Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Kuzma shared he is not in favor of adding Councilmembers to the nepotism policy. He <br />explained that if a Councilmember had a child who wanted to work for the City he does not see a <br />problem with that. He stated this has not been a problem for as long as he has served on the Council <br />and there have been Councilmember’s family members who have worked for the City. <br /> <br />City Administrator Hagen said this does not happen often and they have not had any major issues. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove noted that there is some clarifying language in this section around who <br />is and is not allowed to work for the City and where they are allowed to work. She asked if this <br />already addresses these concerns and if they would need to change this language to match the <br />proposed changes. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher said they would not need to change this language to match <br />the changes. She explained that marriage is protected against discrimination in the hiring process <br />and the nepotism policy cannot apply to an employee’s spouse. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht asked if this is a new policy on nepotism. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher stated this is not a new policy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked about the purpose of a probationary period versus training. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher explained that training is a part of the probationary <br />period; however, training is not the whole picture of the probationary period. She noted that once <br />an employee is trained and performing the job, they are still subject to probation to make sure they <br />are doing the job well. She reviewed the proposed revision from the current 6-month probationary <br />period to a one-year probationary period, this would only apply to non-union employees at this <br />point. There are other positions in the City that already have a one-year probation period, those <br />include various public safety positions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove shared the probationary period at her job is 90 days and asked about <br />the benefits of having such a long probationary period. She asked about the benefit to the City to <br />increase it from the current six months to one-year. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher explained that the City has non-union employees as well <br />as contracted employees. She noted that once an employee passes this probationary period it <br />becomes much harder to do things as simple as issuing a verbal reprimand. She explained these <br />reprimands are often grieved which then gets into the grievance process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell shared that she is supportive of lengthening the probationary period from <br />six months to one-year. She asked if the additional 90 day extension on top of this is also vital. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher noted it would be really unlikely that they would have to <br />even extend the probationary period by the 90 days; however, it is a good thing to have in place in <br />the event that it is needed. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / February 26, 2024 <br />Page 2 of 11 <br /> <br />