Minutes - Council - 08/14/1996 - Reconvened

Home

Ms. Waite Smith expressed her concern that next month when the tester shows up, an employee can just walk away. Why should the City pay $600 per year to the testing company if an employee doesn't have to take the test. Ms. Koskinen reiterated that they have not denied that some discipline is appropriate. That would address the issue of an employee walking away from the test as they will know that some sort of discipline will be imposed. She inquired what the City would impose short of discharge and added that this is the first occurrence of the drug testing. Mr. Belsaas made a bad decision - it impacted his life substantially. We do not feel he should be terminated. You may not be able to substantiate a claim if you do not do this. If other employees do this, it will be dealt with individually ~ he made a bad choice. Ms. Waite Smith commented "so we need to change our City's policy to say that you get a couple of chances. Ms. Koskinen replied no, policies can be changed unilaterally - that's part of why we have a collective bargaining unit so each party has a chance to review. This policy had never been implemented before and that's put a different "wrinkle" in something that you have read. Termination is not appropriate. Councilmember Beahen stated that Ms. Koskinen constantly refers to "first occurrence". That has little weight - first or tenth occurrence. With regard to random drug testing, "we do have a very specific policy in effect and suggesting that this policy change because we have to enforce k concerns me". The City, very specifically, has made all employees aware of this policy and the effect of not complying with it. It is unfortunate that we are all here but the seriousness of this is of great concern. This employee says he will do the drug testing today or tomorrow. This test is to determine at a specific time if any drags/alcohol are in the system - to do the test tomorrow would abolish the result. Suggesting that the City should be more lenient when the policy is very sp~ific - is not beneficial. Why have the policy. She was concerned about setting a precedence of an employee being able to walk away from a drug test if a fn'st offense is treated lightly. They would be allowed time to purify their system, then say they made a mistake to not take the test and request to take it at that time. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he is sorry this happened to Mr. Belsaas but he (Zimmerman) has a job to do and an obligation to the public. He felt if he made a "wishy/washy" decision, pertaining to this disciplinary action, he would be unable to face his neighbors. Councilmember Beyer expressed her agreement. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to adopt Resolution 4t96-08-195 adopting Findings of Fact//0406 relating to disciplinary action regarding employee Gregg Belsaas. Further discussion: Ms. Koskinen inquired if that means termination to which Mr. Goodrich replied yes. Ms. Koskinen asked to recess so that she and Mr. Belsaas could confer. Mayor Hardin recessed the Council meeting at 6:09 p.m. Mayor Hardin reconvened the meeting at 6:14 p.m. Further discussion continued: Ms. Koskinen urged City Council to consider the severity of the discipline. We do not believe it's precedent setting. We do not believe this grievance justifies such a serious action. We ask you to reject the resolution. Mr. Belsaas has stated he is real sorry and if he had it to do over again, it would be a lot different. City Council/August 14, 1996 Page 3 of 4