Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to footer

Courtney Durrett

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: October Non-Consent Agenda items #4968
    Courtney Durrett
    Participant

      Madam Chair,
      Please add a discussion item regarding 2025 County Government Day on the Hill.
      Thank you,
      Courtney

      in reply to: Invitation to Knox County Emergency Management Agency #4930
      Courtney Durrett
      Participant

        I’m available 11/21 and 12/5

        in reply to: Request of approval for special called meeting #4608
        Courtney Durrett
        Participant

          Yes

          in reply to: Commissioners – Please Read….. #4313
          Courtney Durrett
          Participant

            Are we only posting any amendments we would like to add or should we include which amendments we support and which amendments we personally feel need further discussion?

            in reply to: October Non-Consent #2284
            Courtney Durrett
            Participant

              Commissioners – please indicate if you are interested in serving on the personnel committee by responding in the forum.

              in reply to: R-22-9-904 “Personnel Committee” #2261
              Courtney Durrett
              Participant

                Commissioner Jay,

                The description is intentionally left vague so that the committee itself, once formed, can determine the specific information it wishes to acquire from the various board chairs in which the Commission oversees. As the languages states in section 5, the committee shall operate in accordance with commission rules. Therefore, the committee will elect a chair, vice chair and secretary as it is not a standing committee. The committee can bring anything it deems necessary to full commission, whether it be an update of a certain board, an action item, etc. The committee will be required to meet at least quarterly as the resolution language states; however, the members can choose to meet more often if deemed necessary.

                I am happy to clarify any other questions you may have regarding the creation of this committee.

                Courtney

                in reply to: Commission Reorganization – Committees #2205
                Courtney Durrett
                Participant

                  I would also like to be on rules for the first time and remain on Development Corp since there are only a few meetings left before it dissolves.

                  in reply to: Reorganization #2179
                  Courtney Durrett
                  Participant

                    Yes

                    in reply to: PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE #2118
                    Courtney Durrett
                    Participant

                      Yes

                      in reply to: Merit System Reforms – DISCUSSION #2055
                      Courtney Durrett
                      Participant

                        Some questions/thoughts on the proposed changes:

                        42-52 – Positions and employees included in system:
                        New language – “The Sheriff’s appointees shall be those employees…” – Is there a restriction on the number of appointees? Will these employees be aware their job does NOT fall under protections of the Merit System when hired?

                        42-53 – Merit System Board of Directors:
                        If we must increase the number of members, I think five is more reasonable, since COK, Nashville and Memphis have five. Hamilton Co. actually has 3 members because they follow the 1974 state law.

                        42-58 – Competitive tests; lists of eligibles:
                        (a) New language – “…the board shall, as often as required by the necessity of and the request of the office of the Sheriff, hold tests for the purpose of establishing lists of eligibles for the various positions of the classified service.”

                        What does testing at the request of the Sheriff mean? Immediate testing? Schedule testing?

                        (a) New language – “Prior to placement on the list of eligibles, background investigations must be completed by the Sheriff and the candidate found in conformity with standards.

                        The current process begins with the records department completing the criminal history check (which is done before anything else). If they have a criminal history, they do not even move forward with testing since there is an expense to test each applicant. Currently, the Sheriff’s office only does their background checks on the applicants they select to move forward with after they have passed our initial process and have been placed on the eligibility list.

                        Removing “by the Sheriff” will keep the process as it is currently.

                        42-60 – Transfers:
                        New language – “All employees in the classified service may be transferred from one position to another within and between classes of positions as determined by the Sheriff only under rules established by the merit system council.” The merit rules that pertain to transfers are the classification plan set forth in 42-55. Striking this portion of the language and replacing it with “as determined by the Sheriff” removes protections created under the classification plan. Simply removing the language “as determined by the Sheriff” will remedy this contradiction.

                        42-67 – Grievances which may be addressed by the Merit System Board:
                        Are the grievances listed the only grievable offenses? There is no mention of employees being able to grieve any transfer or demotion for political reasons.

                        General question – Do we need to be compliant with state law?

                        in reply to: Judicial Appointment #1639
                        Courtney Durrett
                        Participant

                          Thank you Chairman Beeler. I am in favor of this schedule.

                          in reply to: Redistricting Ordinance #1584
                          Courtney Durrett
                          Participant

                            Yes

                            Courtney Durrett
                            Participant

                              Please pull resolution R-21-6-909 item #69

                            Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)