05/22/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Beal asked if there would be a comndttee to judge whether there is a 'bona fide sex requirement' for a position, or whether this is to be determined s'oJely by the Personnel Director; also, whether there are any employment agencies who adhere to equal employment policies. Gary Long, City personnel director, said since there are no bona fide sex requirements for any position in City employ- ment, judgment in that is not anticipated. He said as ,a result of his work with the Human Rights Commission there has developed a strong relationship'between the State and City employment offices with regard to ,minority and sex ~mployment practices. He said at the present time there is one black male and one black female working in the State office. -. Mrs. Bealasked what the 'normal' grievance procedure is, and it was explained as a series of appeals to the City Manager; if there is no resolution of the grievance at that level ,.there is ,the prerogative of appealing to the Human Rights commission. Lew Peters said he would be responsive to any woman or black having a grievance and who felt they needed consultation with someone other than their immediate supervisor. Mrs .,Beal asked about the policy of terminating employment because of marriage~ Manager replied that husband and wife working in the same department - create administrati ve problems. ,The same applied' wi th other close relati ves such as >, brother, ,father, sister, etc., ,working in the same department. However, in the case of marriage between two persons working in the -same department, - one or the other will have the opportunity of transferring to another department. If that is not possible, one will have to terminate. Lois Martin, consultant to the Human Rights commission in preparing, the study,on female employment practices, said there was a problem in developing the Affirma- tive Action Program policy, regarding married couples working within a department because the State guidelines state that a nepotism rule is discriminatory. She said efforts were made to include a conflict-of-interest clause which would pro- vide that employes could be terminated if it could be determined conflict related to job and individual circumstances rather than because of relationship to another person. The Commission did not approve, that substitute provision, but Ms. Martin said she would assume if the Council is willing to consider it at this,point it, could be included. She considered it a more healthy provision. . Michael Sprague said he considered the provision requiring termination in the event of marriage between persons in the same' department unfair. He also asked whether there is real access to the Human Rights ,Commission for people who have grievances. Mr. Edwards said in talking to various organizations, by way of media announcements, and through handbooks distributed throughout the communi ty, this knowledge is being disseminated. Mayor Anderson remarked that the vol ume of work now being processed by the Human Rights Commiss~on indicates the Commission is being utilized. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Council ask the staff to pre- pare a resolution supporting the Affirmative Action Program recommended by the Human Rights Commission and City administration for adoption at the next Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. . Mayor Anderson commented that adoption of this Program probably is the second most significant milestone in the area of human rights undertaken by the City; the first was the adoption of the Equal Opportunity ordinance. He said this program attests to the fact that the Human Rights Commission is taking very defini te, posi ti ve steps in human rights, and he complimented members of the Commission on the work. Theo Allen, with reference to Mrs. Beal's comment on the two years' work spent in bringing,the Program to this point, said a statement of action by the State government started in 1966 was just finalized this year. Comm 5/17/72 Approve B. Code. Amendment, Section 5.695 to 5.710 re: Immobilizing and Impounding Motor Vehicles - Copies' of proposed ordinance were previously distributed to Council members. The amendment would allow Community Service Officers in the Police Department or others then sworn police officers to attach 'a "boot" to immobilize vehicles in violation or which need to be impounded because of a large collection of parking tiekets. ..This will free police from a time consuming process which can be done more economically by others. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by J1!.r. Hershner to amend the Code as recommended. In answer to, Mrs. Beal, Manager said under the new ordinance meter maids would be included among those who could legally attached the "boot." Vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion carried unanimously. Comm 5/17/72 Approve' /'15' 5/22/72 - 9