04/18/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r a lot of variables. He added that there are a number of areas where they would prefer to have their own rule than follow state law. He said he believes the Lakewood case he referred is as squarely on point as it can be. Mr. Holunann said the Charter Review will be looking at all this and can give them the authority they need. Mrs. Giesser pointed out the Charter Review Commission may do that but it is ultimately up tc the voters. M. Ubaldi made a motion to accept a change in Section 8c of Rule III to read as follows: "Seniority and efficiency evaluation point credits shall be awarded when the efficiency evaluation results are received from the respective department for which the promotional examination is being held." The motion was seconded by W. Hohmann. Roll call on the motion: W. Hohmann -Yes, M. Ubaldi-Yes; R. Giesser-No. Motion carried. Mr. Ubaldi made a motion for Section 8b of Rule III to read as follows: "Efficiency and Seniority credit shall be added to an applicant's final score subsequent to the examination." The motion was seconded by R. Giesser and unanimously approved. Mr. Ubaldi made a motion that Section 8d read as follows: "For police department promotional examinations, efficiency evaluation credits shall be awarded based on the efficiency evaluation of the applicant within six months of the scheduled examination, using the following scale: Efficiency Rating (E) Exceeds Expectations 1 Point Efficiency Rating (M) Meets Expectations 0 Points Efficiency Rating (B) Below Expectations 0 Points Efficiency Rating (U) Unsatisfactory 0 Points" The motion was seconded by R. Giesser and unanimously approved. There was a discussion about maintaining efficiency ratings within the Fire Department in the manner established by the Civil Service Commission. Mr. O'Malley suggested clarifying it by saying "most recent annual efficiency maintained by the department." The board members agreed. Mr. Ubald reviewed the three points used by the Fire Department. He said it is a sliding scale and he referred to page 2 of Chief Klecan's correspondence. Mr. O'Malley said they can dictate to the Fire Department or they can allow the Fire Department system to be adopted into the rules, as they seem to have it all outlined. Mr. Ubaldi agreed. Mr. O'Malley brought up the state code which talks about extra added credit being "10% of the member's efficiency rating for the last year." There was a lengthy discussion about the percentage issue. Mr. O'Malley said he would be curious to hear what the Fire Chief knows about how it's been done. Mrs. Giesser asked if Mr. O'Malley would be willing to look into the matter. Mr. O'Malley said he could check with Chief Klecan and find some examples of how it has been done. (Section 124.45, 7 paragraphs in). Mrs. Giesser indicated they will hold off on making a motion on that section of the book. They can work on a draft in the meantime. For Rule III, Section 8e, the proposed rule would read, "For Fire Department promotional examinations, efficiency evaluation credits shall be awarded based on the most recent annual efficiency evaluation of the applicant, using the following scale: Superior - 3.00 Points, Thoroughly Competent - 2.00 Points, Acceptable - 1.00 Point". The Commissioners then discussed the process for protests, and the time frame involved. Mrs. Giesser raised the question of whether test papers are released during a protest. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the rules on protests further. Mrs. Giesser said that having to act within five days is terrible. She said time limits are an issue and the safest thing to do is quote state law verbatim in their rules. Mr. Hohmann asked for clarification on protesting procedures. Mrs. Giesser then reviewed a previous examination in which there were protests. Mr. O'Malley said he recalls that some questions were thrown out. He added there was a ten day protest period. He recommended that if there are things unique to the way the Commission would like things done, they can supplement state law without conflicting with it. It would not take away from state rights but would outline reasonable procedures that they can carry out with protests. Mrs. Giessf asked Mrs. Kilbane to check on whether or not the testing companies would give back actual test paper. She would like confirmation that they only released generic tests. Mrs. Giesser said since Mrs. Farver was kind enough to point out the significant inaccuracy in their rules in quoting the charter, they can make a motion to change their rules to match what the charter actually says.