Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1999 B.A K E R S F I E L D Alan/-~and~, City Manager Mike Maggard, Chair Staff: Alan Christensen Irma Carson Mark Salvaggio AGEN DA SUM MARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 26, 1999 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order 4:10 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Irma Carson and Mark Salvaggio 2.ADOPT OCTOBER 4, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORTS Adopted as submitted. 3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY PHYSICIAN CONTRACT Human Resources Manager Carroll Hayden stated that at the last Committee meeting on October 4th renewal rates were presented to the Committee but at that time the Insurance Committee had not made their recommendations. Since that time, the Insurance Committee has met with staff and have made the following rec,ommendations: 1) that the rate increases for 2000 as presented by Buck Consultants be approved and go to Council for implementation; · 2) that the Insurance Committee meet in future months to examine if there is anything that~can be done for the retirees for the year 2001; and 3) that a plan modification be made to drop the~ pooling rate from $200,000 to $75,000· The Insurance Committee is a meet and confer group with voting representatives from all the bargaining groups and a retiree representative to give input on retiree concerns. Mark Orzechowski from Buck Consultants explained that the pooling rate represents on a calendar year basis the maximum amount of claims that can be charged to the plan per individual· Currently it is $200,000 and Buck Consultants is recommending that it come down ADOPTED AS StlBMITTED ON DECEMBER ~, 1999 FILl AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PERSONNEL COMMITTEE October 26, 1999 Page -2- to $75,000. Dropping the pooling rate will .provide substantial savings primarily on the retirees and in the longer term it provides protection to the City's program against larger claim activities. This is "blind" to the insured employee or retiree as it only affects the pooling rate as it is a . reinsurance vehicle between the City and Blue Cross. For an individual getting care, there is no impact. Ms. Hayden handed out charts showing the rate increases for active employees and retirees (attached). The retirees get subsidies based on years of service, so the rates shown may not be the rate the retiree actually is charged. Charts were handed out showing what the subsidies would be based on different years of service (attached). The retiree increases that are on the chart are not necessarily what their costs would be. All of the retirees get a subsidy based on years of service. This is recalculated every time there is a rate change because it's based on the total lowest HMO single rate. For plan year 2000, that unit calculates out to be 4.7057. So if a retiree has 30 years of service, it would be 30 years times 4.7057 for a total years of service subsidy of $141.17 for the year. In addition to the years of service subsidy, retirees that are in the PP© Plan also currently receive 42% of the PPO premium as a subsidy. So for the year 2000 using the single person rate, a participating retiree in the PPO Plan gets an additional monthly subsidy of $213.57 plus the years of service subsidy. The Committee discussed assistance or someone to act as an advocate for those who have an ongoing illness or condition and are in the PP© Plan and feel uncomfortable switching to an HMO although economically need to change. Ms. Hayden stated that at the open enrollment there are physicians available for individuals to talk with just for that purpose. After discussion, the Committee unanimously approved the recommendations made by the Insurance Committee and recommended the 2000 health care agreements be forwarded to the Council for approval. B. DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON SALARY STUDY/REFERRAL City Manager Alan Tandy stated that at the August 19th Committee meeting there was a diversity of input from employees regarding pay increases and possible salary surveys. After that meeting, staff began to have sessions with the Supervisory Group and the employees from the Management Group who were not a recipient of the 5 percent pay adjustment to discuss the various issues and concerns they had. The end conclusion from discussions with the Supervisory Group (memo attached from Rhonda Bamhard and Mike Conner) was that after a close vote, the majority of that group preferred not to be included in a salary study or wage comparison. Other things were discussed that came from the Committee meeting such as an internal look at wage compaction but nothing evolved in terms of a concrete proposal. Staff is suggesting that the Committee honor the majority wishes of that group. Mr. Tandy passed out a handout called "Salary Survey - Comparable Cities" (attached) that evolved from meetings with Management personnel who were not recipients of the 5 percent wage adjustment. It is an outline of how a questionnaire would be distributed, evaluated, and AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT- PERSONNEL COMMITTEE October 26, 1999 Page -3- reviewed. The majority did opt to have a salary survey done with comparable cities under the general terms and conditions of this outline. The only change in the outline is that General Supervisory will be excluded. The survey would be sent to the same cities that are used in our union negotiations for a basic comparison. Item No. 4 on the outline is significant. For many years the City has used as our "market" in our union negotiations a discussion that we stdve to be within 7% to 12% below the 10-city average that we use as a survey class because Bakersfield has a lower cost of living average than the other survey cities. We have compared that goal to our current union contracts and the current union employees fall within those ranges. Generally, if the survey results show that we are within 7% to 12% below the survey average, it would indicate nothing needs to be done. If positions fall below that range, it would indicate that we need to make an adjustment to get within that range. After the data is reviewed, there would be a committee involving those impacted as there might be occasions when the data might not be comparable. For example, you might have a circumstance where most city water departments are domestic water supply departments, while ours is partially that but heavily agricultural water. So, we might have a water superintendent in another city who has an entirely different job from our water superintendent, so that committee would look at issues of that kind to determine if the data is. accurate and would be involved in the evaluative process. A huge issue with employees is a concern that somehow this would be a punitive process and people would be Y-rated or their positions would be harmed as a result of this survey. Item 8 should be shared and understood with this Committee because what staff, if the Personnel Committee votes to proceed with the survey, are promising is that there is no intent to harm any individual, so staff wants this stated for the record. If we found a position to be significantly over market, the only action that would be taken would be to tag the position and when the position becomes vacant, we would go through a re-grade, but we wouldn't damage any individuals who currently occupy positions. This is an important issue with the employees. It is in essence a promise of how we will conduct, evaluate and implement any study results. Item 9 is an issue that Councilmember Carson raised, which is to see if there are any practices in cities that have set, locked-in amounts between ranks of supervision. We will attempt to sort that out as a subset of the study from the information gathered. Item 11, attached to the outline, is a late addition because of concerns from employees from the Management Group that received the pay adjustment. Again, it is a statement of intent by staff that if this Committee adopts this document, that there would be nothing punitive in this for individuals or the group itself. In essence, we wouldn't give management employees a lower cost of living adjustment than we give general employees in a future year because we found out that they were at the survey norm, for example. Again, we interpret that as "harming individuals" and wanted to state that is not the intent of the survey. This is a reassurance that helps make those management positions, which are included in the survey, more comfortable with what's to take place. There is not complete harmony on this issue. Increases will be given only to those in the study found to be under the norm and it will not be given to anyone in the study that is compensated within the norm. Clarification was provided by Carroll Hayden regarding two issues in Item 8. First, in the case of multiple incumbent classifications, if the salary study showed a classification needed to be AGENDA SUMMARY REPO PERSONNEL COMMITTEE October 26, 1999 Page -4- adjusted down, then any new hires would come in at the new lower wage. The existing incumbents would remain at the old wage until the position came open. Second, if the study indicated that most positions should be increased and an overall wage increase was recommended, then only those ~ositions that are below the 7% to 12% range would qualify for the salary increase. Committee member Salvagg~o asked the status of any action on an internal study only. Mr. Tandy responded that advocates of the internal study concept were invited to submit details of what they recommended it consist of m stating the fact that it would have to be based on something objective showing that a problem exists. Staff never did get a proposal that articulated how an internal comparison would be made that could be measured on an objective basis. Staff did go back 10 years to look at compaction issues to see if anything was provided to represented employees that was not passed on to Supervisory and Management and nothing was found other than the implementation of the RSG Study, which did that. That was one internal look and we invited individuals to check our data. Committee member Carson stated concerns regarding the restrictions being placed on Councilmembers and that she could not support any study that placed restrictions on Councilmembers in reviewing data before the study is done and the results of that study are reviewed. Ms. Carson stated that she thought that based on the concerns the Committee heard from all the groups, that we would do a study of all groups and the ratios between the ranks, because those that did not get the raise'were very much concerned. Putting restrictions on before the data is gathered is not acceptable. She wants to be fair to all the groups and cannot support a survey for just one group because that does not provide parity for all employees. A salary study is a positive tool and it's hard to understand why there is apprehension or fear from employees. Mr. Tandy responded that past circumstances here, and probably the most pronounced is the RSG Study in 1991, have made the subject of this kind of wage survey a very sensitive, controversial issue with employees. Employees believe that it was punitive, was not objectively done, and are concerned that some of the elements of that might be brought forward on a new survey, even though this is completely different in terms of who is doing it and the origins of why it is being done. Committee Chair Maggard asked what the implications are regarding employees that ha've a negotiated contract and giving compensation adjustments to those not covered by a contract. Mr. Tandy explained that we go through an extensive collective bargaining processes with the represented groups with great focus on many points, such as general compensation and benefits in considerable detail, sometimes taking as long as six months to a year. VVhile we have discussions with Management and Supervisory employees over time, traditionally those employees have gotten the cost of living adjustment that the collective bargaining groups negotiate for the represented employees and if there is some specific benefit pertinent .to them that the collective bargaining units negotiated, then that is generally passed on in the resolution, also. Committee member Salvaggio spoke regarding his concerns that having already given the raise to part of Management that it has been divisive, there have been impacts and may not have been a good decision, but it was done to correct the compaction problem. He stated that he AGENDA SUMMARY REPO PERSONNEL COMMITTEE October 26, 1999 Page -5- is going to honor the decisions of the employee groups and with respect to the Supervisory Group, they have voted that they do not want to be a part of the survey. Committee member Carson reiterated that she does not like the restrictions being placed on Councilmembers and a survey should be of all classifications or not at all because a survey is not relative if it is not inclusive, and it does not solve the compaction problem. The survey should be information for the Council to make decisions based on comparisons. Committee Chair Maggard stated that perhaps a survey of all positions should have been done before making a decision on who should have raises, as it has caused the Management Group to be divided because they were treated differently. But, because that was not done, he agrees with Ms. Carson that the Committee is in a position of having to make a decision in kind of a void. After discussion of all the options, Committee Chair Maggard made a motion that the Committee proceed with staff's recommendations in the outline and do a survey for all Management positions and perhaps when it is concluded, the Supervisory Group will be encouraged to have a survey. A vote was taken: Committee Chair Maggard (aye), Committee' member Salvaggio (aye) and Committee member Carson (nay). The motion carried with a split vote of 2 to 1. Committee Chair Maggard and Committee member Salvaggio agreed to directed staff to proceed with the study as voted on above and if any recommendations evolve from the management study, the recommendations be sent to the full Council for their approval. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council AC:jp Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Aian Christensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Human Resources'Manager Carroll Hayden; Finance Director Gregory Klimko; Scott Manzer, Risk Manager; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Thomson; Deputy Fire Chief Gary Hutton; Assistant City Attorney Alan Daniel; Building Director Dennis Fidler; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; Assistant City Clerk Rhonda Barnhard; Human Resources Supervisor Janet McCrea; Human Resources Supervisor Anthony Gonzales; and Benefits Technician Ginger Rubin. Others present: Tim Beck and Mark Orzechowski, Buck Consultants; Margaret Ursin; Jim Caesar; Kirk Davis; Harry Scott; and Nick Moyer. S:~C\PersonnelCom\102699minutes.wpd