Agenda Packets - 2000/02/14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 Council Member Stigney explained that the long-term ramifications of making a change to the policy as he understands it, is not to the benefit of the City. He stated Chief Ramacher has worked as a Police Chief for several years, and was aware of the management plan. He indicated that in light of this he should be covered under the severance pay plan for management exempt employees, which indicates 960 hours maximum sick leave accrual, divided by two, which is 480 hours, or 60 days paid severance for accrual of sick leave. Council Member Quick inquired why Chief Ramacher and Lieutenant Rick were not covered under these provisions. Assistant to the City Administrator Schmidt explained that this was only recently brought to staff’s attention by City Attorney Scott Riggs, who advised that there is a provision in the Municipal Code that exempts Police personnel from the personnel provisions that are stated in the Municipal Code. City Attorney Long noted that this was a quandary between the Code and the Police Union contracts. He explained that Section 301.02, Subd. 3, specifically states that “This Title: (the personnel policy title) shall not be applicable to Policemen or Officers of the Police Department.” He stated there is a question with regard to whether this means that the Police Chief, as Chief is excluded, or if it is meant to indicate that he is not a Policeman or an officer per se, meaning a Patrol Officer. He stated there was some vagueness in this Section, and he believed Attorney Riggs was attempting to indicate was that on the face of this, the entire Personnel Code does not apply to the Police Department, because that is typically under the jurisdiction of the Police Civil Service Commission. City Attorney Long stated he was not employed with the City in 1988 when this was adopted, and could only surmise that when the Police Civil Service Commission was created, they had intended to have the Police Officers be subject to the rules which are set up therein. He stated the Police Union Contract likely covered all of the other issues, and there have probably only been one or two people who have “fallen through the cracks,” therefore, this was not noticed until this point, when there was no clear direction regarding which set of rules apply to these individuals. City Attorney Long advised that from a legal standpoint, it was clearly within the Council’s discretion to decide what the severance package should be. He stated he was unable to determine at this time, what the City would actually be obligated to pay, because he is uncertain what Chief Ramacher would argue are his benefits. He pointed out that the Personnel Code probably does not apply to the Police Chief, based upon that provision. He explained that further research was necessary to determine if Chief Ramacher was entitled to something else, as this matter had come forward as the policy discussion. He stated the Council could decide during the discussion, to offer this. City Attorney Long reiterated he would have to examine the pieces to determine what the City’s actual obligation to the Chief would be, as this is not clear, given the provision he had referenced. He stated Chief Ramacher was not technically covered by the Code, which would otherwise give contractual rights to all employees. He indicated the Police Department is covered by contract, with the exception of Chief Ramacher and Lieutenant Rick, and where these two individuals stand at this point, is uncertain.