The follow up to the ‘it was posted, it wasn’t posted, it
didn’t have to be posted’ saga regarding the Property Maintenance Inspector
position.
Attached are the approved minutes from the Council meeting
Oct. 20. Under Finance and Claims Committee - the job discussion.
At 5 pages into this discussion, Mr. Henderson asks the City
policy for posting positions. Mr. Ebert states “that we have to post by labor
contract for positions. This position was actually posted. The labor contract
for the Service Department, the two unions, requires posting.”
When I emailed to get a copy of that posting and the
locations it was posted, the response from Mr. Ebert was “I stand corrected
when this was discussed it was the Assistant to the Community Services Director
position that was posted and not the Property Maintenance Inspector which is
not required to be posted.” He also
repeated this statement at the Nov. 3 Council meeting.
Sure – everyone makes mistakes, but which one is the mistake? Are we being confused accidentally or intentionally?
No comments:
Post a Comment