sr-021368-6a __
_ __
c:r~r o~ sA;~~~ ~so¢~~cA
I ~ ~ ~
.... .r+. ui. u ~ u Jb J~~ :v J
1
~^ "\
DATE: ~ 5 "~L: ~i
~
~ ~
' .
TO: ?:o~_ura
s1e City Cowncil
„ity o~ Santa K onica -+
,
I:'=;
J 1':,,
FROidL: i-~iiton Charles, Jr., Chairman Personnel Board. T~I:g lw? .
,
.
RFi ~- i~
;^
SUBJECT: Recorrcrendation Por Revision c Portion ~
of Sect~b~it21;~$dtl~ .; J. r SCE
of the Santa Aionica idanicipal Code IJ ~ -'--=itG.
The Personnel Board respecti`u11y recommends that she
City Council consider a"ending that pcrtion of Sectio
2103F1 of the Santa Konica i~~~~icipal Code orhicb relates
to the extension of ,orobaticnary ~oer:iods.
The Personnel Board, alter ca'reial consideration,
feels that this section should be a*uended to oerr~i.t the
extension o' probationary periods only after consideration
by the City Council or the Personnel Board or by some
other iorraal methcd :whereby e.~ployees may be 'r_ea-rd beo-re
the action is taken.
r~L 7
_:~LZCiv c~AR~.,F,s, JR,
Chairman, Personnel Board
inch Asst. City Atto-rney's Opinion
SEA
:c;
City P/anager
City Cowncil
City Clerk
City Attorney
City Controller
CITY Or'
CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNc`Y
CITY HALL - EXbrook 3-9975
Corrected Copy Of:
CITY ATTORNEY OPINION - JANUARY 3, 1968
To The Honorable Members Of The Personnel Board Of The City Of
Santa Monica.
Gentlemen:
The Honorable Milton Charles, Jr., Chairman of the
Santa Monica Personnel Board has requested an opinion of this
office on a question which may be stated as follows:
Was the action taken by the City Admin-
istration extending the probationary
period for all new employees .an additional
six (6) months in conformity with Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 2103F1?
Mr. Perry Scott, City Manager for the City of Santa Monica informed
the undersigned this date that after numerous individual requests
by the various department heads for the extension of probationary
periods in particular cases the subject of probationary periods and
their present inadequacy was discussed at length at a staff meeting
in which all department heads were either present or represented by
their immediate assistant.
It was the unanimous opinion. following said discussion
that a uniform one year probationary period applicable to all new
employees would enhance the efficient operation of each department
and eliminate morale problems among employees created by extensions
in individual cases.
Following this staff meeting the Personnel Officer was
directed to prepare a memorandum for distribution to the various
departments outlining the decision reached and setting the date on
which the new policy would be effective. The memorandum from
R. L. Maples dated March 1, 1g67 was prepared and distributed in
compliance with that order.
City Attorney Opinion
Christina J. New
Page Two
January 3, 1868
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2103F1 provides as
relevant here:
"Any appointment made-from an eligible
list shall be sub,~eet to a probationary
period of six months...; provided,
however, that upon recommendation of the
Appointing Authority..., the City Manager
may extend the probationary period for any
particular classification for a maximum of
an additional six months."
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2100 defines the term Appointing
Authority as the Department Heads.
The plain language of Santa P+tonica Municipal Code Section
2103F1 makes it abundantly clear that the City Manager has-the
authority to extend the. probationary period in any particular class
for a maximum of an additional six months, However, the Section
sets forth an additional requirement that the extension be on
recommendation of the Department Head.
The American. Collegiate Dictionary (Text Edition) Harper
and Brothers Publishers defines the word recommendation" as the
"act of recommending" and the word "recommend":
"to represent or urge as advisable
or expedient."
From this definition it logically follows that if the Department Heads
at a staff meeting following a discussion of the probationary period
arrive at the unanimous opinion that a one year probationary
period would be beneficial to all concerned, they are in fact,
representing the extension as expedient and urging its adoption as
advisable,
Moreover, there is nothing in the Section to require that
such recommendation be in writing.
It goes without saying that if the City Manager has the
authority to extend the probationary period in any particular class
he has the power to extend it in all classes.
City Attorney Opinion
Christina J. New
Page-Three
January 3, 1968
Wherefore, it is the opinion of this office that the
action taken by the City Administration creating a uniform one
year probationary period far employees hired by the City of
Santa Monica after March 31, 1967 is in conformity with the
Santa Monica Municipal Code and is, therefore, legally effective.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT G. COCKINS
City Attorney
CI3RISTINA ~ NEW
Assistant City Attorney
,.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
M E M O R A N D U M
mate :
March 1, 1967
Ali Department Reads
~~~ r
r_, ,
d++ ~ ~ u
~. ~ _;
RE
GIT 1 ~i.~. CL+'
Ii,Z _'T.iG.
_~rom: R. L. Maples, Personnel Director
Su=~9„ect: Probationary Periods
Beginning April 1, 1967, the probationary period for all per-
manent positions will be one year. Employees on the payroll
before April l will not be affected by this change even though
they may at present be on a six month probationary period.
It is hoped that a uniform probationary period for all per-
manent employees will be an improvement over past practices.
A one-year probationary period will give the appointing author-
ity more time in which to make a decision as to whether a pro-
bationary employee should be recommended for permanent status.
This change should also benefit the new employee by allowing
him more time to demonstrate his ability to perform on the job.
The above change has been approved by the City Manager.
If there are any questions, please call me.
a~ t~,4r,,'I~.Ce,_.
.ROBERT L. MAPLES
Personnel Director
RIM:kb
M