Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, JANUARY 5, 1982 <br />10. OLD BUSINESS: <br />B. Maintenance Foreman - Whittaker reported that David <br />Wisdorf, one of .the five Foreman finalists, is still <br />available and interested in the Foreman position. He <br />recommended the Council reinterview him and,if they find,�him <br />acceptable. ®$fer-him the position. If the Council is <br />not satisified, then, the advertising process should be <br />initiated. <br />--Morgan - should open the position and put the emphasis on <br />someone who can handle heavy equipment- even if he is short <br />on supervisory experience. Would not vote for Wisdorf unless <br />could personally interview - look to local residents - get <br />testimonials from residents who known the applicant: " -' <br />- Mottaz - Supervisory capabilities very necessary, especially <br />in emergency situations. Heavy equipment experience not a <br />prime concern. Would like to interview Wisdorf personally. <br />--Eder - Would like to interview Wisdorf. <br />M/S/P Eraser/Mottaz to hold a special Council meeting Saturday, <br />January 9, to consider employment of a Maintenance Super- <br />intendent/Foremen. <br />C. Compensation - Acting Forman - In response to the Admin- <br />istrator s recommendation t a -'a policy be adopted, which <br />would pay employees for working out of their job classification. <br />after one day, Fraser questioned the amount of the compensation <br />as it relates to specific duties, performed by Ken Carroll <br />in the absence of a Maintenance Superintendent/Foreman. <br />--Whittaker - only function not fulfilled is the long range <br />planning function. Very satisified with Mr. Carroll's <br />performance during this time, performed Forman duties. The <br />difference in pay would result in a $2.06/hr.-differontial <br />between=.the low end of a Foreman's pay and Mr. Carroll's <br />present wage. <br />The Council discussed the pay range difference between the <br />two maintenance men. <br />M/ Morgan to pay Ken Carroll at Bob Wier's pay level, <br />me -compensation for work performed in the absence of a Foreman. <br />Discussion - <br />--Mottaz - not performing all duties of Foreman. <br />--Eder - Calculate the supervisory time on a percentage basis. <br />--Morgan - rational of this motion is that in the absence of <br />a foreman he is doing an equal job to Bob Wier and should be <br />paid a like wage. <br />--Mottaz - need to develop a policy then adapt it to the situation. <br />--Fraser - Personnel Committee approach was to pay a percentage <br />of a higher rate for work performed at a higher level. <br />Motion failed for lack of second. <br />M/S/ Novak/Morgan that the Administrator make the judgement <br />on the percentage of time Ken Carroll performed in the capacity <br />of Foreman and use the lowrangeof the 1981 pay scale to <br />determine Mr. Carrolls compensation for the period he-assumed�� <br />the responsibilites of Foreman. <br />Discussion: <br />M/S/P_"Eder/Novak to amend the motion to include a maximum of <br />up to 25% of total pay can be paid for work performed in a higher <br />job description. Amendment to motion carried 5-0. <br />Amended motion carried 5-0. <br />