Yes. No. Maybe. I’m not sure.
Lucia Nunez, Director of the Department of Civil Right is going to be out of work for 2 months or so, so yesterday, we got the following in an email from the Mayor’s Office.
In Lucia’s absence, I am naming Larry Studesville as Acting Director of the Department of Civil Rights. Larry is the former Administrative Services Director at the state Department of Workforce Development. He has solid experience as a leader and a manager. Larry will assume the position effective today. I ask that staff and commissioners please help Larry get acclimated to the important mission and issues of the Department of Civil Rights, as he is taking over this role on short notice and without much time with Lucia to transition.
While everyone wishes Lucia a speedy recovery, this email prompted more than one person to ask me, can he do that? What’s the authority? I gotta say, I’m not quite sure. I went to the ordinances and this is what I found.
The situation doesn’t seem to fall under the “acting appointment” because she is in Comp Group 21 and the leave of absence isn’t going to be that long and the person hasn’t been out for 30 days and she’s not expected to be out for 6 months.
(f) Acting Appointment : An appointment to a position in Compensation Group 17, 18, 43 or 44 which is made to fill a vacancy directly or indirectly created under circumstances when an employee holding a permanent position shall have secured a leave of absence of at least six (6) months duration and/or in the event that such employee shall have been absent because of illness or injury for thirty (30) days and it is reasonable to expect such employee will not return for an additional one hundred fifty (150) days. Such vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as “permanent” position vacancies and employees filling such vacancies shall in all ways be treated as other promoted employees except that such employees shall have the title of “acting” added to their job title. Should the employee in Compensation Group 17, 18, 43 or 44 holding permanent status in the position to which the acting appointment was made return to work in that position, the “acting” employee shall return to the position held prior to the acting appointment andpay and other benefits to that employee shall be as though no promotion to an acting appointment had occurred. In the event that it is determined that the “permanent” employee will not return, the “acting” appointment will automatically become a permanent appointment. (Am. by Ord. 8543, 3-18-85; Renum. by ORD-07-00048, 4-12-07)
And the position requires a “double-fill” since Lucia is still employed by the City, but the Council hasn’t approved anything. The ordinances require approvals as follows:
(h) The Human Resources Director, with the approval of the Mayor, and of the Common Council if the action requires the expenditure of more than $2000 and/or is for longer than 30 days, is authorized to double-fill any position for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) calendar days unless such period is extended by action of the Common Council. (Am. by Ord. 9929, 1-11-90; Renum. by ORD-07-00048, 4-12-07)
I asked and I didn’t find anything else to guide us in this situation. In fact, I confirmed that nothing really governs this situation. This is what I learned:
Generally the positions we refer to as “Interim” would technically be non-civil service provisional appointments or a non-civil service limited term appointments. I don’t believe the term “interim” appears or is in anyway defined in 3.53.
The non-civil service designation comes from the first section of 3.53 where positions are specifically identified as non-civil service and are therefore excluded from the terms of 3.53. The exclusions include essentially all compensation group 21 (Department Head) positions.
A provisional appoint is defined as “An appointment to a position for which there is no eligibility list.”
A limited term appointment is defined as “An appointment during a leave of absence of a permanent employee…”
There are no additional rules or restrictions with regard to how provisional or limited term appointments are to be made.
Guess we’ll need to fix that. Meanwhile, the double fill ordinance provision should still apply. Right?
Actually, I’m surprised that we’re appointing anyone to this position since it is expected to be a short term leave, or that we didn’t just take a manager from another department and put them in the position as we have done in the Treasurer’s, Park’s and Water Utility departments.
I’m not sure anything is actually wrong here, meaning I don’t think there is any harm done. I’m just not sure I understand why and when we do things that we do. And I don’t clearly see the authority to do this and that concerns me. But I’m more concerned about that lack of transparency that is part of what makes so many people question what we do. Just like the business community, our employees and the public just want some type of predictability and consistency and I can’t blame them. I want it too.
