The URL can be used to link to this page

90-2210 , *'•�� '�� Council File # 0� a�/d � Green Sheet ,� /,3�,� RESOLUTION CI F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By - T� Referred To ' Committee: Date RESOLVED, that Civil Service P.uZe 26 , Article III be amended bv adding a new sta.bsection C which sha1Z read as follows : � "C. Clas�ifications : I . �"liallen�;es � a. If an employee has reason to believe his/her I job has been unfairly or inadequately audited despite the disagreement of the Personnel Office, he/she should send a letter to the I Personnel Director stating his/her concerns . This appeal must be made within t�aenty days of the employee learning of a classification - ' decision by the Personnel Office . �. If the Personnel Director finds in favor of ', the Personnel Office, the employee may request , a hearin� before the Civil Service Commission. The request should be in writing and should ! state the snecifics of the issue . This appeal must�` be made Vlithin ten days of_ the ; Personnel Director ' s finding. � . 2 . Hearings �.. The Chair of the Civil Service Commission presides over the hearing. The request for hearinp;� must be sent to the Civil Service Commission, c/o ' Personnel Office , 265 City Hall . �I 1 . The Personnel Director or his/her designee acts as secretary to the Commission. ' 2 . A verbatim recording of the Commission nroceedings is made and kept for three � years . 3 . The Commission may uphold the classification decision as originally made by the Personnel ' Office . � � � � � AS� � L ��6_��0 i -2- 4. The Commission may order a new audit of the position. 5 . The Commission may determine an anr.ronriate classification for the uosition based on evidence and testimony presented. b. The Commission directs the Personnel Director to transmit its written decision to the anpointing officer and the grievant. " � and be it FURTHER R�SOLVFD, that pursuant to St . Pau1 City Cfiarter Section 12 . 06 the Citv Clerlc forward this resolution to the Civil Service Commission for its approval or rejection. Vetoed by Civil Service Commission on 12/4/90; Readopted by Council 1/10/91 imon � as Navs Absent Requested by Department of: osw z �- n r �— acca e'Ti e� —"- � e tma �— ` (��_.�,C! zuson �T— BY� �1�1.� .��. �� - Adopted by Council: Date DEC 2 7 �990 Form Approved by City Attorney Re-Adopted by Council: ;�; �:; ; �, �q � Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary ��y; v�- �� "��- �Z-�-�/O By' Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved by Mayor: Date ��, � 4 1991 Council , ; 7,�/,✓�� By: ( �� By: � P��° .,,,a .. � � IQ4' i � � �o,�� DEPARTNENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE I ITIAT D r �a y 90 GREEN SHEET N� _13050 INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE CONTACT PE N&PHON �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL /��'�a ��;/' ASSIQN �CITY ATTORNEY �CITY CLERK NUMBEH FOR ❑BUDCiET DIRECTOR �FIN.8 MQT.SERVICES DIR. MUST BE ON UN L AOENDA BY(DATE) ROUTINO / `/ �D OHDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANn � TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGE (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: . �� ✓'2�O�-�CO �1.,.�.c�q_ � �� O�.e.r t�lc�, l�u.l2. N�o, �r7`rC�e. � � � RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Re) (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING�UESTIONS: _PLANNINO COMMISSION _ IVIL SER ICE COMMISSION 1• Hes this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department? _CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? _STAFF — YES NO _ DISTRiCr CouRr _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE YES NO Explain all yes answers on separats shest and attach to grsen shset INITIATINQ PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORT NITY(W ,Whet,Wpgn,Where,Why): �� I� � " ��-�� `pSO/(�.J'/CiTj"L O� 9��3/�'IO �- C�c.vu-��,.�. �/!)tJ?J-�GQ �'"�w.l /� T/c,� �i�oTu-�-� 2 mm►S s io n ��6s�Qu e�x.�Lc� Y'�.c� �- �.�So%�o� . D i a s/90 �k.e.. � �,lJ �� o-��e�—�-o�� '� �jrr�m�s� t.�'�� y�Dr,�eve.r �e IS 3��2 ��c.2��-� �`a-� �?-�- � u i-ec,� i/�2� r�� e �� ,p/c�c-e- Wi�h��n � ��e �imi� �� Z� ADV A(iES IF APPROVED: (L/A � u,L �,D�/'OrJ� b� ! �r ca� ��.SD�f/D� (.V i�� i�. So �Ir�. , ��.� � � Q.t�D�G� /�/ �i0�. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: /a.'�'}/ /L � . . . . R�CEIVED . � ,,u_.. _ . . . �_ .. t�C141990 ��=� �,�'�:; ��T�' CLERK DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: Th�re �--� � � �,�� D� �. ��y 5 � � n-�rn i5 Slo� S ��'°�5' • 7�ke �."% �xcQ Y�� ,v i l o�l.rd�C'2 _ C[.�'�i D�.S � a� � �v �i �/�fio r�� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC ION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETEp(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFOFMATION:(EXPLAI ) �� . ��v-.�aia �,�� o. ��4 :, CITY OF SAINT PAUL e ��F�,��;,� ; OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ,� hv 1 8 •.•• JANE A. MC PEAK, CITY ATTORNEY 647 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 JAMES SCHEIBEL FAX 612-298-5619 MAYOR December 4, 1990 To : Marcia Keller From: Jane A. McPeak��(1M Re : Resolution Amending Civil Service Rule 26 , ArticTe III Enclosed pleas� find the above-referenced document . I suggest that this memo accompany the resolution as a supplement to the information which you will provide on the green sheet . On 9-13-90 the City Council approved a resolution which amended Civil Service Rule 26, Article III in exactly the same manner as the enclosed resolution. As required by the City Charter the 9-13-90 resolution was sent to - the Civil Service Commission for its approval or rejection. The Commission vetoed the resolution and returned it to the City Council . On 10-25-90 the Council overrodethe Commission' s vote. Subsequently, the mayor signed the resolution and it was published in the Legal Ledger. Presumably the resolution is in effect . The Civil Service Commission has taken the position that the reso- lution is not in effect because the Council did not override the Commission' s veto within the time specified in the City Charter . There are arguments which support the position that the resolution was legally adopted and is in effect . There are also arguments which support� the Commission' s position. To resolve this matter and to save the City and the unions the expense of li;tigating the issue I recommend that the Council simply adopt the resolution again. If you can g�t this to A1 Olson by 4: 30 today, it will appear on next Tuesday' s (I2/11) agenda. It can be adopted by the Council on 12/18 a�d go to the Commission. Should the Commission veto the . ' C-'� �12,� . �v�q qa -aa�d B'�,�l*T �e ,. , ' oR�' :,� '�,- CTTY OF SAINT PAUL � ,�� ;G ��" CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V ,�� V ��• ' HARRY GASTON, CHAIR CATHERINE PICCOLO, COMMISSIONER R�f'.F1V�E� JAMES SCHEIBEL �,��91 265 City HaII,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 MAYOR 1�N 612-298-4221 V FAX 612-292-7656 January 3 , �99i �tTY CLERK The Honorable J,ames Scheibel Ms. Paula Maccabee Office of the NAayor 714 City Hall 347 City Hall ' St. Paul, Mn. 55102 St. Paul, Mn. ,55102 Mr. Bill Wilson Ms. Janice Rettman 719 City Hall ' 716 City Hall St. Paul, Mn. j55102 St. Paul, Mn. 55102 i Mr. Dave Thune ! Mr. Roger Goswitz 702 City Hall � 701 City Hall St. Paul, Mn. � 55102 St. Paul, Mn. 55102 Mr. Robert Lon� Mr. Tom Dimond 713 City Hall 706 City Hall St. Paul, Mn. � 55102 St. Paul, Mn. 55102 RE: Proposed �Change to Civil Service Rules CF 90-2210 Dear Mayor Scheibel and Members of the City Council: The Civil Service Commission must once again veto your amendment to Rule 26, contained in CF 90-2210. The reasons for our veto remain the same as those expressed in our September 20, 1990 letter of veto of the prior action contained in CF 90-1547. Despite the passage of four months since we first expressed our ' concerns over this issue not a single step has been made to alleviate those concerns. For the record those past concerns center around our feeling of � - �y�-,��/d r inadequacy in dealing with the subjects of employee job classification and compensation due to a lack of expertise and training; our concern that the increase in caseload will create an unreasonable b�trden on this Commission; an opinion that these disputes are n�ot the type that lend themselves to resolution through the adversarial process; and a concern that these disputes will place the Personnel Office in an adversarial posture before the Commission when this Commission is dependent upon that office for support and staffing. To this list of concerns we will add the fact that the rule as proposed fails to include a right to request a hearing by the Personnel Offi�e if the Director finds in favor of the employee. Section C Subd. 1 allows for an appeal to the Commission by an employee, but no mention is made of the right to appeal by the employer. Thi� lack of evenhandedness is unexplained. We are puzzled� by the failure of the Council to communicate with the Civil Serv�ce Commission on this matter. For the second time this Council has taken action on an issue directly bearing on a matter of dire�t interest to this Commission without the input of the Commission', and you have failed to take as simple a step as to notify us when you were going to consider the matter. The continued reliance an what we must interpret as either a confrontational approach or an attitude of disregard for our concerns does little to convince us that you truly wish to provide for a meaning�ul resolution to these matters. We would apprQCiate the opportunity to discuss this with you in a fair and busiMesslike manner. Sincerely, � . Harry aston, Chair �'� �� Catherine Piccolo, Commissioner