Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-19 CC MIN Special Meeting• • 434 • COUNCIL CHAMBLES ,Irene 19, 1981 6:30 Y. M. Stillwater, Minnesota SPECIAL MEETING The meeting was opened by Mayor Junker. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodiovick, CounCouncilmen MacDonald and Peterson a Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director- Coordinator, Kriesel City Attorney - Magnuson Director of Public Safety - Abrahamson Press: Jim Broede Citzens: Mr. & Mrs. Cy Turnblad, Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Roettger, Monty Brine, Art Sievert, Larry Dauffenbach MAYOR JUNKER announced that this meeting was called to discuss the hiring of c Police Officer for the City of Stillwater. MAYOR JUNKER recommended the employment of Richard Ulrich as a Police Officer for the City of Stillwater. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK moved to confirm the appointment. COUNCILMAN PETERSON felt that there should be discussion as to whether or not the Council has taken the necessary steps leading up to the making of this appoint- went. (There was no second to Councilwoman Bodlovick's motion) The Council discussed the action and events that had taken place prior to the meeting tonite. candidates fr m S burbandPolicetRecruiting first System After screening obtain and vi the City decided not to appoint someone from this list and elected to advertise (locally and in Metro area papers) the position opening. The City received about 55 screenedctheseaapplicaattions the 13 finalists. Committee and were then given to tee o an Sher interview . Croix that consisted the Assistant of of od.e1This, er Grove Sheriff of thayo County five names. MR. PETERSON felt that group gave the Mayor an washe lot snceinong the whole process has been en washed out since no action has ever been taken on these five people and now they only have one of the five people left. individualOinwviewsofdtheo facththat only one candidate a hiring from the originallis is available and would it be discrimination to hire any other individual. MR. MAGNUSON felt that it is a discretionary decision for the Council and they have -- feels pthat ossibilitis the to to have someone who is already trained and familiar with the City, then these are factors that are worth some points; however, how it weighs out depends on the total history of the City's hiring practices including what is being done in the present case. accandidateNlower onethetlistst wuld without considering extremely justify c nsideringallf the thehother of \ applicants we've had in between the top and bottom candidates. someone0from that i that we should not have to hire from Stillwater who is we certified and has already been a policeman. Several questions were raised by the members of the audience regarding the process and the screening of the $ -60 candidates of the second application p r oc ess. can par the audience wondered whether the criteria was uniformly app There was discussion about licensed and eligible to be licensed candidates. Questions were also raised as to why the top candidate was not hired. COUNCILMAN PETERSON felt that in spite of the top candidate's education and back- ground that he was not the policeman type. There was again discussion concering the options the Council now has in hiring a police officer. • • • • t if VMS ME. MAGNUSON stated that the Council could re- advertise - rescreen - rehire - re-evaluate and on the other hand the Council could appoint someone tonite and hire him. In general hiring practices are evaluated in regard to whether in the past top candidates on the objective scores have been turned down for people low on the list - whether there ate any minority people in the Police Department at the present time - whether in this case the Suburban Police Standards were followed - whether the second time around the screening standards were objectively applied - whether the criteria was subjective in eliminating the 50 candidates down to 13 - whether all of the candidates were rut through the same "hoops" and judged on the same basis - the question is whether there was reasonableness and fairness or whether the action was discrimatiry and that conclusion can only be made by a court and the only people that are capably of bringing such a claim to court would be someone that would be aggrieved by that sort of discriminatory decision - people lower on the list would have poor stand- ing - people who were high on the list turned down and maybe refused other employ- ment based upon their likelihood of being hired would have a better standing. The difficulty with these discriminatory cases is that there are also sanctions - -there is personal liability of the Council members for being discriminatory in addition to the City for damages - there is the possibility of jeopardizing federal grants like Revenue Sharing - there is a disclosure from that he and Mr. Kriesel fill out every year outlining whether the City has had any discrimination claims or any civil rights violations and if there are sanctions or penalties that can be brought against the City - the question of discrimination is really three -fold- (1) what have the practices been; (2) what did you do; (3) who was aggrieved by the problem and the likelihood of that person bringing an action. It is the discretion of the Council and it is part of their elected responsibility - it is not fair to say that they are absolutely bound to do one thing or another - while there are legal implications to the Council's decision, it is discretionary. COUNCILMAN PETERSON Moved that we completely abolish the applicant lists that are before use and after due consideration suggest possibly a thirty day cooling off period, that the Council get back together again and decise what their next advertising effort will be. Ther was concern from the business community about the evening policing and particularly for Lumberjack Days and other evening policing problems. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE did not feel that they should wait that long to make a decision. COUNCILMAN PETERSON requested that his motion be changed to that this matter come before the Council on the 23rd following the other discussions and remain here until they hassel this out - whether it be an outright hiring, screening or what- ever it might be.' (He was concerned about a walking patrol for the downtown every day either in the daytime or night- time.) COUNCILMAN MAC DONALD seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes -- Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson Nsrs -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, and Mayor Junker (Motion defeated) COUNCILWOMAN AVISE asked the Mayor if he was willing to look at the remaining two candidates - he indicated that he wanted confirmaticn of his appointment. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Peterson moved for adjournment which was seconded by Councilman MacDonald at 7:30 P. M. (all in favor) Attest. c City Coordinator June 19 1981 Mayor 435 • • • •