Lovaglio-Miller opposes reclassifying competitive titles as non-competitive

So when we talk about things like that and you talk about retention, we talk about competitive titles versus non-competitive titles, right?

And just for the record, competitive titles take an exam.

Non-competitive titles are basically appointed.

The difference, and the city made a proposition about changing the classification and civil service status for a lot of these competitive titles to non-competitive.

However, the non-competitive.

Non-competitive titles don't get the same rights as the competitive titles.

Unfortunately, and for lack of a better term, we deem them almost like a second-class citizen, which is not something that you want to be in.

I could work for the city for 20 years in a competitive status.

I'm entitled to certain leave rights.

As a non-competitive, I'm not entitled to those leave rights.

3.5 slope things of that magnitude.

So it's things like that that we think they should look at.

One, we're not in favor of reclassifying.

We think that they need to be able to provide exams for the tests that are out there.

We have looked at, worked with them in job specifications and changing required qualifications.

Some areas we agree and some we don't.

For example, a police communication technician, which we know is 911 operators, they would like to lower the requirements.

Our position is we don't think that a high school graduate could be 17 years of age, might be at a maturity level to deal with some of the stressful situations as a 911 operator.

How would we be able to support that?

The 911 operators is a perfect example of a retention issue that we have.

We can have 100 people apply to be in the class.

By the end of that class, we're down to...

70.

They don't even make it through the training academy.

So things like that, we think they need to just be a little bit more conscientious as to some of the requests that they're making in regard to how we change these specifications.