Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />,f <br />rules within the city rules. He questioned if the rules may be in conflict. Mr. Gareau explained, it <br />would be in conflict with the charter if there were a rule that said, "any rule inconsistent herein <br />with respect to the civil service laws under 124 prevails." Mr. Gareau explained that the charter <br />was specifically amended to provide that we have home rule powers relative to civil service rules <br />and regulations. Chief Osterhouse wondered if the Civil Service Rules and Regulations are meant <br />to be used in conjunction with Ohio law. Mr. Gareau responded that they should not be and do <br />not have to be. Mr. Osterhouse explained the reason for the question is the length of time for an <br />evaluation is six months according to the Ohio Civil Service Law, but is not mentioned in the cities <br />regulations. He explained the Fire Department has always given annual evaluations, which may <br />impose future problems. Safety Director Kasler wondered if it is not in the civil service handbook, <br />if it could be done by written rule of the department. Mr. Gareau explained if there are written <br />rules for individual departments, that are not mentioned in the civil service handbook, the <br />departmental rules prevail. Mr. Cummings wondered if it can be pointed out where this question <br />came from. Mr. Osterhouse responded this was part of Mr. Power's inquiry. Mr. Powers stated <br />he was told in September that the June edition is the official book, which he then reviewed and <br />made comparisons. Mr. Powers noted there was nothing in either book that addressed annual <br />reviews, whereas the Ohio Revised Code states there are evaluations every six months. Director <br />Wilamosky believed Mr. Powers had some good points in his October inquiry. He admitted there <br />are some firefighters that are not paramedics. He elaborated that not all firefighters should be <br />evaluated on paramedic skills. It was noted that the March edition of the handbook discusses <br />evaluations, but does not get as detailed and specific as the June edition. Mr. Gareau explained <br />evaluations are developed by the department and should not be a part of the Civil Service Rules <br />and Regulations handbook. Mr. Cummings acknowledged that the Mayor has sent a letter out <br />asking that directors and department heads review the handbook. The Commissioners would <br />appreciate it if directors and department heads can review the proposed edition by January 15, <br />1997, and agreed to provide a copy of the June document on disk for this review process. Mr. <br />Gareau wondered why the commission believed it was necessary to revise the March edition three <br />months later. Mr. Cummings explained that there are a bunch of new people here and it is difficult <br />to answer that question. Mr. Gareau wondered if there was a record that the March edition was <br />approved. Mr. Wilamosky agreed to check this, but noted in the past the commission never <br />transcribed the meeting and did not keep tapes from past meetings. Chairman Cummings <br />explained the commission has decided tonight that the March handbook is the official handbook in <br />effect now. Mr. Wilamosky compared the two documents and noted discrepancies. He <br />acknowledged, some of the language within the June edition is not bad, but other portions need a <br />different lay out and different positioning for clarification purposes. <br />B) Report on handbook. At the October meeting, Mr. Powers raised several questions <br />concerning the handbook (Commission: Included in packet) The commission preferred to <br />receive comments from the fire chief and will review this at the next civil service <br />meeting (Commission: please refer to correspondence # 6). The commission will review Mr. <br />Powers comments after suggestions are made from the various department heads and division <br />leaders. <br />V. NEW BUSINESS: <br />A) On November 22, 1996, an eligible candidate forwarded a letter confirming her denial of an <br />appointment to secretary (Commission: please refer to correspondence # 2). The commission <br />must decide if this individual has declined appointment without a satisfactory reason. The <br />commission referred to page 13 section C -1-e in the March 1, 1996 handbook. Commissioner <br />