Legislation Details

File #: HIST-12880    Version: 1 Subject:
Type: Historical Status: Action Item
In control: City Council Meeting Agenda
On agenda: 11/23/2009 Final action: 11/23/2009
Title: Consideration of a Recommendation from the Civil Service Commission to (1) Discuss the Issues Related to Consistency of Classification Specifications and (2) Consider Submitting a Charter Amendment or Other Measure for Consideration by the Electors at the April 13, 2010 Municipal Election.
Attachments: 1. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Civil S - A-2__09-11-23__HR__CITY COUNCIL__CSC Deputy Issue - FINAL.doc, 2. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Civil S - Deputy Item - Attachments.pdf
City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: 11/23/2009 Item Number: A-2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Recommendation from the Civil Service Commission to (1) Discuss the Issues Related to Consistency of Classification Specifications and (2) Consider Submitting a Charter Amendment or Other Measure for Consideration by the Electors at the April 13, 2010 Municipal Election. Contact Person/Dept.: Serena Wright Phone Number: 310-253-5640 Fiscal Impact: Yes [x] No [] General Fund: Yes [x] No [] Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [x] Attachments: [X] Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [] Date: 10/07/09 Public Notification: (E-Mail) Agendas and Meetings – City Council (11/19/09); (E-mail) Culver City Management Group (11/19/09); (E-Mail) ; Civil Service Commission (11/19/09) Department Approval: Serena Wright (11/17/09) City Attorney Approval: Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (11/17/09) Chief Financial Officer Approval: Mark Scott (by M. Noller) (11/18/09) City Manager Approval: Mark Scott (11/19/09) RECOMMENDATION The Civil Service Commission recommends that the City Council: (1) discuss the issues related to consistency of classification specifications; and, (2) consider submitting a Charter Amendment or other measure for consideration by the electors at the April 13, 2010 Municipal Election. BACKGROUND Over the past several months the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) has discussed the importance of having consistency within classification specifications. The most current issue has focused on the deputy classifications: specifically, why certain deputy classifications are included within the civil service system and others are not. There are a total of eight deputy classifications: Deputy City Attorney I/II, Deputy City Clerk, Deputy City Treasurer, Deputy Community Development Director/Planning Manager, Deputy Community Development Director/Redevelopment Administrator, Deputy Human Resources Director, Deputy Parks, Recreation, and Community City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report Services Director, and Deputy Transportation Director. Three of these are included within the civil service system: Deputy City Clerk, Deputy City Treasurer and Deputy Transportation Director. This issue was first raised in August 2008 when the City was recruiting to fill three (3) vacant deputy positions. It was noted at that time that the civil service status amongst these classifications was not consistent. It was further discussed that previous City Council direction was to ensure a consistent organizational structure. The City Attorney’s Office and Human Resources Department staff researched the matter and concluded that the inconsistency was a historical issue. The classifications under discussion were created between 1960 and 1989. In addition, it was determined that, under state and local regulations, the deputy classifications that were still within the civil service system could only be removed by a majority vote of the electorate. DISCUSSION Culver City’s organizational structure includes some classifications that are included within the civil service system and others which are not. Those that are not included within the civil service system are defined as unclassified or at-will. The criteria used to determine civil service applicability is set forth in Culver City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) Section 3.05.015, which provide as follows: “The Civil Service System shall be applicable to all departments, offices, positions and employments and all persons employed by the City except the following: A. Elective Offices; B. Members of appointive boards, commissions and committees; C. Persons engaged under contract to supply expert professional or technical services for a definite or limited period of time; D. The Chief Administrative Officer, whether termed as such, or as City Manager, Coordinator, or by any other term intended to designate the supervisor and superintendent of the overall administration of the City; E. Assistant Administrative Officers, Assistants to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Personnel Director, the Labor Relations Officer, Public Works Director/City Engineer and such staff assistants to any of said officers as the City Council may authorize; City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report F. Volunteer personnel, crossing guards, or other employees holding seasonal, limited or temporary appointments of limited duration, or serving on a part-time basis; G. Staff assistants to the head of a department or division as may be authorized by the City Council; H. Professional and technical employees in the field of information technology, who perform design, development, documentation, analysis, acquisition, installation, creation, technical support, testing or modification of computer systems or programs.” In concurrence with the City Attorney’s Office, the Human Resources Department currently relies upon subsection (G) in designating any newly created deputy classifications as unclassified City Charter The City Charter, which supersedes the CCMC, provides that a classification, once placed within the Civil Service System, may only be removed by a majority vote of the electorate. In addition, Civil Service Rule 1.8 provides similar language. Culver City Charter, Article XII, Section 1200 provides the following: “…the Civil Service System adopted by the City Council pursuant to State law and in effect prior to the effective date of this Charter, shall continue in full force and effect unless changed by an ordinance of the City Council or by amendment to the rules and regulations approved by the City Council. City Council shall not have the authority to withdraw any departments or employees, including Department heads, placed in Classified Service, from the operation of such system either by outright repeal of the Civil Service ordinance or otherwise, unless and until its withdrawal shall have been submitted to the voters of the City at a regular or special municipal election held in the City and shall have been approved by majority vote at a City election.” In April 2006, the Culver City electorate approved a Charter amendment that included removing all department heads from the Civil Service System. The City Charter, Article XII, Section 1201 specifically states, “All Department Heads shall be in the Unclassified Service. The City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer shall be in the Unclassified Service.” Civil Service Commission At the September 2, 2009 meeting, the Commission discussed the inconsistency issues within the deputy classifications and, in light of the requirements of the City’s City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report Charter, options that could be used to resolve such inconsistencies. Specifically, the Commission discussed making the following recommendations to City Council: • Place a measure on the ballot in the General Municipal Election to remove the positions of Deputy City Clerk, Deputy City Treasurer and Deputy Transportation Director from the classified service, upon each position becoming vacant; or, • Place a measure on the ballot in the General Municipal Election to amend City Charter Article XXII, Section 1200 to provide the City Council with greater latitude and flexibility in removing vacant classifications from the Civil Service System as appropriate; or, • Place a measure on the ballot in the General Municipal Election to amend City Charter Article XXII, Section 1201 to exempt deputy director classifications (in addition to department heads) from the Civil Service System. The Civil Service Commission continued its discussion of this issue at its October 7, 2009 meeting. At that meeting the Commission determined to recommend that the City Council discuss and take action as appropriate on the following options (It should be noted that the Commission felt consideration should be given in the order presented): • Place a measure on the ballot in the General Municipal Election to amend City Charter Article XXII, Section 1201 to exempt deputy director classifications (in addition to department heads) from the Civil Service System; or • Place a measure on the ballot in the General Municipal Election to remove the positions of Deputy City Clerk, Deputy City Treasurer and Deputy Transportation Director from the classified service, upon each position becoming vacant. The Commission felt that it was essential for the deputy classifications to be consistent. It is important to state that the Commission made their recommendation with the idea of rectifying an issue of perceived unfairness. It was not made with the thought of dismantling the civil service system. None of the above options would affect current employees within the aforementioned classifications. The incumbents would retain their civil service status and the classification would become unclassified upon attrition. Further, the Commission also thought it was important for the City Council to review the City’s organizational structure to ensure that other inconsistencies did not exist. Staff has made a review and determined the issue with the deputy classifications is an isolated circumstance. City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report One of the dissenting Commissioners believed that taking the current classified deputy positions out of civil service would undermine the civil service system and could hinder employees from making recommendations to superiors without the fear of reprisal. The other dissenting Commissioner felt that there was not enough information provided to make a recommendation to Council. The recommended last day to call election for ballot measures is December 22, 2009. The last day to call election for ballot measures is January 15, 2010. Comments from the City Manager The City Manager fully concurs with the substance of the Commission’s recommendation. However, given the current significant economic challenges faced by the City and the very limited number of employees this proposed Charter Amendment or measure would affect, the City Manager questions whether there is sufficient urgency to place this on the ballot at this time. FISCAL ANALYSIS The projected cost to place a measure on the ballot is approximately $16,000. The majority of the cost involves the Department of Justice compliance and language translation requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt minutes from October 7, 2009 Civil Service Commission meeting MOTION That the City Council: 1. Discuss the Issues Related to Consistency of Classification Specifications; and, 2. Consider Submitting a Charter Amendment or other measure for consideration by the electors at the April 13, 2010 Municipal Election. MEETING DATE: 11/23/09 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Recommendation from the Civil Service Commission to (1) Discuss the Issues Related to Consistency of Classification Specifications and (2) Consider Submitting a Charter Amendment for Consideration by the Electors at the April 13, 2010 Municipal Election. ATTACHMENTS Pages 1. Excerpt minutes from the October 7, 2009 Civil Service Commission meeting 1 - 2 ATTACHMENT 1 ***UNOFFICIAL MINUTES EXCERPT*** REGULAR MEETING OF THE October 7, 2009 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 7:00 P.M. CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA Call to Order & Roll Call The meeting of the Civil Service Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Sharon Zeitlin Vice Chair Dan Gallagher Commissioner Richard Ochoa Commissioner Sandy Stivers Commissioner Michael Whitaker o0o Action Items Item A-4 Consistency of Classification Specifications and Commission Recommendation to City Council Staff provided a summary of the material of record. Discussion between staff and the Commission included: ranking the suggestions before presenting to the City Council; allowing the Council more latitude; the implications of proposed actions and unintended consequences; the purpose of Civil Service in government; concern with providing a means to remove Civil Service protection from the three classifications; a suggestion to create new classifications exempt from Civil Service if warranted; preferences for options; efforts to rectify a system of unfairness in the Deputy classifications; clarification that not all Federal employees are protected by Civil Service; concern with City budget issues; background and the context for the issue; other inconsistencies and a request for organization charts for each department and time to review them before taking action; clarification regarding which positions in the City are classified; and concern that positions might be overlooked. Desmond Burns, President of The General Service Unit, indicated that he wanted to see all positions classified. Further discussion between staff and the Commission included: concern with delaying the issue any further; concern that the issue be addressed thoroughly and completely; timing issues and deadlines with the election; a feeling that the Deputy classifications are an isolated incident; concern that information has been lacking and additional information will not be forthcoming; a suggestion to include background on the item and remind the Council that they wanted a consistent organizational structure; concerns with option 2; a desire for a comprehensive report; staff assistants; updating and clarifying staff assistant language; taking out specific positions vs. taking out a class specification; staff agreement to provide information regarding consistency across departments; and clarification that no Deputy positions have been filled since 2008. Commissioner Whitaker moved to recommend to the City Council that they look at options 3 or 1 in that order. Commissioner Ochoa seconded the motion and the discussion continued. Chair Zeitlin proposed an amendment to include encouragement to the Council to look at other classifications as well. Commissioner Whitaker rejected the amendment as he felt that was a separate issue that should be addressed as the need arises. Additional discussion between staff and the Commission included: how and when the issue of consistency would be addressed. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WHITAKER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OCHOA THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT OPTIONS 3 AND 1 IN THAT ORDER. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ochoa, Whitaker, Zeitlin NOES: Gallagher and Stivers