Print VersionStay Informed
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
October 15, 1998

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Thursday, October 15, 1998 at the hour of 12:00 noon with Mayor Owens presiding pursuant to call by Mayor Owens which was served on all members of the council.

Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Polovitz, Lucke, Hamerlik, Bouley, Carpenter, Klave, Beyer, Babinchak, Bakken, Hafner, Martinson - 12; absent: Council Members Glassheim, Lunak - 2.

Present at roll call were the following members of the Civil Service Commission: C. T. Marhula, Beverly Bredemeier, James Johnson, Arvin Kvasager, Fred MacGregor - 5.

JOINT ANNUAL MEETING WITH CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION

Mayor Owens reported that it is the obligation of the mayor and the chairperson of the Civil Service Commission to call a meeting once a year to discuss any information between the two entities that might be needed and any ideas, thoughts as far as the two working better together with the employees; and asked for comments.

C.T. Marhula, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, stated that in the past they’ve seemed to experience certain amount of non-compliance with the Code and that with everything the City has gone through, and agrees with purpose that was trying to be met by the department heads or others involved; but that he was really concerned that the Code was not being followed and would either caution council to make it clear that the Code should be followed or if not, have the Code changed. He stated that on future issues they will be expecting an influx of requests for reclassifications and that generally does not involve the city council but that he doesn’t see supporting a lot of changes for reclassifications; that they just went through an extensive wage and salary study and there was an excellent procedure set up for the employees to appeal, resubmit, etc. He stated he didn’t see reclassification requests coming unless there was a substantial change in duties, responsibilities, etc. and if changing duties, responsibilities substantially that requires a change in job description, and Civil Service Commission does not have the authority to change job descriptions. He stated that it is their responsibility to address issues which may or improve employee situation, and this would be to the negotiating committee; that this is not something the Civil Service Commission has authority to deal with and may want to consider looking at the entire fringe benefit package, and with creative thinking can satisfy more employees, even without a dollar cost and would take extensive research.

Mayor Owens stated that she agrees with the cafeteria plan for benefits, many people have different needs and would be benefit for everyone to have that. She stated she wanted to address the expectations on department heads, and that at one time were going to try contracts, and that she would ask Chief Packett about some of the things that they have discussed and are on hold right now. She stated that the hardest thing for her during this flood has been the different programs that have been put in place to try to make things fair and that she and Mr. Gordon and Mr. Duquette had a conversation on that this morning and trying to level those out so it is a fair process now and not new employees coming in at higher rate than existing employee, trying to make it consistent with what’s happening in the City in the next year. She stated they’ve downsized about 12 to 15 positions and that they are questioned on that matter quite often and will be downsizing throughout the next year or two years and eventually there will be none of those positions left, they were job-shadowed by the Human Resource Office to make sure that those jobs were necessary. She stated that there’s one issue where the mayor should have more authority, but that she hasn’t talked with Mr. Swanson or Mr. Gordon, and that if an employee is not functioning within the department that the mayor should be given leeway to transfer that employee to another department so that the department can run efficiently.

Mr. Swanson stated he had no general comments, but some information re. technical corrections ordinance to the Civil Service Code, that in 1996 and 1997 the Commission had been suggesting various changes or corrections in the Civil Service Code that was drafted a number of years ago, and that his office is working on that. He stated that they have included all of the items that the Commission had identified, some items that his office had identified and also that Human Resources has brought forward.
He stated this will be going to the finance committee and to council, but first wanted to present it to the Civil Service Commission to make sure that he had included the items they had suggested.

Dan Gordon, Human Resources Director, stated that reclassifications could begin as early as January 1 and that in talking with the Mayor and the chair of the Commission, they felt it was important to establish a sub-committee under the Commission to initially analyze the requests, that the reason for the comments and support of this is that prior to the wage study they have individual employees or employee groups that would submit their requests directly to the Commission, many times even without their supervisor or department head knowing and this would create a buffer zone and a sub-committee could analyze the information before it goes to the Commission. He stated that in regard to fringe benefits they worked on an analysis about two years ago on a cafeteria style, and within the past year there is a new type of benefit structure called “life cycle benefits” that shows as people grow in their lives their needs become different and very little cost because it just offers options to employees; and have information on that which can be reviewed. He stated another item is in regard to contract vs. civil service positions; that about a year ago there was debate about the chief of police and the position being contracted and on February 1 Fire Chief Aulich will be retiring so want to continue in the recruitment mode with an assessment center that his office will do, but needs to know where the council wants to move with the fire chief position. He stated that he hopes it would remain as a civil service position, that it’s his responsibility to maintain the integrities of the Civil Service Code and how it relates to the employees. He stated it is important to create an employee retention plan for some critical employees (programmers, engineers and key department heads); that in the budget framework committee there was $100,000 that was specifically set aside for the recruitment and retention of employees, and that can be brought up for debate and discussion. He stated that regarding the flood contract positions they were initially in approval for 115; that in year two of the contracts they have approval of 70 and by the end of the second year of recovery it will be down to as low as 30 people, and the real issue they need to look at is after that third year of recovery how many gaps within departments should they really look at retaining these people in a permanent setting, that work still needs to continue. He stated he is looking at restructuring at the Flood Response Committee and providing his recommendations to the mayor.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was a step between permanent position and temporary positions for a year rather than a permanent position. Mr. Gordon stated they proved that this year with no civil service positions but did approve 10 positions on a part-time year basis for the cost benefit to be shown after that year; that requesting employees should not be an additional cost to a budget, by adding an additional person should show with a different line item how that reduces budget, and is more of a procedural issue and an analysis issue. Each department has that responsibility although in coming forward and requesting new position, but here’s how it can be paid for without increasing the budget.

Chief Packett stated that some of the things he has discussed with the Mayor and Mr. Gordon is that as contract employees has caused a little bit of a problem within their department because there’s too much focus on three-year time lines, what happens after three years, expiration dates of employment, etc. and feels very strongly about this as he is not a contract employee but serves at the will of the mayor and city council, and doesn’t think they should be tied down with years of increments and rather than a contract thinks they’re talking employment agreement for those department heads in the future. He stated they have an employment agreement as to what they’re going to be paid, what their benefit packages are, strictly based on their job performance in working for the city; that there’s an artificial time line put in people’s minds especially when come into traditional civil service positions to where employees worry about that. He stated that the police chief, planner and any other positions you decide in the future want to be at will employees, and would use that description more than contract and look at more as employment agreements based on their performance.

Mr. Marhula stated that when they get into a disciplinary proceedings, he cannot tell them how much they rely on the job evaluations and what is in that employee’s file, and that several years ago department heads trained the supervisors to do the job evaluation, how to do fairly and nothing wrong with being satisfactory, and urged department heads to do a fair and honest evaluation to that employee because it not only helps the employee but puts in poor light if for several years been giving this employee excellent reviews and then come to the Commission saying they really didn’t mean it and want to discipline them. He stated this is an issue. Council Member Beyer stated that before the flood they were doing performances and step increases were going to be tied to performance measures and the department heads were ultimately responsible for making sure that bar wasn’t too high or too low; that flood took precedence over everything and now getting to the point where they have to go back to the performance measures, and with evaluations have to have seminars for department heads or supervisors doing evaluations and because it’s the direct supervisor that does the evaluation and not the department head.

Council Member Beyer stated she agreed with the sub-committee for reclassifications but that there’s one more step they should have before an employee gets to that sub-committee, their department head definitely has to know about it; if that employee does not truly deserve a reclassification they have to be told and going to have an appeal process if that employee really believes that they do and department head doesn’t agree with that; and that a lot of these things will have to go back to direct supervisors and department heads before they get that far. Ms. Bredemeir stated that regarding the evaluations the problem areas that employees would be having need to be addressed at the time of the incident and not on the final review, so that person has the opportunity to have a work plan, an action plan and they know what the consequences are if not performing at the level that’s expected.

Mr. Gordon commented on performance measures and performance evaluations, that they held an all day seminar with all department heads to teach performance measures as well as a supervisory block series program where they teach supervisors how to fairly evaluate their employees, think they’re going very well and don’t know how much more they can provide to people in showing them how to make evaluations; and everybody has to be accountable for that type of work.

Council Member Martinson questioned statement by Mr. Marhula re. non-compliance to Code and asked for clarification on that. Mr. Marhula stated that certain procedures that allow temporary promotions and weren’t actually being 100% complied with and his comment was that he didn’t disagree with the result yet the Code says you couldn’t do it or change the Code and still get the same result. Council Member Martinson questioned how often they do employee evaluations; and it was stated once each year, unless probationary employee then every two months and at end of probationary status.

Council Member Carpenter stated that during previous reclassification there was a lot of discussion, and the idea was that a lot of reclassifications should be short-stopped at department heads because if there’s a reclassification coming forward, they are going to have to support it, and not take a neutral position, that it would be a strong weight of evidence to the Civil Service Commission that the department head opposes it, and department head has to take a yes or no position on that. He stated that it’s highly unlikely there’s going to be reclassifications unless there were job description changes. Council Member Beyer stated that requests were to come in written form along with written recommendation from the department head. Mr. Marhula agreed and unless there is a job description change it’s extremely remote that you would prevail on reclassification, and especially when department heads become involved and when have an exceptional performers at a job that’s lower and probably have all the ability to do higher job but dependent upon the job they are in.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that with all the extra work that employees have to do because of the flood is not the reason for a job classification change, there have to be true changes in some objectives, job performance, and not how good or bad or how much extra work the employees have. Mr. Johnson stated that about 90% of the evaluations are correct but there are some that should have some comments.

Council Member Carpenter made several comments on recruitment /retention salaries that were allocated and are available, and that it is important on how to do that, and should have sub-group working on it, Pension Committee should be involved, Civil Service should be involved along with Mayor’s Office, and in addition to recruiting/retention dollars, bonuses, salary adjustments, etc. also need to take a look at some portion of those dollars just for general mental health, etc. for employees because of stress, strain and may need to allocate some of that.

Mr. Kvasager stated that they should be more cautious on what they’ve done during investigative procedures, and in agreement with Mr. Gordon’s comments - that investigation should be tailored to what is right rather than who is right and that’s basically what the Commission has done.

Mr. Gordon stated that timing has become an issue with the recruitment of the new fire chief, and some of the thoughts that remaining as a civil service position, which he supports, would like the chief’s position after the year after proving success to go back to a civil service position, the same as the city planner.

Mr. Marhula stated that if position goes outside the civil service believes Commission should be involved in the hiring, and when they hired contract positions, have included appropriate members of the community. Mayor Owens stated that the hiring process on the chief and planner worked very well but likes the internal better, believes it is a thorough and fair process, and after using both sources it proved to be something more beneficial than going outside, and hopes that’s looked at in the future. Mayor Owens stated that as this is a joint meeting and as city council and mayor should discuss these matters.

Mr. Swanson stated that the issue of the three-year contract was in part a compromise as there were certain individuals who wouldn’t be interested in applying for a position unless they knew they had a given term and Chief Packett’s comments are accurate. Council Member Hamerlik suggested having a three-year contract and at will thereafter, as need guarantee up front for a certain period of time.

There were no additional comments.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Martinson that we do now adjourn. Carried 12 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved: ___________________________________
Patricia A. Owens, Mayor