MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Ferrell, Marvin Sells and Jacqueline Hymes

OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Fersch

Meeting was called to order by Bob Farrell at 6:10 pm

1. Approval of August 30, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes: Ms. Hymes moved to approve; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Motion passed.

2. Employee/Community Comments: none

3. Secretary’s Report: Mr. Sells listed items received in packet which included a copy of the August 30, 2005 minutes, copy of the September 27, 2005 agenda.

4. Eligibility Lists

A. Public Safety Dispatcher 1

1. Update: Linda Fersch stated that the board had certified the top six candidates at the August meeting. The board also approved the eligibility list. One candidate decline but asked to remain on the eligibility list. The City hired Melanie Large and she began employment on August 29, 2005. The City has also hired Kristen Edwards to fill a vacancy that was created when Ray Maynard resigned. Kristen has began employment on September 26, 2005. Mr. Farrell asked if the board needs to recertify the candidates. Linda Fersch stated that the Police Department does background checks on the certified candidates and so a candidate could be possibly disqualified due to their background or a candidate could request to be taken off the eligibility list. So at this time there is not a need to recertify any candidates.

B. Police Officer:

1. Update: Physical fitness exam was given on September 10, 2005. Linda Fersch stated that she spoke to Susan Sheikh and Susan referred back to the minutes in 1996 where a precedent had been set as to if an Auxiliary Officer who was already commissioned with the City of Pickerington would receive an additional five points. The minutes from 1996 read Sgt. Annetts has stated that military points should remain at five points, higher education points should be three points for master Degree and one point for an Associates Degree. He suggested that five points for Pickerington Police Auxiliary and but stated that there should be a limit to one year minimum service to be eligible for these points. The minutes reflected that the members agreed. There was no formal vote. Linda stated that if the current board wants to approve this that she would need a motion because there is nothing stated in the PAB manual at this time. Ms. Hymes asked Linda if this is something that we want to do on the list now or next time. Linda answered it would be for the current list today. Whether to give the extra points to the Pickerington Auxiliaries. There are some Auxiliaries that are currently on other Departments and the stipulation has been on the City of Pickerington’s Auxiliary for a minimum on one year. The ones that would qualify for the additional points have been an Auxiliary for more that one year. The question is not whether they qualify for the year minimum, but whether the board is willing to give the Pickerington Auxiliaries the additional five points. Mr. Farrell asked if Linda had any feedback from the Chief of Police on this matter. Linda stated that the Chief has not stated anything and Linda hasn’t asked the Chief for his opinion. Linda has only verified this with Susan Shiekh because she wanted to know where it was listed in case there was a question from someone who is currently an Auxiliary for another agency. That is when Susan did the research and found out that it has been a practice of the past Police Chief’s that they gave these additional five points. It initially started with Chief Pruden and has been the practice each time thereafter. Mr. Farrell stated that he thinks that he remembers seeing it done in the past. Ms. Hymes stated that she has a problem giving the additional five points due to it being done after and because it wasn’t predetermined that the board would give these points. Mr. Sells stated that he didn’t have a problem with giving the additional five points if it has been a common practice from 1996 from when the initial motion was made. Ms. Hymes then asked how do they know if has been done every time since that motion was made. Linda stated that Susan said that it had been done every time since 1996 because Linda told Susan that she needed some verification due to it not being listed in the PAB rules. Linda stated that on the eligibility spread sheet it was done on the score of the written exam points, physical fitness passage, military points and Auxiliary points. Mr. Farrell is on record stating that he is in favor of it and is surprised of the five points but since it has been past practice he has no problem adopting what they have done in the past but five points seems kind of much verses someone who has went to Bowling Green University and has a masters in Criminology and they only receive three points. Mr. Farrell went on to say that since it has been past practice that he doesn’t think that the board should be against it. Mr. Sells stated he thinks that it is good idea because the Auxiliary person has been with our Police Department for at least a year; we know what the individual is already like even though the other person may have a doctorate. Mr. Sells also stated that the Auxiliary Officer is already trained in the procedures here and familiar with the equipment and the area. Mr. Farrell asked Linda if she knew if it was a common practice for other departments to give extra points. Linda said that she could not address that at this time because she has not investigated the other departments. Ms. Hyme asked why the board did not find out about these Auxiliary points before tonight. Linda stated it is because she questioned it when she started looking at the book and when she was tallying up the scores there is a candidate that is an Auxiliary with another agency and she questioned why she was not supposed to give them five points. That is why Linda asked Susan about the Auxiliary points and asked how they were to be administered. Susan did some research since she has access to all of the minutes from the past meetings and she stated that it was not stated in the PAB Rule Book and that it was a matter of practice, but Linda feels that the board should make a motion and in talking with Susan she agreed with Linda saying that this is what the board should do. Mr. Sells asked if there is a possibility by saying that the Auxiliary for the Pickerington Police Department gets five points but an Auxiliary for the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department who wants to be a full time person would that be considered discrimination? Ms. Hyme stated that she is not against giving them the additional five points but she feels that Mr. Sells has made a very good point about the amount points. She also asked Linda if that is a volunteer position and Linda stated that yes Auxiliary is a volunteer position and that they are not paid for holding the position. Ms. Hyme stated that she would not have a problem doing that she has a problem with adding the points on afterwards. She also stated that you can affect somebody scores by doing it afterwards. Linda stated that the spreadsheet was set up previously and she based it on Susan’s chart. Linda said that during her research she found out that it was not in the PAB Rule Book and there was a motion passed in 1996 so it had been policy back then and each time an eligibility list came by nothing was revoted as far as Linda knows. Susan said that it had been the Chief of Police policies that they felt that the points should be added because they were Pickerington Auxiliary. Mr. Farrell asked if Linda knew the scores of the candidates as of now and she replied that yes she knew the current scores are. Mr. Farrell also said that he would prefer the board not to know the scores so that it doesn’t taint the process and the board can remain unbiased.

Mr. Farrell made a motion to continue the past practice of awarding five points for any auxiliary service of one year or more with the City of Pickerington in the area of Police Officer. Mr. Sells seconded the motion.

There was further discussion regarding the matter. Mr. Farrell stated that he feels that the board is safe in doing this because they are untainted because they do not know the current scores of the candidates. Ms. Hymes disagreed with Mr. Farrell by saying that she feels it does not cover the board. Mr. Farrell stated that he was just going by what the past practice has always been. Mr. Farrell did go on to say that he feels that five points is a little excessive compared to someone who has attended six to eight years of schooling in Criminology is every bit as good as someone who has volunteered their time to be an Auxiliary Officer. But he also feels that is a nice incentive for the Chief to be able to offer someone to current potential Pickerington Auxiliary Officers who is donating their time and volunteering. Ms. Hymes said that she does not have a problem with giving them additional points but she does also agrees that five points is a little excessive but she just has a problem with applying it after scores have already been tallied. Linda stated that the candidates just completed their physical fitness test and if they passed the written but failed the physical fitness then that would disqualify the candidate. Ms. Hymes said that if the board knows that these points have been given consistently then she feels that the board would be ok. Linda stated that the City has done this consistently since 1996. Mr. Farrell stated that he does remember this being done a few years ago. Ms. Hymes asked how does the board know that these additional points have been added consistently over the years. Linda stated that she has gone back and reviewed past spreadsheets and stated that it was done that way every time. Mr. Sells stated that his concern even though he seconded the motion is that he doesn’t have a problem with it as long as every test that has been given since 1996 that they have applied the additional five points to the Pickerington Auxiliary Officers. If they haven’t then he has a problem in making a motion now before the board seeks legal council about the matter. So that the board would know that in case one of the candidates was to appeal that it would not pose a problem for the City. Linda asked the board if they would rather put this matter on hold until next months meeting. Mr. Farrell asked if we are in a desperate need to hire an officer at this time and Linda stated that the Police Chief is wanting to add another officer to next years budget and the budget has not been finalized at this time. At this current time the Police Department is at full force and no one has resigned as of now so there currently is not an opening at this time. Mr. Farrell asked if it would hurt to table this matter until the next meeting and Linda stated that since there is some doubt by the board at this time they could go ahead and table the matter until the next meeting. Linda also asked the board if they would like for her to have Susan certify stating that it has been the boards past practice. Mr. Farrell stated that if Linda has referred back to the copies of the past spreadsheets then he trusts what she is saying is true. Linda also offered to give the board copies of the past spreadsheets that she is referring to. Mr. Farrell stated that feels that five points is a little excessive but he doesn’t have a problem with continuing the past practice. Mr. Sells asked if it was brought up, voted and approved in 1996 and it has been on every list why there is a need for this board at this time to make another motion. Mr. Farrell said that since Linda has brought it up that it is not written in the PAB Rules that he feels that Linda is doing an excellent job in protecting the board. Ms. Hymes feels that she could “punch holes” in it. For instance in someone was to bring a charge against the City regarding this matter the Civil Rights Commission could “punch holes” in it. Mr. Farrell stated that he can not disagree with her but he also is speaking from his end and past practice is not grossly illegal. Then you have to follow past practice because it was adopted. But Ms. Hymes stated that the board should have been knowledgeable of the additional five points before the process began. Ms. Hymes also stated that the board should have not been notified of these five points afterwards. Mr. Farrell agreed that something needs to be formally written in the PAB Rules. Ms. Hymes stated that to her the five points seems excessive because to tell someone who has spent many years in schooling verse someone who has volunteered their time gets an additional five points for that and I only get three points for my schooling. Ms. Hymes is not saying that the Auxiliary Officer does not deserve some points and that it is written somewhere so everyone knows about the extra points. Because currently every candidate is not aware that they have an equal chance to get an additional five points for being an Auxiliary Officer for the City. So if someone knew that there was a possibility of getting an additional five points for being on the City’s Auxiliary force they may have volunteered their time. Mr. Farrell stated that he can not speak for the Chief of Police on this matter but it very well may be he is sure that he interviews the Auxiliary Officers and Chief might use that as an incentive. Mr. Farrell asked if there is an urgency for the board to rule on this matter tonight. Linda stated that no there is not an urgency at this time. Mr. Sells stated that he thinks that the board may also need to consider that they are talking about Auxiliary Police Officers and not full time officers. The board needs to have something to cover the administration positions here. Mr. Sells also stated that something should be also written for the parks and service departments. For instance if you have a part time service worker and there is a full time opening and if the part time person applies for the full time position he should some additional points also. Mr. Sells said that if the City is going to award additional points for current part time employees it should not only be done in the Police Department it should be done in all departments. Ms. Hymes and Mr. Farrell agreed with Mr. Sells. Mr. Farrell stated that he would like to retract his early motion and Mr. Sells retracted his vote on the earlier motion. Mr. Farrell stated that he would like the opinion of Clemens and Nelson on this matter. Linda stated that she would contact Clemens and Nelson regarding the matter.

C. Public Safety Dispatcher 2

1. Update: This is a promotional position for a Dispatcher 1. There is currently no update as we are not hiring for this position at this time. However the item will remain on the agenda.

D. Planner 1

1. Update: Linda Fersch stated that out of the top six candidates that was certified by the Board one candidate has declined the position due to accepting employment elsewhere. Out of the other candidates one was a no show for their interview. That left a total of four candidates that were interviewed and the Planning and Zoning Director stated that all four candidates were very good candidates. She stated that she would give the board apprised of the position.

5. Other Business

Next meeting is scheduled for October 25, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

Adjournment: Motion was made by Ms. Hymes and was seconded by Mr. Sells. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

___________________________

Molly Schwartz, Clerk of Court

________________________________________

Linda Fersch, Personnel Director