COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on July 14, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Speed, and Mr. Salters. Mrs. Williams and Mr. Ruane were absent.
Council President McGlumphy made the following opening statement:
“You will note on this evening's Council Committee agendas that I have included business to be conducted by the Legislative and Finance Committee. I have decided to seat this committee and allow it to conduct its City Charter-assigned business despite the Mayor's veto of my appointments to the committee.
I have decided to take this action because I cannot permit the Mayor to impede the business of the City and Council any longer; and, despite the Solicitor's opinion to the contrary, I do not believe that the Mayor has the authority to veto appointments, especially appointments to Council Committees.
On its face, it seems absurd to conclude that the chief executive of any government would be granted the authority to veto appointments to legislative committees by another legislative body. What freely elected legislature would author a law granting veto authority over purely legislative functions, especially legislative functions to any executive branch?
But I am not making this decision based on my own opinions alone. The Chancery Court of the State of Delaware has already addressed this exact issue on July 23rd, 1956. One of the contentions posed by the plaintiff in a case known as J Ehrlich Realty Company versus the City of Dover was that since the Mayor had not approved in writing the election of the City Assessor by the Council, the Assessor had not been appointed. With the exception of adding the word "motion" to the text and requiring three-fourths to override, this section of the City's Charter was identical to the wording as it is today.
In deciding this case, the judge considered the requirements as listed in the Charter and stated that he "believe[d] the substance of the matter rather than the form by which Council appointed the assessor must be considered. Otherwise, obvious evasion of the legislative intent would be possible." I could have simply offered the appointments and called for a vote without a motion, which would have evaded the Charter language, but as the judge stated, the "substance" of the act trumps the "form" of the act. In other words, the appointment of purely legislative positions trumps the manner in which the appointments were made.
In making this decision, the judge relied on a decision rendered by the Indiana Supreme Court in a case where the Mayor attempted a veto of the appointment to the Council created as a result of a vacancy. This particular municipality had a governing document with similar language to that contained in Dover's Charter.
In that case, the justices concluded that "It is evident, we think, from the language, that the Legislature intended to confer upon the mayor the power to veto, not appointments to office, but such acts of the common council as usually, in such bodies, take the form of resolution, order, or ordinance." Adding the word "motion" to the sentence adds no additional value to the Mayor's veto power.
In addition to citing "substance" rather than "form," the justices of this case provided an additional reason for nullifying the Mayor's veto. Quoting another decision, they wrote, "If a literal construction be given to the provisions of the section thus appealed to, it is obvious that the business of any municipal board will not only be hampered and delayed, but practically be rendered impossible to be performed." If the Mayor's veto is permitted to stand, the Council and the City would find themselves in that type of situation.
The justices continued to cite additional cases supporting their decision on this specific issue, including one which held a Mayor's veto of an appointment invalid in a case where the governing document language authorized the Mayor to veto "any act" of the municipal board.
If I were to allow the Mayor to grab and hold that kind of power and dictate to the Council the membership of legislative committees, I would be abdicating my responsibilities as the Council President. The citizens of Dover do not want that, nor do they deserve it. They did, however, elect nine members to this Council, each of whom solemnly swore to serve the citizens to the best of their ability - and that's what I am going to allow them to do.”
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the agenda.
Mr. Salters stated that there was not a Legislative and Finance Committee. Council President McGlumphy reiterated that there was a Legislative and Finance Committee and they were going to move forward with that business. He stated that if Mr. Salters found it necessary, he would have to take Council to court.
Mr. Pitts seconded the motion for approval of the agenda.
On a call for the question by Mr. Pitts, Council President McGlumphy declared that the agenda was approved.
Mr. Salters, for the record, put Council President McGlumphy on notice that he would take the matter to a higher level court. He noted that an opinion was received from the Solicitor and Council President McGlumphy disagreed with it because it didn’t fit his needs. Mr. Salters stated that any action taken by the Legislative and Finance Committee would be illegal.
Mr. Truitt stated that it was his understanding that they would be acting as a Committee of the Whole until the matter was resolved. Council President McGlumphy stated that he firmly believed that, if you traced the recent history of the City, there has never been the actions that have taken place by this Mayor, nor by the four (4) Council members. Council President McGlumphy stated that the four (4) gave him their word that they would serve on those committees and, after receiving a phone call by the Mayor, all of a sudden they went back on their word. He thought his selections to the committees were well placed and for the minority of the Council to hold the majority and the City’s business hostage is totally unfair.
Mr. Truitt stated that when he was asked to serve as Chairman of the Safety Advisory Committee he replied that he would if that was what Council President McGlumphy wanted. Mr. Truitt stated that, when told what was happening with the other committees, he expressed his feeling that it was wrong because Council President McGlumphy was appointing two (2) council people to both of the main committees and it had never been done before until Council President McGlumphy did it in 2001. He stated that he did not talk to the Mayor before he talked to Council President McGlumphy about his concerns. It was Mr. Truitt’s feeling that the big committees were being loaded with the same people and they were not equal anymore.
Council President McGlumphy requested that item #1, Public Discussion of the Public Administration Service (PAS) Study - Compensation and Classification Review (Item Tabled during April 28, 2003 meeting), remain tabled until July 28, 2003, due to the absence of Mrs. Williams and Mr. Ruane.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Mr. Speed presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Gorman, and Mr. Shelton. Mr. Ruane was absent.
Public Discussion of the Public Administration Service (Pas) Study - Compensation and Classification Review (Item Tabled During April 28, 2003 Meeting)
Mr. Speed noted that no action was required in order to have this item remain tabled.
The committee took no further action.
Pay Plan Recommendations of the Public Administration Service (Pas) Study
In the spring of 2002, City Council commissioned Public Administration Service (PAS) to perform a compensation and classification study of the City’s workforce. The study was to include a comprehensive, region-wide salary survey, a quantitative point-factor job analysis, and an evaluation of internal and external equity compensation considerations. A final report was delivered in November 2002, which included a proposed pay plan that consisted of 34 pay ranges; each range identified a minimum, market, and maximum salary. The ranges have a 57% spread from entry to maximum salary, and there is a 5% difference among ranges. All existing and proposed salaries have been placed in the ranges in accordance with the Job Analysis Question (JAQ) scores. The JAQ scores were based on 14 job complexity factors on questionnaires completed by employees.
The City Manager, Human Resources Director, and several City Council members established a working group to evaluate the pay plan that was recommended by PAS. The working group evaluated the benchmark positions and market comparisons and compared the recommendations to other published information, such as the Municipal Year Book and the Kent County Salary Study.
In general, the working group made no changes to the structure of the PAS pay plan with respect to the number of ranges and salary spread for the ranges. However, modifications were recommended with respect to job titles and the ranges assigned to them. They also recommended removing inappropriate “out of market” data from the benchmark surveys and better alignment of the results with the ranges caused by the modifications. The final modifications made no changes to the JAQ scores that were intended to preserve internal equity. Job titles with higher JAQ scores continued to be placed above job titles with lower JAQ scores. Overall, there were minimal changes to the lower- and mid-range positions. Some job titles increased a range and some decreased a range. For upper management job titles, there were general downward adjustments. The working group recognized that there should be flexibility to allow management to appropriately place employees within the ranges based on experience, expertise, and market conditions.
One of the major changes recommended by the working group was to remove police positions from the pay plan. It found that the PAS study did not put its suggestions in a career-ladder format typically used by police departments, and it did not recognize that the Police Department operates as a closed shop where employees are only hired at the lower ranks. In addition, the group found that PAS had used a subjective numerical adjustment for all police salaries that was not broadly used for other groups of employees. The PAS study also uniquely used outlying comparisons from cities around the country.
The working group made the following recommendations:
Establishment of New Pay Plan (as revised)
Establish a new pay plan using the PAS ranges with the job titles as reassigned by the working group. Progression would be allowed within the context of a “pay-for-performance policy” to be established by City Council. The ranges and performance reviews should become effective July 1, 2003 for non-bargaining employees. Performance evaluations must be completed prior to any increases.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima stated that the position for the Public Works Director listed under Grade 131 should be deleted and the Public Utilities Director under Grade 132 should be changed to Public Works Director. He noted that, since the JAQ was based only on utilities and the position of Public Works Director was more involved, he recommended leaving the position under Grade 132.
Referring to the Revised Proposed Pay Plans, Mr. Ritter noted that the Assistant City Manager position was listed under Grade 133 and, since it was not anticipated that the position would be filled in the near future, suggested that the line be removed. Mr. Speed stated that it would be easier for future Council members if they decided to hire an Assistant City Manager, since the title and scale were already determined.
Mr. Ritter moved to recommend approval of the Revised Proposed Pay Plans (Attachment 1-A), as revised, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Market Pay Corrections - Non-Bargaining Employees (except City Manager Department Heads and Council Appointed Employees)
Grant “market pay corrections” for qualifying non-bargaining employees, except department heads and the City Manager, using the PAS formula where there are seven years to “market pay”, with credit for each year up to seven years of experience. The corrections should be placed in effect the first pay period in May 2003.
Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mr. Speed stated that, since this item had been tabled several times, it was still recommended that the corrections be retroactive to May 2003.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the Non-Bargaining (Excluding City Manager and Department Heads) Corrections per Modified PAS Grade Structure (Attachment 1-B), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Market Pay Corrections - City Manager Department Heads
Grant “market pay corrections” as needed for department heads on July 1, 2003 after considering the recommendations of the City Manager.
Mr. Shelton, noting the special circumstances which would provide the Information Services Director with an additional two weeks vacation instead of an increase in pay, asked what effect this arrangement would have if the position were vacated. Mr. DePrima stated that the arrangement was specific to this employee and would not follow the position.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima stated that the department heads being considered for market pay corrections meet the qualifications specified in their job descriptions, either through experience, education, training, or certification. He noted that the PAS took experience into consideration, placing anyone with up to seven (7) years experience at market. They did not analyze experience acquired prior to employment with the City. Mr. Speed requested staff to provide detailed information regarding job qualifications and how each City Manager department head meets those qualifications.
Mr. Shelton moved to recommend approval of the City Manager’s Recommended Market Corrections for City Manager Department Heads (Attachment 1-C), seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
The working group suggested that further work is needed to get the PAS ranges into a career-ladder format that makes sense for a police department. In general, the PAS study strongly supports the position that the police are at or above market. To that end, it should be used as a tool in the negotiation process by the negotiating team. The group will continue working with the Human Resources Director to establish a career-ladder format utilizing the PAS methodology and other relevant data. They also suggested that the PAS ranges with the job titles, as reassigned, should be used as the basis in negotiations with the IUE and IBEW in the future.
The committee took no further action.
Pay-for-Performance System
In the past, it was the City’s practice of approving pay raises for non-bargaining employees that were in line with “across-the-board” increases and steps for bargaining unit employees. The City had salary ranges for non-bargaining employees; however, they were not adjusted for market conditions. When salary range adjustments were made, they were generally done in line with the across-the-board increases for bargaining employees and evaluations were not required. Some accelerated increases were done; however, no policy or guidelines for doing so existed. Lastly, there had been no central policy that set forth the City’s general expectations and goals for employees.
The past practice provided no correlation between performance and pay raises. When salary acceleration for employees considered as top performers did occur, it was done inconsistently causing inexplicable differences in salary--particularly among departments. The failure to adjust the salary ranges for the market caused many to have salaries above the maximum pay ranges. Failure to have regular performance evaluations further diminished the connection between performance and pay raises and created numerous problems related to the lack of documentation.
The desire to correct past practices led to a series of actions by the City.
•Approximately two years ago, performance evaluations were reintroduced as an annual requirement. The evaluation form was revised and bifurcated into two forms--one for management and one for general employees.
•Six months later in early 2002, the City launched the PAS study to develop, among other things, market-based salary ranges and recommendations for salary adjustments.
•Approximately one year ago, the City launched its strategic planning effort to establish departmental goals that were in alignment with a citywide vision and mission. Expected results and measures of success are established for each goal.
The next logical step in this progression is to establish a pay-for-performance policy that would use the evaluation process to communicate expectations that are aligned with the Strategic Organizational Plan. “Results” would be connected to salary increases. The effort to develop a pay-for-performance policy began approximately six months ago.
Staff developed a draft policy; however, this first effort failed to generate excitement with department heads and Council members who reviewed it. This caused the City Manager to launch a literature search and review of pay-for-performance policies and practices successfully implemented in other communities. The following is a list of literature that was reviewed:
Pay for Performance Evaluation Form and Policy - City of Redding, CA
Pay for Performance System – State of Colorado
Performance Management Handbook, Evaluation Forms, & Pay Plan – Ames, IA
Performance Based Pay Handbook and Policies – Montgomery County, MD
Pay for Performance System of Spectrum Center (educational non-profit)
Pay for Performance Memo of Alisa Swain, Asst. City Manager, City of Dover
“Reckoning with Rewards” Article – Governing Magazine
Town of Greenburgh, NY – News Release “Performance Based Pay For Public Officials”
Policy and Procedure #7 Compensation, & #29 Performance Pay – Springs, CO
Pay for Performance System – City of Gresham, CO
Howard Risher Articles (#1-#9) on Pay for Performance, Compensation, etc.
From this review, and through communications with officials from several of the above communities, the City Manager concluded the following:
1.Successful programs have at their core solid performance evaluations using quantitative scoring.
2.Successful communities have detailed evaluation instructions, clear definitions, and standards.
3.There must be ongoing training for evaluators.
4.There should be a centralized person--an HR professional who monitors all evaluators and evaluations. There has to be quality control.
5.Pay-for-performance policies that fail usually do so because they are perceived as being unfair and biased. Not having items #1 - #4 above leads to unfair practices.
6.Performance evaluations must be based on both achieving results (planned and unplanned) and meeting core competencies and expectations.
7.Pay-for-performance policies and evaluations are used to reinforce and support strategic plans.
8.The performance evaluation should set forth the goals, objectives, and expected results for the coming year.
9.One evaluation form does not fit all employees. Successful programs have several variations for different classes of employees (i.e. department heads, working supervisors, professionals, administrators, etc).
10.It is alright to have higher expectations for people who are higher in their salary ranges, and it is okay to advance entry-level people more quickly to market pay so that you retain them in the workforce. In other words, the employee who is being paid at the top of the range who far exceeds expectations would not necessarily get the same percentage increase as the employee who is being paid at the lower end of the range and far exceeds expectations.
11.Pay plans (grades and ranges) must be maintained; they need to be regularly benchmarked with the market.
12.A pay-for-performance system can exist side by side with traditional step and grade plans. Several communities only had the pay-for-performance system for their management or non-bargaining employees, while their bargaining employees stayed on other plans. Some communities have union employees on pay-for-performance plans.
13.The evaluation system must be timed with both the budget cycle and the strategic plan cycle.
Based on these findings, the City Manager developed a performance evaluation form that could be the core of the pay-for-performance system. This form was reviewed with several department heads and the Council leadership. Comments received were very positive. The draft form, which is a modification of a form used in Redding, California, was provided and explained in detail at the meeting.
The City Manager recommended that the committee endorse the following Pay for Performance Implementation Plan for Non-Bargaining Employees:
1.As an interim step for FY 2003/04, use the City’s existing evaluation form and authorize a 2.5% pay increase for employees who have an overall performance rating that exceeds performance requirements, a 2% increase for employees who meet performances requirements, and 1% or less for those who do not meet performance requirements. All department heads have been instructed to complete evaluations in June. The FY 2003/04 Proposed Budget has enough funds reserved for these percentage increases to cover this amount.
2.To ensure quality control, the Human Resource Department will review the latest employee performance evaluations in July and August 2003 to ensure that they have clear and concise goals and objectives with expected results and that they are aligned with the City’s Strategic Organizational Plan.
3.Finalize the Draft Pay-for-Performance Evaluation form by October for Council action. Some of the planned improvements will be:
a.Develop variations of the core competencies for different classes of employees.
b.Align core competencies with the Strategic Organizational Plan’s Mission and Critical Success Factors.
c.Further refine the performance weighting system.
d.Improve rating definitions.
4.Submit to Council with the Proposed FY 2004/05 Budget the Pay-for-Performance Worksheet that relates performance pay increases with performance evaluation scores. This should be accompanied with an estimated total cost of implementing the increases.
5.Write a pay-for-performance policy that complements and provides detailed instructions for use of the Pay for Performance Evaluation form. The policy should also clearly explain the purpose and goals of pay for performance. Plans are to have this ready for Council action in November.
6.Further explore bonus programs including “team” bonuses and “lightning” bonuses. Have recommendations for Council ready in time to implement in FY 04/05 if approved.
7.Have the Human Resources Department establish training programs in spring 2004 on new performance evaluation to be used in June 2004 for FY 04/05.
8.Implement use of new Pay for Performance Evaluation in June 2004.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima stated that there would be no cost of living increase this year, only increases based on performance. Mr. DePrima stated that the pay-for-performance increase would be in addition to the proposed corrections.
Mr. Salters suggested providing a bonus for employees who had an overall performance rating that exceeded performance requirements, rather than providing a 2.5% pay increase. It was his feeling that a morale problem could occur otherwise. Mr. DePrima reminded members that this proposal was just for this coming year and it is recommended that bonuses be further explored for the future. He noted that a .5% increase for all non-bargaining employees would be approximately $30,000 and estimated that approximately half of all non-bargaining employees would receive a 2.5% pay increase.
Responding to Mr. Speed, Mr. DePrima explained that a “lightning bonus” was an instantaneous bonus awarded to an employee for a special event or performance that was extraordinary.
Mr. Speed commended Mr. DePrima on the construction of the Pay-For-Performance Evaluation form. He suggested that the form contain information on the evaluator in order to provide continuity and compare between departments. Additionally, Mr. Speed suggested tracking the evaluation scores of the evaluators in order to compare evaluators. He noted that, if one evaluator tends to rate higher than another, they would not be comparing “apples to apples”. Mr. DePrima stated that many communities use that as a method of quality control. He also noted that one suggestion was that the Human Resources Director be responsible for monitoring the evaluations and training.
Referring to page 5 of the evaluation form, Major Unplanned Assignments, Mr. Speed suggested including results. Mr. DePrima stated that, since the assignments were unplanned, only results would be reflected.
Mr. DePrima stated that the percentages listed on the pay-for-performance worksheet would be presented to Council annually for adoption based on that year’s budget.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the Pay-for-Performance Implementation Plan for Non-Bargaining Employees, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Mr. Ritter moved for adjournment of the Legislative and Finance Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:55 P.M.
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Safety Advisory Committee met with Mr. Truitt presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters, Mr. Tolbert, and Mr. Wolfe. Mrs. Williams was absent.
REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESOLVING SAFETY ISSUES (JUNE 9, 2003 COMMITTEE MEETING)
Future Use of Property Located at 33 N. New Street and Other Safety/Police Matters regarding New Street (Eric O’Brien)
During their Regular Meeting of June 9, 2003, members considered correspondence received from Mr. Eric O’Brien, 30 N. New Street, regarding the future use of property located at 33 N. New Street and concerns with increased transients, suspicious loitering, and late-night noise in the area. It was the consensus of members that they would need further information on how the police legally handle public nuisance issues in order to make a recommendation. Council President McGlumphy recommended that the Safety Advisory Committee meet with the appropriate staff members to prepare an action plan for Mr. O’Brien.
Mr. Randy Jorgenson, Director of Planning and Inspections, stated that it was his understanding that the House of Pride intends to make reparation to the dwelling at 33 N. New Street and include it as a part of their House of Pride program. He indicated that, if the Code provides for this activity as being permitted, it was their responsibility to apply the fee that is applicable for the property and to permit its use. Mr. Jorgenson stated that the City is not in a position to condition uses that are permitted within the Code. He noted that, if the house were to fall into disrepair and become an unsafe dwelling, the demolition process would begin.
Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. Jorgenson stated that he is in contact with Ms. Marian Harris of the House of Pride on a bi-weekly basis. When there are enforcement issues, he personally goes to the House of Pride to broach those issues. Mr. Jorgenson noted that the City has a fairly amicable working relationship with Ms. Harris and that she generally addresses any issues brought to her attention. He stated that the House of Pride has limited financial resources and the City tries to work with them within those limitations.
Mr. Pitts requested staff to provide members with an ownership record of the properties that are possessed by the House of Pride, along with a report on the status of those properties. He also requested a time-line for bringing those properties into compliance.
Mr. Salters stated that he and Mr. Pitts were working with Senator Carper’s office on an initiative to upgrade housing in the downtown area. He noted that the City needs to take some initiative in order to qualify for Federal assistance. Mr. Salters stated that the House of Pride provides a service that is not provided by any other agency in the state. Mr. Jorgenson stated that they are seeking Federal funding for the revitalization of this area and are in the process of significantly changing the character of the community in that part of the City.
No further action was taken by the Committee.
Proposed Ordinance - Prohibition of Pan Handling (David Mercer Louie)
During their Regular Meeting of June 9, 2003, members considered correspondence received from Mr. David Louie of 129 S. Governors Avenue (Harry Louie Laundry & Dry Cleaners) regarding pan handling on Loockerman Street. Members were advised that the Police Chief was provided a model panhandling ordinance for his review and recommendation. Council President McGlumphy recommended that the Safety Advisory Committee meet with the appropriate staff members to prepare an action plan to address Mr. Louie’s concerns.
Mr. Truitt stated that the Police Chief is still in the process of reviewing the proposed ordinance. He noted that there have been two (2) arrests for panhandlers in the downtown area recently made by the police.
No further action was taken by the Committee.
Speeding, Drugs, Abandoned Vehicles, and Disrepair of Sidewalks in Towne Point and White Oak Farms (Civic Association)
During their Regular Meeting of June 9, 2003, members were apprised of several concerns expressed by the Towne Point and White Oak Farms Civic Association, including speeding cars, drugs, abandoned vehicles, and cracked sidewalks. Council President McGlumphy recommended that the Safety Advisory Committee meet with the appropriate staff members to prepare an action plan that they can provide to the Towne Point and White Oak Farms Civic Association.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that from May 2002 through May 2003, the Inspections Department has cited individuals for parking vehicles on non-approved surfaces in that area on thirteen (13) occasions. Between February 2002 and March 2003, they have removed ten (10) improperly licensed or unregistered vehicles. Since the beginning of June 2003, they have cited three (3) more individuals for having vehicles parked or stored in improper places and have towed eight (8) vehicles from that area that were unlicensed or unregistered in the last two (2) months.
Excessive Noise, Open Containers, Glass, Littering, Etc. - Silver Lake Park Area (Rodney Road, North American Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue Extended Neighborhood Watch)
During the Open Forum segment of the Regular Council Meeting of June 9, 2003, Ms. Lois Myers, 136 Spruance Road, advised members that the gates at Silver Lake are left opened past dusk. She stated that there is a lot of loud music and partying occurring after dusk, well into the evening hours, at the Silver Lake Park.
Mr. Ritter stated that he attended a meeting of the Rodney Road, North American Avenue, and Pennsylvania Avenue Extended Neighborhood Watch. He indicated that they would like to have the gate to the cemetery locked at dusk and unlocked at dawn. Mr. Pitts stated that Whatcoat Church has been working with the neighborhood for 50 years and have made significant improvements in the gate. He indicated that the gate is closed most of the time; however, some people have rammed the gate with their cars in order to get in. He did not feel that it would be appropriate to lock the gate since it would prevent citizens from visiting the graves of their loved ones. Mr. Ritter stated that members of the Neighborhood Watch have offered to open and shut the gate in order to keep people out during night time hours. Mr. Pitts stated that he would relay that information to the individual in charge of the cemetery.
Mr. Ritter stated that the Neighborhood Watch members also expressed concern with the classified ads being distributed by the Delaware State News. Mr. Jorgenson stated correspondence was sent to the newspaper indicating that citizens that did not wish to receive the advertisement were being advised to call the newspaper and any further distribution of the advertisements to areas where people have indicated that they do no desire them would result in a citation being issued to the newspaper for those violations.
No further action was taken by the committee.
Mr. Salters moved to adjourn the Safety Advisory Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
Mr. Speed moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. McGlumphy
Council President
WPM/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20037-14-2003.min.wpd
Attachments
Attachment 1-A -Revised Proposed Pay Plans
Attachment 1-B - Non-Bargaining (Excluding City Manager and Department Heads) Corrections per Modified PAS Grade Structure
Attachment 1-C - City Manager's Recommended Market Corrections for City Manager Department Heads