Administrative & Personnel Committee (Commission) - December 2015
Submitted by mwatkins on Tue, 11/24/2015 - 16:42
Release Type:
Administrative & Personnel Committee
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015
Time: 3:30pm
Location: Downtown Library
- Call to Order and Establishment of Quorum – Mr. Hugh Rice, Chair
- Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action: Revisions to MLS Policy and Procedure Manual
- SH 220 Employment Leave
- SH 310 Employment of Closely Related Persons to Commission and Staff
- SH 511 Complaint Resolution
- SH 520 Grievance Policy
- SH 530 Due Process Hearing in Certain Employment Actions
- Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action: Executive Session to review Employment Agreement for Executive Director
To discuss the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, etc., of the Executive Director pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, Title 25, Oklahoma Statues § 307, (B)(1) - Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action: Return to Open Meeting
- Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action: Recommendation from Executive Session
- Log in to post comments
Comments
From page 3 of SH 220:
"ii) Earn Rate: Category 1 employee earns 8 hours of AVL each month for a total of 48 hours."
Also, the changes on page 7 seem to leave it open for any number of floating holiday hours between 0 and a million, depending upon the mood of the Commission that year. Was that the intention?
I particularly like the "sexual orientation, gender identity, age" part!
In regard to SH 530, what is a non-probationary employee?
Thanks!
A non-probationary is employee someone who is no longer a new employee within his/her introductory day probationary period. Basically, new employees have a 90-day introductory probationary period, during which due process and grievance procedures do not apply. After 90-days, the person is no longer probationary (in other words is "non-probationary"). You can find information about the introductory probationary period in section III of SH300: http://my.metrolibrary.info/drupal/policy_procedures/sh/sh-300-employment
Thanks.
Hi Margo-
It looks like when we updated the language from the July 2011 version to the December 2011 version (which eliminated the 6-month waiting period for AVL), we included the typo you spotted in the Word and PDF versions of the policy. Oddly, that typo wasn't included in the HTML version viewable on the Intranet. We will update the version going to the A&P Committee to ensure that it reads correctly as 96 hours, and not 48.
Regarding the change to number of floating holidays, yes, we are removing the specific number of days for the purpose of enabling the Commission to designate it annually, depending on the number of regular paid holidays they specify in the official holiday and closing schedule. The intention is to keep the sum of regular holidays plus floating holidays constant, while allowing for flexibility. For example, in past years, staff were awarded 9 specific holidays and 2 floating holidays to take at any time during the year. However, in 2016 -- because of the days on which Christmas falls -- staff will have 8 paid holidays and 3 floating holidays. In total, staff have the same number of paid days off, but because of the Library's closing schedule, they will be able to take the day at any time of year (not just at Christmas). Hope that makes sense.
I do understand the spirit of the floating holiday part (and I appreciate it!); however, I just worry about the actual wording. It doesn't set a minimum for floating holiday hours, thus leaving the door open for the Commission to give us none.
(I was a legislative proofreader for several years, which left me with an eye for detail and just a bit of paranoia.)
While I understand your concern, the Commission doesn't really work like that ... They want to provide the staff with ample benefits (so that folks want to work here!) and are not looking for ways to cut or short anyone. In reality, the removal of a specific number of days is because the current policy doesn't mention holidays at all (except floating holidays), and adding it in would make an already-too-complicated-policy-badly-in-need-of-revision worse. I decided to just change what we needed changed right now. We were (and still are) planning to revamp the whole leave policy to remove the unnecessary complexity next year, but the closing schedule adopted by the Commission at the November 19 meeting made it imperative that we remove the mention of 2 floating holidays -- since we'll need 3 in 2016. It's a short term fix, and once re-written, the policy should be something that we don't have to tinker with every year.
Employment of Closely Related Persons Page 2 of 4
4. Closely related persons to members of the Metropolitan Library Commission or
staff of the following departments: Human Resources, Director, or Information Technology
will not be eligible for employment as an employee;
~~Question: I understand not allowing family members of the Commission, HUM office, and Director's office to be eligible for employment at MLS, but why IT?
5. Definition of Closely Related Persons: The following relationships are sufficiently
immediate to invoke the prohibitions against concurrent service of closely related persons:
a. Spouse,
b. Parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent, including step-family members;
c. Parent, grandparent or great-grandparent of spouse, including spouse’s
step-family members;
d. Uncle or aunt;
e. Uncle or aunt of spouse;
f. Brother or sister, including step-brother or step-sister;
g. Son or daughter, including step-son or step-daughter;
h. Son-in-law or daughter-in-law, including step-family members;
i. Grandson or granddaughter or their spouse; and
j. Great-grandson or great-granddaughter or their spouse.
~~Question: Is brother-in-law and sister-in-law missing here? I see all the other in-laws. I've read it over several times, but don't see them.
Employment of Closely Related Persons Page 2 of 4
While the Commission cannot legally prevent the appointment of new library
commissioners who are closely related to library employees, the Commission strongly
suggests that officials and bodies with appointive power avoid such practice.
Employment of Closely Related Persons Page 3 of 4
In cases where a new Commission member is appointed who is closely related to a
library employee, the employee will be required to immediately resign, subject to due
process and grievance procedures when applicable.
~~Question/Comment: This seems harsh and completely unfair to the library employee. How can it be legal to "require" the staff member to resign if they have a family member appointed to the Commission? I would hope that the family member being asked to join the Commission would decline the appointment, but what if the two are not that close or have a bad family history?
Thanks
Hi Melissa-
Thanks for the questions. We decided that the Commission and the Director's office were absolutes -- that because all policies and procedures emanate from these two groups, it would be best to avoid the appearance of conflict. The reason for the exclusion of Human Resources and Information Technology departments relates to their access to and control of personal and confidential information. In an attempt to protect all staff and provide a sense of confidence, we felt it would be best to avoid any hint of conflict.
With respect to SH310 and the question about brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, that appears to have been an oversight. Thanks for catching it -- we'll add it in for the A&P Committee meeting.
As the for the harshness you mentioned in the last part of your question about SH310, I wouldn't disagree ... but I think that it is important to ensure that there is no appearance of favoritism or wrong-doing, and the best way to avoid it, is to eliminate the possibility. Another option would seem to be to bar the appointment of commissioners who are closely related to current staff members; however, we do not control the appointment processes for the cities or the county, nor do we have the authority to enforce or even make such rules. We can create policy on who can work here and under what conditions. I think that this would be a rarity -- an edge case -- and not something we need to worry a lot about. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would expect that very few people would accept an appointment that would put one of their close relatives out of work. Regardless, we will certainly communicate this policy to the various "appointers" prior to them officially naming a new commissioner, that way informed decisions can be made by all.
It appears these changes are intended to allow close relatives of some library employees without supervisory privileges or other influential factors to be employed with the system, except as indicated ins SH 310.4. However, SH 310.5 states, "Future employment applications will require applicants or prospective contractors for employment to attest that they are not a closely related person to any current library employee or Commission member; willful misrepresentation of such relationship to obtain employment will be grounds for immediate termination of employment." This seems to negate the proposed allowance by requiring any library employee's close family member attest their relationship, not just those specified earlier in the proposal.This may weed out applications that do not violate SH 310.4 stipulations, but who are close relatives to other library employees.
My question is whether the wording needs to be revised there, or whether the inclusion of SH 310.4 itself is sufficient to allow close relatives of other library staff not applying for the same department to become eligible for employment.
Yes, indeed ... the policy changes we are proposing to the A&P Committee will require us to update and revise a number of procedures (like SH310.4 and SH310.5). After A&P approves the policy changes, we will draft procedural changes that will be enacted when the policy is approved by the full Commission.
Thanks.
I appreciate the response. Happy Thanksgiving!