Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 13, 1995 <br />Fahey stated it was his understanding that the Council <br />had reached a compromise. Current department heads <br />would not be subject to the at will provision, but <br />future department heads would. Fahey indicated the <br />provision was a pretty common one, and stated there may <br />be performance issues with a department head that may <br />or may not rise to the level of cause. The current <br />ordinance can be interpreted to allow termination only <br />for cause. Fahey felt that was uncommon in the <br />business setting. <br />Fahey pointed out the City Administrator is an at will <br />employee because he has an employment contract with the <br />City. It could be argued that existing department <br />heads can be terminated only for cause. Fahey stated <br />it was his feeling existing department heads should be <br />subject to the at will provision. However, there is <br />not the consensus of the Council to do this. Fahey <br />felt future department heads should have at will status <br />similar to the City Administrator. <br />Scalze stated that at will employment is common in <br />private business, and asked if this were true in most <br />cities as well. <br />The City Administrator replied most cities do not have <br />at will status for employees, but some do. <br />The City Attorney reported that the City's current <br />personnel ordinance applies to all City employees, <br />including department heads. This ordinance states that <br />employees can be terminated, but only for cause. The <br />Attorney suggested that in order to exempt future <br />department heads from the personnel policy, the City <br />should remove reference to these positions from the <br />policy. A statement should also be signed by at will <br />employees stating that they understand their at will <br />status. If future department heads are given rights <br />under portions of the policy, then it could be argued <br />that the entire policy applies to them. <br />LaValle asked about Veterans Preference. <br />The City Attorney replied that Veterans Preference law <br />would supersede the personnel policy. <br />Morelan indicated that this is his problem with the <br />concept, since it could not be applied uniformly. <br />Morelan stated that he did not believe the Council <br />would ever discharge an employee without cause, and <br />wondered if the at will provision would decrease the <br />9 <br />