DUANE SHERRILLEditor

A resolution to update the city employee grievance policy failed to even undergo a vote as members of the board of mayor and aldermen wanted to first determine where they stand with hiring an outside Human Resources firm before they mess with city policy. A step toward that direction was made during a special-called session Thursday in which BoMA voted to put out a call for HR firm proposals.

The resolution that was before BoMA at its last regular meeting, was to amend the city personnel regulations when it came to grievance procedures. Specifically it would add the wording: “When an employee has a grievance or complaint against either a department head or the city administrator, said employee shall have the option of filing same in writing with the person, firm or entity selected by the board of mayor and aldermen to address said grievances or complaints,” the suggested resolution reads, adding that the entity that fields the complaint should then make recommendations to BoMA.

Alderman Bobbie Wilson questioned if the city was putting the cart before the horse as the board has not decided how it wants to go when it comes to either hiring an internal HR director or if it wants to bring in an outside firm. An attempt to hire an HR director failed in the last city council meeting as there were conflicting views on how the city should act on the issue. The HR director and/or HR firm question will be revisited at the next board meeting.

“We wouldn’t want to make any changes to our regulations before we do that,” she said.

Alderman Kurt Glick agreed, noting there needs to be a decision made on whether the city will contract an outside HR advisory firm. However, he said it is important to install the new wording.

“It provides the mechanism where an employee can do it (file grievances),” he said, noting the wording should be looked at as presently the first line of grievance is to file it with the person’s supervisor, even if the issue is with the supervisor. If it cannot be resolved then there is a mechanism to appear higher.

He wondered if the city administrator or supervisor should have a chance to hear and remedy the complaint before it goes to an outside firm.

“It lets us fix things in house,” Glick said of a two-fold system whereby the issue could be fixed internally before outside forces got involved.

He noted that sometimes the supervisor may not know they were upsetting someone and then mere grievance could serve as a corrective action without it being taken further. He added that farming all complaints out to an outside firm would end up costing the city a lot of money, when some if not most could be taken care of internally.

Mayor Lynn Sebourn disagreed with Glick. “Sometimes the grievance is severe enough that it’s not reasonable to ask them to do that (complain internally). We want to be able to protect people from those situations.”

Alderman Matthew Bird didn’t like the idea of an employee having to go to their supervisor to file the grievance. “That’s where we’re at right now is that there have been things going on that haven’t been reported and it’s built to a head,” he revealed. “So having that ability to go to a third party is a good idea.”

City Administrator Jason Quick turned the tables of the discussion, asking how grievances by the city administrator against aldermen or the mayor could be addressed.

“We’re not employees,” Mayor Sebourn responded. “We are paid, but we are not technically an employee.”

Alderman Busch Thoma interjected that he felt if a third party is hired to field grievances then the city administrator could file his grievance with them. Glick said there should be outlets for the city administrators to make grievances against aldermen and the mayor if there are any.