LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on November 23, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Members present were Mr. Leary, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams (arrived at 5:55 p.m.).

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.

Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions

During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a “standing” agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there are no positions to consider, the item could be removed.

Librarian II

Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the request to recruit for a Librarian II - Head of Adult Services position. He noted that, should an in-house candidate (Librarian I) be promoted to Librarian II, staff requested authorization to fill a Librarian I position. He noted that several positions within the Library are currently vacant, including the Assistant Library Director, and rather than filling those positions, Mr. DePrima explained how library services have been affected as a result of the vacancies and the need for the Librarian II position.

Mr. Leary moved to recommend that staff be granted permission to fill the position of Librarian II, as requested by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

MAG Overview of Recommendations (Tabled by Committee on November 9, 2009 Due to Time Constraints)

Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that during the committee meeting of November 9, 2009, members reviewed a revised version of Exhibit #5 from the MAG Study. Previous to this, members had been reviewing recommendations contained in Exhibit #1. At this time, he requested that the Human Resources Director continue reviewing the recommendations.

Mrs. Hawkins, Human Resources Director, referred to Exhibit #1 and noted that Recommendation #12 is the next item to be reviewed by members. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima explained that although members have already conducted a total review of Exhibit #1, department heads have since made comments or suggestions which are being presented for the committee’s review at this time.

Mr. Ruane noted that Recommendations #3 and #17 may be conflicting. He indicated his support for requiring quarterly reviews and explained the necessity and obligation of supervisors in this regard. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that Recommendation #17 would be updated to reflect Recommendation #3. It was his opinion that when presented to Council, Recommendation #3 would be modified to reflect a requirement for quarterly reviews when poor performance of an employee is a concern.

Dr. Jones suggested that if an employee is not performing and may be in danger of disciplinary action, whatever is expected of the employee should be clearly communicated and signed by all involved parties so that there is no question later if disciplinary action is taken. Mr. DePrima assured members that there are procedures for communicating the expectations of employees prior to taking disciplinary action. Mr. Salters suggested that there be a note included in Recommendation #3 to reflect the requirement of providing an employee an improvement plan.

Mr. McGlumphy referred to the PFP 2004-2008 Distribution Chart (Attachment #1) provided to members and noted that the majority of employees obtain a “commendable” score.

In response to a request of Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that he would obtain information regarding supervisors who have not completed evaluations for their employees.

Mr. McGlumphy relayed his concern with the manner in which positions are evaluated and scored, and how certain points are assigned to grade positions, noting that MAG utilizes a “positional factor analysis”

Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima suggested that the document be forwarded to Council for adoption. It was his opinion that the document will allow the City to get back on track and that the employees will appreciate this opportunity.

Mr. McGlumphy requested that staff schedule meetings to discuss the document with employees to assure their understanding and provide them the opportunity to comment before its presentation to Council. He requested that the City Clerk send out notices of the meetings that have been scheduled to allow for employees to comment on issues of concerns to Council.

Mr. McGlumphy suggested that this matter be tabled until the meetings have been held with employees.

Mr. Leary moved to table further discussion of the MAG study until the meetings have been held with employees, seconded by Dr. Jones and carried with Mr. Salters voting no.

Request of Dover Human Relations Commission to Remove Requirement that Members Resign Prior to Running for Other Office

Members were provided a request of the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) to consider removing the requirement that members of the Commission resign prior to running for other office (in accordance with Section 58-32(d) of the Dover Code).

At the request of Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, read an email, dated November 23, 2009, submitted by Dr. Hoff (Attachment #2) into the record. In addition, Mrs. McDowell read an email, dated November 23, 2009, submitted by Mr. Steve Artz (Attachment #3) into the record.

Mr. Leary and Mr. Hogan indicated their objections to the request and suggested the possibility of instituting this requirement for all committees and commissions of the City of Dover.

Mr. Ruane indicated his involvement with the creation of the Dover Human Relations Commission and his understanding that at the time, it was felt that the members of the DHRC would be involved in very sensitive mediation roles and areas of confidentiality in terms of complaints. It was felt that once an individual inserts themselves into an election process, they begin to “serve two masters”, and are worried about constituents, votes, etc. He stated that the thought was that such a situation could impair a members objectivity and/or present a notion of conflict. He also indicated his objection to the request.

Mr. Leary moved to recommend denial of the request of the DHRC to remove the requirement that members resign prior to running for other office. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Assignment of Economic Development Division to Public Services

Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that City Council recently approved code amendments removing the City Manager from administrative oversight of the City Planner and City Assessor. Prior to having an Economic Development Office, economic development efforts were managed and coordinated by the City Manager, often in cooperation with the Mayor. When the Economic Development Office was created in FY 08-09, it was placed within the Public Services Department under the Planning and Community Development Department, which was under the administration of the City Manager.

Mr. DePrima explained that it was recommended that the Economic Development Office be placed in the Planning and Community Development Department by the City Manager for the following four (4) reasons: 1) It would continue to be under the City Manager’s Administration; 2) The creation of the office was a recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, its start up is a part of the Comprehensive Plan Implementation; 3) The planning skills of the City Planner were suited for developing the initial goals and benchmarks for the office; and 4) The City Planner and her staff played an important guiding and supporting role with the Parking Authority, Main Street, and DDDC, and overseeing the transition to the Downtown Partnership was best placed under the City Planner.

At this time, Mr. DePrima suggested that the Economic Development Office be retained within the Public Services Department and under the administration of the City Manager. He explained that the change would allow for the traditional role of the City Manager to continue and bring his many years of experience to bear. This is also true for the Public Services Manager and, most importantly, it will ensure that the other departments under the City Manager will be synchronized with the economic development effort. Lastly, he stated that while the Planning and Community Development Department has an excellent record of objectivity, this move will reduce any perceived “conflict of interest” that may arise when the City Planning staff makes recommendations to the Planning Commission or City Council regarding projects submitted or promoted by the Economic Development Office.

Mr. DePrima noted that the Planning and Community Development Department has done a good job of starting up the office and would continue to play an important role in economic development. The department will continue to be responsible for the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which serves as the City’s Economic Development Policy. The City Planner will continue to be a member of the Downtown Dover Partnership and the staff will continue to support the work of the DDP.

Staff recommended approval of the “Proposed Organizational Chart” which shows the City Assessor and City Planner Departments reporting directly to City Council and moves the Economic Development Office to Public Services.

Responding to Council President Williams, Mr. DePrima stated no objections to the City’s Economic Development Office being directly under the City Manager rather than through the Public Services Department. Council President Williams also relayed concerns with the number of employees charged with economic development within the City of Dover, as well as the Kent County Economic Development Office. She indicated her feeling that the City is overstaffed in terms of economic development and her opposition to the request.

Mr. DePrima relayed opposition to there being a duplication of service between Kent County and the City of Dover and, since the City is currently committed to having an Economic Development Office, it was his feeling that it should be under the City Manager’s administration. Although he would prefer for the position to remain under the Public Services Department, he has no objections for its placement being directly under the City Manager.

Due to time constraints and the need for clarification and further discussion, Mr. Leary suggested that this matter be tabled.

Mr. Leary moved to recommend tabling the matter to allow for further discussion, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.

Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

Meeting adjourned at 7:03 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

William P. McGlumphy

Chairman

WPM/JS/tm/jg

S:ClerksOfficePACKETS2009Council12-14-200911-23-2009 LF&A.wpd

Attachments

Attachment #1 - PFP 2004-2008 Distribution Chart

Attachment # 2 - Email Dated November 23, 2009, Submitted by Dr. Hoff

Attachment # 3 - Email Dated November 23, 2009, Submitted by Mr. Steve Artz