HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/1991 B A K E R S F I E L D
Lynn Edwards, Chair
Patricia J. DeMond
Mark Salvaggio
Staff: Maureen Cotner
AGENDA
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
MEETING
Monday, September 23, 1991
4:30 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. Selection of Survey Cities/Compensation Study
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION AND. cOMPENSATION STUDy
MEET AND CONFER:
DESIGNATED SURVEY CITIES
September 19, 1991
S.E.I.U.
1. Municipalities:
The same' cities should be used for all employee groups. The City has always
used one list of survey cities, and we haven't had any problems in the past.
..... Validation to the local labor market would be achieved with survey of local
agencies and private sector organizations.
2. Public Sector Orqanizations:
Delete County of Tulare
Include State Department of Corrections
3. Private Sector Orqanizations:
Delete 2 of 3 hospitals
Delete 2 of 3 oil companies
Some of the organizations listed may, as a policy, not provide compensation data
which is verifiable. This is~a concern not only for the validity of the information.
gathered, but also poses problems in maintenance of our salary structure.
Recommend inclusion of other private sector employers (PG&E, CalWater;
pacBell, Santa Fe' Rail Road) whose salary data may be more verifiable.
General 'Supervisory
1. ~ The same cities'should be used for all employee groups. The City of Bakersfield
has done so in the past, and this past practice has always been accepted.
2. Consolidate hospitals and oil companies from three to one each.
Add additional significant private sector employers, such as PG&E, CalWater and
Santa Fe Railroad.
2
CONSULTANT SELECTION: COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION AND
COMPENSATION STUDY
Methodology of compensation analysis
Content and organization of study instruments
Proposed degree of employee participation (i.e., employee orientations,.'
survey~, interviews)
Consultants commuIli~tion style
Information provided in each proposal was studied by the panel, including an
evaluation of the proposed bids; the bids proposed were as follows:
Becket and Bell $ 88,500.
Comp Plus $102,255.
Personnel Asso~tes $106,000. + expenses
Ralph Anderson and Associates $ 95,000.
Reward Str2tegy Group $ 88,000.
Shannon and Associates $ 90,625. + expenses = $104,900.
The over2Jl evaluation 'of each consultant was based on content of each proposal,
~esponses to questions directed to consultants during the inter~iew and ~elevant
comparable cost infoFmation. Combined scoring by the panel resulted in the
following ranking:
1. Reward Strategy Group
2. Comp Plus
3. Ralph Anderson
RecommendatiOn:
The interview panel is rscommending that the top ~ candidates be considel-ed by
the Personnel Committee, andis providing the Committee copies of the pl~posais,for
these three firms, at their 'meeting of July 22, 1991. The Personnel Comngttee may
wish an opportunity to inter,flew consultants of these three firms. Staff ~equests.
that the Committee make a selection recommendation to the full Citer Council on
July 31, 1991.
MC/kef
Attachments: Interview questions
Proposals
MEMO\HAI~'LEY\HAWLEY. 21