My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/18/2005 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2005
>
2005 Civil Service Commission
>
04/18/2005 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2019 8:56:09 AM
Creation date
2/12/2019 4:54:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2005
Board Name
Civil Service Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/18/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITE' OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING <br />MAJ'OR'S CONFERENCE ROOM <br />MINUTES — APRIL 18, 2005 <br />7:00 P.M. <br />I. ROLL CALL: Chairperson R. Giesser called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. <br />PRESENT: R. Giesser, M. Ubaldi, and W. Hohmann <br />ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Director of Law Bryan O'Malley, Director of Personnel & Administrative <br />Services Cheryl Farver, and Civil Service Secretary Annie Kilbane <br />II. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES: The Civil Service minutes dated March 21, 2005 have been submitted <br />for approval. <br />R. Giesser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by M. <br />Ubaldi and unanimously approved. <br />Chairperson Giesser recommended starting with New Business since Ms. Farver was present. <br />III. COMMUNICATIONS: There were 6 items of correspondence received and 1 item of correspondence <br />sent out by the Civil Service Commission. <br />There was a brief discussion about a letter from a fire fighter candidate who requested his name be <br />removed from the eligible list. A question was raised as to whether the commission needs to act on each <br />such request. Mrs. Kilbane indicated the name was removed from the list since she received the written <br />request from the candidate. Mr. Ubaldi suggested they be informed of such requests on a monthly basis. <br />W. Hohmann made a motion that the removal letter received from Brian James Clifford be <br />accepted by the Commission. The motion was seconded by M. Ubaldi and unanimously approved. <br />IV. OLD BUSINESS: <br />State Personnel Board of Review - Report of Activities for 2004 <br />Mrs. Giesser asked if there were any comments on the report. There were none. Mr. O'Malley referred to <br />Section 8 and 9 of the report and indicated there were no formal legal opinions or decisions regarding civil <br />service matters. The report was accepted as submitted. Mrs. Giesser asked Mrs. Kilbane to mail the <br />completed report to the State Personnel Board of Review. <br />Review of Rule III, Rule IV Section 2, and Rule IX of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations <br />Mr. Ubaldi recommended they address Mr. O'Malley's opinion on Rule III, Section 8c. There was a <br />lengthy discussion about seniority credit in North Olmsted, charter language in the City, as well as charter <br />language in Lakewood and Cleveland as it relates to two court cases referred by Mr. O'Malley. Mr. <br />Ubaldi suggested removing the language they have for Section 8c. Mrs. Giesser indicated she does not <br />favor that. There was further discussion about home rule authority and having express language in the <br />charter giving them express authority to vary from state law. Mr. Hohmann asked if these issues can be <br />addressed by the Charter Review Commission. Mr. O'Malley indicated he will ask the Law Director to <br />advise them on what the Charter Review Commission has been discussing in these areas. . He <br />recommended they put the discussion and the proposed amendment on the shelf without a motion for the <br />time being. The Commission then reviewed the current language in the rules for Section 8c. Mr. Ubaldi <br />made a recommendation for changing the language and said they could keep it until they have a definitive <br />answer from Charter Review, at which time they will look at the explicit language that defers to state law. <br />Mrs. Giesser said she was against it but does not have a problem being alone on that. Mr. O'Malley <br />pointed out they do not know what express language the charter amendment may contain or whether the <br />voters will adopt it. The language may not cover all the changes the Commission has in mind. There are <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.