Docstoc

CITY OF BERKELEY

Document Sample
CITY OF BERKELEY Powered By Docstoc
					                                 CITY OF BERKELEY
                         APPROVED PERSONNEL BOARD MINUTES
                                     June 7, 2010

Present: Regina Bess, Robert Dixon (Chair), Anita Eblé, Isaiah Roter, Henry Silver and Robert
         Smith

Absent:    Pamela More-Gaines, Jaime Reyes

Staff:     David Abel, Mary Bogen and David Hodgkins


I.       Call to Order

         7:00 pm

II.      Roll Call

III.     Public Comments

         Mr. Smith announced that he has been appointed Senator for the California Senior
         Legislature. He will represent the Ninth District and serve under Loni Hancock. He will be
         sworn in in October.

ACTION ITEMS:

IV.      Approval of Minutes of Meeting on May 3, 2010

         Ms. Eblé motioned to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2010 Personnel Board meeting as
         to substance only. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yes: Robert Dixon, Anita Eblé,
         Isaiah Roter, Henry Silver and Robert Smith. No: None; Abstain: Regina Bess; Absent:
         Pamela Moore-Gaines and Jaime Reyes. Motion carried.

V.       Recommendation to Approve an Extension of a Temporary Assistant Recreation
         Coordinator in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department—To Be Delivered

         Mr. Hodgkins handed out the memo to be delivered at this meeting which requests an
         extension for a Day Camp Assistant Recreation Coordinator. Mr. Scott Ferris, Recreation
         and Youth Services Manager, in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront (PRW) Department,
         presented the item and answered questions from the Board. Mr. Ferris said that the
         temporary Assistant Recreation Coordinator is in charge of the Day Camp which starts on
         June 21. The Day Camp is a nine-week program that accommodates approximately 210
         children each week in the summer.

         This temporary position expires on June 14 and the PRW Department is asking for an
         extension from June 14 to September 24, 2010. This position cannot be filled on a career
         basis because it is being held pending the adoption of the City’s budget. During the school

                                        i:\personnel bd\personnel bd 2010\approved 2010 per bd minutes\approved 6-7-10 minutes sent with agenda for   mtg.docx7/14/10
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 2

      year this position is a 50% benefitted position and during the summer it is 100% benefitted
      position. The position also coordinates and supervises the Teen Camp, the Teen Adventure
      Camp and the Counselor in Training programs.

      Mr. Smith motioned to approve the extension of an Assistant Recreation Coordinator in the
      Parks, Recreation and Waterfront (PRW) Department from June 14, 2010 to September 24,
      2010. Ms. Bess seconded the motion. Vote: Yes: Regina Bess, Robert Dixon, Anita Eblé,
      Isaiah Roter, Henry Silver and Robert Smith. No: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Pamela
      Moore-Gaines and Jaime Reyes. Motion carried.

VI.   Recommendation to Establish the Classification and Salary Range of Paralegal in the City
      Attorney Department

      Mr. David Hodgkins, Director of Human Resources; Mr. David Abel, Human Resources
      Manager; and Mark Zembsch, Deputy City Attorney, presented the item and answered
      questions from the Board. Mr. Abel said that this item comes from the City Manager’s
      proposed budget and establishes a paraprofessional classification in the City Attorney’s
      Office. The Paralegal classification will support activities in the City Attorney’s Office
      that do not require a California bar-certified Attorney. Staff looked at other jurisdictions
      and their organizational structures, and identified that Paralegal would be the proper
      position to classify for this need in the Attorney’s Office. The City Attorney’s Office lost
      one Attorney position through the budget process last year, and this is a measure for getting
      needed work done in a cost effective way.

      A salary survey was done in surrounding agencies which compared similar classifications
      that perform comparable functions. A median salary was identified and staff is
      recommending a salary slightly above the median salary. The salary aligns with the Senior
      Legal Secretary who performs different functions but at an equivalent level. Staff in the
      City Attorney’s Office are all unrepresented, and staff decided that the Paralegal
      classification be placed in Unit Z2 (Unrepresented Confidential Professional).

      Mr. Zembsch said the City Attorney’s Office has never had a Paralegal and that the City
      Attorney’s Office is presently staffed by eight Attorneys, one Legal Office Supervisor and
      three Senior Legal Secretaries. The Paralegal would help with discovery work, summarize
      depositions, draft creative discovery requests and help with the basic parts of putting a case
      together. These are functions that secretaries cannot do. Mr. Zembsch said the Paralegal’s
      work would be prioritized according to staff Attorneys’ priorities.

      Mr. Roter said he is concerned about the salary of this classification; it is 3% above the
      median of the salary survey. He understands that the proposed salary for the Paralegal
      classification is the same as the Senior Legal Secretary classification and that staff is trying
      to maintain equilibrium with the Senior Legal Secretary classification.

      Mr. Abel said that when staff sets salaries, staff looks at the external salary survey and
      internal relationships among classifications. He and Mr. Zembsch met and discussed the
      differences between the Paralegal and the Senior Legal Secretary’s functions, and staff felt
      that setting the Paralegal’s salary below the Senior Legal Secretary would not be
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 3

      appropriate. If the Senior Legal Secretary classification did not exist and there were not
      any other internal alignments, the Paralegal salary would have been recommended at the
      median of the outside agencies.

      Mr. Roter asked how the recruitment will take place. Mr. Abel said that the recruitment
      would be open competitive and that Mr. Zembsch and his staff would define what type of
      selection process will take place. Staff will advertize the position with legal publications
      and with agencies that offer the Paralegal Certificate and programs. There will be a
      screening process and an oral board. Mr. Hodgkins said that this position is in the City
      Manager’s proposed budget. Staff would like to get this classification to the City Council
      before the summer recess. Mr. Abel said he is projecting opening the recruitment in the
      latter part of July pending Council approval.

      Mr. Smith was concerned about the Paralegal’s work load given that the Paralegal would
      be working for eight Attorneys. Mr. Zembsch said the Paralegal and the Senior Legal
      Secretary would collaborate on the work load.

      Ms. Eblé requested that the text, ―…and software; and use of automated research and
      database management tools;‖ be changed to ―…and software; and use automated research
      and database management tools;‖ (page 16, number 9).

      Mr. Silver is concerned about the Paralegal’s salary being equivalent to the Senior Legal
      Secretary’s salary. He said, considering the Paralegal’s qualifications and responsibilities,
      the Paralegal classification should have a higher salary than the Senior Legal Secretary
      classification. Mr. Hodgkins said the salary survey does not support this. Ms. Eblé feels
      the duties of a Paralegal are more complex than the duties of a Senior Legal Secretary, and
      that a Paralegal should have a higher salary than a Senior Legal Secretary. Mr. Zembsch
      said these classifications are mutually supportive and both classifications handle complex
      assignments.

      Mr. Silver recommended that the salary for the Paralegal be elevated and that there be a
      differential between the Paralegal classification and the Senior Legal Secretary
      classification given the fact that the workload of a Paralegal, in his opinion, is very similar
      in certain respects to the workload of a lawyer. Mr. Dixon spoke against Mr. Silver’s
      recommendation and said that the City’s internal salaries are being compared against other
      city’s salaries and the Board does not know if the Paralegal’s salary is competitive with the
      private sector’s salaries. He feels that the Board should respect staff’s work and that the
      Board could ask the City Attorney’s Office to come back to the Board to evaluate the
      Paralegal’s salary during the next budget cycle.

      Mr. Abel gave examples of estimated Paralegal salaries taken from the University of
      California Berkeley’s website, not including benefits, in different metropolitan areas. The
      salary estimate for the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont is
      $53,700; the salary estimate for the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, San Mateo and
      Redwood City is $59,750; and the salary estimate for the metropolitan areas of San Jose,
      Sunnyvale, Santa Clara $64,000.
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 4

       Mr. Roter said he believes that there is a difference between the work duties of the
       Paralegal and the Senior Legal Secretary classifications, but due to the budget situation he
       cannot see how the Board can recommend a higher salary for the Paralegal. Mr. Silver
       said given the current budgetary restraints there could be a future review of the Paralegal’s
       salary if the budget situation improves. Ms. Eblé said theoretically she does not agree with
       the recommended salary but practically she does agree with the recommended salary.

       Mr. Dixon said if there is a consensus, the Board could ask that the City Attorney’s Office,
       in conjunction with Human Resources and the City Manager’s Office look at the position
       in the next budget cycle, and consider if it is appropriate to increase the Paralegal’s salary.
       Ms. Eblé requested to go on record as saying that she does not demean the level of
       responsibilities and contributions made by legal secretaries.

       Ms. Bess motioned to approve the recommendation to establish the classification of
       Paralegal, eligible for the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act in
       Representation Unit Z2 (Confidential Professional), with a monthly salary range of $5,184,
       $5,425, $5,693, $5,947, $6,212, effective July 11, 2010. Mr. Roter seconded the motion.
       Vote: Yes: Regina Bess, Robert Dixon, Anita Eblé, Isaiah Roter, Henry Silver and Robert
       Smith. No: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Pamela Moore-Gaines and Jaime Reyes. Motion
       carried.

VII.   Flexible Placement Policy Time Certain at 7:30 pm—Board to hold a Discussion as a
       ―Committee of the Whole‖ Regarding the City’s Flexible Placement Policy—Draft memo
       from Isaiah Roter is attached for review and possible action

       Mr. Hodgkins said that when the City Manager presented his proposed budget to the City
       Council on May 4, it was clear that the City would meet with the Unions to mitigate
       employees going out the door. There have been extensive discussions with the Unions,
       particularly with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1021, Clerical,
       Maintenance and Community Services Chapters. SEIU has presented proposals for the
       upcoming fiscal year, and the City and SEIU 1021 are still meeting.

       The City is working on cost-saving measures so no career employees would be laid off. If
       the measures are approved, employees may be moved to other classifications within the
       organization, and these employees will not lose any pay for the balance of the fiscal year.
       This measure may work with SEIU 1021, but Local One is another dynamic in the sense
       that Local One’s cuts are in Health. The cost-saving measures the City is talking about
       with SEIU 1021 do not work for Local One.

       Local One has come up with proposals, but the City and Local One are far apart. There is a
       certain amount of reticence on the part of Local One as a group. The Governor has
       proposed substantial cuts in Mental Health. One of the things Local One is aware of is that
       the funding area is discreet and is not from the General Fund. Local One feels that it can
       propose measures to mitigate layoffs, but the cause for the proposed layoffs is the State’s
       inability to manage its budget. Mr. Hodgkins’ personal belief is that the City can do a deal
       with SEIU 1021, and that the City will be able to place people in the organization for the
       upcoming fiscal year, and this will involve Flexible Placement. The City will meet with
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 5

      Local One on Wednesday, June 9. Mr. Dixon asked if the Unions are sharing their
      proposals with their members; Mr. Hodgkins said yes.

      The Board discussed Mr. Roter’s proposed draft memo to the City Manager regarding the
      City’s Lay-off and Flexible Placement policies. Mr. Roter said that after hearing the
      presentations from the Unions, employees and staff, he felt that the Board has an intimate
      understanding of the how the process operates, and he felt it would be useful to draft his
      thoughts on paper. The first question is whether the Board should send anything to
      anybody. If the Board agrees to send a memo, then his memo is a starting point and is only
      one person’s ideas. The Board should feel free to edit the memo.

      Mr. Roter said that three important elements that came up many times in the presentations:
      Communication, Management Buy-In and Fairness. He feels that there is communication
      going on; that there could be more management buy-in, and that there is an attempt to be
      fair, but there needs to be a perception that the process is fair. The Board heard from
      employees that in their opinions there are fairness issues.

      The Board did a quick straw poll to see if the Board would like to go forward with the
      memo. The Board was unanimous in going forward. Mr. Silver said Mr. Hodgkins had
      commented earlier that basically only four people in the City know details of what is going
      on in regards to the Layoff Policy. Mr. Silver suggested that Union representatives be
      copied on the memo in order to show that consideration has been given by the Personnel
      Board and that the Board is aware of the complexity of the issue. Copying Union
      representatives would be a positive development in the point of view of communication,
      management buy-in and fairness. Mr. Hodgkins commented that negotiations are going on
      with the Labor Unions and only four people on the management side know the details of
      those negotiations, but this is separate from the discussions of the whole role of the Layoff
      Process.

      Mr. Dixon commented that the recommendations under ―Management Buy-In and
      Fairness‖ seem somewhat similar. Mr. Roter said he recognized that these elements are
      definitely related, and that Mr. Dixon could change the language. Mr. Roter said that
      timeliness is an issue.

      Mr. Silver made the motion that this memo, whether it be in its present form or in a revised
      form, be forwarded to all of the Union officers, and that these Union officers be encouraged
      to distribute it to their membership. Mr. Hodgkins said when he writes the memo he will
      separately copy each of the Union Chapter Presidents and each of the Union Business
      Representatives.

      Mr. Dixon suggested that whenever the text, ―...the Personnel Board recommends…‖
      occurs in the memo, this text or the entire paragraph in which this text occurs, be shown in
      italics or in bold text (located on page 19, 20 and 21). Mr. Hodgkins said he would check
      the memo for any substantive errors.

      Mr. Dixon suggested the following motion: That given the memo that the Board reviewed
      tonight, the Board adopt the memo for a final review between Mr. Roter and Mr. Hodgkins
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 6

        for distribution with the understanding that the distribution of the memo will go to all of the
        Unions and to all of the Unions’ business agents.

        Mr. Roter spoke to Mr. Dixon’s comment that the recommendations under ―Management
        Buy-In and Fairness‖ seem somewhat similar. Mr. Dixon said he is comfortable with the
        original wording in the memo.

        Mr. Roter made the motion that Mr. Dixon articulated and added that in addition to the
        memo being copied to the Mayor, the Deputy City Manager and the Director of Human
        Resources, the memo be copied to Union Officials. He is adding some grammatical
        suggestions from Ms. Eblé that will be incorporated into the final version of the memo, and
        he will give a copy of Ms. Eblé’s suggestions to the note-taker. Mr. Roter is also adding
        Mr. Dixon’s suggestion that whenever the text, ―...the Personnel Board recommends…‖
        occurs in the memo, this text or the entire paragraph in which this text occurs, will be
        shown in italics. Vote: Mr. Silver seconded the motion. Yes: Regina Bess, Robert Dixon,
        Anita Eblé, Isaiah Roter, Henry Silver and Robert Smith. No: None; Abstain: None;
        Absent: Pamela Moore-Gaines and Jaime Reyes. Motion carried. Mr. Roter added that the
        memo will be signed by the Chair and the Board will be copied on the memo.

VIII.   Discussion of new Personnel Board Agenda Template

        Mr. Hodgkins presented the item and answered questions from the Board. He said he
        spoke with the City Clerk and the City Clerk said the Board has wide latitude and that the
        Board could remove items from the Information Items and could add these items to the
        Action Items as long as there is a motion at the meeting and there is a majority vote by a
        quorum. He told the City Clerk that the vast majority of the Board’s agenda items would
        be under Action Items.

        The City Clerk said an outside consultant made the suggestion to change the format of the
        City’s Boards and Commissions’ agendas in order to have a standardized format. Mr.
        Hodgkins forwarded a draft copy of tonight’s agenda to the Chair for approval before it
        was sent out to the Board. Mr. Dixon suggested that the Board could approve and move
        items on the agenda after the Public Comments item at each meeting.

        Mr. Roter asked if the text ―No Action to be Taken‖ has to be stated on the agenda. He is
        concerned about the Brown Act. Mr. Hodgkins said this text is under direction of the City
        Clerk, and he would limit Information Items as much as possible.

INFORMATION ITEMS:

IX.     Director’s Report—Update from Human Resources Director—No Action to Be Taken

        Mr. Hodgkins said the Human Resources Department is spending a lot of time dealing with
        the Unions on the budget and layoffs. Mr. Abel has been meeting with fifty-seven
        employees affected by the first layoff notice. Mr. Hodgkins said that is a high level of
        anxiety in the organization, and that he is trying to mitigate the layoffs as much as possible.
        There is a lot of work to be done in a very short time. The City Manager would like the
Personnel Board Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2010
Page 7

       City Council to adopt the budget at the June 22 Council meeting. Mr. Hodgkins is meeting
       with the Unions this Wednesday, June 9, and he will meet with the City Council on June
       15.

       Mr. Hodgkins said that there are four-hundred and thirty people participating in final
       interviews for the Paramedic-Fire Fighter. The Fire Chief and the Fire Fighters are very
       pleased with the quality and the diversity of the candidates. Retirements are anticipated at
       the Fire Department in the next six months. He and the Fire Chief do not want to wait six
       months to hire from this list because, after six months, candidates remaining on the list may
       not be as diverse. If twelve Paramedic-Fire Fighters are hired, money will have to be
       fronted and there may be overstaffing for a short time.

       Staff is working on the recruitment for Police Officer and six-hundred and fifty
       applications have been received. The recruitment will close at the end of the month. Ms.
       Eblé asked how the Board could offer support or help to the Human Resources Department.
       Mr. Hodgkins said how much he appreciated the Board’s work, and that the Board could let
       their Councilmembers know about the work done by Human Resources during the layoff
       process. Ms. Eblé said she spoke with her Councilmember about the Human Resources
       Department’s efforts in assuring fairness.

       Mr. Hodgkins said the Fire Chief, the Police Chief, and Mr. Dennis Feggans, Equal
       Employment Opportunity & Diversity Officer, will be present at the July 12, 2010
       Personnel Board meeting to discuss how to increase diversity at the Fire and Police
       Departments.

X.     Temporary Employee Report—Update on Number of Temporary Employees and Current
       Status—No Action to Be Taken

       Mr. Dixon said the Board approved the extension of the Assistant Recreation Coordinator
       in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront (PRW) Department at tonight’s meeting. Mr.
       Hodgkins said that Mr. Harvey Tureck, Manager of Mental Health, in the Health Services
       Department, will be retiring at the end of June. Ms. Laura Jo Ruffin has been hired to
       replace Mr. Tureck while a thorough review of Mental Health programs is completed. Mr.
       Abel said references are being checked for a candidate for the Director of Health Services.

XI.    New Agenda Items—Discussion of Items to be Place on the Next Agenda—No Action to
       Be Taken

       None.

XII.   Adjournment

       8:45 pm

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:38
posted:8/18/2010
language:English
pages:7