Laserfiche WebLink
Merit Board of Appeals May 22,2013 <br /> Mr. Hermes informed the Board that this policy is flexible and can be adjusted <br /> over time. There is consultation with the unions and decisions from the <br /> Administration,relative to other authorities out there. <br /> Mr. Kuewa inquired whether there will be annual reports comparing the old policy <br /> with the new one. <br /> Mr. Hermes replied that they hadn't considered that because the general process <br /> hasn't changed, so there really wouldn't be any different reportable item. The <br /> main purpose was to get rid of the 19 to 20 different policies and to standardize it <br /> to just one. <br /> C) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF THE <br /> DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO INCLUDE NAME CHANGE, <br /> EXPANDED DEFINITIONS, EXTENDING DEADLINES AND REDUCING <br /> TIMEFRAMES, INCLUDING ADVERSE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST <br /> EMPLOYEES, ADDING DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT <br /> COMPLAINTS, AND REQUIRING EMPLOYEES SERVING ON AN <br /> INITIAL PROBATION DEMONSTRATE FITNESS AND ABILITY. <br /> Ms. Toriano provided the following update to the HR Department's Administrative <br /> Rules proposed changes: <br /> Name Change: Information was added regarding the name change from <br /> "Civil Service"to "Human Resources." <br /> Electronic Recruitment System: The deadline for submittal of applications <br /> was extended to midnight because now it's a 24/7 web-based recruitment. <br /> The timeframe for filing an administrative review has been changed from <br /> ten days to seven days. <br /> Sub-Chapter 2 (definitions): Expanded the definition of"probationary <br /> appointment." Also, added definitions for attorneys, such as"reasonable <br /> accommodations,""recall list,"registration list," select priority list," <br /> temporary appointment outside a list," and"transfer." <br /> Ms. Rabago inquired whether other county or state entities will <br /> adopt the same clarification for"probationary appointment." <br /> Mr. Takahashi informed the Board that the amendment was whether <br /> a termination of an initial probationary appointment was appealable <br /> to this body (MAB) or not. The HR position was that it was not. <br /> There were several hearings or rulings by the MAB,through the <br /> influence of the Attorney General's Office, who represents the <br /> MAB in the appeal process hearing that it is appealable. He stated <br /> Page 4 <br />