Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates personnel and pay classification ordinance; seeks outside legal review on job-description authority
Summary
Council read a draft personnel and pay classification ordinance and spent extensive time debating whether job descriptions, qualifications and civil-service status should be adopted by ordinance or remain an executive responsibility; council approved seeking a second legal opinion.
The Shepherdsville City Council conducted a lengthy review of a proposed personnel and pay-rate classification ordinance that would set minimum and maximum base pay rates, authorized staffing levels and related classification details for city employees.
The ordinance author (sponsored by Council member Brad Whitaker) establishes positions, pay ranges and authorized staffing levels for administrative, public works, wastewater, fire and police departments. Council members and staff spent much of the meeting debating whether the ordinance should include detailed job descriptions, qualifications and other classification elements or whether that level of detail is an executive function reserved for the mayor’s office.
City Attorney Catherine (last name not specified in transcript) advised that state statutes and precedent limit the council’s ability to perform executive functions, and she recommended separating the pay/classification plan from job-description content or obtaining additional counsel to confirm the city’s authority. Council member Bonnie (last name not specified in transcript) said the classification and pay plan statutes require two documents — a position classification plan and a pay plan — and argued that short job specifications help ensure equitable hiring and prevent misassignment of duties that previously contributed to fiscal problems.
The council also debated civil-service status for certain positions. Members discussed whether the major fire marshal should be included in classified civil service; after discussion the council directed that the position be included (removing the prior exclusion) and that the matter not require additional change pending legal clarification.
Other substantive topics included longevity pay (staff explained longevity is calculated on base pay and is separate from base-rate increases) and proposed new positions for parks and recreation — an athletics coordinator and two parks workers — to prepare for anticipated growth in programming and facilities.
On a procedural motion the council voted to obtain a second legal opinion on whether the council may adopt job descriptions and specific qualifications by ordinance rather than leaving those matters to the mayor’s executive authority. The roll call on that motion recorded a majority in favor (Bonnie yes; Brad no for now; Jennifer yes; Rob yes; Faith yes).
Council read the ordinance summary for the first time; staff said they will continue to refine the document and circulate job descriptions from department heads. If department heads propose a job description the council wants changed, councilors said they can address the funding/authorization by leaving a position at zero authorized slots until the matter is resolved in the budget.
