Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 05/23/2001 CITY OF KENT - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAY 23, 2001MEETING MINUTES Members Present: Callius Zaratkiewicz Ron Banister Scheduling Conflict: Tim Gimenez Others Present: A/C Marzano, BIC Shepard, Lt. Woods, Lt. Ohlde, Deputy Chief Miller, Lt. Cline, Assistant City Attorney Vinson, Debra Leroy, others present. Chair Zaratkiewicz called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. I. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Informational Item: 1. Chair Zaratkiewicz read the memo dated May 21, 2001 from Sue Viseth, Employee Services Director advising the Commission that Chief Examiner Guiguet has returned to work effective May 7, 2001. As of that date Employment Manager Jed Aldridge is no longer the Acting Civil Service Examiner. II. HEARING: III. OLD BUSINESS: A. Accept Into Record 1. Chair Zaratkiewicz moved to approve the Minutes from the April 25, 2001 Civil Service Meeting. Seconded and carried. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. Accept into Record Chair Zaratkiewicz asked those present to review items 1 thorough 16. 1. Memo dated April 3, 2001 from Corrections Officer Mary Ann Lindberg resigning �' from the Corrections Facility. Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page two 2. Memo dated April 19, 2001 from Corrections Officer Harvey resigning from the Corrections Facility effective May 3, 2001. 3. Memo dated April 25, 2001 from Chief Crawford to the Commission requesting the removal of Dwight Person and Robert Nicolous from the Entry Level Corrections Officer Eligibility List and Brian Wiles and Robert Nicolaus from the Entry Level Police Officers Eligibility List. Mr. Person and Wiles are removed due to unfavorable ratings of their psychological examinations and Mr. Nicholaus is removed due to information discovered in his background check. 4. Certified letter dated May 17, 2001 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. Brian E. Wiles notifying him of his removal from the Entry Level Police Officers Eligibility List. 5. Certified letter dated May 17, 2001 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. Robert B. Nicolaus notifying him of his removal from both the Entry Level Corrections and Police Officers Eligibility Lists. 6. Certified letter dated May 17, 2001 from the Chief Examiner to.Mr. Dwight B. Person notifying him of his removal from the Entry Level Corrections Officers Eligibility List. 7. Memos dated April 27, 2001 from Chief Angelo advising the Commission that Firefighters Scott Dellinger, Scott Galassi, Jim Waltrip, and Dove Woelber, have successfully passed their First Class Promotional exam effective May 1, 2001. 8. Memo dated April 27, 2001 from Chief Angelo advising the Commission that Firefighter Dan Hardman has successfully passed his Second Class Promotional exam effective April 24, 2001. 9. Memo dated May 1, 2001 from Chief Angelo notifying the Commission that Tom Shepard has been appointed to the rank of Probationary Battalion chief with a seniority date of August 16, 2000. His probationary period will be for 12 months beginning February 1, 2001. 10. Memo dated May 3, 2001 from Chief Angelo stating that Firefighter Elder has • submitted his resignation effective May 2, 2001. Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 3 11. a. Letter dated May 8, 2001 from Mr. Tim Trainor advising Lt. Woods that he is no longer interested in pursuing a Police Officer position. b. Certified Letter dated May 17, 2001 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. Trainor acknowledging his letter and notifying him that his name has been removed from the Entry Level Police Officers Eligibility List. 12. Memo dated May 11, 2001 from Lt. Woods notifying the Commission of the offers of employment as probationary Police Officers to Doryl Niles and Kenneth Martin effective date of hire June 1, 2001. Seniority order is Niles then Martin. 13. Memo dated May 14, 2001 from Chief Angelo advising the Commission that Firefighter Sean Kelly has successfully passed his Third Class Promotional exams effective May 10, 2001. 14. Letters dated May 14, 2001 to Daryl Niles and Kenneth Martin confirming their employment as Probationary Police Officers effective June 1, 2001. 15. Memo dated May 15, 2001 from Captain Dave Everett notifying the Commission that he will be taking an in service retirement effective May 31, 2001 and starting his position as Kent's Parks Development Coordinator effective June 1, 2001. 16. Various letters regarding Corrections Officer candidate Jeffrey L. Elsner: a. Memo dated May 2, 2001 from Chief Crawford requesting that Jeffrey L. Elsner be removed from the list. b. Certified Letter dated May 1, 2001 from Acting Civil Service Examiner Aldridge removing Mr. Elsner from the list. c. Letter dated May 14, 2001 from Mr. Elsner requesting reinstatement on the list and clarification of failure of Chiefs interview. d. Certified letter dated May 17, 2001 from Chief Examiner Guiguet to Corrections Officer candidate Jeffrey L. Elsner clarifying his reinstatement on the list. There being no discussion, items 1 through 16 were accepted into record. Seconded and carried. I Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 4 B. Action Items for Discussion 1. Chair Zaratkiewicz opened for discussion the memo dated April 25, 2001 from Chief Crawford requesting permission to begin a Corrections Officer Examination process due to the fact that they will have two vacancies. Lt. Woods: "The request is to open up the Corrections Officer testing due to the fact that we have had two Corrections Officers leave our employment. We'have an existing list with one candidate on it. For us to have a desirable grouping so that the Chief has the selection of three, we would need to hold another test and establish another list so that the Chief would then be able to have two candidates from the new list along with the one candidate who is still on the existing list." Chair Zoratkiewicz: "Is that possible? I know that one list cannot supersede one unless they're good for six months." . CIA Lubovich: "The question is, is it acceptable for the Department to have one list begin at the expiration of the existing list, which I think is just a couple of months away." Lt. Woods: "It's in September, and there is an operational need at the Correctional Facility to fill these positions as quickly as possible. With the two vacancies that have been created because of the employees that have left and the potential for a third, leaves us running short staffed." C/A Lubovich: "So, you have two positions and you want a new list now to start before the expiration of the current list." Lt. Woods: "Yes, we would still use the existing list through its expiration date of September 13, 2001. That individual would stay on that list and we would only take two candidates from the new list. Combine the new list so that we have three candidates to choose from." C/A Lubovich: "I'm not sure if you can combine them that way. Basically you're asking for concurrent lists." Lt. Woods: "Yes." • Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 5 CIA Lubovich: "That's a tough one. I know that the rules allow for concurrent lists for Entry Level and Lateral appointments that are done concurrently to fill a number of vacancies. We've done that in the past, or at least its authorized in the Rules. The question about picking from two lists. May be we could do two lists." Lt. Woods: "In researching the Civil Service Rules I didn't see an existing reason or law in the rules for not being able to have two lists running at the same time. It stays in compliance with allowing the Chief to have the Rule of Three." CIA Lubovich: "Right, I know that we've had some discussion about whether or not we could just do a new list so that you can get the Rule of Three because you're entitled to the Rule of Three. The question is, can you do that and maintain the old list at the same time or do you have to do a new test? Arguably you could call for a whole new test and invalidate the existing list because it doesn't give the number of candidates required to fill the position, you don't get your Rule of Three. I think you can do that. The question is if you can have two lists running concurrently on the same exam process. I don't know that answer to be honest with you. I know that there wouldn't be a problem probably doing a new test, getting rid of the existing list because there is not enough candidates. It doesn't give you the Rule of Three for the Chief, if that is what he requests. Or you can make a new test run and the new list be effective at the date of the expiration of the existing list, but I'm not sure why you can't either. You might be able to do two lists." Deputy Chief Miller: "Comment and a question. Actually, we have three openings. We have two vacancies from resignations and we have a third one which is a new position authorized in this years budget. My question to you is, if we can't have simultaneous lists, can we go ahead and start the testing process because we want to be able to get into the pecking order because there is a whole bunch of testing going on, or will be going on in the near future and have that test take effect either at the end of the expiration date of the current list or when that list no longer has a:candidate on it. For example, if the candidates name was either removed through hire or for some other reason say August one then we could ask to start utilizing the next'list instead of having to wait and start the testing process afterwards." Commissioner Banister: "I'm lost in this too. You have a current list. You have vacancies. Why aren't those vacancies being filled from the current list?" • • Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 6 Lt. Woods: "Because the candidate on the current list is less than desirable to fill our needs. There is not enough there to remove him from the list." CIA Lubovich: "I think that there are a couple of options. To respond to the Deputy Chief, I don't see any problem whatsoever in starting the testing process now, period. The question becomes the effective date of the list. I think you could do what you suggested, Lets assume we can't have the current list and I'm not sure you can't. Assuming you can't, you could make the list effective or certified I think at the expiration of the existing list or upon the list no longer being in existence because of an appointment. I don't think that there is a problem in doing that. I don't think that there is a problem just saying, "Listen, I want a new test because there are not enough candidates and I, as the Chief, am entitled to the Rule of Three and I,don't have enough to fill my slots and I want a new test." I think that you can ask fora new test now and basically invalidate the existing list if you wanted to. I don't know about concurrent lists. I don't see why you probably couldn't do that either. I don't see why you couldn't • have two lists. I'm not aware of any reason why you can't." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "I'll throw something out. The Chief has the right to go to either Rule of Three or Rule of twenty-five percent. What's to say that he didn't like the 25% that he had left on the list? He could also ask to have that run concurrent." Deputy Chief Miller: "I guess the real issue is that we have more vacancies than we have candidates on the certified list, so we need to move forward. We don't want to have to wait until September 301h, the date that the current list is expired, to move forward. That would put us into the first of next year before you can have this process done and deal with all those vacancies." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "But on the other side though, the person did pass the test and was able to achieve status on the list. We have to recognize that too. Because if we just wipe out a list because the person may not be the particular person at the time, then we go and start up a new list. Will we now be in some sort of liability issue? Will the test and the list be questionable because it can be manipulated that way, why even have a list. We want to do this the right way." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "We have with both Entry Level Police and Firefighter started • our testing process well before the actual expiry date of the current list. You would have the new list effective in September." • Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 7 Lt. Woods: "What we are faced with here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have openings and there is an existing operational need to run the jail efficiently, effectively and safely. We have one candidate who is on the existing list. What we are asking for is to establish a second list. I heard the City Attorney saying that there is no reason why we can't have two concurrent lists. We can then draw two names off the second list to allow the Chief to have his Rule of Three. We have two existing openings, we'll have a third. There is no way we'll be able to fill those two positions with our existing list. By allowing us to test, we can move forward." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "If I were to make a motion that we allow the testing for the second list and pending upon whatever Roger finds the legalities of two consecutive lists, would that be acceptable?" CIA Lubovich: "I suppose so. " Chair Zaratkiewicz: "That way you can get the testing process started. That way, if we • can't then we'll have to figure a way through it." CIA Lubovich: "I don't have a problem with starting the testing process. I think that is appropriate because they have vacancies, they have to move on this thing. It makes sense. I'm not saying you can't do them concurrent. I just don't know. I don't know a reason why you can or can't. I'm trying to think of the Civil Service Rules. I don't have a problem starting a process. Frankly I'm having a little trouble with'this issue and we've been debating it a little bit internally because on one hand you can say that the current list is not valid because there are not three candidates for the Rule of Three on it. However, if you want to,you can still appoint from that list. Well, is it valid or is it not? Make up your mind. You do another test and get another list. Then you pick and choose in between lists. I'm very troubled by the whole thing. Legally, the most legally defensible position would be to start the testing process. Make the-list effective on the expiration of the existing list. But, I understand the needs of the Department. They have three vacancies. They need to fill them now. They can't wait. The current list is not enough to satisfy the existing needs that you have. When are the vacancies coming up? Before the expiration of the current list?" Lt. Woods: "Two openings. Two employees have already resigned." Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 8 C/A Lubovich: "So you have a need now. Its obvious that you need more candidates than you have on any list, whether or not you want to pick this one on the current list." Commissioner Banister: "I have a question. You said that one candidate doesn't fill the two positions. You've said that there are three positions." Lt. Woods: "I was not aware that we had one budgeted for. We have the two employees who have resigned from the Corrections Facility and taken employment elsewhere and then a new position." Commissioner Banister: "I'm concerned about the appeals this candidate is going to make." Deputy Chief Miller: I appreciate the Commissions concerns. Mr. Lubovich has indicated that he is not sure one-way or the other. Maybe we can resolve this and make a motion that would be broad enough to cover it so that based upon his final decision. . First off we can move forward with the testing, whether or not that second test becomes effective at the end of this one or when that person is no longer on the list, can be determined by Mr. Lubovich's decision and Catherine's help. I just need to get the testing process started. That's my main concern." Commissioner Banister: "Which we have no objections to. We are still concerned that if he is not qualified for anything how did he get on the list?" Chief Examiner Guiguet: "I think that sometimes it's a particular fit within the department." Lt. Woods: "Do you want me to address your concerns? Where he is and why we will not consider him for employment? I've already spoken to the candidate and told him this. He came in for an interview with the Chief of Police, which is part of our whole process. Both for Police Officers and Correction Officers as well as Records Specialists. During that interview the Chief puts him through a series of questions. Getting to know you type questions. This is an opportunity for the potential employee to get to know us. During the interview the candidate bombed it miserably. It carries the same weight as if he goes before an Oral Board or a final interview with the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation. If you are being looked at for a position and you • come in ill prepared. He failed. We had originally moved to take his name off the list. We were told that we could not take his name off the list because this was an unusual • Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 9 part of the process that is not normally recognized. That's why there was a letter sent out to the candidate saying,'you've been removed'. He appealed and now his name is back on the list. Item number twelve." CIA Lubovich: "Internally, he has asked and we have determined that he cannot be removed." Lt. Woods: "I have personally spoken with the candidate and explained everything to him and he is quite content and he understands why he failed the Chief's interview." CIA Lubovich: "It almost sounds like we ought to have a clean test, start with a new test. Rather than play around with an existing list that we are not going to hire off of." Lt. Woods: "That is what we had originally hoped for." BIC Shepard: "Tom Shepard with the Firefighters Union. I'd hate to see the • Commission get into having two lists at the same time. My apologies to the Police Department, but you can see what that opens up. We give promotional's and we don't like the people on this list, so you can start another list and then you,have two lists. By law you get one list. It probably doesn't specifically prohibit it other than it establishes a list for a position. It doesn't say two lists or multiple lists, it says a list. It sounds like this case here, why couldn't you just stop this list. I'd like to see this list go away over a second list. It sounds like there are sufficient grounds to. Just go ahead and put an end to it." CIA Lubovich: "That was one of my comments. I think that we could do a new test. Redo it for not an adequate number of candidates and the Chief is entitled to a selection out of the top Rule of Three." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "Do we need to address that at the next meeting or shall we make a motion right now?" CIA Lubovich: "I'm comfortable with a motion now if the department is comfortable with it. We'll just start out and get a new list and it will be in effect. The old one will be invalidated due to the fact of the Rule of Three, not enough qualified candidates." • Deputy Chief Miller: "My request today, and we may come back next month and address the other. My question is for permission to start the testing process." • Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 10 Chair Zaratkiewicz: "That's no problem. The validation of the list after;the testing process is the problem." CIA Lubovich: "We can defer that to the next meeting if you want. The Chief wants it taken care of." Deputy Chief Miller: "We'll address the other issue at a later time. I just want permission to begin the testing process." CIA Lubovich: "Can I ask questions?" Chair Zaratkiewicz: "Yes." CIA Lubovich: "Would you be satisfied if they wanted to act today and get rid of the existing list upon the effective date of any new list?" • Deputy Chief Miller: "I personally think that we need to put something in writing for the Commission to act upon. If we can, just get the authorization to start the process with the understanding that was not in effect until the other list is either null and void because of nobody left on it or because it has expired. My problem is that I don't have sufficient information in front of me to make a verbal request of the Commissioners to have this person removed from the existing list." CIA Lubovich: "Can I ask with your indulgence, what you just said was start a testing process and have the list effective on either the expiration of the list, or the removal of a candidate for whatever reason. That is different from whether or not we are going to have it effective sooner due to a Rule or an invalidation of an existing list." Deputy Chief Miller: "The bottom line is, that I'd like that test. The test is usable either when the current list expires or if it happens to become non-existent due to nobody being left on it prior to expiration. Whichever comes first.." Chair Zaratkiewicz: " Then I make the motion that we grant permission for the testing process to begin and that at the next meeting we address the lists;and what to do with each list and where. Will that work? Then you can check out the concurrent two lists going and we can get requests from the Chief saying Rule of Three or whatever. • Whatever way you want to go." 1 Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Banister: "I second it." C/A Lubovich: "That's fine. One point on the test, do we know what the test is going to be composed of?" Deputy Chief Miller: "The test would be for the Corrections Officer position. We will use the same process that we have used in the past." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "Motion has been moved and seconded. Motion posses. Are you okay? (Said to C/A Lubovich). C/A Lubovich: "I was thinking that the Deputy Chief and I are having a miscommunication of what the intent is, but I understand deferral, that I understand." 2. Chair Zaratkiewicz opened for discussion 1. The memo dated April 29, 2001 from Entry Level Police Officer/Corrections Officer candidate Justin Poe requesting an • appeal and 2. The Certified letter dated May 17, 2001 from Chief iExaminer Guiguet to Mr. Poe notifying him that his request for appeal will go beforithe Commission at their May 23, 2001 Civil Service Meeting. Chair Zaratkiewicz: "At this time because we don't know anything about the appeal I'm going to make a motion that Mr. Poe be granted an appeal and that possibly at the next meeting or at a meeting where any needed people, witnesses, whatever, are needed to be there to understand the information so the meeting time may be different from the present meeting time. How's that? We'll set the meeting time in line with that." Commissioner Banister: "Do you think we should call a Special Meeting." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "It is my understanding is that it is on the Psychological Exam. Dr. Smith may need to be available." Lt. Woods: "I believe in this case it is Dr. Ekimo, Dr. Smith's partner. The last I heard Dr. Smith is in South Africa." C/A Lubovich: "Point of clarification. Obviously you are granting the right to appeal and it is going to be scheduled..?" . Chair Zoratkiewicz: "At the next meeting or as soon as possible if we do need..." i II Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes • May 23, 2001 Page 12 CIA Lubovich: "Subject to availability." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "I don't know what their time schedule is." CIA Lubovich: "So it will be tentatively scheduled for the next meeting unless there is an unavailability of the witnesses?" Chair Zaratkiewicz: "Yes. Motion has been moved and seconded. Motion passes." Chair Zaratkiewicz opened for discussion the memo dated Tuesday, May 15, 2001 from Lieutenant Glenn Woods requesting that a promotional examination for.Police Captain be prepared and scheduled as soon as practical. Deputy Chief Miller: "Because there could possibly be a conflict of interest with a Lieutenant making this request, I'll make it on behalf of the Department because the people taking the test are lieutenants. • What we would like to do at this time is get your permission to move forward and start the process. We intend to meet with Catherine and Jed to discuss some issues of the testing process and then turn it over to an outside firm to work with the Civil Service Commission I mean with Catherine. What we can't ask for your approval of is the actual makeup of the test because that needs to be determined by the consultant. We're just asking for your permission to move forward. Meet with some people and establish the testing process. Our involvement in this will be to help identify traits that the department is looking for in its Captains position. As far as putting together the test itself, or writing questions etc., that is what the consultant is for." CIA Lubovich: "The only clarification question that I would ask is, would that final determination of the test process come back to the Commission?" Deputy Chief Miller: "Yes, hopefully that process, not necessarily the actual makeup of the exam but the testing process should be available by the next meeting so that you know what steps we are going to be taking. The potential candidates will know what steps we are taking." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "I make a motion that we grant permission to start the testing process. Seconded and carried. Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2001 Page 13 There isn't a fifth item, but I am going to bring one up. I'm asking everyone to think about the start time for these meetings to see if there might be a better time. An earlier time might accomplish the same thing. Maybe, we might want to switch back to mornings again. We seem to go from morning to evening and then back to morning." Deputy Chief Miller: "As far as the Police Department is concerned, we,are available at whichever time you want to meet. Obviously, if we can meet during normal business hours that is an advantage. The three of you have real jobs that you have a certain commitment to. That's why some of these adjustments are made." Chair Zaratkiewicz: "Again, we are asking for input. If you have a good idea contact Catherine and we'll go from there." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "Or even not a good idea." Chair Zaratkiewicz asked if there was any additional business to be discussed. • Chair Zaratkiewicz made a motion to adjourn. Seconded and carried. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. The next regular Civil Service Meeting will be held at 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Catherine M. Guiguet Civil Service Secretary & Chief Examiner Approved: Chair Cal ' s Zaratkiewicz • P:\Employment\Civil Service\Agendas&MinutesCSMeetings\MinutesMay2001..doc Guiguet, Catherine From: Guiguet, Catherine —qant: Thursday,June 21, 2001 1:51 PM Fire All Personnel; Police All Personnel;Anh Hoang; Becky Fowler; Brett Vinson; Callius 2aratkiewicz(E-mail); Catherine Guiguet; Cheryl Viseth; Dee Drake; Debra Leroy; Jan Banister;Jed Aldridge; Jim White; Joe Bartlemay; Karen Ford; Kathleen Senecaut; Marvin Bartlemay; Mike Martin; Rob Sprague(E-mail); Roger Lubovich; Ron Banister(E-mail); Rose Jacob; Steve Ohlde; Sue Viseth Subject: MAY CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES i Please click on the icon below for your copy of the Civil Service Minutes for May: MinutesMoy200 Ldoc Catherine M. Guiguet Civil Service Secretary&Chief Examiner • i �I i �