Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 3, 1991 (59)t,^Ji CITY OF LO COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Communications (March 21, 1991 through March 26, 1991) MEETING DATE: April 3, 1991 PREPARED BY: City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA ITEM RECOMMENDATION J 2b That the City Council direct the City Clerk to place a review of the City of Lodi nepotism policy (see Resolution No. 90-109 attached, marked Exhibit A) on the agenda for the City Council meeting of April 17, 1991. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following communication was received between the dates of March 21, 1991 and March 26, 1991. J 2b From, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Robert J. Johnson. Mr. Johnson's letter points out that eause of ---tFe recently implemented City policy regarding nepotism (Resolution No. 90-109) his two sons, despite a long history of part-time employment with the Parks and Recreation Department can no longer be considered for employment. Mr. Johnson requests a review of this policy and it is suggested that this matter be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of April 17, 1991. For your information the following is an excerpt of the City Council meting minutes of July 11, 1990 when Resolution No. 90-109 was adopted. "The City Council was advised that in 1985 the City adopted a polic,, prohibiting the appointment and promotion of certain individuals within the City service. In reviewing the application of that resolution we find that in some cases it may be restrictive and in other cases it does not go far enough. The prosent resolution restricts appointment or promotion of employees in the personnel office and in the City Manager's office. This restricts relatives of clerical posiLivas in those departments from working for the City regardless of how well qualified they ore. APPROVED. __......_._._..... THOKIAzi A. Pr_'TERSON - City Man,apnr rnUNCOMB/T;; iA.02J/Cn'','ICt)M cc -t Policy Rgardi ng Nepotism April 3, 1991 Page two The present resolution is silent in regards to appointment of relatives of c:., City Council, Department Heads within their department or Advisory Board members within their department. Staff recommended changes in both of those areas and the elimination of prohibiting promotions. Staff did not propose any changes to the prohibition or appointment or promotion where supervision, safety, security, or morale is at stake. Personnel Director Joanne Narloch addressed the City Council regarding the matter and responded to questions as were posed. Following discussion, en motion of Council Member Olson, Hinchman second, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-109 entitled, 'Resolution Establishing a Policy in Regard to Employment of Relatives Within the City of Lodi Classified Service and Thereby Rescinding Resolution No. 85-07 Pertaining Thereto."' FUNDING: None required. Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR/jmp COUNC0M8/TXTA.02V COUNCOM '" n t2.�i�i: ti "IT'f Ili ARK Ms. A L ice IX'iimef4e U)01 Clerk I Ci t,v of Lodi City Hall 221 lvest Pine Street Lodi, Ca. 95240 Re: Resolution No. 90-109 Date -d July 11, 1990 Dear M_>. Reimche: 13i! Midvale Road Lodi . Ca. 95240 March 25, 1991 Attached you will find copies of correspondence forwarded to my attention by Mr. Ron Wi_tliamson, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. In his memo of March 18, 1991, Mr. Williamson points out that, because of a recently implemented resolution (490-109), my two sons, despite a long history of part time work with the Department, can no longer be considered for employment. I would like to address the Council on this matter and request that I be permitted to do so at the regularly scheduled meeting set for April li, 1991. Briefly, my position is that, my sons were employed by the Department well before I was appointed to the Recreation and Park Commission ;and that. "grandfathering' of their employment would not be inappropriate in such a situation. in addition, the resolution speaks of "initial. employment" One son has been employed for eight years and the other for five ,rears. Phis would hardly seem to be "initial employment" Finally, I serve its an Advisory member to the City afd Recreation and Park matters. I do not set policy; that is done by the Council. I feel. quite strongly that my relationship is such that, the City :staff or Council can accept, or reject any recommendation I may make as a member of the Commission. As such, I fail to see where I have the power to influence what may or may not happen to my sons when they are working in a part time capacity in the Recreation Department. Accordingly, X request a review of the resolution in the hope that ney sons can continue their employment and that I can continue my association With the Commission. Thank you for your consideration to , tob•�r� ..,.7cJ„nr,urr L L Lobi Parks and Recreation Department 125 N. Stockton St., Lodi, CA 95240 333-6742 or 333-6744 Field/Facility Conditions M E M O R A N D U M TO: Parks and Recreation Commission 1` FROM: Ron Williamson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: March 18, 1991 SUBJECT: NEPOTISM POLICY INFOR14ATION/CPRS CONFERENCE FINANCIAL RECAP Enclosed is the City's nepotism policy which recently came up for discussion and implementation at a department. head meeting. The long and short of it is that, as Commissioners, you serve as advisors to the department; therefore, neither your wife nor any other member of your family can be employed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Your family members may be employed by another City department. City administration has directed all departments in violation of this policy to correct the situation immediately. If you have any family member who is or planned to be employed by the Parks and Recreation Department, we can no longer honor that employment opportunity. Also, I will need any receipts and cash you may have from the CPRS Conference in Santa Clara so I can complete our financial recap. Please write down the $140 and list all of your individual expensea. Do not include spouse's expenses. If you drove your own vehicle to the conference, put in for a tank of gas. Please have all of this to me no later than Friday, March 22. I hope you all had a good time and enjoyed rubbing elbows with other commissioners and the state's parks and recreation peo_vle. Don't forget to drop off the accounting, receipts and cash by Friday. Thanks. RW/lm enclosure CITY OF LODI MEMORANDUM To: City Manager All Department Heads From: Bob McNatt, City Attorney Date: January 22, 1991 Subject: NEPOTISM POLICY After our discussion regarding nepotism at the January 21, 1991 Department Head meeting, I checked our files and found the following. On July 11, 1990, the Council adopted Resolution 90-109 (attached) establishing the City's policy regarding family members (spouses, children, siblings, and parents and parents-in-law). It replaced Resolution 85-07 which was stricter regarding disqualifications. This was made necessary due to modifications of State statutes. RESolution 90-109 prohibits initial employment in any department of specified family members of any To-uncii Member or the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney or Personnel Director. As to the Library, it prohibits employment of specified relatives of any Library Board member or of the City Librarian. It further prohibits employment of specified relatives of Department Heads in that same Department. The second portion of the Resolution covers appointment or promotion where an employee appointed or promoted would supervise, evaluate or dispatch a specified fami'&y member. In addition, if 2 employees in the same department marry and one would then supervise or dispatch the other, the Resolution specifies one of the employees must transfer. A worc, of caution on this point; federal cases have noted that some employers always seemed to transfer the wife. This was found to be discrimination. The Resolution appears consistent with Government Code Section 12940(3) (attached) which applies only to spouses. I suspect that if spouses can be subjected to this sort of policy, so can other members of the immediate family. I note that Resolution 90-109 covers "any person or employee". Apparently, that means all employees including part timers, and is not restricted to "members of the classified service" designated in the Lodi Municipal Code chapter on the personnel system (Chapter 2.44). There is not, a lot of case law on this topic and what I found usually involved allegations of discrimination based on marital status. Federal NEPOTIS3/TXTA.0IY courts have twice dodged the issue of "no nepotism" rules in this context. In Parsons Y. Del Norte Count (1984) 728 F.2d 1234; cert den 105 Superior Court 158, the Court avoided the issue as "not presented at time of trial." Another Federal court took similar action in Stearns Y. Estes (1980) 504 F. Supp. 998 in which that court said California Labor Code Section 1240 (now Government Code Section 12940) may apply where a police officer was threatened with discipline or termination under a "no nepotism" rule because of marriage to a dispatcher. The Federal court sent it to the State court to decide, but there is no reported State appellate corjrt case which followed, so I have no idea what happened in -this matter. The bottom line seems to be that no immediate family member (as defined) of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney or Personnel Director can be hired to work anywhere for the City. The same goes for Councilmembers' families. Further, family members of Department heads cannot work in that Department. Another section generally prohibits hiring or promotion where one family member (Department head or not) will supervise or dispatch another. Respectfully submitted, 8 B McNATT City Attorney BM:vc attachments NEPOTSM3/TXTA.OIV RESOLUTION NO. 90-109 ESTABLISHING A POLICY IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI CLASSIFIED SERVICE AND THEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-07 PERTAINING THERETO It is the policy of the City of Lodi not to discriminate in its employment and personnel actions with respect to its employees, prospective employees, and applicants on the basis of familial or marital status. No employee, prospective employee, or applicant shall be denied employment or benefits of employment on the basis of his or her familial or marital status. This policy applies to the selection of persons for a training program leading to employment in addition to the above -designated persons. The City of Lodi reserves the right to reasonably regulate for reasons of supervision, safety, security, or morale, the working of spouses and relatives in the sz_;ae department, division, or facility. Further, the Council finds that in the following situations and pursuant to Government Code §12940(3), the following provisions are necessary: Marital status is defined as an individual's state of marriage, non -marriage, divorce or dissolution, separation, widowhood, annulment, or other marital state for the purpose of this anti -discrimination policy. Spouse is defined as a partner in marriage as defined in California Civil Code Section 4100. Familial status is defined as the state of an individual's specific relatives working for the City of Lodi and shall include spouse, child, brother, sister, parent or parent -in-law. The City of Lodi shall prohibit the initial appointment to a position within the City of Lodi of any person or employee who has the status of marital or familial relationship with the Lodi City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, or Personnel Director, members of the City Council and in the case of Library employees, members of the Library Board or the City Librarian. Further, the City will prohibit the employment in that Department of any person who has status of marital or familial relationship with the Department Head or Advisory Board to that Department. The City of Lodi shall prohibit the initial appointment of or advancement of any person or employee to any position within any department within the City of Lodi, wherein that person so appointed or advanced would or may in any manner or form, supervise, dispatch, or evaluate; or wherein that person would or may be supervised, dispatched or evaluated by any person within the same department, where, in either event, there exists a marital or familial status factor between said persons. In the event two persons employed in the same City department marry each other and would thereby fall within the prohibitions listed in this Resolution, one of such employees shall be transferred to a comparable position, if any exists, in another City department. Resolution No. 85-07 is rescinded upon the adoption of this Resolution. Dated: July 11, 1990 aaassama=acasaosaaaaasasaaaaaasaaaaaaroa==acassscaacacsaasc==caaaaccaaa I hereby certify that Resolution No. 90-109 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held July 11, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member - Olson, Pinkerton, Reid and Snider (Mayor) Noes: Council Member - None Absent: Council Member - Hinchman ALICE M. RE CNE City Clerk 90-109 RES90109/TXTA.02J -2- n+ n�E�tisr�o`n-�a•o'o o �Q np�� 9�> %ffim oo�'t-a gs ,tea AtFr3', a El : <�i oM2Fs'o5 A 'a.ao'e a� fe7 o�.t"J4 —a -'d m� Cyyny> �•'•,�0��'�9ons ty3A: ^�=its. ^, cc"I `e$onm:3?B `e woo—nva 0 g 0 New to Ut n 0 3.1 z 0 4( 121 r� :-t A4 gar $Freadst* C>)tvajrk ata Co -Workers Becoming.Cauple Growing number of employees meet mates at work From Ts c l has become the pool from which we choose friends.—and lovers, " ltto issue really is that an in - craving percentage of people are spending it great deal of their lives around their profession," blam- hotu said. "People work with each other, eat involved with each oth- er. it's a widespread pheaoingwI . It's an issue of the VAL* In resaarching ber I= book, "Office Romance; lave, Power 4 Sax in the n'orkpjaee," Lisa Win! Oro, an associate professor of man. agement at the School of Business at Fairfield University in Conaoct. scut, found that policies ars being revised at firma across the country a more couples meet on this job and marry. Even more caatmaWy, Abe mitt, "the policy L still uta the books, but We not being executed. Management it 1o9king the other way.' Examples of this changing sl- . 0W4rA4A4lbVM0S0e C*sxartt Oescialvea Nancy and Pavj Jon try kept thole onsag*rnt a -•seer for slot months 6scotsas of nopoakan r*Vvlat*ns from working In the acme dopert- Ing ISoodotLr art, Court spat Corps Schwartz,Ry As Dawn iso aerlotu the Iloas signed Tompkins "It past wasn't dolts," skid meat- if you ars unlucky enough Csrew Nobody knew they ware to tail in low and marry, one of flew, and the juropy couple wt YOU has to transfer to another t1s t*rrtlh4 that they would be tau pariment If [bens are no op*ntngs, oat and you Cannot be placed witnlu 299 daps. YOU are fired. After be sskcd Lowry to =V Claude Elsner, former chairman of him, LaCosse also checked tut w e his boss. `I pmcWUy asked h in the workplace, 1t 4 usually for Terry's hand pit marriage. damn neat' be said. We wi better to keep husbands and w'vea ,&*tried about losing our jobs' land sem and daughters) In eels tfslcad, the slatka put Ib nu departmmt4 saki Malnfero. tut the air together to anchor t Ahhough the beaters* pa olltoa m manes 1<fainiaco •thinks it Y 'weekend news, a slgbt that's healthier for husbands and WSvn creme more common lately (m 1 not to work too closely together. Angeles, Bree Walker and 3 "What 1 tell companies is that • Iampley anchor the news toge a as do another gapiried ne then nepotism policy shouts not team in Boston). ' permit married couples is a twee "I guns they flgutw it v subordinate relsttgnship," tIIa said. "MY rsaearcII sIIowtrl that cote.[' Lawry said, "Is fact,.I ,&bon nasbaada ar wive reported !leve 1t did boost the ratings,' to one aaothers it opened a Pardo cow L� ni bee la the ettin At San hwclsco General H -Co-workers would assume pital. Dr. Paul Voiberding and wife. Dr. Bary Cook*, have ov some tori of lavtxrlWm was taking plan scan tf the **tills +vat beast Ispplu tn�teas but do not WE *Ver backward i0 .veld that ether. aasumptioa h destroyed morale In "1 always thought N would the olfkva 1 attadled " very dull to be taarri*d to anti In an extreme este s multimtl physlolut and Come name sad tt San Franesaco company about sur Itary. dbesise and dost cook* gas& rms, ►Canty is dict esu a t apart by the feuding cess► VMS and 9uge Tbmpklru ant It** aloe not to have to bra wit* tensa out shear way to divorce Your PLnow Immmonis:' a. their txitnpatty esu tallfltg Who YN Wkabout National Aeronautics sad 13"co But, she said. "1 would not ws Be Was chief ta*euttve esti aloe to worklbr him, as his wife. Ti was deltas director o! Esprit da WOUM complicate the situation the L-eRdy elothlRg comps- ways" riot they founded Ie. 1988 espy Detective Nancy ,penny thin W their taatrlaga Over the yearn dufersotly. shear visna for the company She and her husband, Pa l0 dttt*r, their marriage al• both teal" toe sergeant I ill aovr*d resuitlag tt*taRly In a '•Neither one of us made It t: sooners problem aitwnd time. but I dont think aMber o Otflee but also to teat Ot of us would have a problem U a of dollars la tat prottts outranked the other. Anyway.' Doug Tompklna nceetly re have a d*ai: Wboever makes t from ills !!rm end Brute geanl tirst, that person bas to to Came Dark as creative the other oa* out of town for ce, weekaod." tlmde ars everywhere. in the ae ademic world, univaWtiec are del uged with so many husband•wife tppUrants thel they might ice Out of business it Way dhl not accept them as a team. "Let me put it this way," said Claude Elsner, former chairman of the sociology department at UC Berkeley. "Husband and wife pro- tenon have become so common ilk a problem. You want to hire Professor A. the best applicant you saw, but the spouse L aha a protea• sor. What do we do with hers If you cant arrange to him them both. you might lose Professor A." Some universities, such ea Swo ybrook on Long Island and North. western in Chicago, "go out of their way to hire coup!«. We b their advantage since that* an s0 many applying," Flaber tays Metrried In Spee The issue bas even reaehea say cr apace. NASA Is reviewing rte policies to see It newlywed antra nauts Jan D2vis and Mark I.nsatt fly a 1992 space sbuttle !light t0• Bother. "We've never had to deal with this before," said Barbara- Scbwartt, a spokeswoman for the National Aeronautics sad 13"co Administration. "It's a first." Accordiog to Howard Mitchell, processor of butnan resources and management at the Whartpa School In Philadelphia, many p�ati. cies presume you are guilty before the trial: -I've seen nepotism poijU cies at companies estabilahed to s blind way. Wore there wasn't any evidence of favoHtlam. It secras to director after a two-year abaen me that in those reset, the people Spouses seem to fare better in don't have the same right as an lateral relationships, Mainlero alleged criminal — you shouldn't end. "n becomes awn more ideal be judged guilty without widenp u the couples work In separate do - of guilt" partmenta I had ono case where Not all employers share tbts the co-workers were pushing the view. If you work for the city of Couple to get marrisd!" Albany in the gest Bay, you had Things were different t9 year best look for romance outside the ago at KWN•TV when Terry Low- ow•offIce. office. ry and Fred 1ACoesa, lengttma San A strict city policy, 1e. *(feet Francisco TV noWs reportara. be - since 1981• forbids married couples gan dating. A41aw Term Back Chicago Northwest ,-'::Ines' FUgbt S' from Minneapolis to Miami, a turned to Linneapolla airport Y terday Loon attar tak"t aft What appeu+d to be gees calla one of its engines to shut dow According to the Pelletal Avlatl- AdNtSir{rotiod Will. ACA + R�r�..iS" r .� P '.� RESOLUTION NO. 90-109 ESTABLISHING A POLICY IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI CLASSIFIED SERVICE AND THEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-07 PERTAINING THERETO It is the policy of the City of Lodi not to discriminate i n its employment and personnel actions with respect to its employees, prospective employees, and applicants on the basis of familial or marital status. No employee, prospective employee, or applicant shall be denied employment or benefits of employment on the basis of his or her familial or marital status. This policy applies to the selection of persons for a training program leading to employment in addition to the above -designated persons. The City of Lodi reserves the right to reasonably regulate for reasons of supervision, safety, security, or morale, the working of spouses and relatives in the same department, division, or facility. Further, the Council finds that in the following situations and pursuant to Government Code §12940(3), the following provisions are necessary: Marital status is defined as an individual's state of marriage, non -marriage, divorce or dissolution, separation, widowhood, annulment, or other marital state for the purpose of this anti -discrimination policy. Spouse is defined as a partner in marriage as defined in California Civil Code Section 4100. Familial status is defined as the state of an individual's specific relatives working for the City of Lodi and shall include spouse, child, brother, sister, parent or parent -in-law. The City of Lodi shall prohibit the initial appointment to a position within the City of Lodi of any person or employee who has the status of marital or familial relationship with the Lodi City Manager, Assistant Cit'/ Manager, City Attorney, or Personnel Director, members of the City Council and in the case of Library employees, members of the Library Board or the City Librarian. Further, the City will prohibit the employment in that Department of any person who has status of marital or familial relationship with the Department Head or Advisory Board to that Department. The City of Lodi shall prohibit the initial appointment of or advancement of any person or employee to any position within any department within the City of Lodi, wherein that person so appointed or advanced would or may in any manner or form, supervise, dispatch, or evaluate; or wherein that person would or may be supervised, dispatched or evaluated by any person within the sante department, where, in either event, there exists a marital or familial status factor between said persons. In the event two persons employed in the same City department marry each other and would thereby fall within the prohibitions listed in this Resolution, one of such employees shall be transferred to a comparable position, if any exists, in another City department. Resolution No. 85-07 is rescinded upon the adoption of this Resolution. Dated: July 11, 1990 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 90-109 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held July 11, 1990 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Member - Olson, Pinkerton, Reid and Snider (Mayor) Noes: Council Member - None Absent: Council Member - Hinchman ALICE M. RE C City Clerk 90-109 RES90109JTXTA.02,1 -L-