City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

MINUTES
Grand Forks Civil Service Commission
November 12, 2009

Chairperson Bredemeier called the Grand Forks Civil Service Commission meeting to order at approximately 3:32 PM in the City Hall, Council Chambers. Commissioners MacGregor, Nies and Vanyo were present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to approve the October 8, 2009 regular meeting minutes.
Motion carried, unanimously.

CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO AGENDA

Add Water Service Worker internal candidates to agenda.

HR Director Hovland recommended this item be added in front of the Water Service Worker exam cutoff item in the Eligibility Register section. It was moved by Commissioner Vanyo and seconded by Commissioner MacGregor to approve the addition to the agenda. Commissioner MacGregor asked if it was a reassignment register. HR Director Hovland stated it is a reassignment register, there will be some discussion on it and it will be my request that we not establish a register.
Motion carried, unanimously.

REASSIGNMENT REGISTERS

Accountant, Sr.

HR Director Hovland stated that this was an internal posting and there was only one candidate. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to establish the cutoff for the Accountant, Sr. Reassignment Register at 77.0%.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Emily Fossen

Accountant

HR Director Hovland stated that this position opened up with the reassignment of Accountant, Sr.. In looking at the test scores, they are well below what the commission normally sets as a cutoff of 70%. It doesn’t appear that these candidates are what the city is looking for. Based on past precedence of the commission and City Code 6-0514(C)(3), the commission may decline to establish a register. What they have done in the past, is to have the scores to be intermingled with the Eligibility register candidates. This still gives them the opportunity and the commission has said to look at internal applicants first. Commissioner MacGregor asked if these were all internal applicants and Director Hovland said they were. Finance and Administrative Director Jerath agreed that the internal applicants should be added to the Eligibility register candidates. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Nies to not establish the Accountant Reassignment Register and place the candidates in with the Eligibility register applicants.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Equipment Operator - Sanitation

HR Director Hovland stated that this is a Reassignment Register with two candidates. Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 80.25%, which will place both candidates on the register. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner Nies and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to establish the cutoff for the Equipment Operator - Sanitation Reassignment Register at 80.25%.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Terry Nicholls
Juan Rosales Sr.

ELIGIBILITY REGISTERS

Equipment Operator – Streets (Exam cutoff)
HR Director Hovland stated that they are establishing an exam cutoff for Streets and next Sanitation, where in the past they have established them as one, but it is the wishes and needs of the City to separate them out into two registers. Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 76.0%, which will place twelve candidates to be interviewed. Public Works Director Feland stated that he concurs with the cutoff as the departments usually have two to three openings per year. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to establish the cutoff for the Equipment Operator - Streets Eligibility Register cutoff at 76.0%.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Equipment Operator – Sanitation (Exam cutoff)

HR Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 76.0%, which will place nine candidates to be interviewed and there is the internal register previously established with two on it giving a total of eleven available. Commissioner MacGregor asked if it was the same exam or a different one. Mr. Bergquist stated it was the same exam for both Streets and Sanitation. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to establish the cutoff for the Equipment Operator - Sanitation Eligibility Register cutoff at 76.0%.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Water Service Worker (Added to Agenda)

HR Director Hovland stated that the department takes a look at the internal candidates first and we had four internal candidates and if you look at percentages of the exam you will see that they are low like the previous discussion item. Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 60.00%, looking at the next item those test scores are also low. All the candidates would then be interviewed and combined into one Eligibility Register. Public Works Director Feland discussed the requirements, including the four state certification tests for Water Service Workers which the candidates would have to pass in the future, containing science and mathematics questions. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner Nies and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to not establish a Reassignment Register and set the cutoff for the Water Service Worker at 60% and combine the internal candidates with the Eligibility applicants.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Water Service Worker (Exam cutoff)

HR Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 60.0%. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner Vanyo and seconded by Commissioner MacGregor to establish the cutoff for the Water Service Worker Eligibility Register cutoff at 60.0%.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Civil Engineer

HR Director Hovland stated this is to establish a supplement to an existing register that will expire on March 12, 2010. Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 91.0%. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner Nies and seconded by Commissioner MacGregor to establish the cutoff for the Civil Engineer Eligibility Register cutoff at 91.0% and combine this register with the existing Eligibility Register.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Matthew Yavarow
Ross Lagasse
Joseph Senger
John Williams

Civil Engineer, Sr.

HR Director Hovland stated this is to establish a supplement to an existing register that will expire on March 12, 2010, currently there are only two names on the existing register. Director Hovland made the recommendation that the cutoff be established at 89.0%. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to establish the cutoff for the Civil Engineer, Sr. Eligibility Register cutoff at 89.0% and combine this register with the existing Eligibility Register.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Matthew Walsvik
Walter Smith
Jon Herdegen
Peter Gegellchen

Eligibility of Non-Classified Employees To apply for Classified Position per 6-0513(1)

HR Director Hovland stated that per City Code the commission can consider non-classified employees to compete for a classified position register. Both have submitted their requests in a timely manner and it is my recommendation, if the commission so desires, to make two motions for the record. Discussion was held. It was moved by Commissioner Vanyo and seconded by Commissioner MacGregor to allow Jenna Bohn to be considered eligible for the purpose of applying for the Water Service Worker position. Commissioner MacGregor asked when the commission started doing this. Director Hovland stated it was shortly after the flood. It was moved by Commissioner Nies and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to allow Fernando Contreras to be considered eligible for the purpose of applying for the Water Service Worker position.
Motion carried, unanimously.

Jenna Bohn
Fernando Contreras

Requested review for Hiring of Non-Civil Service Employment

HR Director Hovland stated that this item was placed on the agenda based on a request from Mr. CT Marhula, who is here in the audience today. Director Hovland requested Urban Development Director Hoover give the Commission an update on where the Energy Sustainability Coordinator position is and tell a little about the position. Director Hovland also pointed out that Mr. Swanson, City Attorney, is here to represent the Commission. Director Hoover stated that by City Council action office of Urban Development will be the home for this position. The position is based on a one time grant from the US Department of Energy and is roughly $500,000. There are a number of activities that have been submitted to the DOE for implementation through this grant, including the hiring of a non-classified temporary employee. The expectation is a duration of eighteen to twenty four months to manage the grant and to establish a program through the Grand Forks Energy Alliance to do weatherization of homes of low income people. The City Council was adamant that this position would be a temporary position at the time they approved it. Commissioner Vanyo asked if the money for the grant has been received yet. Director Hoover stated we do not, but we hope to get it in December. Mr. Swanson asked if the position has been filled. Director Hoover stated that it has not and won’t be filled until we get the money in hand. Commissioner MacGregor asked, where has the process gone and do you have people identified to fill the position when you get the money. Director Hoover stated we have interviewed candidates with a four person panel including Urban Development Director Hoover, IT Director Fiala, Peter Haga from the Mayor’s office and Mr. Bergquist from Human Resources. The panel screened eleven candidates and reduced that down to six. The six candidates were interviewed and came up with the top three candidates, which one was head and shoulders above the rest. Commissioner MacGregor asked if that was based on hiring in August. Director Hoover stated yes. Commissioner MacGregor asked what would happen if the top candidate wasn’t available? Director Hoover stated we would go to the next candidate, but only down to the third candidate. Commissioner Bredemeier asked what would the process be if all the top three would not be available? Director Hoover stated he would suggest going back and re-advertise. Director Hovland turned it over to Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson stated that this is unusual in that the Commission normally does not get involved with non-classified hiring processes, however as a result of a request by Mr. Marhula and a review of the City Code, conferring with the Mayor, the Commission does have discretionary authority, but it is limited. The Commission may review the facts and determines if there is any basis to make a preliminary finding of discrimination on color, race, sex, religion, national origin. I don’t believe there are any allegations of that, so the second avenue of review would be, the Commission could make any inquiries into a matter involving administration of personnel issues and including the decisions involving personnel to determine if those decisions appear to be arbitrary, capricious or illegal. If the Commission makes a finding of any of those three occurrences, the Commission has the ability to make a recommendation to the Mayor in his hiring decision. Without a finding of an act being arbitrary, capricious or illegal, the Commission has no authority to otherwise direct or control the hiring of a non-classified position. Mr. Swanson stated this is outlined in section 6-0205(F) of the City Code. Commissioner MacGregor asked for a simple definition of arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Swanson stated that an arbitrary or capricious decision is one that has no basis in fact or could not be explained on a rational basis why an act occurred. Mr. Swanson stated that each Commissioner has correspondence from Mr. Marhula and I would advise Mr. Marhula to address the Commission to identify what facts he believes may or may not constitute bases for Commission intervention. Mr. Marhula stated he wasn’t sure from the beginning how it was covered and now Mr. Swanson has explained how it is covered. I do think it does reach the point where there are some things that can’t be explained rationally. I will defer to Mr. Swanson if I misstate the law, I had a temporary position at the Grand Forks Air Force base that you’re a second class citizen but you can become a first class citizen, so they applied there past practice a strict Civil Service guidelines in that selection process knowing that you may go into permanent full time and that is what we should do here. They scored the tests and did the interviews; you have so much education, experience. From my understanding in the Energy Sustainability Coordinator position there was no scoring of experience or education. I will say again, it may be subjective on my part as I did get copies of all the applications and I went through them and you can’t reasonably say that I got credit for my Masters degree, my Doctorate, my twenty five years experience in industry, my ten to fifteen years working with the builders and realtors of Grand Forks and everyone within the energy industry of Grand Forks. I had significantly more experience than any other candidate had. Mr. Marhula continued by saying he would agree with Mr. Hoover that there were two candidates that stood out above the rest, he said one, I would say two. I have experience sitting on both sides of the table, giving interviews and being an interviewee and I flatly nailed that interview. I know when I only have my B game and I brought my A game that day. I have the experience, the education, the connections and I didn’t choke on the interview, so when you look at the scores, I don’t think anyone can explain it. That much difference in score, there had to be non-merit factors in there. If you look in my letter, the items that you are to use are education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance are the essential elements to a merit based appointment and no one could explain to me how they came about with these numbers. When I asked, one of the answers I got was they were looking for environmental and if you look at the first question it asks about experience in grant writing. As you two who have done this would know, you need to tie this to the job description. There is no requirement for grant writing in the job description yet that was the first question they asked, so I would say that that would meet the standard of arbitrary or capricious. I think that this should go back to the Commission and re-interview with Fred and Bev involved. I wrote some notes, you have Chief Packet, Mr. Shields, Todd Feland, Saroj and I happened to see Al Grasser come in there to make a committee of four and then add Daryl as an HR person you would have five people. Rescore these tests based on an objective standard and leave some 20 to 25 points for the interview and you will have a true merit based system that everyone can live with. If the Mayor then selects someone else or if I don’t make the top three I will accept it, but again I have maintained an unusual calm for myself and if I misstated anything Howard I again he is the real attorney. Mr. Swanson asked what non-merit based factors do you believe were considered. Mr. Marhula stated that is a good question and I can’t say that, there is no discrimination, I agree with you on first part. All I can say is, when you look at the totality of the circumstances, with my experience in the industry, my connection with the builders and realtors, my education and you look at the scores, it just doesn’t add up. But for me to say that they didn’t like me because my eyes were blue, I can’t say that and that is my dilemma. I am not going to go there, because in my life I have been the victim of people who have said things that are not quite true, so I am not going to disparage anyone. Commission MacGregor asked Mr. Marhula what he is suggesting. Mr. Marhula stated that he is asking that the Commission review this and rescore and come up with a matrix that you have used for other things and re-interview with the same six people. You would then have documented evidence to the scores. If any of you sat in with Jay when he did these things, he would get his columnar sheet out and he could tell you that Joe Smith got two points on question number seven. My big concern Howard (Mr. Swanson) there is no way to say where it was accurate or inaccurate and that’s not a strong point in my position, but I think the totality of the experience, education and contacts indicates that something was amiss. Director Hovland stated a point for the record that there was a screening matrix done to bring the eleven candidates down to six. That screening matrix took into account, experience, three to five years of energy office sustainability experience, public sector or municipality experience or government other. Then the matrix looked at type of experience partnerships, networking, implementing programs and projects, developing budgets, grant writing, written publications, boards or committees. We also took into account education which is either a BA or a BS and then the related Masters degree. Finally the veteran’s preference. There was a matrix that took into account education and experience, which gave the opportunity for the six candidates to interview for the position. The interview is the exam that they are taking to show how the candidate can relate that experience to the questions you are asking, so in this case Mr. Marhula was one of the six candidates based on education and experience that was allowed to interview. I want to set the record straight on that. Commissioner MacGregor asked about Mr. Marhula’s score of 48 out of 100 and what part of the process was that. Director Hovland stated that there were 100 points and it was based on nine questions that were asked of each candidate as we normally do with classified positions. That was strictly the interview part and how they related that experience and education. Mr. Marhula stated he’d like to point out that is the only part, that’s how they made the cut there was no credit as I understand it and this is the first time I hear that was in the matrix and I had requested the documents. What I am saying is the interview should have been combined with that (the matrix) to come up with one score. Mr. MacGregor stated that the paper review was to get people into the interview. Mr. Marhula stated that he understands that now. Mr. Swanson asked Director Hovland if the same questions were asked of all the applicants and were they scored by the same interviewers. Director Hovland stated that each candidate was asked the same questions and that all the scoring was done by the same interviewers. Director Hovland stated that Mr. Marhula mentioned putting Chief Packet on the panel and Mr. Feland, however we did have three department heads in that panel along with HR representation, so I feel there was fair representation from a supervisor director point of view. Mr. Marhula asked Director Hovland why he had not receive these as I had requested the scoring if each person had scored them as Howard (Mr. Swanson) had mentioned. Director Hovland stated that you (Mr. Marhula) had asked us for all the applications and we gave you all of those. We sat down and I explained the process in my office, which talked about the experience and education matrix. Mr. Marhula stated he did not want to argue, but he didn’t recall that. Director Hovland stated that he did not give Mr. Marhula a copy of the matrix. Director Hovland also stated that this is how we normally screen applicants through a matrix and then have questions we ask of all the candidates with the same panel. Commissioner Bredemeier stated that the process was the same when the commissioners sat in on interviews once the initial scoring is gone through to determine whether they qualify for the interview. The final process is the interview panel and we do score, so the process is the same process we follow in those interviews. Director Hovland stated that is correct. Mr. Marhula stated that is not my recollection, when going for Fire Captain they get x amount of points for seniority, x for education, the interview is 25 points and you add them all together. Director Hovland pointed out that Mr. Marhula is correct and that Fire has their own selection criteria that has been established by the Commission based on internal. If you look at Eligibility Registers, this position we mirrored the process we use for the Eligibility classification. We use a screening matrix, then we do the interview and everybody scores there. Mr. Marhula questioned, you don’t carry the points forward? Director Hovland stated not from the screening matrix which gets you the opportunity to sell yourself. Mr. Marhula stated that I would say that is arbitrary and capricious both. The proof is in the pudding, I won now. Mr. Swanson asked, why do you say that? Walk me through that conclusion. Mr. Marhula stated that Director Hovland was saying this person who scores those six and I don’t know how they scored them, I didn’t see those and wasn’t aware of that. Mr. Swanson stated the Commission doesn’t have the authority to establish the hiring process for a non-classified position nor can you establish who sits on an interview committee. That is going to be left in this case to the Mayor or perhaps City Council as far as a non-classified position particularly when they are grant funded. Having said that, if you agree with Mr. Marhula that there is something here that can’t be explained by the scoring of the candidates who were reviewed, if you want to move forward you could, but simply because you chose not to combine the paper review score with an interview score, I don’t think that automatically puts you into a conclusion where you are arbitrary and capricious. As far as whether or not you have the authority to direct who sits on the review panel, I don’t think the Commission has that authority, but I think you can make recommendations to the Mayor if you make a finding of arbitrary and capricious. Commissioner MacGregor asked Director Hovland how many grant positions does the City get in a year. Director Hovland stated that currently we have thirteen project grant type positions on board and they go through the same process. We screen through a matrix to see who on paper qualifies and then we interview. Commissioner MacGregor stated that they are not Civil Service employees. Director Hovland stated they are not Civil Service employees. Commissioner MacGregor asked if the Commission had dealt with this issue before. Director Hovland stated not from a contracted project grant type position, you deal only with the classified or non-classified as the one we did earlier today allowing them the opportunity to go classified. Mr. Swanson asked if the Commission has a listing of the questions that were asked in the interview. Director Hovland stated we can get that real quick. Mr. Swanson asked if the Commission has the scoring. The Commission was provided copies of the scoring matrix and the interview questions. Mr. Marhula asked if they have the scoring on each question. Director Hovland stated that as long as they are consistent, if I put more emphasis on question one than question five, in my discretion that is how I assign my points. As long as I am consistent throughout the whole interview process, then I come to a scale of 100. Mr. Swanson asked if Director Hovland was saying that the individual member of the interview panel has one hundred points, they can divide the 100 points as they choose based upon all nine of the questions. Director Hovland stated that was correct, they are not assigned a point value. Mr. Marhula stated that he does not have any trouble with that, but the question was, do you have those questions with the scoring. Director Hovland stated that he did not receive how each panel member scored each question, that is part of their notes. Director Hovland stated that the notes usually stay with each panel member. Urban Development Director Hoover stated not to contradict the HR Director, but each reviewer had only twenty five points per candidate. Director Hovland stated that is still based on a scale of one hundred. Four interviewers each having twenty five points and they were added together. The screening matrix and the questions were passed out to the Commissioners. Commissioner MacGregor stated that basically on the screening matrix the points didn’t matter, because they didn’t carry forward. Commissioner MacGregor said he had a technical question and asked about the additional scoring bonus that goes into veteran’s status. Is it true under Century Code that if a veteran meets the minimum qualifications, disabled veteran first, they have to be offered the position at that point. Director Hovland stated that once the register has been established, if there is a disabled veteran they have precedence. Commission MacGregor stated that they would still go forward with the interviews. Director Hovland stated they would go forward, so you see on the screening matrix we really targeted in on education and experience with the veterans points are bonus points. A disabled veteran, if they had all the education and experience points could score one hundred ten points on the matrix. Commissioner MacGregor stated that once they get past the screening matrix then we get into the interview questions. Director Hovland agreed and stated that is the actual exam which is a part of the interview where they do the actual scoring. This is where the candidate actually sells himself, relating his experience and education to what we are looking for. Mr. Marhula asked if Director Hovland had how all the questions were scored. Director Hovland stated we do not have how each question was scored. Commissioner MacGregor stated that the many times when he has been involved in the interview process the individual question scores are not turned in we keep them. Mr. Marhula stated that they don’t have the matrix scores either. Commissioner MacGregor stated that Mr. Marhula was already in the six interviewed. Mr. Marhula stated that they are missing this and missing the question points, like I said in my private conversations and my telephone call to Mr. Swanson, I am going to ruin my reputation, I am disappointed because I think I was clearly one of the top two candidates. I am not going to fall on my sword and lose blood to Mr. Swanson. I think especially since the grant hasn’t been applied, the Commission should encourage the Mayor to take a serious look at the situation and leave it up to him. Mr. Marhula stated that Mr. Swanson and Director Hovland have been very nice and there is no animosity from my part or their part. I think the best solution at this time is to kick the can down the road to the Mayor. Mr. Marhula stated that I am not going to pretend to know more than Mr. Swanson. Mr. Marhula stated that since this is our first exchange, you could sit on it for a week if you wanted to unless you want to make a decision today. Commission Vanyo asked Mr. Marhula if he thought he had not gotten enough credit for his interview. Mr. Marhula stated that he thought he had not gotten enough credit for his interview. Mr. Marhula stated that he had been in HR and he knows when he nailed an interview. Had I come out at ninety or eighty five I could have accepted it, but not you score me at a forty eight on the interview I gave. I wish there were video tapes of the interviews of all of us, but it is in the eye of the beholder. It is like you think you nailed the dive from the high board and you look up to see the judges are holding fives. Mr. Swanson asked if the Commission get the scores and Chairperson Bredemeier stated they did get the total scores. Mr. Marhula stated he understands that it is a sensitive issue, you are kind of bound, you are kind of not bound, you kind of do what you want to do, you get into trouble no matter what, politically speaking maybe the best thing is to kick it down the road to Mayor Brown, that is why he gets the big money. I do think this is a stimulus job, designed to put people to work and I think this should have been a factor. Commissioner MacGregor stated that Mr. Marhula has made some good points, obviously he is coming from his perception, but I think the process up to the interview looks fine and I have no way to know if there is anything wrong. Commissioner MacGregor stated that from a Commission standpoint I don’t think we want to get involved in every position that is filled this way, but if there is a terrible one we should. I think if Mr. Marhula had scored twenty points on the paper review and everyone else was in the eighties or nineties there certainly would be a question, but he did get credit for his experience, education and training ending up in the final group. Chairperson Bredemeier stated she believes the process was a fair process in the screening matrix and going into the interviews with everyone being asked the same questions. It is like when the Commissioners sit on a panel and we have our points to assess it is not an easy task. She stated it is discretionary on the points going through looking at the questions how they are answered, it is the same process in my private job the way we did it and being a non-classified position I don’t know if we can do anything more. Commissioner Vanyo asked if you were scoring each candidate at the time they were interviewed. Director Hovland stated that you are correct. Commissioner Vanyo asked who was on the interview panel. Director Hovland stated the interviewer were Mr. Hoover, Ms. Roxanne Fiala, Mr. Pete Haga, and LeRoy from the HR department, all skilled interviewers. Mr. Swanson asked if the questions were appropriate to the position. Director Hovland stated that they were appropriate. Mr. Marhula stated that the questions were generally appropriate, but some of them were not related to the job description. The first question out was not listed on the job description: grant writing. Mr. Swanson stated that since it is a grant funded position, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that perhaps you would write a grant to try to extend the position. Mr. Marhula stated that the point is, I looked at the job description when I prepared for the interview and I followed up afterwards with another written document, but that was too late to score. Mr. Marhula stated I am going to make a point; when you come out with the first question and it is not on the job description, no it is not reasonable. Mr. Swanson stated he would read the first question. Mr. Swanson read: Tell me about your background, experience and proficiencies with grant writing and administration. Mr. Swanson stated that clearly grant administration would be an appropriate question. Mr. Marhula agreed. Mr. Swanson stated that your point is you wouldn’t expect to be asked to write any grants and it would be inappropriate to ask about any experience with grant writing. Mr. Marhula stated that is correct based on the job description. Commissioner MacGregor asked Mr. Marhula beyond the grant writing what can you generalize. Mr. Marhula stated that generally they were good questions. That was the only one that stuck out. Generally they were very good questions that one would typically expect. Commissioner MacGregor asked Mr. Marhula if all five parts of question one were not in the job description or just that one. Mr. Marhula stated that no, just the one as I recall it. Overall the questions were good. Director Hovland stated as a point of record, in reviewing the job description under essential functions, number one says “manage the energy efficiency and conservation block grant program, administer the funds in the program, work interdepartmentally for long term program and strategic planning efforts for EECBG and other programs, actively seeks energy efficiency and conservation grants, incentives and partnerships from the State Energy Offices and Department of Energy as well as other potential funding sources”. Mr. Hovland stated that he felt that question was appropriate and for the record he had reviewed the questions prior to the interview. Commissioner MacGregor asked Mr. Hovland if the person hired for this position or any grant funded position is really good at getting more grants to get it extended, they are still in a non-classified position that is funded for as long as the grant is funded. Mr. Hovland stated that as long as the fund has funding. Mr. MacGregor stated that could be twenty years and they wouldn’t be a classified employee as long as they are funded under the grant. Mr. Hovland stated that the City has some in the Health department that are classified positions that are funded by grants, but there are positions that if the funding does run out the position will go away. We have that in the Police department too, we hire them and if grant expires, the COPS grant, the position will go away. Urban Development Director Hoover stated that just to clarify again, going back to my earlier comments, the City Council was very adamant that this be a grant funded temporary position of eighteen to twenty four months. My expectation is, that if the individual is able to generate additional revenue to continue the position, we will have to go back to the council either to ask that it become a permanent position or that we continue it as a temporary grant funded position. Mr. Hovland stated that we do review these annually and we have taken some positions after three years if the funding is there and we have gone before the City Council to ask if they will make it a classified position. It is all based on the funding source. Mr. Swanson advised the Commission that whether you take action today or some other day, you would want to make some decision. Your options are: you make factual findings to rule that there were no irregularities and there were no showings of arbitrary, capricious or illegal decisions or conduct and you decline to exercise any authority or you find that there were irregularities and there were showings of arbitrary, capricious activities and you make whatever recommendations you wish to the Mayor. Mr. Swanson continued, just a point so that everyone understands, your acts aren’t determinative of what the Mayor would or wouldn’t do whether you act or don’t act and Mr. Marhula may make any appeal to the Mayor as he may wish, regardless of what the Commission does. Mr. Marhula stated that based upon what Mr. Swanson said, then I guess I am backing off of my other request and I would just request that you, if this is appropriate, take no action either way and let me kick it down the road, cause otherwise that especially given the fact that none of you were involved in the middle of it this way you are not prejudicing it either way in my favor or not in my favor and it would be up to the Mayor if I decide to pursue it. Mr. MacGregor asked Mr. Marhula if it would be appropriate for you just to withdraw. Mr. Swanson stated that it is on the agenda at Mr. Marhula’s request. Mr. Swanson added that if the Commission chooses not to take any action they need to explain why they did not take any action. If you are going to take any action you have to explain why you are taking action and what action you are taking. If Mr. Marhula doesn’t want you to act, I think the way that is accomplished is he has to request you to withdraw it from your consideration. Mr. MacGregor stated, and then we would just make a motion to accept his withdrawal. Mr. Swanson agreed. Mr. Marhula asked if that still leaves the option to go to the Mayor. Mr. Swanson agreed and stated that the Commission really other than exercising discretionary authority has no other. Mr. Marhula stated that I am requesting withdrawal of the Commissions consideration of this item. Mr. MacGregor moved that the Commission accept the withdrawal of Mr. Marhula’s request. Commissioner Vanyo seconded the motion. Chairperson Bredemeier asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, Chairperson Bredemeier called for the question. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Nies asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to say that we did not find arbitrary, capricious or illegal activities or did the last hour of my life not happen. Mr. Swanson stated that in light of the motion that was passed, no further action was necessary.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Commissioner MacGregor and seconded by Commissioner Vanyo to adjourn the November 12, 2009 regular meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Daryl Hovland Human Resources Director