The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About~Master - Civil Service Commission Minutes 08/24/2017M INUTES OF THE AM ES CIVIL SERVICE COM M ISSION AM ES, IOWA AUGUST 24, 2017 The Ames Civil Service Commission met in regular session at 8:15 a.m. o n Augus t 24, 2017, in the Council C ha mb e r s of City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, with Commission Members Mike Crum, Harold Pike, and Charlie Ricketts p r e s e nt. Also in attendance was Human Resources Director Kaila Boothroy. APPROVAL OF M INUTES: Moved by Pike, seconded by Ricketts, to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2017, Civil Service Commission meeting as written. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Crum, sec o nded by Pike, to certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as entry-level applicants: Civil Engineer I:Abdelhafiz Ibrahim 79 Michael Lauritsen 73 Firefighter:Jerome Ward 84 Lindsay Ball 77 Ashley Culp 77 Daniel Schmidt *76 Ryan Fogt 74 Christian Case 73 Derek Bixler 72 Jordan Leach 71 Sean Lunde 71 Human Resources Officer I:Brett Godwin 77 Jessica Gofforth 76 Principal Clerk:Cathy Beck 88 Connie Davis 85 Emily Newton 83 Kasey Romano 82 Phil Dalager 73 Jana Allfree 72 Recreation Manager:Michael Daley 76 Kristin Zimmerman 72 Jacob Perkins 71 Resource Recovery Plant Lead Operator:Adam Hyer 83 *Includes five veteran’s preference points Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. REQUEST TO ABOLISH R ECR EATION M ANAGER ENTRY-LEVEL CERTIFIED LIST: Sta ff is requesting that the Civil Service Commission abolish the entry-level certified list for the Recreation Manager classific a tio n. Ms. Boothroy explained that three candidates were interviewed and had passing scores. Following the interview proc e s s , o ne c andidate was hired, leaving two candidates on the list. Adopted Policies and Procedures provid e s fo r the Commission to abolish the list when it has diminished to three or fewer eligible candidates. Staff r e c o mme nds that the list for this p o s itio n be abolished so that a new recruitment for the Recreation Manager classification may begin. Moved by Pike, seconded by Ricketts, to grant the request to abolish the Recreation Manager entry- level certified list. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. PRESENTATION ON LEGISLATIVE CHANGES: Attorneys H ugh Cain and Brent Hinders of t he Hopkins & Huebner Law Firm, Des Moines, Iowa, had been asked by City staff to pre s e nt a summary of the law changes and how they will affect the Civil Service Commission’s actions. Hugh C a in r e p o r t e d that the changes in the civil service laws last spring were a part of a very large comprehensive re-write of public e mp loyee rights done by the State Legislature. He explained that there were two issues that made it mor e complicated: this legislation is new, therefore, there are no court cases that interpret the new language ; a nd , the legislative description as to what the Legislature was doing is not accurate; the descriptions are wrong in a number of provisions. Mr. Cain reviewed the following ma j o r c ha nges to civil service laws: 1) Seniority; 2) Removal made easier; 3) Elimination of trial “de novo” on appe a l to the d istrict court; and, 4) Diminishment of employees made easier. W ith regard to “Seniority,” Mr. Cain stated that an employee’s start date within a classificat io n o r grade is still based on that date The legislature left that in the Iowa Code. Mr. Cain advised that the huge change in this category is that, now, unless it is provided in the collective b a r gaining agreement, and with the exception of police and fire, the City Council may eliminate seniority rights. He further advised that the City Council, if it so chooses, can re-establish seniority and not be required to re-establish original dates. When the Legislature introduced the bill, the legislative materials indicated that seniority is eliminated at the time the bill is passed. Mr. C ain said this is inc orrect. He stressed that the City Council has to take action to eliminate seniority. As long a s t he City Council chooses not to eliminate seniority, the City will still deal with seniority as it has for t he last 20-30 years. Mr. Cain referred to the issue of collective bargaining agreements. When collective bargaining is meshed back in with public employment, under Chapter 20, it is no lo nger a mandatory requirement to bargain on seniority unless you are a firefighter or police officer. Up o n questioning by Chairman Crum, Mr. Hinders responded that if a City has an existing collect ive bargaining agreement that has been negotiated prior to this going into effect (whic h is J uly 1, 2017), that agreement continues no matter what the terms. However, once t e r ms a r e r enegotiated, these come into play in any new agreement. 2 In reference to the second change, “Removal,” Mr. Hinders explained that it used to be tha t t he removal hearing was for: neglect of duty; disobedience; misconduct; and/or failure to properly perform duties. These were fairly high stand ards, however, employers are now given more discretion. He further explained that, no w , r e mo val of an employee may be for: act or failure to act that is in contravention of law or city policy; or, the sta nd a r d o p e rating procedures or in judgment of a person holding appointing authority is sufficient to show an employee unsuita b le o r unfit for employment. This second item is a much broader standard. Mr. Hinders still warned that the City needs to be very specific as to the r e a s o ning b e hind removal of an employee, or to be sure to document multiple reasons for the basis of removal. M r . Hind ers reported that veterans can not be removed from employment other than by miscond uc t or incompetence, and a hearing still has to be held. He reviewed the history of veterans ’ p r e fe r ence points and how these p o ints came about. In summary, if the City has someone who says that he/she is a veteran, the City needs to make certain t ha t the discharge form (DD214) indicates that that person was honorably discharged. Mr. Hinder s reiterated that if a veteran is being terminated, it is important to make certain there are findings of misconduct or incompetence. Mr. H ind e r s s t a ted that, in the removal, the City has the burden of proof, and with a collective bargaining agree ment where 30% (or more) are public s a fe t y e mp loyees, the City has to give additional procedures not inc o ns istent with this statute. He reviewed those job positions that are to be considered public safety employees. Mr. Hinders stated that, in reference to “Appeal to District Court,” it used to be a new trial “de novo” was held in the distric t c o ur t if an employee appealed his/her case. This has been changed; the district court is now an appellant court, whereby a judge receives the recorded audio or video tape to see if he/she agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Civil Se r vice Commission. He stressed the importance of having a de ta ile d record at the civil service hearing level, and making sure it is all “done right” at that time. Mr. Hinders advised that it would be o f gr e a t va lue to have an audio/video recording of the hearing. Mr. Cain reported that p e r t a ining to “Diminishment,” it used to be that if “public interest” required it, the City Council could in “good faith” diminish emplo yees. He indicated that now: the new law allows the City Council to implement diminution without “p ublic interest” or “good faith” requirements; if at least 30% of members of a union are public safety employees, then diminution is to b e c a r ried out in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement; there is no requirement that diminution be carried out pur s ua nt to s e niority (other than fire and police); and, there is no provision for “bumping” rights. Mr. Cain indicated that the State Legislature has made diminution a very simple process, and that he suspects there will nume r o us legal proceedings held regarding this matter. Up o n q uestioning from Commission Member Pike, Mr. Cain stated that the City Council does not have to do a nyt hing, unle ss it chooses to eliminate seniority rights for those covered under collective bargaining agreements. Seniority rights e xist until the contract expires. Then, the City Council may eliminate seniority rights if it so chooses. Mr. Hinders explained that if this statute remains in effect, the City would be smart in ma k ing certain decisions regarding whether or not the City is going to eliminate seniority rights. And , if it d o e s , the 3 City needs to know how this will affect future collective bargaining agreements. He ind ic a te d t hat the City will need to begin “forecasting” this to those bargaining groups and be mindful that, if seniority is elimina t e d , preparations need to be made. Mr. Cain reiterated that the City doesn’t have to do anything at all pertaining to seniority. COM M ENTS: The next re gula r ly s cheduled Civil Service Commission meeting was set for September 28, 2017, at 8:15 a.m. ADJOURNM EN T: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 a.m. _____________________________________________________________________ Michael R. Crum, Chair Jill Ripperger, Recording Secretary 4