I am sure Commission Vice President Nico Portillo, we are going to do a quick roll call for commissioner attendance.

We're going to call your name, please say present.

Commissioner Merrill.

Present.

Commissioner Warren.

Present.

And Commissioner Pham.

No, not present.

Of course.

Commission President Gover is not here.

Commissioner Fam is not here.

Thank you.

Your attendance has been noted.

Also joining us today are interim personnel director, David Dallaguer, Assistant Personnel Director Ann Laman Aban, Senior Deputy City Attorney David Carlin, and assistant to the personnel director, Sava O'Neal.

We will now move on to non-agenda public comment.

Is there anyone who wishes to make a public comment on an item not on the agenda that is within the purview of the Civil Service Commission?

We will take in-person public comment first and move on to public comments via Zoom.

Second, uh Mr.

Wright.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Nick Wright, Labor Relations Manager with MEA.

I'm here to present uh public comment on Charter Section 117 in the classified service.

For the past several years, the Civil Service Commission has received and approved an extremely high number of requests to remove positions from the classified service under the language contained within Charter Section 117A17.

This language identifies what qualifies as a managerial employee in extremely vague terms that the personnel department utilizes to recommend to the commission either yes, this should be an unclassified position or no, this should not be an unclassified position.

What the commission may not be aware of is the incredible growth rate of these unclassified positions that they have recommended to city council to be removed from the classified service.

Since fiscal 15, the city of San Diego has seen an approximate growth rate of just under 20% for the classified budgeted positions.

In that same time frame, the city of San Diego has seen a growth rate of approximately 350% in program coordinators and program manager positions, which have been exempted from the classified service.

Note this does not include the numerous assistant deputy directors, deputy directors, assistant directors and directors that the commission has also exempted from the classified service.

This is just in program coordinators, program managers of just about 350%.

MEA has been made aware on several occasions that when we have tried to speak in opposition to these positions being created, that the personnel department only must identify the work performed based on the department's description at the time of submission and whether that work can be exempted from the classified service based on the language in Charter Section 117.

This leaves any opposition arguments essentially moot as it is impossible to argue against an idea.

For context, Charter Section 117A17 states the following.

What Charter Section 117 identifies as unclassified work is only formulating or administering departmental policies and programs.

MEA's librarians are responsible for departmental programming.

Our park and rec staff are responsible for departmental programming.

Plain and simple.

It was noted in that same meeting by the city attorney that while there were discrepancies in the duties and responsibilities of that position from when the commission made their recommendation in December of 2023 that the city council's action was only to approve the exemption and that the duties and responsibilities could be figured out at a later date.

This is the first open example of what MEA has suspected for the last several years.

Once the commission and personnel recommend that a position be exempted from the classified service, departments in the city are altering the work that will be done by that position.

By doing this, the recommendation made under Charter Section 117 is no longer valid.

It is a loophole that gets a request through the commission.

And while the commute the commission is a security gate that prevents the flow of classified work into the unclassified realm, Charter Section 117 is the truck the city is using to plow through that gate.

At the time, was added by majority vote in November 1979.

Proponents of proposition E stated the following.

Proposition E provides the way to make the bureaucracy more responsive.

Proposition E will spell out those responsible for implementing public policy.

Management personnel should remain on the job only as long as they remain effective.

Unresponsive administrative administrators will not be able to hide behind traditional civil service protections.

In other words, proposition E was for to fire people.

Opponents to proposition E stated in full.

Proposition E, if passed, could create a spoil system for the number of jobs removed from the classified service.

The Civil Service Commission feels that in order to keep politics out of city employment and to ensure continued unbiased hiring of all races and ethnic groups, as well as both sexes, that this proposition should be defeated.

The checks and balances as provided by the independent and neutral civil service commission of the city of San Diego should be maintained.

Vote no on proposition E.

Those opponents were Nick Atma, Jim McFarland, Jerome Neederman, Ladonna Hatch, and Vira Williams.

In order that is the president, vice president, and commissioners, commissioners serving on the Civil Service Commission at that time.

The Civil Service Commission in full was in full opposition to Charter Section 17, 117 A17.

Today the Civil Service Commission is still making recommendations for removal from the classified service based on the vague language put into the city charter 50 years ago in the middle of one of the worst economic situations of the 20th century that the Civil Service Commission opposed that was created solely to remove civil service protections and make it easier to fire city administrators.

MEA does not know how many positions have been altered prior to receiving city council approval.