03/21/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM MINUTES - MARCH 21, 2005 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Giesser called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: R. Giesser, M. Ubaldi, and W. Hohmann ALSO PRESENT: B. O'Malley, Assistant Law Director, and Annie Kilbane, Civil Service Secretary II. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES: The Civil Service minutes dated February 28, 2005 have been submitted for approval. R. Giesser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by M. Ubaldi and unanimously approved. III. CORRESPONDENCE: There were 10 items of correspondence received and 8 items of correspondence sent out by the Civil Service Commission. Mrs. Giesser mentioned the last item of correspondence received is a request for a Report of Activities from the State Personnel Board of Review. She asked Mrs. Kilbane to prepare the report and have it available for the next meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS: ➢ Review of Rule III, Rule IV Section 2, and Rule IX of the Civil Service Handbook Mr. Ubaldi indicated the Commission received correspondence from Police Chief Ruple which explained the department's rating system. Chief Ruple was present and confirmed the information in his e-mail. Mr. Ubaldi said the rating system as reviewed by the Chief is sufficient for the handbook. He said the information in the handbook directly below the ratings in Section 8e, up to the start of Section 8f, should be deleted as it is not necessary. The information explains the factors considered for awarding efficiency credit and is not something needed by the Commission. The Chief agreed. Chief Ruple explained the evaluation process was looked at about five years ago since it had been in place for quite some time. They wanted to remove the subjectivity. Performance evaluations should be based on measurable criteria established by set standards of the department or mutual agreement between the department and employees on what is considered acceptable performance for the position. They found the prior system to be very subjective. To take the subjectivity out of it, the evaluation system was revised where an officer either meets the expectations established by both the department and the officer, or they do not meet them. At the end of every year, a review is done with the officer and they go over what the officer said he/she will accomplish during the year. If expectations are not met, the department takes whatever corrective action may be necessary. The officer then reviews with a supervisor what he/she has to work on the following year. Mr. O'Malley asked if the reviews are done on a calendar year basis. The Chief indicated they are done every year over the course of a couple of months. Under Commission rules there must be a review within six months of a promotional exam and the department is able to adjust to that. A separate rating can be done if an exam is being given. Mr. O'Malley asked if the six month time frame is from the rule book. Chief Ruple said he believes it is covered under the promotional exam section. Mr. O'Malley said his concern is how it compares to state law and he is concerned about an efficiency evaluation being conducted strictly for the purpose of a promotional exam. The Chief indicated he would like it to remain the way it is as it is not a problem to go through another rating. The department prefers to have a current rating to submit to the Commission. Mrs. Giesser asked if the reviews tend to be more subjective knowing an exam in coming. Chief Ruple said all officers are subject to review and the rating is either a zero, or a one. Mr. O'Malley asked if there