Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 08/17/1995 . CITY OF KENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 17, 1995 Members Present: Mike Pattison Ron Banister Callius Zaratkiewcz Others Present: A/C Aldridge, Lt. Shepard, Lead Evidence Technician- David Santos, Human Resource Director- Sue Viseth, Chief Crawford, B/C Scott, Lt. Cline, Detective K. Holt, Captain Jim Miller, others present. Chair Pattison called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. I. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Clarification of Civil Service Examiners position under Human Resources. Chair Pattison: "The reason that this clarification of Civil Service Examiners position is on the Agenda today is that there has been some confusion and some phone calls from Catherine regarding this move and also information that Human Resources wanted to approve or at least examine our Agendas before they came to the Commission which has brought up some questions with the Commissioners. So we're calling for some clarification today. Does anyone have any input on this?" Human Resources Director, Sue Viseth: "Yes. I'll speak to that. I think the reason this came about was that we were working on the Department budget and putting together our • organizational chart and as a result of that had reflected Civil Service Secretary Chief Examiner position under the Human Resources umbrella in our Division. However, the Civil Service Commission and its function still remains as a separate entity as do Public .... and Commissions throughout the City. This concerned Catherine and she and I had quite a lengthy discussion and I thought that, at the time, we had come to a resolution on this issue. Because, aside from that we are overdue on her Performance Evaluation which I had talked to the Chair about earlier. Initially I was asking for an Executive Session simply to notify the Commission that the evaluation was due and asking for input from the Commission so we could move forward. I was not aware that Catherine was under the impression that I would want to approve all of the Agendas before they go out. She had asked me specifically if I would remove items from the Agenda and I had stated specifically that I would not. I wanted a copy, usually I just get the one page and I want the whole packet. Is that an unreasonable request?' Chair Pattison: "Any other input today." Chief Examiner Guiguet: "I would like to give input with regards to our conversation. My understanding was not that Sue would vet the Agenda as such but my understanding was that there might be items that Sue would want removed from the Agenda if they were negotiating with the Unions and I didn't feel that it was appropriate and thats why I had asked the Commission for clarification. In regards to where my position sits. Professionally its very advantageous to me to sit under Human Resources. But if I am reporting to the Director of Human Resources then we need to address my position description to reflect that reporting relationship • Page 2 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 Quite often I find that working with the Union, my Commission and then coming under Human Resources there are a lot of grey area which I am really unsure of. I do not want to end up in the position where I'll lose my job over something where I don't know whose direction I'm supposed to follow." C/A Lubovich: "Just a comment, with respect to the Agenda. It seems to me that the Agenda should be approved by the Chair before it is actually issued out. There is potentially a problem with sending out amended agendas at the day of the meeting because nobody has notice. Requests could be entertained at the meeting for amendments to the Agenda. Once the Agenda is out supplementals could be issued but the question I have is the notice of what the items are that are going on the Agenda currently when they are done on the day of the meeting or the day before. But I would think that anybody has a right to request the Commission to entertain an item and that the Chair would be the ultimate decision whether or not it goes on the Agenda. So if I wanted to put something on that had to do with the secretary, obviously she's not going to want to put something on if I'm going to be complaining about her. But I think that is something that the Chair would be able to entertain. Anybody should be able to come to the meeting and ask that something be added to the Agenda. Its really up to the Commission to determine whether or not that will occur. That addresses that particular item." CSE Guiguet: The reason I prepare the Revised Agenda is because since coming on board as the Examiner there are various things that have been addressed in the minutes and people have brought up additional items at the actual meeting and then I find that when I go back through the years trying to track I have nothing showing on the Agendas and then have to read through all the minutes. That is why I did it. I have no problem with not revising Agendas. I have never, ever not put on the Agenda, if there are complaints in regards to myself. I think past practice reflects that." C/A Lubovich: I was not trying to say anything Catherine. What I was saying was that the point of how Agendas were established. There is nothing wrong with doing amended Agendas at the last minute. The point is that they should be at least addressed at the meeting to let people know that there have been changes to the Agenda. Some people may be wandering around with the old Agenda and not having a revised Agenda and not knowing what the new items are. Just a point with the establishing of the Agenda." CSE Guiguet: "Which means that if they had seen it that they might not have attended the meeting?" C/A Lubovich: "Right, might not have attended the meeting, wouldn't even have had notice of it. That doesn't mean that something couldn't be added at the meeting." Chair Pattison: "Catherine brought up a point she wanted to talk about a new job description written to reflect the new relationship with Human Resources. Is that something that H.R. could provide soon?" • • Page 3 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 HRD Viseth: "We can certainly work with Catherine to do that and I do think that is appropriate. I think her concerns are not unfounded with this recent transition. Try to finalize everything to make it more clear. I felt very good after Catherine and I's conversation and do feel, and I think she agrees that the transition into H.R. has been beneficial and will continue to be so and also serve the Commission." Chair Pattison: "Just a statement. When we first approved in essence through a round-about this transition we were under the impression that this move was solely to offer Catherine assistance when necessary. That was the only motivation behind the move. We're concerned when issues such as review of the Agenda come up and so we're going to look at these with a critical eye from now on. Also, Sue you mentioned that Catharines evaluation is overdue. Why and what can we do to fix that?" HRD Viseth: "It was timing. Her evaluation the year point was in March. We were right in the middle of the transition period. You and I talked sometime earlier in the summer about the fact that I had not had the opportunity to supervise Catherine to really conduct an evaluation. We have new members on the Commission as well. We will be going through this as more of a goal planning opportunity than a Performance Evaluation which is really how mappings are established." Chair Pattison: "Well what I'm looking for is when is it going to happen?" HRD Viseth: "I was trying to set it up for September." Chair Pattison: "Okay, so could we have that for the next Civil Service Commission meeting?" HRDV: "Yes". Chair Pattison: "Thank you." Detective Kathy Holt: "I'm Kathy Holt with the Kent Police Guild and I am dittoing what you have been saying. That was the Guilds concern in the very beginning. That there may be some type of conflict coming out of this move. To support Catherine in getting some help we were willing to accept that. I'm urging you to iron out some of these problems so that there isn't a conflict in the future and she can go on with her job." 11. HEARINGS: None III. OLD BUSINESS A. Accept into Record 1. Chair Pattison moved to approve the Minutes from the July 20, 1995 Civil Service Commission Meeting. Seconded and carried. 2. Chair Pattison moved to approve the documentation records for Firefighter James Lutz • 1993. Medical leave of absence and date of separation from the Fire Department. Seconded and carried. • Page 4 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval and Accept into Record 1. Chair Pattison moved to approve the Certified letter dated July 20, 1995 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. Joseph R. Hertrich notifying him of the removal of his name from the Entry Level Police Officers Eligibility List. Seconded and carried. 2. Chair Pattison moved to approve the memo dated July 20, 1995 from Chief Angelo to Firefighter Buddy Sizemore advising him of his promotion to Firefighter Second Class effective August 1, 1995. Seconded and carried. 3. Chair Pattison moved to approve the Certified letter dated July 25, 1995 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. Jon Eric Buss acknowledging receipt of his letter withdrawing his name from the Lateral Police Officer process and notifying him of the removal of his name from the Lateral Police Officers Eligibility List. Seconded and carried. 4. Chair Pattison moved to approve the memo dated July 27, 1995 from Chief Angelo to Firefighter Marty Hauer advising him of his promotion to Firefighter Second Class effective August 2, 1995. Seconded and carried. • 5. Chair Pattison moved to approve the letter dated August 1, 1995 from Chief Crawford to Barbara S. Leech changing her appointment date of Probationary Police Officer from September 16, 1995 to August 16, 1995. Seconded and carried. 6. Chair Pattison moved to approve the letter dated August 1, 1995 from Chief Crawford to Mr. Michael S. O'Reilly changing his appointment date of Probationary Police Officer from September 16, 1995 to August 16, 1995. Seconded and carried. Lt Cline clarified that the actual hire order is Mr. O'Reilly hired in front of Barbara Leech. Chair Pattison stated "let the record state that Mr. O'Reilly was hired first". 7. Chair Pattison moved to approve the letter from candidate Daniel J. O'Donnell requesting that his name be taken off the Lateral Police Officers Eligibility list. Seconded and carried. Seconded and carried. 8. Chair Pattison moved to approve the Certified letter dated August 9, 1995 from the Civil Service Chief Examiner to Daniel J. O'Donnell acknowledging his letter and advising him of his removal from the Lateral Police Officers Eligibility List. Seconded and carried. 9. Chair Pattison moved to approve the letter dated August 9, 1995 from Chief Crawford to Mr. Randall P. Cox confirming his appointment to Probationary Police Officer, effective September 19, 1995. Seconded and carried. • Page 5 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 10. Chair Pattison moved to approve the Certified letter dated August 10, 1995 from the Chief Examiner to Mr. David R. Cortez, acknowledging his telephone request to Lt. Cline that he no longer wished to be considered for employment with the Police Department and notifying him of the removal of his name from the Lateral Police Officers Eligibility List. Seconded and carried. V. ACTION ITEM FOR DISCUSSION 1. Chair Pattison opened for discussion the letter from Administrative Assistant Kelli Rogers asking for clarification on the qualifications for the upcoming Police Records Supervisors promotional examination as they do not conform to the job classification on record at the Civil Service Office. CE Guiguet: "I was not here for your July 20th meeting I was ill. My understanding is from the minutes is that Captain Jim Miller had requested that the minimum requirements be changed for this test to reflect two years as a Police Records Specialist with the Kent Police Department and I understand that there was no discussion and it was approved. Consequently I received no input on this to my office. Within the last couple of weeks people had come into my office, once I had posted the promotional for Records Supervisor. People were coming in and saying that it wasn't really fair because it then blocked them out for taking the test. Consequently I came in this morning and I had the packet from Kelli Rogers asking for clarification in regards to why the • qualifications that had been agreed to in the Union Contract negotiations had been changed. In I think November or December the Chair signed off and approved the particular position descriptions with those qualifications December 15, 1994. Hers was clarification as to why the minimum of two years as Records Specialist rather than the actual qualifications which are in the position description. When Support Staff came under Civil Service in 1989 it stated at that time in the Civil Service Rules on page seven that for Police Clerk and any support that the job classification is what will be used for the support staff." Chair Pattison: "Is there any other input on this item?" Captain Jim Miller. "In discussions that I had with Catherine, in the absence of anything else in Civil Service the job descriptions would be the focal point for what were the qualifications. Based on what we are going through in the City of Kent in preparation for annexation anticipated opening of the East Hill precinct to be partially staffed by Records personnell and hiring and training personnel. We came to Civil Service with our request that as it was approved that it must be a current employee of Kent Police Department and have minimum of two years of satisfactory performance as a records specialist. For the reason that we felt it necessary for a good working knowledge of what Kent records does. Supervision is first general management and that was the reason for the requested change." Chair Pattison: "Roger, when we made this change did we act within our authority?" • Page 6 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 C/A Lubovich: "It is my understanding that the position description that was signed off in December was done jointly with the City, Civil Service, Human Resources and the Union. That is my understanding. Isn't that correct? The Rules do say that the description will be the qualification. The position description basically on file will be the qualification requirements. Section IV of this Rule says that the current job classification on file will be the qualification for the position. Apparently at that meeting those minimum qualifications were different and there is some inconsistency there. Unless there is an agreement by all parties I understand that the Union has input on these job classifications and their contract. There is a problem with that unless there is some concurrence on a new description there is going to be some conflict." Chair Pattison: "Sue I see that you are on the verge of wanting to speak." HRD Viseth: "Yes, the union was involved in assisting us in rewriting the position descriptions. It was part of the negotiations process in preparation for salary survey that was to be conducted for the support contract. It was important that everyone have buy in. It when through the incumbent employees for review and their supervisors and Police Administration. So the guild had signed off on them, Human Resources and Civil Service Commission ultimately did approve them. That was the meeting that Catherine was absent and I filled in, it was a rather quick meeting. I don't recall the Guild rasing any issues at that time. Perhaps Kathy would like to fill us in." Detective K. Holt: "I'm just a little unclear as I was asking David. I was not aware of the Guild being involved, it may have been John Pagel and he is on vacation. I have not had time to speak to him so I'm a little naive on this subject at this time." Captain J. Miller. "I can speak to my conversation with John Pagel if you'd like. Prior to coming forward with the request that was approved at the prior meeting, I did work with John Pagel regarding the wording and Dave Santos who is the representative for that section. So the union was involved and supported it. I don't recall which Union person was here but Sue is correct, there was no conversation from the Union either in support or against the proposal and I believe that was because we had worked that out ahead of time and they were in agreement." CE Guiguet: If I can interject, I was at the meetings myself with Becky Fowler and Debra Leroy was the particular steward at the time we were working on the position descriptions. Becky Fowler of the Human Resources Department, myself and also Captain C.E. Miller sat in on those." HRD Viseth: "I think that it would be a good idea to cant'this issue over to the next meeting. I don't know what this will do to the process. It was my sense that since Captain Miller had had discussions with the Guild regarding those changes, because there was no objection during the last Civil Service Meeting that there was no problem. That we had concurrence by the Guild, Police Administration and Civil Service which would be the route to take." Detective K. Holt: "We have an Executive Board Meeting this afternoon, so I can speak to John about this and I'm trusting that he was involved in this meeting. I can then clarify any questions • you may have this afternoon." Page 7 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 Chief Crawford: "I think from what I am reading that the Union certainly has no issue with this because all of the Union people are involved with the promotional process. What I'm listening to is that maybe people that are Civil Service but do not have Union representation, like Kelli Rogers and maybe some others that want to have clarification. I'm confused on this whole thing, very frankly. If its easy to understand, I'd like to have it explained to me. Do you understand it sir?" Chair Pattison: "I don't think that it is easy to understand." HRD Viseth: "I do have one clarification. Its not all of the support union folks are eligible under this change. You have secretarial and accounting positions that wouldn't have those years of experience in that position that wouldn't be eligible who are members of the Guild." Chief Crawford: "Is It illogical to ask that Supervisory positions be required to,have certain amounts of time in their job function. I think thats what we asked the Civil Service Commission to agree to last month. Am I wrong?" Dave Santos: "Dave Santos of the Guild. No, we don't have a problem with that but we would have to change the position description that is subject to collective bargaining unit we'd have to do that in contract negotiations. Thats the only problem. In all fairness to the Administration, I was talking to Captain Miller with regards to this and agree with you that there should be some type of working knowledge of the records area to become a Supervisor in that area. To my knowledge, no one in our Bargaining Unit has approached me, or anyone else in the Guild requesting that this be looked into for the reason of applying for that job. Thats why you can see that the letter comes from outside the Guild, not necessarily from the Guild. That doesn't mean that this isn't going to open the door or now Guild members saying that they would like to apply if it changes." Chief Crawford: "I guess that brings up the next question. A job description doesn't necessarily stay the same. My job description as Police Chief does not necessarily say that I have five years of managerial experience before I could apply for this. I'm assuming that a job description for Records Supervisor does not state that you have to have X amount of years. Does it? It does?" CE Guiguet: "When we were sitting in our meetings, one of the things I brought up was did they wish to have specifically in the wording the fact that the person worked in the Records Section. It was stated that they wanted promotionals to be open for all. So therefore the wording was done as 'graduation from high school, three years related administrative support experience in a law enforcement agency and completion of course work or training in supervisory principles and practices may be substituted for up to one year of experience'. They felt that would then allow those who are currently working in administrative positions within the Police Department to also apply." • Page 8 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 Cpt J. Miller: One further point of clarification. In a Kent Police Department, the Records Supervisor is a working Records Specialist and there is a little bit of where the delineation comes in. You need more than pure management skills. It requires a knowledge of the overall functionality. Because they are expected to carry a shift and work in every capacity that the Records Specialist works. It is more than just supervising the work output or arranging schedules. It is physically knowing and doing the job itself. Especially this transition phase going into annexation, hiring and opening up a precinct that we came to these requirements and requests. These requirements which were approved of two years of experience as a Kent Police Department Records Specialist." Chair Pattison: "Is there any further input." CE Guiguet: "Basically the position description needs to be changed to reflect the fact that they would rather have the two years as a Records Specialist." Chair Pattison: "Or we can eliminate the requirement but I prefer the first option." C/A Lubovich: "I see that we go by the job description?" Chair Pattison: "Right." C/A Lubovich: "It doesn't seem to be an objection from the Union at this time but it could become one because there is a conflict." i Chair Pattison: "Catherine would you prepare that, the job description." C/A Lubovich: "That has to be negotiated. Perhaps Sue has some suggestions how to handle that" HRD Viseth: "Yes, we are currently in negotiations on all four of the contracts. I imagine this issue will come up. It would be my recommendation that we maintain current prior to the last meeting. I have a concern without having a conversation with John here. That we carry this over rather than to make a decision. I don't want to get us into a situation where there is a unfair labor practice or have not had negative conversations between the Captain and the Guild. There be a misperception on what was agreed to and I'm not aware of the Guilds response. Until we can get an answer from them I would be more comfortable if we would carry this issue over. Catherine how does this affect you as far as the recruitment process? CE Guiguel: "The actual promotional was due to be held right after our next Civil Service Meeting. It would simply be a matter of sending out an E-mail to all personnel stating that the promotional will be scheduled due to clarification regarding the qualifications." HRD Viseth: "Captain Miller is anyone acting in that capacity?" Cpt J. Miller: "No at the present time there is not an acting supervisor." Chief Crawford: "May I ask a question sir?" Page 9 Civil Service Minutes August 17, 1995 Chair Pattison: "Yes, please do." Chief Crawford: "Does that mean then that the Eligibility requirements if there is a time limit. Now we have another opportunity for promotion. It means more people could be included in the examination?" CE Guiguet: "What he means is if we run the promotional further down the line that there will be more people who would be eligible to apply for the position." Chief Crawford: "Yes, is that correct?" CE Guiguet: "Yes" Commissioner Banister. "If we are going to table this until our next meeting basically can we make a request that there be representation from everybody involved so that it can be handled at that time so that it is not delayed again. I think that time is very important and I think with the annexation coming every month is going to make it a little harder on the Police Department and everyone else." Chair Pattison: "Move to defer action on the promotional and bring it back to the next meeting with all parties present." Seconded and carried. There being no other business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 a.m. The next Regular Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 21, 1995 at 8:00 a.m. in Council Chambers West. Respectfully submitted, 1 Catherine M. Guiguet Secretary& Chief Examiner Approved: U R, pU .� Mike Pattison, Chair •