HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-10 92-383 ORDERDate yV 8-10-92 V Item No. _9i-]83
CtEtr Avmdi to City ibsaael Rales and M9nl�
Item/Subjem: Napotatat
Responsible Department: Exs. five
Commentary:
At 1:1ae City Calmcil meetb ag m Suly 27, 1992, an issue vss taiaed cwxexning Has
C1ty1a pxeeart Polley co cavt1IV ruggp n. SPaci£irally, an elployea was
tendniatai due to the fact that dart cegxut ,ma du rast allow vin faraday
metal to beelployerl by tea sauna Depaxtoart.
AftP.x discwaim of tas apaific Sesue ant tas intent and appli est of the
policy, tea cnanm l votai to mfet a review of ieLioy, to tie nmicipal Dper dinar
Cremittee. F e+M1e', tas Cwcil wtffi to naive t policy in this oras irte�,
allowiM tau enpleryea m xetom to vx t tprt t a declaim wase vetle by tae mmcil
xepxduuf arni noaiftcatims tD tas inlicy.
Mvricipal Op� rest m August 4th and, after csns�oma ant Ws tfm
cmvart Scan City staff arel tha af£xK.ed paty, voFed w xecvmeM m tae full
Council that the policy may be averded by xHin •hist mucin-- to the exlatLg
list of relatives defined in Fffe 2r y(2) of the City's pexaomlel Rales and
.rart,..re. Mise. Marilyn Clefx, entre. of tae affa:red mp]oyeE (Chris A. Soy),
piroposoi to tie cutia2 policy ad thW axe attatasd.
l�/UM I
M/wrtnien</leve
Manager's Comments:
Associated Information:
Nepotimn mLcy, City Matmgat 19aes, Avpcsecl Changs & ins. rasllyef Clair,
State leer
Budget Approval: V6-
Fiue ceDirc
Legal Approval:
Gry solidmr
Introduced For
®Passage
❑ First Reading page _ of
❑Referral
92-383
,Wirened to Councilor Swcy, AUSws[ :0, 1992
CITY OF BANGOR
(TITLE.) Mrbtrt............. lnmldinl role -2, wagap,.. F(2) of .tinemy -of i3ar _..
By 014; CRY CaeseB Of CBy OfBan .
ORDERED.
MT INle 21 Pategra h P(2) of t City
of Bangor Pemwael IW1� eitl
..,re Dem by addin tl following:
2. A mlative is any ore of the follow %
apwse brother-in-law
stepobflrben
patents sister-in-law
nep,ea
.'M1ildxe, sort -in-law
nice
cikiughbin-law
better
unci
wanA
sister ymtll rca
uncle
gtarkhilAmn
half-brWcr
fitl =-lam
fatter-in-]sw stepp
fflf-sister
fimt twain
Nrntione am nrctrrlired.
In City Council August 10, 1992
Passed Vote 6 Yes 1 No 2 Absent
voting Yea Cohen,Frankel,Sawyer.
Sari, Soucy, Stone Voting No 6tldacci
Absent Blanchette, Bragg
am dw
92-383
0RDBR
Title,
B .nding Ruie 2.ParagrkPh F(2) of tfie
City of Bangor Personnel Rules and
Ra ulatioaa
t.KMN'^"K W
Ae®gned to
unciNan �3 3
......�en..4�au.c,�.�....4
�a .
I �
IN CITY COUNCIL rY 8e-300•
Passe
June 27, 1988 Introduced by Councilor Blanchette, June V. 1988
tl
A Siue Copy, Attest:
\,CITY OF BANGOR
QITIEJ �i�Prt .Amapa g a 1 no,_ga ag �n.,F,,_of .cne a ty of,_Pango ......-_-...
Personnel pules and Regulations Relating to Nepotism
BY the City cauumoU of U+ Ciev ofaanpor:
ORDERED,
THAT Bile Two, Paragraph F of the City of Ma r Personnel Rules and
Regulations be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
P:-Neoct_si-.--£ffecc%ve4t Ser-d--1983P-dte-is-:eiroad-ce,
p4serf <moryee-witnin-a-JepenTentfcr
- -S0.avy_paL-.dnBnt,-pap'.-FL'ieriP_�bC[«„lv „r-6fdG�Fdl.psuj64Cn
aras:vwnte-aapas�a-.L.-.Y relaidve-isaaYone-cE 'c-fc•22cv'__._uPo,>sa,
Paraais�ck4lLra-.�roEAer�--a:at r�-moUehix}:w�..a-4n-3aw.
t_-o•.ha.-ia-i-'rsltzr-tn-law+mon-1:.-1_a'v..da"ra.`,Esz _a -laves
ae
ycav-av'a^.tc,.caczhilOren.-c6sopazaner.-usp:ki,'.azan�; ie>rT.seice,
or-pslrsi6t
F. Nepotism.
1. Effective wtoner 1. 1981/ an a licant who is related to a resent
emlovee vitM1in a deoaztment ma nuc D= 'd retl ter ecalcimnent
permanent o_rtture t 1 1 na
aep r
an
2. A relative is any one of the f011
-- soapse - brother-in-law —-steoehildren- - -- _
parents sister -in -lav -in-law ne'c pM1 -
Children son
brother aauohter- n -law aunt
sister
Ngrandparents uncle
la -law ramcnlaren half -b
tomoater-n-lav er
3. Suter
is lit >» waived for rttime, te,roora easonEl
vositions the Cit Mana er when to Ci[ Na [ determsnes that such
waiver i necesszzv in ozde 't ffiClont pcLbunnel t Th
C1[y s needs S h WolVcLc bFU111 Oe zor a sEecilicod or dince aid
shall detail the pts Btions and/ d
54n t ed
Such -
shall not create a randfathered situation in future ears. Under no
circumstances spall Nis 1' be edvolvin
permenene Imulovee,
(0*.
4. In situation h h tlli is walved, res lativeshall_
he a ss ff sh 11 to made to assign
la l shvfts. or suce[vvw[s.
1
Note: [zletions are scvvdc- Y; additions ar9 underlined.
Rb: I&nevabm coum it Chair and Rmbers of ttta city Coacil
Pram: F>il A. Itmrett, City lMregar
�z Nelntiem POLICY
Date: Pngust 51 1992
At this Tuesday's meeting, the emmfttee will be iavie izg t City's cuxxs t
nepotism policy. m a part of this revlev, the b kgft fox the policy ad
the xemone for ha conch a Policy elrald also m consitlersi.
eackoxountl
ahs City first a opmd its nepotism policy in 1981. It wee apparently adopmtl
at that tine as a result of serexal Prtllms wddch arose as the result of
havi� mla vss eiployed in tee sere tlepa ent. a original policy
provided for a total pruUaitic n against any m the
sane dft:arinent.
This policy wee moatl i in 1988 m a the City Naim to waive the policy
within spenific danaefnenra a for s ci£ic job clmsificatiom. 'Reis waiver
could only be for aeesrnal or Part-time avlcyess (no Peemnent mploSous
could bei 1%xi) a only when the City t9aager do-ro...i..oi that a waiver
was receeauy in order to fill needai positicm. At that tine, the arm was
expar�ing a wry loo :m®ploiven t ram and the City vss having difficulty,
in hiring persttmel. Tm Lmaliat¢ caysm ware a need for xegfatscal wxace
at the City lensing Facility mi for esnaral mFloyees at Dass Park.
(i eml Aatiomle lar a 1k oti®n p olicv
Tee a are a nam8¢ of resema for an organisation m adopt a nopotim policy.
In gaeral, homvar, acct of these eomidemtiae x 1w axrnmd actual or
perceived fa itis n idch might In st ,on m an evploye due to his or her
family relationship with anther egloy in the sage departr nt ar under the
seas clavn of supervision.
Pedal or parceived �ittm m a moult of a relative's action or
influaice. ahs mast tbviaue a migle i 1ore relative
supervising anMMr. Concern can also arise, ho..ever, emn if thele
is no direct supervisory mlatiamofp. Tle apPearmd'e that an
fnWivf ra-Rh Pm[exe tial treahiwxt (hiring, Praretiaa,
pmefexred job assignments, merit raisin) cm arise if a relative is
felt pt have even ill ant L if ase at hese a mT Tlcse
�a..v,..m can weedy ke ar if a relative is a mnptfe rex within a
depa&iitIcn,. epee th y I hs g ohs ht not au[ vied the mlative. m
akiftion, aperial ly in rnpN m hiring, Udivin t wtihin Ue
o -m s any per on £a otter
mtl ft i it iter the hiiLg
pmcme res lased on factors other than pewit.
-2-
2. Restrictions on nsnagment flexibility. An optimal approach to
repotam fs to allow t employment of xelativm but not allw
relatives to supervise each ctler. Gi the City's policy and
frequent practice of prating from witldn, such an approach may
often result in a relative being pr®ted. Men this happens,
mmuagerent oast excamse care to nomas that a relative does not;
supervise mother relative. Tlds can easily limit a dspartert's
flexibility. In arHitinn, this requix®¢ can also care itHn
conduct with standard s^hed'n vng practices or potentially with
requirements of aux uudon contracts. As the uaMer of related
prties increase, the extent of these problems grow. This can be a
particular pv blem do smaller d {avtmeits or in orc protective
services.
3. Related supervisory problems. lioblmw can also arise where one
individual IS disciplined. This can anise supervisory problems not
only with the employee wda 5 disciplined lot also with the
relative. to addition, family pmblma m conmrus can also spill
over into tle war" emdxoaent and create additional problems.
Issues
A amber of issues are involved m coneitlertg a nepotism pol] . T)6e6
include:
1. 11e definttrm of a relative;
2. TIe amps of tle policy (i.e., m relatives to be employed within a
depummt or no relatives to supervise a relaTiw);
3. The replay s covered (e.g., all mploiess, full-time penrenmt
mplgees, or pmt -time t®permy or seaso:al a ployaea. )
TM City's current policy is fairly laded and restrictive and it is
appropriate for the council to review these issues at this time. Tb assist,
I would offer the follwing dente.
I. Oe�nition of a Pmlative. The cuaent definition avid to xevlsetl
and made less restrictive. x a miniman, it could include spwnse,
chiilBray sisters
2. Rmlwees Coverer. Tfie moat frequent gplication of the policy
arises edenn an individual applies for a part-time, temporary, or
seasonal position where a relative already holds a full-time
position within a d'isrtmmr. The scope of the policy cenld be
clanged to prohibit nepotism only ud se both parties am m deafre
to be full -tine employees within the same departrent.
3. Polity Scone. The 0.sucil could close to limit die scope of t e
policy by revising it to rely prohibit an employee from being
suy ised by a relative. Given the City's mployamR policies and
Practices, kxaver, the application of such a clangs can to
difficult. if two relatives are hixai, those Individuals will lave
the cppo nity for Promotion. It is likely that one of thea will
-3 -
eventually bane a .P,�ly in the Folic,: std Firo
Deparbmnta. It is also posailile iter a of tiny may evenNally
LecoQe a denartaent bead. M yndivid:als pxog s In the
ox pnizatim, tM Potevrt P�associard vtrh mlativea
barns rymter.
Feccmnend on
I a d xxame:d t tM 6 a cams � aM revisiam to our
reEntiam poucy to make it eam t less mstcicttve. At tM same t:m°, the
cuxxmC policy bas aPlxitently of ellminatieq a
Potential saarP of eaplcyxe we flier and rte aER tarcx that a ployaent
decisions. aro bassi on E -tore other then merit.
i Mould xsnm®d CMC ibe policy ro longez cwsi Put-t1IDs, tfs@uraty or
saaemal eq�loycee.
9muld ttn Caurcu desire w £ tM relax tM Poliq',. ,rnu,i,n.a.i,�, mold be
givai to xrdeeing and revising tM ovr�t deflnitia: of a aslative.
I mould rot xecamnd t t tM pouay be totally aMMa i in P� In
iieMrt s Mtieie a sopeCvisory relatioreblp may be lnaaent or possible.
It sMultl ke rated that a y relaxation of tM nsp tt policy can give rise
W problem or emplaints. At tM sem time, T likeubood of such
cmplaints mmt M waigM1 aWa tM d<m to provide ildividuals with tM
evtdeeC Possible rugs of employment cpportwi with the City. 1n
evalvatin tM plepceed chn , I rept tMt they rearonably aroanoodate
tlese oxrtlicti=y objati .
a: City Ccvncil
MIDNn M901IICe8 mmmw
D tnr of
'A: Maobeis of the City Ca u
From: &dPYt W. Farrar, UiN.YOY o£ 4rininlM.�einn
Pe: Proposal AaenrMent Offered by Mrs. Marilyn Clair
Date: " August 4, 1992
M the f4uticipal Cperatf C ttee veetiig on August 7, 1992, Ms. Marilyn
Clair offered two pcasfble s to the City's existing policy on
Napoti as folios:
1. eiuninate the rafeterce to stepgvemts and stepeMldcsv in m 2,
Paragraph F(2). 'Ara sectvNi lists three that qualify as a rui rove.
2. NLLsinate Paragraph P, Nepotiam in its entirety and rept wtM
language that reflects that:
the final decfsien of wlether a person w:t be hirej ar praaac
by the Cfty canr be n fn part or w y by a person related
to H job rmiditlate by consmrarorty or affinity with the.4tl
degree. Hiring daisioire wlll be based upon verit, skills ad
qualifications of the applfcam..
Ms. Clair Urlicared that pr posal. k2 would stri any xeEexenca to family or
relatives and thM th1s was her profaned choice.
Ms. Clair will pr d y att the Comicil mee*vng Hr day night to yore
fully discuss ter commms and paposals.