Florence updates employee handbook after 20 years
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Charles Tomlinson
Morning News Reporter
Published: August 28, 2008
FLORENCE — Florence has made its first update in 20 years to the city’s employee handbook, now a more concise document that aims to put the spotlight on policies most relevant to all employees.
“There’s nothing really new in here; we’re not changing the way we work with city employees,” city attorney Jim Peterson told Florence City Council on Thursday.
Council voted unanimously during a special called meeting Thursday on a resolution to adopt the revised handbook. Five council members attended; Mayor Frank Willis and councilman Rick Woodard were absent.
Amid the passing of state and federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the city complied with new regulations but didn’t incorporate new policies into its handbook, Peterson said.
“We just wanted to get it all in the same place,” Peterson said after Thursday’s meeting.
The revised handbook also includes a section detailing city officials’ right to observe how employees are using their work computers. The purpose, however, is not to spy, said Linda Edwards of Columbia, the city’s labor attorney.
“You should have the opportunity to do that if you think there’s a problem,” she said.
Edwards also pointed out the handbook’s first page is a disclaimer that the document doesn’t serve as an employment contract. That serves as a “safety net” for the city, because breach-of-contract court costs are funded not from insurance, but a city’s budget, she said.
The contract states that employees can be fired for any reason — not unusual, because South Carolina has always been considered a state of “at-will” employment, Peterson said.
“Every employer in South Carolina has this,” Edwards said.
Council on Thursday also unanimously approved first reading of an ordinance to transfer two city-owned buildings on the 100 block of South Dargan Street to the Florence Downtown Development Corp., which would market the properties.
The corporation, a nonprofit group established by the city to foster downtown revitalization, had asked for the building at 117 and 119 S. Dargan St. as well as the former Carolina Theater, at 129 S. Dargan St. Both structures flank Florence Pharmacy.
The corporation would not need council’s approval to transfer the buildings to yet another owner unless it would receive less than fair market value for the properties, Peterson said.
The corporation already has bought Royal Knight Formal Wear building at Dargan and Evans streets, and it hopes to focus on the block of Dargan between Cheves and Evans streets, George Jebaily told council earlier this month on behalf of the corporation.
Council amended the ordinance to exclude the corporation’s request for a one-year option to purchase for $500,000 a vacant, one-acre, city-owned lot at the northwest corner of Cheves and Dargan streets.
Councilman Buddy Brand said he and councilman Bobby Holland know of a potential development for the property, although he gave no specifics.
“I’d just hate to tie up anything,” Brand said.
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Nick ) on August 29, 2008 at 3:10 pm
So, for the past two decades, the rank & file employees have had to “make do” with a set of outdated guidelines that were subject to the day-to-day interpretation of those put in power over them?
That’s just plain bad.
It makes certain that there are no rules except what are interpreted on a case-by-case basis. It might be “ok” for one employee to do something one day, and a firing offense for someone else who does the same thing the next day...depending on who’s buddies with the person making the call. It’s a testament to the professionalism of our city employees that they serve us so well. This is yet another example of the vacuum in leadership by the current government officials. Frank & Rick have been absent in this regard for some time, not merely since the primary elections.
Food for thought: There were downtown deals in the past which had a curious aroma to their details; and in which members of council had some interest or stake. We should watch this closely so as not to have any repeats. Peculiar, isn’t it, how the spectre of the past is making itself seen once again when there is a new “old” candidate on the ballot for Mayor.
We need a change - Is it November yet?
Report Inappropriate Comment