Loading...
05-17-1971 - Regular Meeting - Minutes• MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT MEETING WITH PERSONNEL BOARD CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 17, 1971 The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council wa.s ca.11ed to order by Ma.yor Ken Cha.p.pell a.t 4 :01 P.M. in the West Covina. Council Cha.mbers. Pledge of Allegia.nce led by the Mayor. unr.r. rnr.r. Present: Ma.yor Chappell; Councilmen Shea.rer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Mayor Chappell requested City Clerk to call the roll for the Personnel Boa.rd for the purpose of the Joint Meeting. PERSONNEL BOARD Present: Cha.irma.n Tice; Messrs. Zoelle, Fa.unce, Sornborger, Sanborn Others Present: George Aia.ssa., City Ma.nager Lela. Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fa.st , Ass `t . City Ma.na.ger Jim Butler, President - W.C.C.E.A. Carol Whelan, Vice-Pres., - W.C.C.E.A. Ross Na.mma.r, Administrative Assistant Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst Due to the small a.udience, Ma.yor Chappell suggested meeting be moved from Council Chambers to the City Ma.na.ger°s Conference Room. Motion by Council- men Young, seconded by Councilma.n Lloyd a.nd ca.rried, to adjourn meeting in Council Chambers a.t . 4 : 04 P.M. to City Ma.na.ger ° s Conference Room. Meeting reconvened at 4 :1.0 P.M. JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD Mayor Chappell: We do thank the Personnel Board members for showing up a.t this early hour. At our last Council meeting we received the 1971 Sa.la.ry Survey list of .a..gencies a.nd there were a, number of questions Council ha.d a.t tha.t tires regarding the inclusion of Los Angeles City a.nd the Department of Wa.ter & Power, so we thought we might.ha.ve a. meeting so you.might expla.i:n to us the format you went through a.nd why you picked these cities a.s per the list submitted. Unless any of the Councilmen have a.ny specific questions a.t the moment, tha.t, ba.s ica.11y, is the rea.son for the meeting today. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Ma.yor, I would like to .ra.ise a. question to start it off with. At our la.st Joint Meeting the Council left with the Personnel Board a.n impression, a.s I recall, but not a. vote. I think we left,the• understa.nding that the Council felt that we should no longer a.s a. City be bound by the 10 City Comparison grouping we used in the past. We did not a.t tha.t time spec if ica.l ly say a.ba.ndon it, or spec if ica.11.y sa.y repla.ce it, or a.dd these or those. We didn't ta.ke it a.ny further tha.n tha.t. We just sort of left it that we were prepared to strike some new ground. For my part I would a.pprecia.te a, briefing from the Personnel Board a.s to how you moved in your work from that point to where we are now. Cha.irma.n Tice: The list of cities you have before you - well, you realize we have no criteria.. We are open. Councilman Nichols: Would you expla.in that statement? Cha.irma.n Tice: As you said, we ha.d a. 1.0 City Comparison before a.nd the goal wa.s to try a.nd keep the sa.la.ry - 1 - • CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING May--17, 1971 range within the 65th-75th percentile. Our understanding we have nothing. We have no criteria. We have a survey cities here to look at, but we have no binding criteria. privy to the Employees' Associations and the City Manager were derived at - we did have a couple of representatives on these meetings - Mr.-,Zoelle can you enlighten us any? Mr. Zoelle: Page Two now is that of some Not being on how these that sat in I just got this little sheet today - when was this first submitted? Today to the Personnel Board? Mr. Aiassa: No, that is -the, 6ri`qinal list. It was submit ted_by..Martyns.&._Associates at &Ut first meeting wi th the employee.,groupso.._,T. asked. for' it' to, be submtted'._to "Council because` `at` the last,,Council...` meeting, it.._was,.,pointed out that certain; cities in'. the' East Sanabriel vailey..we're' not specifically..listea. Mr. Zoelle: At our second meeting Los Angeles City, Pasadena, Pomona, Downey and including Department of Water & Power, two school districts, etc., the entire list on the first page were all submitted to the consultant - and everybody including the Associations were all agreeable to the list, so it was then submitted to our Board and we just went along with it. In my mind I feel you have three groups of employees in the City and regardless of what the outcome is,they are each going to negotiate separately. I feel this very strongly. In f act/there are things in here that I don't know how you are going to get a fair or good comparison. But this is how it came about at our second meeting. Chairman Tice: I might add one thing. We merely received this as an information item and made no recommendation to you. Councilman .Nichols: That is of interest to me because T was under the misapprehension that these had come from these various groups through the Personnel Board, Speaking only for myself I feel a little .confused when,I find out we have a Personnel Board appointed by the City Council to represent the interests of the City Council and we receive a suggested criteria going up to the Cbnsultant that hasn't passed through the .Personnel Board or the Council. It seems to me we are .putting the cart before the horse when our Employee Groups and staff "are making recommendations to the Council°s consultant on salary criteria when these have not been reviewed by the Personnel Board and at least come'up to Council with their comments. It seems to me the Personnel Board is being deprived of its opportunity to be of service to the Council when it doesn't have the opportunity in its normal functioning at least to review these and gain the benefit of its thinking that went into the recom- mendations. Chairman Tice: We did see this but we did not take any action. We had several comments made by the members of the Board and some of the things We. -".were -looking to and finally established in the criteria were the employment factor, the cost of living index and several other things if we could find someway of setting these things into the criteria. We have no criteria now. I don't recall exactly what we did say about the particular comparison situation, I don°t have a copy of the last minutes of our meeting, Councilman Young: Gathering from Councilman Nichols' statement and your statement it seems to me that what is happening here is that perhaps Martyns and Associates is letting us know that they will come up with recommenda- 2 .- CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Three May 17, 1971. tions within the area they are being paid to cover. They are letting us know they are not just thinking in the abstract and these things have to be tied to something and the logical place to tie it is in making comparisons elsewhere, but the ultimate recommendations this .Council will receive will stand alone. And/of course,when called upon to defend those recommendations there will be comparative data available. I don't know how else it could be done reasonably. What you pay anybody depends on the general market in the area. I don't gather from this that we are tied to any kind of a commitment which we have been either formally or informally)previously to the 65th-75th percentile. We are not tied to that. I don't quite share the concern of Councilman Nichols, unless I am totally misinformed. Councilman Nichols: My only point and then I will leave it rest, unless two others on the Council feel the same way as I do/there isn't any point in pursuing it. I think that any work in'.this area,.whether we are just picking the cities to look at, or developing specific other criteria - that any of this work should come to the Cansulta.ht through the Personnel Board and the Personnel Board should have the opportunity to review these matters and to indicate to the Council the Personnel Board's conception of their validity. I envision the Personnel Board as my arm as an elected official, giving me the benefit of a look into these things. And if the cities selected end up as being the cities we are comparing to and it has never passed the purview of the Council through its arm - welly we are living with it before we realize it has even been adopted. We find ourselves at some future point adopting a large body of material without ever saying why did we'end up using Los Angeles City? Or why did South Gate get into here? Or some of the other questions that we have been raising are never answered. I think the time to raise those issues is when these things are first mentioned as possible cities. And the logical body to raise them on behalf of the Council would be the Personnel Board. I think if they go to the consultant and then ultimately come back to Council as a recommendation and the Personnel Board has never been asked to look at it and discuss it, we are missing ,a.bet as a Council in the ultilization of our Board in the way I would like to see it ultilized. Chairman Tice: This is not complete. We did raise some questions regarding the cities and some of the things listed in here, but as stated before it is not the complete criteria. It is one factor. We may end up being down at the bottom or up at the top. We don't know. The Assistant Personnel Officer - we were going to get together with the consultant and see what other factors we might come up with in establishing criteria. I have been so busy and I guess he has been very busy so we haven't been able to get together. But this by no means is the criteria. Mr. Sornborger: Mr. Mayor - to go a little deeper in this. First of all I speak as I see it. I don't see this being sent to the City Council for action. It was simply sent for your review with no action. As a Board member I am not prepared to say when the information comes back to us from the consultant that I will fe.e.l. Los Angeles should -be - included - as an example. These were simply presented and frankly I didn't know it was going to go to the City Council. I would still feel they might take a look at it and shoot it back to us with some comments for further consideration. Mayor Chappell: It sounds then like supposed to come to work still going on at it. this really wasn't US. This was your and we just got a look 3 - • I CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Four May 17, 1971. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, the main reason for this going to City Council at this time is that we are going into the final analysis of work with the consultant. After talking it over with staff it was agreed that if Council had any objections 1n-.this area, it would be vital that they be known now. Chairman Tice: Mr. Aiassa„ let me correct one thing, I don't believe we talked about sending it to Council - we talked about other things. Personally I don't feel we are far enough down the street to recommend anything. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor - would it be fair to say then that perhaps somebody is embarrassed or that we are all embarrassed in the sense that we are making something out of this that ain't. The Council, I think, will be concerned in the ultimate question just as the Personnel Board will be, and just as all the City Employees will be,and we would anticipate eventually acting on a package of some kind. Something we can all live with. A package, which will be developed to some extent through the services of the consultant as well as to whatever other negotiations take place with the City Manager. We are being given some advance information here as to some of the things that will go into that package. What do we ultimately want? Do we want salaries that are essentially compatible with the going rate? There is a feeling, for example, that secretaries get paid too much - I have heard this. I think my secretary might have mentioned it. There is a reason for the recommended rates that finally come in. Essentially,we are concerned with our competitive positions and essentially we are concerned with fairness and in a program that everyone can live with, including the taxpayers. Is that where we stand? Chairman Tice.* I think you summed it up in a clear state- ment, Councilman Young. I don'-.t think any- one has to be embarrassed because .it is your duty, if you see something, to question it before it goes too far, so I don't think anybody has to be embarrassed. Councilman Nichols: You are saying in fact that you are in the process of reviewing these? When I said it seemed to me this should have gone to you, in your way it is there and you have not yet gone over it? Chairman Tice.* We received it as an information item and discussed parts of it. Councilman Shearer: Is the survey under way using these cities? Mr. Aj ssa: Yes, it is under way and, in fact, almost completed. That is why we feel if Council has any criticism of the comparisons or questions of the Personnel Board, it is important that they be known now. Chairman Tice: We can't answer that at this time. Mr. Aiassa: I realize that. What I mean to say is that Council must be aware that the analysis is being made and if they have any comments, now is the time for them to be heard. I would hate to have this study completed and then have somebody say that they were not given a chance to talk about.,it. - 4 - 40 • CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Five Mav 17. 1971. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - I did raise a question last Monday night regarding this list. I am perfectly willing to accept this list with the basis mentioned here this afternoon, that there is no obligation on the part of the City to be ranked above Pomona and below Downey or whatever, because frankly I have no way of knowing now what any of these groups -pay with the exception of the Department of Water and Power, and if I were a City employee I would want them in there too, because in 1955xas I stated previously they were paying approximately 20/ more than the City of Los Angeles. They seem to be sort of a Depart- ment unto themselves. Providing, as I said, that the employees, the.... Council, and the Personnel Board do not get the idea this is it and we are by any action that we may or may not take, saying we are going to be competitive, whatever competitive means, with the cities listed here. If competitive means in the middle, it may turn out that we are not competitive. Assuming it is accepted on that basis�I am willing to go ahead and let things proceed as they already have proceeded. Chairman Tice: no criteria to work on. Mayor Chappell: how much the City could where we were going to these other things out. Mr. Sornborger: felt if Los away up on had to stay Mr. Zoelle: Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Zoelle: There is one factor in this,* we have to come up with something that will satisfy the employee associations, right now they have I think it was a good thing to call this meeting together. When I saw this list of comparisons I recalled that we talked about afford, our tax returns, our population, etc., ,get our money and that is why we threw all Angeles City the upside, I in. Mr. Mayor - my feeling was that the method we abandoned (the criteria), inasmuch as we no longer said 75th percentile or better, I or the County intended to turn this survey was under no obligation from my part that these The statement was made here that the survey was well under way. _ How much of the survey? No, just the cities listed here. That is all that is done. (Mr. Aiassa answered yes.) Robert Andrews - Counsel Mr. Mayor, if I may sa-y. a few words. We Representing W.C.F.A. received a communication approximately a month ago that the Personnel Board and various members of the City Employee groups had agreed on a 3-City comparison - on a 3-municipality comparison - the County, the City and I believe Downey. And at that time I believe I passed that information on to Mr. Aiassa to confirm. Then I got a call back and I was informed they were going to add Pasadena. Under your enabling Ordinance at this time I believe it restricts our bargaining period to April and May, and as of today we are at the 17th of May and we have 13 days left, after we come up with some list and results - this is causing my clients more money because of this continuing recurring presentation based on certain cities and then we add to those and we have to reprepare our work. I would certainly appreciate us coming up with a list and settle on it so we can prepare, as well as your Personnel Board. I would also like the Council to assure us of the necessary time to prepare once you have reached a decision on your cities. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I this meeting of the City represented by counsel here. I am not - 5 was not aware in coming into that employee organizations of West Covina would be prepared to conduct any further CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Six May 17, 1971. of the City°s business here without equal advantage of having the City Attorney present. We are already having a citation of facts of law that I am not familiar with and I cannot respond to. I don't know of the certain regulations, what the facts are regarding . bargaining within a certain period of time. I am very fearful that. I might make some comments that would be inappropriate or unjudicial to the interests of the City Council or the City Government. So I am not prepared to.conduct any further business or make any further comments until t'�e Council has the benefit of its own legal counsel. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I have talked to the City Attorney about this matter and specifically the deadline. He has inferred there will. be a memorandum coming to the Council containing the consent and request of the various groups that the time be extended 60-90 days. We have until the last meeting in May for this request to be present- ed. When it appears, we will request that this be continued an additional 30 days to the lst of July. Mayor Chappell: Is there any member of the Council that would object to what we have heard so far, or anything on this list? We understand it hasn't been referred to us officially, so we probably shouldn't have had a look at it. That is probably what started our problem. Mr. Aiassa: and then having to drop to us. I feel that this know where we stand and • positive plane— Council meeting. Chairman Tice: We had to delay the consultant for 10 to 15 days, but I would prefer this over letting him complete the analysis report it because of criticism. This means money meeting has been very worthwhile. We can -now talk to the employee groups on a will be given our results at their next Mr. Mayor - no way are we going to come in here without some kind of recommendation and we are not ready at this point. Carol Whelan Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a few Vice-Pres., W.C.C.E.A. comments. I kind of think that since we have the consultants here that maybe it would be beneficial to the Council, Personnel Board and the members of the employee associations here, to at least hear his ,impression of the assignment he received from the City. It seems to me there are various things he felt he was doing that are being undertaken and the procedures that will be set forth, Mr. Aiassa: I think this is a matter between the City Council and our City Attorney. Carol Whelan: I think where the problem comes in - if he is confused on what he is to be bringing in, and the various associations are certainly confused, and if there is disagreement then frankly I don't think the meeting has accomplished anything yet. And I am out of line, but that is it. Councilman Lloyd: Leonard Martyns: I am interested in hearing from Martyns and Associates - Mr. Mayor. (Council agreed.) Was this the finalization of your list? \_ Thank you very much, would like to defer and introduce to you At this point I anything I have to say - Mr. May, who has been - 6 - CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Seven May 17, 1971. involved since its inception and has worked as the coordinator on this particular program. Mr. May: I Initially,the firm submitted a proposal recommending the background material. This 4P was presented at a meeting which included the representatives of the Personnel Board, the City Manager's office and other staff, and employee groups. The employee groups made their suggestions and submitted names andj at a subsequent meetingjthe two lists were resolved into the one list which you have before you bearing the signatures of Butler, McCrary, Stowe and Windsor. It is on that list we proceeded to conduct the survey. The understanding that we had at that time was this represented the agreement of all concerned as to the point of reference of the survey for the purpose of establishing sufficient salary information so it could be submitted to the City for its ultimate decision as to what is going to be done. We can make all the recommendations in the world,and if you have $5.00 in the cash register they wouldn't mean a thing. So we would make our recommendations on the findings of this list composed of public organizations as well as private. All combined,it was felt they generally represented the overall labor market that the City of West Covina is generally and usually concerned with in terms of acquiring people and being competitive. You all, as businessmen, compete with the City for secretaries, just as the City competes with you. Councilman Lloyd: Not very f avorably,I can tell you that. Mr. May: But you are concerned with the same possible employee. Mayor Chappell: So you are not confused or all mixed up? • Mr. May: We proceeded on this basis. Mayor Chappell: I hadn't heard anybody mention that you were, so I didn't think you were. Councilman Lloyd: This list here including the cities of Los Angeles, Pomona, Pasadena, Downey, etc., is not up for consideration - only the list on the first page? Mr. May: Yes, only the first page list. Councilman Lloyd: I have some questions on that. Is there any reason why we didn't select cities in the immediate labor market such as Covina, LaPuente and Baldwin Park? Mr May: All were submitted as per the original list and as a result of the discussion by all concerned is the list you now have. Councilman Lloyd: Not with all concerned, because I happen to be very concerned and it was not dis- cussed with me, but that is the` -point that Councilman Nichols was making with regard to the Personnel Board. And coming back to that you answered it was considered - the cities of Covina, Baldwin Park and La Puente? Mr. May: LaPuente was never mentioned, the other two were. Councilman Lloyd: The next question - if you were considering Los Angeles why are we considering the County? That is what the people wanted, is that correct? 7 CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT .MEETING Page Eight Mav 17, 1971. Mr. May: Yes. Councilman Lloyd: Okay, why the West Covina and Covina valley School Districts when we have other school OParea? which impinge on the West Covina area? You were just limiting it to that? Mr. May: Yes, these two. Councilman Lloyd: Then we have quasi -public organizations and private employers - how many employees does Honeywell have - do you know offhand? Mr. Martyns: 300. Councilman Lloyd: Will you go down the list and give the number of employees - if you can? Mr. Martyns: Roberts - 500; Clayton - 600; United Control Corporation - 275; Councilman Lloyd: You have answered my questions, thank you. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Zoeller you were at the meetings - did you have something to say? Mr. Zoelle: I have one thing to say. We were there Ed Faunce and Band we both attended the first meeting and I attended the second meeting, but we had nothing to say unless we were asked. We were just there as observers, so I don't want this to reflect on the Board. Mr. Faunce: We felt if we were to vote on this later it wouldn't be proper for us to enter into a discussion at that time unless we were asked a question. I think one thing, Mr. Mayor, this entire picture has changed and we are now in a period of negotiations whether we recognize it or not, between the City Administrator, the consultant and the three employee associations, and frankly the Personnel Board cannot really enter into these neg0tiatons and when something comes to us - like this, and we know there have been two meetings and these things have been pounded out and argued and the whys and wherefores have been answered and everyone has agreed that this is what they want, I don't know what we could do. If we say,well, we will throw this out or we disagree and there are a lot of things we do disagree with, but going on the basis that this is only a foundation to work on and knowing we are not going to be stuck with 65th-75th percentile criteria, I think it is a different ball game entirely. I think we have gotten quite a bit here and while we have the Department of Water and Power, well right away I would knock out the high one and the low one - which would probably be Clayton Manufacturing - I imagine. And then you work down towards that�but we in no way have to use this as the criteria. Mayor Chappell: Then you haven't put your hats on yet. Chairman Tice: No. We are not recommending criteria yet, this could be one element of the criteria. Mayor Chappell: Fine - are there any other questions? Jim Butler, President Mr Mayor, I would like to make a comment. W.C.C.E.A. When we originally me<E-up here in the con- ference room we heard the Council discussion on the 10 City Comparison Group and the 65th-75th percentile and of course we were more than willing to try some new criteria. The consultant came in with his cities and we asked him how he came up - 8 - CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Nine May 17, 1971. with the cities and�on behalf of the Employees Associationiwe weren't willing to give up cities that we had felt were a valid comparison, and because of tax -basis, population, assessed valuations, etc., things like this, which we felt we were more than happy with, but we did come .to a meeting of minds with all three groups, which is rather difficult because you have three groups with different interests and when we adopted the list here we felt this would be the list we would be compared with as employees and we felt this-..would':then..,-go.-forward as criteria reports have in the past, go forward to the Personnel Board and to City Council and would be approved. That was at least my understanding of the way it would work. This list of cities that you have before you. If this isn't the case_it makes it extremely difficult on the employees point of view because we can't negotiate if we don't know where we stand. We do realize that the consultants may not make hard and fast recommendations for salary, this will have. to be negotiated with the City Mangier and we have discussed the preliminailbs with him�and we are satisfied a decision can be reached as to where the employees will be placed. In other words,if the average and the mean is such and such then our employees will be at such and such a position in relation to this, but it is making it extremely difficult if we don't know exactly what is going to happen, if some of the cities will be dropped or some cities added or what is going to happen. Councilman Lloyd: There appears to be a basic problem .in that, as Mr. :Tice has pointed out, it is a new ball game. There has been an agree- ment here and we now are really prepared to ask the basic question - what is the role in this negotiation of the Personnel Board; and secondly - what is the role of the City Council? We always had, supposedly, the final say, but we really don't. If there is an agreement reached between the three groups and the City and they have some sort of an understanding - where do we stand? --Can we come in and say - okay,you have no outfit of less than 200 or 300 employees, yet in the labor market I think there are plenty of organizations that have a whale of a lot less than 200 or 300 employees. Again,you have to :bet' somebody on the come on the. thing because these are the professionals and again we have the professional apparently in every area, one organization is even represented by Counsel. The way I see it we hawe':to come down to who is going to make the recommenda- tion to this Council? I would have to come back and say with Councilman Nichols, should we be here at the present moment - until.such time as the Personnel Board, if indeed they are our representatives and I like to think they are and they have always served us extremely well in the past, but I have to agree it is a new ball game. I have to agree that Jim Butler's point is well taken and the Counsel's point is well taken, they have a base they are working on and I don't see where we have a basis to negotiate on at the present moment. , I am not going to make a motion at the present moment, but I am prepared 'to make a motion along these lines, that we turn it back to the Personnel Board and they go ahead and nego- tiate with the City ..Manager and administration and the associations to something that is reasonable and submit it to the Personnel Board, and they will then look it over and recommend to the City Council and we go on from there. It is a new thing and we are going to have to feel our way along. That is my opinion. Councilman Young: If Councilman Lloyd had made a motion I would have seconded it. It seems to me we are in the same situation. we were in last year at this time, my first experience of this type of thing on the Council and it is a little different situation than it was a couple of years ago when I was on the Personnel Board. It may be that in this particular meeting the Council has been a bit premature and overly concerned because we have changed the name of the game slightly and Zafter hearing the situation we have here, we are essentially in the same position where ultimately it will be hashed out - 9 - CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Ten Mav 17. 1971. by the City Administration and the Associations, they will arrive at a consensus of opinion which will be recommended to the Board and hashed out to a total extent by the Board and then a recommendation made to City Council. This is why I would be inclined to second the motion. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I don'.t feel that we are at all premature at this meeting. I think a very critical thing has been revealed here,and that is that some wheels got cranked up and the Personnel Board as a representative of the Council got left behind and I think if this meeting serves no other purpose it indicates that the Council does believe that the Personnel Board is its right arm and must be kept informed every step of the ways and must concur before anything is adopted which becomes a binding thing upon the City. I think we have accomplished quite a bit. I go to sleep much more readily because I know Council has a Personnel Board, a Planning Commission, a Recreation & Park Commission, etc., all reaching'into areas that I as an individual can't. I always feel secure when they come;in with recommendations and the .Personnel Board has always been involved in every step of the way. Chairman Tice: I think what has happened is that we discussed various aspects and that we need other elements to come up with the criteria. We didn't say "aye" or"nay" on this as such. Councilman Nichols: Excuse me, but let's call a spade a spade here. Either I am getting the wrong information here or the Personnel Board got left behind. The Employees group indicates to us a commitment was made and they agreed on a group and that negotiations were going IS to proceed on that basis. Now�that could not possibly be if it is in the minds of the Personnel Board that this is subject to their review, and then perhaps bhanges�and eventually passingon up to the City Council. Either I am misunderstanding what is going on or there has been inadvertently - and no one is at fault - a determination of cities without the Personnel Board being involved and if this meeting had not occurred today this would.have proceeded without the Personnel Board being involved. Mr. Aiassa: No, the Personnel Board approved these cities. Mr. Sornborger: No,we did not. Chairman Tice: No, we didn't, we submitted it for information,but we did not recommend. If we had the minutes of the last meeting then we could clarify some of these points. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I was not at the last Personnel Board meeting and Mr. Windsor was in the process of leaving and Mr. Fast was present. At that time I assumed the staff had understood that there being no objection or specific differences from the Board that this was an indi-cation of.:-i-.ts acc-eptabil•ity. „ I have -.-already- st_abed- the purpos;e.,,, of this, meeting. If .we. have -any problems at all, :I,would like to know them, now.-. - 10 - CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Eleven May 17, 1971. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I think we are chasing ourself here to a certain extent. I don't feel this list needs approval by us or the Personnel Board, providing - as I said before - it does not carry with it a hard .and fast rule saying that we are going to be at 50/ or 60%. or where. This is merely a listth-e consultant. is using at this time for surveying purposes and we may end up behind the tail. We don't know. But if we were going to have to commit ourselves now to a specific placement then I think an action would be necessary on the part of the Board and a recommendation to us and action by us. At this point in time we are not committing ourselves to anything other than saying okay to Mr. Martyns - you and your associates will go out and bring in some data. Chairman Tice: I personally don't see any problem with the list other than we haven't decided how we are going to determine the factor, what weight we are going -to give it. Councilman Young: Chairman Tice, the real negotiation is between the City Manager and the employees Associations - isn't that right? The Personnel Board is not a negotiating agency. Chairman Tice: Not per se, but we have in the past in the way of saying we are not happy with what is coming in and saying go back and take another look - you are high in this area or low in this area, see what you can come up with. Councilman Young: Right,; the same thing that the Council might do; but neither the Personnel Board or the City Council would become involved with the negotiations with the city employee Associations. (Open discussion followed on where the power would lay for negotiations with the employee associations.) Mayor Chappell: All right., we are awaiting your meeting with the consultant and your Board and then your recommendation to us. Mr. Andrews - Counsel Mr. Mayor, may I ask are we back to the W.C.F.A. original entities now? Mayor Chappell: We haven't changed anything. Mr. Sornborger: One point clarified, please. The Board wants to be sure we understand that you mean from this point on you don't want to hear anymore about it until we come in with a firm recommendation. Councilman Lloyd:. Every man should speak for himself, but I would say "yes". That is what I want. Councilman Nichols: I want to know that the Personnel Board is involved in this thing every step of the way,,and that no cities are being adopted) or criteria or nothing that we find out about before you. And if it works that way then I want to hear from you when you are ready to recommend to me, but I don't want to get a recommendation that I feel you guys don't know anything about. Mr. Sornborger: Have you ever? Councilman Nichols: Now don't ask me any.embarrassing questions. CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Twelve May 17, 1971. Mayor Chappell-. We certainly thank you all for coming to our meeting. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, at .oizr. meeting of -.February 16 Couhcil-made an'expression..to the Personnel, Board .through":staff that we were going to come in with some extra items with this criteria. If Council has no objections, we will go ahead and proceed and formulate the criteria and submit it to the Personnel Board for their approval. They will consider it and submit it to you for your adoption. Councilman Young: A point of order, Mr. Aiassa.. You are the City Manager, to what extent does the City Council involve itself - this sounds to me like an administrative negotiating approach that you want to take. Why City Council approval in advance for a program that management seeks to employ in any phase of the operation of the city salary negotiations? Mr. Aiassa: Answering very simply - - the Council is the payroll and the bank. Council controls the policy and the dictates of the City, I think it would be foolish for us to implement a criteria which Council might have objections to. We feel it is important for Council to be informed. If we should come to a deadlock during our negotiations and the factor is dollars and cents, then Council will have to make the decision. Councilman Young: I would prefer to get to that ultimately rather than in advance. I would prefer to be able to say - Mr. Aiassa, you have goofed, • than to have you say Mr. Young you shouldn't have let me do that. Mr. Aiassa: That is correct. Now we have crossed the road and I have been on both sides and I wanted it clear. I think Mr. Nichols made it quite clear and Mr. Sornborger has made it clear, that we are not going to come in with anything away out or anything that is not agreeable to all. I think somewhere the answers have to come forth. I want Council to know that we are in a brand new ball game with brand new rules and it is going to be a little sticky and rough. Mayor Chappell: The fiist two years will probably be rougher than those following. Mr. Butler: Mr. Mayor - we have been talking about recommendations. It is not clear to my mind what recommendation:is it the Personnel Board is to make to Council? Is that for salary increases you are referring to? Councilman Young: Chairman Tice: 0 Mro Butler: We hope it is salary reductions. Salary adjustments is a better word. The criteria agencies are not going to Council, but just the salary adjustments? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, Mr. Butler, after we have explored the criteria, the formula, then everything will come to the Council in a package. Carol Whelan-. If I may - I think one of the basic problems is - if I can even be- so brash as to suggest what it is - that in the past - 12 - CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING May 17, 1971. Page Thirteen we operated under a set criteria that was adopted and agreed to by Council, and if the criteria setsforth that you can compare agencies that have the following A - B - C and D�and then you set forth 10 or 15 or whatever number of agencies, then once you approve the criteria - baby,you got to be happy with it because you already agreed with the criteria, but in this instance for some reason we have ended up with a different ball game and that is that we have not set the criteria first. We have merely picked some agencies, private and public, and the con- sultant is going to be surveying them and.once that data .is received, some decisions are going to have to be made, and I don't think we are obviously at that point yet. Frankly I think the Employee Associations, at least the one I am representative of, is very con- cerned about what is going to happen to the material, once received. The list could survey the City of New York -but it doesn't matter, the point is what we do with it when it comes outjand again it is because we don't have a criteria that has been adopted as it was in 1969 and we operated under that for 2 years. This is different because we don't have the criteria set. - Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - this meeting is supposed to be a meeting - I think - between the City Council and the Personnel Board. All those that desire to observe - it is a public meeting, but I don't envision we should be in the role of negotiating with our employees here, or responding to their concerns.,, I would very much like to respondl but I don't think that is proper and9.a.s-much. as I love to hear the employees talk,I don't think it is proper for them to express their concerns to the Council at this time. Their negotiation is with management, ours is with our Boards, and it places the Council in a very difficult position, I think, to be placed in a situation where we are getting these concerned expressions where we may not respond • without stepping out of our own roles. Mayor Chappell: Right. Is there anything else from the Council about this? If not,Councilman Nichols had something he wanted to bring up. Councilman Nichols: One brief item. I have already spoken individually to all the Councilmen. Mayor Chappell is being asked to go as a private citizen, no expense to the City, to Sacramento to give testimony on the two bills before the legislature which would equalize.property taxes for school purposes. This legislation, if it were enacted, would be of great benefit to the schools in. West Covina, and the City of West Covina, and the taxpayers, in that the basic result would be a mandatory lowering of the tax rate for school purposes in West Covina by some 85o but an increase of over a million dollars coming in to the school operations of the City. I am requesting, therefore, that the Council give support to these bills so that when Ken Chappell is in Sacramento he could also say that Council is in accord so he can give some degree of official sanction to his trip, I am not asking for a resolution or formal action, only a consensus that he might take with him. • I would move that the City Council indicate a consensus of support for the legislation pending to equalize taxes for school purposes and increase the support of schools to the City of West Covina. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, Mayor Chappell: Once again - Chairman Tice, we certainly thank you and your Board members for coming out. It took a little of your time but,as far as I am concerned,a lot of things got cleared up and that is what we came out for. Once again - thank you. - 13 - v CITY COUNCIL/PERSONNEL BOARD JOINT MEETING Page Fourteen May 17, 1971. Chairman Tice: We appreciate the opportunity. Any time we do have a problem I think it is better . to discuss it. Mayor Chappell. Yes, it is a lot easier that way. Now I have two things to mention. One is that the West Covina High School has again won the CIF Tennis and the CIF Track Meet. If they had won the CIF baseball games they would have won more CIF consecutive titles than any other school in the history of the CIF, so I do think they are doing very good. I would like a motion to present Resolutions -of Commendation -Resolution No.4358 to the Tennis Group and Resolution No. 4359 to the Track Team. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols that Resolutions of Commendation to the Tennis Group and Track Team be adopted, and that each Resolution be permapla.gUe.d. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT • ATTEST: CITY CLERK 11 Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to I a.djdur°n meeting at 5:10 P.M. APPROVED BY: MAYOR - 14 -