Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting September 29, 2014 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER September 29, 2014 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:00 Noon, September 29, 2014, the Honorables Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, and Corey Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Williams, Fennoy, Hasan, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Johnson: We’ll go ahead on and call the executive meeting to order. We have two items here that we’re going to take first. Item 1 and then Item 2. 1.Accept the resignation of Donnie Smith, District 7. (Requested by Commissioner Grady Smith) Mr. Mason: Move to approve. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Johnson: I’ve got a motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Johnson: Okay, Madam Clerk, we’ll go on to Item 2. 2.Appoint successor to fill the unexpired term of Donnie Smith, District 7. (Requested by Commissioner Grady Smith) Mr. Johnson: Okay, Commissioner Grady Smith, you have this item. Mr. Smith: Yes, I’d like to nominate Mr. Hap Harris. Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Johnson: All right, we have a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis out. Mr. Fennoy votes No. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk, I guess at this time would it be appropriate to go ahead on and do the installation of Mr. Harris? 1 Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor, a point of privilege. Mr. Johnson: Yeah, Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: At this time before we go on to the next item if we could do a revote. I forget what the technical term is to try to get a unanimous vote on the District 7 appointment. Mr. MacKenzie: It would be a motion to reconsider Item #2. Mr. Mason: If we could do a motion to reconsider. Mr. Johnson: Okay. We have a motion to reconsider. Do we have a second? Mr. Smith: I second it. Mr. Lockett: I did. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Lockett, okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. MacKenzie: You did the motion to reconsider. Now you need to make another vote on the item, to do a motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: Okay, so we had the motion to reconsider -- Mr. Mason: Motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: -- so we need one now to approve this item. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Williams: Wait a minute, now. Hold it, hold it. Mr. Mason: Motion to approve. Mr. Williams: I ain’t got no problem doing that but I don’t think that, once we voted, we were voting to make it unanimous and that’s what happened. Mr. MacKenzie: If I can clarify. The vote was just to reconsider the item. Now you’re doing a vote to appoint this commissioner. You’re revoting the same thing you previously voted. The first vote was just to reconsider on the item. 2 Mr. Johnson: All right, we have a motion and second. Madam Clerk, did you get the motion and second? The Clerk: Mr. Mason – Mr. Mason: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett. It was to, what was your motion? Mr. Lockett: To appoint – Mr. Mason: Hap Harris as the District 7 Commissioner, Interim Commissioner. The Clerk: Okay, yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Johnson: Okay, we do have the Judge here so if we can I guess we can go on and get Mr. Harris sworn in. (Mr. Louis Harris is sworn in as Interim District 7 Commissioner) Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk, we’ll go on and proceed. Ms. Allen, we’re going to go ahead and proceed with Item 5 and 6 next for the sake of time and, are you going to handle that? Okay, we’ve got Ms. Williams here so we’ll go ahead and proceed with Item 5 first. 5.Motion to approve an ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title One, Article Four, Section 1-7-51 relating to the adoption of personnel policies and procedures of Augusta, Georgia; to amend section 100.014 of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual regarding annual leave buy-back policy; to repeal all code sections and ordinances and parts of code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. Mr. Johnson: Okay, Ms. Williams. Ms. Donna Williams: Yes, sir, as we continue to discuss this item and have gone forward with it at the Commission’s direction, we have brought it to your attention on several occasions that in order for the employees of the elected officials to participate, those specifically that did not adopt our Policy and Procedures Manual, namely the Sheriff’s Office, the Solicitor’s Office and I’m not sure if there are any more, but the Policy and Procedures Manual would have to be amended to allow those employees to participate so what has been done is a motion, an amendment has been prepared by the Law Department that would allow the employees of the 3 Sheriff’s Department and the Solicitor’s Office to take advantage of this program that is being offered. Additionally we need to clarify the motion that the buy-back program is to allow the eligible employees to sell three days of annual leave which has been discussed and we need to define that day as an eight-hour day up to a maximum of 24 hours because as you know we have several different shifts that work here. A day to a firefighter could be 24 hours and the funding level that was calculated was based on eight hour days. So that would need to be a portion of the motion as well to define that eight hour day as what we are referring to here up to 24 hours maximum. Mr. Johnson: Okay, all right, Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I don’t have any issues with that but I think the last time changes to the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual was brought before the commission we decided that rather than do it piecemeal that we would make all of the changes at one time. Has that – Ms. Williams: This would be the only one that would be on the table right now because you had approved this for employees to take advantage of this year and we would have to start th this process with the estimated pay date being December the 12 but in order to allow the Sheriff’s Department to participate in this program that is being offered you would need to make this amendment to the Policy and Procedures Manual. Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I guess my question is to the attorney is since the commissioners voted to make all of the changes at one time and now Ms. Williams is bringing that before the commission is that something that we could do and still be legal? Mr. MacKenzie: Yeah, that’s still perfectly and I think those other changes were ones that were already part in the process being considered for change. This is one that was not previously anticipated; it would cause any procedural anomalies or problems with respect to that previous action. Mr. Fennoy: Thank you. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think the buy-back program is a little bit different from the changing of the procedure manual but I just wanted to know, Donna, have we figured out everybody versus doing this for the ones that we named? Who else is going to be involved? How about part time people? I mean how is this going to affect the mass versus the ones that we named, the firemen and police officers. Is there anybody else that we need to look at or can we include that so we won’t have to come back and say oh, we left A and B on the side and C can go in so is there anyone else that you can think of? Ms. Williams: This would apply to all employees that accrue vacation. Your part-time individuals, your hourly folks that are part-time workers, they do not accrue vacation. 4 Mr. Williams: Okay, I just asked that question when I (inaudible) part time but I’m talking about other people who accrue vacation. You said that you didn’t, you wasn’t sure of who else would fit under that umbrella so I’m trying to figure out how can we do it so all those people who do fit would be able to be included versus coming back and say we left A or B out. Am I making sense? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, you are. The, taking the language out of the Policy and Procedures Manual that specifically exempts those that did not adopt the Policy and Procedures Manual would include everybody. Mr. Williams: Okay and that’s what I wanted to be clear. I wanted to make sure that wasn’t something we had to come back because we’ve done that a few times and I just wanted to make sure that, so I make a motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: You can but Commissioner Lockett had a question, but yeah, you can put a motion out if you want to. Mr. Williams: I make that motion. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hasan: Second the motion. Mr. Lockett: Pretty much all I wanted to say is the fact that it puts us in a difficult position if we want to wait for one particular time of the year to amend or make revisions to the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual because state law, federal law and other laws are constantly changing. They’re fluid and we’ve got to be in a position that when those laws change that we have to change so just to say that we’re only going to do it at one time a year I think is really misleading and that’s not going to work. Our HR Department, our Law Department and others impacted by that whenever those laws change, they got to be Johnny on the spot and make the changes in our Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: Ms. Allen, you have a comment? Ms. Allen: Yes, I was just going to ask Commissioner Williams if he could add also to waive the second reading. Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am, I’ve got no problem with that. Mr. Lockett: Did you get a second? Mr. Fennoy: Second that. Mr. Johnson: Okay, so, all right, Commissioner Fennoy. 5 Mr. Fennoy: Just for the record it was not this commissioner that voted to make all the changes at one time but it was the entire commission so when that vote was made and we have someone that’s here to present changes to the Personnel Policies and Procedure, I just thought that it was necessary to bring up the point that we had already taken a vote to make all the changes at one time and because we’re not making all the changes at one time and we’re doing something different than what we agreed upon. Mr. Johnson: Ms. Williams, as it relates to what Mr. Fennoy is saying, this is, understand what we did here and I know why we did it for the sake of time and trying to give them an opportunity to take advantage of it this year, but how are we planning to go forward years to come with this? This is just for this year, right? Ms. Williams: This is just for this year -- Mr. Johnson: Right, so it’s not a permanent – Ms. Williams: -- in 2014 to fund this program just for 2014. Mr. Johnson: Exactly. Ms. Williams: Should a funding level be put in there in subsequent years you would discuss it at that point as well. Mr. Johnson: Okay, that’s what I thought. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that. Okay, we have a motion and second. Ms. Allen? Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Can we read that motion into the record because there were some modifications that were made for it as well, please, just for clarification purposes? Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk, could you – The Clerk: The annual leave buy-back program is to allow eligible employees to sell up to three days of annual leave up to an eight hour day for these purposes being defined as eight hours for a maximum of 24 hours. Mr. Johnson: Okay, that’s correct. The Clerk: Yeah, yeah, right. Mr. Williams: And waive the second reading. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, and to waive the second reading. The Clerk: Waive second reading. Mr. Speaker: For one time only? 6 The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Okay, are we clear? Is it good, Ms. Allen? Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Harris abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Johnson: Okay, Madam Clerk, we’ll take Item 6. 6.Motion to approve Employee Retention Bonus of $500 for full-time employees and $200 for part-time employees who are employed as of September 29, 2014 and remain employed through October 31, 2014, which shall be paid on the November 28, 2014 pay check. Mr. Johnson: Okay, Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams: Okay, we need to make sure that it states full time regular employees so that we do not pick up elected officials in that which are full time employees but full time regular employees. This would not apply to elected officials themselves whose salaries are set usually th by state legislature. And the date that it will be paid will be November 26 because the 28 falls on the day after Thanksgiving and we will be closed that day so we will be making the payment early along with the regular scheduled check on November the 26. Just as a bit of information also we process payrolls for a couple of outside agencies such as the Library, the DDA, the Land Bank, the Canal Authority and a couple of positions over at the Department of Family and Children Services. I have contacted those directors by email to ask if they plan to participate in this for their employees. I have not heard back from them yet. What happens if they do we process those for them but they pay for them. We do not increase funding for the Library, the Land Bank, the DDA or any of those agencies that get an appropriation. It is up to them to decide if they want to take advantage of the program and if they can afford to pay for it. So I just want to make sure everybody is aware of that. That is consistent with the way we have done things historically. Mr. Johnson: So being that they haven’t responded to you, if they choose to do it in the next two or three weeks, will they be eligible to do so or not? Ms. Williams: They would. Mr. Johnson: Okay. 7 Ms. Williams: They would because this would be a one-time payment that would be processed, like I said, on November 26. If they have employees that meet the conditions that are outlined here and they choose to participate, then we could process those through payroll. Mr. Johnson: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Donna, well, first let me just reiterate for the sake of the media, that elected officials are not getting a raise. Okay? Secondly, though I’m concerned with this I think I’ve expressed this to you before now this is all employees. Does this take into consideration at all any employees who may have just recently got a raise or have received some type of compensation or bonus or is this just across the board? Ms. Williams: As it states now it is across the board to all employees that meet the conditions that are outlined in here that they are employed as of September 29 and they are still employed through the end of October. Mr. Mason: So, you know, I mean we’ve got some great employees. There’s no doubt about that, but so regardless of what your job performance is, how well you’re doing or not doing, just la-de-da-de everybody – Ms. Williams: I would like for the attorney to respond to that because this is written up as an employment retention payment. It is not a bonus. It is not tied to performance. Mr. Mason: So this is to retain, this is some incentive to retain our employees? Is that what I’m hearing you say? Ms. Williams: Andrew, please. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, that’s correct. The only condition required to receive this would be that the employee remains employed as required by the, at the day that will be considered the day that they have to be employed. If we add other conditions in there we may run afoul of the anti-gratuities clause if there is something the employee has to do and has to remain employed but that’s why it is consistent with all employees so we don’t run into any problems with that provision. Mr. Mason: Sure. I’m just not sure as one commissioner whether all of the 2700 employees we have I want to retain. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Harris then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Fennoy: If we have any employees that are scheduled to retire before the end of October, would they be eligible for the bonus? Ms. Williams: No, sir. 8 Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Harris then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Harris: I guess my question is if they came to work on October 1 and they have been working here there less than a month, they get the bonus? I mean the, am I right, September 29 and then they’re there for what amounts to a month, I mean a brand new employee? Am I reading this correctly? Mr. Johnson: Andrew? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, the requirements are stated in the motion itself. They have to be th employed as of September 29. If they got employed the next day they would not be eligible. Mr. Johnson: So today is the cut off? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Harris: But it’s still basically a month and a couple of days at worse. Mr. Johnson: Do we have a number on a possibility of how many people may be employed within that time frame? Because that’s kind of hit and miss if we don’t know for sure. I would have thought it probably would have made more sense to be at least six months. Ms. Williams: Then you would be setting a date that would be retroactive which you would not be allowed to do and if you want to make this payout as you have budgeted to do it in 2014, the physical payment has to be made before the end of the year. So we have a limited number of days available in order to take this action that the commission has approved. Mr. Johnson: Okay. I get your point. I see what you’re saying. I’m just trying to figure out how – Ms. Williams: In a perfect world yes, sir, you would have a longer period of time but as of the date this was approved and with the end of the fiscal and calendar year approaching and trying to get this paid out, we’re kind of limited here on the actual number of calendar days that are available. Mr. Johnson: Okay, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Like everything else we get against the wall and you’re going to find that. We’ve been talking about this for some time but it always gets to this point or this juncture. I’m a little bit concerned. Commissioner Mason brought out a very good point about those who received already this year, and I’m specifying, some incentive or some increase of their own and now we’re going to increase them again and some employees they haven’t had anything in a period of years so that bothers me. I mean I want to approve this, I want to support this because of the people who have been trying to work and keep this 9 government afloat, those who work in the trenches and that kind of thing, but folks who’ve been sitting in the air conditioning in here all year long looking out the window and got something and now they’re going to get something else, that kind of bothers me just a little bit and Mr. Mason brought that point up and I hadn’t thought about that. So do anybody know when was the last time there was an increase and who got those increases even if it was the man in the trenches? Have some been given this year to someone for cost of living or whatever else because if you got yours yesterday you shouldn’t get another one today I don’t think and I’m just asking the question. Mr. Johnson: Yeah, I think what Andrew was saying that kind of clarified that was the perpetuity clause, is that something that you said? Mr. MacKenzie: The gratuity clause. Mr. Johnson: The gratuity clause, okay, that would create a problem if we was to try to distinguish those who have gotten some type of supplemental increase in the past year or so. Mr. MacKenzie: It could create some serious administrative problems in addition to that. This is an across the board offer. The offer is we’re going to reward you if you stay employed with us. There’s something that an employee has to do and that is to remain employed on the day here and be employed on today’s date. If we start to pick and choose which ones are eligible for that, it would create an administrative nightmare for one and then two, you could run into a problem by, an equal protection type problem by only giving some employees the option to take advantage of this opportunity to earn this additional money. You could create more legal problems by trying to create an exception. I understand the political difficulty with it but your choices would be to not do it or to do it for everyone for this kind of incentive because you want it to be equally applicable to all eligible employees because there is something they have to do. This is not being given for no reason. They have to remain, be employed today and remain employed in the October 31 date to be eligible to receive that. If they don’t meet those conditions, they don’t get it. If you start adding additional conditions in there, it would defeat the purpose for which it’s being added. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yeah, if I can follow up. If we made a decision to give someone else back whenever we distinguished then to give whoever got it and I don’t know anybody got it. Maybe nobody got anything. But if there was an incentive given to other employees in the past year, then that’s double dipping now. Let’s call it what it is. And I hear you saying if we distinguish who got it and don’t give it to them and going to create a what, I don’t understand. Because payroll ought to be able to look and see who had an increase or whatever kind on a computer. We ain’t got to go open the ledger up and go down the list and check them off. There ought to be a way to kick it out to us to know who got what. So and I want to be fair but it’s unfair to give someone twice and someone who hadn’t gotten anything so we made that distinction then and it sound like it happened because we’re not even talking about it. We’re not even putting it on the table, we’re talking about what it might look like and what it might seem. We’ve got 10 people who are looking for a little bonus, a little incentive so can anybody answer that? Anybody, did we get anything? Mr. Johnson: Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams: The only way I know how to address that is you’ve got to define what kind of increase you want. There have been no cost of living raises across the board for several years. However, most recently the item that I can think of is the salary schedules for the entire Fire Department was just changed. Do you want to exclude those? Those were reclassifications. So if you define the criteria, if you had an individual that was a, just say a Laborer I and a position came open in his department and he became a Truck Driver I, yes, sir, his salary would have gone up so – Mr. Williams: But I’m not talking about salary, Ms. Williams. I understand what you’re saying. Ms. Williams: I’m trying to get to the level of criteria of folks for you to tell us who you’re looking to exclude because there are individuals within this organization that have had increases in their pay either due to an internal promotion, a reclassification or an action of the commission such was taken with the Fire Department. So other than just looking at, yes, sir, we can tell you, HR can go in and run a report and they can tell every individual whose salary has changed within a period of time but then they have to do research to determine why that person’s salary changed, whether they went from that Day Laborer position to a Truck Driver I or whether it was a mass action such as occurred with the Fire Department most recently. Mr. Williams: Well, and I understand when a position change and you move from one position to another, when you get an increase from responsibility side, when you acquire something else and get additional pay, I understand that but I’m not addressing that. I’m talking about, now the Fire Department we just supported looking at reevaluating and doing some stuff with the Fire Department and they got an increase. And what we was told that we were leaving people, losing people but the top rank, everybody got money in the Fire Department. It wasn’t just the – Ms. Williams: No, sir, not everybody. Mr. Williams: Okay, we won’t get into the nuts and bolts because there are some increases that were given out in the Fire Department. It wasn’t given out to the brand new person on the back of the truck. But all I was asking was who’s getting what, and some people are going to get twice because it just, it’s a hard decision and you’ve got to – Mr. Johnson: Yeah, and I don’t think it’s going to be an easy way to fix it neither. I think we’re just going to have to go with it. Commissioner Davis then Commission Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Before I make this statement, let me make sure that I’m clear. The criteria that we’re utilizing, be it a full time or a part time employee, the criteria is simply 11 the employee as of September 29 and stay retained through October 31. That’s the only criteria we’re looking at? Ms. Williams: As it is written, yes, sir. Mr. Mason: Okay, so here’s the other problem that I have with this the way it is written. I know for a fact that we have several employees that are having some discipline issues so are you going to tell me that as long as they’re employed as of September 29 and they stay employed through October 31 even though they’re having these discipline issues that we’re going to pay them $500 or $200 if they’re part time? Ms. Williams: I am here to do what the body decides. Mr. Mason: Well, it’s just a question. Ms. Williams: Well, it is, it is. Mr. Mason: Is that yes? Ms. Williams: It would be as it is currently written. Mr. Mason: Okay and that’s all. I’m not, this is not geared towards you. Ms. Williams: I understand that. Mr. Mason: I’m just trying to find out who all is going to be a recipient because if I’m an employer and I’m trying to retain employees, first of all, I’m trying to retain the best of the best and those that deserve to be retained. If I’ve got discipline issues, the least thing that I’m going to do is reward them with money and so this is what I’m hearing. Not that you made that decision, so this is not personal, but I think as a commission we need to understand what we’re doing here. If in fact we do that that means that even those that are under disciplinary action right now and haven’t been confirmed or taken but we know that there are several that fall into that category that they’re going to get paid. They’re going to get $500 and if they’re part time they’re going to get $200. I personally have a problem with that because I can’t reward bad behavior or not at least meeting the standards or exceeding the standards if we’re going to give you something above your pay so for that reason and many more I can’t support this today but this is not a last minute thing, Mr. Commissioner. I think you know I wasn’t for it in the beginning. Mr. Johnson: I think one way to probably clear it up if, I mean we would have to go back and probably add some language to it but to say if they’re not immediately facing any disciplinary actions at this particular time and haven’t had any in the last three months or so you can potentially put those in the (inaudible) because that can somewhat clarify and even justify why we’re giving the retention bonus to some because we don’t to retain those who are not cutting it, those who are not meeting the criteria of the particular job. I know it may be somewhat difficult but that could be a requirement to say if they’re not or haven’t been faced 12 with any disciplinary actions over the past three to six months then they can receive it. They are eligible to receive the $500 retention bonus because again, I mean that’s a good point, you don’t want to try to retain those who are not, they’re not adequately meeting the demand for the job or whatever the case may be whether it’s being tardy or not showing up or whatever, we don’t know, but that will be for the department to figure out and make those determinations on but that could be one way we can do it and, Andrew, you can kind of, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong on this, but what would you say about that? Mr. MacKenzie: I would not recommend that you have anything contingent upon this action with respect to the discipline and the reason for that is under the employment law arena, they would need to be made aware before any discipline was considered that part of that consequence would be not being eligible to participate in this employee retention program. We can’t retroactively create a condition for discipline that’s already happened. Now there might be a way in the future if you wanted to start doing this on a regular basis if the period of time was longer you could build in some conditions that you’re not retaining employees. However, this could have an inverse impact as well. If an employee is being considered for discipline now or if they are sometime during this period, certainly the management would consider that they would be eligible if they remain employed that might push them to, you give them more discipline or possibly terminate them to ensure that they don’t get this bonus. So I would suggest that you do not mix that, let’s keep this one, all these other issues need to be addressed but I would suggest those are apples and oranges situations. The effect of this would be the same effect as if commission in the 2015 year budget decided to increase everyone’s salary across the board by a fixed amount. This is the effective impact except in this instance there is something for the employee to do and they have to be employed on this day and they’ve got to remain employed on this date. Let’s not mix in all the other stuff with this recommendation. Mr. Johnson: That makes sense. Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I know we started talking about this at the retreat and we had talked about the $1,000 retention pay increase or whatever we’re calling it and then we agreed to go back to the $500 so we probably should have been talking about these options back then, is that correct, because we basically laid it out there just every employee at that time. Ms. Williams: The original discussion started off with an increase to the rate of pay that would stay permanent and then it backed down to a one time pay incentive which is what you have to call it. Ms. Davis: Right. So with the direction we’ve given ya’ll, is there anything we can change in this language at this time or do we do agree on this or agree not to agree on this? Is there any language we can change as far as like what Commissioner Mason and Commissioner Williams have brought up as far as stipulations of who would receive that? I know you just said you would discourage that. Mr. MacKenzie: Due to the timing at the end of the year and that this would be in the 2014 parameter I don’t see anything for you to do but to decide whether you’re going to let it be 13 applicable to everyone or now there are some things that you could consider for next year but due to your time frames I wouldn’t recommend that you try to go back to the drawing board at this time or you may run out of your year. Ms. Davis: So if we don’t agree on this today as the way it’s written, we can look into something for 2015 budget? Mr. MacKenzie: That’s what I would suggest you do. Ms. Davis: Okay, thank you. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support the recommendation or suggestion that Commissioner Davis just made. We’re kind of late in the day now to try and make major revisions to this. Any time you have something like this some people are going to get over, some people are going to get something that they don’t deserve and some of those that deserve it are not going to get as much as they should. But we see what has happened up to this . I point so I think we’d be in a much better position to develop a plan for future years to come think that we’re in the midnight hour now and I really wish we could go ahead on and support this, get it off the table and move on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson: Yeah, I think just for the sake of the greater good of the employees as a whole I think it would be prudent to go ahead on and move forward and then next year you all can look at, if you continue to do this program, look at other ways to better incentify – Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, that was a motion. I hope I can get a second. Mr. Hasan: Second. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: I was just going to make a motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: Okay. All right, we have a motion and second on the floor. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mayor Pro Tem and all that good stuff. You know, we start looking at employees, the few who does the bad or the problem employees, the ones that are in disciplinary actions right now but you have to look out for the bigger picture which is all the good employees, all the ones that shows up for work, all the ones that’s dedicated and the ones that’s actually needing it. We all know that on the lower spectrum we had discussed this plenty of times. It’s the ones that’s out there right now while it’s raining digging the ditches, the ones who’s fixing the street lights, that’s the ones that’s going to benefit the most is them employees. Even I’ve got some bad apples within my company but I don’t punish the good ones who’s actually there every day. I know what Mr. Mason was talking about, we 14 shouldn’t reward the bad but there’s no way that we could split frog hairs, that’s a Joe Jackson statement, but it would be too difficult at this moment in time to try to separate the few for the many. Mr. Johnson: All right, we do have a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual – Ms. Allen: You just need to clarify full time regular employees. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am, we’ve got it. Ms. Allen: Okay. Mr. Johnson: Yes. Ms. Allen: It’s included in there. Mr. Johnson: Yes, it is. Yes. Mr. Williams: What was that? Mr. Johnson: Full time regular employees which Donna talked about in the beginning. Mr. Williams: And the part time? Mr. Johnson: Yes, part time. It really excludes us. We’re full time but we’re not – Mr. Williams: Okay, elected officials. I just wanted to be clear. The Clerk: And make sure that the pay period would be 11-26. Mr. Johnson: Unless ya’ll wanted to include us. Go ahead, say it again. All right, no further discussion, vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mason and Mr. Harris vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk. Mr. Attorney, we do have a need for a legal, correct? Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct. 3.LEGAL MEETING A.Pending and potential litigation B.Real estate 15 C.Personnel Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to go into a legal meeting to discuss pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel. Mr. Lockett: So move. Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I’d like to make sure that the EEO Director, Ms. Humphrey, be able to come into legal to discuss some of the personnel stuff that we’ve got on this list. If she is not present, please see can we get her in there, please, ma’am. Mr. Johnson: Okay. If someone can do that, that would be great. We do have a motion. Do we have a second? Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Johnson: Okay, there a proper motion and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Johnson: We’re now in legal. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll go ahead and call the legal meeting back to order. Mr. MacKenzie. 4.Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect? Mr. Mason: So move. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. 16 Mr. MacKenzie: That’s all I have. Thank you. Mr. MacKenzie: -- subject to the action regarding the personnel matter. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time I’d like to make a motion to approve the negotiated contract of Janice Allen Jackson as our, Augusta’s next Administrator with a commencement date of November 15, 2014. Mr. Fennoy: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: I’d like to have a roll call vote, please. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madam Clerk, we will have a roll call vote on the motion as made and properly seconded. The Clerk: Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. 17 Mr. Johnson: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: If there’s, well, before proceeding with the adjournment, I’d like to welcome Ms. Jackson aboard and thank you, Commissioners, for making this step. Thank you so much. With no further business to come before the body, we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on September 29, 2014. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 18