08/28/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, MINUTES - AUGUST 28, 1986 - Page 2 Mr. Friedman: Can we request the grounds for that decision? Mrs. Bahas: We're all -going to give -our reasons. Mr. Musial: My ground is that under our Rules, the definition that we use, there are. transfers which are appealable and those that are not and it's fully definable under the Code, the Administrative Code, that certain types of transfers are not because they.are otherwise -called a reclassification. I feel that this action that was taken falls within that definition and hence, this is not appealable. Mr. Wendt: The reason I -voted that direction, reading both opinions and looking at Law Director Gareau's Opinion which I had a chance to review and also while I was up here we reviewed the Opinion of your law firm. It is my opinion that this is not really an appealable offense by merely because these job actions, in my opinion, were similar in nature. This was brought to.our attention that there is no change in salary. There is no change really in job position. In fact, if we looked at it carefully, it looks as tf the position that Carol now is, she can be even promoted even to a different position or a higher position where at the Senior Center she could not.. So actually, I consider this as a job action movement, more so than,.or a job reassignment or assignment movement, which the authority figure had the power to do so. That's why I voted in that regard. Mrs. Bahas: I voted yes to this because the Administration was asked to comply with our Rules, Rule IV, Part A. titled Transfers. Using the Ohio Revised Code 124.32, subtitle (A), as our reference, in my opinion this definitely is a transfer. She ful- fills all the criteria here, in my opinion. She has been transferred with the consent of the Commission with similar position in another office, department, or institution having the same pay and similar duties. I have no problem in a Hearing for this transfer. That does not imply that I'm taking sides one way or the other, it merely implies that at the time of the transfer, this Commission as well as the Administration; I believe, was unaware that there were additional physical burdens in that new job and I think they have to be looked at. One of the reasons for the transfer was personality conflict. I believe if it's a personality conflict and indeed it was not a punitive situation and there was no blame being put on either part; if there is anything negative in Mrs. Ward's record, it should be removed. That seems logical to me. Those are the reasons that I disapproved and I think that's a credible way for the Commission. Mr. Friedman: I appreciate the Commission's opinion. Let the record show that the Law Director was not in conference with the Commission while in Executive Session and was not a party to the Commission's decision not to hear Mrs. Ward's appeal. The Attorney for Mrs: Ward had nothing further, The second item of New Business on the Agenda is a discussion with.Mr. Kline regarding the school board, Mr. Musial advised that Mr. Kline and.the school board matters will be placed on the Agenda for the next regular meeting of the Commission. The Secretary was instructed to make copies of all correspondence for each Commissioner to review. A list of all correspondence that has been received is to. be attached to the Minutes. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be held on September 25, 1986. There being no further Business, Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Bahas seconded the motion. All in favor stated aye. The motion carried and .the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Musial at 9:1.5 p.m.