SF Human Rights Commission

• text only
• text

Employment Advisory Committee Meetings

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

MINUTES

October 6, 2005

Members Present

Commissioner Faye Woo Lee, Molly Baier, Bridgett N. Brown, John Crowley, Jerry Jones, Jose Bondoc, F. Ross Woodall, Ronnie Rhoe

Members Absent

Malik Looper, Suzanne Korey

Staff Present

Linda Chin, Kabir Hypolite, Mary Gin Starkweather

Guests

Criss Romero, Chris Iglesias, Cormac Kilgallen

Call to Order/ Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Faye Woo Lee at 1:32p.m. A quorum was present.

Approval of Agenda

Jose Bondoc moved to adopt the agenda. F. Ross Woodall seconded and the motion was carried unanimously with no discussion.

Approval of October 6, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Jose Bondoc moved to adopt the October 6, 2005 Employment Committee minutes. John Crowley seconded and the motion was carried unanimously with no discussion.

Commissioners Report

None

Staff Report

Kabir Hypolite presented an update on the All of Us or None (AOUN) Proposal. On September 8, 2005, at the Human Rights Commission meeting, the Commissioners expressed support for AOUN’ s effort to remove the convictions inquiry box from the City’s employment application but rejected the Employment Advisory Committee’s letter. The HRC Commissioners were seeking a feasible alternative to DHR’s current process. The Chair of the Commission, Commissioner Heinicke offered to personally contact DHR Director or to have the HRC Director do so on behalf of AOUN’s effort to remove the box.

Kabir Hypolite provided the following chronological update:

Monday, September 19, 2005 –

The Examiner printed an article called "Felons lobby to change city hiring practices" cites Penal Code for disclosure of specified felonies on city applications. However, no code section was identified which was questionable. There has been no response from the Examiner.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 –

At the Spur Meeting, DHR Director Ginsburg presented an update report regarding Civil Service Reform. AOUN Director, Dorsey Nunn was present at the meeting and approached DHR Director Ginsburg and confirmed no contact by Commissioner Heinicke.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 –

At the Human Rights Commission Meeting, the AOUN Director expressed strong disappointment that HRC did not follow through with DHR. HRC Director reports that she contacted DHR that day as well as Civil Service Commission President, Linda Richardson. There was discussion having a joint CSC-HRC public hearing. However, no decision was made.

Tuesday, September 26, 2005 –

AOUN, Mayor’s Office, Civil Service Commission, and Department of Human Resources top officials discuss civil service application reforms at DHR. The following people were present at the meeting:

Julian Lowe – DHR

Kate Favetti – Civil Service Commission

Wade Crowfoote – Mayor’s Liaison to Board of Supervisors

Jennifer Johnson, Esq. – DHR

Ted Yamasake – DHR Deputy

-DHR will keep the convictions inquiry box for now but all information gathered will be quarantined until the form is changed. There was not commitment to a specific timeline.

-According to AOUN, all participants agree the box is unnecessary and favor its removal from the employment application.

-DHR wants Board of Supervisors to drop its resolution. AOUN declined. Mayor’s office is supportive and AOUN anticipates unanimous Board support.

-AOUN agreed to drop the resolution for an individual listing of all job-related felonies that would disqualify an applicant.

-AOUN predicts a struggle ahead with DHR Director Ginsberg because he was overriding his top deputies shortly after the meeting.

Wednesday, September 27, 2005 –

AOUN Press Conference on City Hall steps with Supervisors: Maxwell, Ammiano, Mirikarimi, and Daly speaking in support of removing the box. Ammiano introduced a resolution urging DHR to ban the box at Board of Supervisors meeting.

F. Ross Woodall asked the following question:

Was Supervisor Ammiano’s measure something that DHR did not want?

Kabir Hypolite stated, based on his understanding, DHR did not want a high profile public process. From DHR’s perspective, they would want to have a quiet way of removing the box.

Kabir Hypolite presented an update on the SPUR meeting whereby DHR Director Ginsburg was presenting a report on the Civil Service Reform. Mr. Hypolite also stated that there is quite an extensive reform effort. Some efforts are already on the way from the Mayor’s office to change the system we currently use. The most important is the Mayor's directive to eliminate provisional hiring and that is already in the works within the next sixty days.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 –

DHR Director Ginsburg presented an update report to SPUR regarding the Civil Service Reform.

On August 15, 2005, Mayor Newsom issued a memorandum to all department heads to prioritize his reform initiative.

1. All newly hired managers receive career development

1. DHR to create a "City University" in partnership with City College, SGSU, SF Chamber of Commerce and others to foster highly trained local government workforce.
2. Succession Planning by DHR, Controller, & Retirement System to report annually and identify succession strategies.
3. DHR to begin overhaul of civil service classification system – update due by July 1, 2006
4. Civil Service, City Attorney, & DHR to create a task force including labor, personnel experts and operating department representatives.

Public Comment for items not on the Agenda

There were no public comments.

New Business

1. Criss Romero - Representative of the Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21, AFL-CIO

Report on the Civil Service Reform and how it may impact Minorities and Women.

The Civil Service Reform seeks quicker hiring, position-based testing, merit base pay, and the elimination of provisional hiring and allows departments to perform their own testing and hiring, and other reform proposals that may have major impact on members.

The Civil Service Reform booklet that Kabir Hypolite referred to is posted in the Human Resources website. Local 21 has written a booklet also in response to what Phil Ginsburg had written. It presented different recommendations to the reform, however, there were similar concerns that were

brought up to Civil Service year after year. The Civil Service Commission has only three people on staff and there would no possible way for them to handle all the investigations.

The Civil Service rules are at least for the folks represented at Local 21. The actual rules are what govern people’s work and it actually impacts the Memorandum of Understanding that Local 21 has with the City.

Local 21 has concerns over the departments doing their own testing. Employers are inclined not to speak about the things that have gone wrong. The example would be the case of the Mabel Teng situation at the Assessor’s office where position-based testing was done and which is what is currently proposed. The situation could arise again, someone is hired and it is a friend or relative of the director.

The other issue of Civil Service Reform is the volume of civil service classifications. There are too many. The classification mentioned was on the 44 secretaries. The reason being, it included the commission secretaries, and each commission secretary had their own designation, and there are 24 of them. Also, there are the different levels of clerical positions.

Another issue is that the average workforce is over forty years old. Some of the most senior people were laid off. As a result, people that were the most senior were offered the 3 plus 3 and Local 21 felt that the 3 plus 3 was set up in some departments. In instances where there is the aging workforce, one would need incredible proof of being discriminated against. There would have to be sufficient proof that employers are engaging in patterns of discrimination. Local 21 requested for the list of people who were laid off. Local 21 looks at age, ethnicity, and women who have been laid off versus men.

The impact of lay-offs is that other people were expected to do more work. People are hired to work from eight to five. From a labor union standpoint, there is a reasonable amount of work that should be done in that period of time. And after that period of time is over, and if one is asked to work after that, one should be compensated. It becomes an issue of contention because people are then paid overtime.

Local 21 recommended looking at long term planning to reduce the workforce. The main component during the negotiations will be on training. Training is very much needed for the aging workforce.

Mr. Romero stated that if Local 21 had not asked for the hearings, numerous meetings, the seniority issue would be on the November 2005 ballot. This issue was so contentious until it was finally dropped from being placed on the ballot.

The Human Resources Department knows that they have to work with Local 21. In terms of the reforms that have been proposed, Local 21 has already met with Phil Ginsburg who has agreed to confer in good faith with the Union for the final draft.

Kabir Hypolite asked the following question:

Would the civil service reform cause a significant impact on the diversity in the City?

Criss Romero stated age discrimination. Many of the members were laid off because of their age. In the technical fields, folks that learned programming language in the 1980’s and 1990’swere getting laid off because it was felt that these folks were not keeping up with the technology changes. Then, it becomes a performance issue. These folks were never offered training or given an opportunity to improve their knowledge because training was based on merit. Local 21 does not believe that training should be provided to only managers and supervisors. Local 21 believe that the folks performing the work should be trained especially in the technical area. That was the actual discrimination charge that Local 21 was reviewing but was unable to find a pattern of discrimination.

Jerry Jones asked the following question:

Did the younger folks receive the training?

It all depends on the departments, on the supervisors and managers. In many cases, instead of offering training, work was contracted out.

CityBuild is an initiative of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, in partnership with other city departments, that utilizes city sponsored construction as a vehicle to deliver training, employment and career opportunities to San Francisco residents. The program started in September 2005 as a 18 month pilot program involving DPH/DPW Laguna Honda Hospital and Muni’s Metro East Maintenance Facility projects, as well as the DPW, PUC, and Port projects. The workforce participation goal is 50% of new hires for work in each trade.

The program goal is to develop trained, committed men and women to become the construction workforce of the future. Applicants would be recruited through Community based organizations for both skilled trades and professional service positions.

Mr. Iglesias stated that contractors and building trades were asked to provide input to ensure longer – term employment and career opportunities for the San Francisco residents. Applicants must be willing to be mobile, to go where the job opportunities are. Construction firms may have jobs in any of the nine counties. In addition, applicants hired through the CITYBUILD program, if applicable to other counties, could be credited toward a goal.

Ms. Baier asked the following question: Would the other counties allow one applicant to be credited twice?

Mr. Iglesias responded by saying that this is a pilot program and the contractors are the employers. The CITYBUILD is willing to try it,

In addition, during the 18-month Pilot program, CITYBUILD will do the following:

- Work with CBOs, contractors, unions and City College to explore the feasibility of a CityBuild Academy

-Work with educational institutions, labor and business to create pathways into the construction industry

- Create career exposure and work opportunities for school-aged youth in City departments and/or on City projects

Mr. Hypolite asked the following question: Would formerly incarcerated people be accepted in the CITYBUILD program?

Mr. Iglesias said Yes, we work closely with the Clean Slate Program, Office of the Public Defender

Mr. Hypolite asked the following question: Would the individuals who were convicted and committed to State Prison be accepted into the CITYBUILD Academy?

Mr. Iglesias said Yes, if they have a GED, and passed a drug test.

Old Business

Announcements/Calendar Matters

The next regular meeting of the Employment Committee will be held:

Thursday, November 3, 2005

Time: 1:30pm

Place: 25 Van Ness Ave 8^th Fl.

Adjournment

Jose Bondoc moved to adjourn the meeting and F. Ross Woodall seconded the motion to adjourn at 3:25 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously.