My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1981-09-16 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
LaPorte
>
City Meetings
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
1980's
>
1981
>
1981-09-16 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:06:56 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 1:47:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
9/16/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br /> <br />• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting <br />September 16, 1981, Page 7 <br />that our input was not necessary, and has since come up with <br />this. This is wrong and unjust. <br />Longley: Mr. Jacobs, do you have any recommendations to submit? <br />Jacobs: Well, we got caught with our britches down. We just <br />saw this this afternoon. We have been in the dark the whole <br />time the Civil Service campaign has been going on. I mean the <br />Council has been working on the Civil Service. We have had no <br />input. We feel it needs to be sat down and worked out, and no, <br />it does not have to go into effect by October 1. The statutes <br />say within 30 days after the fiscal year, so we've. got a month <br />and a half that we would like to set down with the Council and <br />try to draw up some working system that would be fair. <br />Longley: Jim, is Mr. Jacobs interpreting the pay raise cor- <br />rectly? <br />Hudgens: Not entirely. The difference between the top pay <br />range and the classification beginning pay range is something <br />• we have had in our classification system since its beginning. <br />It is something that exists; as a matter of fact everyone, <br />Pasadena, Baytown, everyone who has the step system has the <br />same problem. The problem comes with the compression of the <br />salary structure from the bottom to the top there is a very <br />small area of disparity. These salaries that are listed are <br />competitive with other police salaries.. The policy that we <br />have followed in the past is, for example, a patrolman is at <br />$20,290 wanted to be promoted to sergeant. He will not take <br />a pay cut. He will be moved into the over 12 months step at <br />$20,889. So he would not get a decrease in his salary. There <br />is every possibility that the man at $19,318.00 also passes <br />the exam so he also would start at step A. That's something <br />that's been done since our City began and it's not going to go <br />away. The only way to correct that is to increase the disparity <br />and in doing that you increase salaries to the point that -- <br />unless you want to reduce them to widen the disparity, you push <br />the salaries up to where they are higher than what they should <br />be and still remain effective. <br />Longley: But is it true that detectives will take a pay cut? <br />Hudgens: The people that are currently serving in those posi- <br />tions, the Civil Service Statutes provides that those will be <br />sergeants slots, under Civil Service. A person will be tempo- <br />rarily a sergeant until the test. T take that back. I ----- <br />• Jacobs: Until the test they will be temporary sergeants, until <br />the test. If a patrolman took the test and passed it ----- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.