Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06081993 - 1.109 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 8, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Grand Jury Reports Merit System and Fire Protection The Board received two reports from the 1992-1993 Contra Costa County Grand Jury. Report No. 9312 dated May 19 , 1993 "Contra Costa County' s Merit System" and Report No. 9315 dated May 26, 1993 , "Fire Protection Personnel Costs" . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above mentioned reports are ACKNOWLEDGED and REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee. cc- Count Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of County an action taken and entered on the minutes of th3 Grand Jury Boar, of Superviso on the date sho�wnf.� Internal Operations Committee ATTESTED: —-- PHIL B HEIOR,Clerk of the Boara of Sue sors and County Administrator By ,Deputy • Lj A REPORT BY THE 1992-1993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94533 (510) 646-2345 REPORT No. 9312 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S MERIT SYSTEM "In con}lic u between the power of the people and the interests of the union, the will of the people to ensure public accountability must prevail." Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: 119 Annemarie GoMkin Grand Jury Foreman Accepted for Filing: Date: � vZ O 1793 Richard S. Flier Judge of the Superior Court SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION: In response to citizens' inquiries, the Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine if Contra Costa County's Personnel Management Regulations (PMR), legally binding regulations that implement the voter-approved Merit System, have been preempted by agreements negotiated with employee unions. SUMMARY: In June of 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County approved a Merit System Reform Ordinance. In December of 1981,'the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted legally binding Personnel Management Regulations to implement the Ordinance. One of the objectives of the Merit System Ordinance was to assure the public that those responsible for malting and implementing public personnel policy, the Board of Supervisors, would be held accountable. The voter-mandated Merit System has been compromised. Over the past twelve years, unions have negotiated agreements causing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sections to conflict with the Merit System's PMR. The Board is required to give appropriate notice and to adopt PMR amendments m public session. The Board has not consistently used this procedure, but instead has ratified conflicting MOU sections resulting in de facto amendments to the PMR. In the context of a voter-mandated merit system, the will of the people to insure public accountability must prevail. FINDINGS: 1. California Government Code §31100 empowers Contra Costa County to adopt, by ordinance of the Board, a merit service system for the employees of the County. Any such ordinance, however, shall not go into effect unless approved by the voters of the County. 2. On March 18, 1980, the Board passed Resolution 80/290 submitting to the voters a reformed merit system to modernize the existing 36 year-old civil service system. 3. The Merit System Ordinance was placed on the ballot as Measure "A". The argument in favor of the Merit System Ordinance stated the measure represented an effort to: Page 2 , • "...fix public accountability for personnel matters clearly on the Board..." • "...provide County department heads with more management flexibility while increasing their accountability to the Board..." • "...insure that merit principles form the foundation for every action and regulation..." No argument against Measure "A" was filed. 4. On June 3, 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County adopted the new Merit System Reform Ordinance 80-47. Its provisions include: • Incorporation of "...all existing civil service and personnel rules, regulations and administrative bulletins relating to personnel matters..." into all existing memoranda of understanding. (Section V • Provision for adoption of a legally binding set of merit system regulations: The Board "...shall by resolution establish regulations for the merit system to carry this division into effect. These regulations shall have the force of law and shall be administered by the County Administrator or designee..." (Section I, part 12) 5. On January 27, 1970, the Board passed Ordinance 7-17 (codified as Ordinance Code Division 34) which enacted a set of general rules governing Employer-Employee Relations. Chapter 34-8 defined the exclusive right of the County to administer the Merit System, to make all decisions of a managerial character and to direct its employees. On October 6, 1981, Ordinance Code Division 34 was repealed and replaced by Resolution 81/1165, which incorporated its provisions. 6. On December 15, 1981, the Board adopted Resolution 81/1468 enacting legally binding Personnel Management Regulations (PMR) implementing the Merit System for affected County employees (union represented and management personnel). • Resolution 81/1468, however, states "...that where a provision contained in the Personnel Management Regulations conflicts with a provision contained in a Memorandum of Understanding with a recognized employee organization, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding shall prevail..." Page 3 7. Government Code §3505.1 authorizes the Board to approve MOUs with recognized employee organizations. In Contra Costa the Board has approved MOUS with eleven bargaining units and in each MOU there is a section subordinating the PMR to the terms of the MOU by stating: Where a specific provision contained in a section of this Memorandum of Understanding conflicts with specific provision contained in a section of the Personnel Management Regulations, the provision of this Memorandum of Understanding shall prevail. 8. During the past twelve years, unions have negotiated agreements with the Board causing sections of the MOU to conflict with the Merit System's PMR. An example is PMR §503, "Promotion By Reclassification Without Examination" as compared with §15.3 of an existing MOU. There are differences between the documents. • Most significantly, the PMR states that after consultation with the appointing authority, the Director of Personnel may promote an employee from one job classification to another without examination as long as certain conditions are met. The MOU requires all of the conditions listed in the PMR and adds that the union must approve the promotion before it can be made. The claim by a union to a veto right over the Personnel Director's power to promote without examination is an irreconcilable conflict between the Merit System's PMR and the MOU. 9. PMR§1701 defines the method by which the Board shall make amendments to.the PMR. The procedure requires public notice and a majority vote of the Board. CONCLUSIONS• 1. The Merit System Reform Ordinance (Measure "A") and related resolutions contain contradictory language. 2. The MOUs are styled to appear to be in harmony with the PMR, however, there are irreconcilable differences among the documents. 3. Contra Costa County Resolution 81/1468 allows for MOUS to supersede applicable provisions of the PMR contrary to the Merit System Ordinance and the ballot arguments in support of Measure "A". The intent of the Merit System was to subordinate MOUS to the system of merit service adopted by the voters. Page 4 in support of Measure "A". The intent of the Merit System was to subordinate MOUS to the system of merit service adopted by the voters. 4. The Board has compromised management prerogatives by its ratification of MOUS which contradict the provisions of the PMR. 5. Ratification of an MOU should not constitute a de facto amendment of the PMR. The ballot argument in favor of the Merit System Ordinance describes the measure as an effort "... to fix public accountability for personnel matters clearly on the Board of Supervisors..." For that reason, it is important that the prescribed amendment procedure be consistently utilized. For the Board to modify PMR provisions to accommodate a negotiated change in the MOU, each Supervisor must accept accountability for his/her actions. That can be done only if they are required to give notice in meeting agendas of their intent to amend the PMR, to propose those amendments in writing, and to adopt them by majority vote in public sessions. 6. By adopting Measure "A", the electorate of Contra Costa County voted to insure that merit principles formed the foundation for personnel matters. In conflicts between the power of the people and the interests of the union (in the context of a voter-mandated merit system), the will of the people to ensure public accountability must prevail. RECONEWENDATIONS: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors reaffirm the intent and spirit of the voter-mandated Merit Reform System and the Board's commitment to insure that merit principles form the foundation for all personnel action and regulations by: 1. Within 60 days, require the County Administrator: A. Identify for the Board all provisions of the respective Memoranda of Understanding which are now in conflict with the Merit Systems's Personnel Management Regulations. B. Resolve the identified conflicts by recommending to the Board whether the PMR should prevail or be amended to accommodate the existing provision within the MOU. Page 5 • Decision criteria should include: (a) complying with merit principles, (b) maintaining management prerogatives, and (c) serving the public interest. 2. Resolvethat in the future, provisions of the PMR and MOU shall be in agreement. • Direct the County Administrator to incorporate the recommended resolution in all Memoranda of Understanding at the time of future contract negotiations with the respective unions. 3. Immediately agree to utilization of PMR §1701 to make any amendments to the PMR, giving appropriate notice and voting in public session. Page 6 RECEIVED JUN 11993 CLERK u0%0.is C'F SU:EF(VPSCRS A REPORT BY THE 1992-1993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94533 (510) 646-2345 REPORT No. 9315 Fire Protection Personnel Costs "A Firefighter, after three and a half years of service, costs the taxpayers approximately$80,000 annually. The Board of Supervisors, responsible for approving labor contracts, has a unique opportunity to lighten the burden of the taxpayers." Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: Z& (144V 93 4eXmarie Go in Grand Jury Foreman Accepted for Filing: Date: � 3 Richard S. Flier Judge of the Superior Court Scope of Investigation: In response to citizens' concerns about the potential reduction of fire protection services due to Contra Costa County's financial crisis, the Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine how fire service salaries, which account for 89% of the Fire Protection Districts' budgets, are established. Summary: Over the past eight years, the firefighters have received a compounded actual salary increase of 71.3 percent and management personnel has received a compounded actual salary increase of 62.1 percent. These percentages do not include benefits. The Board of Supervisors Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding for a four-year period ending December 31 1992. The Memorandum defined a "ratcheting" formula designed to ensure that fire service salaries would at least equal the "average of the Top Ten Fire Districts in the Bay Area". The formula, which may raise salaries to progressively higher levels contains key elements over which the Board has no control or influence. By agreeing to this formula, the Board of Supervisors has lost the flexibility to set salaries according to the County Fire Protection District's ability to pay. At this time of fiscal crisis, the Board of Supevisors has a unique opportunity to redefine all aspects of its Memorandum of Understanding with Fire Fighters' Local 1230. Findings. 1. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) serves as ex-officio Governing Board of the Contra Costa County, Moraga, Orinda, Riverview, and West County Fire Protection Districts (FPD). 2. Pursuant to Government Code §3505.1 (Myers-Milias-Brown Act), representatives of Contra Costa County and the United Professional Fire Fighters, IAFF,Local 1230(Local 1230) reached agreement on wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. On February 28, 1989, the parties signed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and presented it to the Board determination. . 3. Subsequently, the Board approved the Memorandum between the FPD and Local 1230 for salary and employee benefit adjustments for a four-year period beginning (retroactively) January 1, 1989 and ending December 31, 1992. Page 2 4. Section 5.1 of the MOU [Attachment 1] specifies how the General Wage Increases are to be determined. It defines a formula designed to ensure that fire service salaries will at least equal the "Average of the Top Ten Fire Districts in the Bay Area." ("Average of the Top Ten") • The primary components of the formula are the Consumer Price Index and the "Average of the Top Ten." 5. Prior to the 1989 MOU, the General Wage Increases were determined without being indexed to a formula. 6. In addition to General Wage Increases, §5.13 of the MOU provided for an "Acting Pay Differential" [APD] for all classes represented by Local 1230. Previously, a represented employee was paid "Pay for Work in a Higher Classification" only when the employee actually worked in the place of a person in a higher classification. Beginning on February 1, 1989, all employees in represented classes were given an APD of two percent whether or not work was done in place of a person in a higher classification. 7. Review of a 90-day period ending September 1992, indicates the percentage of times incumbents actually worked in a higher classification: Class Higher Class Percent of Total Time Captain Battalion Chief 0.0 Sr. Firefighter Captain 7.8 Firefighter Sr. Firefighter 27.5 8. All represented classes, including Firefighter, Senior Firefighter, Captain, Dispatcher, Senior Dispatcher, and Inspector receive the two percent "Acting Pay" regardless of whether or not they are eligible to act in the higher classification or if even such a position exists. • The rationale for an "across the board" acting pay differential was an anticipated reduction in administrative costs by no longer having to track work done in a higher classification on an hourly basis. • Neither the Fire Protection District Administration nor the County Administrator's office was able to provide the Grand Jury documentation to support this rationale. Page 3 9. According to an October 1991 Board of Supervisors Workshop on Fiscal Issues of Fire Districts, the general wage increases received by all employees represented by Local 1230 over the past eight years were as follows: Effective date Percent Increase 1/1/85 6.8 6/1/86 7.7 8/1/86 1.5 1/1/87 5.0 7/1/87 2.0 4/1/88 3.9 1/1/89 4.4 1/1/90 8.3* 1/1/91 9.9* 1/1/92 6.3* * Does not include the two percent "Acting Pay Differential" given to all employees represented by Local 1230. Total Increase: 55.8% Compounded Actual Increase: 71.2% 10. Annual overtime compensation averages over $6,200 per eligible employee. Compensation is paid for work performed during major emergencies, weed abatement, and to comply with minimum staffing requirements negotiated with Local 1230 and specified in §25 of the MOU. • For example, in calendar year 1992, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District paid a total of 1,158 shifts (of 24 hours) to comply with the minimum staffing requirement. At an average overtime cost of $700 per individual, per shift, the total cost of overtime to accommodate minimum staffing in one FPD was over $800,000. 11. The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the taxpayers' total expense for the following classifications: Page 4 Annual Compensation* Benefits Total Captain $72,060 $23,780 $95,840 Senior Firefighter $64,032 $21,131 $85,163 Firefighter $60,096 $19,832 $79,928 * Includes Base Salary (current top step), Holiday Pay, Basic Life Support Differential, Acting Pay Differential, Uniform Allowance, and average overtime. 12. A Firefighter, after three and a half years of service is at the top of the classification and costs the taxpayers approximately $80,000 annually. 13. Fire Protection District management has been given General Wage Increases identical to those granted union-represented employees with the exception of the last increase in 1992. Union-represented employees were given a 6.3 percent increase and Fire Protection District managers 1.0 percent. The General Wage Increases received by managers over the last eight years were: Total increase: 50.2% Compounded Actual Increase: 62.1% 14. The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits for the following classifications was: Annual Compensation* Benefits Tota I Battalion Chief $87,732 $28,952 $116,684 Assist. Fire Chief $98,544 $32,520 $131,064 * This includes base salary (current top step), Basic Life Support Differential, Uniform Allowance, Educational Incentive, Stand-by and Emergency Recall Differential, and Management Longevity Pay. 15. Eighty-nine percent ($39.7M) of the $44.6 million Fire Protection Districts' operating budgets for fiscal year 1992-93 are personnel costs. Page 5 16. Contra Costa County is in a financial crisis with projected revenue shortfalls of$70 to $120 million. The Board of Supervisors is evaluating reorganization plans and other cost-saving alternatives to maintain adequate levels of fire protection and emergency, medical services. The Board has placed a Fire Protection District parcel assessment on the June 1993 ballot. 17. In cases of emergency, Government Code §3504.5 (Notice of proposed act relating to matters within scope of representation) allows the Board to determine that a resolution may be adopted immediately without prior notice or meeting with the union; with the understanding the Board will meet with the union at the earliest practicable time following such an action. 18. In October, 1992, the County formally notified Local 1230 of its intent to amend, modify or terminate the MOU which expired on December 31, 1992. 19. In January, 1993, Local 1230 informed the County that it was willing to extend the expired Memorandum of Understanding until September, 1994. Local 1230 stated it was not willing, however, to change the formula of General Wage Increases being tied to the "Average of the Top Ten." The County has indicated it will not extend the expired Memorandum of Understanding. Conclusions: 1. Over the past eight years, the firefighters have received a compounded actual salary increase of 71.2 percent excluding benefits; fire management received a compounded actual salary increase of 62.1 percent excluding benefits. With personnel costs representing 89 percent of the Fire Protection Districts' $44.6 million operating budget, these increases have contributed, directly and substantially, to the bottom-line cost of providing fire protection and emergency medical services in Contra Costa County. 2. The salary increases appear to be at variance with the County's on-going financial crisis. 3. By agreeing to maintain salaries at the "Average of the Top Ten", the Board of Supervisors has lost the flexibility to set salaries according to the County Fire Protection Districts' ability to pay. 4. It is not prudent for the Board of Supervisors to agree to the use of a "ratcheting formula" such as the "Average of the Top Ten", which may raise salaries to Page 6 progressively higher levels, over which the Board has no control or influence, and which has no maximum ceiling. 5. The unproven rationale of reducing costs by providing all employees represented by Local 1230 a two percent "Acting Pay Differential", regardless of whether or not they worked "out of class", at best demonstrates administrative inefficiency. At worst it borders on being a "gift of public funds", paying for work not performed, or the granting of a low-profile, de facto pay increase without formally including it as a part of the general wage increase which is subject to greater public scrutiny. 6. Current negotiated Minimum Staffing Requirements increase the cost of providing fire protection services while limiting management's flexibility. 7. With the expiration of the four-year old Memorandum of Understanding with Local 1230, the Board has a unique opportunity to redefine all aspects of the MOU and appears to be motivated to exploit this opportunity. 8. The Board of Supervisors has the legal authority to determine that an emergency exists and to pass a resolution to immediately and unilaterally reduce costs in order to continue to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to the public. Recommendations: The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Not agree to any labor contract that contains a formula which ties employee salaries to an index which is beyond the control of the Board and which does not contain a maximum allowable increase in salary either yearly or during the life of the contract. 2. Eliminate in future contracts clauses that provide premium pay for work that is not, in fact, performed. 3. Restore to management the responsibility and the authority to establish prudent staffing requirements. 4. Consider the County's present financial crisis an emergency as defined in Government Code §3504.5, and pass a resolution to immediately and unilaterally reduce wages, benefits, and present minimum staffing requirements while continuing to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to the public. Page 7 [ATTACHMENT] SECTION 5 SALARIES 5.1 General Wage Increases B. Effective January 1, 1990, January 1, 1991, and January 1, 1992, each represented classification shall receive a general wage increase of that number of levels on the County Salary Schedule closest to the percentages generated in the following manner: 1. During the Fall of 1989, 1990, and 1991, the County and the Union shall jointly survey the same eighteen (18) San Francisco-Bay Area Fire Districts and Departments (hereinafter "jurisdictions") which the County and the Union surveyed in the Fall of 1988. The survey shall be completed no later than January 10 of each year, and shall reflect data available at that time. The number and identity of the jurisdictions surveyed may be changed by mutual agreement. The salary survey generated from the data received from said jurisdictions shall be displayed in a chart listing each jurisdiction by name, Base Salary (top step firefighter) , Holiday Pay, Differential Pay, Uniform Allowance, and the total of such pay categories (hereinafter" Pay Subtotal") for each jurisdiction. The surveyed jurisdictions shall be ranked according to the Pay subtotals for each jurisdiction. The county and the Union shall thereafter determine the average Pay Subtotal for the ten (10) highest ranking jurisdictions (hereinafter "Average of the Top Ten" and shall also determine the percentage difference between the Average of the Top Ten and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection Districts, using the same pay categories and resultant Pay subtotal. Such percentage shall hereinafter be known as the Percentage Difference with the Top Ten" . (sic) . . 2. The preliminary determination of the general wage increase shall be the percentage increase (decrease) in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, revised, San Francisco-Bay Area, all items, (1982-84 = 100) for the period December 1988 through December 1989, December 1989 through December 1990, and December 1990 through December 1991, respectively (hereinafter "CPI-W") . The final determination of the general wage increase shall be the amount of the increase (decrease) in the CPI-W (rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent) , plus that percentage amount in excess thereof which equals the percentage difference with the Top Ten (or minus that percentage amount less than the average with the Top Ten, in the event the average of the Top Ten should be less than the CPI-W) , provided, however, that the final determination of the general wage increase determined by the foregoing process shall not exceed the percentage increase (decrease) in the CPI-W plus two percent (20) and shall not be less than the percentage increase (decrease) in the CPI-W minus two percent (2%) . C. Effective January, 1996, January. 1,. 1991, and January 1, 1992, each represented classification shall receive an Equity wage increase of twenty (20) levels on the County Salary Schedule, in addition to the increase generated by the process outlined in 5.1B hereinabove.