BENEFITS OF EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES

OK,


Easy math (I hope).



Say a city employee is hired in 2005.



10 years at 1 day per month earnings equals (12 x 1) x 10) or near 120 days in sick benefit days should be a qualification noted as available to an employee that remains recommended for advancement with in their expected field. Good standing makes good employees and is eligible for responsible positions. Along with proper attendance and performance. Ah, but for unions. The CEO choices get mottled along the way. Parents become elected Officials and out side sources take over the process. A few light fibs on the resume and things happen that normally would not pass muster in a real world situation.





Benefits package for new employees are basically 2 weeks vacation 2 personal days (4 max days for some senior members as seniority kicks in).

Vacation is prorated so that the time cannot be taken until a 90 day trial period is met.

We depend upon the " CEO"-Mayor to fairly enforce these benefits to prevent abuse time off and requiring other employees to cover the lost person's time away!



The language referring or restricting the use of these benefits varies from union and department as policies. The City does have basic notifications requirements for reporting and using these benefits.



There is language referring to job bidding and replacement needing to be compared the use (or misuse) of benefit. I hear this implemented all the time with DPS Employees' relating to the mis -use of this benefit.



Having prior knowledge of DPS benefit usage, and other serious employee actions, I am amazed that the open Assistant position is being awarded by the mayor to the employee that is coming before the City Council for approval. But this is the new management style we heard so much about.



I would access the situation taking in mind that the days available to some employees seeking advance should be better than zero and less than maximum earned. AND I would concede the track record of the employee seeking advancement. Has this employee maybe caused employment peer problems or even filed false claims in order to advance their position? These item never go away, even when removed from personnel files. They exist as a matter of record for all to use as a base to judge upon.



I guess that when management styles change, records do too! But other employees passed over on these positions would be happy for the placement of such an up standing person in an even more position of responsibility, wouldn't they! The  city residents and taxpayers will automatically fall in line with the Mayor in forgetting the documented problems on file with this employee. Because she CAN erase the facts and opinions of the truth.As we know the City Council will not question the event!
 LAMO