Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=23-2525&print=true
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:12:18+00:00

Document:
23-2525. County personnel officer; personnel rules and regulations for classified service.
(22) For other regulations not inconsistent with the County Civil Service Act and which may be necessary for its effective implementation.
Source:Laws 1974, LB 995, § 9; Laws 2006, LB 808, § 17.
A county board has no power or authority to bargain or agree that any appointment or promotion shall be based upon anything other than merit and fitness except as provided in the County Civil Service Act. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Statutory requirements for appointments and promotions under a civil service act are mandatory, and appointing authorities must comply with them for an appointment or promotion to be valid. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Under this section, a county department head cannot “reassign” a current department employee to fill a new position outside of applicable transfer rules or the competitive examination process. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
When a vacancy in the classified service is not filled by a transfer or under a statutory exception, subdivisions (3) and (4) of this section require a county to fill it through one of two types of examinations: open competitive examinations or promotional examinations. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
A county department head’s preference for a junior employee in his own department created an arbitrary and capricious appointing procedure when the county was conducting open competitive examinations and not promotional examinations. Preference for a department head’s own employee is an invalid basis for a hiring decision in open competitive examinations. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Subdivision (3) of this section does not prohibit examiners from evaluating subjective traits if those traits are relevant to an applicant’s fitness for a position. But when oral examinations are used to test an applicant’s subjective traits, the scoring must be guided by measurable standards. That is, the examinations must provide some reasonable means of judicial review. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Subdivision (3) of this section requires a county to conduct open competitive examinations for vacancies in the classified service. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Under subdivision (3) of this section, the Legislature intended to limit an appointing authority’s selection of an applicant to one of the applicants who scored highest on the final score of the examination process. When oral interviews are part of the examination process for an appointment to the civil service, an applicant’s score on an oral interview must be included in the final score. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Under subdivision (4) of this section, a county is not conducting promotional examinations when it posts a position as available to all county employees and fails to consider seniority. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Under subdivision (4) of this section, the Legislature intended a county to conduct promotional examinations, and appointing authorities must consider records of performance, seniority, and conduct when making promotions. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
When a civil service statute requires an appointing authority to consider seniority in making a promotion, that requirement must be respected. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
A county cannot implement any provision of the county employees’ collective bargaining agreement that would violate a provision of the County Civil Service Act. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).
Subdivision (13) of this section does not preclude a county from defining a transfer to include transfers within the same department. Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012).

References: § 9
 § 17
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.