11/4/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recreation Commission Meeting November 4, 2002 NEW BUSINESS The main topics of discussion on the Agenda are: nepotism, the “We Care Program,” Hiring of New Recreation Commissioner and Consultant Contract Issues. These topics were also the main issues of the October meeting. Mr. Gareau opened the discussion of nepotism as regards the chain of command over a particular department in the Recreation Department, whether it be parent/child, spouse/spouse or other family chain of command. This question has been forwarded to Mr. Dubelko for his opinion, who was also asked his opinion on the role of the Commission to establish employment policy. Tentatively, Mr. Dubelko is of the opinion that the Commission has more authority than it’s exercised in the past. The Charter defines the Commission’s authority as very broad with regard to this issue, including establishing various departments within the Recreation Department and concerning relative hiring and job descriptions. Ms. Hayes asked if this information would be available by the December commission meeting, and Mr. Gareau indicated it would. Mr. Jesse was then introduced as the new Safety Director by Mr. Gareau and was asked if he had an opinion on the We Care Program. Mr. Jesse indicated there is a pending draft on the nepotism issue, but it’s too early to expound on details. As far as the Commissioner issue, it’s clear that the Recreation Commission should take charge of this matter. The supervisors have been asked to list the top ten traits desired in the Recreation Commissioner, at the top of the list being a sense of leadership and strong business skills. As far as the We Care Program, the definition of “family” is changing; i.e., may an “out of town grandma” bring in her “in town grandchildren” for the day? Mr. Gareau stated that the We Care Program seems to apply to anyone associated with the City being entitled to a discount rate. Do we want to continue this practice? What is the definition of family:? Does it mean the people in the same household? What employees are going to be able to receive it? Does it apply to the Recreation Department employees only? Who will be eligible: everyone in the entire City? We’re talking about a small discount for either the employees of the Recreation Department only or the entire City. Mr. Stein said that when the program was put together years ago by Tom Fattlar and Don Copeland, it was supposed to get the full time employees of the entire City of North Olmsted together. Ms. Hayes asked Mr. Stein to contact Mr. Copeland regarding the previous plan. Mr. Gareau said we must define “family” within the scope of the law and local ordinances, and which employees are entitled to include their families within this benefit. The consensus was that all full time employees of the entire city and the part- time employees of the Recreation Department should receive this benefit. It was stressed that a significant number of the part-time Recreation Department employees take advantage of this benefit, a significant factor in their retention as employees. Mr. Gareau indicated that this benefit should be a household benefit; that cousins, nieces and nephews should not be included. Another issue is whether or not a parent should be allowed free admission if they are not participating in a sport, merely observing their children. The matter was tabled until the next meeting, with further expected input from the Law Department. Page 2