My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-05-1998 WS
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
01-05-1998 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:45:45 PM
Creation date
6/18/2018 6:50:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/5/1998
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/5/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
December 3, 1997 <br /> 4110 Page 2 -,i <br /> 2. Authority for Personnel Actions: I noted that in the draft of the handbook, either the city <br /> administrator, or the department head with the concurrence of the city council, may <br /> terminate an employee. See Section 1.10 subd. 4. My understanding was that the council <br /> was the appointing authority and had the authority to hire and fire, other than possibly for <br /> seasonal and temporary employees. This is an area which needs clarification. <br /> I would also point out that the definition of appointing authority includes the city council <br /> or clerk administrator to whom the city council has delegated authority to appoint <br /> personnel. This points out the policy issue for the city council as to what authority <br /> should be delegated to the clerk administrator. <br /> 3. Grievance Policy Section 1.35: The current procedure allows grievances to proceed to <br /> step 5 which is a petition for the city council to hear the grievance. I am assuming this <br /> means that if there is a petition to the council to hear grievance, then the council will hear <br /> that grievance. It could mean that the council simply has the option of whether to hear <br /> grievance or not. The policy issue would be whether the council wishes to make itself <br /> the last resort for a grievance hearing or not. <br /> al 4. Probationary Period Section 1.65: I would simply note here that there is a probationary <br /> period of six months for most employees but one year for <br /> public <br /> employees. I am not sure of the reason for the diffe ence, butthiiiss es entially maintenance policy <br /> issue. In any case, it would need to conform to the definition section where probationary <br /> period is defined as six months, without any reference to the different time period set out <br /> earlier for public works maintenance employees. <br /> Lynette, the above issues are not meant to be an exhaustive review of the proposed handbook. <br /> Instead, they simply point out some policy issues for discussion with the council. As I have told <br /> you, Dan Greensweig of our office is looking at the drug testing policy provisions as particular, <br /> and Scott Riggs of our office is also reviewing the policy for additional suggestions. We will <br /> be in touch with you about that review. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> fhin <br /> John M. LeFevre, Jr. <br /> JML// <br /> cc: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator (Fax & Mail) <br /> Robert C. Long <br /> 411/ Daniel J. Greensweig <br /> Scott J. Riggs <br /> JML1344S7 <br /> MU2L0-18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.