Sunday, August 1, 2010

From 1970: City Personnel Rules Cited

This article is from 40 years ago today, published in the Hartford Courant of August 1, 1970.
A resolution which “urges” all agencies which do not have budgets within the regular city budget to comply with city personnel rules will go to the Common Council for action Monday night.

The resolution “urges all agencies not included in the regular budget to comply in the matter of personnel policies, job description and classification and salary levels to those used by all other city departments, in order that common policies may be followed in all of the city’s activities.”

It was first presented to the council several months ago by Councilman Vincent Amato, who at the time said he was not aiming his resolution at any particular agency, such as the Housing Authority. He felt, he said, that agencies which are actually a part of the city’s administration should stay in line with city personnel rules and in the setting of salaries. His resolution was tabled because other councilmen wanted more time to study it.

The resolution, while not binding on the separate agencies, was expected to be adopted. If it is, the agencies were expected to comply because the council can at times make things difficult for such agencies.

There are a number of agencies not bound by city budget or personnel policy regulations, including the Housing Authority, Redevelopment Agency and others.

In other matters to be acted on by the council Monday, the education department is asking an additional $12,000 to meet increased cost of insurance. The same department asks transfer of $3,000 to project DISCUSS, a state grant in that amount having been received by the city treasurer. It is required that the council approve taking the money from the general fund.

Also to be acted upon are resolutions granting the registrars of voters and the sealer of weights and measures a salary increase of $350 for the year starting July 1. Also recommended is an increase in the salary of the dog warden from $2,100 to $2,275.

No comments: