The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Commissioner Robert Johnston, Commissioner George Beasley, Commissioner Richard Ubl, Police Chief Don Thomas, Fire Chief Bill Riddle, and City Manager Bill Nicklas.

• Mr. Ubl confirmed that he had been officially sworn in as a Commissioner by the City Clerk.

A motion to approve the minutes from the April 22, 2003 meeting, as presented, was made by Commissioner Beasley and seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

A motion to elect Bob Johnston as Chairman of the Commission was made by Commissioner Beasley and was seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Commissioner Johnston asked for discussion: He asked how long the Chairman’s term of office would be. According to City Manager Nicklas, per the by-laws, it would be for one fiscal year. Based on this, Commissioner Johnston accepted the position of Chairman.

Ayes: 2

Nays: 0

Abstain: 1

A motion to elect Commissioner Ubl as Secretary of the Commission was made by Commissioner Beasley. Chairman Johnston made a motion to elect Commissioner Beasley as Secretary, citing his experience with many of the Board activities that are currently in progress. Commissioner Ubl seconded this motion.

Ayes: 2

Nays: 0

Abstain: 1

• A copy of the letter that was sent to Representative Wirsing stating the Commission’s opposition to SB1586 (which pertains to changes in the Open Meetings Act) was distributed to all of the Commissioners and meeting participants. Ms. Tritle clarified that the letter was sent to Rep. Wirsing instead of Sen. Burzynski, as discussed at the April 22, 2003, meeting because she had found out that the Senate had already voted on the matter but it had not yet gone before the House.
• Chairman Johnston reported that there was no new mail, other than a flyer that was received from PCI advertising their testing services.

Chief Thomas reported that a job posting had been placed in several newspapers, on five different websites, and faxed to 250 different Police Departments in Illinois announcing the City’s plan to hire two new officers through the lateral transfer process. He said that they had fielded approximately 50 phone responses to the ad and had given out 40 applications; 13 completed applications had been returned to date, with the submission deadline being noon on May 14^th. Chief Thomas reiterated that all 13 applicants had worked as a Police Officer within the past 18 months. The applications that had been received to date had been given to the detectives to begin the initial background checks. After the submission deadline passes, Chief Thomas explained that he, along with Lt. Johnson and Human Resources Director Tritle would review the information given on the applications for accuracy and truthfulness in the areas of education, certifications, and recent employment. Those who are unsuitable or have little experience or training as compared to the other candidates will be eliminated from consideration. Chief Thomas reviewed the steps of the selection process that he and the Commissioners had agreed upon:

 

• Initial screening to be done by Chief Thomas, Lt. Johnson, and Ms. Tritle;
• Full background investigation, which includes an interview with a detective, of all applicants who pass the initial screening;
• Interview by an advisory panel of Police Officers from the Department consisting of Lt. Singer and Sgt. Cook, and FOP members Mike Larmon and Steve Watry. The panel will be given a list of approximately five to seven candidates, who they will interview and then rank in order of their preference. The list will then be shared with the Commission, and contingent job offers will be made to the top two candidates on the list;
• Top two candidates must then successfully pass the psychological and medical examinations;
• Final interview with the Commission. The Commissioners can either accept or reject the candidate.

Chairman Johnston asked if they should assume that, by the time the Commissioners become involved in the hiring process, the Chief and his interview team are recommending the two candidates for the position. Chief Thomas verified that this was the case and further explained that by this point, the candidates would have successfully completed a background check and polygraph test, as well as the psychological and physical exams and that the Commissioners would be given these results to review. Chief Thomas reiterated that there is no presumption that the Commissioners would have to hire the two recommended candidates. If they do not like one or both of the candidates, the process would begin for the next person on the list. This keeps the actual hiring of the officers under the auspices of the Commission. Commissioner Ubl questioned why the Commissioners could not be given more than two candidates at a time from which to make their selection. Chief Thomas said that he also thought that this would be a good idea; however, if the Commissioners wish to see the results of the psychological exams, the candidates must be offered a job first. Chief Thomas suggested that the Commissioners may want to consider interviewing the top five or so candidates before a job offer is made, even though they would not have the results of the medical or psychological exams at that time. City Manager Nicklas asked if this is something that the Commissioners could legally do. Chief Thomas verified that it was, though this is not how the process was explained in the job posting. City Manager Nicklas said he felt that the advisory panel should not be ranking the officers, as it puts the Commissioners in the awkward position of having to agree or disagree with the panel’s choices. He said that, while the panel could share their pros and cons about each candidate with the Commissioners, the Commissioners should be the ones who do the actual ranking of the candidates. The first two candidates on their list would then be offered jobs. Chairman Johnston wondered if it was necessarily up to the Commissioners to make the final decision. Since the internal advisory panel is looking at experienced certified officers and has conducted the research and background checks on each candidate, it makes sense to him that the Commissioners rely on the recommendations of the Chief and his staff. City Manager Nicklas explained that, while he can understand Chairman Johnston’s reasoning, he is concerned that the Chief and his staff may have different ideas on who should be the number one candidate. The panel may not like the personality of a candidate that the Chief favors, and may rank that candidate lower for that reason, even though he or she may have the best experience and training when compared to the other candidates. Since this is a hybrid process, the Commissioners should have the final say. Chief Riddle suggested that the each panel member and the Chief should complete a ranking sheet on each candidate, which would then be turned into the Commissioners to be tallied. Chief Thomas reiterated that any one of these suggestions could be implemented; however, the Commissioners would not have the results of the psychological examinations prior to their interview of each candidate. Chairman Johnston said that they could offer more than two candidates a job, since the offer is conditional. Chief Thomas answered that there would be a problem if, for example, the Commissioners gave a conditional job offer to 4 candidates and they all successfully passed their psychological and medical examinations. Since there are only two openings, how would the Commissioners then determine who would get the job? Commissioner Ubl questioned why you must offer the candidates a job before they can be given these tests. Chairman Johnston explained that this was due to the ADA laws. City Manager Nicklas said that he feels that it is still best if the Commissioners rank the candidates and then offer them the position one at a time; if the first candidate fails the exams, then you move on to the next candidate. Commissioner Beasley asked Chief Thomas if the advisory panel has a list of questions prepared that they will ask each candidate (to ensure that everyone is asked the same exact questions). Chief Thomas said that the panel has already started to compile their questions and will have the Human Resources Director look them over to make sure that none of them are illegal to ask. He said that the panel members would also be trained so that they are aware of what they are not allowed to ask the candidates. Chief Thomas said that he was under the impression that the Commissioners preferred to interview the candidates after they review the results of their psychological exam. He said that he would prefer to give the Commissioners a list of five candidates, possibly with rankings, and let the Commissioners pick the two that they want. He said that he would make sure that the background investigations were very detailed, to ensure that he is giving the Commission a list of the best candidates available, even without the psychological exam. He said that he is very confident that, in the end, the Commissioners will end up picking two good candidates. Chairman Johnston said that he would not have a problem conducting the hiring process in this manner. Commissioner Ubl said that he liked the idea of having more than two candidates to interview, as this guarantees that the Commissioners are making the final decision. Chairman Johnston confirmed that, in the Chief’s proposal, the Commissioners would trigger the job offer, which would then lead to the post-offer psychological and medical exams. Commissioner Beasley asked if there was an established list of questions that the Commissioners could use in their interviews. Chief Thomas said that he could supply them with questions that various testing companies have recommended be used. Chairman Johnston said that he remembers having a list of questions that they have used in past interviews for entry-level recruits. Chief Thomas wondered if the Commissioners would want to have the advisory panel available for discussion after the Board’s interview with each candidate. Since what they are doing is a relatively new process, he wondered if it would help. He asked the Commissioners how prior Sycamore Police Chiefs had handled the lateral transfer process. None of the Commissioners were on the Board at the time this was done under previous administrations. City Manager Nicklas said that he feels that the Police Department staff will do an excellent job in sifting through the candidates, but it is the Commission’s responsibility to make the final choice. He asked the Chief if the advisory panel would be giving their recommendations to him, of if they would be given directly to the Commissioners. Chief Thomas said that the panel would give their report to him and he would then forward them on to the Commission. Based upon this discussion, the steps of the hiring process would now be:

• Initial screening to be done by Chief Thomas, Lt. Johnson, and Ms. Tritle;
• Full background investigation, which includes an interview with a detective, of all applicants who pass the initial screening. Chief Thomas and Lt. Johnson will review the results of the background exam, and unacceptable candidates would be eliminated.
• Interview by an advisory panel of Police Officers from the Department consisting of Lt. Singer and Sgt. Cook, and FOP members Mike Larmon and Steve Watry. The panel will rank the remaining candidates and give the results to Chief Thomas. He will review their recommendations, make sure that everything is in order, and then present the list to the Commissioners, along with the background information and the polygraph test results.
• The Commissioners will conduct their interview of each candidate.
• Job offers will be given to the top two candidates. These offers will be contingent upon the candidates passing the psychological and physical examinations.

Chief Thomas also said that he feels it is good practice not to have the candidates take the psychological examination prior to their interview with the Commissioners, as there is case law building against this practice. Commissioner Beasley reiterated that he would like a prepared list of questions to ask during the Commission’s interview of the candidates, to ensure that they are all being asked the same questions in the same manner. Commissioner Ubl wondered if the advisory panel and the Commissioners could conduct a joint interview, or if seven people asking questions at one time was too many. He said that the Commission would still make the final decision, but they would have the input of the advisory panel. Chairman Johnston said that he feels it would give a better

appearance to the candidates if the interview process is sequenced between the internal panel and the Commissioners. He also said that, in the business world, it is common

practice for a professional job candidate to go through more than one interview. He said he recommended that the Commission go forward with the hiring process that was formulated by the Commissioners and the Chief, as amended. Chief Thomas agreed, saying that this would make the process very clean, and the results would look good to anyone looking at the process from the outside. Chairman Johnston stated that, since we are now deviating from the hiring process that was advertised as a part of the job posting, the candidates needed to be informed about the change in the hiring sequence. Commissioner Beasley wondered if a motion was needed to initiate this change. Chairman Johnston said it was not necessary.

NEW BUSINESS

Chief Thomas said that he talked to City Attorney Peter Smith about establishing a list of the candidates who went through the hiring process but were not offered jobs after their interview with the Commissioners. He asked Attorney Smith if this list could be used as our regular eligibility list for the next two years or until it is exhausted, whichever comes first. Attorney Smith explained that this is possible, but not necessary. He explained that you could give each candidate a score. This list would then be combined with the list that would be established after the entry-level testing process was completed. Commissioner Ubl asked if the lateral-transfer candidates on the list would still start out at the Step 2 Union salary. Chief Thomas explained that they would. The job posting would indicate that the entry-level candidates, if hired, would start at the new-hire salary step, while those with experience would start at Step 2. Chairman Johnston asked if this process is clearly defined in the State Regulations. Chief Thomas verified that it is allowed under Home Rule. Chairman Johnston asked if this is what is referred to in the Code as "intermingling the list". Chief Thomas verified that it was. Commissioner Beasley asked what the Commission is required to do in terms of having a list available. Chairman Johnston answered that they are required to have a list available at all times. Commissioner Beasley wondered if the Code specifies what type of list is required. Chairman Johnston answered that the Code compels them to have a list established at all times, but does not specify what type, be it an entry-level list or a list of lateral transfer candidates. It does describe an intermingling of the list, which states that, if the Commission uses testing with the lateral transfer candidates, they must use the same testing service and criteria with non-lateral candidates. Chief Thomas said that, since they did not give the lateral transfer candidates a written test, they could not intermingle the list that is now in place with a new entry-level eligibility list. Therefore, he recommends that the list of lateral transfer candidates be the list the Commission uses for hiring purposes until it is exhausted or expires in two years, whichever comes first. At that time, we could then begin the entry-level testing process to establish a new eligibility list. Chairman Johnston stated that the City Council specified that the Commission could rely exclusively on the lateral transfer list for future hiring. Commissioner Beasley asked what this would accomplish. Chairman Johnston said that it would save money on testing expenses and training expenses at PTI. He felt that the savings could be significant. Chief Thomas explained that it would be a short list, since there were only 13 applications turned in to date and some of these candidates may be taken out of the running. However, the list may be significant enough to ensure good candidates if the need arose to hire a third or fourth officer. Chief Thomas said, though, that this makes one wonder why we could not use this type of list each time. He said that he felt it was necessary to occasionally recruit entry-level officers. He pointed out that only 2 of the applicants to date had any college education, which makes one wonder where future department leaders will come from. We must recruit from the college ranks. Commissioner Ubl asked if the City provides tuition reimbursement for employees who return to school. Chief Thomas verified that they do. Commissioner Ubl also asked for clarification of the age requirements for entry-level and lateral transfer hires. Chief Thomas explained that 35 is that maximum age allowed; however, for experienced officers, you subtract their years of service from this. He also verified that, by law, you are allowed to ask a candidate’s age at application if he or she is applying through a lateral transfer.

Chairman Johnston made the motion that, since we do not presently have an established initial hiring list because the current list is exhausted, but will have a list of qualified certified candidates after the current hiring process is completed, we retain the list of qualified candidates not hired on a eligibility list for two years or until it is exhausted. Once this list expires or is exhausted, the Commission will go back to establishing a new initial hiring list. Commissioner Beasley seconded the motion.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Chief Thomas said that City Attorney Smith would write the language for the Commission’s decision. Once the Commissioners have approved this document, City Attorney Smith will propose an ordinance change to City Manager Nicklas. In the absence of an ordinance change, Attorney Smith would then recommend a change to the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to reflect their decision. Commissioner Ubl asked why an ordinance change was necessary. Chief Thomas explained that it may not be, however, the last time a change was made it was done through an ordinance. City Manager Nicklas said that there is currently an ordinance on the books that does not allow the Commission to use this type of hiring process. Therefore, it would be best to abrogate the ordinance that currently exists on the books before the two new officers are hired. Commissioner Ubl asked if we would also begin the entry-level testing process. Chairman Johnston explained that, as stated in the motion that was just passed, the Commission would revert back to establishing an entry-level eligibility list once the lateral transfer list expires or is exhausted. Commissioner Ubl asked if this would or would not be an intermingled list. Chairman Johnston verified that it would not be. City Manger Nicklas asked if every name on the previous list had indeed been exhausted. Chairman Johnston verified that they were. He also reiterated that the reason for using the lateral transfer process at this time was to hire two new officers as quickly as possible, since the Police Department is currently short-staffed due to the military deployment of one officer and the resignation of another.

City Manager Nicklas left the meeting at this time.

• Review and Approval of the Annual Report

Discussion:

• Chairman Johnston said that the Annual Report states that the Commission made a change in testing services for entry-level and promotional this past year. He said he thought the Annual Report should also reflect the outcome of that change as well. The change to I/O Solutions helped to enhance the credibility of the selection criteria and also proved to be more cost effective than the previous services used. Chief Thomas said that it should also be pointed out that I/O Solutions was used for both entry-level and promotional testing. He felt that this helped to make a great improvement in the promotional selection process.
• The names of the current Commission members need to be added to the report, as well as their new positions.
• Chairman Johnston feels that, since the change to the lateral transfer hiring process began in the fiscal year for which the Annual Report is being made, it should also be included on the report.
• Commissioner Beasley pointed out that the item on the report pertaining to Mark Paul needed to be correct to read a 30-day suspension.
• Chairman Johnston said that he would present the Annual Report to the City Council at their May 19, 2003 meeting. Ms. Tritle said that she would ask City Manager Nicklas to include this on the agenda for that Council meeting.

A motion to approve the Annual Report with the above-mentioned changes was made by Commissioner Beasley and was seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

• Fire Chief

Chief Riddle reported that he had two personnel issues that needed to be addressed in closed session. He also reported that Firefighter Shaun Penn was currently in North Carolina awaiting his orders to return to Ft. Sheridan and then home. Shaun said that he hopes to be back to work soon, but will be taking some vacation time with his family first. Chief Riddle reported that Shaun received the Bronze Star for bravery while serving in Afghanistan. Chief Riddle also reported that he and his four Lieutenants attended a three-day training seminar for Officers in St. Charles. They learned about incident command and control at emergency scenes. He said that they all learned a lot and appreciated the opportunity to attend the seminar. He said the Lieutenants especially learned that that they must disengage themselves from the Firefighters and learn to become their bosses. Commissioner Ubl said that he had seen an article on the seminar in the Midweek. Chief Riddle thought the reporter who wrote the article did a great job.

• Police Chief

No report.

CLOSED SESSION

A motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues was made by Commissioner Ubl and seconded by Commissioner Beasley.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Closed Session began at 8:20 p.m.

A motion to return to open session was made by Commissioner Beasley and was seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Vote

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

Open session reconvened at 8:43 p.m.

A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Beasley and was seconded by Commissioner Ubl.

Vote

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstain: 0

The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Minutes accepted by:

 

____________________________________________

Robert Johnston, Chairman Date

 

Attest:

 

____________________________________________

Jean Tritle, Recording Secretary Date