PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2011

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

6:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Ms England called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M., with roll call as follows: Ms England and Ms Dunn were present. Mr. Wagner was absent. Others present were Lynn Miller, Lynda Yartin, Bill Vance, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 21, 2010, Regular Meeting. Ms England moved to approve; Ms Dunn seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Ms England and Ms Dunn voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Human Resource Director’s Report. Mrs. Miller stated she was pleased to meet the Board members and to get the Personnel Appeals Board off on the right foot this year by having a general meeting to discuss some business she would like to bring before them to tighten up and improve our personnel appeals process and some of the Personnel Appeals Board rules. Mrs. Miller stated she had provided a memo detailing some of the changes she was recommending.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve amendments to Personnel Appeals Board Rules and Regulations. Mrs. Miller stated the first recommendation was to review and revise Rule 2(E)(1) due to a Charter change that now gives Council the authority to designate Classified and Unclassified positions. Mrs. Miller stated the new Charter went into effect at the beginning of the year and the Council will no longer make those recommendations, it is done by the City Manager. Mrs. Miller stated we have reviewed the Classification Plan and we made sure that similarly situated positions were treated the same. Mrs. Miller stated Department Heads that are Unclassified serve at the pleasure of the City Manager in most cases, sometimes they serve at the pleasure of Council or the Mayor. She stated we then have Classified employees and we have union employees in AFSCME and FOP, we have Classified clerical staff, but we also do have some Unclassified clerical staff. She stated the highly confidential positions such as the assistant to the City Manager and Chief of Police are Unclassified clerical. Mrs. Miller stated we also have Unclassified part-time. Ms. England clarified that Mrs. Miller was referring to the Clerk that works for the Chief of Police and City Manager. Mrs. Miller stated she just wanted to make the Board aware of those changes so if an appeal comes forward based on a classified change, and there were a couple, we moved one person from an Unclassified to a Classified position and we also moved our two utility plant operators, a water plant operator and a wastewater plant operator, from Classified to Unclassified positions. Mrs. Miller stated she met with these employees and explained the change and what that meant and they were fine with that. Mrs. England inquired if there were guidelines that are used to make this determination and Mrs. Miller stated by definition in the Ohio Revised Code it was a fiduciary responsibility to the organization. She stated it was a high level of responsibility, accountability and management responsibilities.

Mrs. Miller stated the second suggestion is to revise Rule 5 of the Personnel Appeals Board Rules. She stated her predecessor and legal counsel had discussed limiting the number of witnesses that might be called before this Board in an appeal process, and she would like to know how the Board felt about the proposed revision. Mrs. Miller stated if, for example, we would have a hearing and the employee had been with the City for a number of years they could know all 80 people on staff and, as such, could invite all 80 people to come in and testify on their behalf. She stated it was suggested the number be limited to three or five or some manageable number to limit the extent of the appeal process. Mrs. Miller stated she had consulted legal but has not received a response as far as if there is a good number, but it seemed that three would be a workable amount. Ms England stated the only suggestion she might offer would be some kind of statement that would state that any exception to the number of three could be approved if it was deemed to be pertinent to allow additional witnesses. She stated so if perhaps another person would make a difference, there may be exceptions. Mrs. Miller stated then we could add language to the effect that upon the approval of both parties there could be an exception to that number and also that both sides would be limited to the same number of witnesses. Ms England and Ms Dunn stated they felt that would be appropriate and Mrs. Miller stated as she understood it, the Board would like the revision to read that each side may offer and examine up to three (3) witnesses to present evidence in support of their case, however, this number may be extended upon the mutual agreement of both sides. Ms England and Ms Dunn both stated they felt that would allow for any exceptions that might be needed. Ms Dunn moved to approve the revision of Rule 5 to read: “Each side may offer and examine up to three (3) witnesses to present evidence in support of this case, however, this number may be extended upon the mutual agreement of both sides;” Ms England seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Ms Dunn and Ms England voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 2-0.

4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mrs. Miller stated that although this Board is not involved in the hiring process any longer, it is possible that someone could appeal a hiring process. She stated she would like to make the Board aware of the new program that we are entering into which is an agreement with National Testing Network and they specialize in safety services, particularly dispatch, fire, and police testing. Mrs. Miller further stated the tests are all video based, they are very comprehensive, and they are judged to be valid and reliable testing instruments. She stated she has used these tests in the past and she is confident of their product. Mrs. Miller stated this company is willing to open a test center at Columbus State and several HR Directors in the area will be using the test center. Mrs. England verified the results of tests will be kept for one calendar year from the time the individual sits for the test. Mrs. Miller stated they will also do the physical fitness testing for us. Mrs. England inquired if the City would get the test results for everyone who took the test and Mrs. Miller stated we would receive the results at whatever cutoff we requested. Mrs. Miller stated if we requested all the results we would receive that, if we requested the results from everyone who passed with 60 percent, or 70 percent or whatever, we would receive that. Mrs. England stated her concern with the process before was that statistics were not being kept with the number of females and minorities who applied and what the test rate is for those individuals as well as the top few that you get. She stated she wasn’t sure if that would be done on an annual basis just to see what the statistics were. Mrs. Miller stated one of the things this testing network will allow us to do is to aggressively market this around the country. She stated someone in Seattle, Washington, Miami, Florida, can apply for the Pickerington test if they are interested in moving here. Mrs. Miller stated they also plan to market this testing network around military bases to pull in people as they are being reintegrated into the work force and that will positively impact our diversity. Mrs. England clarified that our merit based system does not give credit for military service.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Ms Dunn moved to adjourn; Ms England seconded the motion. Ms Dunn and Ms England voted "Aye." Motion carried, 2-0. The Personnel Appeals Board adjourned at 6:30 P.M, April 21, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, City Clerk