Agenda Packets - 2003/02/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 10, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 13 Ann Antinson with Labor Relations Associates indicated the City needed to be concerned about 1 creating a benefit that would be for a union employee that is under a union labor agreement and those 2 benefits are usually not created by City policy. 3 4 Mayor Linke indicated the benefit is in the contract. 5 6 Ms. Antinson indicated there is language in the contract allowing an employee to borrow up to 30 days 7 of sick leave but this Resolution would allow borrowing from other employees and that is not allowed 8 by the contract. She further clarified that the borrowing referenced in the contract would be borrowing 9 from the employees own time with that time to be paid back. 10 11 Ms. Antinson indicated the Resolution gives the approval to donate time and she is concerned with the 12 City implementing a City-wide policy when the person involve d falls under a union contract and this is 13 not a union benefit. She then said her recommendation would be not to implement a City- wide policy 14 that is written for a case where the individual may not be able to use it. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Table Resolution 5943. 17 18 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 19 20 D. Resolution 5944, a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 5555 Governing City 21 Administrator Duties and Staff Communication. 22 23 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Resolution 5944 would rescind Resolution 5555. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5944, a 26 Resolution Rescinding Resolution 5555 Governing City Administrator Duties and Staff Communication. 27 28 Council Member Quick indicated that Resolution 5944 is a protocol that outlines a chain of command 29 and a mechanism for employees to deal with issues. It has nothing to do with who can talk to whom. 30 He further commented that he does not feel rescinding Resolution 5944 would be in the best interest of 31 the City because he feels it would increase the amount of micromanaging that goes on. 32 33 Council Member Quick indicated he received a letter in his box that he does not think Staff is aware of 34 and that is contrary to Resolution 5555. 35 36 Council Member Stigney indicated he feels that Resolution 5555 re-emphasizes what the City Charter 37 has in place for the responsibilities of the City Administrator and how it should be followed. He then 38 indicated that the interpretation of “all communication between City Staff and City directors to Council 39 is to go through the City Administrator” is the issue and, if Council indicates that any Staff person can 40 talk to any Council Member the issue should be resolved. He further clarified that the Resolution was 41 meant to simplify things and make sure that issues went up the chain of command so that the City 42