The URL can be used to link to this page

95-332ORIGINAL � Presented By _ Referred To � ��s� :-�-�� - �sm�n�� n �l►��s RESOLUTION ` UL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date I An Administrative Resolution amending 2 The Civil Service Rules conceming 3 unsatisfactory performance evaluations. �� 4 RESOLVED, that the Civil Service rules be amended in Section 14, PROMOT'ION 5 REQLTIREMENTS, Subsection 2 so that the Section shall read as follows 6 14. PROMOTION REQUIREMENTS 7 Any Classified employee may enter an e�mination on a promotion basis, if 8 he/she can meet the following requirements: ��G LM 7 ,_ I . o _�_ C __� L _ ' _ � _ 9 2. �Ie,�ske must hav�'had a satisfactory performance evaluation rating at the time of the last 10 rating priot to the examination. An employee who has a perfozmance ey of� « „ �.�. � �..� � �r � I I unsatisfactory shall not be considered a promotional candidate until� � as recei ed a 12 satisfactory evaluation in accordance with Section 15 of these Rules. �g-eas��efsl� 13 14 . The employee shall not be considered a nromotiona] 15 candidate within four months of the date of an unsatisfactorX,performance evaluation. exce�t 16 in the case of the promotiona] or transferee nrobationer found unsatisfactor�y in �erforming 17 the duties of the nosition to which the em l�oyee had been certified or transferred When 18 reinstated to the former �osition such probationer shall assume the nerformance rating 19 received at such former position and if satisfactorv be eligible for consideration as a 20 nromotional candidate. Requested by Department of: O�ce of Human Resources sy: �--� C'..�cc�1.�n `�l For ved by City Attorney B y'� — _��_ 00 Approved by Mayo for ubmission to Council By: 't�.. r/U✓ ;� C�-"" _'"/ CouncilFile# ��",-J3 GreenSheet# 29764 AdoptedbyCouncil: Date� ��. �� q S � k1Q--� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 9�- 3 3�- � N� 29764 GREEN SHEET INRIAVDATE MfTIAUDAiE PARTMEFiT D1flECTOR � CrtY CAUNCIL � CITYATfORNEV � CRY CLERK �� BUDGET DIREGTOR � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIF. ■ �MAYOflIORASSI$TANn � ('iVi� �Ptt>i!`F TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP All LQCATIONS FOR StGNATURE) Approval of attached resolution aniending the Ci�nl Service Rules conceming unsatisfactory performance evaluarions m Secrion 14, PROMOTIONAL REQUIIZEMENTS. ' _PIANNINGCAMMISSION _CIYIIS£RVIGE _ pB COMMITTEE _ _ STAfF _ _ DISTRICTGOUBT _ SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGIL OBJEGTIVE7 PEASOIiAL SEqViCE CONTRACTS MUST Al{SWEH TFfE FOLLOWING �IfEST10NS: 1. Has this person�rtn ever worked u�der a contract fo� this department? :��y ;_ YES NO �� 2. Has this personHirm ever been a ciry employee? YES No NlAR 10 �99� 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current aty employee. YES NO Explain all yes answers on separete shcet and attach to grcen she'e��.'�s�� ,��r INITIA7ING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7V (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Employees who transfer or promote into other positions and receive an unsafisfactory performance appraisal are reinstated to the'u former positions, where their performances were satisfactory, but aze not considered promorional candidates for exam purposes within six months of receiving that unsatisfactory performance evaluafion. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Those employees who have transfeaed or promoted into other positions and received unsatisfactory performance appraisals and reinstated to their fortner posi6ons won't have to wait six months to take a promotionai exam, providing their performance was satisfactory in that fotmer posifion, Currentiy, an employee is not eligible to take a promorional exazuination within six monYhs of receiving an unsatisfactory evatuation. Should an employee be evaluated unsatisfactorily, the performance is r�evaluated in fow months &om the date of the unsarisfactory teport. This means an employee could have a satisfactory ra6ng after fotu months and not be eligible fot a promotiona] exam if it is given within this two month window. So as not to penalize the employee, we aze suggesting the period of ineligibiliry after the unsatisfactory rating be changed to None. The response from departments/offices/unions is favorable for this change. No one indicated disadvanta es.. � 1� P r..� .a� �°� ^��^ IF NOT APPROVED' ["1°:"+��r3'.�`.�aL?a 21�� _t�� r�� C ��1 5 �4 � p "f g G' � =f`" i659 F Pbi 5` The continued pract9ce of not allowing those employees who are reinstated to ttieir former positions because of unsatisfactory performance reviews to be considered promofional candidates, even if their work in that former position is satisfactory. TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION $ COSTlREVENUE 6UDGETED (CIpCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfdG SOUFiCE AC71VI7Y NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (E%PLAIN) Presented RESOLUTION 1� Referred To \ � Committee: Date % / 1 An Administrative Resolution amending 2 The Civil Service Rules conceruing 3 unsatisfactory performance evaluations. 4 RESOLVED, that the Civil Service rules be amended in Sec ' n 14, PROMOTION REQUIREMENTS, Subsecdon 2 so that the Section shall read as f ows: 5 14. PROMOTION REQUIREMENTS 6 Any Classified employee may enter an examination n a promotion basis, if 7 he/she can meet the following requuements: 8 2. 4 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 The emQlovee shall not be considered a promotional Requested by Department of: Offi e of Human Resources , v 4 �, � �. Adopted by Adoption �L f sy: _� He/she must have had a satisfactory pe ormance evaluation rating at the time of the last rating prior to the examination. An e gloyee who has a performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory" shall not be consid ed a promotional candidate until he/she has received a satisfactory eva3uation in accord e with Section 15 of these Ru3es. �y ----,-��- Date by Council Secretary ApprovedbyMayor: Date � Fo Appr� by City Attorney By: � Approved by Mayor for Su 'ssion to Council By:� G�-� �- <<��-�J s A Counc�F�e# .1 �-- O D�(; �� f y� GreenS6eet# 29764 ['� lJ 1 V J"'� u GREEN SHEET �5-33� N_ 29754 OEPARTMEM DIRE CIIY ATTOPNEY BUDCiEi OIRECfO IIAY4R (OR ASSIS TOTA6 # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLiP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) �� LTiY CLEFK FlN. b MGT. $ERVICES DIR. Approval of attached resoluGoa amending the Civil Service Rules conceming �msatisfactory pe�[�ynce evaluations in Section 14, PROMOTIONAL REQUIREMEN'I'S. - PLANNING CAMMISSION _ CML SERVICE qB COMMITTEE __ STAFF _D�STfitCiCOURS _' SUPPORTS WNICH CWNC0. OBJECTIVEI PERSONAL SERVICE CONTqACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: t. Nas this perSOMGm ever worketl under e coMraC for Mi5 Oepartment7 YES NO 2. Hes this personlfirtn ever Deen e ciy empbyee4 YES NO s. Doas mis perwMirm possess a akm not norma�ty pesseued by any arrem dy smWqeea YES NO E�cplain HI y�s answen on wp�ran shast and �tteeh to ynsn shsat Employees who fransfer or promote into other positioas and receive an unsatisfactory performance appraisal aze reinstated to their former positions, where their performances were satisfaaory, but are not considered promotional cand��d��xam purposes within six months of receiving that unsatisfactory performance evaluation. ;: � , � . Those employees who have transferred or promoted into other positions and received unsatisfactory performance appraisafs and teinstated to their fomier positions won't have to wait six months to take a promotional ezam, providing tlie'v petformance waz satisfaMOry in ihat fotmer position. Cutrently, an employee is not eligible to take a promotional exemination within six months of receiving an unsa6sfactory waluation. Should an emptoyee be evaluated unsatisfactorily, the pafotmance is re.evatuated in four moaths from the date of the unsatisfactory report. 77tis means an employee could have a satisfactory nting after four months and not be eligible for a promotional exam if ii is givrn within this two month window. So as not to penalize the employce, we are suggesting the period of iadigibiliry after the unsatisfactory rating be changed to �.,.----"- •- ` -- '-. . ... ... .. _ . . None. The response from departments/offices/unions is favorabte for this change. No one indicated disadvantages. The continned practice of not allowing those employxs who are reinsrated ta their fonoer positions because of unsatisfactory performance reviews to be considered promotioaal eandidates, even if tbeir worlc in tbat former position is satisfactory, OPTRANSACTION COSTlIiEYENUE BUDGETED (CIRC�E ONE) YES NO SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER `�5- 33a. City of Saint Paul Office of the City Councii 310 Cify Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 (612}266-8560 iWTER-dEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 1995 TO: Joan Jeffrey � FROM: Nancy Anderson � SUBJECT: City Council Resolution No. 95-332 �iE�' l� (�� 15 � � �J �{ :1 � �.'x' ' a I am forwarding to you the original resoiution - Council File No. 95-332, adopted by the City Council on April 19, 1995, for Civil Service Commission approva� (it has not been signed by the Mayor). Please return to me when it has been signed by the Civil Service Commission. lf you have any questians, please contact me at 266-8564. Thanks. NA Attachment - Original Council Resolution cc: Fran Swanson, City Cferk's Ofifice > �tfi kl# �Z 2f�( 56. S3��,U�:'`�; °��`3�9i1H -�� t � ra� ; v"�f?7�a:�t7