Okay.

So I hereby call to order the meeting of the 30 second Board of Representatives Personnel Committee.

The time is 7 12 p.m.

Apologies for the late start.

I will uh go ahead.

Angie, do you want to go ahead and call the role?

Sure.

De La Cruz.

Gross.

Here.

Hill.

I'm not sure if he's in the room.

No.

He's not here in the room.

No.

Okay.

Pavia.

I'm here, Angie.

Okay.

Pollock.

Pollock is excused.

Excuse.

Okay.

Sally.

Present.

Okay.

And Weinberg.

Here.

Thank you.

Present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have two items on our agenda.

The first is a rejection item for the assisted corporate.

The assistant it's P32.008.

It's a rejection item of the assistant corporation council union labor settlement for 2026.

And with that, I'm going to uh ask uh HR Director Russell to um walk us through the proposed collective bargaining agreement, and then I'll open it up to uh questions from the committee.

Dr.

Russell, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Good evening, board.

So the summary of the TA agreement for Stanford's Assistant Corporation Council Union is as follows.

The term is July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2029.

The general wage increases are July 1st, 2025, 3% retroactive.

July 1st, 2026, it would be 3.25.

July 1st, 2027, a 3%.

And then July 1st, 2028, it would be a 3%.

In terms of health insurance employee contributions, the course share increases are as follows.

July 1st, 2025, 17%.

And then for July 1st, 2026 through July 1st, 2028, it would remain steady at 18.5%.

In terms of the pension six and vacation leave exchange upon ratification, the city may at its discretion.

It would offer eligible employees the following retirement options.

They have one option, option A, they can exchange up to 100 combined vacation and or sick leave days for an additional pension credit calculated at 1% per 25 days and capped at 4% with a maximum pension of 70%.

The second option, option B, is a one-time lump sum pension bonus equal to accrued vacation and or sick leave days multiplied by the employees' daily rate at retirement.

Any costs associated with this particular provision are borne entirely by the SERF plan, otherwise known as the classified employees retirement fund.

In terms of deferred compensation and surf eligibilities, all employees hired after August 5th, 2013 remain ineligible for SERF, but they may participate in a 457 deferred compensation plan, and the city will match 50% of the employees' contribution up to a maximum of 6% of the annual wages.

New provision, and that is that the union agreed that the city may implement performance reviews during the term of the agreement, but prior to the implementation, the city will review the will review the proposed performance evaluation documents with the union and negotiate any impacts on terms and conditions of employment.

And that's the end of the summary.

Okay, thank you very much.

And with that, I will uh open the floor to questions.

Who on the committee has the first question?

Representative Gross.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so I understand that this agreement is is a tentative agreement.

Um so if you could sort of just explain you know what that means, you know, how is it that we're voting on something that's not yet final, not yet set in stone?

It's tentative because it has to go through the board approval process.

So we have to appear before Board of Finance, Board of Representative Personnel Committee, and then the full board of representatives has to approve this before it can become a full agreement.

So that's why it's termed as tentative.

Okay, I understand.

So in the documentation that that we have then, so the I mean the full agreement is is the prior agreement with the changes that you had sent.

Is that correct?

The full agreement, the full current agreement is the one from 2022 through 2025.

That's the full current agreement.

The tentative agreement is like the two-pager with the um those two signatures on the page.

That's the tentative agreement.

Um that's could not considered the full agreement, though.

That's that that's the TA referred to it as so but so like the I mean the full collective bargaining agreement is it's like what a continuation of the previous contract with these changes.

Is that yes?

Well, we're going through this process, even through the board approval process, the current full agreement from um 20, I believe 2022 through 2025 is still in existence, and that's what we're adhering to while we're going through this process.

Okay, I think that clarifies it a little bit.

Um can you discuss um, I guess like the reason for the um you know for the wage increases compared with prior um agreements based on the fact that um we did have the comp I don't know if you got got the copy or were able to review the salary analysis that we did in terms of the comparables in in the region.

Um but I don't think I stated in this one, it was another board meeting, but we did the union did ask that we go to arbitration on this.

So we did have a mediator that went back and forth between the parties and um besides the comps that we provided to the mediator, the mediator himself also had comparables, and they fell in line with this three percent to 3.25% range.

So both sides were able to come to that, you're saying?

Yes, yes, via mediation through through the arbitration process.

Yes.

But okay, so that was the result of mediation.

Okay.

Um I guess I mean we we just recently got the uh the Board of Finance opinion.

Um, I mean, do you have any sort of like rebuttal to that?

Um there's not really much I could say as to uh what I said in that meeting in terms of general wage increases.

We're we're comparable to you know the regions that we are surrounded by in terms of their the allegation about the pension.

I would have to do more research on that because if they're talking about something historical that's definitely beyond my tenure, so I would have to do research on that to find out if we did indeed give um walk back something that we had in the past said that we weren't going to do.

I I can't speak to that.

Um thank you.

Uh uh Representative Gross.

Uh, who are the uh I see uh Virgil's uh Representative Taylor Cruz's hand is up.

I want to personally congratulate Representative Dela Cruz on uh um being able to successfully uh use the hands up function.

Congratulations.

Uh Virgil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Carl.

Uh uh Paula.

Uh yes, sir.

Uh normally uh the mediator.

It's involved after a contract, it's rejected.

But a mediator was involved in arriving at this contract.

Uh how did that happen?

It happened rather quickly, and the city was very surprised when the union came, like I would say, within the second date that we had planned for negotiations, asking, can we just go straight to having a mediator because they wanted to kind of keep the process moving along, and they felt that a mediator could kind of in the best interest of both the city and the union come to a reasonable conclusion in an expedited manner.

Nothing was rejected.

It was it was kind of put forth by the union quite early on in the negotiations process, and the city agreed to go that route that they had proposed.

So that's unusual based on my experience.

And realizing that you are also relatively new is probably new in your experience as well.

Yes, in my other jurisdictions that I have consulted for, arbitration usually was like the last measure.

So it was surprising to me that they wanted to go that route so early on.

So yes, yes, it is unusual.

Articular disagreement with the negative opinion.

So actually, I wanted to follow because technically the attorneys union is actually the first in the batch of negotiations for this fifth full year.

But I will want to go back to the ones that we settled in for last year in terms of general wage increases.

Looking back for July 1st, 2025, um firefighters, IUOE ops, MAA, police, were all at either a 3% or 3.175%.

Oh, one was at a 2.75% was the nurses, and then dental hygienists was at a 2.5% for um July 1st, 2025, and also July 1st, 2026.

Everybody else was in 3% range.

Well, is the statement uh that uh the wage increase was higher than other previously negotiated local and state contracts?

Is that correct or incorrect?

Um I can't speak to the state ones, but I know for city bargaining units, based on the chart that I have before me, like I said, the the two exceptions of the 2.5% and the 2.75%, everyone else was at a three um starting in July 1st, 2025.

Um so there are some caveats to that, but at least for city bargaining units, um, outside of those two, the nurses and the dental hygienists, everyone else was at a three percent, the ones that we did successfully negotiate.

Well, this is the second uh negative opinion we've received from the Board of Finance on salary increases, which the Board of Finance deemed too high.

Okay.

Um on the concessions, well, what uh what explanations can you offer on that?

Uh allow exchange of up to 100 on use vacation sick days for additional pension credit, which had been negotiated out of other city contracts.

Uh pension credits, you know, we are struggling funding the uh pension accounts.

So anything that increases that hurdle, as this would uh is of concern.

So what what are your thoughts on uh using the on use vacation and seat days for an additional pension credit?

Um my thoughts on that are you know, with with all as with all negotiations, um, there is some type of compromise that needs to be given.

We did consult with the city's actuary Millennium, and based on their analysis, um, they came back with saying it would not be a significant financial impact if we did go with these two options that the union um were proposing.

So, in light of that analysis and opinion, um the city felt comfortable in agreeing to that particular provision.

I see.

Uh you know, the pension accounts are at the moment, last I looked under funder, and it has been a challenge since I joined the board 12 years ago to fully fund the pension account.

So anything that adds to that hurdle uh is of concern.

Uh what are your thoughts on allowing members to receive a one-time lump sum payout for the value of the news certification?

Uh what would be the dollar value of that lump sum payout?

Um, I think it would depend on the individual.

I'm trying to see if um the millennial analysis, I believe they did a workup of that.

Um for exchange.

Oh, wait, no, that was for the sixth leave exchange.

So you're talking about the one sum payment though.

So I'm just looking rereading their analysis here.

Um yeah, for that for the if for the lump sum payment, it would depend on the individual.

So I couldn't give you like a ballpark figure because it would depend on um the individual individual submitting that request.

Oh yes, I I realize that.

Um if the contract were to be rejected, does it go back to the same mediator, or does it go to a political mediator?

How is the how would the mediator be selected?

I would have to do research on that because that would be a first experience for me.

How does that exactly work?

If it does get um rejected, where do we go back to do we go back to just negotiating directly with the union, or do we go back to um how we had started out with um entering to arbitration and having the mediator at the table?

I see.

Okay, thank you, Paula.

I I understand that.

Uh Chair Weinberg, uh was one of the questions I had.

Uh I'm inclined to make a motion to reject given the terms that the Board of Finance expressed and that I also echoed.

Uh so would this be an appropriate time to do that?

Or what are your thoughts?

I mean, you you're obviously uh able to make a motion whenever you wish.

Um what I suggest is that we exhaust the committee's questions.

Um and then if if if appropriate, make a motion at that time and then have a discussion on the motion.

But if you wish to make a motion there, you certainly have the right to do that.

Okay, I don't see any other hands up.

I'll realize up that I don't see but um I I have a few questions, but if I try to um use the Zoom uh format to raise my to raise my hand, I'm I I'm I'm afraid giving my technical acumen that I'll blow the whole meeting up.

You know what I'm saying?

I'll be glad to call call upon you, you know, with okay, thank you.

There are other questions from our members of the board besides myself.

Okay, uh, then I'll go ahead.

Um, Dr.

Russell, who was the outside attorney who negotiated on Stanford on the city's behalf?

We did not have an attorney present for this one.

Um, we had the director of legal affairs, director Cassone was there, um, deputy um assistant corporate counsel, Amy Labasi was at the table, and Gonzalez a labor relations specialist and myself, and on occasion, um Rosemary Frazier, who's the HR manager and also the liaison for um the attorneys.

Okay.

And what was the rationale for not and for not engaging an outside attorney?

Because that's unusual, isn't it?

Not I I decline to say what is usual and unusual nowadays.

So when it comes to this is my first time doing it with attorneys for the city of Stanford.

I don't know it it never came up in discussion as to why we would pull someone and why we didn't want to pull someone it just never came up for discussion.

We just kind of we had our team and we went forward with it.

Okay.

So I I have to be candid I'm a little concerned that the um that the people who well I'm second to none in their you know in in in in acknowledging their personal integrity um they um they have to work on a day to day way basis with the members with the members of this union um so I'm all I'm I'm I'm I'm more than a little bit concerned that uh that we didn't have it you know a um a third party uh you know an outside third party representing represent setting the city here I recognize it's a small bargaining unit but nevertheless that that does concern me um uh so um you um mentioned you've you've used the phrase mediator and arbitrator in this discussion almost interchangeably so of course those two those two professions while they share many well they have a lot in common they really have different responsibilities um the mediator is you know sort of playing a counseling bring the parties together role um but doesn't have any authority an arbitrator makes a decision so which was this um a person who was this outsider was was this person mediating uh between the two parties or arbiting uh arbitrating making the decision so let me first apologize because yes I am using it interchangeably and that's because I am referring to the overall formal title it's like you know the state board of mediation and arbitration um for our purposes though he was a mediator not an arbitrator my apologies just to make that clear we had a mediator but he represented the state board of mediation and arbitration which is why I think I'm pulling in arbitration that way but for the record he wasn't mediator not an arbitrator that's helpful um I suspected that was the case but but I wanted to make sure um and uh who selected the mediator how was the mediator selected the individual that you once um both parties agreed to go through the mediation process we go to the state board and the state board um selects the mediator and assigns them to the case okay and and then both parties are obligated to um to utilize that individual services yes okay great thank you and you mentioned that um in addition to the the salary comparables that you sent us yes for the five peer municipalities yes you mentioned that the mediator um also had comparables of his or her own uh yes he was she referred to yes what were those municipalities and and may we see them he was referring to because he does this for a living um he was referring to his experience within the region and working with you know seeing the similar comps um in terms of an actual paper I can definitely go back to him and ask him if he's if he has something like document wise that I could send to you all so he said I'm I'm obviously I'm I'm paraphrasing what he might have said but it he said tell me if this is correct he said words to this it was a he I want to use the right permit yes it was a he yes pronoun I want to make sure I'm using the right one and not making an assumption here um so he effectively said I'm familiar with salary rates for municipal attorneys um and um and these are comparable rates yes okay without specifying what that the those data points were I mean the conversations went back and forth but I don't I I can't recall if he got into specifics it was quite some time ago um but perhaps I'm

Um these are comparable rates.

Yes.

Okay, without specifying what that those data points were.

I mean, the conversations went back and forth, but I don't I I can't recall if he got into specifics.

It was quite some time ago.

Um perhaps I'm I can't really speak to did he specify which ones, but I do remember him saying that these were the general wage increases that we were kind of going back and forth were in negotiations where we were slowly landing on, he did say it was comparable to what else was in the region in terms of attorneys, but then also just in general when it comes to other collective bargaining agreements.

So when he was talking about comparables, was he talking about with were the comparables he was describing, were they salary levels for similar attorney positions in other municipalities, or were they salary increase rates for similar attorney positions in other municipalities, or something different?

From what I recall from the conversation that we had, we we only met with him one day.

Um from what I recall though, it was just talking about general wage increases specifically for attorneys, but then also he said just in general when it comes to the negotiation process for other collective bargaining agreements, this is the range um folks were kind of settling on neighboring regions.

So it sounds like he was kind of saying, and again, I'm on paraphrasing very loosely, he's saying, you know, plumbers are getting three to three and a quarter percent.

Um, and other, you know, the general, you know, general wage increases in the region or three to three and a quarter percent um as opposed to specific wage increase rates for attorneys, or comparisons of the attorneys in this bargaining unit versus other municipal attorneys with similar levels of um of experience.

Yes, from what I can recall, yes.

It was the former, not the latter.

When you say the former, not the latter.

Or this was wage increases are running three and three to three and a quarter.

Right.

Okay.

So based on your HR experience, um if compensation levels are on the high side relative to peers peers being similar positions, similar municipalities, similar levels of experience, and so forth.

Um does it make sense if if the if the salary levels are already on the high side relative to those peers, does it make sense to increase those salary levels at the same rate that peers whose salary levels are meaningfully lower are getting just based on your experience?

Does that make sense?

I would say every situation is unique.

Um there are a lot of other factors involved when taking to consideration um looking at the proposed general wage increases.

So does it make sense to someone yes, and to another person, no, in my opinion with this negotiation, um being a party at the table based on the comps, what was presented, the back and forth that we did had.

I think this was a reasonable um resolution that we were able to land on.

Yeah, no, I'm sure I'm sure you you you do, it's otherwise you wouldn't be presenting it to us.

Um so the reason I ask is uh I'm just and I'm just working in this case.

Uh I I did a little analysis of uh I know just looked at the maximum, you know, the at the range maximums.

the comps what was presented the back and forth that we did had I think this was a reasonable um resolution that we were able to land on yeah no I'm sure I'm sure you you you you do it's otherwise you wouldn't be presenting it to us um so the reason I ask is uh I'm just and I'm just working in this case uh I I did a little analysis of uh I know I just looked at the maximum you know the at the range maximums um but this would apply to you know the uh the minimums and midpoints of the range as well so this is I I took the date I took the the the comparables data for similar positions because a lot of the comparable data that you provided is for much lower level attorneys with um far less experience then we're very familiar with these assistant corporation councils because we work with them constantly so we know that they're really that they're very you know that they're quite experienced they're not entry level or you know or you know you're gonna just a few years of you know beyond passing the bar they're they're they're quite experienced but I looked at the looked at the maximums and looked at the higher level uh positions in the you know for the comparable the five comparable municipalities and I and I then took the you know some of the data is from is from previous earlier years um they're still in the process of negotiation so I aged if that was the case I aged all the data to 2025 at a two and a half percent annual rate um and um I could have used three percent wouldn't have made a heck of a lot of difference and you know the you know for Stanford's structure uh you know pay plan um the rate is 1775 for the peers the median rate is um is 168308 uh the range the max that the range looking at the maximums ranges from 154 and change to 180 5525 um so Stanford is not quite at the highest level but you know the Stanford pay levels already um adjusting them to 20 everything to 2025 but still quite a bit close to uh you know significantly above the median and only uh about you know three thousand dollars less than uh the top of the competitive range so that makes me think that um increasing them at these rates that are running meaningfully higher than current inflation um you know these rates of three and three three and quote and a quarter percent you know is you know a rather significant increases to be to be raising them meaningfully more than inflation um and uh when they're already near the you know at near the highest end of the competitive range um you know of course the the comparison the examples you were using earlier about last year's settlements um inflation was somewhat higher last year that might have you know had had some effect back then and it makes me worry about the precedent that we're setting as the city embarks on additional um negotiations um this year so please poke holes in in what I'm saying um I would offer up health insurance premiums are always going to increase for the foreseeable future so you have to take that into consideration when you're looking at general wage increases cost of living happens it changes every year um so that has to be taken into consideration when we're looking at wage increases um so that's what I would offer up yeah but it's unlikely that we're doing you know that the city of Stanford's doing worse in terms of health premium inflation than everyone else I don't think I wouldn't say we're doing worse but I mean it it is amazing the pricing is about in the uh let's turn to the pension um the the enhancement uh proposal how did the pension the proposal for the pension enhancement in lieu of oh let me just back up I want to make sure I understand so ordinarily under the current agreement uh if person retires or terminates and they have um unused PTO um they get paid out that unused PTO is that correct I don't have to double check I don't think did we have the strike through version in TA give me one second please

I want to make sure I understand.

So ordinarily under the current agreement, if person retires or terminates, and they have unused PTO.

They get paid out then on used PTO, is that correct?

I don't have to double check.

I don't think did we have the strike through version in TA?

Give me one second, please.

No.

All right.

I'm gonna pull it to the because I don't know what word from.

Um so let me just pull it up and okay.

While you're doing that, let me ask you this.

Um how did the proposal for the pension enhancement um in the lieu of PTO payout?

How did that happen?

Who who brought that to the table?

Was it us?

Was it the city?

Was it the union?

Was it the mediator?

Who brought it to the table?

The union brought it to the table, if I recall correctly.

Um, the union, I believe brought this in one of their batches of proposals to the table.

And in agreeing to, I realize that the dollars involved are fairly small because this is such a small bargain unit.

Um what concessions did the city gain from agreeing to this?

Uh the pension portion.

Yes.

Okay.

So let me just go back to it's been really just going back into my notes so I can see excuse me, the back and forth we had in this particular you still searching.

I'm going, it's not, I thought it was in the first batch of proposals, but it's not in that one, so I'm looking for the second batch of proposals so I can see where this provision popped in.

But in addition to that, you also asked about what they do now in terms of the pension, right?

No, it's in terms of the PTO.

PTO.

When they so they retire when a person in this bargaining unit either retires or otherwise terminates, and they have used PTO, pay time off.

Um, do they get paid out for that paid time off for that unused pay time?

Paid time off.

Okay, so when they or they just is it a use it or lose it.

That's their earnings just going in the contract now.

Sorry, the tech uh the text recognition is not up.

There we go, finally, yeah.

It's it's in seven point two.

Yeah, it's um it looks like my screen is frozen.

It's yeah, no.

It's not just I'm sorry, I I I misspell it.

I'm misspoking.

Misspeaking.

It's it it's it's it's not full P, it's not at all PTO, it's for accrued sick leave.

It says in your um in the summary, the tentative agreement summary that you said in the city decides not to offer the above options, employees eligible for sick leave payout will be paid for his or her accrued sick leave in accordance with section 7.2 above.

So it sounds like they just is the city can offer the you know, in essence, in essence, what's happening here is that the payout for unused sick leave is instead of that coming out of city operations, it's coming out of um out of the pension funds.

That sounds like what's going on here.

Yes.

That do I understand correctly?

Yes, the current provision in the contract now, the current one says upon retirement, an employee shall receive payment for one half the total accumulated sick leave on the basis of current wages.

Okay, okay.

Um but basically the okay, fair enough.

Um and I asked the question, I don't think we we got we got diverted, so we didn't get to answer, you didn't have an opportunity to answer it.

Umce the union proposed um these alternative ways of getting paid out for um for unused um you know unused sick leave.

Um what concessions, you know, in agreeing to this, what concessions did the city receive from the union, if any um basically the duration of the contract, uh obviously they did come in much higher for their general wage increases, and we were able to um settle on the 3.0 and the 3.25 in terms of the health insurance.

Um there was a proposal to ask us to offer an additional supplemental plan for Medicare.

We were able to hold fast to saying what we have in place now is is sufficient and adequate.

Um we were able to get our provisioning there about performance um review evaluation, something that has not been in existence before.

We did experience some pushback, but we were able to finally um get them to agree to that and settle on the appropriate wording for that.

Well, I would say that the cities we we we did well with getting some concessions from the union in terms of this.

That's that's very helpful.

Virgil, I have a couple of questions about the um uh the contributions on health insurance, and then I'll call on you.

Okay.

It's it's a uh proper place for a point of information.

Yep, go for it.

According to the uh opinion from the board of finance, it says the city of Stanford received not comparable benefits from the union in retain in return for the proposed concessions, and I guess that talks to the question you raised about yeah, and that that's what you know.

I'm testing their assertion, and and Dr.

Russell is giving, I think it's given some examples of things that the union asked for that um you know that um that uh in the in the negotiation uh the city team was able to say no persuasively.

I think that that so um but that you know so thank you.

Um couple questions on health insurance uh employee contributions.

Um so after the first year, uh their their contribution will go to 18 and a half percent of um of the of the premium.

Yes, okay.

And I see that the peer group range, if we if we ignore um you know the high deductible um the high deductible um plans, which you know, really a completely different uh kettle of fish, and unless you're young and in really good health, or maybe not such a great idea.

Um the peer group ranges from a 16% employee contribution to a 27% employee contribution, the 50th percentile is 20 percent.

The 50th percentile is 20 percent, uh, the average is 21.4 percent, you know, of those five peers.

A Stanford in this tentative agreement is 18 and a half percent.

So again, uh in addition to being what I'll call generous relative to the peers on the salary side is also generous relative to the peers on the uh health insurance employee contribution side.

Um can you comment on that?

So while I would say that that assessment could be seen that way and and be correct in being seen that way, in terms of comparing this particular union with the rest of the unions in Stanford, um, when it comes to the employee cost share, attorneys are on the higher side in comparison to the other unions, the other nine unions that we have.

Um everyone else is kind of like well, kind of relatively in the range of 17.5 and 18%.

Fire is still at 13% and 14%, I think.

And police 13 and 14.

Everyone else is 16% or higher.

I mean, even nurses are at a there, they will be at 20%.

Yes, actually, they're at it now.

Well, yeah, seven effective seven, one twenty twenty-five, they're at twenty percent for their cost share.

Yeah, I see.

I think I think one of my one of my big concerns, and again, this is a very small bargaining unit.

It's like a handful, those are like five people, something like that.

10 people um is yeah, so you know, so the dollars involved here are you know are not significant.

Um, but I'm really concerned about you know, since you know, as you said, this is the first one for this round of negotiations that that we that we run the risk of setting a precedent as we enter into subsequent negotiations with larger bargaining units that have a significant um you know uh financial impact on the taxpayers.

And um, and that worries me quite a good deal.

Uh do you do you have a reaction to that?

Do you share that concern?

Is my is my worry you know overstated?

Uh help me help me here.

Um I understand and I hear your concern.

I would say though with the various negotiation teams that I am on, I would I believe I firmly believe we're in a better position now to um successfully negotiate and take into consideration the feedback that we have received from not only this particular contract but other ones, just to make sure that we keep that in mind as we approach the negotiation table.

And I'm just quickly going through the negotiations I am sitting on now.

There is an attorney at the table.

So we're we're definitely clear there.

We definitely do know to take into taking a consideration.

When you say an attorney, you mean an outside attorney.

Yes, outside counsel, yes.

That's definitely at the table.

Um, and it may not look like it or sound like it, but we definitely are very concerned when it comes to the financial impact of these negotiations.

Um, I can speak for the team.

We did our best in terms of this one, and but we are definitely cognizant, um, definitely more circumspect going forward, looking forward to um the remaining negotiations that we have on the docket to make sure that we hold the line, um, you know, getting the feedback from the board as well as you know, city leadership.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Well, I think I sufficiently bored ever put everybody to sleep.

So I always with the exception of Dr.

Russell, perhaps.

I'm awake.

Uh so I will um have a question.

Uh I I will I will yield and call on representative Christ.

Uh yeah, I just in the course of that exchange, a question came to mind.

Do we have the data for um you know for the wage increases for these units in other towns?

I mean, do we have the data for like how negotiations in other towns are going or what rates are being proposed there?

Yeah, so the benefit of having outside counsel at these negotiations that we have access to a much broader database and also like an insider scoop as to what's going on with other towns and their negotiations.

So that that's good feedback that we can use, you know, on our end when we are negotiating with these various unions.

So yes, we'll we have access to that using this outside council.

So do you have that data?

I mean, do you have that data now for what for I mean?

Right, but the other negotiations, yes, we're we're in the process of of getting that, and yes, we do have some comps now for for those those negotiations that are currently in in progress.

What are what are those comparables in terms of like the way in terms of the wage percent increase?

I can't speak to that off the top of my head.

There's like five on one.

I I would have to go back and look at my notes.

Um just clarifying what I heard before.

So from when the negotiation was taking place, we didn't have any outside council like representing on our behalf, like we didn't have essentially a council on our side.

No, because um you the what usually happens is it's the director of HR labor relations specialists, and then the department head for the appropriate um bargaining unit or the workers in the bargaining unit that usually assembles um that sits on the on the side of on the city side of things.

Um I cannot remember, I don't even think there was a discussion to whether or not we should bring on outside counsel.

I don't remember if there was any type of discussion about that.

I just know that we didn't have outside counsel for this particular negotiation as to why I can go back and ask that question of the team, if you would like me to right.

Um yeah, because I I mean based on what Rev Weinberg chair said, um, you know, it's typical to have, I guess, outside council in these negotiations.

And you think, I mean, especially going up against uh you know a union of lawyers that we would want a lawyer on our side in the negotiation.

Uh but uh okay.

Um I yield, thank you.

Hey, other questions.

I'm on the screen if you had a question.

All right, I see you now.

Sorry, I just couldn't, I just can see you and I don't want to fit.

I don't want to fiddle with the screen and blow and risk blowing up the meeting.

So I'm glad.

Good.

Um, you know, I I if there are no other questions, um uh Virgil, if you wish to make a motion, uh now would be a great time.

Okay, thank you, Carl.

Uh you know, I'm concerned about this contract.

Even the concerns that the board of finance uh expressed uh in all my year years in corporate when it came to vacation or sick days vacation, it was a use it or leave it or lose it.

Locations are there to give the employee some uh relaxation time, some re you know, recovery.

Uh so to encourage the practice of not to take vacations so that they can be convert it into cash is probably not the better thing to do.

First of all, I'm gonna call point of information if I might.

Yes.

Um so the actual uh proposal on the tentative agreement is to convert unused sick days, not the and I I misspoke earlier when I talked about PTF.

Um but it is it it is to convert unused sink days, not vacation days.

Well uh I read the uh negative bringing from the board of finance, it says allow exchange of up to 100 unused vacation slash sick days for my visual pension credits.

So they do mention an unused vacation.

Yeah, I'm looking at um at the tentative the tentative agreement itself.

And oh no, you're right, it's vacation as a week.

I I stand corrected.

You are right.

Okay, uh thank you, Paul.

And it's and as and as director Russell explained before, it is on a 50% basis.

So if you have 10 unused days, when you when you retire, you can convert five of them.

Yes, but I can't correct it.

Yeah, the board of finance on the prior uh school administrators contract, express concern about the precedent that that contract was setting.

Uh, we have expressed your concern about the president that this contract is setting.

Uh also on a little concern on white concern about the impact on pensions, since we have such a challenge in fully funding the uh pension accounts, and uh it is essentially you know, this is the second generous contract that has come away with a negative opinion, you know.

I I have to be concerned about the fiscal health of the city and the lack of uh a council independent council uh uh hiding uh guiding the city is also a concern.

So in general, I would make a motion, I I'd make a motion to reject the contract.

Is there a second?

Second, okay, thank you.

Discussion.

Um point of uh, I guess point of information is because I'm wondering.

Um so what is what's the current state of like is it it's paid out at that 50% rate?

Um if you retire and you have unused sick days or uh you best ask Dr.

Russell.

Okay, Dr.

Russell.

Well what uh is that is that currently the the case that um you know under the without this this you know additional agreement like currently um that if you retire and you have unused sick and vacation days that that pays out at I think a 50% rate is that correct?

So for sick leave, if it's unused, you can accumulate up to a maximum of 150 days, and then when you retire, the employee can receive a payment for one half, 50 percent of the total accumulated sick leave based on current wages in terms of vacation, just gonna see number days can be carried over as 30 days, but doesn't talk about the vacation when they leave.

Yeah, it's not only what happens to the vacation when they leave, um, but is you know, can they carry over unused vacation days from one year to the next?

And for how long and if they can, for how long can they carry it?

So for vacation, let me go back to it.

I was just there.

Um they can carry 20 days into the next year.

Um wait, no, uh well, that was yeah, in effect in 1993, the number of days that can be carried over was increased to 30 days, so they can carry up to 30 days over into the next year.

Right.

And then if they don't use it in the next year, they lose it.

Right.

Okay, but okay, so but then again, so if they if you retire you're terminated, like does it do they pay out they pay out up to the 30 days?

The 30 days um if they do have 30 days on the books, right?

Presumably they'll just schedule their termination date.

Yeah, some folks do it that way, yeah.

You know, at the end of using up everything, you know, whatever vacation.

Right, that's typically the way it's done.

So the maximum payout, like when you retire for unused sick days is is the 30 days you're saying, or excuse me, for vacation.

Yes, plus whatever you accrue that year.

What's that?

Yeah.

Well, you can carry over 30.

So what's getting paid out at the end as well?

What's getting paid?

So let's say I I use no vacation in 2024.

And I terminate, I get and let's say I get 20 days per year.

Okay.

Or make it easy.

Let's say I get one day a month.

12.

Okay.

And I accrue it at one day a month.

And I terminate on June 30th of 2025.

Then I've got the 30 days.

I've got the 12.

12 from the priority.

I've got the 12th on the year plus another six.

18.

So I have 18.

So you get okay.

So you'll depend the day that you actually sign plus whatever you got from the year before you reserve that.

Yeah.

So you you can only get a maximum of the prior year plus whatever year for that year.

Whatever you've recruited.

Okay, I see that makes sense.

And for my board members or Mr.

Chair, um, so if if we do vote to reject this, you know, it goes back, it goes to arbitration.

Is that correct?

So if we vote at the committee to reject the board for a second.

Right, right.

It goes to the board.

That we're basically recommending rejection to the board.

If the board rejects, then the then it goes to arbitration.

The union and the city can certainly settle, reach an agreement and settle before the arbitration hearing.

And before the arbitr before the arbitrator makes a decision.

If the board if the if the city and the union do not reach an agreement, you settle before then, then the arbitrator makes a decision.

If the city and the union reach an agreement prior to an arbitrator's decision, then presumably it comes back to the board of finance and the board of reps.

Because they reached an agreement, I think.

Right.

But um but if we but if they but if it if the arbitrator makes a decision, then that is final.

Right.

But so there's not a requirement that it has to be arbitration if you reject it, because I thought that was my response.

Well, it the but you're saying that they can still settle the board.

It's it's it's it's like it's like arbitration for the major league baseball.

Right?

You know, they theirs work's a little bit different, but they've decided they can't, they haven't reached an agreement.

Right, so they're gonna have an arbitration hearing.

Okay, but the ball player and the team can settle before the arbitration year.

And if they reach a settlement, they reach a settlement, they reach an agreement, they reach an agreement.

Right.

So uh if not, then the arbitrator makes a decision, and that's fine.

Right.

But so in rejecting this agreement, they can go back to the table and they can only through to Dr.

Russell, Dr.

Russell.

Is that to your understanding as well?

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And to the best of my knowledge, um both outcomes have occurred in the past when uh the board of representatives has rejected a tentative bargaining agreement.

There have been instances where they've where the two parties have reached an agreement, reached a subsequent tentative agreement that you know the board of representatives then accepted or chose not to reject.

Yeah, um, and there are other instances where it's gone, it has literally gone before the arbitrator, and the arbitrator has made the decision.

So that's happened before we've got both ways.

You've gotten you know multiple contracts from the same negotiation that gone before us.

Yeah, it's happened both, yeah.

So there's sort of like a fork in the road, right?

And yeah, okay.

Both roads have been taken in in different instances.

Okay, is my understanding.

Okay, um further discussion.

Um seeing none, Bobby.

I don't see you on the screen.

I just want to make sure uh yeah, I'm here, Carl.

So you can't see me, but you can hear me, right?

Okay, absolutely.

Carl, very poor important uh point of future clarification.

Can you and me have a conversation about that baseball analogy after we're done?

We're drawn, we're drawn.

Um okay.

Uh seeing no hands, Virgil, you're you're good.

Uh yes, I'm good.

Uh based on my experience.

Uh if it goes to arbitration, usually the arbitrator tends to split the difference.

And the city ends up with a more affordable contract.

That's what uh my experience uh tells me.

Is and of course you have you've been on the board a lot longer than I have, so you're considerably more experienced.

Is there have been instances where that's the case, and there have been instances where they've accepted the uh the the union's position, and perhaps there have been instances where they've accepted the city's position.

So it's it's just um it's it's a crapsheet.

Can I ask you a question?

Please that rejection it comes from ready rejected, so that's what we're talking about.

Right.

So the way so this is just some quirk of the way we're required to make decisions.

We have the power to reject a collective we don't have the power to approve it.

We have the power to reject a proposed or tentative collective marketing agreement.

If we so if we vote on a rejection item, if we vote yes, we are voting yes to reject it.

So reject it.

Okay if we vote no, we are voting no.

We do not wish to reject it, which effectively means we accept it.

Okay.

It's it's sort of upside down.

Okay, I understand.

Okay.

And I don't know why we're we have to do it that way, but but life's too short now.

I guess I understand.

I'm I have the same out of it.

I understand.

Okay.

I I think we're ready for a vote.

Okay.

Um we are voting on P32.008.

Um rejection of the assistant corporation council union labor settlement 2026.

A yes vote is a vote to reject.

A no vote is a vote not to accept, not to reject, which effectively is to accept.

Will you call a roll?

Sure.

Well, there was a motion in a second, right?

I don't know.

Uh, was there a second?

Yeah.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you for Angie.

Thank you for paying attention better than I am.

Okay.

Uh Weinberg.

Uh I will vote yes to reject.

Pavia.

Yes to reject.

Bela Cruz.

Yes to reject.

Growth.

Yes.

And Sallas.

Yes to reject.

500.

Okay, thank you.

Uh with that, we will move on to our second and final agenda item, P32.003.

Review of the city's HR policies and programs, uh, including the classification systems, employee benefit programs, andor post-retirement benefit programs for the education and delectation of personnel committee members.

Tonight's presentation.

Uh we'll by doc uh uh will focus on the classification on the pay plan classification system itself.

Um Dr.

Russell has put together a terrific um presentation.

Uh and I turn the floor over to Dr.

Ross.

Thank you.

Um to share.

Oh and do I need to do some.

Do I need to click share screens so she can?

No, I just made her, I made her co-host, so she you should be able to share now, can you?

Yeah, okay.

Okay, super.

Thank you.

Full screen mode.

Okay.

And that's what I'm saying.

By the way, not that I want to prejudge us or anything, but I I've reviewed, I've reviewed the presentation.

I think it's terrific.

So thank you.

Oh thank you.

Hopefully, no one will fall asleep.

Okay.

So the purpose of tonight's overview is to go to walk the committee through a very high-level overview of the city's pay plan for non-union appointed and elected officials.

I plan on explaining how the pay plan works, the principles behind it, and where we are today, especially in light of the recent compensation study that was approved a few months ago.

So in terms of legal authority and oversight, the pay plan exists because the city chart charter requires that non-union positions have a structured compensation framework.

The director of HR administers the pay plan, but it does operate within multiple layers of oversight and approval, such as the personal commission, which is also a commission that was established under the city charter.

It does serve as an independent oversight body responsible for maintaining the integrity of civil service and the merit system.

It does adopt and approve personnel rules, advise city leadership on personal administration and reviews matters such as pay plans, classifications, and related personnel frameworks to ensure that they align with the charter requirements and best practices.

So that's the personnel commission.

And then we also have the Board of Finance that we have to usually appear before if there's anything involving the pay plan, as well as the board of representative, which does include the personnel committee, which is you all.

In terms of the of the objectives of the pay plan, at its core, the pay plan is designed to maintain internal equity across leadership and management roles.

It does keep the city reasonably competitive in the municipal labor market.

We strive to link compensation progression to performance.

It does provide transparency and consistency in decision making.

And it also does allow flexibility while operating within a structured framework.

These principles are actually built into the pay plan itself, and it does guide how city HR administers it.

So the structure and the scope of the pay plan.

So like I said before, it does apply to only non-union appointed and elected officials.

Positions are assigned to salary grades, each with four steps.

The movement within the plan follows defined rules, including appointment guidelines, promotion standards, performance-based step increases, and then also real allocation processes when job duties materially change.

The goal is to balance consistency with enough flexibility to respond to real organizational needs.

So some key guardrails that are built into the pay plan is um through appointments.

So new hires are typically they normally start at step one out of this the four-step process.

Hiring above the midpoint does require justification and additional approval via the personnel commission, which is the commission I was referring to before.

When it comes to promotions, promotions must result in at least a 3% increase to ensure meaningful progression.

Really quick, is our is this screen blocking the wording?

Or can you see the full you can see the full slide?

Yes.

Okay, just making sure that.

Yep, it did okay.

There it goes.

Um promotion.

So must result in three percent increase to ensure meaningful progression in terms of step increases.

So step increases do occur on an annual basis, but they are intended to be tied to performance evaluations, and I have to um add in a note here.

The city is currently developing a formal performance management system to further strengthen this connection, and we are anticipating that the implementation of said system should happen within the next six months.

So we're very excited about that because we don't have a current um performance management system in place now.

Um, another guardrail is uh reallocations, and that's used when job content changes significantly and larger reallocations do require additional approvals, which once again which would require us to appear before um the personnel commission and like as recently with the compensation study.

But these controls are set in place and they are important because they keep compensation decisions consistent and also defensible.

In terms of the annual market adjustments, so the salary ranges for the pay plan, they're adjusted annually using world at work executive compensation data.

World at work is a nationally recognized organization that publishes executive compensation data.

The index has proven to provide a consistent conservative and predictable method for annual adjustments and has been embedded in the pay plan for many years.

Um for July 1st, 2025, it did result in a 2.2 adjustment.

There have been years where it has gone down, some years it does increase, but being that it is built into the pay plan, we adhere to the number that the world at work um issues on an annual basis.

Using this type of external index does give us predictability, but it also allows us to perform market benchmarking and also exhibit some type of budget discipline.

So, in light of the recent pay plan compensation compensation study that was presented to you by consultant um Alcava, I just wanted to kind of bring it into context as to what exactly um how does that affect the actual pay plan document?

So, in response to the personnel commission concerns as well as other parties, the city did conduct a formal compensation study back in 2025, it was finalized um in January of 2026.

This was the first comprehensive review in about 17 years.

Um and the study really focused on two main questions questions, um, in addressing internal equity, but also external competitive, how we compare to similar municipalities.

In terms of the high-level findings, because you all did sit through the presentation.

I don't want to kind of um re repeat the information, but we did find that the many of the pay pan roles did currently sit below the municipal market average, around the 33rd um percentile overall.

Salary compression did exist in several areas, meaning that some managers and their direct reports were closer in pay than typically recommended.

Um, but it did also highlight that the structure of the play pan itself is sound.

Um the issues identified were largely as a result of market movement and increasing wage growth over time.

So, how this study was used and how it fits into the governance of the pay plan framework.

Um, it does not replace the pay plan at all in any way, shape, or form.

It was just used as a data-driven tool.

It's going to help us inform um required periodic reviews, policy discussions, as well as long-term um workforce planning.

Any and all changes was still followed the full approval process through the personnel commission, board of finance, board of representatives, personnel committee, as well as the full um board of representatives.

And then in terms of the elected officials, um, within the play plan, because it does speak to elected officials, the compensation for elected officials is formula driven, it's tied to step three of grade eight.

Um the adjustments for them follow a statutory schedule, they're not individually negotiated or discretionary.

Um, we we have to follow the the guidelines as stipulated by the city charter as well as the pay plan document.

And then these are just some key takeaways.

Pay plan is a fundamentally a governance framework.

Understanding hopefully will provide context when this committee has to review employment contracts, compensation matters, arbitration outcomes, and if we do approach you with uh recruitment and retention challenges.

And so that's it in a nutshell.

In closing, I would say that the pay plan document and the pay plan itself, the framework, it does provide structure, transparency and consistency for all non-union compensation, and it is cities HR role to maintain the integrity of the system while assuring that we stay aligned with market realities.

And I think that was that was that was excellent.

Thank you.

Um I'll open up to uh questions from uh for Dr.

Russell from the committee.

Representative Cross.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um you you mentioned how um uh so I guess yearly, and you say like based on I guess like performance review, um, you know, most employees are approved essentially to go to like the next step um in the pay grade.

Um yeah, how you know how often or like what is there a percent or any numbers on I guess like how many employees are approved for the next step?

Like is it or is it sort of just like uh you know, by default, you're gonna get approved for the next step.

I'm just curious.

So based on my tenure here, um the salary increases have not been tied to a performance evaluation.

Since we don't have a system set in place, that's the one that we're working on.

So it it kind of turned into default.

If there were areas though where uh an employee of the play plan, um their performance was called into question.

Obviously, there would be steps taken to address that with the individual directly.

It hasn't occurred in my tenure.

I haven't seen anyone yet going down that route.

Um what I've seen so far, it's just by default, the beginning of the fiscal year, July 1st.

Um, everyone is is normally gets their salary increase.

Right.

And that's not that wasn't addressed at all in the in the study or our approved revisions last month, right?

In the compensation study, no, it wasn't interesting.

I think Al may have mentioned the fact that we are in the process of getting our performance management system up and running, but I don't think he put it in in the actual um study results.

I think it was just kind of like anecdotal that he used.

Right.

And in the the changes that we approved last month, um, there's there's nothing to that effect with performance review, right?

No, but in that so since these are non-union employees, um say we get to do whatever we want with them, but uh we we are allowed to you know have performance evaluations, and I do know for a fact that the um training and leadership manager that is heading the performance review system and getting it up and running.

We are she has met with the um pay plan, I would say, leaders, um, just in terms of what we want the evaluation to say, the questions that we want asked, um, just to make sure everyone is comfortable with how everyone's being um evaluated, the rating skill and all of that.

So they definitely have been pulled in for those discussions.

So is this so then is is implementing this performance review system or uh you know improving on it, is is that something that can just be done, you know, on like the city can just do, or is there anything that that might come before us?

Is it sort of just the practices that need to change?

No, um the city can do this because it's actually already in the pay plan, it's just that we haven't been doing it because it hasn't been in existence.

But no, this so we're we're allowed to do it.

We don't have to appear um before the boards, however, you like you'll notice in the contracts the tentative agreements that we've had, I think even last year we've been able to put that clause in saying, hey, the city is um seeking to have a formal performance evaluation system in play, and with the various unions, we've been able to get their agreement that they are allowing their um members to participate to be evaluated.

However, we are willing to go over the ratings or anything that will impact the employment of the actual employee.

Um, but we've been able to kind of have that in at least approved in the various uh see the updated CBAs, just letting them know that this is something that that will be happening within the next six months.

Right.

So for the pay plan employees, it's more of like the changes are gonna be internal essentially.

Yes, yes.

Um and then uh on another point, uh so for paid elected officials, uh other than the mayor, who who does that include?

Um town clerk and uh registrar voters, I believe.

Um, this is taking I'm gonna stop sharing if that's okay.

And what is do their grades differ from the mayor's now so they're gonna be stepping like the formula for calculating your pay.

Um for let's see, I think I just had it open.

There you go.

So they are so the the town clerk and the registrar, the two registrars.

Um correct me if I'm just saying their their salary is level eight uh tier three.

So yes, all all the elected officials, the mayor, town clerk, and registrar voters, they're all step three of grade eight.

let's see i think i just had it open so they are so the the town clerk and the registrar the two registrars um correct me if i'm mistaken their their their salary is is level eight uh tier three so yes all all the elected officials the mayor town clerk and registrar of voters they're all step three of grade eight however the mayor is a hundred and fifteen percent of step three of grade eight town clerk is 80 percent of step three of grade eight and registrar of voters there are sixty percent of step three grade eight and that's in the actual pay plan document um on page five under h elected officials so they're all linked to that particular but the percentages but yeah but the percentages the percentages vary got it okay thank you thank you uh Paul I yes I it makes total sense to me that that the board of refs doesn't in fact get a vote to approve the performance a performance management system that you folks are developing um but uh but I think that you know similar to how over the next several months over the next few months we're doing these educational sessions on the print um you know on the different compensation and benefit related programs of of this of the city government I think that when the program is when the performance management program is up and running um I think at that time it would be it would be again another example of a good thing to give to give this committee a primer on just similar to what you've done tonight sure definitely put that in your tickler file then but not until it's ready sure you could definitely do that yeah uh who else uh uh Mr Vice Chair Pavia I see your hand is up but you are on mute thank you well that sounded fancy Carl um I just wanted to thank Dr.

Russell I just want to thank you for that presentation I know the first item went a while and so that was uh very well thought out and explained presentation because I had like a lot of questions about this but they're pretty much answered so I just want to thank you guys for that oh thank you you're welcome thanks that's it chair you'll thank you um vice chair uh who has the next question or uh for for Dr.

Russell uh seeing um seeing no hands um if if there's a member of the committee who has a question um but uh but uh I'm not seeing their hand please pipe up but hearing none uh thank you uh Dr.

Russell uh Angie thank you as always for shepherding us through uh through these technical fields of technology uh and with that uh I will educate a motion to adjourn so thank you seconded moved and seconded and um by acclamation have a good evening everyone thank you thank you all good night good night