SFGov

back to Civil Service Commission home page

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

MINUTES

Regular Meeting

February 2, 2009

2:00 p.m.

ROOM 400, CITY HALL

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

CALL TO ORDER

2:12 p.m.

ROLL CALL

President Donald A. Casper		Present
Vice President Morgan R. Gorrono		Present
Commissioner Joy Y. Boatwright		Present
Commissioner Mary Y. Jung		Present
Commissioner E. Dennis Normandy		Present (Left at 5:25 p.m.; Missed Item #s 16,17,18,19,20,21)

President Donald A. Casper presided.

President Donald A. Casper introduced Commissioner Joy Y. Boatwright and extended a warm welcome as the newly appointed Commissioner.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS APPEARING ON THE AGENDA

Margot Reed, SEIU Local 1021 requested to postpone PSC #s 2000-08/09 through 2009-08/09 to the meeting of March 2, 2009. Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 stated that Local 21 would speak on Items 12 and 15.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting of January 5, 2009

Action:	Approve. (Vote of 5 to 0)

Special Meeting of January 16, 2009

Action:	Approve as amended. (Vote of 5 to 0)

COMMENDATION AGENDA

Commendation for Yu-Yee Wu Sheridan for her dedicated service to the City and County of San Francisco as Civil Service Commissioner from February 2007 to November 2008. (Item No. 5)

Speakers:	President Donald A. Casper Yu-Yee Wu Sheridan, Recipient The Commissioners extended accolades to former Commissioner Wu Sheridan and wished her the best of health and happiness in the future.

Action:		Adopt. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0024-09-8	Review of request for approval of proposed personal services contracts. (Item No. 6)

PSC#	Department	Amount	Type of Service	Type of Approval	Duration
2000-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$7,500,000	Will provide orientations, induction training, home studies and post-adoption services to the families, and facilitating the matching of adoptive families to San Francisco children in the foster care system.	Continuing	06/30/14
2001-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$65,000,000	Will provide training, respite care, counseling, crisis intervention, childcare and reunification efforts to help maintain foster children in their communities.	Continuing	06/30/14
2002-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$26,500,000	Will provide services to Community-based family resource centers that operate to serve all patients for specific parenting skills, parenting guides, crisis counseling and intervention.	Continuing	06/30/14
2003-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$160,000,000	Will provide childcare services to low-income and CalWorks families through partnerships with other state licensed providers in various identified target neighborhoods.	Continuing	06/30/14
2004-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$230,000,000	Will provide supportive housing services including case management, money management and tenant support to individuals and families living in shelters, single resident occupancy hotels and transitional or permanent housing.	Continuing	06/30/14
2005-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$38,500,000	Will provide outreach, counseling, employment services, vocational training, work readiness, referral and placement services, job retention support and follow-up to CalWorks and PAES (Personal Assisted Employment Services) and other low-income individuals.	Continuing	06/30/14
2006-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$25,415,000	Will provide support services to the Agency, including but limited to the following: legal process service, courier service, fiscal intermediary (employer agent/payroll services for welfare to work clients), credit checks and equipment maintenance.	Continuing	06/30/14
2007-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$327,750,000	Will provide a central registry, enrollment in a comprehensive health benefit system, advocacy and support services for 16,000 homecare workers. Provides the contract mode IHSS as mandated.	Continuing	06/30/14
2008-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$75,750,000	Will provide homeless individuals and families with emergency shelter services and meals. Service may include sleeping facilities (bed, bedding and storage space), meals/groceries, laundry facilities and voluntary case management.	Continuing	06/30/14
2009-08/09 *Postpone to meeting of 3/2/09*	Human Services Agency	$14,950,000	Will provide individuals and families who are homeless or at-risk for homelessness with drop-in access to services, shelter bed reservations and respite from the streets.	Continuing	06/30/14
4086-08/09	Department of the Environment	$90,000	Will provide Charter bus transportation for the School Education Program’s environmental field trips for grades K-12 students.	Regular	12/31/13
4087-08/09	Department of the Environment	$264,000	Will provide consulting to develop long-term strategy for Clean Air Program, advice on latest technology, and support and outline funding options for Clean Air projects.	Regular	06/30/13
4088-08/09	Mayor’s Office	$187,200	Will conduct and coordinate federal lobbying services for the City, including identifying and advocating for or against legislation and regulatory matters that impact the City.	Regular	03/31/09
4089-08/09	Arts Commission	$100,000	Will create a temporary public art project, including rotating poster series, with auxiliary public programming for the Arts Commission’s Art on Market Street Program which brings contemporary art by Bay Area artist to SF’s main thoroughfare year round.	Regular	12/30/10
4090-08/09	Arts Commission	$5,500,000	Will design, fabricate, transport and install artwork in a variety of media for SFGH new Acute Care Unit as part of the capital projects for the hospital.	Regular	12/31/15
4091-08/09	Fire Department	$200,000	Will provide analysis of saliva samples and urine samples for six federally controlled substances in employees and potential hires. Contractor will also provide Medical Review Officer interpretation of test results.	Regular	06/30/11
4092-08/09	Human Resources	$4,000,000	Will provide a range of managed care and medical cost containment services for the Workers’ Comp. Division, including medical bill review and re-pricing, Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) administration, State-mandated utilization review and case management.	Regular	06/30/12
4093-08/09	Public Utilities Commission	$1,600,000	Will plan, conduct and evaluate Emergency Response training and tabletop exercises for key Division Coordination Center Staff at City Distribution Division (CDD), Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP), Water Supply and Treatment (WST) and WasteWater (WWE).	Regular	03/15/13

4094-08/09	Emergency Management	$4,000,000	Will provide the creation of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), a regional multi-jurisdiction fusion center with representatives from numerous other public and private entities through a contract with the County of San Mateo.	Regular	06/30/11
4095-08/09	Public Works	$12,000,000	Will provide architectural and engineering planning, design and construction support services for the complete, new $125M Public Safety Building. The A/E Team shall be primarily responsible for the core and shell.	Regular	06/30/15
3090-07/08 *Withdrawn*	Public Utilities Commission	Increase Amount $0.00 New Amount $46,000	Will partner with a utility company to market and process a regional water and energy washing machine rebate program. The program includes over 30 Bay Area water agencies and continues to build on a highly successful, grant funded regional partnership.	Modi- fication	06/30/10
4148-07/08	Department of Technology	Increase Amount $2,050,000 New Amount $2,550,000	Will provide at the approval of in-house staff, as needed printing and bindery services to include two-color printing, collating, folding and binding.	Modi- fication	04/14/13
4192-07/08	Department of Technology	Increase Amount $1,250,000 New Amount $1,500,000	Will provide scanning and electronic imaging services to convert a City department’s paper based documents, photographs and microfilm/microfiche into digital images and to create an index of all imaged documents.	Modi- fication	06/30/10

Speakers:

Alexis Torres, IFPTE Local 21 and Dave Curto, Human Services Agency spoke on PSC #2000-08/09 through 2009-08/09.
Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 requested to sever PSC #4087-08/09; 4088-08/09; 4090-08/09 and 4091-08/09.

Mark Westlund, Department of the Environment spoke on PSC #4086-08/09.
Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 and Mark Westlund, Department of the Environment spoke on PSC #4087-08/09.
Alexis Torres, IFPTE Local 21 and Julian Low, Mayor’s Office spoke on PSC #4088-08/09.
Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 and Susan Pontius, Arts Commission spoke on PSC #4090-08/09.
Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 and Captain Andy Zanoff, San Francisco Fire Department spoke on PSC #4091-08/09.
Kofo Domingo, Public Utilities Commission and Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, San Francisco Police Department spoke on PSC #4093-08/09.
Teresa Serata, Emergency Management spoke on PSC #4094-08/09.
Jim Buker, Department of Public Works spoke on PSC #4095-08/09.
David German, Department of Technology spoke on PSC #4192-07/08.

	Action:	Postpone PSC #2000-08/09 through 2009-08/09 to the meeting of March 2, 2009 at the request of SEIU Local 1021. (Vote of 5 to 0) Adopt the Human Resources Director’s report on PSC #4087-08/09 on the condition that over the next six (6) months IFPTE Local 21 and the Department of the Environment actively collaborate with each other to identify civil service classifications and personnel which could perform all or part of the work and that a report of its joint collaborative findings be submitted to the Commission at the end of the six month period. Notify the offices of the Controller and the Purchaser. (Vote of 5 to 0)
		Withdraw PSC #3090-07/08 at the request of the Public Utilities Commission. (Vote of 5 to 0) Adopt the Human Resources Director’s report on all remaining contracts. Notify the offices of the Controller and the Purchaser. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0572-08-4	Appeal by Mark Bellinger of the job announcement for the Position-Based Testing examination for Class 0922 Marina Manager/Harbormaster (#PBT-0922-054349). (Item No. 7)

	January 5, 2009:	Postpone to the meeting of February 2, 2009 at the request of the Department of Human Resources.

	Speakers:	None.

	Action:	Accept withdrawal of the appeal. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0025-09-5	Proposed Amendments to Civil Service Commission Rule Series 018 - Conflict of Interest. (Item No. 8)

	Speakers:	Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer

	Action:	Post as amended for meet and confer. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0030-09-5	Proposed amendments to Return Omitted Language to Civil Service Commission Rules 110.9.1 and 410.9.1 – Qualifications of Applicants. (Item No. 9)

	Speakers:	Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer

	Action:	Post for adoption. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0026-09-8	Review of request for approval of proposed personal services contracts. (Item No. 10)

PSC#	Department	Amount	Type of Service	Type of Approval	Duration
4096-08/09	Municipal Transportation Agency	$147,375,171	Will provide program management and construction management services for construction of central subway, Phase 2 of Third Street Light Rail Project.	Regular	03/01/19

	Speakers:	John Funghi, Municipal Transportation Agency Gordon Chin, Chinatown Community Development Center Manuel Flores, Carpenters Local 22 Ging Louie, IFPTE Local 21

	Action:	Adopt the Human Resources Director’s report. Notify the offices of the Controller and the Purchaser. (Vote of 4 to 0)

	Note:	The Executive Officer was directed to request of the Central Subway Project a quarterly report on the progress of its discussions with IFPTE Local 21 regarding the use of City and County personnel on this project.

0028-09-8	Review of request for approval of proposed personal services contracts. (Item No. 11)

4097-08/09

Public Utilities Commission

Increase Amount

$525,000

New Amount

$571,000

Will partner with a utility company to market and process a regional water and energy washing machine rebate program. The program includes over 30 Bay Area water agencies and continues to build on a highly successful, grant funded regional partnership.

Regular

06/30/10

	Speakers:	Kofo Domingo, Public Utilities Commission

	Action:	Adopt the Human Resources Director’s report as verbally amended. Notify the offices of the Controller and the Purchaser. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0379-08-8	Report from the Municipal Transportation Agency and IFPTE Local 21 on the progress of discussions of the conditional approval of PSC #4013-08/09. (Item No. 12)

	September 15, 2008:	Adopt the Human Resources Director’s report on PSC #4013-08/09 on the condition that the Municipal Transportation Agency and IFPTE Local 21 engage in further discussion and the Municipal Transportation Agency produce an analysis of whether the current EAP employees can perform the work. Notify the offices of the Controller and the Purchaser.

	December 15, 2008:	Postpone to the meeting of January 5, 2009 by mutual agreement of IFPTE Local 21 and the Municipal Transportation Agency.

	January 5, 2009:	Continue to the meeting of February 2, 2009.

	Speakers:	Karen Hill and Talib Wafeeq, Municipal Transportation Agency and Criss Romero, IFPTE Local 21.

	Action:	Accept the report; file. (Vote of 4 to 0; Commissioner Gorrono missed vote)

	Note:	The Commission directed the Executive Officer to communicate with IFPTE Local 21 and the Municipal Transportation Agency and request that each meet to discuss their concerns and submit a report from the Municipal Transportation Agency as well as IFPTE Local 21at the meeting of March 2, 2009.

0268-08-1	Adoption of Statement by the Civil Service Commission formalizing its reasons for its January 16, 2009 Decision in the following matter. (Item No. 13)

	Challenge to the Classification Decision Relating to Q-50 Sergeant Appointments and Assignments Made in August 2007: 1) Whether Assignment to Sergeants of Work Traditionally Performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors as Described in the Class Specifications for those Ranks was Proper under Civil Service Commission Rules; 2) If Not, the Appropriate Remedies.

	Appeals from Q-35 Assistant Inspector Eligibles on List ID 21055 Challenging the Classification Decision and the Q-50 Sergeant Appointments and Assignments and the Failure to Appoint Appellants to Q-35 Assistant Inspector.

	January 16, 2009:	1) The Commission finds that all appointments made to the rank of Q-50 Sergeant from the eligible list resulting from the Q-50 examination administered in 2006 were and remain valid appointments

		2) The Commission orders the Department of Human Resources to amend the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant in such a way as to make clear that the duties of Q-50 Sergeant extend to full investigative matters pursuant to policies adopted by the Police Department. The amendment of such specification will be subject to all existing Civil Service Commission Rules regarding appeals from classification actions of the Human Resources Director.

		3) In the interim between the present day and the amendment of the class specification of Q-50 Sergeant, assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau may continue in place.

		4) The Commission orders that until the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant is amended, there be no increase in the number of assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau.

		5) The Commission finds that the assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to work historically and routinely performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors, facially violated Civil Service Commission Rules, and on that basis the Commission orders that a new examination be given.

		6) Pursuant to Section 211.3 of Civil Service Commission Rules, the Commission orders that the Department of Human Resources hold a hybrid examination for the Q-35/Q-50 ranks as soon as may practicably be done.

		7) Pursuant to Section 211.3 of the Civil Service Commission Rules, the Director of Human Resources is empowered to rule on all matters relating to such hybrid examination, subject to appeal to this Commission when appropriate, as allowed under these Rules.

		8) Until the adoption of an eligible list resulting from such hybrid examination, the Chief of Police may, although is not required to, make appointments to the rank of Q-35 Assistant Inspector from the existing List adopted in November of 1998.

		9) Nothing contained in the foregoing eight provisions should be construed to create a right on the part of eligibles remaining on the November 1998 Q-35 List to be appointed to Q-35 Assistant Inspector. (Vote of 3 to 0)

	Note: A closed session on this item is possible. A closed session may not be held, but the option to hold a closed session is provided to the Commission.

	The Commission did not conduct a closed session.

	Speakers:	Nikolaus Borthne, Appellant

	Action:	Adopt as amended, the Statement by the Civil Service Commission formalizing its reasons for its January 16, 2009 decision on the Q-35/Q-50 matter. (Vote of 3 to 0; Commissioners Normandy and Boatwright recused due to their absence during deliberations at the meeting of January 16, 2009. Vote of 5 to 0)

Q-35/Q-50 STATEMENT OF DECISION

In Spring 2005, the Department of Human Resources and the Police Department announced a plan to assign Q-50 Sergeants to the Police Department’s Investigations Bureau. As part of the plan, no further appointments would be made to the rank of Q-35 Assistant Inspector. Incumbent Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors would continue working in the bureau. However, when the last of them retired or otherwise left the department’s employ, the inspectors’ ranks would, in effect, become extinct. In such fashion, investigative responsibilities would shift to Q-50 Sergeants who could be rotated into and out of the Investigations Bureau.

In August 2007, the Police Department, with the cooperation of the Department of Human Resources, began implementing the plan. The Chief of Police appointed a number of Q-50 Sergeants from List ID 52766 and assigned them to the Investigations Bureau. Following that action, over 50 eligibles on List ID 21055 for
Q-35 Assistant Inspector, the last eligible list adopted for that rank, appealed to the Civil Service Commission. They contended that the appointments and assignments were improper under the Civil Service Commission Rules.

This Commission has gone about its review and resolution of these appeals slowly and methodically, allowing all parties—the Department of Human Resources, the Police Department, and the appellants and their representatives—to present a considerable amount of testimony and documentary evidence and to fully develop their arguments. The Commission proceeded in stages. Our initial focus was necessarily jurisdictional. In a hearing on June 16, 2008, the Commission determined that once implementation of the plan was underway, with assignment of Q-50 Sergeants to work historically and routinely performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors, there had been a classification action by the Human Resources Director, which was appealable to the Civil Service Commission. (S.F. Charter, § 10.103, par. 10; CSC Rules, § 209.1.7.) In a subsequent hearing, on September 22, 2008, the Commission determined that the Q-35 eligible list, adopted in November 1998, is still an active list.

Finally, in a special meeting convened on January 16, 2009, the Civil Service Commission took up the issue of whether the assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau was proper. A related issue, advanced by the appellants, was whether the Q-50 appointments made by the Chief of Police in furtherance of the investigations plan were themselves valid. After hearing testimony and arguments from the parties, the Commission made the following determinations and orders:

(1) The Civil Service Commission found that all appointments made to the rank of Q-50 Sergeant from the eligible list resulting from the Q-50 examination administered in 2006 were and remain valid appointments.

(2) The Commission ordered the Department of Human Resources to amend the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant in such a way as to make clear that the duties of Q-50 Sergeant extend to full investigative matters pursuant to policies adopted by the Police Department. The amendment of such specification will be subject to all existing Civil Service Commission Rules regarding appeals from classification actions of the Human Resources Director.

(3) The Commission declared that in the interim between the date of the Commission’s special meeting (Jan. 16, 2009) and the amendment of the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant, assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau may continue in place.

(4) The Commission ordered that until the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant is amended, there be no increase in the number of assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau.

(5) The Commission found that the assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to work historically and routinely performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors, facially violated Civil Service Commission Rules, and on that basis the Commission ordered that a new examination be given.

(6) Pursuant to Section 211.3 of Civil Service Commission Rules, the Commission ordered that the Department of Human Resources hold a hybrid examination for the Q-35/Q-50 ranks as soon as may practicably be done.

(7) The Commission declared that pursuant to Section 211.3 of the Civil Service Commission Rules, the Director of Human Resources is empowered to rule on all matters relating to such hybrid examination, subject to appeal to this Commission when appropriate, as allowed under our rules.

(8) The Commission declared that until the adoption of an eligible list resulting from such hybrid examination, the Chief of Police may, although she is not required to, make appointments to the rank of Q-35 Assistant Inspector from the existing list adopted in November1998.

(9) The Commission declared that nothing contained in the foregoing eight provisions should be construed to create a right on the part of eligibles remaining on the November 1998 Q-35 List to be appointed to Q-35 Assistant Inspector.

The Commission reached these decisions for the following reasons.

The Police Department and the Department of Human Resources have contended that the powers of the Chief of Police to make work assignments within the Police Department are broad. The Chief indeed has broad discretion in assigning or detailing personnel. Her discretion, however, is not without bounds. It is to be exercised within certain parameters. The departments have also contended that the existing class specification for Q-50 Sergeant is broad enough to embrace the work routinely and historically performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors. However, even a liberal reading of the Q-50 class specification does not support such a contention. While there is some overlap between the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant and class specifications for Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors, the Q-50 Sergeant classification is, on the whole and at its core, distinct from the inspectors' class specifications. Further, historically the Police Department has treated the Q-50 Sergeant classification as distinct from the inspectors' class specifications.

In the announcement for the 2006 Q-50 Sergeants’ examination, reference was made to investigative work. But that reference in the exam announcement was in fact broader than the existing class specification for Q-50 Sergeant. The proper way of expanding the duties of a class is first to amend the class spec and then to hold an examination for the class whose functions and duties have been expanded, with an exam announcement fashioned accordingly. Amending the class specs must come first.

This Commission has found that assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to perform work routinely and historically performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors was improper. Under Section 209.16.2, paragraph 4, of the Civil Service Commission Rules, “temporary out-of-class assignments shall not be made when an appointment based on the regularly established Rules and procedures of the Civil Service Commission may be made.” On its face, Section 209.16.2 applies only to temporary out-of-class assignments. Here, the assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau were permanent, subject, of course, to reassignment or transfer. The Commission has no civil service rule which on its face applies to permanent out-of-class assignments. But if a temporary out-of-class assignment cannot be made when there is an active eligible list for the targeted class and when eligibles on the list are reachable, it is a reasonable and even necessary inference from Section 209.16.2 that neither can a permanent out-of-class assignment be made in the same circumstances.

A central question in the Q-35 appeals before this Commission has been the status of the Q-35 eligible list adopted in November 1998 following an examination administered during the previous April and May. The Civil Service Commission Rules limit the life of a discrete eligible list for the Police Department to four years. That is the maximum duration. Under existing rules, neither the Human Resources Director nor this Commission itself may extend such a list beyond four years. (CSC Rules, Secs. 212.5, 212.6.) The last eligible list for Q-35 Assistant Inspector resulted from an examination administered under the consent decree entered by the federal district court in the Officers for Justice case (Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., Case Nos. C73-0675 & C77-2884). In that case, the court retained jurisdiction over all matters concerning the 1998 Q-35 examination. In a separate order entered contemporaneously with its order terminating the consent decree, the court fixed the duration of the exam’s resulting eligible list.

This Commission, in the Q-35 appeals, was called upon to determine the status of the 1998 Q-35 eligible list. In a hearing held September 22, 2008, the Commission determined that since the federal court’s orders in the Officers for Justice case superseded the Civil Service Commission Rules, and since all of the parties to the litigation, as a matter of actual practice, interpreted the court’s Q-35 order as giving the 1998 list a duration in excess of four years, that list, by the terms of the court's order, continues in force and effect until a new Q-35 eligible list is adopted.

In 2006, the Police Department, in announcing its plan to phase out the ranks of Q-35 Assistant Inspector and 0380 Inspector and to assign Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau, mistakenly stated that the 1998 Q-35 eligible list would expire in November 2006. The department made that statement upon advice, and the advice in turn was made upon an interpretation of the federal court’s Q-35 order that the Commission determined was incorrect. But in the honest view of the Police Department and the Department of Human Resources, the assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to do the work of Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors did not violate the Civil Service Commission Rules. The assignments were made neither in conscious violation of civil service rules nor with an intent to manipulate or circumvent the merit system.

The absence of an intent to manipulate or circumvent the merit system is one reason why this Commission has declared that until the amendment of the class specification for Q-50 Sergeant, assignments of Q-50 Sergeants to the Investigations Bureau may continue in place. Another reason, certainly of equal importance, is the effect upon the Police Department’s investigative activities should Q-50 Sergeants who are now conducting investigations of serious crimes suddenly be taken off those investigations and transferred out of the bureau. As members of the department’s command staff have insisted in testimony before this Commission, the effect would be disruptive, and public safety would be jeopardized.

When fashioning remedies even in matters involving clear-cut violations of its rules, this Commission has weighed all relevant circumstances, including the effects of a simple reversal of the action of an appointing officer which constituted or resulted in the violation. In 1995, for example, this Commission was faced with the invalid appointments of over 70 individuals to Class 8302 Deputy Sheriff I. The appointments were made from an eligible list which had expired. Rather than dismiss these individuals from their employment, adversely affecting both them and the Sheriff’s Department, this Commission ordered that an expedited examination be administered to them and that they be quickly transitioned to valid permanent status. This Commission, in short, balanced the equities. (Request of the Human Resources Director to credit for seniority purposes the prior service of 74 employees selected from expired eligible lists, CSC File No. 0886-95-5 (Nov. 6, 1995). See also Appeal by Michael McGowan of the change of his appointment type from permanent civil service to provisional, CSC File No. 1049-02-1 (March 17, 2003).) The same careful, balanced approach is warranted here.

Also, it must be emphasized that here, unlike the case of the Deputy Sheriffs, the appointments made by the Chief of Police to the rank of Q-50 Sergeant in furtherance of the investigations plan were valid. It has been argued that the appointments of those Q-50 Sergeants who have been assigned to work routinely and historically performed by Q-35 Assistant Inspectors and 0380 Inspectors are invalid, and that the Commission should order those appointments revoked. But, under Civil Service Commission Rules, the appointments are lawful. The Sergeants in question qualified for the Q-50 examination, took the examination, passed it, and were placed on an eligible list. Furthermore, they were reachable on that list and were selected for appointment in conformity with the list’s certification rule. There has been no evidence, or even allegation, to the contrary. Under our Rules, the questions that have arisen in these appeals concerning the assignments of these Sergeants does not affect the validity of their appointments. Under our Rules, a question about an employee's out-of-class assignment does not render the employee's appointment in the proper fashion to the proper class invalid.

With respect to additional appointments by the Chief of Police to the rank of Q-35 from the 1998 eligible list, the Commission has allowed her to make such appointments, should the current investigations plan be altered. However, the Commission has not required that she make additional appointments from that list, assuming for purposes of this case the Commission has that authority. Here, our focus is on the examination from which the list resulted. That examination was given ten and a half years ago. In a matter regarding the extension of an eligible list 9212 Airport Security Officer, this Commission, in a written decision, explained the policy underlying the limits which our rules impose on the duration of discrete eligible lists. The Commission said:

“ . . . a discrete eligible list cannot be extended indefinitely. For compelling policy reasons, there must be an overall, fixed limit to its life. An aging eligible list sits atop an aging, perhaps stale test. In the years following the exam’s administration, developments may occur in the tested fields. Class specifications may be amended, with a shift in the mix of required KSA’s. Also, new talent may enter the pool of potential applicants, and they ought to be given opportunities for advancement. More broadly, valid and reliable examinations are the cornerstone of a merit system. Allowing discrete eligible lists to linger on and on is to allow budget makers an excuse to defer exam funding.

“An overall, fixed limit to the duration of eligible lists has been a fundamental and consistent policy of the San Francisco’s merit system. . . . .” (In the Matter of Request To Extend Eligible List No. 22252-E-8-L for Class 9212 Airport Security Officer, CSC File No. 0615-05-07 (Sept. 20, 2004).)

In its order regarding the 1998 Q-35 examination, the federal district court set numerical requirements for promotions from the resulting eligible list. The Police Department fulfilled the requirements years ago. In fact, the department exceeded them. The way is open to once again apply our merit system’s fundamental policy of frequent examinations and fresh eligible lists. But how can this be done, if the Commission has already found that the 1998 Q-35 eligible list remains an active list? A balance must be struck. The balance can be struck by allowing, but not requiring, the Chief of Police to make appointments from the existing list – recognizing that the list is valid under the court's order, while also recognizing that it is exceedingly stale from a civil service standpoint – and, at the same time, requiring the Department of Human Resources to administer a single examination for both Q-35 Assistant Inspector and Q-50 Sergeant. When an eligible list resulting from that hybrid examination is adopted, the 1998 Q-35 list will finally expire under the terms of the court’s order. It should be noted that a hybrid examination for Q-35 Assistant Inspector and Q-50 Sergeant was given once before, under the jurisdiction of the federal district court in the Officers for Justice case.

In furtherance of our policy of frequent examinations and fresh eligible lists, Section 211.2 of the Civil Service Commission Rules requires that the Commission “provide for promotions in the Police Department on the basis of examinations and tests at least once every four years for each promotive position or rank in the Police Department.” Section 211.2 was taken verbatim from the City’s previous Charter. (S.F. Charter, 1932, Sec. 8.327.) This provision was removed from the Charter and placed into the Civil Service Commission Rules not to downgrade its importance. Rather, this came about as part of a transfer of various civil service provisions of the Charter into the rules to accommodate the collective bargaining environment and to make it unnecessary to submit every change in the rules, no matter how minor or nuanced, to the voters in the form of a Charter amendment. The provision’s underlying policy is still fundamental to the merit system. In retrospect, there should have been a new examination for Q-35 Assistant Inspector (or a hybrid Q-35/Q-50 examination) in November 2002, the fourth anniversary of the present Q-35 list. The Commission's resolution of these appeals belatedly remedies the situation. By ordering that a hybrid Q-35/Q-50 examination be given as soon as practicable, the Commission has put the Q-35 examination process back on track.

The Commission has also allowed the Police Department considerable flexibility. When the Q-50 class specification is amended to embrace investigative work routinely and historically performed by the two inspector ranks, and if the amendment becomes final after this Commission’s resolution of any appeals of that classification action, the Police Department will have a choice. It can either promote eligibles from a hybrid Q-35/Q-50 list to the rank of Sergeant and detail them to the Investigations Bureau, as called for in the department’s present plan, or it can change course and return to appointing Q-35 Assistant Inspectors for investigative work. Conceivably, the department could even revise its plan so as to make it a hybrid, utilizing both Q-50 Sergeants and the two inspector ranks for investigative work for the foreseeable future.

In the interpretation of our rules and in the resolution of merit system disputes, this Commission seeks to avoid unnecessary restrictions on employee staffing and assignments. Of course, employee staffing and assignments must be carried out in accordance with applicable civil service rules. But the rules must not be applied so as to hinder normal development in the ways in which a department goes about performing the functions and delivering the services which the Charter requires of it. For some years now, and in police agencies across the country, there have been discussions whether investigative work should be reserved for separate, specialized police ranks, or whether the work should be dispersed among various general ranks.

Within the San Francisco Police Department itself, investigative ranks have evolved over time. It is worth noting that the department’s first specialized investigators were appointed in 1880. They were called “detective police officers,” and their salary was made equal to that of a sergeant. (Stats. 1880, ch. 124, p. 137 et seq.) Later the rank’s name became “Detective Sergeant.” (Former S.F. Charter (1900), art. VIII, ch. V, sec. 6.) Not until 1928 was the rank accorded merit system protection. The ranks of Assistant Inspector and Inspector replaced that of Detective Sergeant in 1930. Initially, however, Assistant Inspectors were police officers temporarily detailed by the Chief of Police to the Bureau of Inspectors. In 1971, the rank of Assistant Inspector was made subject to all civil service provisions of the Charter, and an examination process was established for it.

If the Police Department’s investigative ranks have evolved over a considerable time to correspond with changed perceptions and to meet changing needs, the process is likely to continue. Civil service rules and policies should be applied not to halt the evolution but so as to ensure that it follows a merit-based path. This is the balance which, in our final decisions regarding these appeals, we have sought to achieve.

0031-09-1	Scheduling of Special Meeting for Civil Service Reform. (Item No. 14)

	Speakers:	Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer

	Action:	Schedule a Special Meeting for Monday, February 23, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 400 City Hall for a briefing on Civil Service Reform. (Vote of 5 to 0)

0032-09-8	Discussion of Civil Service Commission Review of Personal Services Contract (PSC) Requests. (Item No. 15)

	Speakers:	Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 Mary Marzotto, IFPTE Local 21 Criss Romero, IFPTE Local 21 Jennifer Johnston, Department of Human Resources

	Action:	No action was taken by the Commission.

0412-08-7	Request for hearing of the automatic resignation by Erick S. Johnson, General Laborer (Job Code 7514) with the Public Utilities Commission. (Item No. 16)

	December 15, 2008:	Approve the automatic resignation and deny the appeal by Erick Johnson. (Vote of 2 to 1; Commissioner Normandy dissents.) Continue to the meeting of January 5, 2009. (Three (3) votes are needed for Commission action.)

	January 5, 2009:	Postpone to the meeting of February 2, 2009 at the request of Vince Courtney, Laborers Local 261.

Speakers:

Erick Johnson, Appellant

Michael De Bellis, Public Utilities Commission

Action:

Approve the automatic resignation and deny the appeal by Erick Johnson; Cancel any current examination and eligibility status. (Vote of 4 to 0)

0565-08-1	Fiscal Year 2009-10 Civil Service Commission Budget Request. (Item No. 17)

	December 15, 2008:	Accept report. Direct Commission staff to prepare Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Request at current service and staffing levels, to continue to negotiate amounts, present draft Budget Request at the Commission Meeting of February 2, 2009, incorporating changes made by the Commission up to February 20, 2009, approve to submit the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Request to the Controller and the Mayor by February 20, 2009.

	January 5, 2009:	Direct Commission staff to continue to negotiate amounts, finalize the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Request, incorporate changes, approve to submit the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Request to the Controller and the Mayor by February 20, 2009.

	Speakers:	Sandra Eng, Civil Service Commission

	Action:	Approve Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Request and submit to the Mayor and Controller by February 20, 2009; Continue to negotiate amounts. (Vote of 4 to 0)

0565-08-1	Progress Report: Salary Setting for the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors for a five (5) year cycle, effective July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014, in accordance with Charter Section 2.100 (Item No. 18)

	December 15, 2008:	Accept the staff report on the Preliminary Work Plan – Salary Setting for the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, effective July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014 in accordance with Charter Section 2.100. The Commission requested the City Attorney’s opinion on the provision in Charter Section 2.100 regarding the City and employee organizations amending compensation provisions of existing memorandum of understanding to reduce costs and information on other national consolidated cities and counties.

	January 5, 2009:	Accept the staff report; Proceed with the salary survey and report progress to the Commission.

	Speakers:	Luz Morganti, Civil Service Commission

	Action:	Accept the report. (Vote of 4 to 0)

REQUEST TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Item No. 19)

Sylvia Johnson spoke on the City’s budget problems and its affect on her health services. Virginia Morgan requested information on the status of her request for hearing on a discrimination complaint.

COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS/REQUESTS (Item No. 20)

None.

ADJOURNMENT (Item No. 21)

6:03 p.m.

Meeting Information