Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/09/1982CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 9, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Chairman Paul Farrar, Howard Perkett and William Burgess Members Absent High Marvin and Michael Flaherty Others Present City Manager William Szymanski, Assistant City Manager David Minnich, Lance Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus and Paul Meade Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Meet with Police Department Association to Continue Review of Contract Mr. Reinholz presented a listing of the changes, deletions, and additions agreed upon at the meeting of March 2, 1982. Chairman Farrar and Mr. Reinholz initialed each item. A copy of the listing is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Article XX, Section 2 - Mr. Reinholz said this section seems to be o.k., but he wondered just what material should be left in the personnel files within the city government. If the material pertained to unjust action, it should not be left in a persons personnel file and should not be used in considering evaluations or promotions. Mr. Farrar felt that no such material should be in a personnel file if the person was exonerated. Such material is considered city records, and the incident should not be recorded in the personnel file. Mr. Reinholz said if it was a grievance relative to an evaluation the chief could keep it in a desk file. Mr. Burgess questioned what should be inserted in the personnel files. He wondered about the evaluations, who had access to them. Mr. Szymanski said after evaluations were processed they went to him and then were placed in locked files in the bookkeeper's office. Article XX, Section 2A - It was agreed to add the word "promotions" to the first sentence which would read as follows: FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS, PROMOTIONS, AND DISCIPLINE "PERMANENT PERSONNEL FILES" IS DEFINED AS THOSE FILES KEPT IN THE CITY MANAGER"S OFFICE. Article XX, Section 3, Appeal - Mr. Reinholz spoke about the possibility of an employee being suspended for minor infractions of the rules such as being late for work. He said such a person should have had oral warnings, counseling to help correct the problem, etc. before action was taken. No change was made in this section. Article XX, A, Reprimand - All agreed that the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal to any written reprimand placed in his file. Mr. Burgess felt that 2 years was too short a time set for removal of written reprimands from an employee's personnel file. All agreed that the 2 years should be changed to 3 years. Article XX, C, Appeal - Mr. Reinholz said the Association agrees with the language proposed by the Council. Article XX, D, Records and Reports - Discussion centered on what should go into an employee's personnel file. Mr. Reinholz said the employee should be able to get a copy of everything that was placed in his/her personnel file. Mr. Minnich said the employee knows what was being placed in his file. Mr. Hayes disputed that, saying material could be placed in the file and the employee wouldn't be aware of it. At this point the association held a short caucas. After the caucas Mr. Reinholz said that supervisors are inclined to let things get out of hand. They don't seem to notice broken rules of a minor nature or discuss ways of improving the conduct before taking action. Mr. Perkett asked if the personnel file contains material that is to be used for disciplinary action. Mr. Reinholz thought that after material was gathered and put together it should be put in the departments administrative files and the employee could get a copy. Mr. Farrar agreed, saying if a criminal action was exonerated, the item should be in the administrative files, not in the personnel files. Mr. Reinholz felt that the last sentence in this section should be deleted and the following sentence substituted: NO DEROGATORY MATERIAL MAY BE PLACED IN THE EMPLOYEE'S PERSONNEL FILE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE GETS A COPY OF IT. Article XX, Section 4C - Mr. Reinholz questioned the method of appeal, either the use of the City Charter, the Agreement, or the State Statutes. Mr. Farrar said the City Charter would prevail if it was passed before the statute was enacted. All agreed to changing the wording of this section as follows: IF THE EMPLOYEE WISHES TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER HE/SHE SHALL TRANSMIT IN WRITING HIS/HER APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Article XXII, Section 2 - No change. Article XXII, Section 12A, Evaluations - It was agreed to change the third sentence in this paragraph with an addition to the end of the sentence. It now reads as follows: "An evaluation conference will be held between the employee and the Chief of Police or his disignee". Article XXII, Section 12A, Evaluations - It was agreed to delete the last sentence in this paragraph. Mr. Reinholz was concerned that changes to the evaluation process be completed before the July 1, 1982 start of the contract. Mr. Farrar said that Mr. Minnich was going to be working on the evaluations so that they will be completed by that time. Mr. Reinholz felt the Association would want to be able to bargain as to the format of the evaluation forms, that it should be part of the contract. Mr. Farrar said the Association would have a chance to bargain, that it would be part of the contract. Mr. Burgess did not feel it should be part of the contract. Mr. Reinholz said if changes are made the Association wants to be able to have imput, it was not looking for veto power, just wanted a chance to go over it with the council. Article XXII, Section 12B - Mr. Reinholz is going to draft new language for this section. Article XXII, Section 13 - It was agreed to delete this section. Article XXII, Section 15 - This section concerns the seniority rights of an employee who is transferred or promoted out of the bargaining unit. Mr. Reinholz said the intent of the section is to protect someone who wants to go back to the union during the probationary period. After a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of the issue it was decided to hold consideration of the item at the next meeting. Article XXII, Section 18 - Mr. Reinholz asked if the city's proposal wanted to do away with binding arbitration on economic issues. Mr. Farrar said no, the council was willing to discuss this. Binding Arbitation was not used last year, there was an agreement for a specific time. Mr. Reinholz said the Association will consider Article XXII, Section 18, when the council is willing to talk binding arbitation. All parties agreed to hold the next meeting on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Mini-Conference Room at City Hall. Mr. Burgess made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Approved Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.