Laserfiche WebLink
amendments . Section 4 . 5 and 5-1 .4 (b) . Would you like to <br /> discuss those? <br /> LUKE: Yes , Mr. Chairman. These two sections have <br /> things in it that. . . in them that are in conflict with the <br /> state statute. Section 4. 5(a) , if I may read it , states <br /> a point. . .and this is the power of an agency to appoint <br /> and remove a deputy or assistant and private secretary <br /> "and such positions shall be exempt from civil service <br /> laws and classifications . " This is not accurate. Then <br /> a. . .the secretary may be exempt from civil service law in <br /> terms of appointment , but not exempt from classifica- <br /> tion. We do classify all department head secretaries in <br /> our classification plan in accordance with civil service <br /> law. So this is in conflict with civil service law. <br /> The same is so for the section below. And what we <br /> propose is what , Mr. Chairman, you proposed at one point <br /> in this hearing. And that is (inaudible) state that such <br /> appointment shall be in accordance with civil service <br /> law. And this is what we propose. <br /> BETHEA: So, would it make it clear that if we have <br /> this language, instead "it shall be in accordance with <br /> civil service law" , would it make it clear that the <br /> appointment and removal powers remain vested in the <br /> administrative head? In other words , as I understand <br /> what you' re saying is that. . . that these people are <br /> classified. They' re within a County classification <br /> system for purposes of determining pay and items of that <br /> nature. Is that correct? <br /> LUKE: Yes. <br /> BETHEA: Let ' s . . .what this says . . . it says they can <br /> appoint and remove a deputy or assistant and a private <br /> secretary and such persons shall be exempt from civil <br /> laws, service laws and classification. Now that ' s not <br /> true, because they' re subject to civil service classifi- <br /> cation systems. Is that correct? <br /> LUKE: That ' s right. <br /> BETHEA: What I 'm asking you is , the language that <br /> you suggest, would that diminish the power of the depart- <br /> ment head to appoint and remove a deputy? <br /> LUKE: I don' t believe so, Mr. Chairman, because <br /> we' re not proposing that we take out the phrase, "Appoint <br /> and remove a deputy or assistant and a private <br /> secretary. " That stays in. Only. . .and we ' re only saying <br /> that the status of these individuals shall be in accor- <br /> dance with civil service law. And the status , according <br /> to civil service law is that , they are. . . the private <br /> 367 <br />