THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Thursday, February 6, 1997            TAG: 9702060349
SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B3   EDITION: FINAL 
SOURCE: BY TERRI WILLIAMS, STAFF WRITER 
DATELINE: SUFFOLK                           LENGTH:   51 lines

SUFFOLK DELAYS VOTE ON DEBATED CITY PERSONNEL POLICY MEASURE RESIDENCE RULES, SALARY REVIEWS AND OTHER CHANGES HAD BEEN PROPOSED.

The City Council delayed voting on a new personnel ordinance Wednesday after city-based constitutional officers complained the measure would usurp their independence.

Speaking for the elected officials who work for the state but perform city-based functions, Commonwealth's Attorney C. Phillips Ferguson said the ordinance overstepped the city's bounds.

So the council put off the proposal - a broad ordinance that defines several aspects of the city's personnel policy - until it could be reworked. Among other provisions in the proposed ordinance is a new requirement that top city officials live in Suffolk.

Ferguson said a number of provisions in the ordinance would prevent the city's five elected constitutional officers from having control over their departments, as well as salaries for them and their staffs.

The constitutional officers serving Suffolk are the clerk of courts, commissioner of revenue, commonwealth's attorney, sheriff and city treasurer.

Ferguson contended Wednesday that the officers were not notified of the proposed changes to the ordinance. Ferguson said he didn't learn of the proposal until earlier this week.

One provision would require three of the officers - the commonwealth's attorney, the sheriff and the city treasurer - to come before the council every year for the local salary match the city provides them. The other two officers receive their entire salary from the state.

As it stands now, council annually reviews funding requests for each city department. But the council rarely formally reviews the salaries of constitutional officers.

Another provision would add constitutional officers to a list of officials ``responsible for the administration of the city's affirmative action plan.''

Ferguson said that although the provisions seem ``benign'' on theirface, the changes would shift the balance of power toward the city manager.

``In effect, he's holding a gun to our back to control the purse strings,'' said an irate Ferguson shortly after the meeting. ``The worst part was we were never notified of these purposed changes. This was a blatant attempt to ram the personnel ordinance through.''

Not so, said City Manager Myles E. Standish.

Standish said he was trying to bring the ordinance up to date, and the provisions were ``housekeeping'' items. The city manager said he understands that the officers work independently of the city, and that the affirmative action clauses were goals, not requirements.

Standish will meet with the officers and review the ordinance before the next council meeting on Feb.19.

KEYWORDS: SUFFOLK CITY COUNCIL