Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 02/16/1995 CITY OF KENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, February 16, 1995 Members Present: Mike Pattison Ron Banister Scheduling Conflict: Callius Zaratkiewicz Others present: Dave Santos, Sgt Knapp, Sgt Stone, Attorney Sampson, Attorney Dijulio, Lt. Shepard, Sgt Weissich, Ofc Pagel, Cpt C.E. Miller, Chief Crawford, Sgt Martinez, B/C Scott, A/C Aldridge, Detective K. Holt, Lt. Rufener, Sue Viseth, others present. Chair Pattison called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. I. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Chair Pattison asked if there was any discussion regarding the proposed reorganization of Civil Service office, specifically regarding the letter dated February 13, 1995 from Mayor White regarding reorganization of the Civil Service Secretary& Chief Examiner position within the organization to report to the Human Resources Director? Chief Examiner stated that Mr. Zaratkiewicz had left a message on her recorder this morning • stating that he wished to go on record as opposing the Civil Service Officer being moved under the Human Resource. He stated he could be reached at his beeper number for input if needed. Unfortunately his grandmother had died during the night which necessitated him missing the meeting. There was a request from the floor to hear the letter. Chair Pattison directed Chief Examiner Guiguet to read the letter for the record which she did. Human Resource Director, Sue Viseth: "I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. What we are attempting to do here is streamline Human Resources processes and also to provide Catherine with some administrative support. When there have been openings in the past for Firefighters and Police Officer applications the office is of course only one individual and we will be able to provide administrative support and our secretarial staff to assist her so that she can fulfill her other duties. Also, so that we can share information regarding Human Resource issues that we have in common. There are a lot of reasons but we think this is a good idea." Chair Pattison: "Are those options not available to Catherine now? Your help?" H.R. Director Viseth: "We have been separated. In the past, I don't remember the exact date, Civil Service did fall under Human Resources direction. Some years ago it was separated and put under Operations and we're simply moving it back into Human Resources. I think that you'll also find that it is also common practice in other jurisdictions." Page 2 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 Police Guild President Pagel: "Mr. Chairman, The Guild is opposed to this move and it is basically for one reason. We do not argue the need for increased service. I've heard stories of firefighter applicants trying to fish out their applications to complete them and things like that. However, because Human Resources is the entity that would be involved in any disciplinary termination, it is our belief as a Guild that the Civil Service Secretary& Chief Examiner should remain out of that loop. It is basically a perception thing. If we have someone that is involved in a disciplinary procedure, the person or the group that is going to be conducting that is Human Resources. If possibly our only avenue of appeal is through Human Resources, and the Civil Service is under their direction then it possibly could create a conflict of interest." H.R. Director Viseth: "I'd like to address that. Although it is true that Catherine will be reporting to me it is for administrative purposes only. I'd have no jurisdiction over the Civil Service Commissioners and their ability to deal with an Appeal and the decisions that you might make. I have no jurisdiction there. Simply to provide guidance and direction for Catherine. Marking sure that she follows the appropriate rules and guidelines. But in no way any conflict with the Commissioners." Sgt Stone: "My understanding is that the purpose of Civil Service is to remain a separate body. I use the analogy of separation of Church and State. Be that by somehow or other linking this to Human Resource you are not maintaining a separation, you are to be an entity of your own." H.R. Director Viseth: "Again, maintain that you are an entity of your own. Catherine's position, • she is a City employee. Currently she reports to Brent McFall who I report to as well. If you want to make analogies about conflicts of interest you can raise that in a variety of ways. Because the Commission in itself is a separate entity. The City is responsible for providing that support to the Civil Service Secretary's position. We will continue to do that regardless of where it reports." Chair Pattison: "Catherine, do you think you need more support?" Chief Examiner Guiguet: "I do now get support from the Human Resource Department. I have not while being under Administration had support from that office, more so in the last year since I was physically relocated. I like being beside Human Resource because I can interact with them to get information that I need with regard to salaries and benefits which I am not allowed by Civil Service Rules to be involved with. Quite frankly, and again this is just totally a personal item, I like the way things are for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated. Mr. McFall does not attempt to sway me any way or to direct me in regards to things that go on with our Commission. I have been left out there to carry out the Commission business." Chair Pattison: "Do you feel that your office operation would be improved in any way by the switch or hindered in any way?" Chief Examiner Guiguet: "I don't know. I do it all myself and am an exacting taskmaster. I do all of the clerical things myself and I know that if I have deadlines they will be met. I don't know how it will be impacted." • Page 3 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 H. R. Director Viseth: "If I might just interject. We don't have any intention of moving where Catherine is located now. She is located directly beside Human Resources. Right now because we don't have the communication and there is no connection. Really the only way we are aware that there are any job openings posted or promotional opportunities is what we see or the hundreds of applicants that cross through our reception area asking questions about the Civil Service process and applications. We have to stand there and say, "I'm sorry we can't assist you, you'll have to wait until the Civil Service Secretary is back". Then again, Catherine is trying to run all over the place with testing procedures and other commitments that she has. I feel that as a City organization we can do and should do a much better job of providing services to applicants and our employees regarding Civil Service issues or questions rather than tell them, "I'm sorry you'll have to come back another time", and not even be able to tell them what time that might be. So again this is all a part of the process of providing better service to employees and applicants." Commissioner Banister: (question directed to Officer Pagel). "Does that change your feeling on this at all?" Officer Pagel: "As I stated earlier, I think that there is a need for enhanced service for applicants coming in. I'm thinking out loud, isn't there another position within the City organization that would be able to supervise her. I understand that your office is right around the comer from the Human Resource which provides a better location but it seems that someone a little less involved with employee relations such as the City Attorney's office might have a position within it that would be able to supervise Catherine and provide the service. I don't know what Roger's workload is like." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "Currently when I am out of my office I do tell Linda ,who works at the main reception desk for Human Resource, where I'm going and when I'll be back. Also there are signs posted on my door stating when I will return and what I am doing at that time. I do agree, yes, that I need clerical support. Currently I use Mary Simmons in Administration to type all the letters that go out to my applicants after the initial testing for the written, mechanical and fitness portions of the testing." Chair Pattison: "So how do we address that?" Chief Examiner Guiguet: "It is my understanding, and again this is in regards to labor negotiations, that she will continue to do that because she does for a large portion of people throughout the City. I'm not involved with regard to what those negotiations are. I know at one point they were going to have Mary work only for those persons under Administration but that ASFME..." H.R. Director Viseth: "Mary is in the ASFME Union. There would not be a problem with continuing that process. We have systems in place already for dealing with applicants and we certainly could incorporate Catherine's process into our process and our Administrative Support could produce those letters on her behalf for her signature rather than her having to go downstairs to another office. Those are just some of the details we could work out." • Page 4 ® Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 Chief Examiner Guiguet: "There are a lot of valuable things that the reception desk and H. R. does and the people do over there at this time." H.R. Director Viseth: "It is a natural process that when an applicant comes to City Hall that they go to the Personnel and Human Resources Office. We're equipped to deal with applicants and questions and we have one office receptionist that is covered at all times." Sgt Stone: "What I'm hearing is that Catherine Guiguet needs some assistance and some help. Maybe what you need here is for a temporary employee to give her a hand with the workload. I don't think that the solution is commingling two different bodies. Again, I'm going to reiterate that the Civil Service Commission is to be separate and to stand separate." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "The ideal solution is that that office be open...right now its open from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and when I go for lunch the office is closed and a notice is placed on the door stating "gone for lunch, back at 2:00 p.m. because I go to lunch from one to 2:00 p.m. If someone is there during the time that the office is closed, or if I'm running the Oral Boards or if I'm doing Assessment Centers or any of the other testings." H.R. Director Viseth: "I'd like to speak to that. We really aren't in a position to justify hiring additional staff when we have the staff five feet away that perform these duties on a daily basis and are already available. That desk is staffed during all office hours including the lunch hour. Even if our office person is gone we staff that area so that would, in my opinion, be a waste of • tax-payer dollars to bring in additional administrative support when it is sitting just five feet down the hall. " Chair. "Any other comments or questions?" Lt. Tom Shepard, Firefighters Union: "I don't even think that there is any action by the Commission required this morning. This is a notification that this has happened or is going to happen and we don't argue the need for Catherine to have some support, but I urge the Commission to take a look at it in six months and see if its working." City Attorney Lubovich: "Its kind of a confusing situation. Typically on general municipal functions the Council establishes positions, sets salaries, organizes them and administration is in charge of hiring, firing, discipline and administration of that personnel. It gets further complicated because there is another body put in the scenario. Under the Statutes the Commission appoints the Examiner and establishes the duties and the functions and does have to operate independently of other personnel issues, thats a given. The question comes up, "who has the authority to make these changes?' This is something that is actually something that is not real clear and I'm even putting myself in a conflict spot because I represent the City as well as the Commission. But if it became push and shove it may be something that needs to be addressed by City Council because they establish basically the Rules and Regulations for Civil Service. They can make the Rules even if they are a little bit different from the Statute, there is a specific authority allowing them to make Rules and Regulations that comply with the general intent of the Statutes. They could basically structure it the way they want to. But between Civil Service and Administration it is not clear who has the final say and I think that if there was going to be a conflict on that issue that probably would have to be resolved by Page 5 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 Council. They could pass an Ordinance saying "it shall be here or it shall be there" and you really don't have..." Chair Pattison: "We don't have a choice?" C/A Lubovich: "Well if you had any major objections to it you could address it with Administration or if there was an issue here you would probably take it to Council and see if it could be resolved that way. It is not a clear line of authority who has what between the Commission and Administration with respect to the position. The Commission does hire and fire and sets the rules and regulations as far as duties. The position is funded by the City and support needs are provided by the City too. Its not really clear who can have the final say between the Commission and Administration. If it is something that is going to become a conflict, it may have to be resolved through the Council by an Ordinance." Commissioner Banister: "What would be involved then to have it try six months and then reevaluate?" C/A Lubovich: "If you're not happy with it then I would think the Commission would address it with Administration in some form or take it up with City Council." Chair Pattison: "Say we rejected this letter today would it automatically go to Council to be resolved?' • C/A Lubovich: "No, you would have to take it direct. If you wanted a specific proposal to be considered by the Council I would think you would want to present something to the Council." Commissioner Banister. "Because the change is already effective?" C/A Lubovich: "March 1st is when Administration is going to do the reorganization. If you had any specific proposal that you wanted Council to hear, its not going to be appealed to the Council, you are going to have to go to the Council and say, "this is what we want, we object to it being here or there." Administration would do the same thing to clarify it, I would imagine. Its how you want to do it. You'd have to take a step to resolve it." Commissioner Banister. "So all that we're doing here today is accepting it into record?" C/A Lubovich: "Basically you're discussing what you want to do with it. Do you want to dispute it, fight it or take a proposal somewhere? What do you want to do with it?" Chair Pattison: "I think it should remain separate. I don't see where any efficiencies of service, according to Catherine's comments I don't see where we're gaining a whole lot and we might be losing...even if just the confidence of the Police and Fire avenues of appeals. I think that might tend to weigh greater than the efficiencies that might be gained by moving the office under Human Resources." Commissioner Banister: "We already have Callius's?" • Page 6 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 Chair Pattison: "Callius is on record as opposed, but he is not here. We might just transmit a memo or letter or statement of fact to the Council that we oppose this idea for those reasons." C/A Lubovich: "Obviously if your decision is not to wait the six months and see how it works and you want to take a position against it now there are a couple of options you might want to consider. One is the Chair going to Administration and discussing the issue directly. If there is no satisfaction there, then maybe determine how to go to Council with it. Or go right to Council with a proposal. I'm stuck between two spots here." Chair Pattison: "Our next step is that I'll go to Council and simply put forward our opinion that this is not in the best interests of City of Kent." C/A Lubovich: "You're not going to approach Administration first?" Chair Pattison: "Okay, Administration first then Council second. Thats what we'll do." C/A Lubovich: "If you're going to Council you might want to propose something specific rather than just leave it. I'm sure Administration will want to do the same thing. I'll assume it will go to a Committee to be discussed and then Administration will put its point in and you'll put yours in and then the Council Committee will deal with it and then go before Council with it. I hate to set it up that way, but it probably would have anyway. So as I understand it the proposal is to go to • Administration. Talk to them about it. See if it can be resolved to the satisfaction of both. If not then take a proposal to Council." Chair Pattison: "Yes." C/A Lubovich: "Would you come back to the next meeting and report before going to Council?" Commissioner Banister: "Yes, I would think so. Administration first and then come back to the meeting and then go to Council if necessary." C/A Lubovich: "I'm just trying to get clarification so that everybody understands what we're doing here." Commissioner Banister. "That would make sense, to follow the procedures properly." Chair Pattison: "Shall we discuss that as a team?" Chief Examiner Guiguet & C/A Lubovich: "Thats a quorum". C/A Lubovich: "You can't do that because that would be a quorum." Chair Pattison asked the Examiner to set up a meeting with Mayor White and Mr. McFall. Chair Pattison: "I move that the Commission go to Administration to discuss a specific proposal regarding reorganization of the Civil Service Commission under Human Resources or if we shall • not and report back to the Commission in open meeting at the next meeting." Page 7 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 Commissioner Banister: "Seconded". Chair Pattison: "All those in favor?" (Both Commissioners said Aye) Motion carried." Chair Pattison: "Next item of business is reports." City Attorney, Roger Lubovich- No report Assistant Fire Chief, Jed Aldridge- No report Police Chief, Ed Crawford - No report Human Resource Director, Sue Viseth - No report III. HEARINGS None IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Accent into Record Chair Pattison moved to approve the minutes from the January 19, 1995 Civil Service Commission Meeting. Seconded and carried. • V. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval and Accept into Record 1. Chair Pattison moved to accept into record the letter dated January 13, 1995 from Chief Crawford to Scott A. Kulin confirming his temporary appointment to probationary Corrections Officer. Seconded and carried. 2. Chair Pattison moved to accept into record the memo dated January 18, 1995 from Chief Crawford announcing the promotion of Corrections Sergeant Curt Lutz to the position of Corrections Lieutenant effective January 23, 1995 noting that the Commission is accepting into record the letter itself without taking a position because of the pending appeal. Seconded and carried. 3. Chair Pattison moved to accept into record the letter dated January 20, 1995 from Chief Crawford to Harvey D. Wenderski confirming his appointment to probationary Corrections Officer effective February 1, 1995. Seconded and carried. 4. Chair Pattison moved to accept into record the Certification letter dated February 3, 1995 from the Civil Service Examiner establishing the Eligibility List for Police Records Specialist. Seconded and carried. • Page 8 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 B. Action Items for Discussion 1. Chair Pattison opened for discussion the letter dated January 9, 1995 from Chief Angelo notifying the Commission of the Provisional appointment of Lieutenant John Willits to the rank of Provisional Battalion Chief effective January 28, 1995. There being no discussion the letter was accepted into record. Seconded and carried. 2. Chair Pattison opened for discussion the letter dated January 9, 1995 from Chief Angelo notifying the Commission of the Provisional appointment of Kent Knight to the rank of Provisional Lieutenant effective January 28, 1995. There being no discussion the letter was accepted into record. Seconded and carried. 3. Chair Pattison opened for discussion the certified letter dated February 6, 1995 to Corrections Officer candidate Scott Kulin notifying him of his removal from the Corrections Officer Eligibility List. Chief Examiner Guiguet stated that Mr. Kulin had not passed the psychological portion of the selection process and was not recommended for hire. Captain C.E. Miller stated that originally Mr. Kulin had been given a conditional offer of employment contingent upon his passing additional examinations. Therefore when he did not pass the psychological portion he was removed. • Chair Pattison moved to accept the letter into record. Seconded and carried. 4. Chair Pattison opened for discussion the Appeal requests on Corrections Lieutenants Promotional Exam, specifically the following documents: a. Facsimile dated January 20, 1995, 4:15 p.m from Sampson &Wilson, Inc. PS, requesting an appeal to the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination on behalf of appellant Marilyn J. Stone. b. Appeal request dated January 20, 1995, ( hand delivered to City of Kent Administration at 5:08 p.m. same date), from Sampson &Wilson, Inc. PS , requesting an appeal to the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination on behalf of appellant Marilyn J. Stone. C. Letter dated January 23, 1995 from the Civil Service Examiner to Sampson & Wilson acknowledging receipt of the appeal request for Marilyn Stone. d. Appeal request dated January 23, 1995 from Sergeant Sheila P. Knapp requesting an appeal to the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination on. e. Letter dated January 23, 1995 from the Civil Service Examiner to Sergeant Sheila P. Knapp acknowledging receipt of the appeal request. • Page 9 Civil Service Minutes 40 February 16, 1995 f. Letter dated January 24, 1995 from Foster Pepper& Shefelman to Chief Examiner Guiguet confirming their engagement to represent the City of Kent regarding the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination. g. Facsimile dated February 10, 1995, from Sampson &Wilson, Inc. PS , giving backup information on behalf of appellant Knapp for her appeal request regarding the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination. h. Chief Examiner Guiguets' "Statement of Facts and Action Taken" regarding the Corrections Lieutenant Promotional Examination with Exhibits"A": and "B". Commissioner Banister. "I would like to bring something up at this time. I know Curt Lutz. This is something that I am making public before anything starts. I am not a personal friend of him. He went to school with my son. He plays ball with my son. He and his wife have gone out with my daughter and her husband. He has never been to my house. I've never been to his house. I just want it known that I do know him, I'm acquainted with him. I do not class him as a personal friend. I just want that known up front. I don't feel that it would interfere with my being honest and fair in this. 1 wanted it known up front." C/A Lubovich: "The question is: "are there any objections?" • Chair Pattison: "Are there any objections to Mr. Banister's participation in this Appeal." Attorney S. Sampson: "Commissioners, for the record, my name is Susan Sampson representing the appellants, Sgt Stone and Sgt Knapp. We appreciate your disclosure and waive any potential conflict there and accept your service on the Commission." Attorney S. DiJulio: "If it please the Commission, I am Steve DiJulio representing the Secretary in the process for the Commission, and we have no objections either to Commissioner Banister staying on that Appeal." Chair Pattison asked who the Commission would hear from first. C/A Lubovich stated that at this point just for the record what needed to be done was to determine whether or not an Appeal would be heard on this matter. That the Commission at this point hear from the petitioners or Appellants the reason for their requesting the Appeal. Then to see if there were any statements from Mr. DiJulio, then to decide whether or not to hear the Appeal. Attorney DiJulio stated that counsel had discussed yesterday and had intent only to come before the Commission to get a Hearing date today. He did not feel that, at this point , there was any dispute as to the matter being appropriate for hearing by the Commission. If that would expedite the Commissions consideration at least as far as Ms. Sampson and he were concerned, they were prepared to set a hearing date. Ms. Sampson stated "exactly". Chair Pattison: "I think that it is appropriate that we hear this as well." The date for the appeal was set for Monday, February 27, 1995 at 8:00 a.m. • Page 10 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 City Attorney Lubovich: "I do have a question procedurally. We need to determine how we are to deal with any briefing and exhibits. Are there any desires by either the Commission or the parties as far as submitting briefs by certain dates or any exhibits that need to be presented?' Attorney Sampson: "I assume that I can get addresses to which to mail briefs and I will handle delivery of our briefs ahead of time if the Commission would prefer that rather than relying upon the staff. I have no problem with exchanging briefs in advance. I find that to be useful to all parties so that we can anticipate and be prepared to address each others questions or concerns. I would, on behalf of the appealing officers, request access to a copy of the tests in question and the scoring criteria and the scores actually administered. I have the sent a letter to Mr. Lubovich and the Commission requesting that the documents be made available to us as a matter of Public Disclosure. 1 must renew that request now because the letter requesting the documents probably won't reach you until later today." Attorney Lubovich: "My only comment on the Disclosure request is testing scores themselves. I believe that there is a Public Disclosure exemption on test scores on employees, not necessarily the test questions or criteria but there may be an issue with respect to the written response of Mr. Lutz. I have not looked into that any further. It might be an issue." Attorney Sampson: "If I might address that briefly, the law we are referring to is the Public Disclosure Law, RAW 4217 310 parts one and two. It is my understanding of that law that, although certain exemptions from disclosure can be asserted by the City the City is not required • to keep those documents disclosed. Because of the controversy arising out of this test, I urge the Commission to find that it would be in the best interest of fairness to the Appellants to disclose the test matters." City Attorney Lubovich stated that he would look into that issue as to whether or not Mr. Lutz's packet could be released. That the criteria and the test questions themselves were not at issue just the responses themselves. Attorney Samson stated that the test documents would be the keys. Attorney DiJulio stated that he had no problem, that it did not strike him as an issue that would be a problem. Document discovery and pre-hearing. Chair Pattison moved that the Commission hear the Appeal on Monday, February 27 and the briefs be brought to the Commission at close of business 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 24, 1995 and will accept exhibits up until and at the Hearing. Seconded and carried. There being no other business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. The Civil Service Appeal Hearing will be held on Monday, February 27, 1995 in Council Chambers West at 08:00 a.m. • Page 11 Civil Service Minutes February 16, 1995 The next Regular Meeting will be held on Thursday, March 16, 1995 at 8:00 a.m. in Council Chambers West. Respectfully submitted, (� Catherine M. Guiguet Secretary& Chief Examiner Approved: ,) Mike Pattison, Chair •