Charter changes in Greeneville, now on hold, were the topic of discussion at Tuesday evening's Civil Service Board meeting.

Board members Phil Gentry and Tim Teague supported chairman Ed Kershaw's position of opposing changes proposed to remove the Recorder's office, chief of police, and fire chief from civil service.

The Board of Mayor and Alderman had decided in a workshop Nov. 30 to postpone any changes to the charter for at least a year.

It had been proposed that the Recorder's office, the police chief, and the fire chief be removed from civil service.

Kershaw submitted a letter to the mayor, and spoke at the November meeting defending the role of civil service.

His letter was written prior to speaking with fellow board members Gentry and Teague.

However, Kershaw had talked to those in the Recorder's office as well as to Police Chief Terry Cannon and Fire Chief Mark Foulks.

The Recorder's office expressed a desire to remain under civil service protection.

"I appreciate you coming in and asking what the Recorder's office felt," Town Recorder Carol Susong told Kershaw. "We [in the Recorder's Office] all feel the same about staying in civil service."

Cannon and Foulks were not aware they fell under civil service.

Both later expressed a desire to keep civil service protection.

Kershaw said that though the current mayor and city administrator may be fair, the role of civil service is to provide another separation of powers outside the board of mayor and aldermen.

However, the addition of city administrator presents the possibility for a change in the future. Kershaw acknowledged this, but believes that civil service still provides a viable service for now.

"There may be a time to do away with civil service some day, but we are not there yet," Kershaw said.

January 8 and 10 will be dates for interviews for entry-level patrol officers in the Greeneville Police Department.

The next Civil Service Board meeting will follow the second day of interviews, at about 8 p.m.

In another matter, the board discussed whether or not to accept an applicant's test score.

The individual had originally requested another test day because of a conflict. The board refused. So the potential applicant drove back to make the test but arrived one hour late.

He was allowed to begin the test but informed the end time would be the same. It was then discovered that he had not submitted his application prior to taking the test on Nov. 10.

The man thought he was supposed to turn in the application on the day of the test. However, the advertisement in the paper, read that the application period was from Oct. 1 to Oct. 31.

Susong brought the advertisement, which was published in The Greeneville Sun, before the board. It clearly stated that the application must be submitted by Oct. 31.

"I say we cannot accept his score," Gentry said.

The board voted unanimously to throw out the applicant's scores.