Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to footer

Terry Hill

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Merit System Reforms – DISCUSSION #2138
    Terry Hill
    Participant

      Got it, thanks for your work on this.
      Terry

      in reply to: PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE #2115
      Terry Hill
      Participant

        Yes

        in reply to: Merit System Reforms – DISCUSSION #2054
        Terry Hill
        Participant

          This was sent to me by a uniformed sheriff’s officer. I believe it deserves consideration. Thanks, Terry.
          a. Section 9.5.1 labeled “General” has been removed and a new section, labeled under the new ordinance Sec42-67 Grievances which may be addressed by the Merit System Board. What is interesting is the removal of such terminology and rights for employees such as: “a grievance is defined as any perceived wrong, considered as grounds for complaint arising out of a personnel action” –
          b. The new Sec 42-60, labeled Transfers – this section appears to have been closely rewritten, wherein it was added that the Sheriff can transfer employees from one position to another within and between classes of positions. What is interesting, as you refer to the exhibit A provided by Commissioner Jay, is that “as determined by the Sheriff” was added and “only under rules established by the merit system council” –
          These two items alone should be alarming to any of you that wish to keep qualified, dedicated deputies employed to protect your constituents. What is being proposed is a total removal of protections of employees from political retaliation, as well as unstable leadership. We have seen in communities around us, Oak Ridge for example, what a leader can do to people’s lives that only signed up to work and protect the community. If you all do not thing more should be added to ensure that in 80 years someone cannot come in and move people, without cause, from positions which they have been trained in (which, mind you, costs taxpayer dollars) please feel free to be transparent so that those that can make changes in their lives can do so.

          in reply to: June Non-consent #2043
          Terry Hill
          Participant

            Please pull items #48 and #49 from consent
            Terry

            in reply to: May Non-consent #1922
            Terry Hill
            Participant

              Got it…. Thanks!

              in reply to: Legislative Priorities #1715
              Terry Hill
              Participant

                Thanks for this listing. I am wondering on #4 what type of “protections” you were thinking about?

                in reply to: December Non-consent Items #1669
                Terry Hill
                Participant

                  I would like the add from parks and rec on naming facilities to be pulled from consent.
                  Terry

                  in reply to: Judicial Appointment #1644
                  Terry Hill
                  Participant

                    Yes that works

                    in reply to: Non-Consent Items October 2021 Work Session #1601
                    Terry Hill
                    Participant

                      thank you

                      in reply to: Redistricting Ordinance #1591
                      Terry Hill
                      Participant

                        Yes

                        Terry Hill
                        Participant

                          Got it, Thanks

                          Terry Hill
                          Participant

                            Got it!

                            Terry Hill
                            Participant

                              Item 45 – is anything going to be said about this given the countless hours it cost Dwight and the citizens that took time to apply and serve?

                            Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)