1986 CC ADJ MIN FEB 13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

149 the recommendation is to approve the Classification Plan, in principle, subject to the Appeal Procedure to be held on February 25, and then back to the Council after the Appeal Procedure. Mr. Meith, San Bernardino Public Employees' Association,, said he dis- agrees with the ,proposed Appeal Procedure; the employees do not feel the Appeal Procedure is one that gives the City Council an objective' view of the Ralph Anderson Plan recommendations versus what the employees appeal- ing feel are appropriate for their classifications; this cannot be done objectively by the City Manager; the City Manager has had considerable input into this study already; appeals going to the Civil Service Board, is consistent with standard practices in other cities in labor relations areas; then that recommendation coming to the Council is an unbiased view from a third party; the study has been delayed considerably, they were not invited to be as involved as was agreed to in the original proposal, they did not have the key meetings; and now, to have the end result ram- roded through an appeals process, is not in the best interest of the employees or the City Council. Councilwoman Cisneros stated she felt the Council should take this presentation into consideration; that perhaps, it should go to the Civil Service Board. O (D Councilman Rios asked Mr. Meith other than the Civil Service LD Board, do they have any other concerns? 0 Mr. Meith responded no, the change in dates, the filing of briefs, a) etc. do not cause a problem. They simply feel the appeals should go Q through the Civil Service Board. They have many problems with the Classification Study, but that's why the Appeal Procedure. Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Rios, to include in the Appeal Process that the appeal be made to the Civil Service Board. Councilwoman Garcia asked if this motion is only to take the Appeals to the Civil Service Board. Councilwoman Cisneros noded in assent. Motion unanimously passed. City Manager Elliott stated that he probably could not get this to the Board until March, as it has one meeting scheduled for neat week and one other meeting scheduled. Management and Organizational Review City Manager Elliott stated these are the items that were not dis- cussed at the last Council Meeting, but carried over to tonight. City Manager Elliott read his Staff Report dated January 30, 1986, prepared for the Council Meeting of February 4, 1986, entitled "Organization and Management Review". Mr. Elliott's report includes staff's recommendations based on the Anderson & Associates Study. Mr. Meith said his only concern with this study is where it affects the employees; the recommendation before Council tonight is what was in the "Organization and Management Review Implementation Plan"; recommenda- tions within the body of Plan were not included in the final listing of recommendations. Mr. Meith asked what rationale was used to decide that one recommendation would be in the report and not in the list for imple- mentation. Mr. Meith gave examples of areas where, in his opinion, inconsistencies are found. Mr. Clay Brown of Anderson & Associates, said in some instances imple- mentation is a matter of timing. The City currently has some acting pos- itions and it is their recommendation that these acting positions be filled with permanent personnel; therefore other recommendations within those certain departments, the responsibility for implementation, would fall on the new personnel; they could not anti cipate the Council's action, therefore, the Management and Organization Study might reflect a certain reporting authority, which would not be reflected in the Class - FEB 13 1986