HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-86 MINUTES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1986
PRESENT: Chairman Pat Bond, Vice Chairman Mary Ellen Frame,
Members Newy Breland, Marvin Sanders, Jim Swickerath and
�_
Alternate David Lowery, Commissioner Ralph Rodgers, City
��| Manager Ken Griffin, City Attorney Frank Kruopenbacher,
Attorney Rick Bateman and Deputy Clerk Susan Amesbury.
CALL TO ORDER
)
Chairman Bond called the scheduled Merit System Board meeting
to order at 7:37 p.m.
APPROVALS
Mr. Sanders made a motion to approve the corrected copy of
the February 17, 1986 Merit System Board meeting as read,
seconded by Vice Chairman Frame. Chairman Bond, Vice
Chairman Frame, Members Breland, Sanders and Swickerath voted
yeh and motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE 821, SECTION 10.8.1 - NEPOTISM
Commissioner Rodgers opened the discussion with comments and
background of the Nepotism Ordinance and stated the
Commission has had two situations occur in the last few
months since Appendix 0 was adopted. In the first situation,
Chief Strosnider requested his wife be hired as a temporary
secretary for the Fire Department with pay. Commissioner
Rodgers stated this request was denied by the Commission
because Chief Strosnider would be supervising the relative in
question and because she was his wife. The second situation
was brought before the Commission at their meeting of March
04, 1986. This involved employees of the Police department
Mark Hopper and Sam Bean. Sam Bean married Mark Hopper's
sister. These police officers have parallel rank and with
high recommendations from Chief Brandt they were allowed to
continue employment with the understanding they would not
work the same shift or ever be in the position to supervise
one another. Commissioner Rodgers felt our Nepotism
Ordinance has gone beyond the scope of the Florida State
Statutes and wanted the Merit System Board to clarify the
Ordinance and review our Ordinance versus Florida State
Statutes. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated the City has a
policy much more stringent than the Florida State Statutes
and that the big question was consistency in these cases. He
stated the Board needed to decide whether to continue with
the current policy or to adapt to State Statute. He also
expressed several points for consioeration:
1. Allow people related but not in the same department. 2.
Relatives should not supervise each other (keep out of the
•
chain of authority). 3. Don't impose these situations on
supervisors. At this time Chairman Bond questioned
Commissioner Rodgers about the reason the Nepotism Ordinance
was originally enacted. Commissioner Rodgers stated that in
4^
1
MSB, 3/17/86
PAGE 2
the 1978-1979 time frame there were a low number of people to
draw from for employment and consequently when the new
Charter came into effect there were several city employees
related to each other. He also stated that the big
problem with this was that Supervisors were working relatives
directly under them. Commissioner Rodgers thought
another problem with relatives was when you lose one employee
you also lose the relative. City Attorney Kruppenbacher
felt a good City Manager would not hire an employee's
relative into the same department and that the
City should probably permit relatives to be hired only under
the most unique circumstances. Mr. Swickerath thought the
ability to continue work after a marriage between an employee
and a relative oF an employee was the question. Additionally
he thought it was unfair to the supervisor when considering
future promotions and Juggling shifts. Attorney
Kruppenbacher stated the true spirit of the law (Florida
State Statutes) was that one relative never supervise another
relative. Mr. Breland felt the ordinance in effect was
pretty good. City Attorney Kruppenbacher stated the way the
ordinance is written currently, the Commission has to make
the decision in these cases. Alternate Lowery felt that the
policy decision should rest with the policy and not with the
Commission. He also stated that he wanted to change the
Nepotism policy because it was too hard to define the current
policy. City Attorney Kruppenbacher suggested adding to the
Florida State Statutes that in the future hiring of relatives
in the same department would be looked upon in disfavor and
that there could be no marriage of employees within the same
department. He also stated the Board could decide to leave
the ordinance the way it is currently. Alternate Lowery
stated that Orlando Utilities Commission used to allow no
marriages of employees, consequently people simply lived
together to get around the policy. Mr. Breland suggested
agreeing with the State policy with no variation within a
department. Attorney Kruppenbacher advised the City to adopt
State policy providing no one currently employed can m arry or
be related to anyone in their department in the future. Mr.
Breland moved to go by the City Ordinance as layed out to
apply to departmental supervision. Motion died for lack of a
second. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Board wanted to
allow supervisors of departments to hire a relative of
another supervisor or if they wanted to clarify the ordinance
to allow for clear cut exceptions (for example, if you have
an existing situation where two people within the same
department are related by marriage). City Manager Griffin
stated the City currently has 12 supervisors. Mr. Swickerath
suggested simply saying that we will not hire relatives,
excluding in-laws that come about after employment. City
Attorney Kruppenbacher suggested saying that you can't be
hired if related, but if after hiring you marry you can
continue employment as long as you do not work in the same
�^a
���
MSB, 3/17/86
PAGE 3
department or have supervisory capacity over one another.
Commissioner R d stated th t h personally o gers a e persona y no one
should be hired who is related to any employee but if two
employees happen to marry it would be O.K. to continue
employment providing they had no supervisory capacity over
one another. City Attorney Kruppenbacher suggested wording
of if subsequent marriage causes a relation the only way to
remain in employment would be with the department manager's
approval. Mr. Breland made a motion to grandfather in
existing conditions, with no relatives hired in the future in
the same department and if subsequent marriages created
problems one of the employees must leave the City's
employment. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr.
Swickerath moved that the City Nepotism Ordinance state that:
No relative of any employee of the City of Ocoee will be
hired by the City of Ocoee, and if two employees marry
neither will have to leave their position with tne City of
Ocoee provided that continued employment meets with both
immediate supervisor's approval and any in-law relation
constructed from said marriage does not violate Florida State
Statutes. Mr. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Swickerath
stated the motion provides that the City of Ocoee not
employ relatives and that if two employees marry they may
remain in employment if both supervisors consent. He also
stated that said employees would never be in the position to
supervise spouse or other related employee as defined by
Florida State Statutes. Chairman Bond felt the Board was
�- 0 moving too far away from what has worked for City for this
�
long. At this time Mr. Swickerath amended his motion to
include the statement that management reserves the right,
when deemed in the best interest, to transfer employees who
become related to another department. Mr. Swickerath also
amended his motion to include the approval of the City
Manager on contined employment of employees who marry after
employment. Amendments seconded by Mr. Sanders. Chairman
Bond, Vice Chairman Frame, Members Breland, Sanders,
Swickerath voted yen and motion carried unanimously. City
Manager Griffin stated he didn't like the wording of the
amendment to the motion to transfer to another department as
police officers or fire department personnel would not want
to be transfered to the street or sanitation department.
OPEN DISCUSSION BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Bond questioned City Attorney Kruppenbacher about
the Sunshine Law. City Attorney Kruppenbacher stated Board
Members should discuss business in meetings only. Mr.
Breland asked when the Board would meet to consider Merit
Increases for employees. Chairman Bond called this meeting
to be held on Wednesday April 23, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. At this .
time Mr. Swickerath stated as a matter of record that he had
enjoyed working with City Manager Griffin.
`
�-^
��'
3
.
MSB, 3/17/86
PAGE 4
Mr. Swickerath moved that the Board offer their express
{
�,^ appreciation for a Job well done, seconded by Mr. 6an�ers.
��
Chairman Bond, Vice Chairman Frame, Members Breland, Sanders
and Swickerath voting yeh and motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Frame made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr.
Breland. Chairman Bond, Vice Chairman Frame, Members
Breland, Sanders and Swickerath voting yeh and motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
____________________
Chairman Bond
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk Amesbury
�` �
�N�w
�� �
�N�
4