that he didn't check it until just recently doesn't make his grievance timely. Mr. Grzembski added he was informed by his Foreman that the score he gave him had been changed. Mr. Campau again asked Mr. Grzembksi what he wanted done with this and added he would not be made whole for all the overtime, etc. Mr. Grzembski stated he just wanted to be heard. Mr. Tatigian asked if the employee didn't have to sign the departmental rating. Mr. Grzembski informed him that this is totally different than a yearly evaluation. Mr. Biga explained that even if Mr. Grzembski had a Departmental Rating of 95, his position on the eligible list would not change. He would still have been in the same position. Without changing Mr. Grzembski's position, he still would not have come up for promotion. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Grzembski if he disagree with what was being said and Mr. Grzembski stated he thought they intentionally manipulated the Departmental Rating. He stated that his Foreman told him he had rated him a 95 and to check it; it changed to a 59. He didn't think anybody ever got a score of 59. He believed that it speaks to the integrity of the testing system that someone would do something like that. Mr. Grzembski referred to the last time the test was announced he appeared before the Civil Service Commission to try to change the qualifications so he would be eligible to take the Page 11 1253a Regular Meeting October 22, 2000 Equipment Mechanic III test. The department was recommending a qualification change to require that the employee 'must be currently employed in the garage" The Civil Service Commission did not change the qualifications and he was able to take the test. His Foreman stated he gave him a 95 on the Departmental Rating and he told him he heard that the rating had been changed. Mr. Grzembski didn't believe the score was transposed because his Foreman told him to check it. He also referenced the requirements for the test, you had to have five (5) years' experience in Equipment Maintenance with the City; he believed another individual was allowed to take that test, but he didn't think he had five (5) years. Mr. Benson thanked the Commission for hearing this matter, but even if this was an error, they were concerned that if something like this could happen again, it could be detrimental to their family, their career and to their financial basis. Mr. Grzembski commented that he paid for copies of his test results, $12.00, and there are no comments and no signatures on the copies. He referenced the form and it states that if the rating is below 70 you must make comments. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Biga why there weren't comments on the ratings. Mr. Biga responded there were no comments on the original rating sheets and the signatures are not released on the rating sheets. Mr. Grzembski referenced the form which stated, if the rating is below 70, you must make comments. Mr. Campau stated without the background information, they have no way of knowing what happened. Mr. Grzembski stated that if nothing else, he would like his $12.00 back. Mr. Wilson spoke in regards to the timeliness issue and the misconception that this matter could have been discussed if this was presented at Step 2. Foremen don't complete the rating, nor does the Supervisor. Both are asked for their input. The ratings are completed by a Superintendent, a Public Utility Manager or the Director of Public Works. They often have people from several different sections competing for these examinations and some sections may traditionally rate at a certain level, while other sections may rate a little higher. These go through a review process and it is not the Foreman himself or the Supervisor that completes the ratings. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 08-207 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #08-17, dated September 30, 2008, from Ken Grzembski, Park Maintenance Worker I, regarding a perceived denial of a promotion back in 2007, and having discussion with Ken Grzembski, Park Maintenance Worker I; Dave Benson, Chief Parks Steward; Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance on the basis that it is not timely; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Mr. Grzembski should be reimbursed $12.00 for copies provided to him of his personnel file. Ms. Mahoney said she personally thought that when someone asks for copies and pays for it, if they don't like the information they get, she didn't feel they should be reimbursed, but in the interest of time and due to the small amount of the request, she supported the motion. The Commission took a five (5) minute recess. Page 12 1253'° Regular Meeting Odober 22, 2008 The Commission started an open hearing in the matter of a disciplinary action taken against Thomas Murphy, Facility Manager at the Livonia Community Recreation Center. Cathryn White began discussion regarding a letter dated September 27, 2008, from Tom Murphy, requesting an appeal of a reprimand letter dated September 16, 2008. Ms. White summarized Management's position regarding disciplinary action taken against Tom Murphy: Mr. Murphy wrongfully accused an innocent person of a theft of a cell phone at the Recreation Center, his communication with the parents of youths involved was not handled in a professional manner and he failed to properly apply the Recreation Center Participant Code of Conduct policy with regard to the accomplice in the incident. Management felt that Mr. Murphy's actions reflected poorly on the Department of Parks and Recreation and on the City and could have resulted in more serious ramifications to the City. The facts of what occurred involve the Building Supervisor, who after receiving a report of a stolen cell phone and checking the videotapes, confronted 2 males about the theft. Eventually, one of the males confessed, returned the phone and the 2 males were escorted out of the Center, using profanity toward the staff members. The Facility Manager, after learning of the incident, reviewed the surveillance video and entry logs, determined the identity of the two individuals involved. (Initials will be used to protect the youth's identities). He believed B.W. took the phone and A.R. was the accomplice. After letters were sent to the parents of the 2 suspected to be involved, A.R.'s mother called claiming her son was absolutely not involved. This prompted further investigation of the identities of the individuals. It was determined that because a staff member failed to take a picture of an individual buying a day pass, a third person, J.R., was not on the recording. It was eventually discovered via telephone conversation with B.W.'s father and reviewing another recording report, that B.W. was the accomplice and J.R., the actual guilty party. Mr. Murphy called A.R.'s mother and B.W.'s father and apologized. A letter was then sent to J.R.'s parents and J.R. was permanently banned from the facility. It is Management's belief that Mr. Murphy should have also disciplined B.W. for being an accomplice. However, that did not occur. Ms. Kapchonick cited a previous incident regarding a staff member who falsified a time card and Mr. Murphy did not deal with the individual appropriately until Ms. Kapchonick brought up the matter with Mr. Murphy. Ms. White stated that the Department needs Managers who exercise proper judgment in dealing with the public and subordinates and this incident was just cause for the discipline. Ms. Kapchonick stated the major issue was that Mr. Murphy did not follow the Code of Conduct and that the letters he sent to the parents were not professionally written. Mr. Murphy's attorney, Melissa Demorest, stated their concern was they don't believe that a progressive system of discipline should have been applied. Mr. Murphy discussed the details of the mistaken identification of the individuals involved at length, the phone calls he made to the parents of the youth involved in the theft and how the third individual, by not having his picture taken, added to the problem in misidentifying the guilty party. He stated he takes his Page 13 1253^ Regular Meeting October 22, 2008 job seriously. He presented letters of recommendation from Detectives from the Police Department to support his statement. Recreation employees have taken great strides in protecting visitors and members from thefts at the Recreation Center. Ms. Demorest requested that the suspension be removed entirely or reduced to a letter of reprimand. A full transcript of the hearing is being retained in the Civil Service Department and can be reviewed upon request. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 08-208 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 27, 2008, from Tom Murphy, Administrative Assistant -Facility Manager, requesting an appeal of a reprimand letter dated September 16, 2008, the Civil Service Commission does hereby modify the disciplinary action to a written reprimand. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 08-209 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following schedule for 2009 for the Civil Service Commission meetings: DAY DATE TIME WEDNESDAY JANUARY 21, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 18, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY MARCH 18, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY APRIL 15, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY MAY 20, 2009 5:30 P.M. THURSDAY JUNE 18, 2009 6:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY JULY 15, 2009 5:30 P.M. THURSDAY AUGUST 20, 2009 6:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 21, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2009 5:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 9, 2009 5:30 P.M. Page 14 1253'° Regular Meeting October 22, 2000 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Ronald E. Campau, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner