Charter Review Commission
April 10, 2008
Agenda
 
We will meet in Cleveland City Council’s Committee Room (Room 217). 
 
Cleveland City Council security has asked that Commission Members that are not Members or staff of Cleveland City Council refrain from entering Council offices without an escort.
 
1)    Civil Service: Chapter 27
a.  Presentation on Civil Service by the City of Cleveland Administration
b.  Floor open to discussion
 
This topic is expected to carry over to the April 17th meetings.
 
2) Police and Fire Services (Chapter 25)

Charter Commission Meeting 
April 10, 2008
 
Vice Chairperson Robert Triozzi began the meeting at 8:43 AM, and Barbara Langhenry continued the discussion from last week and provided information to the Commission on recommended charter changes being proposed by the Civil Service Commission. 
 
Propose that employee appeal be extended from 10 to 30 days. 
 
Anyone who is suspended for more than 10 days can appeal the suspension.  The employee appeals to the appointing authority.  Then the Civil Service Commission assigns a hearing officer and the appointing authority makes a case.  There is a hearing, the appointing authority makes a decision and the Commission rules.  Administration would like to change the Charter so that people can appeal any ruling over 3 days rather than 10.  The number of appeals filed in 2007 was requested by Ken Johnson.  Bill Callahan mentioned why the appeals process extended from 10 to 30 days? Lucille Ambroz mentioned that the Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th Friday of each month and extending this would make it easier for the commission.
 
Patrick Managan questioned if additional resources can be given to the Civil Service Commission in order to meet the recommendations that they are proposing, he also suggested that both City Council and the Mayor provide resources to the Civil Service Commission.
 
Lucille Ambroz continued to review the charter provision changes that are recommended by Civil Service.
 
Availability of the employee eligibility list was mentioned and someone thought that this came back to question of going into the Civil Service Office to look at the employee list and make a request for the public record, which falls under the public records law. Bill Callahan stated that what was being asked is routine according to the charter and that the information would be available in the Civil Service Office (eligibility list).  Lucille Ambroz mentioned that people do come in to look at the list however, the problem is when someone comes in and ask for years of past eligibility lists, which would take some time for her staff to retrieve. 
 
Roosevelt Coats asked about the database for the employee eligibility list, which is in development. Lucille Ambroz mentioned that the target timeline would be June.
 
Lucille Ambroz read the appeals section of the Civil Service Commission for employee suspensions of ten days or less.  The next administration proposal, which suggests changing the specified jail time and momentary fine in the Charter for penalties to read “1st degree misdemeanor” so as to compensate for changes to State law, was then discussed.
 
Ken Silliman reviewed proposed amendment 3, where any changes to classifications within the classified service must be submitted to the City Council for approval by the Civil Service Commission.  Ken Silliman reviewed the reasons for having a Civil Service system, which serves as a safeguard against the ills of Tammany Hall. He indicated that additional checks and balances were unnecessary and that the last time the Charter was amended there were several corruption cases in the country that led to the Commission’s installation of more checks and balances.  He argued that the media serve as a strong watchdog to government. Silliman indicated the he will recommend that this language be kept intact, in order to meet the original will and purpose of the people who first supported this.  The administration does not support involvement by the City Council in approving changes to the classified system because it can impede the duties of the executive office.
 
Ken Johnson mentioned that once you involve the political process in the function of government problems can occur. 
 
Barb Langhenry reviewed proposed charter amendment four regarding the transparency in the justification for city layoffs.  She stated that the CSEA’s claim that Ohio requires what’s in their proposal actually only refers to a few specific cases that don’t apply to the City’s regulations, which address all requirements.  The City does not have employees that are not paid out of Finance and so doesn’t fall into the specific exception in state law that requires a statement of justifications for layoffs.  The City’s financing information is readily available and published in several places.  There haven’t been abuses of the current system.  
 
Bill Callahan mentioned that two citizens had approached him about the transparency of the city fiscal operations and raised question if there is any formulation on city finances.  Decisions were being made that people could not figure out especially in regards to employee lay-offs.  Lucille Ambroz mentioned that during the last lay-offs that had taken place the city did provide justification on why these employee reductions had to occur. Ken Silliman mentioned that he also paid close attention to the employee lay-offs in 2003, when he was just a citizen, especially when the City Council held hearings on the city finances and employee cuts, and believed that the City did provide justification for its actions.
 
Bill Callahan mentioned that even though there is a video record on local government proceedings, he does not believe that this answers the question.  It is not a bad idea to examine the transparency issue in regards to the citizens and keeping them informed by providing specific documentation that can answer their questions or concerns. 
 
Colleen Gilson mentioned that communication and speaking to the public on why the employee law-offs occurred is important.  Gilson mentioned that she really does not know if filing a report is going to lessen the complexity of the issue of employee lay-offs. 
 
Barbara Langhenry mentioned that the city budget has to be done by April 1st and if there are shortfalls, the administration must go before the City Council and ask for authorization to transfer funds to other departments in order to cover or reduce the shortfall.
 
Chairperson Cleveland arrived.  Anton Farmby wanted to know what transparency is in place to justify employee lay-offs.  The finances of the city were the big reason for having to reduce the number of employees.  Ken Johnson mentioned that the committee process of City Council is open to the public and that the Council always hears transfer ordinances and has never refused a transfer request from the administration. 
 
Patrick Managan asked the question if all of the resources are given to the Civil Service Commission would they be able to address all of the issues that came up in the Court case.  Lucille Ambroz felt that it would help significantly and that the Civil Service Commission has already made many changes in order to improve the operations.  Many of the things that the Commission is now doing are addressing the concerns raised by the CSEA. 
 
Patrick Managan mentioned that he will oppose moving the Fire Chief to a non-classified position.  He is opposed because this position needs to be protected by civil service.
 
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the status of the budget really did determine the employee lay-offs.  Ken Johnson mentioned that when you have employee lay-offs such as in 1971 when Mayor laid off the entire recreation division which was political consideration, this is going to attract much attention. Administration suggested that 330 police officers be laid off and that is what happened.  Raised question why the Fire Chief and not the Police Chief remain in classified civil service category.  Patrick Managan mentioned that there is tremendous political pressure put on the Fire Chief who needs to be protected.  Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that both the police and fire chief are also in same position as they are both under pressure and consideration needs to be given to this as well.
 
Ken Silliman mentioned that if the Fire Chief is taking a position on life safety issues the chief should not be overruled.  There are similarities between the police and fire chief when they make decisions on life safety.
 
Patrick Managan would like to see if Fire Chief Stubbs would be willing to come in to speak before the commission regarding this issue.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that this request would be taken under consideration.
 
Ken Silliman then reviewed proposed charter amendment five elimination of the non-competitive class.  City proposes that the noncompetitive class includes positions requiring specialized training, skills, certification and licensure, and specific qualifications.  Suggest a narrowing of the description of the non-competitive class. 
 
Ken Johnson asked how many noncompetitive positions we are looking at under this proposal. Lucille Ambroz mentioned that this number varies; there is no specific number at this time.  Managan asked the question regarding pay banding, which according to Ambroz is not in the proposal.
 
Ken Silliman then spoke about the election of members to the civil service commission, and reviewed the proposed charter amendment.  The administration believes that an election of civil service members would not be in the best interest for the city, and would not be effective.  Chairperson Cleveland mentioned, what if the civil service commission members were required to have a background in community engagement, have an education degree, and other pre-requisites, Silliman mentioned that this is something that he would be receptive with. 
 
Municipal Construction Equipment Operator’s Labor Council proposal was reviewed and Chairperson Cleveland wanted to hear the union’s proposal first before the administration presents their recommendation.  Attorney Stewart Roll representing the CSEA came to the table and addressed the commission and recommended that the charter section be repealed.
 
Roll referenced the letter he sent the Commission to consider changes to Sec. 132 of the Charter which has been in effect since 1938.  The Administration proposed that the section be repealed.  Equipment operators are concerned that the administration is bringing on employees who are working on construction equipment who have not taken any testing for certain jobs.  Prendergast mentioned that the city was found guilty by the court for not following civil service procedures when it comes to hiring employees working on specific jobs. 
 
Managan asked if there are any tests given for the different equipment operators.  Having non-tested people operating this equipment can cause problems if the person is not knowledgeable. 
 
Stewart Roll indicated that he would be willing to serve on a sub-committee to look at this issue. 
 
Administration provided a response to the proposal and mentioned that the city proposes to repeal Charter 132, which would allow the civil service commission to address transfer of employees through its rules.  This would provide more flexibility to adopt rules that reflect the needs of the city. 
 
Callahan wanted some real life example on how this would help the city.  City has positions that are of the same title, and duties responsibilities may be performed in another section in that division.  Organizational change would require a transfer but they would be moving with that same job.  Barbara Langhenry mentioned economic development and workforce operation, which is not in city hall and you have a senior clerk, and allow transfer in same classification to different division.
 
There are many classifications where the duties are the same.  There 50 plus employees in the group that Mr. Roll was talking about according to Ambrose, however, there are situations where employees in several different groups are operating the same equipment.
 
Ken Silliman also addressed the amendment that was presented to the Charter Commission by the union and wanted to communicate the weaknesses of that amendment.
 
Cleveland mentioned that this discussion will be continued with the sub-committee.  Patricia Britt mentioned that she would be the Subcommittee chair for purchasing contracts, not civil service. 
 
Next week’s agenda will be communicated to all commission members
 
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM.