HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10162007 - SD.1 SD.1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date October 16, 2007 Matter of Record
On this date, Mary N. Piepho, Chair of the Board of Supervisors, invited the public to speak.
The following persons spoke:
• Gloria Rios, Pleasant Hill resident, IHSS Worker, spoke about cost of living increases
and gave the Board food price comparisons over six month time period..
o Daniel Villasenor, Concord resident, questioned a$1.6 million IHSS deficit, Mr. Cullen
to provide report.
Mary Harms, Clayton resident, IHSS Worker, asking for better contract options.
The following persons submitted comment via County electronic mail:
• Julia Bonacich, Pleasant Hill resident, concerned about mental health job classifications
being changing.
• Lynda Ferguson, Walnut Creek resident, concerned the County has no `dual diagnosis
treatment center' and asks not to downgrade assessment worker in Emergency Room at
Contra Costa Regional Medical Center.
The following comments were submitted in opposition of Item C.30, October 9, 2007 Board of
Supervisors meeting, but were received after the deadline, therefore will be recorded October 16,
2007 minutes.
• Anonymous County employee of almost 20 years wrote questioning changes in the
Human Resources Department (HRD) and states how the system does not work.
• Anonymous County employee wrote newly created HRD positions make a mockery of
the merit system and should not be tolerated.
• Anonymous County employee wrote questioning whether HRD is following established
processes, rules and regulations.
• Anonymous County employee does not feel HRD is following policy and procedures.
• Anonymous County employee wrote HRD is manipulating the merit system and feels
current practices are dishonest and downright unfair.
• Anonymous County employee feels HRD is not upholding the Merit System rules and
regulations.
• Anonymous County employee states HRD action has completely discouraged respect of
fairness to the "merit" system.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN
RE,QUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on A ends Item #
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My conunents will be: El Genera
Personal information is optional. This speakers card will be
incotliorated into the public record of this meeting. I� rot•
Name(PRINT): 61✓iZl eq S ❑ Against
7o ensure your name is announced carectty,you nnav want to include its phonetic spelling
I wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: Z S07 .fie l —� ����
` Li► -ble'Lle-- /�D/�
City:
lR n i 9
Phone:
I ani speaking for: Myself
❑ Organization: ❑ Ido not want to speak but would like to
leave continents for the Board to consider
(Use the back of this form)
-- -COST Or 1SA.f1G &00;)S s92C /�1 G2CA1,'-✓�, ��v
X/o. "7oc/2� 1-)AfZ
f, ✓r.e Q�c� c✓EGk� �.
�s
Information for Sneakers: In lieu of speaking, I wish to submit these comments:
1. Deposit this form into the upright box next to the
speaker's podium before the Board's consideration of
your item
.2. Wait to be called by the chair. Please speak into the
microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and your city or area of
residence,and whether you are speaking for yourself or
on behalf of an organization.
4. if you have handout materials, give thein to the Clerk. '
5. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the time allocated to speakers so
that all may be heard..
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Ag entla 1 em
Complete this,form and place it in the upright box near the Date: 7V
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: E❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. For
Name(PRINT): I r Q ❑ Against
To ensure yortr•mm�e is mmounced correctly,you MAY want to include its phonetic spelling
I wi i to speak on the subject of:
Address: V
City: L o n e.(Dzd
Phone:
1 ain speaking for: ❑ Myself
�I 1 ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
Organization: �il I�t'L J leave conmients for the Board to consider
�� (Use the back of this form)
Information for.Speakem
In lieu of speaking, I swish to submit these comments:
1. Deposit this form into the upright box next to the
speaker's podium before the Board's consideration of
your item
2. Wait to be called by the chair. Please speak into the
microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and your city or area of
residence,and whether you are speaking for yourself or
on behalf of an organization.
4. If you have handout materials, give them to the Clerk.
5. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers.
6. Chair may limit the time allocated to speakers so that
all may be heard.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda It
Complete this fonn and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My conunents will be:. El eral
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card tivill be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ,K( For
Nance (PRIM'): aen �k�_S'
❑ Against
To ensure your narne is arirrourced correctly,you may want to include its phonetic spelling
I wish to speak on the subject of.
Address: �-
city:
Phone:
I ani speaking for: ❑ Myself
l Organization: ❑ - I do not want to speak but would like to
leave conunents for the Board to consider
(Use the back of dus form)
Information for Sneakers: In lieu of speaking, I wish to submit these comments:
1. Deposit this form into the upright box next to the
speaker's podium before tl►e Board's consideration of
your iteul
2. Wait to be called by the chair. Please speak into the
microphone at the podiu►n.
3. Begin by stating your name and your city or area of
residence, and whether you are speaking for yourself or
on behalf of an organization.
4. If you have handout materials, give them to the Clerk.
5. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the bine allocated to speakers so
that all may be heard.
J /
"Julia Bonacich" To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
^+ <julbon@hotmail.com> cc:
10/15/2007 10:02 AM Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
Please respond to"Julia
Bonacich"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Julia Bonacich
Address of sender: 227 Douglas Lane Pleasant Hill
Phone of sender: (925). 944-1218
Email of sender: julbon@hotmail.com
Agenda Date: 10/16/07
Agenda Iteml:
Agenda Item2: D.1
------------------------- COMMENTS ------------------------
As a parent of a mental health client, as an educator for Nami, as an informed
advocate for mental health, as a supporter of the mentally ill, I strongly
feel itis not to the advantage of those in a mental health crisis at The
Regional Hospital in Martinez to be assessed by mental health clients who are
not experienced and trained to be in that role: Not only will the situation be
too stressful for the mental health client assessors, but only the most
credentialed, experienced assessors should fill such a role. To want to save
money by this means, will no doubt cost the county MORE IN THE LONG RUN.
It is already not acceptable that we have lost over 20 beds at the county
mental health facility, which has caused our loved ones to be at risk in the
very place where they should be safest, but to have mental health clients
deciding who gets mental health crises help and who does not, is not only the
height of folly, but is rediculous and irresponsible.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Lynda Ferguson" To: comments@ cob.cccounty.us
<LFerguson6@yahoo.c cc:
R om> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
10/16/2007 04:00 AM
Please respond to
"Lynda Ferguson"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca..us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Lynda Ferguson
Address of sender: 1441 Creekside Dr #1080, WC
Phone of sender: 925-285-7242
Email of sender: LFerguson6@yahoo.com .
Agenda Date: 10/16/07
Agenda Iteml:
Agenda Item2: D.1
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
Dear Supervisors,
I am a parent of. a Bipolar (with dual diagnosis)adult - age 24. WE, AT
PRESENT, HAVE NO DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OUR COUNTY. Sometimes
we need to come to the emergency room of CC County in Martinez for Mental
Health help.
I am extremely concerned that Miles Kramer, the Director of Mental Health
Services is proposing that the INTAKE ASSESSMENT WORKER IN THE ER a position
to be filled by someone who is less trained and less professionally able to
step up to the task to assess our children.
The ER environment is challenging and highly charged at times - and this
person would be in a position to evaluate the help our loved ones receive. WE
NEED COMPETENT, COMPASSIONATE AND FULLY TRAINED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS in
all areas.
Respectfully,
Lynda Ferguson
Walnut Creek resident
------------------------------------------------------------
I
These e-mail comments (attached) were received by the office of the Clerk of the Board
on the following October 9, 2007 agenda item:
C.30 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 2042, to reallocate the
Human Resources Department class of Human Resources Analyst I1
(unrepresented) on the Salary Schedule and transfer positions and incumbents
to the class of Human Resources Consultant (unrepresented); reclassify two
Management Analyst III (unrepresented) positions to Senior Human
Resources Consultant (unrepresented); cancel three Management Analyst III
positions; and abolish the classes of Human Resources Analyst I
(unrepresented) and Human Resources Analyst II. (Cost offset by funded
vacant positions) (All Districts)
Since these comments did not arrive in time to be incorporated into the October 9
meeting, they will be included in the minutes as public comment.receiv.-H f--+� -
October 16, 2007 meeting.
&"` D
f 1
I`
I
"None To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
' +
<None@ contra.na pane cc:
t.net> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
10/09/2007 01:10 PM
Please respond to"None .
This message was sent from:
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: None
Address of sender: None
Phone of sender: None
Email of sender: None
Agenda Date: 10/09/07
Agenda Iteml: C.30
Agenda Item2 :
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
It is absolutely unconscionable that the Human Resources Dept. is reallocating
their analysts into new positions, with the Management Analyst III incumbents
receiving a $589 per month raise for no additional work. Why are they
receiving a raise? If they are experiencing retention issues, it's certainly
not due to the salary - it's due to the environment. Two of their analysts
left the department - one after 20 years - and took VOLUNTARY DEMOTIONS just
to get out of there. They provide extremely low quality service and are now
being rewarded. I also understand that the HR Director recently received a
hefty raise. Many County Departments, as well as labor unions, have been
complaining about the poor quality service for quite some time now and to see
no improvement in service, yet the employees receiving additional money, is
absolutely preposterous. I don't know what Mr. Cullen is thinking, and I
don't know why none of you questioned this Agenda item. I am a County employ!
ee of almost 20 years, and I am absolutely disgusted with how the system does
NOT work. I live in Supervisor Piepho's district, and will NOT support her
for re-election.
------------------------------------------------------------
"County Employee" To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
<CCC@contra.napanet cc:
f net> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
10/09/2007 12:39 PM
Please respond to
"County Employee"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.cccounty.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
---------------------------------------_---------------------
Name of sender: County Employee
Address of sender: CCC
Phone of sender: CCC
Email of sender: CCC
Agenda Date: 10/9/07
Agenda Iteml: C.30
Agenda Item2:
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
I was very disturbed upon seeing this item on the board agenda. Currently,
there are eight analyst positions in the Human Resources Department. Three of
those eight have been in HR for less than one year. Five of those eight have
been in HR for less than two years. Four of the eight have had no previous
public sector experience and are new to the merit system environment. It is
ridiculous to think that these individuals are going to be "consulting" line
department staff - many whom have .previously worked in the Human Resources
Department and possess a greater knowledge of the merit systems and its many
rules and regulations in addition to having many more years of experience -
and advising them on personnel policy and procedure. On top of that, the
employees in the Human Resources Department are paid quite a bit more than
their counterparts in the line departments. This is a mockery of the merit
system and should not be tolerated.
------------------------------------------------------------
"County EE". To: comments@ cob.cccounty.us
<none@contra.napane cc:
t.net> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
10/09/2007 12:38 PM
Please respond to
"County EE"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: County EE
Address of sender: County
Phone of sender: none .
Email of sender: none
Agenda Date: 10/09/07
Agenda Iteml: C-30
Agenda Item2: D.1
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------
How can newly appointed staff with limited knowledge of the County's HR
processes, rules and regulations get such a hefty raise? How was it possible
that they are promoted in such a short period of time? How was it determined
that they already possess the required knowledge and skills to perform the
higher level duties? How can they consult when they are not even familiar
with the County's many rules and regulations? Was there a competitive process
given? More importantly, how does this impact those employees in similar
classifications performing the same duties? Were they given consideration?
Are we not a Merit System Employer?????
------------------------------------------------------------
"Concerned County To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
Employee" cc:
` ? <none@contra.napane Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
t.net>
10/09/2007 08:52 AM
Please respond to
"Concerned County
Employee"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Concerned County Employee
Address of sender: Contra Costa County
Phone of sender: none
Email of sender: none
Agenda Date: 10/09/07
Agenda Iteml: C-30
Agenda Item2 :
------------------------- COMMENTS ---------
----------------
Contra Costa County's Merit System is designed to attract and retain employees
on the basis of their abilities and to provide equitable compensation and fair
treatment to employees. The County's Personnel Management Regulations (PMR)
were adopted by the Board of Supervisors to maintain and safeguard Merit
System principles. The Human Resources Department (HR) is responsible to make
sure that the County's personnel practices are within these rules and
regulations. To get a permanent appointment (including promotional
appointments) , employees are appointed from an eligible list, which is created
from a competitive exam process.
Item C-30 on today's agenda is a true manipulation of the Merit System
principles. It is intended to RECLASSIFY WITHOUT EXAMINATION (PMR Section
503) the incumbents and positions of Human Resources Analyst II and Analyst
positions to HR Consultants and Senior HR Consultants. However, in order to
reclassify, the preponderance of the duties and responsibilities of the
positions must have evolved to higher duties and incumbents must have been
performing the higher level duties for at least six months; and the employees
must meet the minimum requirements of the higher classification. "Transfer"
of the positions and incumbents into the Consultant classification is nothing
but a circumvention of the Merit System. Have these positions truly evolved?
If so, what higher level duties are being performed? Who conducted the
position evaluations? Do the incumbents meet the minimum qualifications? For
the record, the Consultant classifications were created and approved by you in
M!
ay, 2007 and have not existed for 6 months.
The basic principle of a Merit System is to provide equal pay for equal work.
HR failed to include and totally disregarded the impact of this action to
other similar classifications such as the Personnel Services Assistants (PSA)
and Administrative Services Assistants (ASA) in line departments, who function
as HR Consultants, performing the same duties listed in the job descriptions.
Further, these classes have been historically tied in salary and transfer
opportunities existed between the classes.
In closing, I ask the members of the Board to pay close attention to the
current practices in Human Resources. I ask you to direct the HR Director and
staff to adhere to the PMR rules and regulations; they should not be exempt
from the PMRs. In fairness to the other employees in similar classifications,.
I ask the Board members to direct the HR Director to conduct a classification
study of all similar classes in the County.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Concerned CCC To: comments @cob.cccounty.us
Employee" cc:
<none@contra.napane Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website-
t.net>
10/09/2007 07:46 AM
Please respond to
"Concerned CCC
Employee"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.cccounty.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Concerned CCC Employee
Address of sender: none
Phone of sender: none
Email of sender: none
Agenda Date: 10/09/20
Agenda Iteml: c.30
Agenda Item2 :
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
This action is inappropriate for several reasons. The Human Resources
Department (HRD) is manipulating the merit system and Personnel Management
Regulations (PMR) for their own gain. This action has two parts: 1)
reallocating the salary of the HR Analyst II classifications and transferring
the positions to the class of HR Consultant and 2) reclassifying two
Management Analyst III positions to Sr HR Consultant. As for the first part,
HRD is reallocating the salary of HR Analyst II for the sole purpose of being
able to transfer positions to the class of HR Consultant without having to go
through the reclassification or examination process (basically a circumvention
of the merit system) . There is no justification given for an increase to the
HR Analyst II class and furthermore, HRD has requested to abolish the HR
Analyst II class once the positions are transferred. HRD knows that they
would be unable to reclassify the current incumbents of HR Analyst II to HR
Consultant!
because the PMR's state that a person must be working out of class for six
months before they are eligible for reclassification. The class of HR
Consultant has not been in existence for six months. Furthermore, each
incumbent would have to fill out a position description questionnaire, be
subject to a desk audit, and show that there has been some evolution of
duties. (This did not happen) It is very frustrating that these are the
standards that HRD holds line departments to, but they exempt themselves from
the rules. In addition to this, HRD has not even considered how the salary of
the HR Consultant classifications impacts the Personnel Analysts in the line
departments who are performing the same work. Why should Personnel Analysts
in central HR make $1000 more per month than those in line departments? What
happened to equal pay for equal work? HRD claims that they should be the
central authority for all personnel matters because they are in a position to
consider the !
countywide impact of personnel decisions, but this is one instance in which no
consideration of like classifications was taken. Salaries of Personnel
Analysts in line departments have always been linked to the salaries of those
analysts in central HR but that is no longer the case. HR can offer no valid
justification as to why their analysts deserve more money. As for part two of
this action, the Management Analyst III positions and incumbents do not meet
the requirements for reclassification without exam for the reasons mentioned
above. The Sr HR Consultant class has not even existed for six months so it
is impossible for the incumbents to have been working at that level for the
_required amount of time. Something must be done to ensure that the HRD follows
the same rules and regulations that it enforces for the rest of the County.
Supposedly, Human Resources is the central authority for the rest of the
county ensuring that personnel and labor rules are followed correct!
ly, yet they do not feel they must follow the same rules and regulations.
They are able to do whatever they please because there is nobody that they
must justify their actions to. It would be in the best interest of the County
to take a look at what is going on within HRD The current practices in that
department are dishonest and downright unfair.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Concerned CC To: comments@cob.cccounty.us
Resident/Employee" cc:
I.1 <None@contra.napane Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
t.net>
10/09/2007 08:47 AM
Please respond to
"Concerned CC
Resident/Employee"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Concerned CC Resident/Employee
Address of sender: None
Phone of sender: None
Email of sender: None
Agenda Date:
Agenda Item1: c.30
Agenda Item2 :
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
I am writing to express my complete opposition to this action. It is the
responsibility of the Human Resources Department to uphold the Merit System
rules and regulations as prescribed in the Personnel Management Regulations,
however, it is apparent that they are using their authority to circumvent
these established rules and regulations for their own benefit. I'd like to
bring a few points to the attention of the Board as you should also be .aware
of the unchecked corruption occurring in the Human Resources Department.
On May 15, 2007, the BOS approved a request from HR to establish the
classifications of Human Resources Consultant and Senior Human Resources
Consultant. The "consequence of negative action" provided for the
establishment of these classes was "failure to approve the Human Resources
Department reorganization by restructuring the Human Resources Analyst
position will jeopardize the County's ability to successfully and efficiently
recruit and retain qualified employees, and to process personnel actions in a
timely manner. " This is of concern as HR has NOT recruited and retained ANY
new employees in either classification. Rather, they are using today's action
to reclassify their existing employees into higher paying classifications for
performing the same work.
If you look at the job specification for Human Resources Analyst II, it is
virtually identical to the specification of the "new" classification of Human
Resources Consultant. How does this justify the establishment of a new
classification with identical duties and unjustifiable minimum qualifications
which gets paid $8000 more per year? The established minimum qualifications
for this "new" class are as follows:
Experience: The equivalent of one year of full time experience as a Human
Resources Technician or as an Account Clerk in the Employee Benefits Unit, in
the Contra Costa County classified service.
OR
Education: Possession of a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or
university. A major in public or business administration or a closely related
field is preferred.
AND
Experience: The equivalent of two (2) years of full time professional level
Human Resources experience including recruitment, selection, classification,
examination and/or benefits administration.
Substitution: Possession of a Master's Degree in public administration,
business administration or a closely related field may be substituted for the
academic major and one (1) year of the required experience.
How does ONE year of experience in HR OR as an ACCOUNT CLERK in the Benefits
unit give you the knowledge, skills, and abilities that a Bachelor's degree
AND two years of professional level HR experience???? Any knowledgeable Human
Resources professional would tell you that it is an absurd thought that this
is a fair and justifiable substitution.
In regards to the action being requested today, this action is also unfair and
unjustified and again is another shining example of the corruption occurring
in HR. The first part of this request is another attempt to circumvent the
Merit System and it's rules and regulations that HR applies to every other
department in the County with the exception of their own. The Department is
requesting to reallocate the salary of Human Resources Analyst II and transfer
the incumbents of this classification to the "new" class of HR Consultant.
The sole purpose of this action is to circumvent the Merit System and
accomplish the reclassification of their own employees without going through
the processes every other County employee would have to endure to be
reclassified. (Please refer to Personnel Management Regulations Section 503 .
Promotion By Reclassification Without Examination) . HR gives absolutely no
justification as to the reason for the $8000 annual salary increase.
Additional!
ly, the current incumbents clearly do not meet the requirements for
reclassification. The PMRs state that an employee must 1) show that the
duties and responsibilities have significantly increased and constitute a
higher level of work, 2) meet the minimum qualifications of the higher level
classification and 3) the employee must have performed at the higher level for
at least 6 months. How can these incumbents show that the duties and
responsibilities have significantly increased if the duties of the
classifications are basically identical? How can these employees have been
performing at the higher level if the classification has not even existed for
6 months? I am also aware of some Human Resources employees not even meeting
the minimum qualifications of their current classifications. The same is true
for the action requesting to reclassify two incumbents of the Management
Analyst III classification to the Sr. HR Consultant classification. There has
been no informati!
on provided to justify the reclassification of these employees and they have
not been subject to the established process that every other County employee
would have been.
It is very disturbing that the standards applied to all other County employees
seem to not apply to their own staff. Human Resources claims that they should
be the central authority for all personnel matters because they are in a
position to consider the countywide impact of personnel decisions, however,
this consideration was clearly not applied to this request. There was
obviously no consideration how the salary of these "new" classifications
impact the Personnel Analysts in line departments who are performing the same
duties in addition to performing labor relations activities as well. The
salaries of the Personnel Analysts in HR and line departments has always been
linked. Now suddenly, the work of the analysts in Human Resources is worth
$1000 more per MONTH? What happened to equal pay for equal work? HR has
clearly abandoned this ideology, has the Board of Supervisors as well?
There are many questions that have gone unanswered by the Human Resources
Department for long enough. I feel it is time that someone takes a closer
look at this department and their activities and hope that the members of the
BOS take their responsibility for protecting the interests of ,the residents
and employees of this County seriously by investigating these practices and
reconsidering the approval of today's requested action.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Employee" To: comments@ cob.cccounty.us
<n/a@contra.napanet.n cc:
et> Subject: BOS Agenda Comments from Website
10/09/2007 01:46 PM
Please respond to
"Employee"
This message was sent from:
http: //www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Name of sender: Employee
Address of sender: n/a
Phone of .sender: n/a
Email of sender: n/a
Agenda Date: 10/09/07
Agenda Item1: c-30
Agenda Item2:
------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------
I am concerned about certain portions of Item #C-30 on the Board Agenda dated
10/9/07.
Reallocating (increasing) the salary of one classification (H.R. Analyst-II)
for the sole purpose of "transferring" (Section 4.11 of the Salary Regulations)
its incumbents to another classification (H.R. Consultant) with a higher
salary is essentially a reclassification and promotion of more than 5% without
a competitive examination and without establishing a clear evolution of duties
which, is required in order reclassify an individual, per section 503 of the
Personnel Management Regulations regarding Reclassification without
Examination. This concerns me because many employees are often denied
reclassifications, and Departments have been historically scrutinized and
accused by the Human Resources Department of trying to circumvent the merit
system by making requests to reclassify individuals. The job specifications
for H.R. Analyst and H.R. Consultant are virtually the same. Where is the
evolution of duties? A similar action was also approved several months ago
when the H!
uman Resources Department created the classification of Labor Relations
Specialist and reclassified its incumbents without examination. Again, the
duties did not change or evolved but the salary did, the salary was increased.
I understand that portions of item C-30 are presented as a "transfer", but if
it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's 'a duck. The past and present
management of the Human Resources Department would NEVER allow a request such
as this to be approved if it was submitted from another Department. It is also
the Human Resources Department's responsibility to evaluate personnel
transactions that may have an impact on other classifications throughout the
County. With respect to the newly created classifications of H.R. Consultant,
Sr. H.R: Consultant, and Labor Relations Specialist I & II there was no
evaluation of the impact these new classifications/salaries had on existing
similar classifications such as Personnel Services Assistant, Administrative
Se!
rvices Assistant and Management Analyst, which have been tied to the H.R.
Analyst classification by salary and minimum qualifications for quite some
time. Since the job duties of these newly created classes have not changed,
why do they all of a sudden warrant more pay? Furthermore, the H.R. Department
has made it clear that this County has too many classifications that are
similar in nature. If that is the case, why have new classifications been
created? The Human Resources Department should be held to the same standards
as other Departments within Contra Costa County. If the gatekeeper circumvents
the merit system in order to recruit and retain employees, why can't everyone
else? This recent action has left me completely discouraged with respect to
the fairness of the "merit" system.
------------------------------------------------------------