Council Rejects New Position, Citing Need To Follow Policy

By Tammy Gray-Searles
   The Holbrook City Council sent a message that they will no longer approve actions that are not consistent with city policies during a meeting on April 28 in which they denied a budget amendment for a staff position that was not created according to policy.
   “You’re always coming to us asking for forgiveness. Typically, we approve almost everything,” Councilman Wade Carlisle said. “I’m not going to give permission after the fact again. I did it once, I’m not going to do it anymore.”
   Carlisle also said, “The problem is that you’ve never been around a council that’s a stickler for following the rules, but I’m going to follow the rules. I want it done right the first time.”
   City staff had requested that the council approve a budget amendment in order to fund a new permanent position in the streets department that was created to keep a temporary employee working on the curb and gutter project. City Manager Carlo Pilgrim told the council during the meeting that the temporary employee was hired when it became apparent that the city could save money by performing the curb and gutter work in-house, rather than through a contractor.
   According to Pilgrim, the temporary worker logged more than 120 days of work with the city, requiring the city to either end the temporary employment or turn the position into a permanent one. He told the council that the position was made permanent and paid out of the public works department budget. Pilgrim explained that it later became apparent that the position should have been paid out of Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), and so a budget amendment was requested.
   Councilman Kent Darris noted that the problem he saw with the situation was that an unbudgeted position was created without council approval, which is against city policy.
   “You’re forcing us to add money to a line item in the street budget because you hired an unbudgeted person,” he said.
   Finance Director Randy Sullivan told the council that there were funds available and that the position could be addressed in the upcoming 2009-10 budget.
   “I’m against this because of the way it was done,” Darris replied. “You’re forcing us to hire an unbudgeted employee and continue funding for the position next year.”
   Carlisle added, “My frustration is that it was known when you hired temporary employees that they would be out of time in 120 days. The original explanation that I received for this situation is not the one I just read in this memo.”
   The memo Carlisle referred to stated, “Temporary workers were hired as part of our curbs, sidewalks, valley gutters and radius project which began in December. Originally, the work was to be completed by a concrete contractor who was to do all the subgrade, forming, pouring and finishing work. The public works department was to identify and remove the existing cubs, sidewalks and gutters. Prior to bidding the job, staff determined hiring concrete workers on a temporary basis could accomplish the project more cost effectively, so the temporary worker program was initiated.
   “Impressive work has been completed by this in-house program, saving the city a considerable amount of money. In adherence to the requirement that employees are not considered temporary after 120 days, personnel advertised in-house for a street worker position. An interview team was put together to complete the selection process, three candidates were interviewed and the highest scoring candidate was hired as a probationary employee on April 14, 2009.
   “The finance director confirmed there was sufficient funding in the public works department, mistakenly identifying the position as a public works position rather than HURF funded. This action would be corrected on the attached budget amendment, paying this worker from HURF funds through June 30, 2009.”
   Councilman Kent Darris moved to deny the request, and Mayor Jeff Hill provided a second.
   Hill noted, “Bring this back to us in the budget process, or in the right way.”
   The motion passed, with Councilman Stuart Szink casting the lone dissenting vote. Councilmen Charles Haussman and Phil Cobb were not present.