Laserfiche WebLink
Page #3 <br />CIVIL SERVICE MEETING - JUNE 1988 <br />Service Department as they all do the same type of .serviceman <br />duties. The commission members questioned the employee group with <br />contributing comments by the General Manager, Mr. Mues. Mr. Noble <br />stated that in hiring of a hostler the State of Ohio Civil Service <br />manual recommendations were followed. This particular position does not <br />require certification, but it would be desirable for that person to be <br />mechanically inclined. However, unlike a mechanic schooling and <br />certification were not a prerequisite for the job. Commissioners <br />continued to question the hiring practice with respect to hostlers. <br />Mr. Mues stated that a high school graduate was a requirement. <br />Mr. Dagy felt that a hostler was a dead end job and once hired in that <br />capacity there was no room for advancement. Mrs. Brookshire stated that <br />most of the men in the position were young and could advance whether it <br />be in that job or another job - they took the job knowing what it <br />entailed and what it paid - knowing what the ramifications were and for <br />them to come to the commission and say I want security - she.does not <br />feel any different about the classification of Unclassified. She stated <br />further she is looking at the the problem objectively and feels the the <br />position should remain Unclassified after hearing all of the discussion. <br />Mr. Livingston discussed the qualifications again for the position. Mr. <br />Noble agreed with Mrs. Brookshire on the position being Unclassified. <br />Mr. Wendt again felt this meeting resulted from the letter that was <br />forwarded to the bus department and the confusion resulted. He again <br />stated that the two commissioners at that time were unaware of the <br />contents of the letter. Mr. Stroh stated that some of the concern was <br />the upcoming contract in the bus department. Mr. Noble described the <br />layoff process according to civil service and union contracts. <br />Mr. Wendt stated that this group could be dismissed and a decision would <br />be made by the commission and a letter sent in regard to that decision. <br />Chief Van Kuren stated to the commission that he contacted the doctor <br />and was advised that at the time of testing a commission member could <br />give an eye test, and although it would not be a valid -eye examination <br />it could be considered a screening procedure. At the upcoming police <br />examination we could give a screening examination and Mrs. Brookshire <br />offered that service. Commissioners will pick up an eye chart for this <br />screening. Chief Van Kuren stated he used some of the equipment for <br />testing on loan from St. John/West Shore Hospital. Discussions followed <br />on the cost of the equipment used for physical testing of safety <br />department candidates. Chief Van Kuren discussed the candidate with the <br />eye problem that now has been passed by the eye specialist and the Chief <br />feels he is a worthwhile candidate. Therefore, the commission may be <br />getting a candidate hiring name from the department. <br />Civ'. . r^i}ice meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M. ,q <br />Peg IgA1, Secretary Robert A. Wendt, Chairman , <br />