Okay, call the uh HR meeting for May 20th to order.

All members are here except for Alderman Wuteska.

We have a quorum.

Um can we get approval of the minutes from our last meeting?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting as submitted in the packet.

I'll second it.

Wells I'm the motion passes unanimously.

All right, our first uh order of business is to review the and have possible action on revised E2 vehicle collision control and accident reporting policy.

Thank you.

Uh both of the policies that we are reviewing today um are being brought before you because the city was awarded a federal grant for the design of two pedestrian bridges over the Walkershaw bypass, and federal grants have certain requirements that we have to follow.

So the first policy, the E2 policy, the most significant change was the addition of the prohibited conduct and distracted unsafe driving language.

Um that was the standard requirement that we needed to add.

Plus, we added some additional information to ensure our staff make sure they are driving safely and attentively.

And then at the bottom, or the last section, we removed reference to preventable and non-preventable accidents because that determination is no longer going to be made by regular employees, those will be made by uh police staff if a ticket is is given or in things like that.

So those are the most significant changes for this policy.

Um are there any questions?

Well Marie Christine, then I'll do the wells.

Oh everybody, Matthews.

Thank you, Marquis.

The is this grant specifically for the city's discretion to use that, or is it going to 100% go towards the pedestrian bridges?

I can't speak to that part.

I just was told, hey, we need to update our policies.

So I don't have to I I like grants, but I also like grants and we have control over them.

Right.

I can't answer that, unfortunately.

Can you remind me does do HR policies affect police and fire as well?

Would they be including that bro?

Because I know they've got their own set of rules and right.

For the most part, they do.

Um, the only time that they typically don't is if there's a caveat that says with the exception of bargained, you know, staff or whatever, or let's say the CBA supersedes anything in the policy, but for the most part, yes.

Because I know that police and fire vehicles squads, especially tend to have a lot of hardware with screens.

Right, right.

And function, I don't know if there's a huge difference between a cell phone texting and your dispatch orders and your exactly.

And even with a situation like that, of course, that's not we wouldn't consider that distracted driving.

That's literally part of your job.

You literally have to have that to do your job.

So we wouldn't consider that as distracted.

Do we feel like we need to specify that?

Because I I would imagine PRF might have their own dispatch software.

They might say, you know, we could have policies that say don't use that.

But where do you draw the lines as far as like this is part of your job?

This is also part of your job, but you can't do all your driving or have the vehicle in motion.

That you as a committee can tell me what you want to do.

If that's what the committee wants me to do, I can add that language.

I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah, and I guess I wouldn't be prepared to make an edit without staff kind of giving us options or direction because I I don't know all the duties that I'm going to go.

Unless we just do a straight carve out for police and fire.

But I don't know that I want to completely exempt police and fire from this policy.

So what would you like to do?

Would it be something you guys could look into?

And if we need to further revise this policy, then let me let me tell you this.

So this policy will be revised.

Anyway, we we made pages and pages of revisions, and we even changed the policy name.

So when I sent this out, they were like, didn't we just make a bunch of changes to this last year?

And I was like, oh yeah, so right now, for the purposes of this, we have to have that language about distracted driving.

Um related to well, and again, you know, it this does not it specifically says text messaging, emailing, or manual data entry, and even in the police car, I would assume your partner might be doing the manual and data entry if there is any.

This is watching video streaming content or viewing visual media.

Again, we're from this perspective, it's it's related to social media and non-police cars and non, you know.

So, you know, if we want to put a simple caveat for now, that's fine because this is going to be presented again, probably in July once we finish the other items, but I did want to get this in front of you, so we're not Yeah, I'm comfortable with it as presented.

I think that that's just a good maybe next step forward, have that as an open question of absolutely do we need to add more?

We may not.

Sure.

But I'm comfortable with it as it's okay.

Thank you.

So this language is required in order for us to receive the grant or not forfeit the grant that we haven't decided if we're going to take or not yet.

It's my understanding yet.

I know that was discussion a few meetings ago, whether we do the surveys in the pedestrian bridge, but my question is is there an additional cost to this?

Is this just language being rewritten?

Or is this going to go through and is there a premium increase or is there a financial impact for us adding this?

No, not right now.

And like I said, because we're making such significant changes to the the policy, that may be an impact because that policy talks about uh points and tickets.

It's it's like a five or six page policy.

This in particular, this particular language, no, not at this time.

Okay, and this is no way indicative of us by doing this, we're accepting the grant and agreeing to do these capital improvement projects for the pedestrian bridges, correct?

Not at all.

It's just a requirement that if we decide to move forward, correct.

Thank you.

And it and we need it to update it anyway.

So some of these policies are more than 20 years old.

Alderman Christine.

Thank you.

To me, the it specifically says the rage uh the raise grant for two pedestrian bridges.

I talked to Alex last night about this, and they're going to most likely do one of the bridges and not the other ones.

And uh every opportunity I have, I will say I'm against these bridges and will stop them at all costs.

Okay, thank you.

So if we can separate this, I'm fine with the policy and everything Alderman Wells said, it needs to get updated as far as departments working with the departments and the technology use.

That is a great idea.

I don't want to waylay this, but I have to stay consistent with the pedestrian bridges.

I'm fine with updating the policy.

Um and I guess I could use Alderman uh um mentioned that the whole idea of basically you already answered that second part of that question, so I'll listen to what Alderman Wells has to say.

Yeah, I think it's just important to note that the agenda item is to update this policy regardless of what triggered it, and really this requirement is a requirement of a second federal money, and so if not for this project, something further down the road, we're gonna need to take federal money at some point for some project, and as far as the policy itself, like these are pretty standard no distract driving staff or cell phone law states the law.

Um we've personally with I uh coordinated law safety stuffer in my role, and really this is kind of boilerplate.

Don't bend your phone, put your cell phone down.

Um, we take a lot of calls over teams or over uh conference calls, and we've got the same or very similar policies here.

And also, I mean, if we taking the grant out, these like you said, these these changes needed to be made.

The grants just pushed me to get the changes in front of you sooner.

So acceptance of the grant in order to accept the grant, we have to make these changes, but if we make these changes, it doesn't mean we have to accept the grant.

Correct, 100%.

Okay, and and I just have a couple questions myself too, just uh curiosity.

Says an excellent driving record will be maintained.

What is excellent mean?

That was a question that came up.

So and that's why the the fuller policy has all been addressed.

Yes, it has like I said, points what's considered excellent once so all and again, I I do apologize for bringing you a partial partially updated policy, but my focus at the moment was to get that distracted driving language.

And then just and again, maybe this is addressing the larger policy, but the if I do happen to lose my license or deem my driving record not acceptable, um, there positions that require me to have a license, and if so, if I lose my license, am I able to work in a different position, or do I just lose my job?

That's a great question.

There are positions that require a CDL um garage and PRF in certain areas requires a CDL.

And um if a person even even with fire, you you know you have to have a license to, you know.

So if we find out that a person's license have been suspended or revoked or whatever the case may be, no, you can't do that function.

Now, if your entire job or the majority of your job uh requires you to drive, then yeah, it's possible you could lose your job.

We have never since I've been here, they that scenario.

A person lost their driver's license for maybe a month.

So we did not have that individual doing that portion of their job, and once they got their license back, so there was some mechanism.

Okay.

And then my my final question is the section six, the vehicle inspection.

Vehicle inspection, it says all vehicles will be inspected prior to use.

And throughout this policy, it differentiates between personal vehicles and city-owned vehicles, and the way it's written to me is all vehicles, whether it's my personal vehicle or a city-owned vehicle, shall be inspected prior to use.

And all vehicles need to be in repair and reported to.

I don't know if that matters, but it just I we can definitely pay attention to it because that language that you're referring to, we didn't touch it this time.

That's been there since 19 since 2004.

So we we haven't touched that part, but just down the road it says you know, any driver was in a right of way when operate a city-owned vehicle.

So it specifies city-owned vehicles in parts of the policy, but not consistently throughout it.

Right.

We will definitely make make be aware of that with the updated terms.

Alderman Christine.

Thank you.

One of my employers is the state of Wisconsin Department of Transportation, particularly uh motor carry enforcement uh in CDL.

It is federally mandated that uh whether you're off-duty or on duty.

If I get a equipment violation on my car, uh any type of infraction, I have to report that to my employer.

So hopefully that on your class A and your class B, you know, even the fire department, as much as they don't like it, it is a commercial vehicle.

Right.

And that's that's actually how we shouldn't be saying this in open session.

Well, I'm not giving a name, but that is actually how we found out that one person had lost their license because we run a check through a system called PARS.

And they were like, Oh, I didn't know, whatever, whatever.

But yeah, we we we do find out not necessarily from people telling us.

Yeah, they need uh CDLs, even though they'll say they don't, but they do.

But that's not part of this.

But I just want to make sure that's written there as well, and I'm glad you pointed that out.

Thank you.

Uh we have a question from Alderman Tri Van Tyresti.

Thank you.

Uh Chair.

Um if you get your license revoked, they they do offer uh uh the ability to pursue uh uh to work and from work.

And within within that limitation, would that uh individual that's employed by the city of Waukesha also have the ability to use WA City Waukesha vehicles in their employment, you know, so they got revoked.

Uh the uh they uh sought uh through the court uh a permit uh driving permit so they could get to work and from work, but within that uh time frame when they're here working, would they uh have to uh uh have any kind of special privileges or something?

And I speak to that because we haven't experienced that that if something like that were to come up, we would definitely have to look into it and find out what those stipulations are and go by those guidelines.

I I can actually answer that.

I do work for the Department of Transportation.

Um the license is not valid for that person unless they specify the hours, so they could drive during the work day, but they would have to use part of their 60 hours a week as an entire eight-hour day in order to legally drive during that time.

All right, thank you.

So it'd be up to them to choose their hours as part of their probation or um occupational license.

I'll make a motion to approve as written.

Okay.

Fantastic.

Matthew's aye.

Motion passes three to one.

All right.

Our next item is review and possible action on revised HR policy G7 drug and alcohol free workplace.

For this one again, similar situation where we wanted to use language specific from the um drug-free workplace act.

So literally taking that language and also adding language about alcohol because there was no reference to alcohol usage in the workplace.

So those are the uh primary changes um to this policy and updating the resources because this policy hadn't been updated since 1999 as some of the resources listed.

Either the phone numbers have changed or there is a different method uh for contacting them.

So that's what's been updated.

Any questions?

This went through uh Brian's department.

I'm sure I just want to make sure that they both did.

Okay, thank you.

Under the city personnel policies, that does outline what the um disciplinary actions are and to up to termination, and that that's specified in there.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And I guess I just have a question based on what you just said.

Um why mention specific resources at all in the policy if they are open to change instead of um resources are available.

Contact your supervisor or whatever.

I mean, right.

The the the upside to listing the resources is they're there.

Um the downside of to not listing them or or their their supervisor may say, well, I'm not sure, do some research.

You know, this list is not all inclusive, of course, but you know, uh for the most part they're the same, like I said, different processes um have changed since 1999, of course, but I I it was there, I didn't I didn't have an issue with keeping some resources there.

I mean just out of curious, I mean how many times has it changed between now and 1999 that what was in the original policy was irrelevant or obsolete for eight years.

But in the original policy, that's actually how I found an updated information.

So it it although it might have changed, it still directed me to their appropriate tools.

Yes, two comments.

I think that it's great to have this kind of information in the policy.

If you're someone who has an issue, you may not feel comfortable bringing something personal like this to your supervisor.

Um these are accessible to all employees.

I think it's great to have that information in there that you can get that without having to ask for it.

You can you know it's there.

I also think that we should probably be looking at these policies more often than every 25 years.

And honestly, so if they do change, you're right, and for the most part, we have touched the majority of them at least once in the seven years I've been here.

Some we've touched two or three times.

Um these two, I I don't know why, because we've touched them but never brought them before the committees, and I I can't honestly say why, because they are important.

We just well, I am noting that the the phone number isn't struck through, so I'm guessing the phone number didn't change, or else we would have on the red line copy at 262.

That's correct.

Yeah.

52479.

Yes.

So the organization is has changed its name, but the phone number is still correct.

So that's what I mean.

This the information in here led me to whatever updates were made, so yes.

So I'll make a motion to approve as written.

Matthew's aye.

Motion passes unanimously four zero.

And that's all we have.

Any objection to adjourning?

Thanks.

We're adjourned.

This is your first.