Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2000 BAKERSFIELD Mike Maggard, Chair Irma~Carson Mark Salvaggio Staff: Alan Christensen SECOND AMENDED SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Thursday, August 3, 2000 11:00 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT DECEMBER 20, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON MANAGEMENT SALARY sURVEY - Tandy 5. NEW BUSINESS A. UPDATE OF HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN RENEWALS B. DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON INSPECTOR SERIES STUDY REPORT C. DISCUSSION 'REGARDING ENHANCED PERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS 6. ADJOURNMENT Amended August 1, 2000 AC:al DRAFT B A K ER S F IE L D ~' Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard, Chair Staff: Alan Christensen Irma Carson Mark Salvaggio AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Monday, December 20, 1999 1:30 p.m. or. closely thereafter City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order 1:35 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Irma Carson and Mark Salvaggio 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 26, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. STATUS REPORT ON MANAGEMENT SALARY SURVEY Alan Christensen stated that at the last Committee meeting on October 26th, the Personnel Committee approved moving forward with a salary survey for the Management Unit only, as the Supervisory Group had opted out of the study. Since that time, the management salary team met and worked through the subtle nuisances of the survey and summary wording of the job descriptions. On November 19th after everyone involved on the committee seemed satisfied with the survey as it was drafted, it was sent out to the survey cities with a request from the City Manager that it be. given priority. A deadline of December 30th was set for the cities to return the survey information. Committee member Carson asked where the surveys were sent and if the 19 Management positions that received the increase were being surveyed? Alan Christensen stated that it went to the 10 salary survey cities that we use during labor negotiations. All Management positions were included in the survey, as directed by the Personnel Committee. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ;..~.. December 20, 1999 Page -2- Scott Manzer stated that when the survey was first drafted, he sent out each of the job descriptions to the 19 Management employees and they came back with suggestions and for the few that didn't, follow-up phone calls were made. Positive responses were received and almost verbatim the suggestions were incorporated in the final survey that was eventually mailed out. Committee member Carson stated some concerns about whether we are being fair to all employees by doing a selective survey. She is troubled by the fact that some are not included and will feel left out somehow and she also asked about ratios. Alan Christensen stated that one of the questions included on the survey was: "Do you have a guideline or a policy whether formal or informal which stipulates either a percentage or a differential between supervisory and subordinate, and if so please provide that information." Alan Tandy responded to the fairness issue. Should there be some benefit that passes through to Management employees as a result of the survey, it is likely we could get a request from Supervisory, who may reconsider their position, and the Committee could choose whether to honor that or not. Committee Chair. Maggard inquired if the results of the survey show the need for changes, what the timing would be for making those changes and how that coincides with when the contracts come up next? Would the timing be such that we should just wait until the contracts come up, so that somebody doesn't feel like something changed in the middle of the game? Alan Tandy stated that Management employees are not covered by a contract, but there are contracts for the employees they supervise. Regarding timing, for the instances where certain positions do not have as many comparisons or there may be questions because of differences in job descriptions, we will use the committee p¢ocess to go through those kinds of issues and sort through any data that might not be accurate or consistent. Next will be to look at the positions in comparison to the overview data that accompanied the recommendation to do the survey, and then see if individual positions or collectively the positions fall below the 7% 'to 12% benchmark and come back with the information and a recommendation based upon that information. Staff would probably start with a position that if we need to do something, it should probably be done and not delayed pending completion of labor negotiations. Each year there are 10 to 30 requests for reclassifications. Perhaps job duties have changed or shifted and Human Resources does a study after adoption of the budget. Some requests result in action being taken while others prove not to merit action. Committee member Salvaggio asked about the position of Director of Recreation and Parks. Alan Tandy said that position is included in the survey and it is likely that will be one that shows up on the survey as needing action. Chuck Waide asked if changes to the job descriptions are anticipated upon completion of the salary survey data, if those would be going to the Civil Service Board? Alan Christensen responded that the job descriptions he was referring to were not the legal ones we use, but were summarized job descriptions to make the survey simple enough that the survey cities' human resources departments could review easily. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PERSONNEL COMMITTEE December 20, 1999 Page -3- There being no further comments, the Committee voted to adjoum. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council AC:jp Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Chdstensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Risk Manager Scott Manzer; and Fire Chief Ron'Fraze. Others present~ Chuck Waide, S.E.I.U. S:V~C\PersonnelCom\122099minutes.wpd BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 21, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND.CITY CO/LJ~ICILM~_~BERS FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SALARY SURVEY Attached is the recommendation that will go to the Personnel Committee on the salary survey. It recommends adjustments to seven position classifications, ranging from an adjustment of 10.4% on the high end to .9% on the Iow end. This is as close to consensus as we believe it is possible to achieve. A more accurate term than consensus might be "peaceful solution", because consensus would be overstated. The process has gone very slowly, because multiple efforts have been made to look at employee concerns and to address them, where possible. The recommendations reflect multiple changes in the original list, as derived from raw survey data. Some adjustments were made, because of inappropriate (or perceived to be) job comparisons within the sample. This report only deals with those positions that did not receive the initial 5% increase. Some employees' philosophies on the survey were incompatible with one another. For example, some believe all should receive 5%. Others believe no one should receive over 5%, irrespective of the data. Still, others believe the data should be implemented literally. Literal implementation of the data, however, in at least one case, would have put a subordinate's salary above that of his department head's. These go on and on. One thing needs to be made totally clear. This was a market survey to determine the appropriate market range of salaries for a position classification. Some of our very best, most responsive, customer service oriented people did not even "pop up" on the survey. If it were a merit program, that would be different. No one should construe the failure of a position title to appear on the list as any form of negative reflection on that position. It identifies market norms - that is all. The end result of the process is that, if adopted, seven more positions get some salary adjustment who did not before. AT:rs Salary Survey Results Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks 10.4% .. City Treasurer 8.2% City Clerk 8.2% Assistant to the City Manager 5.2% Risk Manager 5.0% Communications Coordinator 5.0% Community Development Coordinator 0.9% P:~,LAN\Salary Survey Results.wpd July 14, 2000 (1:48PM) B A K E R S F I E LI~ MEMORANDUM July 26, 2000 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER, ,,iV FROM: CARROLL HAYDEN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER SUBJECT: MANAGEMENT SALARY SURVEY The Personnel Committee at a special meeting on October 26, 1999, directed staff`to proceed with a salary survey of all management positions, as outlined in the attached document entitled "Salary Survey - Comparable Cities", dated 10/15/99, deleting any reference to supervisory employees. Part of the direction was for a survey comm~tee to be formed, which would be comprised of two management employees, Darnell Haynes, Assistant to the City Manager, Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager and myself. The final committee composition was Darnell Haynes, Scott Manzer, Pam McCarthy, Dennis Fiddler, Alan Christensen, two Human Resources Supervisors - Anthony Gonzales and Janet McCrea, as well as myself. A questionnaire was developed to survey all 50 management positions, which included a concise description of each position and the salary range associated with that position. This questionnaire P:\Salary Survey Transmittal Doc.wpd was reviewed by the Salary Committ'be and the management employee representatives reviewed the questionnaire with the group they represented. The questionnaire was also presented at a department head meeting, where input on position descriptions was requested. All changes requested by anyone were incorporated. This amended survey was then distributed to our survey cities on November 19, 1999, with a request that it be returned 't>y December 30, 1999. All survey results were finally returned by mid-January, 2000. At that time, H R staff compiled a list of questions, concerns and comments on the data submitted. This information, along with the survey data, was shared with the Salary Committee. The Management representatives, in turn, shared all of the information with their group, seeking questions or concerns. The information was additionally shared with the Department Heads, seeking the same information. All information received was noted and then follow-up clarifying calls were made to each of the Cities where questions existed. As information was received and the data changed, it was reviewed with the Salary Committee. The final survey results were shared with everyone, through their respective groups. While the survey found 11 management positions to be paid less than 7% below the survey average, for the purpose of salary change recommendations to the Personnel Committee at this time, I am only recommending changes to 7 of those positions. Those 7 positions fall within the group of management employees who did not receive the 5% adjustment in 1999. The remaining 4 positions will be addressed at a later time; some, such as the Director of Recreation and Parks, almost immediately, due to compaction issues. P:\Salary Survey Transmittal Doc.wpd~ The survey results and my recommendations for the 7 positions being addressed at this time are attached. After spending so much staff and committee time on this survey, I am sorry that more positions couldn't be recommended for an increase, however, the survey results simply do not support any others being addressed. On the positive side, it should be affirming knowledge to our management employees that despite Bakersfield having an average cost of living 28% below our survey cities, our salaries are very competitive. p:\Salary Survey Transmittal Doc.wpd