MIN CHC 1989-05-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

could we not do away with your proposal for staggered terms by referring to Section 13-4 and its recommendation for staggering? At some point , we ' re going to have to simplify a lot of our proposals. BETHEA: If I . . .well if I could just comment on that , because I read 13 .4 . It works out okay as long as you initially start off with five. The situation they find themselves in now is they had set up with seven and then it got changed to five. And probably you need some methodology to get it back to five, which I presume is handled by providing that no two terms shall end in the same year and no appointment shall be more than five years. I presume that mathematically, with that guidance over some periods of time, we could achieve the staggered five-year terms . Is that right , Mr. Luke? (Tape change. ) CUSHNIE: Could that not be done through house- keeping (inaudible) because this proposal will not fulfill the two, it says initial (inaudible) propose the staggered terms of one year, two years , three years , four years and five-year requirements. I understand what he' s trying to do. I 'm just wondering if we can' t simply things by having the housekeeping done some place else. (Inaudible) overwhelming number of proposals (inaudible) covered if we (inaudible) . Just a question. Perhaps there might be another way to do it. And I ask Mr. Luke, who appoints your deputy director? LUKE: The personnel director appoints the deputy. CUSHNIE: And he is there at the pleasure of the deputy. . .or of the director? LUKE: Of the director , yes. CUSHNIE: You have the authority to fire him? LUKE: Yes. GREENWELL: Gonna be rather difficult to get five people from. . .representing six districts. BETHEA: Does it provide in here that the director shall appoint the deputy director? LUKE: No, this is in state law, the state civil service law. BETHEA: Well , this isn' t one of these things because of the influence of state laws; you wonder how 361