11/29/11 An ordinance amendment that would change the Cityâ€™s Recreation/Pool Directorâ€™s position in the Park and Recreation Department from its previously salaried position to an hourly position did not pass on second reading Monday night.
Two weeks ago City Attorney Nelson Chipman presented the ordinance noting the administration wanted to have the rules suspended and passed on all three readings.Â To suspend the rules and consider on second and or third reading the motion to suspend the rules would need to pass by a unanimous decision.Â Councilman Mike Delp voted against the suspension so second and third readings were scheduled for Monday evening.
The City Attorney explained that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) imposes on employees a continuing duty to assess and exempt or non-exempt status of employment position.Â Designating the position requires a specific analysis of the job functions. Â After careful review of the three tests it was determined that the Recreation/Pool Directorâ€™s position meets only the salary requirement.
Several council members had questions including Chuck Ripley who wanted to know more about the November 11th amendment.Â A portion of the amendment includes moving the position to hourly pay of $14.47 for the rest of this year and $14.90 in 2012.
Councilman Mike Delp said he wasnâ€™t against the hourly position but needed justification of the hourly pay.Â He questioned why the position would pay the same amount as the office manager due to the fact that they would be overseeing 30 plus employees in the summer time.
Councilman Wayne Smith asked if the Recreation Directorâ€™s position is year long, to wit Mayor Senter said yes.Â Councilman Mark Neidig said the savings were minimal but the position is a â€śtouchie feelieâ€ť position that has a lot of contact with the public. Â He continued by talking about the FLSA qualifications and asked the city attorney to present additional evidence that the job no longer qualifies as a salaried position.Â He closed by saying, â€śI donâ€™t see a compelling argument how it doesnâ€™t meet the #2 standard.â€ť
There had been a motion moved and seconded and after the discussion the vote was 1 in favor of the amendment and 4 against, Mike Delp, Chuck Ripley, Wayne Smith and Mark Neidig.