|
<br />City of North Olmsted
<br />City Council Meetine
<br />Michael Ubaldi
<br />March 22, ZOl l
<br />Page 53
<br />i Q. 1 think it might be Rule 7, but I think you're --
<br />z are you referring to where they say "whenever a
<br />3 vacancy occurs"?
<br />4 A. 1 was referring to Rule 8, Section 1(b),
<br />5 "Promotional Appointment. Whenever a vacancy
<br />s occurs, the appointing authority shall notify the
<br />~ Civil Service Commission," et cetera, et cetera.
<br />a Q. Okay. I appreciate that you were correct. It is
<br />9 Rule 8 and not Rule 7.
<br />io What you just said, "et cetera, et cetera,"
<br />ii I'm going to read and you tell me if it's
<br />iz correct. The second sentence reads, "The
<br />13 Commission shall, pursuant to City of North
<br />i4 Olmsted Charter Article 6, Section 4, certify to
<br />15 the appointing authority of the name and address
<br />i6 of the highest ranking candidate on the eligible
<br />i~ list," correct?
<br />ie A. That's what it reads, yes.
<br />i9 O. So it's your position that the Civil Service
<br />zo Commission cannot order a test or create a list,
<br />zi but the rule says to take the highest ranking
<br />z2 candidate off of the eligible list, correct?
<br />23 A. Our charter is unique in many instances. It's
<br />z4 what's called a rule of three, where the three
<br />z5 top candidates would be certified for further
<br />Page 54
<br />i interview.
<br />z In our charter, the top candidate from a
<br />3 promotional exam is certified and the appointing
<br />a authority must accept them.
<br />5 O. Would you agree with me that the second sentence
<br />s of Rule 8, (b)(i), assumes that there is an
<br />~ eligible list in existence before there is a
<br />a vacancy?
<br />s A. No, I wouldn't agree with you.
<br />io Q. Well, look at Section (b)(ii), and I'll read that
<br />ii and you can tell me if I'm reading it correctly.
<br />12 "If there is no valid eligible list, the
<br />13 Commission shall conduct a test for a new
<br />i4 eligible list," correct?
<br />is A. That's what it reads.
<br />i6 Q. And would you agree with me that Section (b)(ii)
<br />i~ seems to presume that there can be a, that there
<br />is will be a valid eligible list before a vacancy
<br />i9 occurs?
<br />zo A. It would seem to me that (b)(ii) also depends
<br />21 upon notification from the appointing authority
<br />2z that a vacancy has occurred. And in some regard,
<br />23 the Civil Service Commission in adopting its
<br />z4 unique local rules has adopted state law, and in
<br />125 the state law it refers to a vacancy occurring.
<br />Page 55
<br />i Q. Well, it actually --the state law that you're
<br />2 referring to is Section 124.44, correct?
<br />s A. Correct.
<br />4 Q. They're substantially identical, correct?
<br />5 A. No. The Civil Service rules deviate from state
<br />s law in several instances.
<br />~ Q. I'm not going to quiz you on the revised code,
<br />e but if I said that Section 124.44 also contains
<br />s the same language relating to the highest ranking
<br />io candidate on the eligible list, would you
<br />ii disagree with me?
<br />lz A. No.
<br />13 Q. And if I told you that Section 124.44 also
<br />i4 contains that section (ii), that if there is no
<br />is valid eligible list, the Commission shall conduct
<br />i6 a test, would you disagree with me?
<br />i~ A. No, I wouldn't.
<br />1a O. You mentioned your concerns about the possibility
<br />i9 of litigation.
<br />20 How can scheduling a test, simply scheduling
<br />21 an exam, result in results being voided?
<br />22 A. Well, as we speak, there could be the contention
<br />23 that the test that had been scheduled for April
<br />24 2nd, that doesn't appear to be, that has not been
<br />z5 posted and it does not appear to be proceeding.
<br />Page 56
<br />i I mean, we're --
<br />z Q. So --
<br />3 A. -- as a result --
<br />a Q. -- you're concerned there may be litigation
<br />5 because the test that was scheduled is now not
<br />s going forward?
<br />~ A. As a result of the Civil Service Commission
<br />a proceeding with scheduling the examination when
<br />s it hadn't received the notification from the
<br />io safety director and prior to the occurrence of a
<br />ii vacancy.
<br />12 Q. And you believe that's a basis for someone to
<br />13 contest results of a test down the road?
<br />i4 A. It certainly could be.
<br />15 Q. Are you familiar with any case where --
<br />i6 A. I haven't had to defend or research that yet.
<br />i~ MR. CARSON: Thank you. That's
<br />is all.
<br />i9 MR. JAMISON: Nothing further.
<br />zo MR. LIMPERT: Thank you very much,
<br />21 Mr. Carson. Members of council, do you
<br />2z have questions? We'll start with
<br />23 Mr. Barker.
<br />24 MR. BARKER: Thank you.
<br />zs Mr. O'Malley, in your directive not to
<br />Mehler & Hagestrom
<br />800.822.0650
<br />(14) Page 53 -Page 56
<br />r ..-.-_
<br />~„,..~,
<br />
|