Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1284th CSC Meeting (May)1280 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1284" Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, May 18", 2011. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: Arica Flores, Engineering Assistant I Ed Hoffman, Equipment Operator II Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Steven Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Seeman, Executive Board member, AFSCME Union Local 192 Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service John Woehrle, Equipment Operator II 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 11-39 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1283rd Regular Meeting held Wednesday, April 20, 2011, be approved as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 11-40 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of May 3, 2011, from Timothy Fairgrieve, Custodian (RPT), as approved for submission by Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, and Kevin Maillard, Director of Public Works, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of an unpaid medical leave of absence, not to exceed ninety (90) days, for the period April 25, 2011 through July 25, 2011, subject to Mr. Fairgrieve providing medical documentation from his physician, and it is with the understanding that Mr. Fairgrieve is responsible during his unpaid medical leave of absence to pay the copayment for his medical insurance; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should Mr. Fairgrieve not return to work for at least thirty (30) calendar days, after the approved ninety (90) day unpaid medical leave of absence, he will be responsible to reimburse the City of Livonia for any costs for benefits paid for Mr. Fairgrieve during his time off in accordance with Section 25.6 (c), Insurance Premium Payments, of the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations and Final FMLA Regulations (29 C.F.R.), unless circumstances for not returning to work are beyond Mr. Fairgrieve's control. 11-41 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of May 6, 2011, from Scott Rich, Firefighter, as approved for Page 2 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 submission by Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting additional family illness leave, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of Mr. Rich's request to use an additional three (3) twenty-four (24) hour duty days for the calendar year 2011 from his sick bank to be charged as family illness. The Commission received and filed the following: Status of Temporary Employees Report for April 2011. Non -Resident Report as of May 1, 2011. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of May 1, 2011. Affirmative Action Report for April 2011. Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of April 2011. Council Resolution from the meeting of April 20, 2011, with minutes to be approved May 11, 2011: #99-11, approving the reappointment of Lowell Peterson, to the Livonia Plymouth Road Development Authority as a resident member at large for a four year term expiring May 16, 2015. Letter of April 26, 2011, from Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, advising that Grievance No. 11-08 regarding Dan West, is being submitted to Council 25 for arbitration. Expiring eligible list for the month of June 2011 — Custodian (914 o.c.). Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, stated his discussion regarding the requests for promotional examinations for Equipment Operator III and Tree Artisan applied to both. He stated some misconceptions may exist about these requests for examinations. He added the Commission received correspondence from the Union President, but the Department never received a copy, so they don't know what specfically might need to be addressed. One misconception that may exist is that the qualifications for these positions are part of Union contract negotiations. Mr. Wilson stated they are not empowered to bargain away the authority of the Civil Service Commission. He added that the contract specifically slates, under Management Rights, that the Charter responsibility of the Civil Service Commission cannot be reduced or abridged by the labor contract, nor are they empowered to bargain away requirements under Federal and state law requiring commercial motor vehicles and commercial driver's licenses. Mr. Wilson explained that a commercial driver's license "A" endorsement vs. "B" is very straightforward. If a driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle and they are towing a trailer or a piece of equipment rated over 10,000 lbs., they must have the "A" endorsement. If a driver is trailering a piece of equipment less than 10,000 lbs., they only need a "B" endorsement. Mr. Wilson cited an example in the leaf pickup program. Trailering a leaf vacuum, which is under 10,000 lbs., requires only a "B". Trailering a leaf wagon, which is a self-contained, longer unit over 10,000 lbs. requires an "A". The Department is only Page 1284"' Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 attempting to insure that drivers have the proper licensing when they operate the City's equipment. Mr. Wilson stated most of the employees only have the "B" endorsement which makes it improper for them to trailer the larger equipment. Obtaining or renewing a driver's license is something that is done on an employee's own time, but in this case, the Department will afford time for employees to go to the Secretary of State office where employees take a 15 -question, multiple choice exam to upgrade from a "B" to an "A". Mr. Wilson explained that the Department would also have to allow time for equipment familiarity training if there are any employees that feel they need that, and the Department will have to bear the expense and time to have an outside tester come in and conduct the road test. Given the choice, the Department would prefer not to spend their time and resources, but it is required under the law. The Department must have their employees comply with the law and they can't have things happening like with the leaf program where they only have a couple of employees with the "A" endorsements. The Department needs to get the leaf wagons on the road to pick up the leaves for the citizens and if they have a person that is ill or on vacation, they would have to park equipment. Additionally, if they have to haul the showmobile somewhere in the City for an event, or if somebody like Oakland County rents the showmobile, there needs to be an employee with an "A" endorsement to take it to that event. Discussion took place in Union negotiations about what would happen in the case of an employee who is already in the classification, and they couldn't pass the requirements to obtain an "A". Mr. Wilson reiterated that to get an "A" endorsement, an employee can go to the Secretary of State office, take a test and if they fail it, the test is reviewed right there and the person is told what the right answers are if they got any wrong. The employee can return the next day and take it again or they can go to another Secretary of State office that afternoon and retake it. Mr. Wilson added a person can take the test as many times as they want until they pass it. After passing it, the employee would have to pass a road test. Mr. Wilson stated it is unlikely that employees that are already trailering equipment won't pass, but it is something that they discussed to have a grandfather clause if there was an unusual situation where an individual was already in the classification and for some reason couldn't pass that test. Mr. Wilson stated that was not the issue before the Commission tonight. This issue is not about employees already in positions; this is a request to have a test and establish an eligible list for positions that are not yet filled. Mr. Wilson indicated that every time they come before the Commission with a request for an examination, they adjust the qualifications and they adjust the description of work, as necessary. The Department is just looking at a minimum, to have the Commission adjust this in order to comply with Federal and state laws. Mr. Tatigian inquired how many employees currently have an "A" endorsement. Mr. Wilson responded there are five (5) employees. Mr. Tatigian inquired how much equipment the Department has that require an "A" endorsement and Mr. Wilson indicated there is a showmobile, three (3) leaf wagons, and at least two (2) trailers that are rated over 10,000 lbs. Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated the last job posting was in 2007 and in 2007 the requirement was for an "A" or a "B" endorsement and that seemed to work fine. Mr. Locke was sure Mr. Wilson could find out how many operators there were in 2007 that had Gass "A" licenses. In the past, if the City offered free training to acquire an "A," Page 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 there would be enough volunteers who would willingly take the "A" because it benefits everyone else. Mr. Locke indicated this was a topic of discussion specifically addressed in contract negotiations, requiring that everyone get an "A" license and the Union disagreed with that. They also discussed the grandfather situation. The reason the Department has a shortage of employees with the "A" endorsement is because the Department has eliminated job assignments since there is no current contract. Mr. Locke believed the Department tried to fix a system that wasn't broken. The Union had no objection if the Department was going to post a specific vehicle that required an "A" endorsement to obtain that position and then let the individual sign for that posting, knowing that the specific vehicle required the "A", but the Department is trying to make a carte blanche change in existing working conditions. The Union does not agree with that. The question that wasn't asked is, how many of the six (6) pieces of equipment could potentially be on the road at the same time? Mr. Locke suggested that this would never occur. Mr. Locke stated five employees with the "A" endorsement was an ample number and if the Department wished to afford the opportunity to the Union members to acquire an "A" at the City's expense, they would have no objection to that. The Union strongly objects to the Department's changing of the qualifications for trucks that are the same trucks that are in effect today as in 2007. Mr. Wilson indicated that Mr. Locke was not correct and in order to function with these pieces of equipment, the Commercial Motor Vehicle code requires an "A" endorsement. The Department can't have just a couple of people that have "A"s. They are operating this equipment already improperly and they need to have employees with "A"s. This is simply complying with the law. Mr. Campau inquired why more people haven't acquired the "A"? Mr. Locke explained that he had never been afforded the opportunity to take the "A" unless he was going to do this at his own expense and in running a backhoe he isn't required to have even a drivers license. Mr. Wilson explained that years ago, when the Federal government standardized this program across all the states, they came up with the CDL designation. They came up with three levels. Two for truck drivers - an "A", and a "B", and a "C" for bus drivers. The Department had class 2 designations at that time. All of their employees were grandfathered. They should have grandfathered them into an "A" designation. Ms. Mahoney inquired if those who happened to have "A"s did that on their own, or came on board having the "A" classification. Mr. Wilson replied it could be a combination. Mr. Tatigian reiterated that Mr. Locke stated he didn't want to take the test on his own time. He inquired if the Department made employees take the test on their own time. Mr. Wilson slated no, if they are going to renew their driver's license, that is on the employee's own time, but this was a unique circumstance that they are asking all these employees to upgrade from "B" to "A" so the Department is going to allow them to go to the Secretary of State office to take this. Mr. Tatigian stated it was up to the Civil Service Commission to make determinations on qualifications for positions. Mr. Tatigian inquired how this action hurts employees because they become better qualified. Mr. Locke agreed it did make employees better qualified for work outside the City and he wasn't disputing that it benefits the employees. The argument is that the Department is changing the job qualifications for no apparent reason. Mr. Locke didn't want the requirement of having an "A" to take this particular test because under the Page 5 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 current standards, if an employee decided they wanted to be an Equipment Operator III and they currently run a backhoe, an employee would not qualify for that because they possess a B„ Ms. Mahoney indicated the employee could obtain the "A" on the City's time and Mr. Wilson confirmed that the Department would afford the time for every employee who has a "B" endorsement, to go the Secretary of State, provide the time for familiarity training, afford the time to take the road test, and the Department would bear the cost for all of this. Mr. Wilson stated they just want to comply with the law and the time to make these changes is now, for positions that are not yet filled. Mr. Locke stated there are two different issues and what Mr. Wilson is talking about is a wonderful idea, but the Department is combining this with a job posting and Mr. Locke felt that was a terrible idea. The qualifications for the job don't need to be changed today; maybe two years from now. Mr. Tatigian stated they could approve this based upon Mr. Wilson's proposal. Mr. Locke would rather see the Department make these changes after a good faith effort to gel the people upgraded. Ms. Mahoney stated she just heard Mr. Locke say that he didn't trust that Mr. Wilson says he is going to provide this opportunity for everybody who currently has a "B" endorsement. Mr. Wilson reiterated that the issue is for future openings, not for current employees. Mr. Locke stated that if Mr. Wilson does what he says he is going to do and then he wants to re -post this job afterwards and the employees have obtained the "A" endorsement, that's fine. Ed Hoffman, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated Mr. Locke discussed earlier that if previously employees were assigned to a truck, during negotiations the City is trying to eliminate truck and vehicle assignments. The Union strongly opposes that and that is at the bargaining table, but with this, if there is a piece of equipment, Mr. Hoffman felt they should post that piece of equipment with the vehicle number and if you are required to have an "A" endorsement, then let the individual decide if they want to get the "A" for that piece of equipment to operate or not. Mr. Wilson clarified that the equipment assignment provision is no longer in effect. Mr. Biga stated the issue before the Commission is the qualification for the promotional examination for Equipment Operator III. In order to be an Equipment Operator III, you have to have status as an Equipment Operator II. So we are not talking about Custodians, Equipment Operator I's, or Park Maintenance Workers; only people who have status as an Equipment Operator II. What the Department is saying is that in addition to having status as an Equipment Operator II, you need to have a valid group "A" endorsement on your Commercial Drivers License. At the "A" level you are more flexible in what equipment you can operate. The City no longer has equipment assignments. That provision was eliminated in negotiations and Mr. Biga stated he sent a letter to the Union advising them that it was eliminated. The next issue is, since people can be moved from one piece of equipment to another, it may happen that they will have to operate a piece of equipment or combination of pieces of equipment that require a group "A" endorsement. It is reasonable for that endorsement to be part of the qualifications for this examination. It is recommended the Commission approve the qualifications as proposed. Page 6 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Mr. Tatigian stated he would like to see Mr. Wilson's proposal included as a condition or at least with an understanding that all Equipment Operator IIs would be afforded the opportunity to take this test for "A" endorsement on City time. Mr. Biga explained Mr. Wilson's proposal to obtain the "A" endorsement on City time would go beyond that in opening this up to anyone who is interested. Mr. Tatigian asked if there was any harm in that. Ms. Mahoney stated it would make it easier in the future for Mr. Wilson to have qualified employees for all vehicles. Mr. Wilson stated they did not have enough people with the "A" endorsement right now. Ms. Mahoney inquired if an Equipment Operator II is not interested in obtaining the "A", they are not being required to do this, but if three years pass, do they still have the same offer for upgrade training? Mr. Wilson stated it would be open ended. Steven Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, slated Mr. Biga said the qualifications for this job would be that you have to have an "A" and status as an Equipment Operator II. The last time this test was open, they allowed Water Operations Mechanic II's and Construction Worker II's to take the lest. Mr. Wilson stated they were proposing no change to the last qualifications other than "A" vs. "B". Mr. Biga stated he was looking at the last job announcement that Mr. Washington attached to the request, which states they require status as an Equipment Operator II. Mr. Locke stated his copy was dated from 2007 that requires status as an Equipment Operator II, Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction Worker II. Mr. Wilson slated his announcement was also from 2007. Derrick Washington, Personnel Analyst II, advised he made a mistake by attaching the wrong announcement to the memo. He was referencing the Equipment Operator III 1153 p. from 2002. Mr. Biga clarified that the Department would be working from the 2007 qualifications for examination number 1250 p., which required status as an Equipment Operator II, Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction Worker II. Mr. Schoonover stated the last job announcement allowed Water Operations Mechanic Its or Construction Worker Its to take the test. One of the people that passed the test and currently has an Equipment Operator III position was a Construction Worker II. He staled his understanding was in the past, you had to be in the series of Equipment Operator to be able to take the test. The Commission opened the examination up to Construction Workers, and to him, that experiment has greatly failed and it has cost the City a lot of money. A senior employee passed the test but he had no concept of how to do the job or what the job entailed. Mr. Schoonover alleged that the City has been penalized, because it has taken the employee three (3) times as long to learn the job as it would the average Equipment Operators. He personally would love to see qualifications limited to Equipment Operator. He slated that was his opinion and he wanted to share it with the Commissioners. He added in this case, there is only one (1) Construction Worker II left in the City. There are some employees that have status that are no longer in that job that may quality for the job because of their status. He felt that the City made a mistake by allowing it to be opened up to other classifications that had no concept of what this job entails. Ms. Mahoney clarified that Mr. Schoonover's issue is different than the issue before the Commission and changing the qualifications is what is incorrect. Qualifications should read "have regular status as Equipment Operator II, Water Operations Mechanic 11 or Construction Page 7 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Worker II." Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Locke had any objection to using the 2007 qualifications with the upgrade of the "B" endorsement to the "A" and Mr. Locke replied if the Commission goes back to the prior qualifications in 2007 which requires status as an Equipment Operator II to become an Equipment Operator III, he wouldn't object to the Construction Worker II. Mr. Locke wasn't sure how Mr. Schoonover felt about the Water Operations Mechanic II being included in the qualifications. Mr. Wilson stated sometimes the Union wants the language to be broadened. There are a few situations where they are looking to have the language narrowed, but that is the exception. The Department is in agreement with the Union. Ms. Mahoney's concern is that the request is to have status in any one of the three classifications to be included on the qualifications. Mr. Wilson did not ask the Commission to change that part of the requirement, just to change the "or "B" endorsement" Ms. Mahoney stated what they were being asked to approve is the language that should have been attached which includes status as Equipment Operator II, Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction Worker II. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Wilson how urgent this was. Mr. Wilson stated there are employees who are interested in taking an examination and at the end of this domino, there are Custodians who are very eager to get off part-time, lower -paid employment and get promoted to a full-time, higher paid position. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga what he recommended. Mr. Biga stated the last time they had discussion on this, he told Mr. Sturgill that the Commission previously granted the classifications of Construction Worker I and Tree Trimmer status as an Equipment Operator I, provided they met certain requirements. They never had to be an Equipment Operator I. Mr. Sturgill didn't believe him. After researching the issue, a Civil Service Commission resolution was found that granted certain classifications status as an Equipment Operator I. Atter that, the classification structure was changed. The old Equipment Operator I is the current Equipment Operator II. So they would have had status as an Equipment Operator I by virtue of action of the Civil Service Commission. So it is appropriate to grant employees in the classifications of Construction Worker II and the Water Operations Mechanic II, status as an Equipment Operator II. What Mr. Schoonover is saying is that there was one individual who was promoted and may not have necessarily attained the skills necessary and he wants to use that to prove that everybody shouldn't be allowed to take the examination. That is an exception; you don't prove by exception in this case. Mr. Biga recommended the Commission retain the 2007 qualifications which included having status as Equipment Operator II, Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction Worker II and replacing the "B" endorsement with an "A". Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 11-42 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of May 11, 2011, from Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, and Kevin Maillard, Director of Public Works, requesting a promotional examination for Equipment Operator III and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, and having discussion with Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service; Steven Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Ed Hoffman, Roads Stewards, AFSCME Union Local 192; Arica Flores, Engineering Assistant I; Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11 and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Page 8 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights, with the understanding that the test to obtain the Group "A" endorsement is being offered to employees at City expense, it is based on City time, and can be taken as many times as necessary in order for the employees to qualify: QUALIFICATIONS This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia, who, by the closing date of this announcement, are: Employed in the Department of Public Works; and Have regular status as an Equipment Operator II; Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction Worker II; and Possess and maintain a valid Group "A" Commercial Drivers License (CDL) with Air Brake endorsement and must have or be eligible for a valid Industrial Truck Driving Permit for operation of a forklift. NOTE: Applicants with a Group "B' CDL must obtain a Group "A" CDL in order to be certified for appointment. Able to lift in excess of fifty (50) pounds. An employee in this classification is subject to all requirements of the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, as amended. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Performance Test -80% Departmental Rating -20%` Candidates must pass the Performance Test in order to be placed on the eligible list. Pursuant to AFSCME Local 192 Contract, PROMOTIONS 20.13. 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 will not disqualify the candidate from continuing the process. `In the event there is only one qualified applicant for the position, the Parts of Examination and Weights will be 100% Departmental Rating. Mr. Locke inquired if employees would be afforded the opportunity to acquire the class "A" license even if at this time, they had no intention of becoming an Equipment Operator III. Mr. Wilson responded "absolutely." Mr. Schoonover indicated that for the record, Ms. Mahoney made an earlier comment that it was the Union's objection to eliminate the Construction Worker II and the Water Operations Mechanic II and just to clarify, it wasn't the Union's objection, it was his own personal opinion. Mr. Schoonover just wanted it on record that it was his opinion, not that of the Union's. Page 9 1264u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Mr. Locke discussed the request for a promotional examination for Tree Artisan and inquired what part of the Tree Artisan required an "A" endorsement. He stated there is no equipment operated in the Tree Artisan classification. Ms. Mahoney asked Mr. Biga and Mr. Washington if the memorandum, as written, was correct. Mr. Biga and Mr. Washington confirmed that the paperwork the Commissioners had before them was the most recent announcement for Tree Artisan. Ms. Mahoney noted the proposed new language in qualification #5, "Must have successfully completed Michigan Forestry & Park Association Electrical Hazard Awareness Training." Mr. Wilson explained that Tree Artisan or Tree Trimmer doesn't just deal with trees. They regularly do things like snow removal, throwing brush, trailer equipment and fill in on leaf pick up as well. He added that now is the time to come before the Commission because they have lost a number of positions over the years and the Department is strategically being able to fill a few of them, but there will be quite a few vacancies remaining, plus there may be additional cuts coming in the next budget year. He further explained there are communities all around Livonia that are experiencing cuts in personnel as well. There are fewer employees but still the same amount of work. The Department needs the flexibility to use personnel where they are needed, i.e., whether that is leaf pick-up, snow removal, brush pick-up, or any other activity and these employees need to be property licensed in order to be working with this type of equipment when they are needed. Mr. Locke stated that there is a pool of Equipment Operator II Is that were just approved to do that. This is a narrow, specific job description for a unique job. Mr. Wilson said in actuality the Equipment Operator Ills are functioning on different pieces of equipment during leaf pickup. They can't be on leaf wagons because they can't be in two places at once. Mr. Locke stated if DPW wants a Tree Artisan, they should be out there trimming trees. Mr. Wilson stated the Tree Artisan has a lot of different tasks and responsibilities. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 11-43 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of May 11, 2011, from Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, and Kevin Maillard, Director of Public Works, requesting a promotional examination for Tree Artisan and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, and having discussion with Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service; Derrick Washington, Personnel Analyst II, and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights, with the understanding that the test to obtain the Group "A" endorsement is being offered to employees at City expense, it is based on City time, and can be taken as many times as necessary in order for the employees to qualify: Page 10 1284"' Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 QUALIFICATIONS This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia, who, by the closing date of this announcement, are: 1. Employed in the Public Service Division Forestry Section of the Department of Public Works; and 2. Have Regular status as a Tree Trimmer and a minimum of two (2) years full-time paid experience in the Tree Trimmer position; and 3. Possess and maintain a valid Group "A" Commercial Drivers License with Air Brake endorsement; and 4. Must have or be eligible for, a valid Industrial Truck Driving Permit for operation of a forklift and an Aerial Platform Work permit; and 5. Must have successfully completed Michigan Forestry & Park Association Electrical Hazard Awareness Training; and 6. Must have successfully completed Michigan Forestry & Park Association Arborist training. An employee in this classification is subject to all requirements of the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, as amended. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Interview -80% Departmental Rating -20%' In the event there is only one qualified applicant for the position, the Parts of Examination and Weights will be 100% Departmental Rating. Arica Flores, Engineering Assistant I, asked for clarification and inquired if you currently had the "B" endorsement and there is a posting, if an employee has an intention of getting the "A" endorsement, can they sign for the posting, even though they don't have the "A"? Ms. Mahoney indicated that if you are an employee in DPW and have a "B" endorsement, Mr. Wilson had stated that if an employee wants to get the "A" so in the future they can apply for this, then he would take care of that. Mr. Wilson stated the question is, when the job announcement comes up, if an employee has the "B" and intends on getting the "A", can they still apply for this position? Mr. Wilson stated he had no objection to that, he would want as many people to apply as possible. Mr. Biga stated he would suggest the employee be allowed to apply, go through the examination process and then they would not be certified until they had obtained the "A". Mr. Locke confirmed that everybody that wants to apply to acquire an "A" whether or not they want to sign for any of these postings right now, will be afforded the opportunity. Mr. Wilson stated he didn't want to spend the money, but the Federal government requires compliance. Page 11 12W Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 11-44 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of May 11, 2011, from Larry Rushing, Code Enforcement Officer, as approved for submission by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection, requesting a ninety (90) day unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence, not to exceed ninety (90) days, for the period June 15, 2011 through September 13, 2011, with the understanding that Mr. Rushing is responsible during his unpaid medical leave of absence to pay the copayment for his medical insurance; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should Mr. Rushing not return to work for at least thirty (30) calendar days, after the approved ninety (90) day unpaid medical leave of absence, he will be responsible to reimburse the City of Livonia for any costs for benefits paid for Mr. Rushing during his time off in accordance with Section 25.6 (c) Insurance Premium Payments, of the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations and Final FMLA Regulations (29 C.F.R.), unless circumstances for not returning to work are beyond Mr. Rushing's control. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 11-45 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of May 17, 2011, 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 drivers license; and 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 Possess an MCOLES Physical Agility, United States Army or Marines physical fitness test certificate, illustrating successful completion, dated within the preceding 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 as attached. By the closing date of the announcement, each applicant must submit a written statement from a physician, optometrist, or ophthalmologist Page 12 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 giving the applicant's visual acuity in each eye corrected and uncorrected. (Eye examination must be within the preceding six (6) months of the closing date of this announcement.) NOTE: Applicants are required to submit original degrees/transcripts, MCOLES Certification and Visual Acuity Statement by the closing date of this announcement. Written Test — 50% Interview — 50% NOTE: A minimum of the fifteen (15) qualified applicants with the highest passing score on the Wriften Test will be invited to the Interview part of examination. Applicants must pass the Written Test and Interview parts of the examination in order to be placed on the eligible list. NOTE: At the time of appointment, applicants are required to pass a background investigation by the police department, a psychological evaluation conducted by a City authorized psychologist and a complete pre-employment medical examination including drug testing conducted by a physician authorized by the City of Livonia. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 11-46 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of May 11, 2011, from Monty Banks, Senior Police Officer, as approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of May 11, 2014, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of this request; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement is fifty-nine (59), as cited in the Livonia Police Officers Association Contract, Article 22.7, Vacation Accrual, as set forth in Civil Service Commission Rule 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1 Annual Leave (Vacation), Paragraph (f); AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee is advised that the maximum number of days will be increased by the number of bonus vacation days earned in the last three (3) years prior to retirement for not using more than five (5) sick leave days annually, up to a maximum of nine (9) days; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee is notified it is the employee's responsibility to manage his vacation time to avoid losing excess accrued time prior to retirement by scheduling sufficient time off prior to refirement, subject to the operating needs of the department. Page 13 1284u Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 11-47 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of May 12, 2011, from Keith Schoen, Senior Police Officer, as approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of May 12, 2014, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of this request; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement is fifty-nine (59), as cited in the Livonia Police Officers Association Contract, Article 22.7, Vacation Accrual, as set forth in Civil Service Commission Rule 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1 Annual Leave (Vacation), Paragraph (f); AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee is advised that the maximum number of days will be increased by the number of bonus vacation days earned in the Iasi three (3) years prior to retirement for not using more than five (5) sick leave days annually, up to a maximum of nine (9) days; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee is notified it is the employee's responsibility to manage his vacation time to avoid losing excess accrued time prior to retirement by scheduling sufficient time off prior to retirement, subject to the operating needs of the department. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner