Stockton Silver Service Commission approves eligibility lists, hears EEO and personnel updates

2366595 · February 20, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Stockton Silver Service Commission unanimously adopted multiple resolutions certifying eligibility lists and approved removing names from an eligibility list during a closed session, the commission reported when it reconvened in February 2025.

The Stockton Silver Service Commission unanimously adopted multiple resolutions certifying eligibility lists and approved removing names from an eligibility list during a closed session on a February 2025 meeting date, the commission reported after reconvening.

The actions matter because the eligibility lists determine who may be considered for appointments or hiring under the commission—s purview; the body took no public comment prior to the closed-session votes.

After roll call established a five-member quorum, the commission adjourned into closed session for action items 3.1 through 3.7. When the meeting resumed, the city attorney reported that, by unanimous vote, commissioners adopted the resolutions certifying the respective eligibility lists for action items 3.1 through 3.6. The city attorney also reported that, by unanimous vote on action item 3.7, commissioners approved removal of names from an eligibility list. The city attorney did not provide further details about the names or the reasons for removal at the time of the report.

In open session commissioners adopted the consent calendar on a motion and second; the clerk recorded the vote as 5-0 in favor. The motion text on the record was the adoption of the consent calendar; specific items included as part of the consent calendar were not read into the public transcript during the meeting.

The commission then received informational reports. Sergeant Christopher Slate of the Stockton Police Department presented the department—s 2024 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) report and said the document had been distributed to commissioners. —7I—m here to present the 2024 EEO report, which you all should have received by now,—8 Slate said. No commissioners asked questions about the EEO report during the meeting.

Human Resources staff notified the commission of an administrative amendment to the classification specifications for Library Assistant I, Library Assistant II and Senior Library Assistant; staff said this was an update to the job descriptions and no action by the commission was required. Staff also notified the commission of approval, at the city council level, of a new job classification for an animal services manager; staff described the notice as informational and said the classification had been adopted by the City Council.

Commissioners used the meeting to introduce two recently appointed members. Commissioner Michelle J. Sherman said she was —7excited—8 to join the commission and to work with the community. Commissioner Raymond Zuleta said he was born and raised in Stockton and noted prior service on the Stockton Unified School District Board of Education and as a parks and recreation commissioner.

The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn passed 5-0. There were no public comments during the session and no substantive debate recorded on the items presented to the commission.

Votes at a glance: - Action items 3.1—6: Resolutions certifying respective eligibility lists; vote: unanimous (approved). Source: city attorney report after closed session. - Action item 3.7: Approval of removal of names from an eligibility list; vote: unanimous (approved). Source: city attorney report after closed session. - Consent calendar (item 9): Motion to approve; vote: 5-0 (approved). Source: roll call and clerk count. - Motion to adjourn: vote: 5-0 (approved).

Requests for additional details about the specific eligibility lists, the identities of any removed names, or the EEO report—s contents were not recorded in the public portions of the transcript.