Civil Service Commission Meeting - September 18, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Civil Service Commission Meeting - September 18, 2023
The Civil Service Commission met on September 18, 2023, to address a consent agenda, several leave requests, a major performance audit of the city's classified hiring process, salary study proposals, manual revisions, and a procedural item regarding docketing a potential removal of the personnel director. Votes were recorded on all items.
Consent Calendar
- The consent agenda, including the minutes from the July 6, 2023, commission meeting, was approved by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Portillo moved, Commissioner Olson seconded. Commissioners Cober, Moore, Olson, Portillo, and President Lynn voted yes.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 28 (Audit): Aila Corey, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, expressed agreement with audit findings but noted the administration was not invited to present a management response. She urged the commission to require the personnel department to implement the administration's suggestions rather than create separate tracking systems. Matthew Gastrinsky (ASF Local 127) supported the audit, emphasizing that workers need to be included in process improvements and that inefficiencies lead to understaffing and mandatory overtime.
- Item 29 (Salary Proposals):
- Timothy Douglas, President of Local 127, requested a salary compensation study for the entire equipment operator series (including light equipment operator, equipment operator 1-3, landfill equipment operator, and sewer equipment operator), not just equipment operator 2. He argued for consistency and highlighted a CDL requirement discrepancy.
- Andres Alvarado-Gardinas (Vice President, Local 127) clarified that Local 127 was contractually precluded from submitting SSAs this fiscal year and spoke in public comment to provide context.
- Kirby Collins (Community Planning Program Manager) supported studying a new principal planner classification, citing recruitment difficulties for development project manager 3 positions.
- Deanna Fuentes (City Clerk) supported studying the storekeeper 1 classification, noting high turnover and declined offers due to low pay.
- Deputy Director Garst (Public Utilities) requested studying the stock clerk classification, as it is an entry-level step to storekeeper.
- Angela Colton (Risk Management Director) supported studying a new insurance analyst classification.
- Connor Robbins (Chief Steward, Teamsters Local 911) urged study of lifeguard 2 and marine safety lieutenant classifications, citing upcoming retirements and pay differential issues.
- Item 34 (Procedural): Several public speakers addressed docketing a future item on removal of Personnel Director Douglas Edwards:
- Matthew Gastrinsky (ASF Local 127) argued for a fresh start, calling the hiring process broken and laying responsibility with the personnel director.
- Andres Alvarado-Gardinas detailed alleged failures: 23% vacancy rates, obstruction of SSAs, and lack of recruitment/retention improvements.
- Anne Lomanda Bond (colleague) defended Director Edwards, citing his competence and service during the pandemic.
- Donna Hawthorne (former executive assistant) supported Edwards, noting challenges from prior mayor/council actions and the pandemic.
- Aila Corey (Deputy COO) welcomed the discussion but expressed disappointment, hoping it leads to accountability.
Discussion Items
- Item 24-27 (Leave Requests): All approved without opposition. Details:
- Item 24 (Casey Cole, police officer 1): One-year extension without pay, placed on eligible list. Vote 5-0.
- Item 25 (Nata Elliott, library assistant 3): One-year extension with job saved. Vote 5-0. The employee spoke about childcare difficulties.
- Item 26 (Trevor Gallagher, police officer 2): Modified to name on eligible list rather than special leave. Police department cited attendance issues. Vote 5-0.
- Item 27 (Derek Martinez, code compliance supervisor): One-year extension without pay, placed on eligible list. Vote 5-0.
- Item 28 (Performance Audit of Classified Hiring Process): City Auditor Andy Hanh and staff presented findings that the average time to fill a classified vacancy is nine months, with hiring departments responsible for 70% of the timeline. Recommendations included setting goals, centralized oversight, streamlined forms, and improved tracking. Personnel Director Douglas Edwards presented an implementation work plan, noting improvements (applications up 34%, time to eligible list down 20%, vacancy rate down to 14.98%). Lengthy Q&A followed, with commissioners questioning why issues persisted and pressing for faster timelines. The administration and union representatives expressed concern over inefficiencies and lack of hard data. The audit was accepted by vote 4-0-1 (Commissioner Olson moved, Commissioner Moore seconded; Commissioner Gover yes, Moore yes, Olson yes, Portillo yes, Lynn abstained).
- Item 29 (Fiscal Year 2025 Salary Proposals): Staff recommended studying seven proposals and not studying two. The commission voted to approve the staff recommendations and added two more for study: lifeguard 2 and stock clerk. Motion by Commissioner Portillo, seconded by Commissioner Moore, passed 5-0. A subsequent motion by Commissioner Gover to study additional classifications (light equipment operator, landfill equipment operator, sewer equipment operator) was withdrawn after legal counsel advised it could violate the Brown Act as those items were not agendized.
- Items 30-32 (Personnel Manual Revisions): All approved unanimously 5-0.
- Item 30 (C3 criminal conviction): Revised to shift fingerprinting authority to the city attorney's office and clarify police/fire department roles.
- Item 31 (C4 medical examinations): Updated language and moved medical disqualification appeals to closed session.
- Item 32 (H-2 holidays): Added Juneteenth and other negotiated holiday changes.
- Item 33 (Unfinished Business): Tabled to next meeting by motion (Commissioner Portillo, seconded by Commissioner Moore, passed 5-0).
- Item 34 (Procedural – Docketing Future Item): After public comment and legal discussion, the commission voted to docket an item regarding removal/appointment of the personnel director for a future meeting:
- First motion to docket (Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Gover) passed 4-0-1 (Lynn abstained).
- Second motion to hold the discussion in closed session (Commissioner Gover, seconded by Commissioner Olson) passed 4-0-1 (Moore abstained).
- Third motion to hold a special meeting rather than a regular meeting (Commissioner Gover, seconded by Commissioner Olson) passed 4-0-1 (Moore abstained). The date of the special meeting was to be determined offline.
Key Outcomes
- Approved consent agenda (5-0).
- Approved four leave requests (items 24-27) with modifications where noted (all 5-0).
- Accepted the performance audit of classified hiring process (4-0-1).
- Approved salary study proposals for seven classifications plus added lifeguard 2 and stock clerk (5-0).
- Approved three personnel manual revisions (items 30-32, all 5-0).
- Tabled item 33 to next meeting (5-0).
- Voted to docket a future item on personnel director removal/appointment, to be discussed in closed session during a special meeting (4-0-1 on each procedural vote).
Meeting Transcript
We're gonna go ahead and start the civil service commission meeting. For those in the back, uh, we're gonna go ahead and start the meeting since we do have um a lot of folks, not a lot of seats and things to get to. So um, welcome to the civil service commission meeting. I am Commission President Tammy Lynn. We are gonna do a quick roll call to confirm commissioner attendance. When I call your name, please say present. Commissioner Cober, present commissioner Moore, present commissioner Olson, present commissioner Portillo, present. Thank you. Your attendance has been noted. Also joining us today are personal director Douglas Edwards, Assistant Personnel Director and Lamin Aban, legal counsel for the commission, senior deputy city attorney David Carlin, and assistants of the personnel director Sava O'Neill. I'll now call on Saba to report on the Commission's actions in closed session. I will now report the actions of the commission in closed session. Public employment appeal of employment disqualifications pursuant to California government code section 54957 B1. A Jose P. Jr. appealing their conviction record with qualification for the position of heavy truck driver one. The appeal is denied, the vote was five to zero. The vote was five to zero. C Maria M. Mendoza appealing their medical disqualification for the position of grounds maintenance worker one. The appeal was granted. The vote was five to zero. No other matters were discussed or action taken during this closed session. Thank you. We'll now move to non-agenda public comment. Is there anyone who has to make a public comment on item not on the agenda that is within the purview of the civil service commission? Um we'll first do it as in-person public comment and then it's public comments with Zoom second. So seeing no public in-person comment and none on Zoom. All right. So uh now we're gonna move to the consent agenda. Would anyone of the commissioners like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda, which includes the minutes from the July 6th, 2023 commission meeting? I have a point of order before we get into that. Um I just want to clarify the method by which items are placed on the agenda by the uh for these meetings. My understanding, my reading of the law is is the sole discretion of the chair to place an item on the agenda or to refuse to place an item on the agenda. Um so um after speaking with the city attorney David Carlin, um, it was made known to me that actually silent as to whether or not the president has sole ability. Uh I believe any of the commissioners are correct, could potentially want something on the agenda could be placed on there. No, if that is the case, then I would like to know what grounds the agenda item I requested was not placed on the agenda. Okay, well, in terms of the specific item agenda in general, as looking at both the city charter, the San Diego Municipal Code, the uh civil service rules and regulations as uh commission president then stated it is silent as to who has the responsibility for putting together uh what's known as the agenda or order of business because of that silence. We uh can look towards other uh secondary sources, and in this instance, the secondary source that was relied upon was Roberts Rules of Order, newly revised, which gives the presiding officer, or in this case the commission president, that ability to put together the order of business. And so your item was discussed with the commission president, and it was decided to docket it in the manner which we see it today. Okay, cool. So uh to revisit my port of order, just to clarify, it is the chair that has the discretion to place an item or not to place an item on the agenda, and that's the only individual that has that who has that duty and discretion. I think in this instance, given your request, the answer is yes, based upon the lack of I'm asking what is the rule because I I feel like the vagueness of the fact that we're not willing to just say uh, and this is this is the way organizations like this work all the time. Chair just sets the agenda. That's just up the chair. Yeah, somebody has a problem with that. Well, we have a problem with the chair. That's that's uh to it. Um so I I think it it hinders the work of this commission not to have that be clear. So I'm making that point of order to clarify.
openpublica.com