Charter Review Commission
March 27, 2008
Agenda

We will meet in Cleveland City Council’s Committee Room (Room 217) This topic is expected to carry over to the April 3rd and, possibly, the April 10th meetings.

 

1)    Civil Service: Chapter 27

    a.  Continued presentation on Civil Service from the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA)

    b.  Presentation on Civil Service by the City of Cleveland Administration

    c.  Floor open to discussion

Charter Commission Review
Meeting – March 27, 2008
 
Chairperson Cleveland called meeting to order at 8:38 AM.  Civil Service Commission will begin their presentation.  Patrick Madagan and Cameron Pendergast began to continue their presentation from last week on Civil Service.  The CSEA vs. City of Cleveland handout was provided by Pendergast to Commission members along with the most recent contempt order, which was also distributed as well.  Information was provided to give the Committee some background.  Five documents were provided in all by the CSEA.
 
Triozzi clarified a topic of conversation from the previous week regarding public records requests.  There are some documents identified by Law that do not require the that a public information request be made.  Such routine documents include employee eligibility and applicant lists and rosters, which are already in civil service.  In 2006, only 3 public information requests were made, and 2 such requests were made in 2007 according to Robert Triozzi, Director of the Law Department.  For the eligibility requests there have only been 5 such requests made over the last three years.  Triozzi emphasized the Law Department’s commitment to transparency.
 
Routine test scores of applicants are available and the eligibility list is available to be seen by any citizen in civil service. 
 
The issue of business hours in regards to reviewing and obtaining a copy of public records was brought up by Pendergast.  There was some discussion of public record copies being requested by citizens especially if someone needs to have it in a timely manner.  Triozzi mentioned that they will get a copy if it is requested, however if there are requests for multiple copies the administration just can’t stop what it is doing to provide a large number of documents, but we will make sure that this can be provided within a reasonable amount of time.
 
Kevin Kelley mentioned that if the records are on-line next year we would need to consider how specific we would want to be in the charter in regards to public records and providing specific information.  Pendergast mentioned that many people may not have internet connection at home or access to the internet, who live in the city. They should be able to come to city hall and obtain public record information.
 
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the real issue is whether the eligibility list is available.  It was mentioned by Pendergast that it is limited to what is covered in the charter this would not be all of the public records in the city.  Robert Triozzi mentioned that any undue delay in providing public records could make the city liable, and the charter provision only pertains to those records included in that section.  Roosevelt Coats raised a question if the issue is the timeframe in which the public records requests are met by the city and if the information takes a month to be provided. Triozzi mentioned that in the five requests that were submitted the administration had provided those documents in a timely manner.  It was suggested that this was a huge problem which is not the case.
 
Pendergast disagreed with Triozzi on the timeline for when the requests were filled.  Triozzi mentioned that he has documents showing when those requests were made and fulfilled and that all of those requests were met timely by the city of Cleveland.
 
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the sub-committee will look at this issue further.
 
Magadan, representing the CSEA, began to go through the other recommendations for charter change by the CSEA regarding employee suspensions, which is Section 121.  Recommend changes in regards to fairness to employees and provide them with the opportunity to appeal any suspension to the civil service commission.  The CSEA recommends that appeals to any reprimand should be allowed for all employees in classified service.  Currently, the Charter allows for appeals for serious reprimand – suspension for 10 days or more. 
 
This would put the civil service employee on the same playing field as the union employees.  Some contracts allow for appeal to the civil service commission.  This proposal would be for those employees who don’t have that option.  The vast majority of employees in the city have representation from their bargaining union and has access to the grievance procedures according to Triozzi.  This is something that the city wants to discuss and look at in detail.
 
Roosevelt Coats mentioned that the main concern is those employees who are not in the union who do not have access to a grievance process.  Pendergast mentioned that there are employees who are not covered by union contracts who need some kind of process for appeal.
 
Proposal 3 was read regarding job classifications in the classified service. The proposal suggests changing section 128A to require Council approval to changes in job classifications.  Currently, the Civil Service Commission approves classification changes.  The CSEA suggests that a legislative check and balance system should be created to make sure that civil service policies are being followed.  City Council should also have authority to make sure that Civil Service policies and classifications are being followed accordingly and can safeguard against political patronage regarding hiring for jobs and to make sure all hiring is based on merit.  Council could approve job classifications since it already approves pay bands.
 
Ken Johnson asked how is the law structured currently?  Patricia Britt also raised the question does Council create the pay bands and dollar amount?  Ken Johnson asked if Council actually creates pay band. Pendergast mentioned that the pay bands are brought to council to review and approval; however it has the ultimate authority over the pay bands. Any future changes to classifications would have to be brought to the city council for approval as well as review.  Pendergast believes it is an important balance because of what they have seen in the past such as persons not passing examinations, but having job duties change to accommodate those individuals who are in those positions, as well as other abuses.
 
Kevin Kelley raised a concern that city is moving in different direction on how we have conducted business in the past.  Kelley mentioned that boundaries in regards to jobs and job function the Mayor is trying to move in the direction of having more flexibility in using employees to other duties.  Changes in the law could interfere with this kind of policy. 311 call center could be affected by this as well according to Britt. 
 
Ken Johnson expressed concern that some employees who are doing certain duties that extend beyond their present job duties could be breaking the law under the civil service proposal.  Pendergast believes that there have been past abuses committed by previous Mayors.
 
Robert Triozzi suggested the obligation of our work force is keeping pace with challenges.  The administration cannot act unilaterally, we must go before the citizen group if modifications are made in job classification, this proposal would suggest substituting the role of the commission and have Council become the civil service commission.  This proposal could make the civil service commission become an advisory body to the council.  Ken Johnson mentioned that it would be a disaster to consider that option.  Coats mentioned that Council may not want to be in a judge and jury situation. We may not want to take any authority away from the civil service. 
 
There was a question raised as to the process of changing a classified position to another position.  Triozzi  mentioned that modifications to any job classification is presented to the civil service commission and goes before the board where this can be discussed and a determination can be made (5 member board and civil service commission would make the final decision).
 
Pendergast mentioned that under their proposal this would come before the City Council for their review and approval and believes that a second set of eyes are needed.  We have a civil service commission that is not functioning effectively at the present time and the current state of the civil service commission makes this necessary to have a second set of eyes.
 
Bill Callahan mentioned can we look at what the association is really trying to get at? It appears as though they are saying that the civil service commission is dysfunctional.  There may be some other parties such as the unions that may need to be a part of this discussion. 
 
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that this has been a valuable discussion in regards to civil service.  How do we put about a fair structure and fair board that can put the best people in positions?  From the point of view of the association the present civil service structure is not working properly. 
 
Every 2nd and 4th Friday of each month in room 514 civil service commissions meets.
 
 
Proposal 4 – transparency and justification of city lay-offs.  Layoffs to employees - such acts should be determined by using accounting practices and methods as indicated by governmental accounting standards.  Recommend that this be added to the charter section where a department seeking to lay-off any employees must file a statement with civil service including the position and place them into the city record for three weeks.
 
Lack of work/lack of funds reasons given for lay-off of employees.
 
Chairperson Cleveland raised question if other localities are using accounting forms for lay-offs?  Pendergast mentioned that some cities do follow the standard accounting standards when initiating lay-offs of employees.  Triozzi raised a comment that the suggestion being made here is that the present practices are not being followed with accounting standards.  Triozzi also indicated that he did not understand what the problem is in the specific area as it relates to the Finance Department.  Is the Finance Department not following these standards? Pendergast mentioned that we are trying to look at how we can make this more transparent.
 
Pendergast mentioned that the present lay-off process needs to be improved and made more transparent.  The Association has never had access to these kinds of records.  Triozzi mentioned does this suggest that the council is not doing its job?  Pendergast would like to see more transparency and to have the standards placed into the city record.
 
Coats mentioned the major lay-off the city had several years ago and stated that the overall public needs to know what is going on.  Coats raised another question regarding what is it that the association is expecting to accomplish?  Pendergast mentioned that we need to get more eyes to look at this in order to get a better handle on what is going on.  This helps everyone when we have a more open government.
 
Where is the information kept now regarding the financial documentation proving that there is financial difficulty – this is seen in CAFR and state documents – the city finance records are public documents and are online and the state performs an audit on the city finances. 
 
Amanit Theodara came to the Committee table and stated that a letter was sent to the State about the lay-offs and we followed all the requirements with two week notices to the unions and leadership and with the State, we had the cooperation of the state bureau of employment service and mentioned about the lack of funds as reason behind the lay-offs and the city did do things openly during this process. 
 
Pendergast mentioned that there should be paper trail in regards to any lay-offs
 
Proposal 5 elimination of the noncompetitive class
Competitive test expensive, noncompetitive test have some deficiencies and used as mechanism to handpick individuals thus excluding more qualified individuals. 
 
Chairperson Cleveland raised the issue about non-competitive examinations.  Pendergast mentioned if these kinds of examinations should be needed and believes that this has been much abused in the past.
 
Kevin Kelley asked for some examples of positions where non-competitive exams are needed. It was mentioned that some of these positions are Commissioner Position, chief sidewalk inspector, secretary.  Kelley mentioned that the city should be able to choose the best person for commissioner, there are positions that are high level where we have to recruit people for them.  CPP and other high level positions and we should treat this with caution when we get to this level. Triozzi mentioned that most of these positions have requirements for specific attributes and are you confident that examines give you the kind of qualities that you are looking for in prospective employees? 
 
There have been a evolution of these test over the years, and you cannot design a test for any position. 
 
Cleveland mentioned that the administration will be coming in next week to talk about civil service.
 
Proposal 6 election and selection of members of the civil service commission.
 
Civil service commission must be independent of the Mayor’s office and have been found at fault for not following the policies.  Contempt of court rulings and the civil service commission should have popular election for civil service commission.
 
Other members of civil service commission are paid.
 
Patrick Managan mentioned that election civil service commission would be a step back and it would develop patronage does not support this.  Pendergast – mentioned that problem of the civil service commission runs so deep even the secretary is part of the Mayor’s cabinet, which means that she answers to the Mayor. 
 
Ken Johnson mentioned that some years ago there was an idea that the directors get elected, and the civil service idea would be the same thing you would have mini-mayors, you may want to consider changing the way in which civil service members are appointed, to have them elected would not be a good approach.  People will not vote for you unless they believe it is in their best interest.  Greg Huth mentioned does not see how election would solve the civil service issue at all. 
 
Managan stated that he hopes that the administration comes next week and addresses the problems that the association has brought up.  Thanked the Association for their presentation and information that was provided.  Chairperson Cleveland also mentioned that the information was very helpful and urged the commission members to read the information that as provided to them by the association.  Triozzi mentioned that the administration will be well prepared to respond to the proposals by the CSEA.
 
Subcommittee – Katherine Buluva, Patricia Britt and someone from the audience had volunteered to serve on sub-committee.
 
Cleveland adjourned meeting at 10:22 AM.