Loading...
91-2322 � --� �7 ��� , Counci t Fi le # �7 � — ��-�'�`� V • � ' � ��f Ordinance # Green Sheet # f C% � f..� ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Camiittee: Date An ordinance amending Chapter 16 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code pertaining to council personnel by eliminating the council investigation and research center and abolishing the position of director. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That Saint Paul Administrative Code Section 16.03 be and the same hereby is repealed by deleting it in its entirety. Section 2 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following passage, approval and publication. 4----. ,� , , � � � V ° �, �,,�'��� � f-%�- � Yeas Nays-- Absent Requested by Department of: �4'CiQ/ � rncuirZ iUEjD � Lon �_ Macca ee Rettman T une � Wt son � BY= Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Adopt i on Cert i f i ed by Counc i l Secretary gy. ��j,� �, ���,�, f Z�2'y� BY� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Approved by Mayor: Date By: By: , , y � r -�3��- � PARTMENI/OFFICE/COUNCiI DATE INITIATED NOi _10 915 city counci� i2-i2-91 GREEN SHEET CONTACT PERSON&PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL Jani ce Rettman ASSION �CITYATfORNEY �CITYCLERK NUMBER FOR ❑BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.8 MQT.SERVICES DIR. MUST BE ON COUNCIL A(iENDA BY(DATE) ROUTIN� ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTAN� � TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES nna (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Ordinance amending Chapter 16 of the St. Paul Administrative Code. RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or ReJect(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWIN(3 QUESTIONS: _ PLANNINCi COMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMI3SION �• Has this person/firm ever worked under e contract for this depertment? _CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee? _STAFF — YES NO _DISTRICT COUR7 _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally posseased by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7 YES NO Explaln all yes answera on separots sheet a�d attach to yre�n sheet INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why): Per the 1992 adopted budget, this Administrative Code Change must be made. F7ECEIVED �E� 12 �g91 C�TY CLERK ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: Complies with the spirit and inten� of the 1992 Budget. DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: Will not comply with the spi�i.t and intent of the adopted i992 budget. DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED: TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) {', I 0�lJ r w ' c. ��t NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS�ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO. 298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent rypes of documents: CONTHACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. Mayor/Assistant 5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. Ciry Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Cterk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body,�Sublic or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your project/request supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liability for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNiTY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this project/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed (e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? ;.: � ! � ;:��; ;� - r�. � �--� �� _ J 9r :�.: ::,. ���=:� Council President Wilson and �:�: Members of the City Council Page Two -� December 3 , 1991 � This position was originally established by Ordinance No. 17519, dated December 19, 1987, and provides that this title shall be established under the unclassified service of the City of Saint Paul. The ordinance also provides that the Director shall be appointed by the City Council to serve a term of five years. It further provides that during the first six months of the term the Director may be removed by the Council upon written notice but shall not thereafter be discharged except in the manner and for the grounds provided by the Civil Service Rules for employees in the classified service. It is my understanding that Mr. Strathman sees his employment as a contract rather than an appointment- to a City position. He has indicated that when he took the position he was told that he would �ave a contract for five years and he would not have to worry about the loss of his job for at least five �years. He also indicated that as a result of these representations he acted to his detriment and took the position. Finally, he also claims that it was the intent of the Council in establishing this language that the City enter into an agreement with Mr. Strathman that he would obtain the position for at least five years and could not be removed from this posit�i.on during that period of time. Obviously, the first question is whether or not the Council can abolish this position given this language. It is our position that you could le�a ' � � 4:. �,�� ,.,: _�1��.���`� �,�w.: �i �� ,�a � ,. ., � '����°"� �+� ., . . t�s:,��-�_� �ri� y c`�ua :a . ,::��'�1 `�����,-��-: .. � �;� ;`�� � . � . ��,� i�i�r�r������-�i�'.°, . ���. �� � . . ���. �:� �11� , ��, ��k�-a� car����� ���-��;���r �•+����.�s��-::� � .r °�� .�-�.�?� ,a,��. ��id ��� ��r py.o�. .���:�- �� -#�r � :� . . _. . �'�. �v�3ce �. � ' . _ :�, , The language in the ordinance which established this position clearly indicates that the incumbent cannot be "discharged'� except in the manner and for grounds provided by Civil Service Rules. There is no provision which guarantees that any incumbent shall continue to have that position for five years. The language does not prevent the Council from eliminating the position if the facts so dictate. If there is a challenge to such action, the incumbent would most certainly raise the issue of implied contract as well as the intent of the Council at the time that the position was established. These are valid positions and may have some credibility. However, it is our opinion that they would not prevail. � �.,Y f_____ ` . _. _._ _ - . _ . � : _ / � - ` �-('��c �,ar,�.e.,.'% "(� :T-� _ =_�� � . . �� `�tT*��' .CIT� OF SAINT PAUL v A+ � O '� ; ����;;;►;; ; OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ., ,,� •••• R� �� JANE A. MC P EAK, CITY ATTORNEY 800 Iandmark Towers J AN 0 8 �J��� Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 �JJ.- 612-298-S121 JAMES SCHEIBEL Fa�x 6i2-2vs-56i9 �,YOR COUNCILPt�S��t- JANICE EtETS� December 3 , 1991 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Council President William Wilson and Members of the City Council FROM: Terry Sullivan j Assistant City Attorney RE: Possible Elimination of Positions of Director of Council Investigation and Research Center and Council Fiscal Policy Director THIS .MEMO IS PREPARED FOR THE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3 . 1991. As a result of this year's budget deliberations, the Council has considered the possibility of eliminating the positions of Director of Couricil Investigation and Research Center as well as the position of Council Fiscal Policy Director. You have asked that this office review these possibilities and provide you with the legal ramifications of such actions should they occur. � Due to the fact that the Thanksgiving holidays arose at this time and the fact that the final determination on the budget will be made on Tuesday, December 3, we have not had time to go through detailed research and give a formal opinion. However, we can give you a general legal overview of the problems and ramifications of such action. The first position to be considered is that of Director of Council Investigation and Research Center. This is the most difficult of the two positions. This position is presently held by Mr. Gerry Strathman. �., :�'--'���. ..�..,..�r���.s»��.�.�..�."_�'..'_._.'._ '_ .'_ ... . . . :.�i�.•:� '..1 . . � .�'$'".;��i'•-�• :=:'�";�;';�� ''- G/ � �o�l�� :=,�-.:_,,� � `:;:::;; • = - - Council President Wilson and �"��"�y� Members of the City Council :�ti,: '=���,� Page Three "�� December 3 , 1991 :.n.. � As I indicated above, it is our position that this particular s position could be eliminated despite the claim of right to the position by the incumbent. We have not, as of yet, found cases specifically on point in this regard, however, there are two cases which do give clear direction. The first case is that of Gorecki v. Ramsey Countv, 419 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. App. 1988) , affirmed 437 N.W.2d 646. This case held that a public employer may abolish a position held by a veteran if it is done in good faith for a legitimate purpose and is not mere subterfuge to oust a veteran from the position. This case indicates that the City may abolish such position despite the claims of an incumbent if and indeed the office is abolished in good faith and for a legitimate purpose. This same standard would apply to the proposed actions in this particular case. - A second case which gives some direction in this issue is that of Lowe v. Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners, 752 F.Supp. 897 (D.C. Mo. 1990) . In this case the Court held that a limit on the number of terms that a council member may serve as applied to an incumbent member as well as non-incumbent persons did not violate the Voting Rights Act. This, again, is a case which allows an amendment to the rights in an existing position in public emplogment. Both of these cases would indicate that the Council could eliminate these two positions for a legitimate purpose and if it was done in good faith. The Council should be cautioned that if the positions are eliminated, the duties of these positions cannot merely be given to someone else for less pay. If the substantial duties and the same duties of the incumbents are given to someone else, this could be construed as being bad faith. In addition, it would erode the base of legitimate purpose if the same basic job were allowed to � continue to exist with someone else doing the work. It is my understanding that there is a possibility that the Council may establish seven new positions entitled Legislative Investigators. This, too, would erode the appearance of legitimacy in that we would then be creating more titles for the office of Council Investigation and would strengthen the need for a Director of such a group. There is nothing illegal per se about establishing such positions, but it could impact on the elimination of the position of Director of Council Investigation and Research Center. In addition to the above, the incumbent may raise the issue of veteran's preference rights. Generally speaking, such rights can be claimed at any time that a person is severed from his or her '..t i:.•�� � � _ \1 � , ' ♦ V Council President Wilson and °:;� Members of the City Council �� Page Four , December 3 , 1991 employment. In this particular case, there would be two issues that would arise in such a claim. First, there is a question of whether or not the incumbent is a head of a department and therefore exempt from the veteran's preference law. This would have to be determined by the facts and by the duties that are actually performed by the incumbent. � At any rate, this would be an issue. In addition, the case of Gorecki cited above would indicate that if the position was abolished in good faith and for a legitimate purpose, it could be done even if the incumbent could avail himself of the veteran's preference rights. There is one final issue that should be considered. That is the issue of elimination of a job versus- failure to fund the job. In this particular case, the arguments of the incumbent may be strengthened if the Council chose to allow the position to exist but failed to give the proper funding for the position. Therefore, if the Council truly feels that the facts are such that this position should no longer exist, it should be dealt with through elimination of the position rather than lack of funding. The second position is that of Council Fiscal Policy Director. Sinceathis particular position does not have the language as that of the first position, there are substantially less legal difficulties involved. If the incumbent is a veteran, then the same discussion of veteran's preference rights as set forth above would apply to this position. In addition, it is our understanding that the present incumbent has previously held a position in the classified service of the City of Saint Paul and held this position continuously until his appointment to his present unclassified appointment. Based upon these facts, the Charter and the Civil Service Rules provide that such incumbent must be placed back into his former classified position or a similar position of like pay, benefits, and seniority. As I indicated above, this is not a formal opinion from this office, but we felt it was necessary to provide you with some of these legal ramifications so that you would have them available in making your final determinations in regard to the budget. If you have any specific questions in regard to this matter, please feel free to contact us.