pages: CivilServiceBoard/2007-11-08.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2007-11-08 | 3 | City of Alameda Page 3 Civil Service Board Agenda Regular Meeting of November 8, 2007 recruitment used to bring in hundreds of applications but in the last year that has changed dramatically. The Police Department is now having difficulty finding good candidates and would like to recruit on a continuous basis to have the flexibility to establish multiple eligible lists, and to be able to use them simultaneously. He also shared that it takes over a year to put an Officer on the street, and many other Police departments are experiencing the same problems in finding qualified individuals. Board President Michael Rich questioned what the difference would be between having multiple eligible lists and adding to the current one. Chris Low explained that eligible lists are typically the order in which people are hired. The City of Alameda exhausts the current list and then establishes a new one, but that a single list might also be a possibility. Board President Michael Rich asked if having multiple lists would be confusing and stated that he would like to see new names merged onto one list instead. Board Member Horikoshi shared that all agencies are having difficulties finding qualified people. He stated that his interest is in finding the City of Alameda qualified Officers and would like to leave it up to staff to determine what the best way to handle the eligible lists will be. Executive Secretary Willis stated that the language on establishment of lists would need to be changed and brought back to the Board 5-D Rules Review- Language Executive Secretary Karen Willis handed out a letter to the Civil Service Board from ACEA stating that although Non-Civil Service employees in ACEA are granted appeal rights to the Civil Service Board through the ACEA MOU, the Civil Service Board would have no standing to provide any remedy for these employees. Alan Elnick stated that ACEA is concerned that even though the MOU grants these employees a right to a hearing before the Civil Service Board, there is nothing in the Civil Service Rules that binds the City to accept the decision of the Civil Service Board. He stated that it was not clear if the Civil Service Board would have to recognize the appeal under the MOU since it was not addressed in the Civil Service Rules. Board President Michael Rich asked if ACEA had any desire to grant Civil Service status or rights beyond the right to a Civil Service Board hearing to these employees. Mr. Elnick stated that ACEA was not asking for that. Board Member Avonnet Peeler asked if the employees would waive their rights to file in Court should they be granted an appeal before the Civil Service Board. Mr. Elnick stated that they would not, nor would any other employee currently allowed an appeal to the Civil Service Board. Board President Michael Rich stated that as a Board member he has no problem allowing these hearings as the Civil Service Board is currently a hearing Board for other employees. Executive Secretary Willis stated that the MOU binds the City as it is a contract with ACEA and as such, if the Civil Service Board is recognized as the final authority for employees in ACEA bargaining unit, than the City would honor that provision. There is no explicit language anywhere that states that the City shall accept the decision of the Civil Service Board as final, although that is what has been applied. After further discussion, it was decided that Executive Secretary Willis would speak with the attorney's office to see if a letter could be generated stating that the City would recognize the Civil Service Board's decision as final and binding for non-Civil Service employees granted a hearing before the Civil Service Board. Mr. Elnick stated that that would be sufficient for ACEA. Discussion continued regarding other sections of the Civil Service Rules. Board President Michael Rich questioned why Affirmative Action language was removed from Article I, Section 2. He stated that he would like to see a letter from the Attorney's office regarding the correct language. Board Member Peter Horikoshi asked whether, in Section 2, the phrase "because of sex" should be changed to "because of gender". There was a discussion on which term to use and Board President Rich stated that he would be ok with changing "sex" to "gender" in the Rules as well as the Civil Service Ordinance. Board Member Linda McHugh stated that Section 7, Eligible List, may need changing regarding the Police Officer issue. 5-E Request for Reinstatement - Executive Assistant Executive Secretary Karen Willis shared that an employee who had resigned to go back to school has requested to be reinstated. She explained that this employee would be placed on the eligible list and would not have to go through the testing process but would need to participate in a departmental interview. She stated that the department is not required to select this person, but that their name would be certified to the hiring authority for consideration. | CivilServiceBoard/2007-11-08.pdf |