03/24/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. _a 0 discussed moving this information. He noted, it was the position of the law department as well as his own that Extra Credit criteria should be in a rule all by itself. Osterhouse noted, the basis for his recommendation was that the "Tie Score Promotional" section on page 10 appears out of place. Wilamosky confirmed this was discussed, but everything was basically placed on subject matter. This was discussed in detail, and Mr. Wilamosky agreed to move this section under Rule III. Chief Osterhouse suggested moving Section 5 of rule IV (page 10) to a new section 8 (page 8) of Rule III. Mr. Wilamosky believed anything that deals with promotional can be inserted into the promotional section of the suggestions. This means there will be the following new sections under Rule III: Section 7 titled "Efficiency and Seniority Credit - Promotional Examinations" (moved from page 11 and 12) and a Section 8 titled "Tie Score Promotional" (moved from page 10). Mr. Wilamosky agreed to set this up. Section 4-e on page 12 was discussed. Chief Viola advised the Police Department has changed their rating system. Personnel Director Wilamosky wondered if this was in the June 17, 1996 rules. He was advised this was present in those regulations. It was noted, the current Police Department Rating Scale appears on page 20 of the suggestions workbook (dated June 17, 1996), Mr. Wilamosky agreed to change the rating scale for police in his document accordingly. It was pointed out that the Fire Department Rating Scale is also different. Wilamosky was concerned because this is a Promotional issue which is subject to collective bargaining. He did not want to change this rule for fear that the union will file a failure to negotiate. The Commission agreed not to make any changes in this area at this time. The remainder of these suggestions will be discussed at a future meeting. Chairman Cummings wondered how the administration feels about changing the number of people certified for an opening. Mr. Wilamosky explained the commission has historically certified three names. He advised the police department performs a background check on approximately ten names to weed out those individuals that do not pass the background check. Chief Viola interrupted citing they only receive three names to review for an opening. He advised that the police department does not review beyond what is certified to them by the commission. Personnel Director Wilamosky recalled the police department requesting that the commission provide twenty names. Chief Viola noted the only thing they requested was a copy of the eligibility list, and no background checks have ever been done unless the commission certifies three names. Chairman Cummings noted the argument for receiving five names was that the person ranked fourth or fifth on the list may have far more superior skills than the top three. Chief Osterhouse advised there have been times when his department has been forced to accept the lesser of the three evils. Personnel Director Wilamosky thought that if everything is balanced the departments would employ people based on their test score. The Chiefs agreed if everything is balanced this is true, however it rarely ever balances. Chief Viola argued the state has provisions under 124.27 of the O.RC., where they have changed the number of names supplied for an opening. He elaborated the State has expanded the number of names to ten for a given opening. It was noted that Lakewood has upgraded to ten and Westlake to six. Chief Viola wondered why the city would restrict themselves to three when the state expanded the requirement to ten. Personnel Director Wilamosky advised the Law Department did not believe a change was necessary in this area. He noted the main concern was nepotism. The Chief advised the commission can check up on this to insure everyone is treated fairly. Director Wilamosky believed if someone other than the candidate ranked first on the list is chosen, the commission should request an explanation for that decision. Chief Osterhouse wondered if such explanation would have to be detailed. Chief Viola believed a brief explanation, such as a certain candidate is better qualified would be sufficient. Wilamosky 8