pages: CivilServiceBoard/2008-04-02.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2008-04-02 | 3 | City of Alameda Page 3 of 4 Civil Service Board Agenda Regular Meeting of April 2, 2008 The Board approved the change with the understanding that the Rules would be modified to read who successfully completes a City sponsored police academy or apprenticeship program " Board Member Peeler moved to amend the Rules, Member Horikoshi seconded and carried by a 40 vote. 5-D Rules Review- Language Executive Secretary Willis presented the Board with Article 1, Section 2 of the Civil Service Rules which showed all changes that had been made. She stated that she had spoken with the City Attorneyand that her response was that "equal opportunity" was broader than "affirmative action", however she has not had the chance to put it in writing. Board President Rich stated that AffirmativeAction isn't illegal, and that he feared that people would think that the City is getting rid of its Affirmative Action program. Board Member Horikoshi argued that Affirmative Action programs of any kind are prohibited by State Law. Board President Rich stated that if you tailor it correctly it would not be illegal and that other agencies have them. He stated that he is hesitant to get rid of it without a letter from the City Attorney, and asked Executive Secretary Willis to write a letter from staff explaining why it is being removed from the Rules. Executive Secretary Willis stated that the City recruits as broadly as possible and places ads in publications that target specific groups such as Public Safety job fairs. Board Member Horikoshi stated that he would like the "affirmative action" language to be removed from the Rules. He explained that he doesn't want people to get the wrong idea that the City has an Affirmative Action program. After some discussion Board President Michael Rich moved to accept the modification to the Rules with the exception that the words "affirmative action" is left in, Member McHugh seconded and carried by a 4-0 vote. Executive Secretary Willis presented the Board with the Civil Service Ordinance for their review. She stated that due to past discussion the subpoena wording had been left in Section 9. She explained that the Ordinance would be placed on the agenda for the next City Council meeting and that it has to go before Council twice, once to notice them and the second time for Public hearing. Board Member Peeler stated that she would like to propose replacing "handicap" with "disability". Executive Secretary Willis stated that the Ordinance would then have to go on the Civil Service Agenda again to make the change. Board Member Horikoshi asked what the difference between "permanent" and "regular" was when referring to employees. Executive Secretary Willis explained that employees are hired under the Civil Service process but do not have Civil Service rights until after they have completed the probationary period. They then become "regular employees". 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (None) 7. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD) Board Member Horikoshi stated that he had received a letter from former part-time employee John Shaterian regarding his termination as mail carrier as well as the electric vehicles. Board President Michael Rich shared that he called Mr. Shaterian and and explained to him that because he was a part- time employee he wasn't covered under the Civil Service Rules. Mr. Shaterian said that he would think about coming back to work for the City if he was allowed to drive the car. He stated that he was concerned about driving the electric vehicles because of the safety or lack there of. Executive Secretary Willis stated that the department has since hired someone new but that they would consider rehiring Mr. Shaterian if he wanted to come back Board Member Peter Horikoshi inquired as to how tough the Cities budget situation is currently. Exceutive Secretary Willis stated that the City is in a 4 million dollar shortfall, but is working on resolving that shortfall. She also shared that the City is looking at a 5-7 million dollar shortfall in the next fiscal year. She stated that the City is not getting as much in the way of revenues as they had hoped transfer | CivilServiceBoard/2008-04-02.pdf |