Okay.

All right, welcome to the Wednesday 1 p.m.

meeting.

Today is June 24th.

Item number one, I call this meeting to order.

Item number two discussion with the personnel director regarding charter and other considerations related to the creation of division head positions in the classified service.

Before we get started, can I just say a few words?

Alright, there has been some media coverage on these topics.

So I think it's important to frame this discussion and to be very honest.

I am disappointed to read some of the feedback related to this topic.

I specifically do not think comments targeted at the councils or individual counselors' motivations or work ethic are appropriate, accurate, or professional.

The council rule or council roles in the city are clear.

We establish a budget, evaluate and make recommendations on administrative practices, approve the divisions of the city, and some of the rules related to the rules and regulations of the merit system.

Last week we completed a budget process, a process that included an in-depth discussion on employee pay and the impact of reclassifications.

Following the council's approval, less than one business day later, the highest classified position ever was created in the civil service system, was approved as a division head by the mayor, a new pay scale was approved, and the position was immediately listed for internal applications.

One week later, the same position, and I assume additional related reclassifications appeared on today's mayor's agenda.

So in today's discussion, we have asked the personnel director, Erica.

Thank you for being here.

Sure.

Uh, to discuss the classification of division heads in the civil service, particularly as it relates to charter provisions currently in Article 10.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to avoid discussion of specific individuals in these positions, but rather focus on our discussion on these charter provisions and other considerations such as HR processes for classification, reclassification, budgetary impacts, and other considerations in making these decisions.

So Erica, thank you again for being here.

Explain the role of the personnel director, and then explain the difference between a division head and a department head.

So the purpose of the civil service system is to provide for job security, and that a merit process is established and followed as we hire people to do the jobs that are required to be done to keep the city running, right?

So we have specialists in water operation and engineering, and we want to make sure that qualified individuals fill those roles.

So that is the main purpose, so that we don't have political political spoil system where an elected official can hire their brother-in-law or sister-in-law who has no experience in those areas, and it could put the city and citizens in jeopardy.

Part of my role as the personnel director is to ensure that when we are posting jobs and we're going through hiring process, that the individuals who apply, whether they're internal or external, meet the minimum qualifications as taking on the job description, and that we give them a fair process in going through that.

Internal applicants do get first choice of the jobs and they're considered first and they have a grievance process if they are not selected or not certified.

So that's part of their merit protections.

So my role is to work with that and make sure that once those jobs are created, that they are posted fairly, that we have fair hiring processes, and that we are following uh the job descriptions, and what was the third part of your um explain the difference between a division head and a department head, and can you speak up just a little bit louder?

Sorry.

Um so that is more of a legal art from the charter and doesn't necessarily fall under the merit processes.

Um there is discussion, and I do know the difference just from 30 years of experience here at the city, but um there is that is part of I believe what is stated in the mayor's authority, and I may look to Jack to clarify there.

So the charter doesn't really define division head, but it does discuss it in the context of managing the departments of the city, so it's a it's a level above the departments in the organizational structure of the city.

Okay, so you have a division head with department heads under those, okay, and every department has those steps or those well, not necessarily some over the years, departments have reported directly to the mayor, police and fire most often, but others as well.

Economic development every structure in every administration is different.

Okay, um, I'm gonna go next.

So since we're talking about this definition of department head and division head, and don't have a clear delineation, I guess it's subject to the the administration and how they're structured, except that in Article 10, Section 5B of the charter, it does say that the appointee position shall include the heads of any divisions.

So it is articulated there in terms of political appointees, correct?

Right, that it carves out an exception to kind of the rule that all employees will be in the classified service, it lays out a handful of exceptions to that rule when uh included in that or up to 16 appointments by the mayor, uh, including uh division heads.

Well it says shall include the heads of division.

So right now, as I understand it, we have two divisions in the city of Tulsa as it's structured now.

We have the administration under the chief administrator, and we have public safety under the public safety commissioner.

Those were created by this administration like less than 18 months ago.

Um, when were you asked to evaluate the roles of the city administrator and public safety commissioner?

Well, the city administrator position was evaluated last year in the spring of 2025, and a classified position was created and posted at that time, so that one came first.

Do you know, like, was it May?

Was it March?

Uh I the position has an effective date of sometime in mid-May of 2025.

How long would it take you to conduct something like that?

It depends on how many other things we had going on, but usually when the mayor's office asks for something, you're getting quite quickly.

So, I would say 30 days potentially.

What position is there?

The city administrator.

So, and then for the public safety commissioner, when were you asked to evaluate that?

Um, that's been within the last full month and a half.

Okay, um, I love that it goes fast for the mayor's office.

Maybe we can get some council consideration on our reclassifications.

I know that counselor Lincoln and I had to impress upon the previous administration that more than a year for council reclasses are just not what we need.

So I think I think it's going faster than that, but I think we also have some asks out there.

So I would just ask you to check on that.

So I'm happy to do that, yeah.

Um, so the city administrator was already moved into the civil service as a division head about this time last year or May ish of last year.

Um, do you know what drove the decision to go from an appointed position that was only in place for about eight months?

Do you know what I brought that to you?

No, okay.

Um at that time, with that request and this one, when were you asked to look at pay scale?

So, as we uh were asked to look at the public safety commissioner job, it brought to my attention the fact that we have now two positions that are very broad executive oversight type positions.

I also then at that point looked at kind of how department heads have moved up over the last several years.

We've had starting with the 2023 reorganization under the previous administration, or some department head shift happened with that reorganization, and we had large departments that were really moved up, causing there to be compression with previous department heads that had been the highest, and a couple of other positions, including the city attorney and the city physician, who primarily because of their experience and the type of education and pay that they come in for those roles were always in the highest pay grade.

So at that point, I made the recommendation that we look at another pay tier, which is the EX80, just so that we could separate those two new positions and the two currently existing.

We're going from EX71 to EX70 or EX73 to EX80.

And we skip a variety of numbers, and there's no real rhyme or reason to that, but we assigned an EX80.

I just want to flag for you all in case you didn't see the city clerk's um agenda.

So, what um Miss Felix Warwick just mentioned.

Not only are we talking about city administrator and commissioner of public safety as two new EX80 roles, as our chairwoman said, highest paid in the city.

Previous to that, I think the city physician was highest paid.

Of course, city attorney, given all the reasons you just said, experience, training, classification, certifications.

But today on the agenda, those two roles are now added to that EX80 on the Mayor's agenda.

So I just wanted to flag for you all because we usually get those emails Tuesday, a week ago before the budget vote.

I didn't get the mayor's agenda.

I don't know if you did.

I went back and looked because I would think the announcement that came out would have either been on that email or the June 15th email from the mayor where he articulated all his executive orders that he had done and was planning to do.

Never in there did I see what was announced.

So I have questions about that.

Yeah.

As we talk about transparency and accountability and checks on authority, and um where we are empowered in the charter, those raised flags for me.

So I don't know if you got that information somehow, but I know that I didn't.

Of course, our budget vote was Wednesday, and then this was announced on Thursday.

So I do have questions about process and procedure, and that's why I was asking about you know how long had they been working towards this.

We've just heard here at least a month, if not longer.

So going back to our timeline of the budget discussions, we had an HR personnel discussion, and we had a public safety discussion in May, and I was never informed that we were moving in this direction.

Um I think there would be an argument that it's not our purview to know about these things, but it actually is because there's budgetary impact now and into the future.

Um I have one more question, then I'll turn it back over.

Um, you talked about the previous administration, big organization, and for those of you who weren't here, it's the Department of City experience, and for those of us that went through it, you know, it was like a year-long process or nine months at least.

So change your term.

A lot of change management, a lot of um questions asked and answered.

There were some reclassifications and reassignments that certain counselors asked questions about personnel, and you know, we had to work our way through it.

Um, in retrospect, I'm glad we were included in the conversation along the way.

It would it also helped us be able to articulate that to the public, why the change was needed or desired.

Um, but you said you had to go back and start looking, right?

Because when you open up the top level, it starts to make a pay equity question come into place.

So now that we have this EX80 ERCA, are we now doing a look through to make sure that is there like an ongoing process now for those EX71s or EX73s to reclass them, or is that just on request?

No, and and we're talking about really two different things, and this may be like more in the weeks than you want to go as far as the HR strategy, but we look at how jobs compare to each other from an internal equity not pay but based on decision making scope of what they do all of the problem solving and so we're looking at do they line out similarly within a pay grade based on that then there's the other factor which is the pay and the pay that's assigned to those ranges and there are market factors that fall into play there.

Pay equity we will do that review but generally pay equity is across the pay grade itself and not looking at what's happening to the next level the next level.

So on the on the market rate did you do research that you could share with the council that justifies this I mean did you look at how to compete in the market and that's why we're now at this EX80.

We did not do a market analysis to bring apart about that 80.

What we looked at was the scope of the jobs as they compared to the scope of the current 71 jobs many of whom you know moved up to 71 when we had this re classification reorganization in 2023.

So this this is not about pay and I will I you haven't asked this yet but um the reclassifications to the 80 uh for the other positions will not involve a pay adjustment of any type as long as their pay falls within that pay grade there's no pay adjustments so there's no impact there as far as the act for ongoing commitments plus MERF and everything else so I think it's really important.

Maybe not on this budget that we just approved that clearly for me was a little more opaque than we thought it was right.

There's ongoing obligations as long as these roles exist and when other roles say hey I want you to look at mine because I have a lot of decision making and authority and certifications I imagine as we see in the swarm personnel they want the steps adjusted I cannot imagine that our you know administrative staff would also not want those looks even though they don't collect a bargaining per se.

So I would just put a a note on that for us to be looking for um the market rate answer is a little interesting to me in in terms of not having looked even maybe at other peer cities or just in the private sector obviously we can never compete with the private sector but just to have a look at what we're competing with to retain to attract and retain I know we've done that with labor and trades and some of the other things and I know when I was on HR committee with counselor Lakin counselor Hall Harper and some others when we were adjusting the judges' pay rate we looked at comps because when we have qualified municipal judges it could either be in the private sector or at the state level or in tribal um you know court so we have to look at that so that's a little surprising to me and also when we made the mayoral adjustment by charter or no by both a couple years ago we definitely looked at pay rate and um comps and you know what does a city manager earn versus uh this kind of form of government uh what would be appropriate so I know just from the small HR municipal work that we've done as a legislative body we did look at those comps so I'm sure I'll have more questions but I'll give back to the chair and you want to think of all right I have counselor Bellis and then counselor Bangle.

I think two or three questions for you and then I want to like kind of run through a timeline just to make sure I understand and also name kind of the optics that come attached with it.

Just what's what's the pay scale and sorry if you already said it what's the pay scale of EX80 is it like what is there a specific salary band there is a salary band up that's health of my head I don't have it with me but I can send it to you do you have like a ballpark okay so I was gonna go check yeah um it's a bit on the flip side of the okay yeah I just I just wanted to like level set to the kind of no that's okay but I know you have a lot of stuff in your head, then that's okay.

Just want to I want to make sure we definitely level set like the dollars and cents we're talking here.

Um and then you know from your end going back to the thanks to Counselor Dr.

Right for those kind of like process questions, like when you're tasked with making those considerations um related to what's like appropriate, right?

These salary bans, the classifications, is part of your role to also consider those budgetary impacts, or is that that's not within your department?

No, we did not look at budget area impacts understanding.

Once we make the recommendation on the grade, it goes back to the department, and then it's the department's responsibility to make it in within the budget.

Okay.

I pulled up the pay scale for EX80, it's uh minimum 162 maximum 302.

302 range is 232 from EX71, which was what was the person that we can do with 302.

EX71 is 141 minimum 263 maximum.

The prior cap was 263 maximum, and now the new one's 302.

Wow.

Um, so I just I want to go over the AMI is 54,000 a year in the city of Tulsa.

That yeah.

Um, I think what I think I'm very much struggling with, and I thank you, um, Councillor Gilbert for up front, kind of going through like here's the timeline or chain of events.

Because I I just want to go back through them in my head and like can people can back check me.

So we have over a month and a half ago, like this discussions initiated internally within mayor's office with HR.

Um, there's a whole budget process, small budget committee.

This never comes up.

Just check out on this wall of the committee.

Okay, it never comes up.

Never comes up.

No, never comes up, never comes up at this table.

Um, you know, different, you know, we get really granular with the budget too.

So I don't think it's out of the realm of when you know, we've talked a lot about different salary considerations, stopping things.

Okay, we pass the budget.

Oh, and sorry, you can fact I'm I'm going through the timeline, you can fact check me too.

Okay.

If I say I heard Jack answer the pace of questions, so I stopped going to help me.

So I'm just going through the timeline.

So we passed the budget, and then about an hour later, this posting goes up.

Is that correct?

I think the notification went out around lunch time.

Oh, okay.

I was just checking.

So it went up next day.

Okay.

Oh, it went up around lunchtime the next day.

Yes, okay.

Yeah, it's about 12 hours.

Maybe after, and it wasn't on the Wednesday signing agenda.

It wasn't that day, it was not on the agenda that's distributed prior to the mayor's signing.

Okay.

That it was signed on the 18th, which is off agenda.

So it could have been on agenda, but it just wasn't.

Um, and now it's showing up on the signing agenda this week, a week later.

Yeah, okay.

And then as an okay, but it could have been on last week's, it just was not.

And then the job posting, it was up and then it went down and it went back up again.

Was something changed about it?

I just on your you asked me to on the timeline, and and I actually don't know this answer.

It looked like it the public safety commissioner was approved on the 18th.

Okay, it is back though again on the mayor's agenda this week, so I don't know if there is a re-approval or an adjustment that maybe is a point of clarification.

Do you know that do you know what the job?

Do you know if something changed about the there are revisions that were requested to the job description?

Okay, do okay.

We'll have to maybe we can if if that's shareable to just understand what they were.

Yeah, we'll have to go back and do you was it for legal reasons that there were changes made or just clarification.

Just clarify.

Okay, okay.

Um, I'll just name them.

Think thank you.

I just want to think through this timeline.

I would just want to name that what like as has already been stated, the budgetary impacts.

When you look at the potential salary scale that's now here, are both now and in the future, there's absolutely a ripple effect.

Um, and I think I'm really troubled by knowing that this was in discussion, never came up during a budget process, and then the optics of it being signed off agenda right after we passed the budget, make it very much look like a form of circumvention occurred to ensure that it wasn't part of budget discussions and considerations when I really believe it absolutely should have been.

Um, you know, I want to assume positive intent, but this very specific timing feels very clear to me, and I'm really struggling with it.

So I just yeah, I thank you all for I just want to go through the timeline and be really clear about how untransparent this comes across, and that it does have budgetary impacts, which I do believe are absolutely council business to consider, and we just passed a budget without getting to consider this.

So with the the reposting of the position, I mean, is it open internally?

I mean, so that other people can apply for it, are we keeping the same person in that position?

There's no posting currently.

I believe the posting was taken down on Thursday.

So it's up for a day, and it's not currently posted when we make changes to a job description, whether even if it's a clarifying change, we pull the description down so that the correct job description then can be posted.

Okay, so what's the rash to put it up if it wasn't ready?

I don't understand the timing, I am this I mean if it if it was up and then it had to be taken down to make the the corrections again.

What was the the rush uh to put it up?

And I just I don't know the answer to before to that.

Okay, all right.

Well you just did what you're asked to do.

Yes, I understand.

Yeah.

When it finally gets reposted, will it be an internal yes?

Because it's a classified yes, and then the any appointee to the mayor's administration has to apply externally, correct?

Correct.

So that means just for those of you who have not gone through this, when it's a civil service position, it's posted internally, which is one of the benefits of being in the civil service, right?

You get first bite at the apple.

If nobody qualified applies or they're disqualified through their application process through the HR process, then it'll be posted externally for external applicants to apply, which could be people across the nation or people who are in the mayor's administration right now can then apply.

Did that process also happen with the chief administrator or the whatever that's it was fully posted internally for me?

For about how long do you know that?

Um it's required to be posted for a week minimum.

Minimum of a week, it closes in turn to internal applicants for a week, then any internal applicants are reviewed, whether they qualify.

There was one internal applicant if I recall, they did not meet the minimum qualifications, however, and then it was reposted as an external posting.

Obviously, when there's division head posted, that means anyone applying internally most likely reports in some chain of command to that person that's currently the division head.

So you could see how perhaps people would not feel comfortable even applying.

Yeah, which is another structural barrier we might need to look at in the system.

Yeah, okay, counselor Bengal, and then I have Counselor Hull Harper.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um obviously, Erica, you already stated that the EX80 was kind of like an arbitrary number assigned to this, correct?

Yes, so currently the top exempt position is rated at 71.

And Jack obviously told us what the pay scales were for that specifically.

So when we're looking at the positions that were specifically on the mayor's agenda for today, and you were talking about certifications, decision making and things of that nature.

I don't I don't remember seeing um Terry Ball uh I don't know where what the director of public works, uh water and sewer are are is there consideration that we may see another tranche of these come through the mayor's agenda?

I would say no, um, just based on what I know about those jobs and their history and what they have historically been equated to across other department head positions.

Oh, forgive me.

I mean, those are some seriously educated people that are making impactful decisions across our city.

So you've got the guy who's over our water and sewer, this guy who gives us a clean water.

Um, I'm just struggling.

How we determine these specific individuals.

So it's not about the individuals, it's about the positions, right?

That's what we're focused on.

How was determined that these specific individuals' positions needed to be raised to this specific arbitrary number?

And then the scale shift of what is it 20,000 for the bottom, and so when you're saying there's no raise associated with it, right?

Um, even if you're like potentially somewhere, you're not at the bottom level, there could potentially be a raise in there somewhere.

I'm gonna assume that none of these folks are making the bottom of an EXAD already.

Right.

They all fit within that new range, right?

So what's problematic for me is understanding outside the obvious intent to be non-transparent through this process, um, and we can dispute that all day long, but it's obvious to our colleagues that when we're going through this process in the small budget committee, there were very concentrated discussions.

We had animal services here, we had the public safety commissioner, and we're getting into the weeds about code enforcement and increasing staffing on those levels, which is a much smaller consideration of need, but this just reeks.

Um were you advised not to tell anybody about this process in any way, shape, or form?

So that's where I'm also troubled as well.

Is what was there any at any point, do you feel obligated to let the council know it when in any capacity?

Um there's considerations that might have budgetary impacts in your role as a director of human resources.

I don't think that falls necessarily under my purview.

Okay, again, we're not gonna be able to do that.

But do you advise the mayor?

But do you advise the mayor when you're going through this process?

Because you you said you made the deter you made the recommendation to the mayor that they get elevated to an EXA, right?

So in that, did you do you also recommend to the mayor potentially that this might have some budgetary impacts that the council should be aware of?

Well, because you're making some big recommendations here in my opinion.

Because I know what the salary levels are, and I know that they're not going to see an increase.

So from my perspective, their current rate, they're gonna change pay grade level and number, but their current pay stays the same.

So I don't equate that with a budget, but the band changes, and so the scale changes, right?

So they could potentially not not immediately see an increase, but they could potentially by expanding that scale, yeah, right.

So on a future budget consideration, there could be an impact, and that's what I'm talking about.

Yeah, we already signed the budget, but this happened the very next day, and that's what I really take issue with is we went through this deliberate process of going through different departments and the staffing levels and considerations of those, what ones had been vacant for a long time and using those to fund other things.

Um we did that yes last year, if I remember correctly, and last year's buzzard, we took some make it positions and cut those and use those for other things, and this year we're kind of putting back some of that, and so it kind of just feels like we reverse course here, but this just I'm just really struggling to understand at any time why this process, the way counselor Bellis articulated the timeline, it becomes very suspicious that at no point no one ever thought this would be relevant to charter consideration, or how it may have budgetary impacts, and to me, just arbitrary assignment of a number.

When you're moved from 71 to 80, that creates a visual that there's a reason why you arbitrarily pick that number, right?

Why not just pick the next higher number?

72, right?

Um, and then on top of that, there's gonna be this ripple effect.

Well, these folks are moving up to this scale, then I we want to be moving up this.

So, in my view, this kind of consideration could potentially cause a ripple effect across the entire city.

So, do you consider that as part of your recommendations to the mayor when you're doing this as well?

We look at those types of things any time we move jobs around.

There's always someone that is going to be impacted adversely and or think that they're impacted adversely and make a request.

If those 71 level current department heads come to us and say we want our job review, we would look at that, but I can say just based on my experience, and this pay chart has been in place in its structural form, the EX number numbering system, the nomenclature since 2000, and I was part of the group that put that in place at that time.

Sorry, aging myself terribly here, but that those numbers were just very much arbitrarily assigned with separations that really don't have any significance at that time, and that was based on the recommendations of consultant that we were working with on that process.

Um, and so I know that history and I know how the the jobs have evolved over time, and so I can say from my perspective, I wouldn't make a recommendation that those other jobs be moved into the 80.

I wouldn't I wouldn't go to that for that without significant evidence that that they deserve that because I know kind of the evolution of how we got where we are today.

Okay, so let's take that answer.

So you said 71, right?

Was the previous topic?

Yes, and you're saying based upon the decision making the responsibility and oversight of these specific individuals, it raises to the level of being reclassified to the specific grade, right?

Yes, I believe it does.

Okay, so again, you use the word certifications, education, etc.

etc.

Um, I still ask the question again why would you not feel like um someone say like in the the public works director um or even our water and sewer, you know, who have to have you know civil engineering degrees and you know, understand chemistry, certainly.

So I'm just trying to really rationalize in my own head.

I mean, I don't take any doubt that these folks are highly educated, um, but that's why I asked are we expecting to see another trunch of these reclassifications for folks like that who were just as impactful to the city of Tulson?

That's why I'm trying.

That's why I'm asking, is this just a one-off thing?

This is I do not expect that.

Now I may come back to my office and have a whole slew of emails making a request, but no, that that's not anticipated.

Okay, I don't think we're doing a job study that's which is what we would be doing if we were looking at all jobs and comparing them and looking to make significant changes.

So you definitely don't expect to see an influx of emails based upon this action.

I sure hope no, okay.

Well, I may have other questions here.

Yeah, okay.

Counselor Hall Harper, I want to give others a John.

Was just clarifying.

So with the change from the 71 to the 80, you mentioned the city attorney in the middle.

They'd be moved to 80 as well.

Yes, they are.

So there's basically four positions.

There will be four on today's agenda.

On today's agenda, okay.

That was my clarifying question.

Thank you.

So there'll be up to a million dollars, like almost a million if they were all maxed.

That's a point salary-wise.

No one point to the three.

Oh, right, fringe as well.

Yeah.

Oh no.

There's 1.2 on the without the 308.

And 302.

302 times 4.

And we don't taxpayer dollars.

So Councillor Hall Arbor, did you get your that's it?

Okay, counselor Lakin.

Okay, so I have a few questions, I guess.

Um so whenever I came and talked to you about changing reclassifying a um council level position, um that person had to fill out what a PDQ uh position, what is it?

Something questionnaire, description questionnaire, yes.

Do all these four people that are going from EX71 or wherever they are.

Have they already had to fill out a PDQ?

Do they have to go through the same process as our council step?

When we're changing the detail within the job description, they do.

So that's the distinction.

If there is significant change in the language of the job description, that's where we check with that uh department to ensure that we're getting the verbiage correct.

So for new positions, yes, they do.

So for the commissioner, there was a PPU.

And I believe there was for the city administrator a year ago.

I could double-check that, because I don't see those documents.

I see the final job description.

My staff works with those, but um if it's just the pay grade change because we're trying to write size, we look at we've moved these jobs.

Oh, this one needs to be moved as well, then I would not.

I don't believe the city attorney filled out a PDQ just to have one uh in grade change for the job description.

Okay, and that's standard across any job that we would have.

I swear, all we were doing in this particular situation was trying to change salaries to make to as Counselor Bingle was saying, it was there there are cascade effects or me to effects that roll through the system.

It seems like whenever whenever somebody doing a certain level for the city is doing something similar to what's been done at the council level, let's say in running the legislative branch or in running various elements of the city because other departments aren't necessarily doing that.

Um there is, I mean, I've experienced the cascade effect and how it it plays out in our own office.

So I have to believe that it's playing out in other offices as well, and we'll have the budget impact that all of us are concerned about.

So but you are saying that PDQs are not necessary if I just want to make sure that we don't have to go.

That so that we can evaluate why it needs to move to the higher level, so sometimes that form is helpful for us to make that evaluation, so it shouldn't depend on the case.

Somebody were to get a be reclassified as an EX80, and then they were to move from let's say 170,000 to 190,000, would a PDQ be necessary, because then we would have to explain why there was another 20,000 that was needed for that job.

So is just to evaluate the level that it has nothing to do with the pay itself, the actual salary that that person we're looking at a broad salary range, and that whatever that employee is making, that's that's a different, whole different policy under a different section of policy, and how that's determined.

So we've got two different processes, and I think that's part of the confusing point here.

It's all confusing.

So welcome to my world.

I think, yeah, this is why I don't participate in your world thereof.

That was a real stretch for me to come up with questions.

Okay, so um so we set a budget.

The the budget is obviously a very big number, it's 440 million a bucks, and lots of variations can occur within that budget on a daily and a monthly basis.

So you've said that there's no changes in salaries for those four people who might be or will be shifted to EX80, but who can create that?

So it's not your expectation right now, but could somebody say tomorrow or on July the 31st, and I want to move this person from X to Y.

So pre-classifications when a position changes from one big road to the next does not come with it of any type of pay change per policy.

There is an exception approval process that either would have to go through like a department head approval and a request and then would come to me for evaluation, and then we would look at what were the reasons, what's the pay equity analysis?

There's a whole list of things that we look at then to determine if it's warranted.

So for any of these positions, that would come from the mayor with a request to me.

Okay.

But I have not received that.

Right, as of today, um, but but then you go through that process and you you decide if it's warranted, and then once you've made that decision, then it's just effective.

Either I would approve it or the mayor can approve them.

So the mayor can approve them without you warranting them, if you will.

Like you go through your process, pay equity and just like things, right?

Just like any time there's a policy exception, we would send that through for an approval on the mayor's agenda.

If there's a pay policy exception, if there's a leave policy exception that's requested by the department, he has the authority to make those decisions.

Okay, so at the end of the day, for these for these jobs, he can just say I want the salary to be 200,000 for this person, and it just done.

As long as it fits in within the charter, and I'll again ask Jack from a legal perspective with the charter if he disagrees with my assessment there.

The mayor has that authority and discussion, obviously, all subject to appropriations.

The mayor has to work within the oh yeah, no, that's that's how I tried to start it is hey, we have this big thing called budget that but you know, I mean, you can just not hire one person, leave a position vacant and say, Oh, well, that's 60,000 or that's 100,000 available for me to do X, Y, and Z.

So, okay.

We won't have to hire a police officer or firefighter.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, go to somebody else and I'll come back.

I have some other questions, but I just need to just throw it out there.

I am chairing the meeting, so I can do that.

Um okay, uh Counselor Dictor Wright and then Counselor Bush.

Uh I just want to tag on to Counselor Lakinsland a question here about the PDQ and your explanation on the new rules that didn't weren't pre-existing, obviously city physician, city attorney, long time roles.

Um they did go through a PDQ process, uh once one a year ago and one more recently.

Yes.

Except that the city administrator a year ago was put at EX71 and is now being moved up to EX80.

So did what has changed in that role or that scope that would cause you or to have a request made, maybe, um, to change that from EX71 to EX80 when we're just maybe not even 12 months away from that change.

I think I think in in my recollection, we were just looking at what we had available to us at that time.

Now that we have had another position of that scope, we're we're looking at, you know, do we need to expand that?

And um that was the decision that was made.

So is the scope because they're division heads?

Not from my perspective, it's based on the duties and responsibilities and the broad policy decision making that they're doing on behalf of the mayor.

Okay.

I would just like to apply for the council, but I think we do need to work with the city attorney's office, whether it's through charter amendment or ordinance to really define what a division head is and the responsibilities of a division head and a department head going back to Councillor Bangle's assertions.

There are other roles in the city that maybe have not a division head designation, but by function are responsible for a lot of decisions.

They have a lot of authority and oversight.

Um I used to joke when I first got on council that I thought the two most powerful people in the city were the city attorney and the facilities director because they have a lot of authority.

I think that's shifted a little bit under this administration, but when I was a brand new counselor, I felt very strongly that those positions at that time had a lot of decision making authority with not always a lot of oversight from us necessarily.

So we are in a strong mayor form of government that does create by our structure a little imbalance in authority sharing, but where we do have authority by the charter right now is on the budgetary, and I did want to wrap back to Counselor Bellis on the timeline.

So thanks for kind of walking us through that.

I also just did want to go a little bit further back in the timeline because in April we did have an HR discussion here on the one o'clock committee.

Never in that discussion, back to what Councillor Bangle was sharing.

Did it come to us?

Hey, we're looking at reclassifying and potentially changing from appointee to charter.

I would think that might have been a time to bring that to our table since we did ask about personnel specifically.

We did talk about roles that have been on the budget year over year that we continue to not hire.

You acknowledge that even on last year's budget, finance said, hey, we haven't been able to fill these roles, we use those to create the office of uh the mayor's office of children, family, and youth, and now we have an ongoing obligation to fund that because finance wasn't giving up those roles, they just hadn't filled them that year.

So there are future obligations that are coming with this.

Um I do have a concern that although right now our revenues perform better than projections, that we are backing ourselves into a corner where that revenue enhancement discussion won't be a policy decision, it'll be you must do this, or the opposite.

If we don't have a revenue adjustment agreement to pursue, we will be where we were when I first came on council.

With where are we cutting?

What are we freezing?

Who are we not hiring?

What services are we reducing?

I see uh counselor Kimbrough in the room, I'm sure he remembers those discussions as well.

My first year, 2019 and 2020, we had to cut 10 million dollars, I think.

Ish, and then of course the pandemic hit.

So we've been in historic over a billion dollar budgets the last two years, but I think it's our responsibility to make sure that even when the perception is it's budget neutral.

We've heard that, right?

This decision is budget neutral.

It might be on the budget we just approved to your point that we approve without all the information, but ongoing obligations on a general fund are not one-time expenses.

We are using one-time monies from the vision, uh unexpended unappropriated fund balances to take care of ongoing personnel funding obligations.

So I don't know where that puts us on a move forward basis.

We may have to come back to the table and do some analysis of really where we think this next year is going to take us and make some adjustments.

But I I want to flag for us that with the authority that we do have, I feel strongly we need to be exercising it.

I think the citizens of Tulsa expect us to use every lever that we have as a legislative body to put a check on executive power and to make sure that every tax dollar is spent to the highest and best outcomes.

Um we had two appointed positions, I think functioning fine.

I still haven't quite heard the compelling reason for why they need to be civil service protected.

Um, and I don't think that it's uh Miss Felix Warwick's you know position to articulate that to us, but we do need to get those questions asked and answered.

Um, and I do think an EX80, while I guess seemingly arbitrary in my mind, there's gonna be a backfill 79, 78, all the way down to 71.

And I do expect that long-time civil service um employees will ask.

What about my role?

I'm responsible for millions of dollars of infrastructure, and to make sure people have clean water and to make sure that you know floods are mitigated, right?

Those are big roads are safe.

Public safety decisions.

So I have some concerns about how we are pursuing delivering service every day to the citizens of Tulsa for the most efficient and cost-effective way.

I am all about if there is some reason to invest in something, let's go ahead and do that.

But I do have some concerns, and we can talk about on the next agenda item about how we cobble together dollars from this department, that department, this department to all of a sudden have money to do everything.

And it is concerning when you have these large salary ranges.

You could budget for a position at EX80 and never fill it.

And there you have 250,000 to work with in the next fiscal year.

I'm not saying that's happening right now.

I'm just saying we know that those things do happen, and that is a red flag for me.

Thank you.

All right, counselor Bush, and then I have Lakin and Bengal.

I do have a question, but I do follow up on that.

This whole thing has seemed to me like a shell game of we're just moving money.

And I'm be honest with you, I'm getting a little PTSD from my first year at the state legislature where we spent 18 months in special session trying to deal with budgets that weren't balancing, and we were robbing Paul to pay Peter, and man, it just seems like this is happening again, not only with this, but with some other issues within the budget, and it's not sitting well, and I can tell you it's not sitting well with the constituents because they're watching, they're listening, they're reading, and they're not liking what they're seeing.

And we we are the legislative body, as you keep saying, and we do have that fiduciary responsibility, and I I don't know what the recourse is, but this isn't this isn't good.

I'm telling you, this process is just not good, and it's not transparent.

I just feel like we've been hoodwinked.

So it has nothing to do with you.

So I do have a question on the market analysis.

Do we get back to do we not?

How often do we do a market analysis on?

Because I'm not on HR and I'm not on the HR committee, not on any of the committees that deal with any of this.

How often do we do market analysis and comparisons?

I understand the private sector is totally different than the public sector, but there are like municipalities, and how often do we do those types of analysis and how many positions do we do that for and how often?

So we do one annually every fall, going into making recommendations for what we feel like salary increases need to be budgeted for going into the next fiscal year.

So generally we will do the analysis in the fall.

I'll make a recommendation to the mayor's management team in December that then is either incorporated or modified and incorporated into what you all receive from a budget standpoint.

So we look at benchmarks, excuse me, I can't talk, benchmark jobs.

Um, and um, so we can't obviously survey every single job.

We have a lot of job descriptions, so we try to take representative positions and send those out, and we do that for sworn and non-sworn positions.

So once a year, yes.

Okay, yeah.

If we have a vacancy and we're external recruitment and we're trying to match a salary and make sure that we're being competitive with an offer, we'll do a special survey at that time.

But in a situation like this, we wouldn't necessarily do that.

Yeah, and as a follow-up, I mean, yes, we may have good revenue streams now.

We live in very uncertain times, and it's very cyclical, and you know, we've seen what's happened.

We had ARPA funds, we had them at the city level, county, we've had them at the state level, ARPA money all ran out, and everybody's like, oh no, now what are we going to do, right?

We deal with this with the opium funds in that we tell people you cannot supplant.

This is something that you're gonna have to sustain going forward, and I think as we go through this budget process going forward, we need to look down the road.

We have to be foresight, because then what's gonna happen is say we have a downturn in the economy, which is very very possible, then you're laying off people.

So it's more detrimental in the long run if we're not careful of how we look at this.

So I want to do one more follow-up for the record.

You and I, when we were looking at some of the charter changes, we had this discussion about department heads and division heads.

We sure did.

And we kept going back and forth and back and forth.

Totally agree with you.

We need to re-up that and look at delineating or figuring that out as it pertains to our governance going forward, I think.

I agree.

Can I ask for a follow-up for what counselor Bush had just asked?

So the market study, you do that in October?

In the fall.

In the fall.

Yes.

And it goes to the mayor's office for to be proposed in the budget if you see that there needs to be some sort of increase in pay with employees.

That is the basis of how we look at what we want to recommend as far as whether you know how far we are behind the market for various roles.

Do we need an SPI?

Do we need a cost of living adjustment?

Do the ranges need to be adjusted upward?

Yeah, and kind of how we approach that.

So I'm still having still trying to understand because if you do that in the fall and you send it to the mayor's office to be included in the proposed budget, how did we get to where we are today with this EX80 after the budget was approved?

So it's a different process that we're talking about as far as creating a pay structure.

What we're recommending based on that market analysis is for all PD employees or for all LT labor and trade, APSME units, we recommend X amount of pay increase for the year.

Individual pay, not pay structure, right?

So for the public, explain exact.

I mean, if that's all for those PDs and uh FDs, all those others, right?

Then how did we get to the position again where we are today with this new classification?

What study showed that we needed to classify make a new classification?

Why is it why is EX 71 not acceptable?

Right, because it's not all the way to still in the pay range, and that's what the city administrator was classified as a year ago.

Again, looking at the comparable skills, decision making credentials required for those positions, that's where that decision was made.

What about the skills?

What about the skills of a PD 01 and an FDO one?

What about the skills of all of those along with the labor skills that we we have?

So, I mean, we have people out there every day standing in the snow fixing busted water lines.

Absolutely, and their structures are set similarly based on a review and studies that have been done of their job descriptions.

So we're talking about two different things, and I think that's where this gets really complicated, and is probably the most difficult to understand.

Is you're talking about job descriptions and how they equate to one another and then pay and how it applies, and it's a combination of the two, and so it's not okay.

I mean, I I have more, but I think it goes with item number three.

Uh, speaking of those uh different departments and everything.

Yeah, I got you.

Um, so I have um Lakin and Bengal, and then Dutton and Archie.

So the Civil Service Commission get involved in any of this stuff at all.

When when do they get involved?

I know we have to approve plans and regulations.

I haven't heard of the civil service commission in a long time, but that they're supposed to be involved somehow in pay and structure, and then they approve the policies related to merit.

Okay.

So the section 100 policies, which are related to the merit system and how we hire, how we discipline, how we fire, and then provide for um appeals for those for those things.

So they don't get involved with the change of a pay structure or things along those lines.

I thought it said that the civil service commission shall recommend the mayor a pay plan for the different classes, ranks and grades, and rules for those officers and employees in the classified service.

That has not come up in we don't every time we change someone's pay grade, we are not going to civil service and getting their approval on that.

I don't from a legal standpoint, Jeff, if you want to.

All that's under the heading rules and regulations that have been adopted.

Um if you look at the charter, and then article three talks about the mayor's authority to adopt and implement classification plans, pay plans and agreements.

So informed by the civil service commission or just a marginal.

Not at that specific level, I think maybe a broader framework of the rules and regulations.

Okay, um, so at the beginning, you were talking to us about just the classified service system, merit process, don't have political spoil system, and it's fair.

So I'm just trying to reconcile the differences between what we have now in the mayor's office and and how it changes between what can happen in the mayor's office where they're not part of the classified service, and what can happen when they are part of the classified service that that moves forward than everything else.

So right now there's 16 employees, there's a budget that regulates the overall size of how many employees can be hired, meaning you pay one person all that money if he chose to, I suppose, correct?

Can you set the salary of a million dollars for somebody if you wanted to under the current system?

I mean, presumably, I don't know.

Okay, yeah, well, I mean, I'm just I'm just doing what else.

Um, and then once the classified service, then the person then is not subject to at will employment, I'm guessing.

Correct.

And they're subject to these pay scales as well.

They have to be paid within the pay scale of their assigned job.

Okay, and then what about so they're no longer at will after a year?

After probationary period, their tenured or whatever you want to call it, um, and then they're with us until presumably they leave where there are other circumstances which would cause them to leave.

Right, as long as they serve in good service without violating rules that would lead to other actions.

Okay, so another another mayor comes into office and he or she wants to appoint a public safety commissioner.

So what happens?

Okay.

Under the presumption that that position is one of the 16 unclassified on our classified.

Okay, that's what the classified service is classified.

Already been moved over classified service.

If it's in if it's in the mayor's office, I'm I'm just assuming that mayor can say thank you very much for your service to the city.

Uh, you served with the other mayor, I'm bringing my own my own people.

Not as a classified position.

Oh, no, no, with the with the mayor's.

As one of the appointments, but now given that they're part of the classified service, yes.

The mayor obviously doesn't have that same prerogative.

Right.

That person would remain the the position, however, if if the mayor came in and said, I don't want this in my structure, then that position would be abolished, and that individual would be subject to the layoff process.

That's part of section 100.

And leave with the move, no, not in the civil service.

So, yeah, so I switched okay.

Okay, so now let's go to the classified service.

Right.

So if they're in the classified service, if the mayor has that individual in there and they're past their one year of service, they do have you know that protection through the merit system.

So unless the mayor said I don't want a commissioner or whatever title, then that position would be subject to layoff.

That individual would would then be laid off and go through that process through the policy, which involves bumping, but the way it is laid out, they bump within the department.

So the department of the mayor's office would not necessarily have other classified employees.

So what if I'm the mayor that's leaving and say, you know, right now the city administrator I think has is being paid from 10 different departments.

So I say I want you to be part of public works now, as one of my final hacks.

So now that person is part of public works, so it's he or she is not tied anymore to the mayor's office.

Now they're in public works.

Now how does bumping occur?

If they're in public works, they would bump within that department.

Okay, so it explained bumping for us because I it's a seniority-based system based on your time with the city of Tulsa in a classified position.

So in a merit role, and um you have potentially bumping rights over individuals that would be in the same department as you have less service for the city, and that you qualify for the position that they hold.

So someone who doesn't have those knowledge skills and abilities to do the job could not bump someone.

But if I ran if I'm city administrator, so my job title says I ran the city, and now I'm I'm tied to public works as a final act.

Where am I gonna bump down into the public works department?

How far down?

I've only worked here two years, let's say.

Probably pretty I mean pretty far down.

I yeah, I mean, I don't know without evaluating specifics, obviously.

But yeah.

Okay, um, and then I just this is not really related to to you at all.

This is just the the comment of um you know the mayor not knowing or getting involved in whenever you know council staff or compensated differently or we make some changes.

I I think the thing that I just need to bring to the table, which I've already said to him too, is that first of all, the council budget is like less than one half of one percent.

Um, you know, the public safety commissioner is dealing with 63 percent of our budget, they are they're collectively more are far greater our employees than you know, a council employee is really tied to the council department or public works employees really tied to the public works department when you're a divisional head overseeing that much money and those many that many resources and personnel, it's just at a different level, and I think that's one of the things that is causing us so much consternation and confusion is that we just weren't involved in well, weren't involved and didn't know about this decision or how it was playing out uh at least six weeks before we ever adopted the budget when we had meetings, I don't know, three or four times a week, it seems like it would have been easy to put out there on the table for our knowledge and um input.

Thank you.

Okay, all right, counselor Bangle, Dutton, Archie, and then uh Councilor.

Obviously, counselor Lakin asked a question about civil service, so this is a directed to you at all, Erica.

This is more of a comment to my colleagues.

Obviously, this is like a time this has happened to us.

Um yeah, where we passed a budget in good faith, we've had discussions in good faith, and then we're shot in the back after our chair signed that budget.

Um I think anybody who makes a decision that has budgetary implications and tries to frame it as a budget neutral decision, is totally disingenuous and dishonest.

Because we've heard how these could have budgetary impacts that are long-lasting, especially when you're talking about just four positions and then this me too, you know, because you know, when you start at the top, right?

This might be a different conversation if we were starting at the bottom, right?

But we're always starting at the top, and that stuff always has a ribble effect.

Um, then we're talking about bumping.

We're talking we're handcuffing uh potentially future administrations to a thing, right?

That they may not necessarily want their structure.

I think when you start creating a different structure of government, there has to be some collaboration.

There was, I don't want to belabor the deliberacy that I find in this of not involving the council, and then somehow framing us as just one day a week dabblers in government.

Um I think at least two or three of my colleagues here I have deep respect for for the challenges that they've went through, and even the one who's sitting behind us in these budgetary discussions that they went through previously, they've been very challenging, and I just don't want to be in a position in a future budget because of an action like this where we have to make some really hard choices and start making cuts where we don't want to make them because we went through this last year, just like I stated earlier, made cuts last year, and now we're kind of reversing course on some of those cuts.

We still have some challenging things ahead of us, I think in the near future, and I'm just disappointed that somebody would not think that this has some sort of budgetary impact as the responsible party and body for um being a partner in that budget.

I'm just seriously disappointed in this process.

I want to know, and just like uh I think I would support your statement completely on the charter um conversation because I kind of asked that question outside this room, the charter amendment proposal that you two are working on.

I feel like this falls in that zip code.

We kind of have to rein in this what I consider bad behavior.

Um, I would not want somebody to do something that would kind of hamstring me or tie me to something, or I wouldn't want to tie somebody else who sits in this chair in the future and not allow them to have the flexibility to do what they need to do because things change.

Um, so anyway, I we're gonna have some tough decisions ahead, and I still don't agree that this is the path you go down, especially when we're talking about it to Erica's description, responsibilities, certifications.

Um, unless you uh let me ask this then, since I'm following this path, Erica.

Are you gonna find that the DCX 80 reclassifications are divisions with this?

Okay, so this implies also that divisions and department heads could rise to this.

So I still go back to what I said previously about the folks who are ahead of our public works and water and sewer, right?

They should be in the same classification, in my opinion.

Um, these are people that manage our streets and you know manage uh the contracts at significant significant um dollar amounts for our citizens.

So if there's no intent or that you're aware of, obviously, as you stated, for future considerations of additional department heads following along the same path.

I question this process even more, um, and why it's occurring and why it occurs right after the budget is signed by our chair, and the very next day, you know, the ace gets pulled from the originator of this action sleeve and starts down the process immediately after.

I just it all stinks.

So anyway, I guess back to you, Chair.

Okay, um, I have Councillor Dutton, then Councilor Archin, uh Dr.

Wright.

I just really want to make a statement, and I want to uh thank all my colleagues for asking the really good questions.

I think our constituents and the taxpayers that actually create our budget.

Um I think this is an insult to City Council and our constituents, and that having such a major disparity between these income levels just overnight, is um it's not something that I can at a granular level uh justify with my constituents, especially when we are having the issues that we're having in my district.

Um they aren't seeing any return on their tax dollars, and then here we're looking at a hundred and forty thousand dollar increase in pay scale for a position that isn't giving them that granular level of confidence in what the city is doing, and so I think it just feels insulting to constituents to the council as a whole, and and this isn't necessarily directed uh at you, Erica.

I just think that this was created in a way that was shady at best, yeah.

I I think we owe our taxpaying citizens and constituents better.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay, counselor Archie.

Thank you.

I'll be very quick.

Um, this has been really educational for me, um, number one.

I think ultimately I'd love to be in a collaborative partnership.

I think with the council and the mayor's office, we should be working in harmony, we should be working in uh complementary and uh this is this uh I feel like we're getting further from that from that goal, and to but counselor bandle's point there was heart burn over emergency management.

Now there's this.

Um I think to myself, I I would really love to get clarity from the mayor or as to what what the thinking was just genuinely from my own heart, number one.

Uh I have a question for you, Erica, about uh the about EX80.

You had said uh that it was arbitrary.

When you say the word arbitrary, what do you what do you mean when you say that?

The designation of 71 to 80.

There's nothing about the numbers in there that if you look at the EX scale, I believe it starts at 23, moves to 28, 32, 36, those there was space that was placed in there, and again, a lot of this was worked on 25, 26 years ago, and we were assisted in this through a vendor contract that worked with us on a large job study.

So this is the structure that's been in place for a long time, and there are big discrepancies between the pay grade levels.

So assigning 80 instead of 78 was just a number, but each one of the um numbers comes with a different band of pay.

Yes, so it put presumably you could have you know from 71 to 80 other additions, but you'd have to come up with other bands of pay, right?

And I guess my point is this structure's been in place for 25 years.

That discussion was had 25 years ago when we implemented it, and during that time we haven't we haven't sliced it in half and created uh a 42 between the 40 and the 44.

So, it's not my intent that we would ever do that, and I think history would prove if we haven't done it in 25 years, we're not going to suddenly start doing that.

And the decision for if these division heads or department heads get maxed out at 309 or whatever it is, you say it's your decision and the mayor's decision.

Either one of you could make the decision.

The mayor is the ultimate decision maker.

There is a part of policy that says I'm his designee for pay decisions.

Certainly because if you think about it with 2,000 plus, 3,000 plus employees, every pay action isn't going to go to his desk for approval.

So that's that's the designation, the intent of that.

Okay, something of that level, I would absolutely want his approval of.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Councilor Director Wright.

Thank you.

Uh, thanks for this thoughtful conversation.

Thanks for being at our table.

Sure, we're just trying to get clarity for ourselves and the public.

Um, I do want to go back and push a little bit on a city administrator who was appointed.

The decision was make made to move that position into the civil service.

We came in at AX 70, that was the highest ranking paid band at the time, yes.

And here we are reclassing that role as EXF 80.

So has the job expanded or changed from the time it first went civil service to now?

Like what is driving that that reclassification?

When we started looking at the role of the commissioner, the role of the city administrator compared to water and sewer director or the other 71 level department heads, there is a distinction there in the fact that they are setting broad policy, they're reviewing citywide structure, and they're not just responsible for one department's operation.

That was part of the thought process there and creating that higher level.

Okay, and then on the public safety commissioner job description, you know, it was posted internally, pulled down, need corrections made.

Was there any kind of language strengthening that role to be specifically a division head?

No, so it's just understood that they're a division head in practice, and in scope of their duties, and forgive me in HR, we don't think about that division versus department structure.

So I'm not probably the person to ask about that's fine.

The intent, I think.

What I'm hearing here is we were on the right track to bring a charter amendment forward to the people to the voters at Tulsa, because I have concerns.

There's obviously a loophole here, whether intentional or not, the charter says the mayor has 16 appointees, but really what we have is an undetermined amount through this revolving door where we can bring people into the administration and then decide to move them to civil service.

Um, so then it's not limited to 16, it's unlimited until we have another mechanism.

And so that amendment that we worked on, and clearly um division head and department head is not as a significant nomenclature that we were tying ourselves up over, so we can put them both in, but what we were proposing is that when a division or department head um change is made or hiring is made, that it would go through advice and consent the same way we have actually on our city attorney process and the personnel director.

The city council does not have purview over employees except our own and the personnel director and the city attorney, and so what counselor Bush and I were working on was this mechanism to just take that um precedence and take it across these people that do have control of a lot of the budget and a lot of the outcomes for delivering on basic court services.

The final thing I'll say about charter amendment, and I said this in my comments uh in the media.

If there's a discussion that we need to have about the form of government we have, I heard today, you know.

Well, if you're the one who um leads the city, I think up until now the assumption is that's the mayor, but if we're gonna de facto create a city manager position, there is also a way to do that, and that is through a charter amendment discussion.

And I do not appreciate this idea that um we could usurp the public and the conversation as challenging as it may be, as difficult as maybe I don't think this is the first time it's come up.

We know our friends down the turnpike have a different form of government.

They seem to be finding a lot of success for their citizens, for their economic development, for their growth.

So this form of government was put together in 1989.

It's not that you know, you're right, it's very government, yeah, and there is charter amendment provisions, and so um I do feel challenged in that through an HR procedure.

We are it is seeming to look like we are creating this new structure of government that the citizens of Tulsa have not been involved in, and they have been involved in setting up a strong mayor form of government with a council.

Um they organized in 2011 to say, not only do we want a council, we want you all to turn over every two years together, not in staggered three-year terms, which I think would be better governance.

But there was a reason for that, and so I I will make the commitment to bring back the charter amendment for um council confirmation of division and department heads, and I think we should get back to the um charge that we have in our city charter that every two years we do look at the um charter for potential amendments.

If we need to have a conversation about a city manager form of government, then let's have that conversation.

But I really do not want to continue to see 16 appointees somehow become more civil service obligations now and in the future, and that's what we're looking at potentially.

So, some of these conversations are tying into the next agenda item.

So I'm gonna go ahead and read that.

Um, discussion regarding creation of addition procedures uh for the preparation adoption and amendment of budgets and or transfer of appropriations.

So thank you.

Um I have a couple before you get started, counselor or slow Davis, you kind of are the cancer.

Um, counselor Lakin and Bellis.

Yeah, just real quickly.

So you just went through why the EX80 was created for those two positions.

Why were the other two positions added?

Because they have historically always been in the top grade.

Okay, you probably saw that I just think those qualifications that they are unique.

Okay, yeah, I'm I'm continuing to to see to try to figure out why or how the other positions who are at that same level aren't going to be pulled up into that same category as well.

So, yeah, having a category for divisional heads with multiple departments reporting to them.

I understand the addition of the two.

I'm excited for the two.

I'm not trying to say anything negative about the two who were there, but I'm just doing that cascading effect, the me to thing that if they're there, then I need to be there too.

Okay, thank you.

Pastor Bellis.

Yeah, I um this is just like a I'm putting this over to Shane because maybe I think he's the mayor's office person who will help with follow-ups or feedback loops for next steps.

I think I've been just in relation to um per counselor doctorate's point about okay.

You have people who are appointed, they move to civil service that does create kind of there's an inflation aspect there where they go into civil service, and then someone could more people could be appointed, and you could see how that creates an inflationary nature to the budget with appointments, pretty high salary ones, and then people come on to civil service, that's now on the general fund.

You know, you can see all that playing out.

I've been trying to understand or think about historical precedent for making a move like this, and I so I did a little history deep dive going, what's when have other mayors done something similar?

Because I'm not, you know, I'm not saying that this is all like necessarily the most unique situation, but what I kind of found is that actually once I was looking more, is a fairly unique situation, at least to see like to see happening this rapidly and at this cadence.

Um the closest proximal example I could find within like the past 15 to 20 years was um when the human rights department was dissolved, and you had someone who was appointed under mayor binum at the time, who then moved into civil service to run the more office, like the when they formed the mayor's office of resiliency and equity out of the human rights department, and they've like transferred all those compliance functions and things like that at that time.

That was the closest proximal one, but it came with kind of similar to what we talked about with the Department of State experience.

This broader, it was a big restructuring, there was change management.

That's kind of the closest proximal example I could find of a similar move, and so it would be really helpful to better understand what the function of this really does.

I know mayors have tended to keep people acquainted.

Where the idea is right, that's more at will than the civil service.

If someone's not getting like phenomenal outcomes, there's more flexibility there.

Um, and you and you see healthy turnover throughout administrations.

That's not atypical.

So it would just be really I really do have trouble understanding, especially given the lack of precedent for this shift in pace and the salaries that we're seeing, just the kind of the why of it and how it provides better services and outcomes for Thompson's.

I think that's just hard to piece together given that it hasn't been something past mayors have done in a similar fashion.

So I just wanted to put that out there as kind of a general call question.

I I get that transfer, but those positions weren't bumped up bumped up to a new process.

That's where that's again, it's not even the actual same.

You're right, it's not the same thing.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so can I just being in the unique position of having served in the city?

Oh, yeah.

But if there are many more examples of one who's in the room, carry's position was appointed.

Was unclassified and a new classified position was created Travis Holsey.

I guess I mean more of maybe like the department division layer where someone goes into like a broader.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Because I know you're right.

There, you could also look at a few other you're right, like I'm thinking at carry.

I mean, like where someone goes and moves over and is like a broad like division head department head role seems to be different.

But I could be here, thank you.

If there's more examples, I just wasn't sure how much precedent there was.

I think them remaining in the mayor's office is a unique aspect, the civil service positions, comments.

I think the pos people have moved from appointed positions into civil service positions, right?

Those positions though being housed in the mayor's office, I think is more unique, okay.

Not so you go to another, they move to another department or a position opens, somebody retires and somebody applies, or a restructure occurs, and somebody applies for something that restructure.

Remaining in the mayor's office, I don't think this is the first time, but it is more unique than the movement into the department.

Yeah, thank you both for that clarification.

I think, yeah, any historical context or how this creates better outcomes would be really helpful information.

All right, we are on item number three.

Okay.

Yeah, so much error.

No, no, not for Erica.

But it was well, maybe you want to comment on this.

Is the question for Councillor Fush in debt to right?

It's it's all right.

I think you may have the answer.

Okay.

So if you're your amendment, the charter amendment passes, it wouldn't be that a mayor's appointee couldn't apply for a division head.

They would have to go through the process of coming before the council to do it.

Is that right?

Am I doing it right?

So, what we're proposing is if you are a department or division head, or something, subject to the definition of those terms, which clearly are quite squishy still, which is why we've still been working through that.

Um, not unlike we did with city attorney.

Like the council was involved in hiring the city attorney, which is um recently.

I don't know.

So, the way the process works, obviously, there it's posted.

You have to be qualified through an HR process.

There's an interview process, it would insert the council into confirming yes.

Confirming, but also what it does, counselor, is allow the public a voice.

Sure.

Especially in these very public-facing roles, and in these roles that control so much of the budget.

So I don't think I don't think we deny a future mayor from if he if he or she wants to make it the case, this person would be great in civil service.

Cool, he just has to go through one more checking balance.

Yeah, in public in a public process.

Which is part of the checking down, yes.

Alright, wonderful clarification.

Thank you.

All right, Ms.

Davis.

Okay.

Thanks, Eric.

Thank you.

And the next item, which is related to budget procedures.

Um we've we've talked about this a little bit in some small budget.

Um, I can't remember if there was um I think some of these themes have developed at the table, but what I was asked to do is through the budget processes is track items that potentially would make it easier for you to do your development of the budget process.

So, um currently in the charter um it says that the council can establish by ordinance additional procedures for the preparation adoption amendment of budgets and for the transfer of appropriations, and there's some additional language about emergency appropriations.

Um the charter also provides that um after the council receives the mayor's proposal in the budget, um, they may add delete increase or decrease programs or amounts.

Um, the our budget, our budget book is is act is very good.

When you look at other communities, our budget book and how it's laid out is very good.

What I think it um helps, and based on the questions that you all ask during this process, some of the questions you just can't answer based on the information that's that's given in the budget, just no matter how good it is, um, especially when it relates to programs.

So if you wanted to know you know how much a specific program currently cost, you you probably can't figure that out in the budget.

Um that would that would probably honestly really take a real program-based budgeting approach to get that solved, um, so you could understand how much goes into each programming, which which we don't currently do.

Um, but what you really see in department highlights in that section of the budget is changes from the plan.

Um, you don't see a comprehensive list of all of the things.

So if a thing is not a change but it's been there for a long time, um, you're not gonna see that reflected in the budget.

So, um, just today putting out there the items that um maybe have been raised as potential budget procedures.

Um procedure, um, this one's not defined out, essentially creating some increased transparency in positions assigned to one department, so their department home, but they are budgetarily allocated to another department.

Um that's that's not immediately obvious in our budget.

Um account level detail in the proposed budget that might help you decipher some programs and the changes in those programs.

Um, and when I mean say account level detail, that might not be the technical term.

Um, so right now you get your 51s, 52s, 53s that you see the funds on the side.

Um, I think a good example is uh travel.

That's under the 53s, the other services.

Um, but you can't tell what a specific department travel budget is without seeing that account level detail, the the travel account.

Um, and we do not currently have access to that um in the council office for the proposed budget for other departments we do for our own department.

Um there are some reports and and finance searchers have been helpful as we've talked about this in in small budget of some account level reports that may help for monitoring throughout the year.

I think electronic access would be the most optimal um access so that you can actually look at things in a little bit better detail.

Um there is so there's account level detail for the proposed budget, but also for active monitoring for throughout the year, and then access um to more details on capital uh program project level detail as well.

So, um those are the items that that based on your discussion and your generation of things you were asking for that we can't necessarily pull on your behalf.

Um that may be helpful.

So I'll just leave it there.

So do we need to incorporate that into an ordinance in order to uh get that information?

If you decided to make that any of those a budget procedure, yes, you would do that by ordinance.

I would want to work with the finance department to make sure we make an ordinance.

You want it to be very clear what's expected in that ordinance and what's not, of course.

And so I would want to work with them to make sure we're all on the same page.

As far as terminology and how can we achieve the goals of the council while not being too burdensome on a hard unrestricted kind of staff, right?

SAR very restricted on staff.

Uh counselor Lakin.

Yeah, I think we have the have to have the tools to see inside the budget if we're going to control the budget as we've been directed to do by and through the charter.

So yeah, I would say when you have the time to create a template ordinance, then let's talk about it and let's get it passed as soon as possible.

More visibility we have, better off we all want to put it in.

Absolutely.

Totally agree.

100%.

Okay.

And especially, I mean, I know that there, this isn't the only administration that has had positions that have been paid out of other budgets, yeah, correct.

But the thing that's concerning to me is this new classification and how that's going to affect those other department budgets if there is a pay increase.

So, um, those those departments that of the budgets that those positions are being paid out are the ones that are providing the services to the citizens on a daily basis.

So we need to be very, um, we need to be very cautious on of that, and so if we can put more to it to transparency to it for our sake and for the citizens, then um I think it's going to be it'll be much better.

So, yes, counselor dector I um I agree with all that, and I just think as explicit as it can be, because our budget is difficult.

Um, you can see that those of us that have been in the budget process feel more comfortable in it, but there's still things that we have to go and ask the questions, and it should not be find a needle in a haystack, right?

Right.

Um, I appreciate getting a big budget book, but it's actually better for me to have the PDFs because you can search, but often we're we're searching for what is not there, and that is very difficult.

And I will say that although most of us work many more hours than is assumed, um, we're not full-time employees, and we don't have 14 hours a day, seven days a week with full staff, you know, 10 deep for each counselor, other cities of our size have two or three dedicated staff per council district.

We don't have that, and I'm not suggesting we do, but um, and there's other cities whose counselors do have full-time pay and benefits and those things, and we've had those discussions, and those will be ongoing, and I guess counselor Q is listening as I say those things.

Um some of us are here.

Yeah, we're here, we're doing the work to counselor Lakin's point for every hour you see us on a Wednesday.

There's probably five or six or seven hours put in to get to what we're doing here on a Wednesday minimum.

Um, and that doesn't include all the HOA meetings and the community meetings and all of those things.

When it comes to the budget, I do think our budget book is good.

I do think constituents have a hard time navigating it.

I met with the auditor, he said that one of the number one thing uh feedback he got on my district is we don't understand the budget.

So we need to do a better job of not just us understanding the budget, but having that clarity.

So if there's supplemental, I think those um summaries are really good in the pie charts, but that supplemental where we can really know this role is paid out of these different accounts.

In the nonprofit world, we do that for grant reporting all the time, whether it's percentages or hours or actual dollar amounts, and part of that is let's say we decide to sunset an initiative or role where 50% of that employees' time is dedicated to that.

That also helps us understand how to reallocate resources or what resources may, you know, we've talked around FEC.

If we took FEC out of the city, the municipal side, the court side is not necessarily going to be there.

And so, you know, we have to understand that some of the services they're doing are for an area that we're really supportive of and want to see continue, and that helps inform the decision making.

So we also need full clarity that it's not just 150,000 we spend on that thing, but there's actual positions funded, and those things come through because we keep pushing and asking the question.

But I just think if we had a chart of um accounts or a chart of positions where we could really see, um, I'm I'm assuming the majority of them live in the department that they serve.

So there's not going to be, you know, 30, 400 charts, but there's probably a good quantity that are paid across departments that have cross-departmental functions.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I think where I get confused and frustrated is um this was a position in the police department communications, and now we're moving it to city communications, right?

But these dollars were here and not there.

You know, that leads to more questions.

Well, where do those dollars where are we backfilling?

And the other thing that I'll go, and I think this administration has gotten better about is what I'll refer to as ghost positions.

I think we've done a better job of doing what we actually think we can hire, and what we're doing for a long time, we're just kind of holder places for positions that were never gonna be filled.

So I I do want to say in the last two budget cycles, I think we've gone better about that.

What I don't want to see is then this practice of like we'll just take from over here and over here and over here, and voila, now we have a whole new department that's budget neutral because it's on a grant or something.

Right.

And then two years down the road we're trying to, right?

The grant is gone, the work is being done, and you know, we're obligated.

And that's largely the conversation that we have been having about this this office of um emergency management.

All these decisions were made with no budgetary impacts ever brought to us until after the budget discussions.

So we've got to do what we can do, but that's gonna take partnership, and so more depth and clarity that we can have the better.

I also want to go back to what you said two weeks ago or a week ago now.

I can't remember.

That this one o'clock meeting that's now into our 230.

Yeah, needs to keep going.

In practice, we've pretty much only utilized it from like February to June.

Right.

But I think we need to start using we need to start utilizing it way more and just um continue to refine and put light on this very complex thing, and it is our number one job.

I think as city counselors is to know the budget, refine the budget, and as I said to a lot of people who were had big feelings about our vote on the budget last year, we make amendments every week, and so we just need to have more diligence.

I think overall, not in the work we do, but communicating it out to the public.

They're paying attention and they want more information, so thank you.

I did have a question as we talk about information sharing.

We talked a lot today a lot today about the um mayor's agenda, and it does get emailed to us in a in a draft form and then a summary form.

As I looked through my emails, there's some inconsistency with how that's coming through.

So I did have a question: could we get more consistency on that?

And then um, is there a moment where that ever gets published to the public like on our website the same way our agendas do?

And that's that could be a go find the answer question, but I mean that those aren't our agendas, so I don't I think that would be a question for the administration, but clearly we need to monitor those because they do have they do inform some of the stuff that's happening here.

Some of those items end up on our agendas too, or outside of our agendas, and then we're in reaction mode.

Yeah, all right, counselor Bellis.

Yeah, I just wanted to name um kind of from a strength-based approach related to you know adding more layers of transparency around how we're seeing these budget details, um, and being able to get a lot more clarity about where those roles are situated.

I was thinking a lot lately about like you know, this is something the mayor participated in a panel on too um a few months ago.

I'd watched I watched it online afterwards about participatory budgeting, and for your point, you we have citizens that they want to understand, they want to know how to best advocate, they want to be part of the budget process, and some of the only constituents in our city who really have that depth of knowledge are like sales tax oversight committee where they're like actively engaging and dedicating and volunteering an immense amount of time, and so I do think anything that we can do to ensure that um people who don't have that kind of time to devote, but do you want to be able to understand and advocate, have that opportunity and so that it's genuinely as accessible and readable to the public as well as to those of us at this table?

And so I just wanted to add, I think that's something like it that I've interpreted as I believe a shared value for us, the mayor's office, um, and a lot of the community members.

Um, you know, people are smart and they have a lot of good ideas out there in our city, but they don't always get to participate because you know it's a pretty undiscernible document, and so anything we can do to create more transparency and accessibility around that information to me, it just seems like critical and incumbent on all of us to do that.

Okay, all right, any other questions or concerns, all right.

We I got a quick question.

Sorry, if if this has already been asked, um is there a slick brick, you know, uh thing in here uh in our rules where what just happened doesn't happen again.

Maybe not, where you like where we just signed a budget and then the next day we're making budgetary implication decisions, where I've I really want to understand how we can not go through this exercise again.

So as far as budget ordinances go, once those are approved by the council and signed by the mayor, they're effective.

Right.

So they're a little different than recalling, you know, reconsidering other ordinances that don't go into a vet as often.

So you just you don't have much opportunity to reconsider those.

I believe I believe the mayor signed the budget on the name of June 18th.

Um, the next morning.

The next morning.

So I think we got I can double check, but I think we got the budget ordinance the next morning in the signed copy of it.

So um once it's signed, um, which it's not uncommon either, right?

Because we need to approve it um seven days before the end of the school year.

Um so a mayor often is is signing the next day or two days later, depending on how early the council adopts the budget um in that process.

So, you know, budgets budgets are the plan you make with the information you knew at the time you make that plan.

The council always has the authority to make a different plan if they have different information.

Okay, that's all that was all the only question I had to slip for split word clause.

Okay, terminology again.

All right, um, if there are no more questions or concerns on these agenda items, I'm going to move to item number four.

We are adjourned.

Uh we are