Laserfiche WebLink
,. <br />protest. Mr. Cummings stated that Mr. Kilbane wrote a letter quoting a case from the Ohio Supreme Court <br />that did allow the extra points from one municipality to another, and our law department agrees with Mr. <br />Kilbane that he should be granted the points. Mr. Branscum stated in all do respect to Mr. Kilbane and Mr. <br />Gareau from the law department, but the City of North Olmsted in my understanding and reading the <br />documentation of the Civil Service Commissions hand book doesn't state that officers are to receive <br />seniority points from other departments. The City of North Olmsted has had numerous officers that have <br />come from other departments around Cleveland and have never challenged this. Past practice alone shows <br />that this is not something that is recognized. Mr. Cummings stated if they have never challenged it then it <br />has never been brought up until now. Mr. Branscum stated by going through the Civil Service departments <br />own book I don't see any information that says officers can bring their points over, and as an indication <br />Ralph Hughes is from another department and he is on the list and has been on the list before and has never <br />tried to get his points from another department. Mr. Branscum stated Detective Sergeant Larry Cluet came <br />from Bay Village, Sergeant Donald Potchatek came from Bay Village and they never requested their points <br />from other departments either, I'm going by past practice issues and can't see why the City should change <br />now and sarcoma to the Hiles of the State of Ohio while we have or own set of rules. Mr. Kilbane stated the <br />Supreme Court decision was identical to our situation and it was ruled that if the Civil Service rules, and the <br />City charter didn't address the issue then the Ohio Revised Code Civil Service regulations would supersede, <br />and it is not specifically addressed in our City Charter or the Civil Service hand book, so it would be <br />covered by the Ohio Revised Code. Mr. Huspaska stated that he was interested in the outcome and what the <br />Civil Service had to say about the points being brought over from another department, I would also like to <br />know why this issue has never been addressed in the past years when the tests were being given, I mean it <br />isn't written in the rules and never brought up before, and the only thing before that ever came up was that if <br />there was a tie the seniority would brake the tie if that was the same it would be the date of hire and if that <br />was the same it was up to a coin toss. I know that there are other police officers that have come from other <br />departments, I think this should have been addressed prior to the test and the guide lines should've been in <br />writing. Mr. Cummings stated that he could not comment on the past, but could answer for the protest <br />being presented now. Mr. Huspaska stated as fare as the assessment that was given this past weekend my <br />frame of mind was that at one point prior to the seniority list I kind of knew were I was and who was doing <br />what, this should have been addressed prior to the assessment. All I'm saying is this is going -to effect <br />everything and it's going to change the outcomes of boththe oral and the written assessment, it will"change <br />everything as fare as the points and the state of mind of everyone taking the test. Mr. Cummings stated the <br />state of mind has nothing to do with walking into a testing room or talking to a lawyer or anything else in a <br />court of law, your state of mind is not going to change the situation, this states that if we don't specifically <br />address this in our hand book then it is addressed in the State law. Mr. Branscum stated this should have <br />been addressed prior to the testing procedures even began, and now. mid way through the test you are telling <br />us that you are going to change our rules on us, we have not fallen under this circumstance in the past and <br />now our guide lines are going to be changed different from what we have written here and it should be <br />changed from this point on and not in the middle of the testing it is not fare to any of the applicants. Mr. <br />Huspaska stated it will change everything in this test we don't have the results from the assessment yet and <br />I'm sure you will get that information prior to us getting that, and it will change everything once again as it <br />had in the beginning, I can see protesting the written part, possibly the oral assessment part but not this. <br />Mr. Thomay stated that everyone had a ten day period to address the extra points they were being awarded. <br />Mr. Kilbane stated the ten day time period was addressed in the cases that he had quoted in his protest, it <br />states that you must address the points being awarded in ten day protest period or the specific time frame <br />that the Civil Service allocates or it is a mute protest. Mr. Branscum stated then any other officer that could <br />benefit from this will not be allowed their points from another police department. Mrs. Rote stated every <br />officer had the right to make a protest within the ten day allowance time that was granted to them, which <br />was March 9, 1998. Mr. Branscum stated that because it is not specifically stated in the Civil Service hand <br />book how could any officer be aware of that unless he had the information available to him, my personal <br />opinion is that this has never been done before no officer has ever requested this or has it ever been granted <br />before and you are changing the rules mid stream. Mr. Cummings stated that Mr. Kilbane could have only <br />addressed the extra points issue when he was given the ten day period to do so, and since this has never been <br />brought up before and it is the first time that it has ever been addressed I can't find fault with Mr. Kilbane <br />