12/16/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/r Benjamin noted there is no reason stated in the letter. Chairman Cummings believed that stating no reason is grounds for removal. The law director agreed. Chief Osterhouse noted there is a form which can be given to the applicant revealing there intent to be appointed. He believed, if this form were distributed to each department head, it would be perfectly clear who should be removed. The Law Director and Personnel Director reviewed this form. Safety Director Kasler wondered what would be considered a good reason for declining an appointment. 'Mr. Cummings could think of many reasons why a person could remain on the list even though they declined appointment. He mentioned illness could prevent someone from accepting an appointment. The commissioners agreed that because there is no reason listed, the candidate in question should be removed from the list. Mr. Cummings believed the form, which Mr. Osterhouse presented, is a good idea, but suggested including more room under A, so that the applicant can provide a reason. He also believed the applicant should be informed that they are not required to fill out this form, but can send there own letter if they'd like. Mr. Gareau did not think it was a bad idea to have a format, but it should also indicate that the applicant waves any right to a hearing by virtue of the civil service rules and regulations as a result of being removed from the list. Mr. Gareau mentioned, any time someone is removed from the list they have a right to a hearing, but believed, by declining employment, the applicant waves any right to a hearing. Mr. Cummings suggested possibly adding another choice, informing the applicant of their right to a hearing, and indicating per the rules and regulations they must give a reason satisfactory to the commission. He asked for the law department to give some input as to how the form should be rewritten. Mr. Gareau was given a copy and will review it. S. Benjamin motioned to remove this candidate from the eligibility list for declining appointment. without providing a reason satisfactory to the commission. The motion was seconded by L. Zolar and unanimously approved. The applicant in question will be removed from the eligibility list for secretary. The commission requested that the secretary send a letter out to this candidate informing her of the removal. B) Personnel Director Ron Wilamosky's request for review of handbook. (Commission: please refer to correspondences #5, #7, and #8). This was discussed earlier. C) Chairman Cummings request for discussion on the schools and civil service. Should the schools be eliminated from the handbook? (Commission: The ordinance and prior civil service minutes pertaining to this situation are enclosed in your packets.) The schools are mentioned on the following pages of the handbook: 2, 6, 34, 37, 41, and 42. Mr. Cummings explained that the schools were successful back in 1993 in being taken out of civil service. He wondered why the schools were not removed from the handbook. The law director agreed to look into this when suggestions are made for revisions. D) Mr. Powers had some concerns regarding the October minutes (Commission: Please refer to correspondence # 3 in your packets). Heard previously. E) Chief Osterhouse had some questions concerns about the intent form for appointments to entry level positions (Commissioners: please refer to correspondence #4). He was not sure what to put in the second blank on the form. Is this filled out properly? He also believed the form needed updating as there is a new secretary. The form in question is under review by the law department as discussed earlier.