City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, it's 5.30. I call this meeting to order. For those that would like to participate, rise for the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

You may be seated. Chris, take the roll, please.

Here. First item is consent agenda part one. Do I have a motion to approve consent agenda part one? Motion to approve.

Second. Your Honor, I would like to withdraw number four for questions that I might have. before we vote on it?

Mayor, I wanted to talk about three too.

Okay, so are these Do we just want to have discussion on them or are you wanting to make a motion to remove them and look at them separately?

Okay, so we're going to start with the first motion. So we have a motion to remove item number four from the consent agenda. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Chris, take the roll.

Can we do that? I thought he said one at a time. No, that doesn't have to be one at a time.

Can we do that? Just remove both of them.

So then I would ask if you'd like to amend, Mr. Kavanagh, if you'd like to amend your motion. to remove item number three and four from the consent agenda.

I would be happy to amend my request for four and three together.

Okay. So that's the motion. Do I have a second? Second. And Chris, take the roll, please.

So with that, those two items are removed. We're going to look at the rest of the consent agenda without three and four. So do I have a motion for the rest of that? One through nine minus three. Second. Good. Before I call for a roll, I did want to kind of highlight, I think it's item number eight. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't anybody from the public that wanted to talk about that right now. it's number five or number five yep number five so number five would be um just setting the the public hearing um for the subdivision of the at the corner of 65th fifth and south miller um again

So with this, do I have a motion to approve?

That was actually my question. And I know it's a dumb question if it needed to go through the fleet committee or needed to go through. Well, go through the fleet committee for approval because even though it's not a whole vehicle, it would be a change to a vehicle. That was my question. Sure.

My question, Jake, is how many vehicles do we have in that department?

And it was a good one. No real debate about whether this needs to be replaced because another council member told me that she took a ride in it with you and thought it was going to fall apart.

I don't have any further comments, questions.

Okay. If no other questions, Chris, take the roll, please.

With that, we'll move to consent agenda part two. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve.

And then with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Chris, take the roll, please.

That I'll turn it over to Administrator Rath.

Administrator Rath, can I also comment on that for a second? So also there were some comments and I had some people reach out to me saying, well, why weren't there open bids? That kind of thing, too. How long has this building been owned by the city and how many times have we tried to sell this building? Do you know off the top of your head? Because I just want everyone to know, like. The opportunity has been there.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified because, again, there were some misconceptions about that, too. Thank you.

Yeah, wait, wait, before we go further, can we just wait two seconds while all the people on Facebook write that down so they can remember? I had a boring day. Now I'm going to be attacked, I know, but I'm glad that was brought up and brought to light.

How much did we? So again, we're watching. I just got the camera. We ended up saving.

Could I ask a question additionally on that? Someplace in my mind, it ran that they were making a request for the city to give them additional funds to help resurrect that building. Am I wrong?

My understanding is they applied for grant money, and they're working towards historic tax credits. Trying to stack dollars towards the project.

That wasn't a request from the city. That was my question.

So now I just, if you're here and you'd like to speak on any of the agenda items, I would encourage you to write out a slip of paper. It's in the basket on that front banister. That way we can get you plugged in on the right agenda item. And with that, we'll move into the ordinances.

I have a motion to approve. Move the recommendation. Any questions or comments? I know I visited this a couple times. If no other questions, Chris, would you take the roll, please?

I have a motion to approve. Move the recommendation. Okay, Mr. Burgmeier, do you have anything to add? Or I guess is there any questions? Yeah, is there any questions from council?

Have you ordered the circle lights for those signs?

Well, my comment is in the future, if there's a need for them, we will readdress the light for those stop signs if there's a need.

Someone made that decision on the one down with that bank on 2nd Street.

I can't remember if it's Marion or the plane.

Okay, thank you. How much is it for those lights for the stop sign?

I will identify, so I'm glad we don't, the roundabout discussion. So I saw probably an eight-year-old trying to cross the roundabout at Albia, and that kid looked terrified trying to cross it. So I stopped, and then I honked a horn to get the other car coming to stop, but that poor little kid was terrified. So I'm glad that that conversation has paused for now.

Mayor, I'd just like to say one more thing, and then is Councilman Kavanagh, the idea of the stop sign lights, if we get further grants or whatever, I support him on that. I like, I, we have more, I work and I, I think they're great. I think they draw attention. They're great. I understand the budgetary needs and to save money, but in the future, if we get grants or we get a way to do that, I think it's a good idea too.

Well, we're not asking for every sign in town.

It'd be good sometime if you could actually get a quote for what those costs instead of just guessing it.

Okay, no other questions. Chris, take the roll, please.

Move the recommendation. So our human resource director, Ms. Kojo.

Don't you think it's more logical to put all this information into the annual review of the handbook instead of making contributions through the year? It just seems like it's very confusing for the employees. to be able to know what is the real reason now. We have to go look for, see if there's a new book or a new input to the book. It just seems to me like logical to update it once a year.

We have to remember that some of these policy changes are policies that we've enacted within the last year or two that they've had to update also. So it's not all just staff, it's policies that we have asked to be changed and added or updated. I also, as someone who writes and handles our policy book in my everyday life, I appreciate this too, because I'm currently updating a policy for the last year and it's a lot of work.

I think I have a different view of everybody. My former employer, I won't call him out. We had a program which I totally agree with. I wouldn't even have a printed handbook because things change so much that if you keep it online, Then you update it online and everybody has 24-hour access to the changes.

Well, yeah, and that's what I mean. But that was the only way you could get it. There wasn't even a book because the fear was is something would happen and you would grab a policy that's a month old that changed two weeks ago. So, I mean, I see both ways. I get it. I mean, I get the confusion. I mean, I get what councilman Debray and cabinets are saying too, that it can get confusing for employees. I get it, but there is a lot of change though. There is quite a bit of change. And the unfortunate thing is, is a city four States away can screw up and ruin it for everybody. And then we all have to have a call. You know what I mean? Like,

Well, I would like to mention one, thank you for answering all those questions that I sent you at such a late notice. There are a couple of answers that I think we probably need to talk about just because it's if council would like, or if council approves. So that might be something that we need to kind of focus our discussion on. One, you talked about, or I had asked about the confidentiality part of an investigation. And you said we can add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation. So I guess that'd be one thing. Is that something that council would

Yeah, 5.2 in the personnel policy. There was also, of course, we had talked last time about non-union employees having someone, a support person, there during disciplinary hearings. And I know we kind of went back and forth on that. And I have that.

Oh, no. When you said a person there, was that a person in a disciplinary or investigation?

I don't think the investigation... I don't think anybody can be in there with an investigation, can they? Even union? The intent was try to make union, non-union the same.

So the intent, I believe, of the comment last time we discussed this, and this was back in June, was that non-union employees would have the same ability as a union employee to have someone there.

So that was another thing. I think counsel, we need to talk about whether that gets added in. And then there was another, go ahead.

Can we back up just one second? I mean, I get this, but if we update it once a year, let's just go right there. And this is just questions I have. and then something changes, then what do we do? I mean, then how, like say it's a,

Then you would issue a memo or something like that, which then again is a new, like, hey, this is a memo of a policy that will be updated in our handbook, but then again, we're getting back to the updates.

So what's more confusing then? I agree. Changing the policy or 25 memos that you gotta keep track of?

Well, I would also state if we're gonna do something like that, if we wanna limit, I mean, I think right now you're coming quarterly.

Seems to me like Councilman Hoffman's suggestion to put it online would be the simplest format of everything.

So what are we doing here tonight? What are you asking us to do?

Mayor, can we go through your points that you wanted to talk to one by one so that we don't get confused with them?

Well, the one that was discussed back in June was the possibility of having a support person the same way a union employee would have available. And that's the language that Mrs. Kojo just read off to us. So that would, if we added that to the policy, then that would be available for non-union employees to have a support person there during investigation and any disciplinary action. So that's one item. Another item was just adding language regarding the confidentiality during an investigation. And I was looking at the definitions when I asked that question. I just wanted to make sure that it w

I think that was appropriate. Is that the three things we talked about?

And that would be like supervisory. I do have a question in regards to that. And that's really where does council fit into this whole process? Because as we define the city, council wasn't mentioned. So in an investigation disciplinary process, where does council fit in?

Okay. And we have that language in here already.

Yeah. Well, on that point too, I'm just bringing it up. If,

council was included in an investigation that might make us legally yeah that gets that gets muddy really really fast yeah yeah but i wanted to make sure to ask the question um the only other question i had in addition to the questions um when we're looking at the supervisor consultation with hr totally understand should it be the administrator that is told instead of hr So that's a question I would have, and maybe for consideration by council as well. So this was, I was just asking, if I remember the question correctly, it says that the supervisor then, if there is disciplinary action needed,

Well, and if they're going to HR, they probably already had the conversation with you, Administrator Rath, and you've probably directed them or their supervisor, correct? Because it might be a supervisor to a department head who's

Well, I see the mayor's point because we're having the conversation and there's a lot of good things said here. I agree with a lot of that, but that kind of shows we don't have a clear understanding of the scope of practice. You see what I'm saying? Like, I mean, we're discussing, you know, employee goes to HR sometimes and then city administrator sometimes. I think we need clear criteria. Yeah, I know that's hard. I know that clear criteria.

And to be clear, this is when a supervisor or department head needs to implement disciplinary action on an employee. So it's not the employee coming to HR, it's a supervisor or department head coming to HR or administrator. That's why I'm asking the question is if they're needing to take disciplinary action on an employee, who's the correct person to go to? Who does council want them to go to?

In the situation you just explained, I think it would be nothing to take away from HR, but that would be, I think city administrator and then he could direct from there.

I'm wondering if just the verbiage of going to HR under the direction of administrator

right because i see what i see what bill saint or city minister is saying is we could close an open door right

I think we're making this more complicated than it is. I think that department heads and like, so supervisors know that they need to go to their department heads if there's some action that needs to be taken. And I think department heads have the ability to understand, hey, I have to ask HR a question or I need to do this. Or if they need like guidance on, hey, I don't really know which way to go, then they would go to HR. Administrator Rath, but I think in the end, if a decision has been made either way that they're going, HR is the appropriate person. But I think we're making this overly com

And we may be, but the way I envision it is the department head would be the one who decides the disciplinary action and HR would just be the support role for that disciplinary action and not making HR discipline. They're not the disciplinary. We could be closing another open door. Right.

Right. And, you know, I'll say I'll stop with this because I know. But, you know, it works both ways, too. I wouldn't want to. If one of them had to hold somebody accountable, I wouldn't want to stop them either. You know what I mean? Like, I mean, if we're going to do something stupid and get sued for a million dollars. Yeah. But we don't want to take away their autonomy to hold people accountable. Sure.

So with that discussion, it sounds like probably the three things that we've talked about as far as adding or revising would be whether we wanna have non-union employees have a support person, if we wanna add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation, And if we want to have clarifying language of the appeals process being different than the grievance process.

And adding reference to performance deficiencies and other legitimate reasons under suspension definition. So, okay, so for the suspension definition, the adding reference to performance deficiencies and other legitimate reasons, I think that's appropriate. I would say that we do add that.

Consensus on all this, can I? We don't have to vote on them all, do we? You could do each one by consensus. By consensus? Okay.

All right. So with that item that Congress member Galloway brought up the suspension definition, adding that term, the reference, is there anyone that disagrees with that? Okay. So by consensus, we'll add that. We'll move to the language about regarding confidentiality requirement under internal investigation is that language that we want to add. I'm fine with that. Okay. I guess what I would ask, is there anyone that disagrees with adding that?

Do you want me to read it again? Please. Okay. So there's not the language yet, but it says we can add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation process section, rather than within the definition itself. Confidentiality is not just a descriptive element of an investigation. It is a procedural obligation that applies to everyone involved, including supervisors, HR witnesses, and any support persons. If counsel approves the addition, because it governs how investigations must be conducted, it is most appropriate and effective when included within the inv

So is there anyone that disagrees with adding that language to the policy? So with that, we'll add that per consensus. We're going to go to clarifying the city.

So is there anyone in disagreement as far as further defining what the city means with those terms? Okay, with no disagreement, we'll add that per consensus. I'm gonna move to the separation or clarification between the appeals process and the grievance process and that just states if council approves, I can add clarifying language so it is explicit that the appeals process applies only to discipline and does not replace or eliminate the existing grievance procedure. So is there anyone in disagreement with adding that clarifying language? Hearing none, then we'll add that. And then the final t

I just have a question about this. So I know it says that the right to confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. So should a support person be in there? And, and I don't know how it works with the union too, but should a support person be in there and they run and tell someone, Hey, this is what just happened. Not that they would. I'm just, what if like that, the person that had the investigatory can't come back and say, Hey, like come back on the city or anything. Right. And

I'm assuming we would have something for them to sign.

And it could be the union representative as well on the other side of things.

I don't want to commit to the way I'm voting right now, but I've literally done hundreds of investigations. And everybody you put in the room is a potential liability. And it could be. I mean, but I want to do what's right. for the employees an employee may say i want somebody in the room you know for my safety or to be there but i've been on investigations or that person that they requested was a detriment to him and it actually harmed their case because they did say something now i'm not coming into the way i'm going to vote right here or the consensus i'm just saying um even for city liabil

So I'm hearing one maybe, one that feels that this should not be added. Is that what I'm hearing? Is there anyone that feels that this should be added?

if we add it. Like I said, all it would take is one person, but you know, I don't want to discount.

Out of the hundreds of investigations I've done, most secrets or confidentiality that is broken is by accident and not maliciously, but that doesn't make it less broken. That's a good point. So I'm coming at it from a point of the staff member and the protection of their privacy.

When it comes to discipline, dumb question, do we record?

Yeah, I don't know. I stand on that opinion. I just think it would open up the city and the staff member up to.

Actually, that's good advice now. Always speak to anybody like you're being recorded. That's the way it was. It's like my former employer won't call them out. I always walked in the door just assumed I was being recorded. That's the way I shop. That's the way I go in everywhere now. I just assume it.

So for this part, with the support person for non-union employees, I think I'm hearing a consensus not to add that. Is there anyone that would like to add that? So hearing none, the consensus is to not add that portion. So now with that, do we know what we're voting on? So we're voting on the disciplinary policy as written with the additions that we just went through per consensus. Is there any confusion, questions?

I would like to recommend that all the changes and suggestions that have been made, that maybe Barb should resubmit what she understands

Do you mean rewrite it and resubmit it to us?

I'm okay with that. So it would have to happen anyway, right, with these changes, because we made changes?

Council could do that, yeah, three different ways. One, you could pass it with a consensus she brings, and then we'd have to review it and bring it back up for review. You could vote it down and then she'd rewrite it and represent it. Or you could table it and rewrite it and present it when it's brought back up.

I mean, I don't want to slow things down because we've already discussed everything.

I mean, I was going to say, I mean, we've been pretty clear on the language that we're going to add.

So could you just send it out if we did it that way? Just send everything out when you're done.

you know because yeah we've done a lot of work i mean we had a lot of discussion on it and i was actually right my comment was going to be is i know to the people watching we've spent some time on this but i was actually glad we did spend time on it instead of just rushing through it like sure i will include all of the changes in the minutes so it is well defined and then barb could just provide the new document tomorrow and then that's what we would actually sign and put into the packet

i'll collaborate with chris tomorrow and we'll make sure that from what's in the minutes is in the policy we'll make sure i'll get with her tomorrow on that that would be the easiest since you've discussed it in so much thoughts so if council passes it tonight then by the end of the week you would have the new policy in hand all the council members to review And then if there's any questions or concerns, then we can bring it up on the next meeting, have that part of the agenda for revision.

And that was my point. We've already had lengthy conversation. I'm not sure there would be any different conversation if we tabled it or talked about it.

I'm not in favor of tabling. I think we need to vote it down and have her bring it back and we can approve it.

So can I call the question so we vote? Yes.

Do I have a motion to approve? Move the recommendation. Second. Turn it over to our Airport Operations Director, Mr. Wheaton.

J.D., is there an intended purpose for this building once we get all this done?

What was the highest bid? Do you remember?

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll, please.

And do you have a successful bidder for that property?

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll.

Move the recommendation. Second. City Engineer Burgmeier.

So just to clarify, when he says leaking, it's not going outside the pipe. There might be others that hear that and say, we're dumping sewage and that isn't what's happening.

It's leaking back through the pump. Yeah, you're not able to stop flow in order to repair. Right.

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll, please.

Right, with this we are at the public forum, so I'd invite if there is anyone from the audience that would like to come forward to speak, this is your opportunity. Okay, not seeing any, I'd turn it over to council for any reports or things that you would like to communicate to the public. Nothing? Okay, well I have something. I'm gonna start one. I know you've probably heard that there's gonna be a new jail put on the ballot by the county. I wanted to just briefly talk about they are going to have public forums throughout Wapello County. So I'm gonna say these quick and you'll have to review i