My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/1/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
12/1/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:07:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/01/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
DEC -1 1992 <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht A <br />DATE: November 18, 1992 <br />RE: BOARD -EMPLOYEE RELATIONS <br />,*, -7 <br />BOOK 8 �A,r_ iqI <br />It has been my experience that strict separation between elected officials <br />and employees ( other than employees appointed directly by and <br />responsible to the elected officials) provides for the most workable <br />situation in local government . For example, the charter of the City of <br />Vero Beach contains the following language: <br />Section 2.06. Council -Employee Relationship. <br />Neither the city council nor any of its members shall in <br />any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any city <br />employee except the charter officers nor shall the council or <br />any of its members give orders to any employee other than <br />council orders to a charter officer. The council or its <br />members shall deal on all matters through the appropriate <br />charter officer. <br />The Indian River County Code has similar provisions but with one major <br />difference which opens up the door to the type of relationship that is <br />inimical to good local government, i.e., board members requesting <br />reports, research, work product or action which takes an employee <br />away from his assigned tasks. That major difference reads as follows: <br />"Nothing in this section shall <br />communication with a county <br />inquiry or information." <br />preclude a board member from <br />employee for the purpose of <br />A request or inquiry from a county commissioner to a regular county <br />employee will often be perceived by that employee as a direct order of <br />number one priority. This is, in itself, contrary to orderly <br />government, especially if the request requires research or follow-up <br />action. It is recognized that contact by board members with county <br />employees may occur; however, it should be limited and it should not <br />take the employee away from assigned tasks. <br />The board, as a body, should have direct contact only with the County <br />Administrator, the County Attorney or the the Executive Aide to the <br />Board of County Commissioner. <br />In view of the foregoing, I am proposing that section 101.08 be <br />amended to read as follows: <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.