came up in work then when we uh when we went back and we thought some of these things we then Revisited things we thought were done and that's why I agree with we do it a section at a time so that we can we can address it um obviously the purpose in section one is you know we want have a person of these Poli establish a uniform eal system Personnel Administration for employees in city um my not why are we doing this update Mr Mayor yeah can we call the meeting order sure thank you we are calling this meeting to order it's a work session May 23rd 2024 6:10 p.m. uh that you call R please counc MERS herec BR herec Andor L and project Manor I will get that wrong I'm sorry for presence thank you you're welcome anybody have anything to amend the agenda approve the agenda present motion the second second all those in favor sign say I I close motion guante um so anyway question is why are we doing these up you know last fall we were doing it because we knew there were some things that we had questions on that had to do with benefits and we were looking to hire staff and so we became came under time frunch because they trying to get St and it took multiple rounds to figure out what it is we we're doing benefit wise I don't anticipate this one being anywhere close to that because we don't have those types of decisions to make typically we aren't looking at taking any benefits or adjusting back any benefits different from uh what staff already has but we do have a number of things in in these sections as Ben mentioned either we reference a document of policy that isn't here doesn't exist um or we have some things in here that we just aren't doing we need to know do we do it for everybody just supervisors those types of things um so obviously one of the reasons is stated in the the purpose in section one uniform eal system of personnel Administration obviously we want all of our documents to conform to legal requirements for the state and federal law as they prain to statutory a cities um we want to make sure that we have clear consistent objective policies that all current and Future employees can understand and therefore know what's expected you what they are expected to do and what they're allowed to do um and then to uh establish clearly identify the responsibilties of the employees and delineation of authority um and we want to make sure that our city policies minimize potential liability for the city and maximize fiscal accountability for our 4600 residents and and I know we wanted to get this meeting started right away it's there in the fall when we did this we had a deadline of trying to get people is there a a deadline that we are are under on this one that we have to do something bu a certain deine anybody know we shouldn't be under that same press where other than Le she working out so we don't have to do this this would 100% of time um so in addition to the Red Square documents here um I would I would would like Council to consider that we should have some additional policies that we've talked about for years but we haven't had a put in a policy um one being a credit card policy uh to being a public purpose expenditures policy public purpose expenditures um you know Ramsey has started the same way they're putting Flags in all the polls you know so there are certain things that we can do as a city that are public purpose expenditures that are allowable under statutory law there certain things that aren't we should have a policy delineate what that is rather than doing get peace mail when something comes up and trying to I is this a legitimate expense you can do so most cities have a public purpose expenditure so with that public purpose expend expenditure so there would be certain things that would be under that that would already be considered our budget is it you're saying it would already be in our budget so we're not cre something else tonight no no we have to research what what that is statutorily and examples of what that is but basically it says here's things you can spend public money on here's things you can't so like um somebody's family member passes away we cannot use C money to buy plowers or a memorial for them so there's certain things we can do on our own there's certain things that the city is allowed to do like holiday decoration things like that there's certain things that we not allowed to do and just it seems ridiculous sometimes it's like we all work together we just can't use City funds for this and yeah there certain things it's not allow and we should clarify what that is so rather than taking peace each time because again I think is a good point we're doing this not just for the group that's here but every two years you're likely turning over council members they have go through that again if you got the book you can say yeah this is all um uh came up the other night we were talking about you know staff Council authorized expenditures we talked about this for years what is the authorized amount you in one of our iterations here that actually allowed the council to spend $350 without Council authorization we never known is that day term year decade and on you know what is that um and then to make it clear what is what can staff do without Council approv you know Define if it's in the budget how much can be spent it's not in the budget when we um by trying to figure out what was in that, 1400 page build Hit the Floor Monday night nobody's quite sure what's in yet there is a a lunch and learn from small cities on June 4th at noon they're going to try and explain some of what they found but in that I heard there that they did get in the new Minnesota version of the FMLA and we should be looking at that as part of our policy as well because we do reference FMLA and now we got Direct Minnesota one I also understood in that that they Exempted volunteer firefighters and EMTs from the ESS so I did Realize by having part-time employees that put us over the employe mark so so obviously anything there and then once we find out what other 24 uh 2024 legislative changes that affect our policy we want to those in where they're appropriate as well and if anybody else when they were looking at this out of any other policy we've talked about over the years but just don't have not we should get that on the list so that we can start doing the background I think that before we ask do that as Council to once we have a list look at that this it on that yeah I was I was speaking specifically about the legisl even the other things mention yeah I'm just saying that's that's things that came to my mind and we discussed over the years that I didn't see in here and and my point in doing that was say if there are other things that people have said yes we've talked about this for years or here's something that may want to include that policy certainly this would be the time to bring it up before we get to that section and then have to go back and revisit a section um Mr Mayor get to phase two all right do we want to go Section by section yes do we want to address those that I just brought up they were not in Thea skip through phase two that sounds like there's research addend to the right how long go everybody AG 7 730 okay so these items are again to address conflicting make Corrections so when we section by section these will be part of those so for example everything about drug tests will again be two the decisions made tonight will be reflected in that when we go through the SE so the first if we look at the red the red Al page on page two if we look at drug test preemployment testing all employes the first line is ad what is poliy today I bolded the word or words that will be his best so right now the policy that all candidates shall have preemployment drug and alcohol testing this is not happening currently for the city of now then but that's the conflict we're trying to resolve the leag does not recommend testing all employees there are very strict state and federal guidelines that would need to be adhere if you were going to test all um importance so the question for this first question is would the city like to perform preemployment drug and alcohol testing for every employee or only for CDL Drivers CDL Drivers is a federal requirement there is no option to avoid drug testing for those employes and we if we decided not to go with we decided not to go with all employees would there be a condition then placed in the policy that at any time they be asked to take a drug that is a um suspicion Clause Reasonable Suspicion clause and so that is separate from Theo so you could say we don't drug test everybody before hiring but we can if we have Reasonable Suspicion drug test any employee who we suspect there are be follow for reasonable suspicion it can't be just ad hoc or random and those people have be train right to be able to return that yes I would I would suggest that we own the go C and then just follow any policy that the league is able to provide and just I know that in your packet you have options um as far as location T I like I mean we're not Dr test that's office yeah and part of having a CD you have it on an annual basis you have your health card and part of that is drug testing the level of risk CDL only so question um for the council and the mayor um do we want to get a majority I heard two people say CDL I didn't hear anything from anybody else I how would you like this to work before we notate that CDL was the decision made tonight I know we're not voting on anything tonight but nobody said anything otherwise I'll just take notes it's on the screen so if no I I think we should make it clear that the council has has agreed so we can vote it's it's an it's a legitimate meeting so I move that on uh the issue of pre-employment testing that we only test employes that need to have a c I'll any other questions so let me let me ask this preemployment and they're going to they may not have C that they're going to get one we going to ask drive truck say we have an employee that we hired that the intention is they're going to give a CD have or not right would would this apply to them if we're anticipating they're going to drive the truck but they don't currently have a CDL Mr Mayor I I would say yes he's already if he's going for a cdl's going have to take that test we would that preemployment Mr May there is a clause within the CDL policy itself that says if you are working for an employer and you switch to a CDL driver that drug test must be followed so the CDL policy itself is very um specific on on what the testing is who applies to when it applies so so I saw two headshake over here that if they're going to be hired for a position that requires it but they don't have it yet we still preest not shaking no if if right so my my motion is that preemployment at the CD is required for that job we have that test I would add to that motion that if you are existing employed you are currently employed and you move to a job that is required to have a CDL then you have that test because it's part of the CD and that serves acknowledgement that' done yes I understanding I I'm just saying that if they're hired with the idea you're going to have to drive a big truck let's find out about the drug test before we go to all and Sub C so I would Mr May S I would disagree with that for the simp fact that we can continue to use a certain individual for that let's just say we hired him on we don't do pre appointment drug test once he goes to get his CDL and his health card and goes and gets it now he will get drug tested I don't know why the city would take on the incurred cost of drug testing them up front until the CDL takes effect right so I wouldn't do a pre-employment and then another one when he go we would we would follow the CDL diin right which is get a but you can have somebody that that you hire up this year and then a year and a half from now it's like oh I'm go get my CDL so DRS the plow truck it's like then we decide to drug that doesn't make any sense it's like all the all the guidelines Co so to clarify and I'm not sure what I'm hear you what Mary what you had said I think it's consider what Jason said if we're hiring somebody that's likely going to be driving they truck do the drug test Comm create preemployment so there's a problem we're not we're not we're not anticipating driving that okay so that's your motion so that is the motion all those in favor sign by saying I I I I don't have it written now I don't know exactly how it's spelled out what we're trying to do my understanding if when it comes time to do their CDL they have the drug test but that's not what I heard so right so we're saying that I consider them from CD they fail now again if there's somebody here I'll I'll just say name and we can we'll move on right C only and as a pre-employment for anybody who's likely to be driving TR so the argument has Mr if I this is this is where going through the Section by section is going to be really helpful because then we'll be able to see this edl policy will be able to understand that so to simplify this question we could change the wording to say would the city like to perform preemployment drug testing on all infs no no so I think that is a much easier question and we can move the CDL to once we truly understand what CDL is because CDL itself is not addressing the policy at all right now so CDL drug testing and the requirements for that is going to be a big section so that was my point in in wanting to do this in conjunction with the section because we don't have context here and yes we so saying oh that's already covered here but we just spent 10 minutes discussing it it was in there if we were in the section where there's context to it maybe this would have been Str it doesn't you know if you're hiring somebody that's likely be driving the truck we saying you don't we're not doing any drug testing you ahead of time but then we're going to do it when when they apply for the CDL and they may not pass but if we're saying right now we're not going to do it on anybody but CDL Drivers and so I'm assuming that if someone would not pass the drug test if they were already hired that at that point you wouldn't even have them take the test nor would we give them CDL because you assume that You' be able to have suspicion at that point well did you well you would necessarily have suspicion but did you hire them with the intention they going to drive C Scott had mentioned was we've got someone who's been working here for a while they said I want to move to big trucks so they've been here a year and a half and they want to get a CDL that's a different thing they saying we're hiring you know right John do here with the idea that they'll get a CDL at some point and drive the big trucks from a pre-employment standpoint do we want to know if they even qualify because we're banking on them driving the big trucks and then they go app the CDL so they don't get CD if they're going to drive a big trucks mror I guess I want to go back to Jed's question so that we're doing it section by section so we don't want to test all but we're done with okay when we get to the CDL portion we'll have that discussion right now we don't have not portion in the policy but per Federal Regulations it must be do we have that with us no because it's dependent on the drug and alcohol policy that will we created is dependent on the questions that we're asking that's conversation so this reference is page 10 so in page 10 thing we have employment check reference background credit so the personel up on the screen as well it is highlighted where this sentence in question is so for for Mr Mayor ma'am if I may make a suggestion um there are a couple of items in your red box page that will depending on the answers will determine the next steps so we could simplify tonight to go through those questions that we need a yes or a no before we can even figure out what will be discussed and then we can get a lot of conf tonight and then for the next meeting through Section by section we at least you know some big questions such as all candidates will determine one drug policy c will determine ay right now so right now the initial answer which goes to page 10 drug and alcohol testing all cand conditional off employment has been extended shall have preemployment drug and alcohol test accordance with the city drug and alcohol testing policy the transportation regulation so what we'd be striking is at first part of that sentence and there'll be no pre-employment drug and alcohol testing but there will be drug and alcohol testing policy for any do correct so depending on the answer to the next question the next question is the same sentence but it's just a different part of that same sentence it says um drug testing will fall in accordance of the city's drug and alcohol testing policy which does not exist so the next question is does the city want to create one or does the city want to strike that sentence and then this whole chunk of the policy could potentially say the city follows all requirements of the Federal Department of Transportation do regulation 49 and that would be the only thing that would be in this section so we don't we wouldn't have any drug and alcohol testing policy if that was in case there is one that the leag has drafted specifically following theal Department of Transportation and then and susp so this part is for preemployment but then there is another part for so so in that if we have an accident somebody gets H in recycling part do are we I'm saying we throwing out the whole drug and alcohol the next question C's drug and alcohol testing policy I understand we're not doing preemployment but are we not going to have any drug and alcohol testing policy right now we're just talking all our time there's more drug testing yeah this is just pretty important correct on page 17 there is um drug test reasonable suici so the city could have a separate policy or the verbage that would when an employee could be tested for reasonable brandom Reasonable Suspicion could just be written into this policy itself got I you get and when we get to that section we can talk about right now all right and and I just put so just to confirm the answer to would the city like to preemployment the a mentioned City's drug and alcohol testing policy does not exist would the city prefer to remove this Al together or adopt the league of Minnesota City's non drug non doot drug and alcohol policy so that's where the leak is created one for non do requirements are federal Rel there isn't anything to adapt it's a requirement but if you would like to have a non to drug and aloh policy does have a fillable policy of adapted for if we said we're only we're not going to test then we wouldn't need we just needed the so we decided we're not going to do free but if you are ever going to test drug and alcohol on any nonot employee you need to have the requirements of when so this is right this is the problem then because we have two different sections going on here then and the problem with having two different sections is then we're all over the place so is there any way that we can go like this and marry those two sections rather than have them in different places because now we're jumping and so it then it doesn't make sense because I get the pre I get the pre but we keep going kind of now we're going into the other we didn't even know going we've agreed that we not dealing with Reemployment drug screening I would say that this question needs to be handled back when we talk about page 18 or whatever about drug test so should we just not do the rest of this go on that what you're saying that's as far as determining if we're going to have a policy or not we' said it's not maybe say it's not preemployment two and three we put off them until the next well I'm just trying to follow number one is preemployment number two is preemployment cor like my question because we put it off because a drug policy will have to come in somewhere right page 17 but right now number two says all candidates have conditional offer employment has been extended sh a pre-employment drug and alcohol testing accordance with the policy that's currently in our not we take and we don't have it so we're saying take it out and then the question is do we keep the part about the do and it's not pre-employment so we're not doing pre-employment do either right so somebody comes in and and they have a current CDL and how long the CDL annually test anybody know CD but I think your CDL is good for years okay so somebody comes in and they long two years into their CDL and they apply they have C do we Dr that we just said no said I'm sorry my understanding was they have a CD and and if they're again we're not sure but if they're good for three years and they're two years into their CDL and they don't have to Ren when they Ren they have to Dr test yearn they anually have to R talk about we're going to hire them into a job that requires a CDL we're going to drve them so preemployment that's what we said so if they require a CDL for the job we're going to drug TR them so if they have a current CDL they're going to be under the guise of the dot in addition to that we going to drug scream them or we hire them if they go into a job that doesn't require a CDL you're not going to drug SC them if at some point they say I want a promotion I want to do something else we are not going to drug screen them to give them that promo motion we are going to let them take the CDL and if they pass it part of passing the CDL is drug test so I think we're covered on that piece of it it's like if somebody comes in and they have an existing CDL that doesn't matter we're going to if the job is we're hiring you to drive our million dollar piece of equipment or $250,000 to whatever it costs like we're going to drug scream you to make sure that your not on substance as we if we hire you to mob WS or run the recycling center and in five years you want to drive snowall then we kind of understand your work history we don't have any reasonable suspicion we are going to allow you to get your CDL and uh follow the normal process which point they will do the drug test at which point they will do the test um thanks so Mr Mayor I'm hearing your question to is remove reference to the city's drug and alcohol testing policy in this section since we are not going to be testing non do employees for employment we there's nothing to reference as far as testing and how how did you include if somebody's hiring for CD position we do a pre preemployment the next number three that's insting D DT testing or yes and part of that is you have to have a very sust form signed by the employee before you can do that drug test so that policy covers why it's been tested and the employees agree to it so that policy and the approval to drug testing needs to be adopted so question three U there's a response line but you'll no just has changed me isn't really a question to follow federal guidelines now must stop and this one says that do requires preemployment testing random testing post accident Reasonable Suspicion and returning to Duty after after that's if it's acceptable on theum you put yes the city will adopt the required policy and employee acknowledgement so let's go back to number two we're taking I hope that we remove that state St and then can I ask you in addition say they answer the question we wrote the statement and not ndot drug and alcohol testing right so we have a motion motion coun rain second coun flat any other discussion hearing none all those in favor please signify by saying I I oppose motion carries number three then I would move that we adopt the do alcohol policy for C drivers that um with the LLC has and I'm assuming they have a form for and all [Music] that so a motion second byoun Al any other discussion none all those on item I carries number four is additional requirements um Federal requirements or supervisor training so anybody who supervises in a do employee is required to take mandatory training um this teaches them how to identify what reason suspicion so that they're not so that they understand the what requires testing it is required for supervisors of theot employees it is optional for all so the question would be um would you like it only for people who supervise the employees or would you like it to be mandatory training for any now I would move that we would follow the dot training for supervisors one at a time do we have two supervisors susp requ point I just ask we're need a new r that is is everywh sound like same thing just two minimum would have to be trained I'm guessing you're me to be WR anyone other than the maintenance provisor are driving technically would have to they have to be train yeah there have to be two of us on staff over there that are trained to these standards be able to do reasonable susp St they are two other two other you okay the Super One More sta with you okay got how would you like that worded again for the Poli at least three all supervisors with a minimum of three total employes W well do we have a second first you say I say the motion is at a minimum we want supervisor training in addition to supervisors we can train the people Beyond supervisors as needed Adat supervisor and one other choice just ask one the things that say on that specifically mandated recommends recurring training of Supervisors best practice want to include that yes so that second question I kind of there on few different lines but so it is required what one time they recommend annually annually training isual ESP changing policy on what control subes I we haven't voted on that I would add the annual TR to that do we thr this out there since we're we should be on the annual trading feel like are cheap these I was just say there're third feel like the are already trained but I mean the chief is he's not here every day but I feel he should be trained well there's body but they're they're not here we have reasonable cause and I'm the only one that's around they can still reach out to a deputy or something like that the general question here is as you mentioned the dep fire chief because that's one of the things that obviously there are fire department policies on how recently you can be ingesting drug and alcohol with the understanding that we have to include the fire department as I've told employees and in this it says this applies to all employees we have additional policies apply to fire department but do these these apply to all the fire department as well does it not I don't know I'm just saying from a reasonable suspicion standpoint if there's a fire in 13 pickup show up and one of them was at a graduation all afternoon and I'm the fire I'm be like you hold back thank you for coming in hold that today yeah I'm just saying in the policiy when I'm going through this applies to all employees and we just never thought about these things applying to the fire department because we created our own when Schmid but in that it referenced back to St Francis policy so Mr on the bottom of page five any City counil and individual employee shall be exempt from any of the provisions and these polic that maybe we add that fire into that sentence that the firefighters have their their own CS I don't since long that I I don't know how detailed those work you know there's a lot more detail in these policies than there is the fire department um based on the fact that they're part time on call one one of the things we set up those policies um because it was going back and forth between St Francis lawyers and our lawyers was St Francis at one point said we're just going to tie this to our employee manual so we didn't create additional policies they just tied it back to that goes back to this so there are some things specific and I remember the coming up because if could be the chief it could be a captain it could be somebody just come up says I smell you and you're not getting Tru um but we'll have to see how they link yeah let's put that different policies no no no we just have to see how whatever policy this for the fire department how they tie to this because currently this policy says this policy applies to all employees and they're considered employees um any provision in contracts so we don't really have a contract no so I have been working on that the other thing is just under purpose other than fire this reflect is reflect the law yeah we could just there because you do have it called out that independent contractors so you could add purpose of SC these policies do not apply to the following so you add yeah I think we careful does not they don't apply but we need to have if they're superseded by fire department policies if if there isn't something in the fire department policies then these are in effect because right now they drive they GD but they don't have C so fire department doesn't have a policy right so on that one we have the administr public work supervisor and another designated employee Chief and chair' would be that we would do that team training for the supervisors which includ City attorney Public Works State hist City administrator sorry public work supervisor and one of well we P talked originally one of administrator's choice or we can supplement that and that we and the yeah we would do the annual second motion by counc roun Brian any all those saying I cares next question is random and reasonable suspicion testing the current policy says any City employee shall be subject to Dr and alcohol tests randomly or du to reasonable sub so the first question would be do we want to leave the statement as this and have all Employees sub to random suici or just I would say I would so keep it as is y That's motion I'll second any other discussion seeing say so then um because we removed the policy I will when I go back and make these changes I will make sure where this sentence is that all people are subject to random and reasonable suspicion does clarify what the rules are for that it's not just that sentence that there is explanation of what is a random and what is stent well suspicion if it is not there currently can't recall so that will be in a whatever version of a drug and alcohol policy we end up with we chose not to do it on pre-employment we will have something for existing it could be a separate policy or if that paragraph is detailed enough then that paragraph if it explains what random is what susp is with in the paragra then would necessarily need to have aity so let's say it's Reasonable Suspicion put it on D it's two pages you really don't want two pages in the POS we have refer to addendum four and just put an addendum in the back versus a separate policy I believe that's acceptable to me that's easier policy next item number six the current policy says employees of the city will be compensated according to the classif classification schedules that have been adopted by the city ccil the city does not have a classification schedule that was adopted by the city question is the city be interested in adopting second that any other discussion yeah if we're doing sub 272 27.3 is the exact same thing basically promotions and compated um about steps which we don't believe that is I see I don't see I don't see two three listed on here so I'm sorry that I so it should be there but there's probably a different wording that needs to be placed but in place understood I think I to see a higher Dan 27 2 73 we don't have steps look 23 as 2 box so it's in the question is here the the formatting I missed adding two 273 so to confirm we removing all interest class [Music] and agree with that all those iny by saying I uh number seven talks about reimbursement for phones League of Minnesota city does have an entire section on their uh their personnel policy model about fs and um using personal FS for to business so the recommendation would be to add this additional n that the league has drafted into now's Poli I would move that how many phones areay somebody's phone ad first came up phes wer Comm they were expensive I totally agree like and the you paid by minute or you got 30 minutes or 150 minutes like everybody's unlimited plan and it's like it's a part of life now I tell you several large businesses including mine haveu that long it's like if you want to use your phone work great if not use it use teams exactly and it's like everybody the are going around now part of everyone so you saying be or it shouldn't any my husband's company actually pays for his phone my company did give me give gave me money for my phone huh your company said did you they did yeah they actually gave so but I ALS okay but I will also clarify that I was having people call me from Canada and my bill was getting so I went and set up we pay for this so then they started that so there was a reason policies that people are right and you're calling in from China but I mean well that's what I'm just saying saying is there I'm saying do we need need it is there a reason for it and if there is a reason then what is that in my case there was a reason for other people it was totally honest if we have like inside the shop we don't pay for siens and for people phone shop we just buy them buy phone because it's cheaper and we just hook it up to the wireless and use the wireless yep that's what I'm just saying I'm like it's a discussion yeah so I remember when this was instituted one of the problems we had when we were spine PES to them they L them all they L them so this said had a Buy in it's your own phone you don't want to lose your own phot so then we covered part of the so maybe we if we choose not to go with the stien that's fine the city the employee then has the right to say don't call me on my phone so how do we how does the city administrator or the city staff communicate with staff that's in the field if they say if you're not paying I'm not using don't call me so then the other thing is and phone cost at least in in how I've got in that is my rates have gone down compared to when we voted on this it was a $40 right so I don't know average now how much a phone cell phone costs anymore well if you don't pay for phone call for phone so there's a big difference there so so I'm I'm guessing how it works will do data because manuals copy data online any idea they use them in all different ways cell phone I think one of the things we just I don't want to get the C report but what we need to think about here too is if we take a look at the policy here if you're using your own personal cell phone and something happens at the city and there's an investigation now you give your I think I read somewh the recommendation is believe that the council may want to consider purchasing a separate cell phone not that I want to carry two cell phones but if you're going to do something like that as an employee of the city why would you continue to do work on your personal cell phone if it's subject something and they should be separate and talking like their cell phone and things like thatone call I'm text mesing a council member and something comes up and someone's under investigation my phone goes away and they take my personal cell phone and they do they could go through all that's the whole reason why we're looking at your personal emails right trying to get you guys business emails something was to happen that that everything just work on right the league is also talking about that should pertain cell phones because in my case I get personal on there I got um work on there and all that kind of stuff and yes I get a $40 staken but even that doesn't eliminate that so to to get away from that you got a work cell phone that's just for work and then you got a personal cell phone that's just person that we considering would that be a consideration for all employees or would that be a consideration for just yeah I mean I would recommend that you know your Public Works would be in there because if you're calling them out on the weekends or snowball whatever right um Works work and Natalie and I probably I guess I mean I don't think I need to have my parttime folks but I certainly would do it for my recycling F but you're seeing more and more people get we used to Years Gone by in my previous World it used to be two on the whole time then it went back to one and then it went back to two for these for these reason people didn't want personal mixing with work and something was to come up oh boy and just losing your cell phone until the investigation's over would be bad enough right but any text messages or anything would be just in the example you mentioned if you were texting a council member you need to be aware that the council member phone would also I was going to say if we're talking about that our phones are probably going to get requested soon than oh I wasn't justifying which was more important than the other no I'm just saying you were talking about yeah doing doing something for Council so that we can have or even emails you guys send me emails on the phone and I send them back to you know it's all that so I didn't want to muddy the waters but I think that's some as you're talking about sions I think what we need to talk about doesn't make sense to to maybe consider separating person separate both if we do counil then would that phone just go to the next Council would it be like just it be like the laptop right you have your own email where your coun member on on on the laptop let's just say and you're using that City email for all your work and then if you're not a council member any longer we waan next person take over them okay say you can't WR the SC yeah that's true we move it on to the next person so Mr Mayor for this item sounds like 10 two um the Le recommendation is to add this section regardless of who pays the billone record about toity miss our subject um because if you are going to be having city employees using their personal phones the polic needs to make them aware of the Minnesota Government data Practices Act so that they are aware that because they text back another employee it doesn't matter if it's the city paying for the bill or a personal so that section is recommended to be added and then um it sounds like we should add a separate F item to be discussed what do we want to do for phones across the board so I question then as far as so if that let's say I'm I'm your employee s I'm an employe and you give me the standard Practices Act and I'm like I I can't do that I don't want to be subject to that your public books said I don't want to do that I mean that they w't answer any calls so that's you take the S away that's going to be possibly the case too but even the second you're actually telling someone I mean for me okay I can even say my husband required his company to give him a phone because he refused unless it was by email on on on the computer that they bought him he refused to answer any phone calls on his personal phone and because of the nature of his business he knew what could happen so therefore he was like NOP and they had to so what I'm just saying is how would we handle it as a council if employee actually said that they have I mean they right AC up the job but we'd have to do this in an interview where we require something like this within the interview having them know that is what I'm hearing from you correct yes and that's the the end goal of this Personnel policy is you know they're hired we've offered them the job but they get to review all of the poliy and they sign they agree to it as part of the terms of their employe so you know for existing employees so council member back you were talking when we first started this policy part of that was if we didn't pay deci they just weren going to use they would respond calls so in a case like this and again I want to be careful we need to have the caveat that we're discusting options we have not decided other than what we voted on we haven't decided on anything because this verbage gets out and I could see suddenly nobody use answer Scot so and that has been on Scott's shoulders to say to let staff know these are just the sessions this is but State Law data practice says we have to tell you this if you're using your own phone these are the guidelines that you're using it up if you do not then we need to have a second piece to this policy that says if you're not going to use your own phone then we have to have a policy to say okay then or add to this policy that okay then we will buy you a burner and you are responsible for that burner and if you lose it there's a fine be paid um and that even like back to the it there's a question I have a question the it part about responsibility for City equipment so that is another piece of that um I I would like to see the data Practice Act number the statute just so that if they want to go look for something they could but that would be on the to-do list to figure out what are we going to do if all of a sudden they say no I don't want to I think it has been explained to them whether it's just a refresher you know I don't but it's a St to make them understand that this is an effective Monday and I won't bring this back to St until we decide exactly well but it's on if they listen to better to just you know we are having these discussions nothing is set and stone yet just so that because the rumor M goes I hope they're not shutting their phone off yeah could be I think the list is we went through this at work everybody used to have a s it was like the phone policy and what costone is substantially different than it was 10 15 years ago it's if you're choosing to not your phone some need to get a hold of you there's probably some other performance discussions you have and it's like yes there's a list of data received I also that all my em all my team stuff everything was on this thing and I don't want to carry to B I don't so I I wouldn't want to carry two phones either I've done it multiple times in my career but I don't like the fact that somebody could be looking at text messages that I'm sending to my wife because y I texted the mayor one time and mayor now my phone is subed to everything else and you lose your phone and that's just happened at my job just literally happened so Mr Mayor for this one um shall I put more discussion and information needed I certainly think so I guess let me ask a question on seven payone reimburse is that our policy there say may off it's not so that is like if it says phone and travel expenses maybe yeah maybe so this is I really like that maybe because if we send someone somewhere and they what if somebody has to download the uh repair manual for all of the equipment and burs through their data their data pack and they get charged 20 bucks yes we'll cover that your normal hey it's swing out and need to come in we're not going to cover that or they call in because they have a flat tire field or they get stuck and we need to go get them we're not going to get up with that so Mr I'm going to leave this one as more discussion and information is needed so what we just discuss know information that mayy you asked about copy of the government data practices right well she jeny has the verbage there I just want the number of that act so that if they wanted to reference like we do with the do numbers you know our state statutes that anytime we're referring to something we should have the inut of that person yeah um and then the other thing was more for more discussion is what is our policy going to be if they say no I don't want to use my book yeah so so if that was in case you would assume we stop the sment of course and then we have to pick it out because in this I don't know how you function we got don't everybody it today because they're getting paid for it yeah so no one has said I'm not going to use my phone because I'm super worried about data privacy or I turn my phone in it's all about are we going to give 40 bucks that's and I'm saying you're saying no we're not going to get 40 bucks a month if someone was super concerned about I don't want you to call me my private phone why did they not bring it um part of that I would M mayor yes part of that I think would be I think this is g to be somewhat surprising to folks yep uh I've been doing it for a long time and when Jen provided me this I looked in from League Minnesota cities and their recommendation at going back to two PS like I explained earlier I think this is going to be somewhat nerve-wracking to some folks possibly I I think it's I think it's the other wayil member all I I I think I could still talk folks in to be able to use their personal cell phone even as s goes away I think this one's going to get a little squirly the data practices stuff it's because I think my Public Works folks aren't going to Tex back that not pay s probably not but this may want them to make that person St person to your point you lose you only communication with the world who knows how long till the till the city can go through it and figure out what's yours and what's not and then you also exp depending what you're using that phone for all your games are now exposed in my case my personal emails on my phone separate done my work email so now my personal email is all wrapped up into it because of work I have my work email and and I have five emails yeah see so that's all yeah they would and not that anybody would ever ask for any of our data it's it's the kind type it's the time in this world now that is I mean it makes me that's one of the reasons why I question that we should have separate ones for the city because it's happened now at my husband's work and at mine um that personal data has been asked I got out of it only because I was quitting and they and I was separate but I still may be call to do it so it's not fun to be in that position either so and and government is different than priv right we don't have the choice to say I'm not giv you pH do it you don't know yeah s mayor I have um getting information on the number and code for the statute for the Practices Act what would happen if an employee does not want to use their person phone then should this typ yeah what would our policy they don't I think a point of discussion the S Council may decide it can go away I think this will be more concerning with the yeah have to consider the other give them a phone what have they been put on a c how do you control that and when there's stuff that shouldn't be on there about well that's under the it yeah and we have more control over that now because if we're paying for the yeah and I and I don't necessarily about I don't necessarily think that burner phone's the way to go because they do a lot of research I do a lot of research on the phone uh we were just looking at smoking receptacles and Eric's on his phone and I'm on my and we're looking for things we're all rated right so I don't think a burner and I when I say that I just mean a yeah something question you get basic any research on um so that was my next question is I personally I would think it would be helpful for this discussion to know what city work needs to be done on a fall I think that would help the next setep would that depend on which shap like is it Color Works is it Natalie is it so it would be dependent on who does what right so so let me ask that you had said baby but from a she wouldn't be doing research on Phan I I can see where she might need it to be in that's with their um election judges but other than that there's probably not a lot of business that she would have to do on the phone Public Works in a whole different in the office you had a computer and I'm not referring a lot to in the office because I can do that on my computer this is after this is today she's sending me stuff today and she's off is she doing it on her phone or no on her phone yeah but Mr Mayor that sounds like another to me another issue if you're on shouldn't be working she sending me information I was tonight if she ches be able to send me an email I don't see a problem oh it's because she wanted to get it to me in a timely fashion if someone's on I mean how's that any different than anybody in this room getting hold of me on the weekend I it's all different if she chooses to send something to me and she's on PTO it's irrelevant to me yeah just the the question would be to the councel if we're going to buy separate phones for everybody who all gets them why would they need I don't think it I agree I don't think it I I would leave that decision if we go the route of purchasing for employees would be have to SC to decide which of his employees who choose not to participate existing poliy stened or not who do you think would be required Mr Mayor again we are designing policy has to be able to be follow so that there is a poliy so you know it would uh non-discriminatory policy would look like Public Works employees are eligible for a phone due to the work that they do um so that there isn't a question of some a part-time employee saying well they all got company phon I want one too so job description yes and and I don't disagree with that and and all of a sudden we grew by 15 employees and five of them were in the office we may have to readjust that so we're looking at this long term but there will see some adjustments and some whatever happens and wherever so I added what do city employees do on a mobile device to help determine which roles would you know and maybe a phone isn't the best device maybe a tablet makes more sense is tablet now from mobile home my recommendation would be to find out what needs to be done and then have an idea of how best to get promise you I won't send my public work I know in the shop in and and part of that would be I think how much is do is an unlimited plan if we are P unlimited plan based on how much are you how how do you know how much I mean I don't my stuff is all unlimited so I wouldn't know what I used for my pH tells me you got 10% left so you're not unlimited I'm unlimited I it's pretty hard to use of your data unless you're basically playing games reading to I you know like um thank you listening to podcast hard to go over that dat you have different options of data you have different levels of data you can purchase or you can go to the UNL what I'm saying you be hard to it because you have the right plan right if you I don't have much on mine I really don't because I use my computer but I'm unlimited because I'm using an all yeah but what I'm saying is we were looking at it for a city employee and they wanted to um let's say the public works if they're driving in a truck and they want to listen to um and yeah they don't necessarily need to use the city's phone for that they can use their own right oh for sure that's what I'm saying it's like right so I'm just saying there's there's C you know a podcast if you want listen to a podcast you can listen to it on your own phone you don't have toist to the point said we need to find out what they're using it for from a city standpoint so determine what the best plan is yeah you choose huh if you choose give onone yeah I I don't know how it seems a logical thing you're going to ask them to be in constant communication with City business whether it's you or residents or you know the sheriff you know um if if they're going to do City business this kicks them so they're out and somebody calls them on their phone to say a tree's down in the road C business today 189 so so I'm going to guess this will say if I'm going to answer my phone if they one you pay for just that hey and I'm going to guess at some point Council going say that too let's get those taet and devices it would be interesting to know what other communities are doing with the change in Community Technology and things like that what are they what's all world doing what is you know especially smaller communities where you you know I don't have a radio system in about work yeah yeah I've been to local government ch's meeting I met with mayor County here recently and I didn't ask him what the second phone everybody had two phones and uh when they sent out an email they right they assumed because I put my email in there assum that was a city one but everybody else has a city email so I'm guessing those second phones were probably has what most most have got and I think think that's doing uh yeah think Jan either January or June of 2026 or all going to be required to have the do go and then I think it's going to transition from 26 don't quote me on the month but I think it's pretty accurate on 26 and then everybody hasn't have fully implemented by 2028 the do all right yes it is coming you all right 7:36 rather than starting a new section hi