10/18/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Y need the five (5) years experience to take the exam so you are getting somebody that has experience. The Safety/Service Director is coming to the Commission to advertise, seek applications, after review of the applications make an "Exceptional" appointment. The argument is that this is not an "Exceptional" appointment. There maybe a few employees that have a License III at the plant and all you need for a competitive exam is two (2). There are rules and regulations that the Civil Service Commission must follow. A couple of years ago, the Commission had the Building Commissioner come to them for the need to fill a vacancy and he made a case that of the hundreds of thousands of building inspectors, this particular type was about 6.4%; this was a compelling reason for an "Exceptional" appointment. The argument at hand does not fit the language in the rules and regulations. A general discussion followed regarding redundancy, temporary appointment, with the conclusion that the appointing authority can and will proceed and then the Commission will either bless the "Exceptional" appointment or deem it appropriate to conduct a competitive exam. An inquiry was made if a "Temporary" employee is appointed and is subject to testing, does the employee have to just pass the test or does the need to come in first come in to play. Further review of this matter is needed. There were more elaborate rules in 2008 but the Law Department simplified the rules due to the State Law changes. Depending upon the nature of the test this would be an entry-level examination with outside solicitation. A general discussion then followed regarding a temporary appointment passing the test and receiving the job and deterring other applicants in competing. The original cause of this vacancy is an employee took another position in the City. The Chairman would like to look at this further and if possible, would like to have a phone conference with Pat Ramsey and the head of the Kent plant for the next meeting. Review Application Packets for the Entry -Level Patrol Officer Examination The Chairman started to review the applications. A conversation followed regarding residency, evidence of address, High School diploma. Mr. Ubaldi said that there will be a catch all motion at the end of the review. A general discussion commenced regarding the OPOTA certifications and OPOTA Academies approved by the Ohio Attorney Generals Office. The Commission's mission for this meeting is if anyone is going to be disqualified and not be able to sit for the exam; the final tally of the extra credit can come at a later date. An inquiry was made regarding the word accredited. Accredited was in reference to the Bachelor Degrees. The accredited word in Education makes it iron clad. The Secretary has contact information from the Ohio Attorney's General Office and will verify the OPOTA certifications. A general discussion regarding question #9 on the application commenced. The question states "Were you ever convicted of any violation of law — including military offenses — other than minor traffic offenses?" If an applicant does not complete this question, this would be an automatic rejection. When reviewing the Military DD -214's, the issue came up with multiple DD -214's due to call- backs for active duty. If the applicant submits more than one (1) DD -214's, the years will be added up for extra credit with a maximum of 3 points.