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 -