My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 2:40:04 PM
Creation date
4/1/2025 2:40:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/3/1986
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
PPS -I. Veterans' Preference (A) <br />Current statutes entitle a veteran to at least two different hearing <br />procedures to challenge any disciplinary actiun. This is not only grossly <br />inefficient but may also he unworkable since the standards for court review of <br />the decisions of veterans' preference boards and grievance arbitrators vary <br />significantly. <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court in a recent decision also has indicated to the <br />Legislature that these statutes need to be amended. The law should provide for <br />a selection of a single hearing procedure and eliminate any requirement for <br />salary payment pending the hearing when the veteran does not request a hearing <br />within lU days or when an impartial hearing body determines that the dismissal <br />was for just cause. <br />Currently an employee has 60 days from the date of the employer's notice to <br />discipline or dismiss to request a hearing and if a hearing is requested, there <br />are no time lines for holding hearings or rendering decisions. <br />Under this current system, a termination determination can, and has, taken <br />more than a year, during which the employee receives full pay and benefits. The <br />result is extremely costly to cities, particularly small cities, which often <br />must hire replacement workers for this period. The League's proposal to provide <br />a more expedited process would not infringe on the employee's right to a <br />hearing, but would ensure a more efficient and cost-effective procedure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.