My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-05-17 Regular City Council Agenda
Public Access
>
City Council Agenda
>
2010
>
2010-05-17 Regular City Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2010 1:50:22 PM
Creation date
5/14/2010 1:49:51 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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).
View images
View plain text
Service Commission immediately for review and recommendation and was seconded by Mr. <br />Kraft. <br />Mr. Price asked Ms. Watson asked if this agreement is the same as the agreement before. <br />He wanted to know if there were a lot of changes in the MOA in front of them now. <br />Ms. Watson said the MOA before Council has very little change. There were some <br />corrections of errors and items that were changed at some point were added. <br />Mr. Price asked Ms. Watson what purpose it would serve to send back to the Civil Service <br />Commission. <br />Ms. Watson said she believed that most of the items in the MOA are actually other benefits <br />provided for all employees. She stated that there are very few items in this MOA that are <br />not City wide. Ms. Watson said that the City tries to keep their employees in line with other <br />municipalities. She said she did not know if the Civil Service Commission had experience in <br />negotiating this type of MOA but it is the Council’s pleasure. <br />Mr. Price stated that he was not sure why it should go to the Civil Service Commission and <br />he also is not sure why the Council would send it back, when it is the same agreement <br />Council previously approved. <br />Mr. Glickert stated that it has never been to the Civil Service Commission so he is not sure <br />when Mr. Price meant when he said to send it back. He said that as far as negotiations and <br />responsibilities of that Board are concern, on page three of the MOA, it speaks of in <br />agreement with the Civil Service rules and pay grade schedule which is the focus of the <br />Board in their requirements. Mr. Glickert withdrew his motion and instead he motioned to <br />postpone this and again he said that the City has the best Civil Service Board in the region. <br />Mr. Kraft seconded the motion to postpone. He noted that the dates are all different and it is <br />not the identical thing from 2006, nor should it be. <br />Mr. Sharpe agreed to postpone although he is not opposed to what the firemen are getting <br />with the present MOA but he said he would like to see everyone understand what the <br />changes were. <br />Mr. Becker offered any of the tremendous resources they have available to them for the <br />Council to use if needed. He offered to work as collaboratively as possible with the new <br />Council in a work study session. <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Ave <br />Mr. McCarthy stated he had some questions as to what during not work time is and Mr. <br />Becker has agreed to explain his questions to him in a one on one. <br />Paulette Carr, 7901 Gannon <br />Ms. Carr noted that the City Charter states that no employee or appointed City Officer shall <br />make contribution direct or indirect to the Mayor or any Councilmember of the City or take <br />part in the political campaign of any candidate for any Councilmember or Mayor of the City <br />and felt the Union violated this in the April 6, 2010 election. Ms. Carr said that until you take <br /> 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.