Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1982-03-16 Minutes MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ~ MARCH 16, 1982 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY HALL, 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 l. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Szol called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ed Szol Chairman Bob Skelton Bob Roark George Pederson Others Present: Rodger Line City Manager Ron McKinney Civil Service Secretary 3, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pederson moved, seconded by Commissioner FOR JANUARY 27, 1982 Roark, to approve the minutes of January 27, 1982 as written. The motion carried unanimously. 4, DISCUSSION OF Ron McKinney explained to the Commision that he and EMPLOYEE EVALUATION the City Manager had been discussing employee evaluations. FORMS He said the City Manager suggested that the regular employees be evaluated by June 1 of every year rather than semiannually. He said a memo he had submitted to - Mr. Line mentioned that the probationary employees would be evaluated twice a year during their probationary year with the last probationary evaluation being not less than thirty days prior to their anniversary date. He stated that several department heads and employees do not like the current evaluation form and this item was put on the agenda to obtain input from the Commission as to what they would suggest in regards to changing the form. Mr. Line stated he did not have it locked in his mind as what to reco~nend to the Co~ission as to the evaluation frequency or when it should occur. He said he has had some second thoughts about his original suggestion. He said he felt that during the first year employees should be evaluated more than once; that they should be evaluated and counselled and then before the one year period is up there should be another evaluation so a conscientious decision can be made as to whether an employee should continue to work for the City. Chairman Szol stated he didn't have any p~oblem with employees being evaluated every three months, but supervisors don't like to do it that often. He said he felt that if an evaluation is done close to the beginning and one close to the end, there is too long of time in between. Commissioner Roark suggested a compromise of three times a year. CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES ` March 16, 1982 Page 2 ~ Commissioner Pederson suggested an evaluation be done during the first or second months of employment and another evaluation during one of the last months of the probationary year. Commissioner Skelton stated he agreed with Chairman Szol. He said he felt if only an early and late evaluation are done, a long period of time has elapsed. The Commission discussed their views on when an employee should be evaluated. Mr. McKinney stated that the supervisor or department head doesn't have to fill out an evaluation form on a new employee to know if the employee is performing satisfactorily. He stated the supervisor can fill out an evaluation form before it is due. Mr. Line stated he would be reluctant to propose a three- month xequirement. He said an evaluation process, if dpne correctly, should be done every day and corrections should be made as the situation arises. He said he felt something fairly early and something towards the end would be su~ficient, and if an employee fowls up and should be discharged, then the supervisor should not wait ti_ for the next formal evalution. Commiss~oneX Roark asked what the objections were to the current evaluation form. Mr. McKinney stated one of the greatest ob~ections was "jvb knowledge''. He explained that ~ob knowledge takes in a broad area. He said for example, you could be talking about an employee's knowledge of the penal code, code of procedures, etc. He said the department heads have indicated they would like the factors broken down into subfactors where each one can be graded to come up with a composite of the main factor. Chairman Szol said if the evaluation form can be related to the indiyidual jobs and for example developed where you take the ~ob knowledge and break it down by categories and skills the better the evaluation form is. Mr. McKinney stated that another objection with the evaluation form is "personal and public relations" are two separate factors. Mr. Line said he has a problem doing the evaluation at stated times of the year as opposed to intervals in the employee's career. CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES ~ March 16, 1982 Page 3 Chairman Szol stated that if the City is going to pay employees on their performance then the evaluation should be done fairly close to the merit review cycle. Mr. Line stated employees should be eligible for merit increases based on their performance on their anniversary date. Chairman Szol said the budget presents a problem in that you don't know how much money is available to spend until , a certain point in time. Mr. Line said the budget cycle is no problem. He said the money can be calculated, pro~ected, and budgeted; and if the employee doesn't earn the merit increase, the department head doesn't have to give it. Mr. Line explained the procedure would have to be phased in. He stated no one should be eligible for a merit increase more than every twelve months. He explained new employees hired in June of th~s year would be eligible for an increase next June, and the anniversary date for those employees on board in October last year would be October. The Commission discussed their views on how the cost of ~ living and merit increases s~ould be distributed. Mr. Line said the cost of living should be applied to the salary range and the range should be adjusted according to the cost of living and what can be afforded. He said everyone should be ad~usted within that range based on where they are on the salary range. He said the merit increase should be totally separate from the cost of living and should take into account what kind of ~ob the employee is doing. Chairman Szol said his philosphy was to take the total percent allotted for salary increases and distribute it on the basis of the individual's performance and where he is on the salary range. He said for example, 17% might be allqtted, but someone might receive 25% and someone 8%. Mr. Line said if the City can a€ford 17%, then maybe the City would want to give a 10% cost of living increase and award 7% to the good performers. Chairman Szol stated he had no problem with the performance evaluation being done once a year with the understanding that a probationary employee is evaluated prior to the end of his probationary year. Commissioner Roark stated if the anniversary date is used rather than the annual date, then it would eliminate a lot of pzoblems. CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES March 16, 1982 Page 4 Chairman Szol said the reason he preferred having the ~ evaluations due all at one time is more control can be exercised when they can all be looked at together. Mr. Line said he felt merit increases should be given as an employee is eligible if the employee has earned it. He said the only place the pot should be "dibbied up" is with the cost of living ad~ustment. Mr. McKinney stated that the evaluation form originally said "6 months probation, semiannual, and disciplinary" and it has been changed to read "annual" and "disciplinary". Chairman Szol stated what they use at Bell for performance evaluations is really just a blank, folded sheet of paper. He explained that inside on one side of the page is a list of ob~ectives and accomplishments. He said they each have a list of objectives and what they are to accomplish. He suggested that the City could take a blank piece of paper and list the job duties that are in the different job classifications. He said that should cover all of the employees' ma~or tasks. He said each one of the duties could be rated to come up with an overall evaluation. He said that punctuality, attendance, etc. could also be included in the evaluation form. He said on the other side of the blank paper would be space for an explanation. ~ Mr. Line asked Chairman Szol if he could get an evaluation form from Bell that has been filled out and depersonalize it so the City could see how it is being used. Chairman Szol said he would send a copy of Bell's evaluation foxm to the City. Chairman Szol stated the evaluation form could also include those factors common to all employees, such as tardiness and absenteeism. Commissioner Pederson said something more specific on tardiness and absenteeism could be done such as set up a program that would benefit those employees who are good in that area. Mr. Line asked if the evaluation forms have to be approved by the Co~nission. Mr. McKinney stated that it can be an administrative function. Chairman Szol stated he was satisfied with a once a year evaluation and suggested that probationary employees should be evaluated after three months. Mr. Line said he recommends three months evaluation CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES March 16, 1982 Page 5 for probationary employees and the next formal evaluation would be just before the anniversary date with the under- standing that evaluations should take place any time they are appropriate. Mr. McKinney explained that evaluation notices would be sent to the Department Head thirty days prior to the evaluation being due with the evaluation due thirty days prior to the anniversary date. The Commission moved Agenda Item No. 6 ahead of Agenda Item No. 5. 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ON Mr. Line stated he likes the step plan, but would like to SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS see it extended and a range established for all of the FOR 1982-83 BUDGET 'department heads. He said he would like to see the YEAR Council establish a minimum and maximum salary range for the department heads. He said he did not have any- thing specific to bring up for discussion with the Commission in regards to salary recommendations for the 1982-83 budget year. Ron McKinney stated that the deadline for the Cemmission to make salary recommendations is June l. Chairman Szol stated that the salary ranges for the City are now current. Mr. Line said the problem is that we won't know what the other cities are doing in their budget year, and there is no solution to the problem. He stated that Mr. McKinney is currently doing a new survey of the area cities. He said he felt that in doing salary surveys, the City should stay in the Mid-Cities area and not go outside of Tarrant County. Chairman Szol stated the first year you have to make a guess at what the other cities are doing with their salaries, and if North Richland Hills falls behind, then the City will have to play catch up the next year. Mr. McKinney suggested the Commission use the cost of living rate to make the ad~ustments. The City Manager asked the Commission if they take the information that the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission provides and prepare salary adjustment recommendations for presentation to the City Manager or to the City Council. Chairman Szol stated that the Co~uaission makes recommendations to the Council on what they feel the salary adjustment should be. He stated that usually the City Manager and Co~ission are in consensus on what the salaries should be. CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES March 16, 1982 ~age 6 5. ELIGIBILITY REQUIRE- Mr. McKinney explained that when a vacancy occurs and no ` MENTS FOR PROMOTION one is eligible to take the promotional exam, then the Commission is asked to decide who is eligible to take the test. He said the Police Department has two corporal positions they need to fill and no one is eligible to take the promotional exam from the next lower rank. He explained that all of the P.O. IIs have less than one qear of service with the City. Mr. McKinney said he consulted with Rex McEntire, City Attorney, on what should be done. He said Mr. McEntire first told him to do what he wanted to do, but then said to open it up to those who are off of probation. Mr. Line said that one provision of the Charter is that to be eligible for promotion, an employee must have two years of service with the City, and another provision says when a vacancy occurs, the position must be filled by promotion. He stated the two provisions are contradictory. Chairman Szol said the problem is there is a piece missing to the Charter. Mr. Line stated he didn't want anyone to be put in the position of violating the Charter. Mr. McKinney stated that if a promotional exam is given, we will not be going by the Charter. He said the reason he came to the Commission is because if someone down the line files a grievance, then the Commission wi11 already have made a decision by drawing the line. He said he was asking the Commission who will be eligible to take the promotional exam. Chairman Szol stated this problem has been run into before. He said there are two options--one is to go outside and find someone who i~ qualified, or promote from within. Chairman Szol stated the other times this problem has come up, the Commission has opened it up and let everyone take the promotional exam. Mr. McKinney stated the promo~ional exam could be opened to all of the P.O. IIs who were on board when the vacancies occurred and the testing process will eliminate those who are not qualified. The Commission discussed who should be eligible to take the promotional exam. The Commission discussed that in the past promotional exams had been opened up to everyone when no one was eligible for promotion. Mr. Line stated he felt it should be consistent; that under the same set of circumstances it should be open to everyone. ` Commissioner Skelton moved, seconded by Commissioner Roark, to open the promotional exam up to all of the employees in the next lower classification. The motion carried unanimously. CIVIL SERVICE MINUTES - M~rch 16, 1982 Page 7 ~ 7, DISCUSSION OF __Chairman Szol closed the regular meeting at 8:55 p.m. for PERSQNNEL SALARIES discussion of personnel salaries. (Closed) Ed Szol, Chairm ~ Ron McKinney, vil Se e Secretary ~