Loading...
06-18-1968 - Regular Meeting - MinutesJOINT MEETING ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL and REGULAR MEETING OF THE PERSONNEL BOARD CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JUNE18, 1968o -m- The adjourned joint meeting of the City Council and the Personnel Board was called to order by Mayor Leonard. Gleckman at 7.35 p.m., in the West Covina City Hall ROLL. CALL Present- Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Absent- Councilman Gillum PERSONNEL BOARD ROLL CALL Messrs. Zoelle, Faunce, Sornborger, Tice, Chairman. Sanborn Also Present- George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk Donald L. Russell, Administrative Assistant *FIRE DEPARTMENT -DUTY WEEK Mayor Gleckman acknowledged receipt of report from the Personnel Board and asked Chairman Sanborn. if there was anything further to be added; Chairman Sanborn advised there was nothing further and if Council wished to ask questions regarding any portion of the report, Personnel Board members would be happy to elaborate on it Mayor Gleckman- Do any of the City Councilmen wish to ask a question regarding the Fire Department Duty Week? The recommendation from the Personnel Board was to approve the Fire Department Duty Week. Councilman Nichols- I would like to direct a question to the Chairman. . An area of confusion to me for years, has been the various sundry types of shift work weeks, years, etc., that the various Fire Departments have. I get so thoroughly confused between each system, it is very hard for me to analyze salary costs with the work weeks themselves. It is hard enough when we talk about workweeks for Fire Departments where they spend hours living inhouse - so to speak, and I have no clear picture in my mind of what we are talking about. I think we are talking ,in terms of. modifying the work week and the question that comes to my mind and that I would like to have answered, at least reassurance on - how does the vVest Covina Fire Department stack up with. Fire Departments throughout the Southern California area in comparable cities in terms of the hours worked by our men? Are we in an unfavorable position, favorable position or at the midpoint? Have you gentlemen determined to your satisfaction where we really are with our own Fire Department and where we should be? i Chairman Sanborn- I think the Board members are just about as confused as the Council members about Fire Department Duty Week, in all other phases of City Hall the departments are on a normal work week. The' Police Department is entirely different from the Fire Department:, they have a system where they keep track of overtime on the job, but in the Fire Department as you pointed out, the men are living there and so the entire work week is calculated in a different manner. W 1 JOINT MEETING C.C. and,'PERS, BD. 6- 18-68 Page Two The one thing that is consistent is that all Fire Departments do this, West Covina isn't any different: than any other City, it isn't anymore favor- able or less favorable as to their relative standing with comparable cities. One of the basic things to understand is there are two platoon and three platoon Fire Departments As a two platoon Department, West Covina ranks very well; as a three platoon they rank low. So they are endeavoring to raise their standard by lowering their total work week Along with this they feel the County and other cities are aiming and progressing in this manner now and anticipating in the future to bringthis down. They are talking about: 63 . + hours and bringing it down to 56 hours ultimately. The proposal we have is on a progressive basis where we are looking at the next two years of reducing so much per year and at that time it will be looked into again by the Personnel Board and City Manager and determined whether it is feasible from an economic point: of view to continue that: progress or whether it will have to level. off. It: was the recommendation of the Board to go for a trial 2 year period and then look at it again to see if it was feasible from a financial standpoint to continue. Mr. Russell, what, would the ranking Oder of West Covina be if this were approved for this first: year? i Mr. Russell- In comparison with our 10 cities we would be about 5t:h in the group and with this shift reduction it would move our Depart- ment up to about 3rd o Chairman Sanborn- As an explanation, I might: mention that we make an effort in. almost: everything we do to compare with 9 other cities and West: Covina. It has been the expression of the Council in the past. that they would like to see West Covina in the upper area, not: necessarily Number 1, but. perhaps in. the upper. 3; so in everything we do we try and keep West Covina at, that • level. These 9 other cities were designated by the management. consultant in the past and as West: Covina changes, popu.l.ati.onwise, areawise and taxwise, etc. , those compar-able cities can change. There are times also when a factor is put in. for. the County in comparing --Safety positions 'Mr, Sorn.borger- I wanted to comment that not only have we surveyed the other nine cities, we also had some very reliable information that: the State of California is pushing this way, and our survey indicated that this would not put us higher than we should be with the other cities; and also because the trend. is this way we should take this action. Furthermore, t.o assure that we are taking the right direction, I think the comment: which. was part of the original motion., stating it: will be reviewed in 1970, was put in there specifically so we would be sure of not taking this step and progressing too far. Councilman. Nichols. In other words it, is subject. to review? Mr. Sornborger.. Yes. Absolutely. Councilman Nichols-, One additional. question. What: does our work week represent: in terms of a fireman's time on the job on Fire Department: premises during the week, and what: proportion of that time is represented by sleeping time or non -duty time? We have 63. hours - how many • hour's of these are sleeping hours on the job; how many are normal service hours on the ,fob, etc.? Mr. Russell. They have a variable set schedule on their 24 hour shift., starting' at 8 a.m. , when they report: to duty. (Mr. Russell read the League of California Cities - "Fire Department Working .Conditions and Salaries" and the Report on the 24 hour Fire Duty Scheduled) -2 JOINT MEETING C.C. and PERS. BD. 6-18-68 Page Three Chairman Sanborn- With the number of cities we are compared with, I believe the average was about 3-1/4 shifts less than West Covina has. The three platoon system seems to be much more favorable apparently as to the operatirn of the Department. Councilman Chappell- I would like to have the difference between the two and three platoon set up explained.. I understand the difference with regard to manpower., but what is the basic difference between the two as far as administering, etc. Chief Wetherbeee Without going into great detail and in order to partially answer Councilman Nichols original question, you have to retrogress many years back to come up with the two platoon concept wherein we may have worked from 84.hours a week to 120 hours per week and that was feasible because the two -platoon did come down from 120 to 84 to 72 to 62 and didn't involve any radical change, but somewhere below the 67 and 65 hour it was no longer feasible to have the two platoon companies and having another crew over here and everytime these fellows were off the other crew would step in (explained in detail) In answer to Councilman Nichols' question regarding hours of work - for previous Personnel Boards we ran month studies and we averaged 10-1/2 hour day for any month you select because of the various night programs we have, inspections, etc. Any day you select you will find we average • between 10 and 10-1/2 hour day, Mayor Gleckman- Thank you Chief., . Any other comments by Council? I had the benefit of sitting in at the Personnel Board session when this first came up and even though it started out: rather confusing, as the mist cleared it became a little clearer - I am not saying I fully understand but I understand that I believe basically what we are talking about is the 63. 5 work week versus a 56 hour work week as the County and other cities have. I think, the recommendation made by the Personnel Board on a 5 year program of reduction and again looking at it in 2 years is probably one of the best, nicest and easiest compro- mises .worked out. . I would like to compliment the Personnel Board in wading through what is clear to many people in. their own occupation but is really as clear as mud to some of the lay people. I think the Board did a fine job. VACATION PROPOSAL Mayor Gleckman- On the Vacation Proposal, I have but. one question. Mr. Russell, this was your statement: - you said. that presently 45 employees now get 15 days vacation and then you go on, to break that down under the new Plan A - - are we discussing the new Plan A, is that the recommendation? • Mr. Russell- Yes Mayor Gleckman- My other question is when you talk about the estimated cost being one-half of 1% of the present payroll you are talking about one- half of 1% of the present payroll for the entire City? Mr. o Russell- Yes. Mayor Gleckman- This includes Administrative heads, City Manager, et.co ? - 3 - JOINT MEETING C.C. and PERS. BD. 6-18-68 Page Four 'Mr. Russell. Yes. However, I might state this does not mean that the budget will increase by one-half of 1% because of the people on vacation are not normally replaced by someone else, thus there is no increase in the budget. • Mayor Gleckman: Well where dial we save the money in the past if it is not going to increase? Mr. Russell- Actually the work stacks up on the individual's desk until he returns Mayor Gleckman° You are talking then of a smoother flow rather than an actual savings ? Mr, Russell. We are talking about other people covering for the person on vacation with the exception of the Fire Department - they will probably increase the budget by about: $5600. The Police Depart- ment operates the same as the City Hall staff and when on vacation they do not hire replacements Mayor Gleckman° So actually by going along with the new P1an.A we are basically not increasing the dollar -wise budget with the exception, if there is one, in overtime built up by the Fire Department: or would they be able to handle on the same basis? • Mr. Russell- No, they have to work this into the overtime budget. Mayor Gleckman° Then the Fire Department is the only increased cost? Mr. Russell- Yes Mayor Gleckman.. Does this have anything to do with the $10, 000 increase you are talking about later - Mr,. Aiassa ? Mr Aia s sa. Right Mayor Gleckman° Mr.. Sanborn do you have anything to add to what we presently have to fill us in a little better as to what we are actually doing - other than as stated in the 4 or 5 lines in the recommenda- tion made by Mr. Russell.? I would say this basically sums up the entire recommenda- tion Chairman Sanborn. You are correct.. That last paragraph explanation is exactly what the result: would be to the City, if approved. The reason we recommend this is really quite simple - it is two -fold. 1. We felt there was.a need for an additional incentive for employees on a short term basis. After 3-1/2 years there wasn't anything to look forward too and we felt this would offer something and in addition to that it was again by comparison with these other • 9 cities and what their Vacation Program looked like. Councilman Nichols; In your memorandum prepared by Mr. Russell, he indicated the additional cost would be neglible _. $5600 o and he stipulated this would be : for. the Fire Department as other Departments would operate without paid relief. Did you gentlemen do any exploration of the impact of a 33-1/3% increase in key personnel withdrawal during the vacation period as to how that might affect the need for increased rel.i.ef? The people being with the City for 5 years would by and large represent a substantial amount of people that know their job and are now taking 2 weeks vacation and with this new program will take 3 weeks, - 4 - JOINT MEETING Co Co and PE RS. BD. 6-18-68 Page Five. so in these key ranks you are stepping up the amount of time that will be taken away from the city by 3 3-1/2% in the key areas. Where did the assumption stem from that the future would predict no increase in costs as a result of this? Did you explore this to determine to your satisfaction that next year or the year after, that that we are not going to see some increased costs because of the Department's being shorthanded for a longer period of time during the summer months? Chairman Sanborn- We know that the City Manager is working on a program and has been and is quite successful and expects to continue whereby there is always key personnel under a Department Head and when a .Department Head is absent an additional 5 days there is key personnel under him who knows that job and can function properly so that, everything will not snowball and pile UP. Councilman. Nichols- You extrapulated what .I said to apply to Department Heads only. By key personnel .I refer to anyone that; has been working for the City for 5 years - we assume he is a productive person. They are filling a key position in the sense that the City couldn't do without it. Now in my operation or yours - Mr.. Sanborn, we might say - well I can spare a person for a week and limp along, or maybe I can spare a person for 2 weeks without having to bring in, extra help and maybe for 3 weeks, but sometime the point comes when I see that I have lost key personnel for enough time that; I need some extra relief to carry on, Now is there any indication that extending this 2 weeks to 3 weeks for all City employees - for employees working more than. 5 years - will. in $act result in any increase in cost to the City beyond the $5, 000 figure, which is predicated • on past experience only? 'Mr. Sornborger- 1:f I may Mr. Chairman? I would point out two things. One, in projecting this we did two things - l- is make a comparison that puts us about even, not above with the survey cities - and they have been doing this right. along. 2- the Administration recommended and proposed that, this would not be an excessive cost to the City. But more important: than that and No. 3- When you project the cost, the Personnel Board has taken the view that as long as we can show it is reasonable by comparison and reasonable as far as the employees are concerned, the cost, factor is something the City Council projects Councilman Nichols- That is why I asked this particular question, because if you fellows have not explored this question, I think we should. In my judgment I don't think the answer., is explicit: in the recommendation because the statement stated is one based upon current conditions It doesn't say that we have gone to each Department Head and each Department .Head has said - yes, I will have this number.' and this number next year, etc. , that will. be affected and in a 5 year projection 1: don't foresee that I would need additional help. I don't: have that here so I am not; confident that we are not going to have that increase and extra cost. I am not: raising this question in the light of asking if you people have done .your work • Mr.. Sornborger-- Well you have raised a point that: maybe the Board would like to have clarified a little more. Because we have not and I notice more and more we have been going into the costs where in the past we have stayed away from this. If we should be going more and more into the costs, I for one would like to take a broader view and intergrate this particular function in with what we have been doing, which has not been too much concerned with the cost: factor as long as we could justify the recommendation by comparison and reasonableness Mr, Zoelle- Councilman. Nichols - when we went into the Vacation Plan JOINT MEETING C.C. arid PERS. BD. 6-18-68 Page Six we specifically asked what it cost and they informed us the cost as per the figures you have. They further said the key personnel positions would be taken over by other personnel in the Department, and this was as far as we went. Chairman Sanborn-, I know I personally challenged the theory because in my own business I can't come up with something that good. I can't seem to work. out where someone else is going to do somebody elses work - - but we were assured in an organization of this size that from a physical workload point of view it was feasible. Councilman Nichols-, If staff gave you gentlemen the assurance that a prediction over any reasonable period of time, that current; staff can handle this without: any future increase in costs, that is what I want to know. I am not really concerned in costs per se but in whether costs will be increased next year, five years from now, etc. I only state that the memo to us here estimates an increase of $5, 676 for the Fire Department and then .it states "all other. Departments will function with little or no vacation relief. " Well this is status quo but what happens in the futuire? Now we say they have assured you that they can handle this under the program at present. ---but we have no assurance that some figure won't be popping up next year or the year after, that we don't see now. Because this can become significant and Council should be aware of what: it might be Mayor Gleckman-, Are there any other questions by Council regarding the Vacation proposal? Councilman Lloyd- I would like to address the Personnel Board and ask a question. • In your comparability studies of the 10 cities - were the same 10 cities selected for the Fire Department: study and the Vacation Plan and all other studies - - they were the same throughout? Chairman Sanborn-, Yes they were. Mr. Aiassa-, I would like to make one comment. . As you notice there were three formulas in our recommendation of June 20, - A - B - C. This was the staff report to the Personnel Board. (Read the three formulas). I just want the Council to realize that the staff did recommend three possible methods Councilman Nichols-, I would hope that the City Manager would give us a follow-up report: as to what we might: expect: in some of these categories I realize he can't answer this now and also that: we have to move in this area Mayor Gleckman-, Any comments by the Personnel. Board? The Fire Department? Chief Wetherbee-, In. order to clarify Councilman Nichols statement. - this will probably be our worst year inasmuch as we are the only Department within the City that: operates under the assessed. .valuation concept and we are still in the embroyic stages. Each year we should become stronger personnelwise and we should have this extra man. This might be the only year, that this will cost as much as $5, 000. Mayor Gleckman-, Thank you. SALARY PROPOSAL Mayor Gleckman-, Did this salary proposal recommendation that came to us have anything to do with the 16 positions that are being asked to be - 6 - JOINT MEETING Co Co and PERS.. BD. 6-18-68 Page -Seven SALARY PROPOSAL - Continued reviewed by Gold -Thompson? Chairman Sanborn-, The salary recommendation this year by the Board is an across the board increase for all city employees other than part-time. There are 12 or 16 positions which were not completely solved a year ago when we had the consultant in and at that time it was designated they should be looked at a year hence, and now is the time, and for that reason we, felt we should have the consultant come in again and look at those positions Mayor. Gleckmano Now the recommendation that you have made is also the recommendation, ff I read the record straight, that the Employees' Association made to you? Chairman Sanborn-, No, not exactly. Mayor Gleckmano They asked for more than your recommendation? Chairman Sanborn-, They requested 5% across the board, and at that time there wasn't any indication as to whether we were going to do this through the Personnel office staff or whether, the City would hire a professional again, as they did last year. This was the request by the Association, initially for a 5% increase across the board. The final result: was the Board's recommendation, which is actually increasing over what the Association re- quested Mayor Gleckmano Fine. I would just like the record to show that the Personnel Board's recommendation was higher than what was requested by the Association. Are there any comments that the Council. would like to make at this time; or any information they would like to seek from the Personnel Board regarding the recommendation.? Councilman Lloyd-, Has any.considerat:ion been given to a cost of .living index? In your opinion will we have to come into a cost of living type of thing ? Chairman Sanborn.- Are you asking - does the Board feel that eventually, - or in the past: have .we considered a program whereby any possible salary increase would be based on strictly a cost of living index figure? Councilman Lloyd.- That .is correct: Chairman Sanborn-, No. The cost: of living element comes up each year as part of the study and as part of what the Board recommends on any possible salary increase, -but: as far as I know it has never been. considered a part: of it. Some of the older Board members might be able to • answer that Mr. Sornborgero I don't know whether I read your- question correctly. If you mean do we work it: out: tied to the cost: of living - the answer is no. If you mean do we use it: as an important part of our decision and part of the''criteria - the answer is yes Councilman Lloyd- What I mean is - I realize that the cost of living is a very real variable in your decisions as to salaries, however, there are corporations who use the cost of living and give cost of living increases to employees just as a matter of facto If the cost of living goes up, he get's that. If it goes down, boom it comes down. - 7 - JOINT MEETING C.C. and PERS. BD, 6-18-68 Page Eight SALARY PROPOSAL - Continued Chairman Sanborn- As far as I know the City has never considered a procedure along that line. . As an example, this year without a professional consultant the cost of living increase was discussed and boiled 0 down on a national basis, local basis and Los Angeles County basis - which is somewhat higher than the rest of the country, and this was a strong factor. Also the fact that taxes are increasing and there is the possibility of a surcharge increase, etc. , - all leading to the feeling among the members on the Board that maybe we should increase it to 5. 5%0 And one of the basic things considered - of course, is comparison with other cities so this City will continue to be competitive in the upper area of the 10 cities. The Board doesn't really look into the cost to the City - so much, we feel it is up to the Council to determine whether the money is available. This is just a recommendation as to what we think would be fair and equitable to keep this City in its relative position (THE MAYOR ASKED IF EITHER THE COUNCIL OR PERSONNEL BOARD HAD ANY PARTICULAR COMMENTS THEY WISHED TO MAKE.) Mr. Sornborger- Mr. Mayor. - I was going to ask if it would be more helpful to the Council for the Board to project and interject costs on our recommendations - we have never had that direction. I don't believe any of us would be opposed to .it but it is something we have not done in depth. Mayor Gleckman- I don't believe this was the intent of Councilman Nichols inquiry. It was just a matter of whether consideration was shown as to percentagewi.se what this would do to our expanding budget. And although we do plan our budget from year. to year we do try to look to the future in that planning, One of the fallacies involved in budget planning in most; cities unfortunately is that they do plan only from year, to year. Mr. Bateman - would you like to make a comment:? Mr. Bateman, President W o C o C a E.A. One comment - our original request was for 5%, however we did submit an additional request: to the Personnel Board asking for consideration for anything over and above 5% since the cost of living in L. A. County went up 4 o 8% and we didn't feel we would be substantially taking anything home out of a 5°,/ increase. So we did ask for further consideration if it were possible Mayor Gleckman- You answered. two things - you gave them credit for looking over and beyond, and also answered Councilman Lloyd's question. Councilman Nichols- Mr. Mayor - it seems to me that as soon as dollar figures arre interjected into a report and if such figures were interjected into a report on additional vacation time, then it: becomes an element of the report and there is no way from that: time on to say - well we won't even talk about money. I certainly agree with the philosphy of the concept: we have followed and that your primary function, as a Board is not: to weigh decisions in terms of the cost to the City. That certainly is an element: of responsibility of the Council, but any cost figures that are submitted to you relative to those things are valid cost figures should be considered and that you satisfy yourselves that they are in fact correct and concise so that: when they do come to us as a factual package that: we have the additional assurance that they are correct and that you have chewed over those figures„ Mayor Gleckman- A very good comment:. Chairman Sanborn- We do verify the figures as to being accurate o I think Mr. Sornborger's question - Mr. Mayor, what he is asking is -, 8 - JOINT MEETING C., C_ and PERS. BD. 6- 18- 68 Page Nine SALARY PROPOSAL - Continued something that the Board is becoming aware of recently and that is why we welcome discussing it. We wondered if we should have more direction dollarwise - if you would like us to. • Mayor. Gleckman- Let me clarify one thing. I didn't take it for fact that the $5600. played an important role in your recommendation. I just took, it as part of the story being told to this Board in weighing what effect it would have in the overall basis o I think to minimize the effect rather than maximise the effect. In other words you, can speak of percentages which mean nothing unless you know the dollar figure. As Councilman Nichols referred to, since the dollar figure was injected into the report he was wondering, I believe-, whether this played any part in your recommendation or whether it was just taken as a figure given by the Personnel Officer. In other words it is one thing to get a figure and say it will only increase the budget $5600. and another thing to say it is going to cost us' $5600. to do this. I think the manner in which at least I took the report, was a little different than the manner in which Councilman Nichols took the report. If he is correct, then he is right in questioning the Board as to why their recommendation was made. That is the point I wanted to bring out. Councilman Nichols: You gentlemen want to know of Council whether we feel you should play a greater role in weighing things in terms of the dollar concept. My feeling is "no" Mayor Gleckmana I would say also my feeling is "no". You can always make a recommendation on the basis of merit and not on dollars and cents and then let the elected official take it on the shoulder one way or the other. Councilman -Lloyd. My point was and I now reiterate what has been said. _, I don't want to inject into your thinking or give you that type of guidance - this is not the type of structure, this is not; the demoncratic process. You should come in with your recommendations as you have done and then we will go ahead and see if we can equitably solve the problems of salary, vacation,. etc. I therefore, strongly would be against any comment from this. body here back to you, because then you become a reflective service and you no longer serve the purpose you should be serving. Councilman Nichols- But if data comes from staff to you. as a part of your calcula- tion I do think it is your function to assure yourselves that what they say it will cost. it is going to cost. It is not fundamental to your decision but. it is part. of a package you pass along to us as factual data. (COUNCIL AGREED) Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Aiassa do you. have any comments you wish to make? (None.) I want to thank the Personnel Board. It has been very helpful. Council will now adjourn to the Budget Session Cbu ncil adjourned to the Budget Session at 8. 35 p.m. APPROVED. 2.3 ATTEST- r MAYOR City Clerk - 9 -