11/15/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revisions to Rule IX, Sections Ib and 2c The recommended rule change by the Chairman is more housekeeping and kind of a fine tooth comb because the word seen and used in State Law, 124.30, is impracticable and it is that way for a reason. Impracticable has one meaning and impractical can mean impracticable or impossible but can also be subject to subjective interpretations and can lead into the secondary considerations that the Commission has in regards to testing which is it convenient, is it cost effective, things like that. The primary question before the Commission decides whether classified competitive or classified non competitive, is can this be done. The Chairman's proposal would be Section lb, replace the single word impractical to impracticable; Section 2c should be Section 2b. A discussion followed regarding why it was changed in 2008. The Chairman would like to see the rules consistent and to be iron clad in a sense that there is no question in terms of interpretation. There use to be a number of categories and the State tried to consolidate the terminology down to two (2). There were four (4) appointments: Temporary, Emergency, Exceptional and Provisional and were multiple circumstances for each of these. The Commission consolidated to two (2), Temporary and Exceptional. The Commission does have to follow State Law to a degree but given that the Commission has Home Rule Authority uses State Law as a guide. Mr. Ubaldi made a motion that the Commission adopts the provisions to the rules and regulations. Mr. Barrett seconded the motion and unanimously approved. A general discussion commenced regarding distribution of the rules every time there is a change. The Secretary indicated that the Rules and Regulations handbook is updated on the website. A suggestion was made to annually distribute the handbook and keeping the website current. Also, the rules can be placed on the "V" drive for all internal employees. Discuss classification and Competitive Testing of WWTP Positions There are inconsistencies in the classification designations of employees particularly those in the Waste Water Treatment Plant, as well as the hiring practices and the Chairman would like to have the Commission eliminate those inconsistencies within the authority that the Commission has been given. When the Chairman first came on board the Commission received an inquiry about an employee's classification. It turns out that the classifications of the positions in the City have not been determined in many years. Over the next two (2) years the Commission reviewed the classifications of all positions and in December of 2005 made a final determination. Through the course of that the Commission tried to make heads or tails of the very complex nature of positions in the Waste Water Treatment Plant. There are four (4) positions at the Waste Water Treatment Plant that are related to licenses that are not necessarily predicated in terms of position on them; Equipment Operator, Operator, Sludge Handler and Maintenance Technician and a license is not needed to perform these jobs. A general discussion commenced regarding Superintendent's requirement for a class IV Waste Water certification; job description for Equipment Operator did not differ significantly from unlicensed to license; confusion with classifications; semi -skilled. The Chairman recommends that all four (4) positions, Maintenance Technician, Operator, Equipment Operator and Sludge Handler be made classified subject to competitive examinations along with the rest of the Waste Water Treatment