HomeMy WebLinkAbout1302nd CSC Meeting (November 14, 2012)1302nd REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The 1302nd Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday,
November 14, 2012. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m.
Members Present:
Present:
Keith Besonen, Sewer Maintenance Worker I
Alex Bishop, Director of Building Inspection
Donna Bobak, Teller I
David Bryant, Project Foreman
Brian Buda, Equipment Operator II
Cathy Bumgarner, Clerk II
Sharon Dolmetsch, Deputy Treasurer
Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union
Local AFSCME Union Local 192
Edwin Hoffman, Equipment Operator III
Debre Jamieson, Equipment Operator II
Cindy Lane, Clerk I
Ruth Love, Clerk -Typist II
Suzette Malamis, Clerk I
Sharon McGrady, Account Clerk III
Lori Miller, Secretary II
Catherine Mitchell, Account Clerk II
Susan Middleton Myers, Account Clerk III
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairman
Brian Meakin
Charlotte S. Mahoney
Marilyn Pullin, Account Clerk III
Daniel Putman, Information Systems Director
Kim Schendel, Clerk -Typist II
Steven Schoonover, Equipment Operator II
Mary Seder, Account Clerk III
Debra Seeman, Account Clerk III
DuWayne Stratman, Building Inspector
James Sturgill, Equipment Operator III
Randy Toma, Equipment Mechanic II
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public
Service
John Woehrle, Equipment Operator II
Dennis Wright, City Treasurer
Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSMCE
Union Local AFSCME Union Local 192
Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-110 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 1301" Regular Meeting held
Wednesday, October 17, 2012, be approved as submitted.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-111 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of November
9, 2012, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II, to Robert F. Biga,
Human Resources Director, regarding the passing point for the written test for
Training Coordinator (Fire) (1338 p.), the Civil Service Commission does hereby
affirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 70% out of a maximum
raw score of 100 in the written test, or a raw score of 70.
Paget 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-112 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Police Service Aide (952 o.c.).
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-113 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Police Officer (953 o.c.).
The Commission received and fled the following:
a. Status of Temporary Employees Report for October 2012.
b. Non -Resident Report as of November 1, 2012.
C. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of November
1, 2012.
d. Affirmative Action Report for October 2012.
e. Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of
October 2012.
f. Letter of October 23, 2012, from Patrick Moug, President, Livonia
Lieutenants and Sergeants Association (LLSA) requesting to extend the
Police Lieutenant (1325 p.) eligible list.
g. Council Resolutions from the October 10, 2012 meeting, with minutes to
be approved October 24, 2012:
#406-12, Approving the appointment of Ruth Ann Brown to the Livonia
Plymouth Road Development Authority, for a lens which shall expire on
May 16, 2016.
#407-12, Approving the appointment of Omar Faris to the Livonia
Plymouth Road Development Authority, for a lens which shall expire on
May 16, 2016.
h. Council Resolutions from the October 24, 2012 meeting, with minutes to
be approved November 7, 2012:
#422-12, Approving the reappointment of William Fried, to the Livonia
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, for a three-year term expiring
November 24, 2015.
#423-12, Approving the reappointment of Ken Harb, to the Livonia
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, for a three-year tens expiring
November 24, 2015.
#424-12, Approving the reappointment of Enrico Soave, to the Livonia
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, for a three-year tens expiring
November 24, 2015.
I. Letter of November 1, 2012, from Michael Slater, Director of Finance, to
the City Council, regarding Workers' Compensation Insurance Renewal.
j. Expiring eligible lists for the month of December 2012 — None.
Page 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, slated he received a letter from the president of the
Livonia Lieutenants and Sergeants Association (LLSA), as well as a signed letter from every
eligible candidate for Police Lieutenant, stating they had no objection to a one year extension
of the existing eligible list for Police Lieutenant.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-114 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of
November 7, 2012, from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, regarding
the annual Police Lieutenant promotional examination, the Civil Service
Commission does hereby approve a one-year extension of the existing eligible
list for Police Lieutenant until March 14, 2014.
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-115 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of October
24, 2012, from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, requesting a
promotional examination for Police Sergeant 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
This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia, who, at the closing date of
this examination, are employed in the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety; have
regular status in the classification of Police Officer; and have had at least five (5) years of
experience, immediately preceding the closing date of the examination, as a Police Officer with
the City of Livonia. Experience is counted through April 8, 2013.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
The proposed parts of examination and weights are unchanged from the past examination and
are as follows:
Written Test - 60% Interview - 15% Departmental Rating - 25%
Candidates must pass the Written Test, Interview and Departmental Rating in order to be
placed on the promotional eligible list.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-116 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 26, 2012,
from Donald L. Knapp, Jr., City Attorney, and the memorandum of November 13,
2012, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II, requesting a
promotional examination for Legal Stenographer 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:
Page 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
QUALIFICATIONS
This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of
this announcement:
1. Are employed in the Department of Law; and
2. Have regular status in the classification of Legal Stenographer I; and
3. Have three (3) years of experience as a Legal Stenographer I.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Performance -25% Departmental Rating -75%
Typing — 60 wpm
Note: Applicants must pass the Performance Test and the Departmental Rating to be placed
on the eligible list.
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-117 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of November 8, 2012,
from Michael T. Slater, Finance Director, and Daniel T. Putman, Director of
Information Services, and memorandum of November 15, 2012, from Derrick L.
Washington, Personnel Analyst II, requesting an open -competitive examination
for Computer Administrator I 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 application, applicants must:
1. Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in
the United States; and
2. Have Comp Tia A+ Certification and possess at least an Associate's
Degree in a computer related field; and
3. Have knowledge of computer support, computer application software
support; Windows and Microsoft Office; and
4. Have a valid drivers license and an acceptable driving record.
NOTE: Candidates will be required to submit original College Degree and/or official transcripts
at the time of Interview.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Performance Test -50% Interview -50%
The fifteen (15) applicants with the highest passing score on the performance test will be
invited to the interview. Candidates must pass the interview in order to be placed on the
eligible list.
Pages 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-118 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of November 9, 2012,
from Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service and Kevin Maillard, Director
of Public Works, requesting an open -competitive examination for Water Meter
Repairer 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, applicants must:
Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in
the United States; and
Have a high school diploma or valid equivalency certificate; and
Have five (5) years' experience in the maintenance and repair of water
meters; and
Be eligible for or possess and maintain a Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality S4 Water Distribution Certificate; and
Be eligible for or possess, and maintain a valid Group "A" Commercial
Drivers License with Air Brake; and
Be eligible for or possess and maintain a valid Industrial Truck Driving
Permit for the operation of a forklift.
NOTE: 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
Written -50% Interview -50%
Background Investigation — Pass/Fail
NOTE: A maximum of twelve (12) qualified applicants with the highest passing score on the
Written Test will be invited to the Interview part of the examination. Applicants must pass the
Written Test, Interview and Background Investigation parts of the examination in order to be
placed on the eligible list.
Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, presented AFSCME Union Local
192 Grievance #12-08, dated September 28, 2012, from various Roads Division and Water
division personnel, regarding Water Division employees driving dump trucks. Ms. Young
slated the Union felt that they are utilizing employees totally out of this classification; there are
Water Meter Repairers driving the Equipment Operator II trucks and that employees are being
used for any classifications. Ms. Young staled that just because an employee has a CDL
doesn't mean that they are qualified for that classification. Ms. Young stated there are tests
and promotional opportunities to be drivers. Mr. Grzembski stated there is a strong past
practice in this matter and he felt Management was crossing classification lines in a job that
Page 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
was usually done by Equipment Operator Its, who drive the dump trucks. Mr. Grzembski said
there are safety concerns about this assignment. Mr. Grzembski stated 5 -person water repair
crews used to go out and now most of the time it is a 4 -person crew and he said the
Equipment Operator Its drive trucks, even though there is no equipment assignment, the main
job of an Equipment Operator II is and has always been, to drive a truck, regardless of the
type of license an employee has.
Ms. Young stated the Water Department used to have two Equipment Operator II drivers, and
then the operators were assigned to Water/Roads. Management dropped that and took an
Equipment Operator II from Roads whenever there was a water break during the day and for
overtime. Now they want to keep the assignment to Water Department employees but have
Water Mechanics and Water Meter Repairers driving the trucks.
Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, stated for 35 years employees working job
classifications throughout the Department of Public Works have driven dump trucks. The
trucks have never been exclusively driven by the Equipment Operator II classification.
Mr. Wilson stated that since the late 1990's when the federal government imposed a
mandated drug testing and commercial drivers licenses on the public sector, there has been
a program in place that requires CDL licensing and testing. Mr. Wilson distributed a copy of
the Department of Public Works procedure manual and referenced the first page that lists a
variety of classifications that operate commercial motor vehicles, specifically dump trucks.
Mr. Wilson said the lists show Constructions Workers, Equipment Mechanics, Sign
Maintenance Workers and other classifications. Mr. Wilson stated they have gone through
extensive training programs for years for employees to drive dump trucks. In the past year
every employee who only had the CDL "B" was required to upgrade to the CDL "A." They
received the training with a dump truck and a trailer to take the test to upgrade their license to
a CDL "A". Mr. Wilson stated this was done to allow operational Flexibility for any employee to
operate a dump truck. Mr. Wilson cited an example of the leaf wagon they use for the leaf
pickup. They are long, tmilered units. The state requires that an employee have a CDL "A" to
operate it. Also, there are dump trucks with under blades for snowplowing which are used
extensively by classifications throughout the Department. Mr. Wilson stated as the union
pointed out, the union contract no longer has an equipment assignment article. As stated in
the grievance response, contract language does exist that defines Management's rights
regarding assigning work. Specifically, supervision establishes the methods, processes and
procedures of work, assigns the work and makes changes as needed in duties in
responsibilities. A Water Foreman dealing with a water main break may decide to have a
Water Operations Mechanic take a dump truck to the work site or he may contact the Roads
section for additional personnel resources. He or she is going to make the operational
decisions based on a whole wealth of possible contingencies such as: is this a singular water
main break or are there multiple water main breaks; how long has the person been working to
that point; are additional personnel coming back on line that may have been off on fatigue
time; is there snow and ice control or citywide plowing that is taxing the resources of the
Department, or something simple, like, is an employee scheduled off that afternoon for a
doctor appointment. The Foreman will take these things into account when they make their
operational decisions on how they need to staff a particular situation. The Union is asking the
Commission to step into the Management role and actually impose work assignment
requirements that do not exist in this bargained agreement. As the work force contracts and
we try to keep the work in-house, things can't always be done the way they have in the past.
As far as the concerns that have been expressed, as mentioned in the grievance response,
Page] 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
there was a Labor -Management meeting which addressed these operational matters. What
is in front of the Commission is a question of, is there something in the contract that is
enforceable. Mr. Wilson believes there is; that it is Management's rights and its ability to
manage its affairs.
Ms. Mahoney asked what the safety concerns were that Mr. Grzembski referred to.
Mr. Grzembski explained that an Equipment Operator II is more qualified. They drive the
truck on a daily basis. He further explained that the conditions on many of the water breaks
are treacherous and the roads are undermined so that is the concern for someone that
doesn't drive the truck every day.
Mr. Meakin asked Mr. Wilson if there have been any issues with employees being injured or
equipment being damaged because of inexperienced drivers. Mr. Wilson stated they have
had equipment damage from drivers that may be inexperienced across the Department. As
far as specifically in this situation, they have not experienced this kind of problem. Mr. Wilson
stated they have conducted extensive training programs. All the Water Operations
Mechanics have received dump truck training which is ongoing within the Department. Ms.
Young stated the only training they received was to get their CDL, and that was it. Further,
she stated the City Charter says that all persons entering the classified service after the
adoption of the Charter shall obtain their positions through examination. Mr. Tatigian stated
the Union was really relying on the City Charter and not the 192 contract. Mr. Grzembski
clarified that they were relying on past practice and the classification system. Mr. Grzembski
asked Mr. Wilson that in the past five years, during water breaks, didn't the Equipment
Operator Its normally and for the majority of the time, drive the dump truck. Mr. Wilson said
that was correct. Mr. Wilson addressed the Union's concern of the Charter and stated that
was involving promotional examinations and this is not regarding a promotional situation. Mr.
Wilson stated there are people in the Equipment Operator II classification that never took an
examination because the Union negotiated for that. That is not the point. By definition a
practice has to meet four tests to be considered a "past practice." As discussed in the
grievance, the practice of a pattern over a considerable length of time; the practice or benefits
have been clear or consistent, the practice does not conflict with any specific contract
language and there is no specific contract language for Management to make these
assignments. Both the Union and the Employer have known about the practice and accepted
it. So as far as being called a past practice, that is not really applicable. Times change;
operations change. There are different ways of going about things. Back in the dark ages
when he started with the City, Mr. Wilson said the Parks Department had metal weed whips.
James Sturgill, Equipment Operator III, stated Ms. Mahoney brought up the safety aspect and
with the Equipment Operator II that normally drives a truck. Part of their job is to check out
the truck every day by doing a pre -truck inspection. He doesn't know if other employees are
doing that. All he knew is that they are having the Water Operations Mechanic I driving. He
explained that during a water main break repair the Water Op I's are usually the employee in
the hole; the Water Op II is the employee that operates the tractor, the truck driver drives the
truck. They watch the banks to warn the people in the hole of a potential bank failure while
they are trying to repair the break. He stated if you have one person in the hole or not, you
are taking a person away from watching the bank and it is safety sensitive in that regard. If
you were to look at the condition of the trucks, at one time those trucks were immaculately
kept. Now when you look at them they come from one water break and they go to the next
one. If we were a private contractor, and we were doing this, our police officers would be
Page 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
issuing tickets to the truck drivers because following them, I can see that there is mud all over
the tail lights that hinders the vision on the tail lights. As far as Mr. Wilson speaking to things
changing, he is right, but that is the reason there are negotiations. When things pop up like
that, then they are addressed. We just got through with one contract and we are getting
ready to go into negotiations in 2013. To arbitrarily change this procedure seems wrong. It
circumvents the whole reason for Civil Service. The Civil Service Department establishes the
protocol for a test to be administered. There is a probationary period and then the employee
gets status. Now Management is just putting any employee in as a dump truck driver.
Debbie Jamieson, Equipment Operator II, staled she started as an Equipment Operator I and
got a temporary assignment as an Equipment Operator II. You didn't just go straight into the
Equipment Operator 11 position. To address an accident factor, Ms. Jamieson stated they did
have a Water Mechanic I driving a truck who was very inexperienced. He drove through the
DPW yard with the box up and knocked over the big cover over all the gas pumps, ruining it
and causing thousands of dollars' worth of damage to the cover and the truck. The only
reason the Department had equipment operators that weren't classified as Equipment
Operator Its before or took a test to be an Equipment Operator II was an ulterior motive by the
City to wipe out the Equipment Operator I classification and the Laborer I classification. That
is why some people got into an Equipment Operator II position without having to test. But the
whole point of the matter is, she has been here for over 25 years and Equipment Operator Its
are the truck drivers, that is what we do all the time. At one point there were people who were
driving dump trucks that were actually brush trucks with large boxes on them to plow snow
because they had under blades. They weren't used to driving dump trucks with the boxes.
They hit a lot of trees causing lots of damage. Regular Equipment Operator II's who drive
dump trucks know what they are doing and to arbitrarily take that away is like saying, well, like
Mr. Tatigian, how about you come out and drive the truck tomorrow? Or maybe Mr. Wilson
would like to get out from behind his desk to come and do that too. You wouldn't do that,
because it doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, working 25 years for the City, her favorite
motto is if it makes sense, the City doesn't do it. This made no sense to her to take people
who do not, on a regular basis, drive a dump truck for a water break.
Mr. Wilson wanted to recap what the practice has been. Employees in the classifications as
presented to the Commission have driven dump trucks for 30 some years. The incident that
Ms. Jamieson referenced involved an Equipment Operator II in the Roads section. That
person is currently in the Water section, but he was in the Roads section. Mr. Wilson also
said there was somebody in the Roads section that look out a McDonald's drive through
recently, so it is not a question of what section you are in as far as having an accident goes.
Ms. Mahoney asked about the Equipment Operator I who was asked to drive a truck. Mr.
Grzembski told Ms. Mahoney there were no Equipment Operator I's right now. Ms. Young
stated there are only Equipment Operator II's now. Ms. Mahoney asked where the four truck
drivers were working when someone else was driving the truck. Mr. Wilson staled they have
a variety of assignments that may be going on during the time that water main breaks occur.
They could be salting or plowing and this is not to say that Equipment Operators aren't going
to drive on water main breaks. This was an operational decision that a foreman is going to
make at the time to decide what resources are needed for a particular situation. Some of the
managerial considerations include, are there enough personnel here to take care of the
problem, do we have multiple water main breaks occurring where resources from other
Page 1302 v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
sections need to assist. Mr. Wilson said these are foreman's operational decisions to make
on a day in and day out basis.
Ms. Young asked if they should hire an Equipment Operator II for the water department
instead of having them work out of their classification. Mr. Grzembski stated Mr. Wilson
agreed that during the past five years, for the majority of water main breaks, dump truck
drivers were Equipment Operator II's. Mr. Grzembski could agree that from time to time other
employees will drive dump trucks. As far as extensive training went, that was training to get
the CDL "A" license and he didn't know of any other training. Mr. Grzembski was unsure if
that training entailed more than about four hours. Mr. Grzembski stated that if you were
backing up a truck during the night in some bad conditions, it can get scary if you are
inexperienced. Most of the drivers already had CDL "B" licenses, so they just had to upgrade
to the CDL "A". But in the last contract, everyone was required to have a CDL "A" license.
Before the drivers had a truck assigned to them. They no longer have truck assigned to
them; they use the trucks that are there. Mr. Grzembski referenced a copy of the Tentative
Agreement, between the City of Livonia and AFSCME Union Local 192, paragraph 2., "Article
3, Management Rights and Responsibilities - The previous proposal on cross -training has
been withdrawn and current contract language will be retained. The parties agree that the
City will continue to be able to train employees as it has done in the past." This was
something that was dropped off at the table because Management wanted it, but the Union
didn't want it.
Ms. Mahoney stated the individuals who are selected to drive the dump trucks are not
promoted into that position; they are merely driving the truck. Mr. Wilson said that was
correct and they already had CDL "A" licenses. Ms. Mahoney asked if the supervisor
considers that some of the individuals who got their CDL "A" and trained for four hours have
never driven a truck since then and others have had occasion to gain experience. Mr. Wilson
added that some of them have driven dump trucks for years before they were a Water
Mechanic. Ms. Mahoney asked if the supervisors had that information when they decide who
they will put in that situation. Mr. Wilson said yes and in all things, everyone gets trained. He
stated a lot of the people in the water section came from the Roads section. They drove
dump trucks for years and it wasn't anything new to them.
Ms. Young stated she didn't know when they were trained.
Ms. Mahoney stated based on the contract language from Management Rights she couldn't
see a violation of the contract.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-119 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #12-08, dated September 28, 2012, from various Roads Division and
Water Division personnel, regarding Water Division employees driving dump
trucks and having discussion with Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union
Local 192; Audrey Young, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192; and Brian
Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service, the Civil Service Commission does
hereby deny the grievance.
Page 10 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
Ken Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, presented AFSCME Union Local 192,
Grievance #12-09, dated October 16, 2012, from Donna Bobak, Teller I, regarding a
reduction in hours from full-time to part-time as of December 1, 2012. Management from
Ms. Bobak's department stated she would not be able to bump even though there are lower
seniority employees. Mr. Grzembski stated Ms. Bobak would also have to pay much higher
part-time health insurance rales. Further, this change would have a drastic effect on her, not
only with the change in status but seniority and other benefits as well. Mr. Grzembski staled
on their last contract, the Union gave concessions and this is almost a slap in the face.
The Union's first argument is the Union is not agreeing to reduce full-time to part-time work.
He believed there is language in their contract that will prevent this change. Mr. Grzembski
stated this was a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Union wants to keep Ms. Bobak
working and asked who else will do the work when she is gone. Mr. Grzembski stated that
over the last couple of conversations, Management stated Teller work had diminished three
years ago. He had some copies of a promotional opportunity for Teller I that was announced
on November 15, 2007, that the grievant applied for and subsequently was promoted to on
January 8, 2008. Previously, the grievant was a Tax Clerk 1. She was hired on April 3, 2006.
Mr. Grzembski stated both jobs were full-time. Mr. Grzembski wasn't sure if the
Commissioners had copies of the job announcements. Mr. Biga stated the grievance chain
was the responsibility of the Union when filing a grievance.
Mr. Grzembski referenced the copy of the Personnel Requisition Form (PRC) specifically,
question 4.a., which asked "Could the work be eliminated or reassigned within the
Department?" and "No" was checked off. He further read, "If no, why not?" Work has been
reassigned within the Department. The Teller I position is needed to balance the water and
lax amounts collected daily." It is an essential job. He read question 4.b., "Why should this
position be filled at this level requested?" The response was, "Based on the complexity of
assignments the job classification is appropriate" Mr. Grzembski read question 4.c., "If this
position were not filled, how would you handle the work done by the position?" The response
was "There would be delays in answering the telephones and waiting on customers at the
counter."
Mr. Grzembski then referenced the Tax Clerk I PRC Form which was the back filled position
when the grievant got her promotion and the person has less seniority than the grievant. He
read question 4.a., which asked "Could the work be eliminated or reassigned within the
Department?" "No" was checked off. He further read, "If no, why not?" Work has been
reassigned within the Department." Mr. Grzembski read question 4.b., "Why should this
position be filled at the level requested?" The response was, "This is the lowest paid position
in the department."
Mr. Grzembski then slated he submitted a Local Request Form to the Treasurer's Department
requesting copies of all employee time studies for all Treasurer's Department classifications
and he said what they got was not a time study. It appeared it was information on just one
person. The Union believes this is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Mr. Grzembski cited Articles from the new unsigned contract, specifically, page 1, Purpose
and Intent, "WHEREAS, the general purpose of this Agreement is to set forth terms and
conditions of employment, and to promote ordinary and peaceful labor relations for the mutual
Page 11 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
interest of the City of Livonia in its capacity as an Employer, the Employees, the Union, and
the People of the City of Livonia,' and "WHEREAS, to these ends the Employer and the
Union encourage to the fullest degree, friendly and cooperative relations between the
respective representatives at all levels and among all Employees;' and "WHEREAS, the City
and the Union affirm their support of an Affirmative Action Program. The City agrees to
establish policies and regulations that will insure such equality of opportunity, consideration
and treatment of all persons employed by the City in all phases of the employment process;
to this end, basic rights and equities of Employees are established through the City Charter,
Ordinances and Resolutions of the City Council, Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service
Commission; and Articles of the Agreement between Local 192 and the City of Livonia."
Mr. Grzembski then referred to page 2 and read, Recognition of Union, "Pursuant to and in
accordance with all applicable provisions of Act 336 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1947, as
amended, the Employer does hereby recognize the Union as the exclusive representative for
the purpose of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.... ". Mr. Grzembski stated part of that would be
benefits because this would be a benefit loss as well. He noted Management Rights and
Responsibilities, paragraph G., "The City reserves the right to lay off for lack of work or funds,
or the occurrence of conditions beyond the control of the City, or where such continuation of
work would be wasteful and unproductive." Mr. Grzembski didn't know if they were citing this
as a layoff or a terminal layoff, but according to Mr. Biga, it is not. The point is we didn't
negotiate and this is a negotiable item.
Mr. Grzembski referenced page 3, Paragraph H., and stated he didn't know who would be
doing the work when Ms. Bobak's hours are cut. He read, "The Union recognizes that the
City has statutory and charter rights and obligations in contracting for matters relating to
municipal operations. The right of contracting or subcontracting is vested in the City. Work
performed by bargaining unit Employees shall not be contracted out if it will result in layoff,
demotion or reduction in the normal 40 hour workweek of a bargaining unit Employee."
Mr. Grzembski reiterated this job was posted with a normal 40 -hour workweek. Mr.
Grzembski continued by reading from page 4, Number 4, "Union Rights and Responsibilities,'
which states, "The Union as a lawful association, composed of Employees in the City's
service having as its primary purpose the improvement of conditions of employment agrees:
A. That all services performed by
Employees included
in this
Agreement are
performed under State and Local
Law for and in the
public
interest and are
essential to the public welfare."
Mr. Grzembski cited page 12, which references seniority and he stated this will affect the
grievant's seniority as far as accruing it on a part-time basis. Article 13., Seniority Lists,
paragraph A. slates, "Seniority shall not be affected by the race, sex, religion, marital status or
dependents of the Employee."
Mr. Grzembski referred to page 13, Article 17, "Layoffs," "Whenever it becomes necessary to
reduce the working force in a classification in any department of the City service, the
Appointing Authority shall lay off the employee or employees in accordance with these
provisions. Affected employees shall have the right to bump, based on total City seniority,
into a classification at the same or lower pay rale, provided that the employee presently
Page 12 1302 v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
meets the minimum qualifications to perform the available job." Mr. Grzembski asked if this
was or wasn't a layoff. He wasn't sure. He did know that if this happens the employee will be
able to collect some money from Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC).
Mr. Grzembski also referenced page 23, A. "The regular and normal workweek shall consist
of a five-day, 40 -hour week, extending from Monday through Friday inclusive, with a
maximum of eight (8) hours in any one day and a maximum of 40 hours in any one week"
Mr. Grzembski slated this is the job the grievant signed for and now she is possibly getting
punished for now. He then referenced Article 53. Maintenance of Conditions, A. "Wages,
hours and conditions of employment in effect at the execution of this Agreement shall, except
as provided herein, be maintained during the term of this Agreement. No Employee shall
suffer a reduction in benefits as a consequence of the execution of the Agreement" Mr.
Grzembski believed this is something that should be discussed at negotiations and be
bargained for.
As more history, Mr. Grzembski explained that the grievant went on an FMLA-approved leave
for pregnancy and delivered a child in June. The grievant was on an approved leave until
September 27, 2012 and returned to work on September 10, 2012 and was first approached
and told they were thinking about making this position a 20 -hour per week position on
September 17, 2012; seven days after she returned to work. Mr. Grzembski reiterated it
seemed like management was singling out one person — one classification. He also
reiterated this is a bargaining point, an 8 -hour a day, 40 -hour per week position was what the
grievant signed for and now management is attempting to change status in terms and
conditions of employment.
Mr. Wright, City Treasurer, was present to repond to this grievance and he wanted to let the
Commissioners know that the decision to change a position from full-time to part-time was
made due to economic conditions beyond their control. The decision he felt, would impact
the services to the citizens of Livonia the least in their Department. He wished to tum it over
to the Deputy Treasurer, Sharon Dolmetsch, who would speak on the matter.
Ms. Dolmelsch, Deputy Treasurer, gave some background regarding this matter. She stated
the property values in the state of Michigan have plummeted over the past few years. For
example, she slated the City's total tax roll for 2008 was $197,219,421. In 2011 the total tax
roll is $171,703,743 and that included a City tax increase. Over the last four years they have
seen a reduction of over $25,500,000 in total tax dollars that they collect. Consequently, the
Finance Director has requested every budget cycle for all departments to correspondingly cut
their budgets. Something that is impacting the Treasurer's budget for 2013 is the Plymouth
Road Development Authority (PRDA). The value of the PRDA has plummeted to the point
where PRDA is in a negative recapture. They have no more funding. The PRDA used to
contribute $21,000 to the Treasurers budget to offset the costs they have in support of the
DDA's tax roll. In addition to reducing their budget from last year, the Treasurer was also
looking at no longer receiving these funds from the PRDA. Unfortunately they were faced to
make some tough choices with this budget and were forced to look at their workforce. The
decision was made to change the Teller I position from full-time to part-time in order to make
up the shortfall. The Treasurer and she looked at all the staff positions and came to the
determination that the Teller I position is one that would least impact the Department and the
services they provide to the citizens. The Teller I's work follows the tax cycle which occurs
Page 13 1302 v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
only 5 % months out of the year. Tax collections are only done halfway through the year.
Then they are done and it gets turned over to the county. When the Teller I becomes a part-
time position, the employee would work more hours during the tax cycle, but when there are
no taxes to collect, the position would go to a 20-hour/week position.
Ms. Dolmetsch referenced Article 2 of the 192 contract, which gives Management the right to
reduce the Teller I position from full-time to part-time. The Union is stating the position from
full-time to part-time constitutes a layoff and the employee is therefore, entitled to bumping
rights. Ms. Dolmetsch stated she has read the 192 contract and she cannot find where it
contains a definition of what constitutes a layoff. In absence of language in the 192 contract,
they must look to the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations to find out if there is a
definition that exists and there is. Under Rules and Regulations, Rule 15, Section 15.2 reads,
""Layoff' is defined to be a separation of an employee from City service for lack of work, lack
of funds, or for any other reason other than the acts or delinquency of the employee." Based
on the definition in the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, a layoff is a
separation of service. This is not occurring. They are not separating this employee from
service; there is just a reduction of hours. So in their opinion, no layoff has occurred and Ms.
Bobak still has a job. Therefore, they don't feel she has bumping rights as defined in 192
contract, Article 17. In summary, Article 2 of the 192 contract gives Management the right to
change a full-time position to part-time position. Management is allowed to manage their
department the way they see ft. She cited Rule 15, Section 15.2 of the Civil Service
Commission Rules and Regulations which defines the layoff as a separation of service. No
separation will occur, therefore, Article 17 of the 192 contract does not apply. Ms. Dolmetsch
respectfully requests that the Civil Service Commission deny AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #12-09.
Ms. Dolmetsch wanted to make a couple comments to answer the Union. The Union contract
also has no words that guarantee that a full-time position will remain that forever.
Unfortunately, things change. When the promotional examination was given, that was in
2007. At that time they were changing from old software to new software and the new tax
system. The new lax software is very efficient. It does a lot of things that they manually had
to do. Consequently, when that happened, the more automated you become, the less
manual work needs to be done. Another example in their department is payroll checks.
Since the City went to mandatory direct deposit and check statements are on the City
Intranet, no statements are printed. Ms. Dolmetsch stated they are paperless now, someone
used to have to fold and stuff the envelopes and now that work has gone away. Management
should be allowed to adjust for those changes and she believed the 192 contract does allow
them to do that.
Ms. Dolmetsch stated the Union asked "Who will do this work when she is gone?" Ms.
Dolmetsch stated the employee is not leaving, she is still employed. Ms. Dolmetsch staled
the grievant will still be doing the work, the work isn't as labor intensive as it once was, she
will be doing the exact same duties. Ms. Dolmetsch stated they didn't really do a detailed
time study, they didn't write down all the duties and how long they all look, but they discussed
them. They discussed how long it lakes the Tax Clerk to do things and they discussed at
length how long it lakes the Teller I and the Tax Clerk to do things. This wasn't arrived at
without much discussion and their goal was to make sure that everyone has a job. They
didn't want anyone to have to lose a job, but they also didn't have funding in place to keep
everything the way it was. It was a hard decision to make, but in the end everyone still has a
Page 14 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
job. Ms. Dolmetsch stated they looked at the jobs when they made the decision. The Union
alleges they are singling Ms. Boll out, but Ms. Dolmetsch stated they were not; they were
looking at the position. They want to make sure the job gets done and it is their responsibility
to make sure that the work gets processed in a timely manner and they looked at staffing to
do that. Because the Teller I position work follows the tax cycle which is only half of the year,
that is what they looked at.
Ms. Mahoney stated the position would go from 40 hours to 20 hours per week during the
non -tax collection cycle. Ms. Dolmetsch stated it would vary; they get busy when it gets
closer to the tax due date. But they are looking at 25 to 30 hours a week when they are
collecting taxes. Ms. Mahoney inquired if the position goes from 40 to 20 but in some heavy
tax collection times during the year, the position may be 30 or 22 or 38, depending on the
cycle; are those extra hours now full -lime hours or are they just regular hours? Ms.
Dolmetsch confirmed they are just regular hours.
Mr. Meakin asked if the Department posed their proposal of this reduction in hours to the
administration in the budget process and obtained approval and whether the City Council
agreed. Mr. Grzembski asked when this decision was reached. Ms. Dolmetsch stated it was
when they had to turn their budget in. Mr. Grzembski slated the grievant came back on
September 10, 2012 and was told they were thinking of doing this on September 17, 2012, so
he wondered if the decision was made while she was on her leave or not.
Mr. Tatigian asked who the grievant would bump and Mr. Grzembski stated her original job
was a Tax Clerk and she did that job for about a year and half and then got a promotion and
that is the position she started at. He also stated this is something that is negotiable. Mr.
Tatigian asked if they were seeking to bump and Mr. Grzembski stated no, they were seeking
for Management not to do this, they think it is something that should be negotiated. Mr.
Tatigian asked if the Union thought that Management can't reduce hours of their employees?
Mr. Grzembski slated the Union thinks their contract says no. And if it is done, bumping rights
should apply. The Union's position is no, it should not be done and their contract holds that.
He reiterated the contract Articles, and cited Article 53, Maintenance of Conditions, paragraph
B, which states, "The employer will make no unilateral changes in wages, hours and
conditions of employment during the term of this Agreement, contrary to the provisions of this
Agreement' Mr. Grzembski stated the Union believes this provision is one that holds a lot of
weight.
Mr. Tatigian asked if Mr. Grzembski realized that Cities can't print their own money and they
are obligated by the City Charter that he cited in the earlier grievance, to have a balanced
budget? The City of Livonia is not unusual in not being able to print its own money. Mr.
Grzembski stated the Commissioners saw the time study; there was no time study done, that
is what he was saying. Some cities have part-time Treasurers. He then asked if
Management has had both their positions looked at and cut? Or just the Union positions? If
there are highs and lows in the work, has the Treasurer's or the Deputy Treasurers position
been looked at? The City could probably save more money. Mr. Meakin stated that was a
discussion for another day. Mr. Grzembski asked if Ms. Bobak wanted to clarify a few things,
as far as the job and when the busy season is and when she was collecting taxes.
Ms. Bobak stated Ms. Dolmetsch mentioned Payroll is no longer being done manually but that
is not her job and she didn't know why that was being brought up. She doesn't do that; that is
Page 15 1302 v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
the Tax Clerk's function and if that is something that is being lost to the department and being
taken away from a job function, that's an integral part of the Tax Clerk's job, it has nothing to
do with her.
Ms. Dolmetsch slated this was an example of how things change due to the technology. That
was the only point why it was brought up, it wasn't brought up for Ms. Bobak's job specifically.
Ms. Bobak stated the things she does, have not gone away; they are still there. They haven't
changed; we have a different tax system, but the work is still required. Further, we collect
taxes longer than six months. The tax cycle starts in July and ends in March. Yes, the
deadline for the summer taxes is the 14'b, but they still collect all the way until the last day in
February. It is not as high a volume, but it is still being collected. So you can't say it is half a
year.
Ms. Bobak reiterated, yes, she was not being separated from employment from the City, but a
reduction in hours is changing her income and her benefits. To go from what she pays for
benefits now to what part-time employees receive is not doable for her. She stated she would
be happy with bumping rights, she knew that the Union's position is to stop this change from
happening, but if that is something that can be done, she would accept a lower position. She
understands budget constraints, but she would like to at least have bumping rights. She has
worked here for almost seven years and has put in that time and it feels like it was for nothing.
To change from full-time to part-time and say that 1well, during this time we may need you
more, or we may need you less, we don't know. She stated she has three young kids and
she can't just all of a sudden, with that much reduction in pay, get a sifter for six hours on one
day and tomorrow she needs them for five hours, etc. She stated she couldn't afford to do
that. She wouldn't be able to find someone to do that. If she has to work part-time it would
have to be a stringent schedule, and that is why she sought this job in the first place. She
sought full-time employment. She had a child before she even started working this job. That
is what she was looking for. To go to part-time and not have a set structure of hours that she
can leave with her day care provider, where hours could change weekly or daily was
unmanageable.
Mr. Meakin asked where it says she's not going to have fixed hours. She is still working 20
hours a week. Ms. Dolmetsch staled she will still work 20 hours a week, when the workload is
heavier we thought she might like to have the additional income. Ms. Dolmetsch stated they
could arrange a set schedule even a year in advance, by going back and look at historically,
what days they are going to be busy.
Sharon McGrady introduced herself and stated she has worked for the City for over 23 years
and there may not be language in the 192 contract regarding reduction to a part-time status
as Ms. Dolmetsch says. Ms. McGrady stated that was because it is not allowed. It has never
happened. Ms. McBrady further stated Ms. Bobak applied for a full -lime job and that was
what she applied for and she was hired into. Ms. McGrady indicated there is some history
where in the Inspection Department, they attempted to change days of the week for the
employees and they ended up posting, indicating to the applicant they weren't going to work
Monday through Friday; they were going to work a Saturday. They were hired under those
provisions. Ms. Bobak was hired under the provision that she had a 40 -hour work week and it
was full-time; the salary was there. Something that has not been brought up is the number of
hours that temporary employees work in the Treasurer's Department. Ms. McGrady said
Management was going to reduce a permanent employee that has full-time benefits. Ms.
Page 16 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
McGrady stated Ms. Bobak takes advantage of having the medical insurance, while we have
someone, a temporary employee, working in that department. There has also been a lot of
talk about how great it will be that sometimes she will be able to work more than 20 hours a
week. A point that has not been made is that if her status is part-time, her status for paying
for insurance is now part-time and it doubles in cost. So those extra five hours a week they
may allow her really will mean nothing.
Chairman Tatigian responded that the Commission was very well aware of that. He thanked
Ms. McBmdy for her comments.
Mr. Grzembski stated this is Local 192 work and they haven't crossed the bridge yet with the
Temporary and Seasonal employees and they would be back if there are Temporary and
Seasonal employees working.
Ms. Mahoney asked if Mr. Grzembski was referring to Temporary and Seasonal employees
doing the work that Ms. Bobak was doing. Mr. Grzembski said "yes," and those employees
should go first in a budget reduction. Mr. Grzembski had one other thing and he didn't know if
they had to talk to Mr. Slater, or if Mr. Biga had any ideas, but there are going to be some
retirements next year. He was unsure if there were going to be positions the grievant would
qualify for or not. He suggested they retain Ms. Bobak for full-time. He believed the
employee would like to get out of this Department at this point, and if there was something
else that was going to open up due to a retirement and it is back-filled, he was sure she would
jump on it. Mr. Tatigian stated he wouldn't blame her.
Ms. Jamieson asked Mr. Wright, through the Chair, if there were any Temporary or Seasonal
employees or former retired 192 members working in the Treasurer's Department right now.
Mr. Wright said there were none. Ms. Dolmetsch stated she used to be a 192 employee. Ms.
Dolmetsch explained that Seasonal employees do not do Ms. Bobak's job. They come in and
do specific work. They wail on the counter. Everyone in their Department waits on the
counter; even Mr. Wright waits on the counter. The Seasonal employees answer phones;
everyone answers phone, not just specifically Ms. Bobak. The Seasonal employees do not
come in and do any function that is strictly Ms. Bobak's. In other words, Ms. Bobak balances
the tax registers; they don't have Seasonal do that function. They are just employed as
support.
Mr. Grzembski reiterated the requisitions for the test for the promotion, please read them. He
said he could go back through them, and on her job description it listed that Ms. Bobak
handles the counter. Ms. Dolmetsch stated that is not a job that is strictly Ms. Bobak's. Mr.
Grzembski stated it was one of Ms. Bobak's functions and the department intends to have a
Seasonal employee doing that. Ms. Dolmetsch reiterated everyone in the Department waits
on the counter.
Mr. Grzembski referred back to the Personnel Requisition form for Teller I. Mr. Meakin asked
Mr. Grzembski from what year. Mr. Grzembski stated this was from November 16, 2007, and
Mr. Meakin stated his point was, that things have changed a "little' bit since 2007. Mr.
Grzembski read question 4.c. from the PRC, "If this position were not filled, how would you
handle the work?" The response was "There would be delays in handling the telephones and
waiting on customers at the counter." So now they will get away with having no delays by
Page 17 1302v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
having Temporary or Seasonal employees doing Union 192 work. They are taking her work.
Mr. Tatigian stated these were tough times.
Mr. Grzembski made one more point. He stated if the grievant didn't take the promotional
examination she would still have a full-time job and seniority does have rights.
James Sturgill stated he and Mr. Tatigian had worked for the City of Livonia for a long time
and they both remember Ed McNamara. And since Mr. Tatigian brought it up, Mr. Sturgill
recalled hard times back in 1980, 1981 and 1982. There was over 20% unemployment and a
lot of foreclosures going on in the City, so many so, that the banks were telling people to stay
in the house, not to walk away. Mr. Sturgill agreed that times have changed but one thing you
can say about Ed McNamara is if there was a management position that went away, due to a
retirement or whatever, they didn't keep filling management positions at the expense of
worker positions, that it was fair and across the board.
Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga if there was any lower position than that of Teller I. Mr. Biga
stated within the series, that was the lowest, but there are classifications in the City that are
paid less than a Teller I. Mr. Biga stated the Tax Clerk I, Clerk I, and Clerk-Typist I are lower
paid classifications.
Ms. Mahoney stated they all feel the grievant's pain and they all have members of their
families that may have started out with a job with the promise of benefits that have eroded
and gone away. If you worked for General Motors and were in a Management position, the
health care disappeared upon retirement. Times are tough on individuals. While they are
very, very important, the overall service of the organization tends to be what we have to focus
on. There is no guarantee that everything that once was, will remain. Based on that she
believed that if the remedy the Union was asking for was for Ms. Bobak to not at all be Zayed
off or moved to part-time but to remain whole, she could not support that.
Mr. Grzembski reiterated they don't feel the City has a right to do that, but if bumping rights
were available, they believe that is an option and should be given to the grievant.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-120 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #12-09, from Donna Bobak, Teller 1, regarding a reduction of hours for
the Teller I position from full-time to part-time, and having discussion with Ken
Grzembski, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Dennis Wright, City Treasurer;
Sharon Dolmetsch, Deputy Treasurer; Donna Bobak, Teller 1; Sharon McGrady,
Account Clerk III; Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator 11; James Sturgill,
Equipment Operator III; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance.
Chairman Tatigian stated he was sorry that something couldn't be done.
Dave Bryant, Project Foreman, asked if the Commission thought this set a precedent wherein
a manager can take anybody from their department and just demote them to part-time at their
whim, no matter who it is. With 44 years seniority, could his boss tell him tomorrow he was
going down to 20 hours? Mr. Tatigian responded that if the City had the funds it would be
Page 18 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
another story. Mr. Bryant said he understood that they have budget constraints, but can they
just lake anybody? Ms. Mahoney staled she thought you have to not focus on the body, but
focus on the position. Managers can look at any position in the City and do what they have to
do from a budgetary point of view.
Mr. Bryant stated they could take the Treasurer and make them part -lime. Mr. Bryant asked if
they could tell him he was part-time. He asked if the Commission was saying he wouldn't
have bumping rights because it is not a layoff. Ms. Mahoney stated that was right. Mr. Bryant
stated this is a very important issue and the way the Commission voted on this subject is not
going to be good for attitude and he couldn't believe they did that.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-121 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of the eligible list for Program Supervisor —
Greenmead (1342 p.).
Upon a motion by Mr. Meakin, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
12-122 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of November 11,
2012, from Curtis Caid, Police Chief, requesting an open -competitive
examination for Program Supervisor 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, applicants must:
1. Be a citizen of the United States or a resident alien with the right to work
in the United States; and
2. Be at least 21 years old; and
3. Have been awarded an Associate's Degree in Law Enforcement or Police
Administration or a Bachelor's Degree in any non -Criminal Justice
discipline; and
4. Must have had formal training in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) within
the last three years and provide proof of said training; and
5. Must have had formal training in police records management within the
last five years and provide proof of said training, OR
6. The candidate must have a minimum of 5 years' experience in the last 7
years of employment in police records management, including CLEMIS,
CLEAR and Live Scan applications; and
7. Possess and maintain a valid motor vehicle operators or chauffeur's
license and have an acceptable driving record.
NOTE: ORIGINAL DIPLOMA OR OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS MUST BE SUBMITTED AT
TIME OF APPLICATION.
Page 19 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Interview Panel -50% Chiefs Interview -50%
Pass/Fail Background Check
Applicants must pass both Interviews in order to be placed on the eligible list. Candidates are
also required to pass a Background Investigation.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-123 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 30, 2012,
from Curtis Caid, Police Chief, requesting an open -competitive examination for
Police Dispatcher, 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, applicants must:
Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in
the United States; and
Have a high school diploma or a valid equivalency certificate; and
Be at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
Have an acceptable voice quality level as determined in the voice
modulation test; and
Have keyboard skills that meet or exceed 35 wpm without error.
We seek candidates with excellent oral and written communication skills, the ability to make
good decisions under pressure and during emergencies, and the ability to interact with a
diverse public. Prior public safety dispatch experience is preferred, but not required.
Candidates must have a working knowledge of a computer and its various functions.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Written Test -40% Chiefs Interview Panel -40% Performance Keyboard Test -20%
Voice Modulation Test - Pass/Fail
Background Investigation - Pass/Fail
Psychological Evaluation Test - Pass/Fail
The 15 applicants who score highest on the Written Test, will be invited to the Performance
Keyboard Test. At least the top ten (10) candidates who pass the Performance Test will be
invited to the Interview part of examination. Candidates who possess an associate degree
from an accredited college or university will have one (1) point added to their final examination
score. Candidates who have one (1) or more years of full time work experience as a public
safety dispatcher will have two (2) points added to their final examination score. Applicants
Page 20 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
must pass the Written Test, the Performance Keyboard Test, the Interview, and a Voice
Modulation Test in order to be placed on the eligible list.
Robert Biga stated the next item was the re -announcement of the Police Officer and what the
Police Department is requesting is a continuous examination until they get to the staff levels
that have been approved in the budget based upon the new and approved millage. The
application period will not close until we have a certain number of applicants and once we get
that, we will conduct an exam. Once the first group of examinees are processed, a list will be
generated. Civil Service will still continue to receive applications so additional people can
apply. When Civil Service gets enough applicants, another test will be given and candidates
will be processed. We will add candidates to the existing list, based on their earned scores.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-124 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of November 6, 2012,
from Curtis Call Police Chief, requesting an open -competitive examination for
Police Officer, 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:
Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in
the United States.
Be at least 21 years of age.
Have been awarded an Associate Degree in Law Enforcement or Police
Administration or a Bachelor Degree in any non -Criminal Justice
discipline.
Possess normal hearing, normal color vision, and normal visual functions
and acuity in accordance with the Civil Service Commission approved
visual acuity standard as attached.
Be one of the following:
a. A Certified Michigan Police Officer; OR
b. Certifiable as a Police Officer in the Stale of Michigan, subject to
verification or re -verification by a Michigan Commission on Law
Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) approved training academy;
OR
C. Be currently enrolled in an MCOLES approved training academy
and certifiable by date of hire.
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 in
possession an MCOLES physical fitness certificate obtained within twelve
(12) months from the closing date of the announcement and meet all
Page 21 1302°d Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
other physical requirements as determined by the Civil Service
Commission and a physician appointed by the City.
7. Possess and maintain a valid motor vehicle operator's or chauffeurs
license and have an acceptable driving record.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Written Test— 50% Chiefs Interview Panel — 50%*
Psychological Evaluation — Pass/Fail
Background Investigation — Pass/Fail
'NOTE: A minimum of 10 candidates with the highest passing scores on the EMPCO written
test will be invited to continue to the interview portion of the examination process.
Once that band has been exhausted, the next 10 candidates will be invited to
complete the interview process
NOTE: Candidates are required to submit original degrees/transcripts, other documentation
and MCOLES Certifications in consideration for the Chiefs Interview Panel.
The results at each step in the application process will determine eligibility for continuation
onto subsequent steps. The process will include EMPCO application, EMPCO written
examination, City of Livonia application and supporting documentation, Chiefs interview panel,
personal history questionnaire, background investigation, psychological evaluation and pre-
employment physical. Applicants must pass each part of the examination process in order to
be placed on the eligibility list. Note: All applicants must comply with all qualifications,
including number six (6).
Robert Biga stated the Livonia Lieutenants and Sergeants Association (LLSA) bargaining
team and the City of Livonia had a tentative agreement. The membership voted it down. The
Chief contacted Mr. Biga regarding how the contract rejection would affect the Police
Administration. The main issue regards health insurance. Under state law, there are health
insurance maximums that the City can pay. The law goes into effect as soon as a contract
expires. The Police Command officers parallel the LLSA contract. The question would be
whether or not their health insurance is going to start to cost more. The Chief wanted to let
Mr. Biga know that the administrators are willing to accept the same kind of provisions that
the LPOA has. To grant that benefit would require an action by the Civil Service Commission.
Normally it is a "me too" situation, so the Police Command said they would accept what the
LPDA has for health insurance. That requires an action by the Civil Service Commission and
City Council.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
12-125 RESOLVED, That having reviewed a request from the Police
Captains, Deputy Police Chief and Police Chief as presented by the Human
Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve
providing the same medical benefits to them as provided in the 2010-2013
Livonia Police Officers Association Agreement, effective December 1, 2012, to
be implemented as soon as administratively possible.
Page 22 1302 v° Regular Meeting November 14, 2012
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Meakin and unanimously adopted, it was
RESOLVED, that the meeting be adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairman
Brian Meakin, Commissioner
Charlotte Mahoney, Commissioner