Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waite Park council adopts updated personnel and non‑DOT cannabis testing policies; code of ethics deferred
Summary
The Waite Park City Council approved updated personnel policies, a non‑DOT alcohol/cannabis/drug testing policy reflecting recent legislative changes, and council/staff standards of engagement; the council deferred a separate code of ethics to the July meeting.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Waite Park City Council on Monday approved three staff policy updates, including revised personnel rules, a non‑DOT alcohol and cannabis testing policy and new council‑and‑staff standards of engagement, the city administrator said.
Administrator (S1) told the council the revisions reflect recent legal changes on cannabis and said the documents have been circulated to staff and supervisors. “I would recommend that you do these,” the administrator said, urging the council to act on the three items presented.
Council member Vic raised a concern during the discussion, saying he did not see the code of ethics included and at one point said, "I intend not to support that." The administrator acknowledged the omission and said the code of ethics section will be brought back at the July meeting for consideration. Despite his earlier objection, Vic later made the motion to approve all three items; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote called by the presiding officer.
The changes include an updated non‑DOT alcohol/cannabis/drug testing policy intended to align city procedures with recent state legislative changes regarding cannabis. The administrator said the updates were reviewed with the city attorney and shared with employees and supervisors in multiple meetings.
Why it matters: personnel and testing policies determine workplace responsibilities, disciplinary steps and how the city implements state law for non‑DOT positions. The council’s action puts the city’s written rules in closer alignment with current state law while reserving the standalone code of ethics for a future meeting.
The council did not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript; the motion passed on a voice vote. The code of ethics will return at the council’s July meeting for separate consideration.

