February 07, 2011 Regular Meeting

0022-11-1

Status Report on Fiscal Year 2010-11 Service and Performance Goals of the Civil Service Commission as of December 31, 2010.  (Item No. 7)

Speakers:

Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer

Action:

Accept the report.  (Vote of 5 to 0)

0023-11-8

Review of request for approval of proposed personal services contracts. 
(Item No. 8)

PSC#

Department

Amount

Type of Service

Type of Approval

Duration

4063-10/11

Airport Commission

$6,000,000

Airport Contract CT8970 CCTV Security System Enhancements is a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Other Transactions Agreement (OTA) grant that will provide technical and manage-ment support for the integration of a video manage-ment system, an event management system, the addition of new IP based cameras and the integration of existing Air Train, perimeter and boarding area cameras. Integrator will implement and integrate these new software systems within the Airport’s existing network structure. Integrator must be familiar with the Airport’s existing software and hardware systems supporting aviation security requirements and be able to provide technical services after implementation and acceptance of new system if needed.

Regular

12/31/13

4064-10/11

Public Health

$2,000,000

In response to SB1953, which required acute care hospitals to meet explicit seismic safety standards in order to remain functional after a major earthquake, San Francisco GeneralHospital is being rebuilt and is due to open in 2015. The new facility will have 9 floors, add 32 beds, and move 27 hospital depart-ments and personnel, with many new operating systems. In order to fully prepare for this historic move, SFGH needs consultants to help devise a comprehensive transition and occupancy plan, including details on implementation of compliance with regulatory requirements and review of administrative and clinical and operational systems, a

move-in schedule and budget, and recommendations on the details of staffing patterns and training needed, as well as IT functions.

Regular

12/31/19

4065-10/11

Public Health

$11,272,800

Contractor will provide intermittent, as needed temporary, on-call professional radiology technologists with on call availability, 7 days per week. Registry personnel will be available on 24 hour notice to back up civil service employees during scheduled and unscheduled staff absences.

Regular

06/30/16

4066-10/11

Department of Technology

$4,158,472

Contractor will provide services to monitor and administer Avaya telephone switches and telecom networks used by all City departments. These 24X7 services include: (1) Network fault management support; (2) Product management performance analysis; (3) PBX traffic and system analysis;
(4) Network administration, engineering and consultant support; (5) Network routing software design and administration support; (6) Network translation implementation, and (7) System management.

Regular

06/30/14

4067-10/11

District Attorney

$700,793

This contract will fund the launch and implementa-tion of the Re-entryCenter, a transitional housing and reentry program for ex-offenders returning from state and local custody. The program will be based upon

Regular

03/31/13

4068-10/11

Postpone to the meeting of 3/7/11

Municipal Transportation Agency

$3,833,760

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) requires the services of a contractor to perform all the duties pertaining to the SFMTA's red light camera enforcement system. Duties include but are not limited to the following: maintain the system (hardware and software); issue and process citations for red light violations; provide court evidence packages; provide expert witness testimony pertain-ing to the system; train SF Police Department employees on the system's functions; provide regular reports on the system to the SFMTA; and provide a secure internet site for violators to obtain information on their violation.

Regular

02/06/16

4069-10/11

Public Utilities Commission

$98,000

The City conducts environmental monitoring offshore of San Francisco between Rocky Point in Marin County and Point San Pedro in San Mateo County in order to assess environmental impacts of a treated wastewater discharge. Monitoring requirements include sediment, benthic infauna, and fisheries sampling. A qualified vessel with the proper equipment and a licensed captain is needed to allow SFPUC staff to collect required samples. In addition the City is required to conduct a dilution study at the Southwest Ocean Outfall that will require the use of a research vessel to deploy, maintain, and retrieve buoyed instrument arrays offshore near the outfall.

Regular

12/31/15

4070-10/11

Public Utilities Commission

$100,000

In conjunction with Ocean Beach Vision Council, the consultant will develop an Ocean Beach Master Plan, a comprehensive document that will address the following elements: climate change and sea level rise; open space (beach, promenade, parks & streetscape, passive and active recreation); roadway (streets & parking); potential for development of renewable energy sources (wave, wind, tidal); beach erosion control and coastal protection (including seawall); protection and enhancement of natural resources (including habitat for special status species); concepts for signage, interpretive features, lighting and public art; circulation (including east-west flow corridors); integration of related projects and plans that are being implemented by other entities; sustainability guidelines; management/ maintenance structures and strategies; and implementation (budgets, funding and phasing).

Regular

12/31/12

4071-10/11

Withdrawn by PUC

Public Utilities Commission

$1,000,000

As part of compensatory mitigation that was negotiated with regulatory agencies, SFPUC plans on

enhancement, rehabilitation, and preservation of special-status species habits, native plant communities, and wetlands in selected areas within various Bay Area watersheds. Native California flora will be planted as part of these activities in most of the sites. This contract will include the collection, propagation, care and delivery of over 20,000 plants.

Regular

04/01/12

4072-10/11

Public Utilities Commission

$7,500,000

Provide construction inspection services during construction for HHWP for hydro-generation and power facilities designed under contract CS-140.

Regular

12/31/18

4073-10/11

Public Utilities Commission

$9,000,000

SFPUC intends to award up to three (3) agreements, at $3 million each to perform specialized Engineering

Design Services on an as-needed basis to supplement SFPUC and other City Staff. Civil, structural, electrical, mechanical engineering and other specialized engineering needed to complete utility engineering projects.

Regular

03/01/16

4074-10/11

Public Utilities Commission

$9,500,000

Provide project engineering design and commissioning services for Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) hydro-generation and power facilities as outlined in HHWP Power Condition Assessment (2009). Contractor to provide technical expertise and guidance to maintain and address Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC) & North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regulatory requirements.

Regular

12/31/19

4075-10/11

Public Works

$490,000

*The original PSC #4151-06/07 was approved for a three-year term on 5/07/07 with contract period from

8/01/07 to 8/01/10. Three agreements were awarded, two with five-year terms each and one with a three-year term. The agreement with a three-year term has CSOs that, due to delays in awarding the contract, as well as delays in project schedules, will need to be completed beyond the master agreement end date of 01/22/11. The Contract Manager requests for an extension of the agreement’s term to the maximum term of 5 years as allowed in the Administrative Code Section 6.64; the final years are allowed to complete ongoing work

Regular

11/04/13

Speakers:

Jacquie Hale and Rafael Ibarra, Department of Public Health spoke on PSC #4065-10.

Carol Isen, Public Utilities Commission spoke on PSC #4070-10/11.

Pauson Yun and Margaret Hannaford, Public Utilities Commission spoke on PSC #s 4072-10/11 and 4074-10/11.

Action:

(1)      Postpone PSC #4068-10/11 to the meeting of March 7, 2011.  (Vote of 5 to 0)

(2)      PSC #4071-10/11 withdrawn at the request of the Public Utilities Commission.  (Vote of 5 to 0)

(3)      Adopt the report; Approve request for all remaining contracts.  Notify the Office of the Controller and the Office of Contract Administration.  (Vote of 5 to 0)

0024-11-8

Review of request for approval of proposed personal services contracts. 
(Item No. 9)

PSC#

Department

Amount

Type of Service

Type of Approval

Duration

4076-10/11

Postpone to the meeting of 3/7/11

Mayor’s Office of Business & Economic Dev.

$446,900

The contractor will provide program management for the Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive Replacement Project’s (P3) Local Workforce Participation Program.  Those duties will include acting as the primary contact between OEWD and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Regular

12/31/14

Speakers:

None.

Action:

Postpone to the meeting of March 7, 2011 at the request of the Mayor’s Office of Business & Economic Development. 
(Vote of 5 to 0)

0374-10-1

Update Only of Staff Report Status on Department of Human Resources (DHR) Civil Service Reform Phase II Proposal to Eliminate Interdepartmental (Citywide) Bumping – No Action on the Proposal; However, the Commission may request additional information and give direction to its Executive Officer. 
(Item No. 10)

December 20, 2010:

Direct the Executive Officer to work with the Human Resources Director and the Commission’s City Attorney Counsel to review Charter, Rules, MOU and other applicable provisions covering Layoffs; Prepare a staff report to the Commission with recommendations and process with time-frames for discussions regarding this proposal; schedule staff report for hearing at the February 7, 2011 meeting of the Commission. 

Note:

The Commission also directed that this group include and consult with Vice President Casper to have benefit of his institutional memory.

Speakers:

Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer called the item and stated that no action on the proposal will be taken today but the Commission may give direction to the Executive Officer on how to proceed.  Miss Sanchez indicated that a staff report with recommendations has not been completed.  Staff is proceeding to identify and review Rules and procedures and its impact on bumping and layoffs.  In order to formulate specific recommendations; the Commission is requesting data from DHR on number of ties in seniority, number of laid-off employees released during the probationary period, number of temporary exempts backfilling a position on leave are bumped, and how many 5-year or less employees are laid-off.  Staff will present specific recommendations from its analysis and findings to the Commission.  Notice will be provided when these specific proposals are scheduled for a Commission meeting.

Micki Callahan, Human Resources Director shared information pertinent to the subject; mainly that this is an issue that has generated a lot of concern and is very serious.  The Department of Human Resources (DHR) has been engaged over several years with Civil Service Reform activities, most of which have not been controversial.  This particular proposal is one that was of great interest to a number of the departments because of the disruption that is involved when there is a bump.  However, at this point, it is clear to us in DHR that we have a massive budget deficit and the very real potential of layoffs coming as early as this Spring, it would be very difficult and probably inappropriate to pursue changes while people have a layoff notice in hand.  I think that the Commission’s desire to

have a considered approach is appropriate; DHR supports that.  While indeed, we have laid this among other issues at the foot of the Commission for review, DHR is in view of the City’s financial constraints and the need to put our resources in pensions and benefit reform and other matters, that is where DHR’s resources will be directed at this point.  I just wanted to share that, of course all of this is within the Commission’s purview and we will certainly do our best to provide all information and cooperate on behalf of the department and the departments that we represent in all the processes that the Commission may set up to review this and other associated issues.

Albert Sandoval, 7344 Carpenter respectfully requested the Commission to take no action and rule to no longer consider the elimination of City wide bumping.  This proposal is a tactic to divide and conquer that is mean spirited and has created anxiety, fear, and stress among the workers.  If pursued, it will inevitably create a class action law suit that would not be cost effective in the long run.

Larry Griffin, Chapter President, IFPTE Local 21 concurred with the previous speaker and also stated that this proposal seems to really gut what civil service is all about.  It was originally created in order to curtail political payback and nepotism in the departments.  This proposal would take us right back to that time.

Jonathan Wright, Field Representative, IFPTE Local 21 concurred with the two previous speakers.

Dean Coate, President, IFPTE Local 21 agreed with the previous speakers and feels the Commission should remove the consideration of this item from the agenda permanently.

Shirley Breyer Black stated that civil service has always been very fair.  There was no worry that some-one was going to get a job because they had a cousin.  She wants to retain the fairness.

Clifford Drescher, Field Representative, Carpenters Local 22 strongly opposed the elimination of citywide bumping and seniority.  Some of the hidden consequences include 1) Dedicated employees who have spent years working for the City will be laid off before new employees working in the same classification but for a different department; 2) Heightened employment insecurity; 3) More layoffs of older employees, etc.  Not only does it hurt the workers, it also hurts the citizens of San Francisco.

He is disheartened by the fact that the Department of Human Resources has ignored the serious consequences above, instead focusing solely on the potential for disruption to departments.

Steve Zeltzer, retired City worker and also a member of United Public Workers for Action stated that we’ve learned today that all of a sudden the Department of Human Resources has had a change of mind.  It’s no longer interested in attacking Citywide bumping rights.  Now they want to start attacking our healthcare and pension benefits. 

Mary Marzotto, IFPTE Local 21 opposed the proposal to eliminate citywide bumping.  This will have the greatest adverse effect on miscellaneous employees who serve in a number of departments unlike other employees like the police and firefighters who serve in only one department.  The department says bumping is disruptive to departments and this is their primary reason for making the proposal.  Last year, over two thousand employees retired and new members had to come into departments, so they needed training and there is always movement in departments so training is always needed.

Tony Hall, former member Board of Supervisors stated that he spent over 30 years as a civil service employee, five of which was spent as a staff member with the Civil Service Commission in the early 60’s writing the rules and regulations that strengthens the Civil Service merit system as we know it today.  He then went on to hold administrative positions in seven different departments in all three branches of government.  The merit system was put in place at the turn of the last century to eliminate a spoils system that was rampant with cronyism, favoritism, political patronage that gave way to one of the most corrupt periods in our history.  The proposal to eliminate bumping and seniority rights for our long time civil servants is a step backward to that period of time.  It can only lead to the undermining, the underpinning, the demoralizing, and the gutting of the institutional knowledge that our civil servants need to do their jobs.  To replace long-time civil servants with temporary exempt appointments is nothing less than scandalous.  It’s immoral and it’s an affront to any person that has given his life career to making the City a better place to be.  He urged the Commission to do the right thing.

Allen Ackerman, City Locksmith/Local 22 thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak.  This means that we, as San Franciscans get to come together and work out the problems.  He began at his craft thirty five years ago.  After a year, he felt he knew everything and after five years he realized he had a lot to learn.  Now, after thirty five years he’s beginning to feel as though he’s qualified to instruct others coming up through the system and learning these things.  This honorable Board itself recognizes the benefit of experience as found on Page 9 of the Agenda in the note: “The Commission also directed that this group include and consult with Vice President Casper to have benefit of his institutional memory.”   All of us here, those on the Commission and those of us who are City workers, came to the City with one thing.  We’re custodians of the City, its services, its infrastructure and we want to tender that while we’re allowed to work for it and give it back at least as good as it was when we got it.  Seniority, as recognized in this Agenda by this membership is a real good thing.  Please, please, there are other mechanisms in place besides bumping to weed out things in our service that need to be weeded out. 

Bob Muscat, Chair of the Public Employee Committee of the Labor Council and Executive Director IFPTE Local 21 complimented all the previous speakers and what they had to say and commented on the anti-public sentiment that’s building up around the country.  A lot of it relates to some real problems that exist around healthcare and pension and other kinds of campaigns and issues.  In San Francisco we have, over the last few years tried hard to cooperate with the City in doing work that revolves around fact-based analysis of what the real problems are and what the best solutions would be.  The problem here is, this is not really a fact-based proposal.  If you look at the facts here, what is really necessary is for this Commission to send a strong statement that they will not be a party to “piling on” and they insist that any problems we have around problems that need to be resolved be equitable and fact-based and not part of a larger campaign to destroy the public sector.  That is what everyone is looking for from you today and we hope you don’t let them down.

Tim Paulson, Executive Director San Francisco Labor Council stated that the public sector unions here in San Francisco have really stepped up to the plate and have been here to work with the City every year, every time the Mayor or anyone else has asked them to.  In light of everything the labor movement has given up and all the work that they’re continuing to do to deal with the budget deficit, putting this proposal on the agenda has been very disruptive.  On behalf of the labor movement, we’re asking that this item gets removed from the Agenda today.

Dorian Maxwell, Transit Workers Union, Local 250A expressed his opposition to the proposal.

Kay Walker, Vice President Retirees Chapter SEIU Local 1021.  Retirees are against the proposal.  This is another attack on the public sector.  She stated there are forces within the City who do not have respect for the workers as they should have.

Ken Lucas, Carpenters Local 22 concurred with all the speakers in opposition to the proposal.

Alex Hodson, Field Representative SEIU Local 1021 concurred with all speakers and classifications are citywide.

Larry Mazzola, Jr., Plumbers Union Local 38 urged the Commission to pull this item from the Agenda. He would like to hear someone thank City workers for what they do instead of blaming them.

Kim Carter, IFPTE Local 21 referenced Civil Service Commission Rule 121 which governs layoffs for all miscellaneous employees and San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).  She stated that Civil Service Rule 121 governs all layoffs for all miscellaneous employees in both the City and the District.  When the District or the City eliminates positions among civil service employees Rule 121 utilizes seniority as the method of determining which employees will be affected by layoff.  SFUSD has previously fought the City hoping to invalidate bumping by laid off City and County of San

Francisco (CCSF) workers.  They lost twice.  In 2009, one Judge denied their petition for writ of mandate and in 2010, another Judge granted the motion for summary judgment.  These were filed by the City and IFPTE Local 21 and SEIU Local 1021.  SFUSD attempted to separate itself from the bumping process.  On those occasions the City argued in favor of citywide bumping.  In Superior Court, DHR argued forcefully that bumping rights under civil service rules constituted a six-decade practice and has always served the City and its departments very well.  They argued it should not be overturned.  Ms. Callahan submitted several declarations emphasizing the exercise of bumping does not interfere with the important managerial objectives in the individual departments.  In fact, DHR allows departments to set standards, seek special conditions, place employees on probation, extend the probation and terminate them if they’re not up to standards. 

The City Attorney successfully argued bumping rights are an essential part of the Civil Service Commission and have been for decades.  In addition, these rules have long been incorporated as key features in the City’s collective bargaining agreements.  To undo them will have numerous intended and unintended consequences that would require broad restructuring in response. 

It is not very principled to argue one way under penalty of perjury in front of the Courts and then turn around and use the opposition’s arguments in front of this Commission.      

Joe Brenner, IFPTE Local 21 concurs with the previous speakers.

Judith Christensen, Delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council stated that there has been an ongoing war against civil service and this latest attack to discard citywide bumping and seniority rights, targets longtime city workers’ experience and institutional knowledge who are over 40.

Sylvia Alvarez-Lynch, requested that prior to the next round of lay-offs, DHR be asked to submit a full report of the classifications that are going to be laid-off, why they were targeted for lay-off, what age and years of service each person targeted for lay-off has with the City.

Ken Tray, Teacher San FranciscoUnifiedSchool District spoke on behalf of teachers and educators.  He urged the Commission to give serious thought to this proposal and do the right thing.

Rich Koenig, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 reminded the Commission that the seniority system was established years ago by their predecessors as a safeguard to protect City workers against age, religious, sexual discrimination, against nepotism and favoritism to name a few.  He urged the Commission to drop this proposal.

Michael Scott, War MemorialPerformingArtsCenter stated that their department has been let down and they are against the proposal.

Tony Guzzetta, Plumbers Union Local 38 feels this proposal seems to be another attack on the public sector capitalizing on the public sentiment that somehow blaming the public workers for the bad economic times that the majority of Americans find themselves in.  It doesn’t save the City a dime.  The City works efficiently because of the workers it has.  He urged the Commission to remove this item from the Agenda.

Ed Kinchley, City employee with 29 years of service stated that the premise behind this proposal seems to be that he and many other employees of the City could not do well at their jobs in another City department.  Do we want a City that is made up of 50, 60 separate departments that do their own thing, hire their own people, or do we want a City that functions cooperatively?  Especially with the budget crisis we have right now, we ought to try to figure out how to work cooperatively.  If you truly want to thank the thousands of City workers who have worked so hard for this City, I would suggest you take this proposal off the table.

Karen Rosen, has worked for the City for twenty years.  This proposal will foster a group of workers who do not care about the perception the citizens of San Francisco get when they come into our offices.

Manny Flores, Carpenters Union Local 22 stated that he concurs with everyone and encouraged all to move forward and not backwards.

Marcus Arana, Human Rights Commission urged the Commission to reject the proposal.

Susan Black, Clerk, San Francisco Police Department with thirty eight years of service would be one of the affected employees. 

Frank Martin del Campo, SEIU Local 1021 opposes this proposal.  This is an offense against City workers.

Amy Gray-Schlink, Plumber with Local 38 agrees with all the speakers before.

Randy Blaustein, concurs with all speakers.

Mike Casey, San Francisco Labor Council & Hotel Workers Local 2 stated that working people are attacked regularly in this country.  If bumping and seniority is allowed to be eliminated, you’re opening the door to all kinds of law suits.  If you want to look at this from the perspective of working people, we’d appreciate you to reject this but look at it from a fiduciary perspective.  If you allow bumping to be eliminated, if you attack seniority in this way, you’re going to be opening the door to all kinds of separate law suits, all kinds of cost attached to fights about whether or not the right person was put into the job or not; this is going to open a whole can of worms that I don’t even think is being contemplated.  So from a fiduciary perspective, if for no other reason, I urge you to kill this matter, let it drop dead and go forth with the issues that we really do need to address. 

Steve Kech, seventeen year employee at San FranciscoCityCollege stated that when they get the word that an employee is bumping into their department, they meet with and embrace them and make them feel welcome like a part of the group.  He urged the Commission to reject this proposal.

Maria Guillen, Shop Steward SEIU Local 1021 and 22 year employee stated that there is a big push for wellness, joining weight watchers and climbing the stairs, etc.  But the City must take responsibility for creating all the stress.

Sin Yee Poon, SEIU Local 1021 stated that we need to look at the purpose for which civil service was formed.  Seniority is one of the major objective criteria in the merit system.  An attack on seniority and bumping is a dismantling of the cornerstone of the objective criteria.  It must be opposed as an attack on the merit system as a whole.  This proposal is definitely mean-spirited and must be rejected.

Maki Matsumura, SEIU Local 1021 is here to argue against this proposal.  Inter-departmental bumping rights is designed to protect smaller classifications in small departments.  It protects job security for older employees.

David H. Williams, PresidentWestBay Chapter Retirees SEIU Local 1021 wanted to applaud those who have made all the points he would like to make.  He asked the Commission not to be a part of the problem but a part of the solution and take it off the table.

Phil Asgedom, SEIU Local 1021 concurs with all the comments made here today.

Mercedes Hernandez, retired human resources employee of 29 years and Grupo Presente member.  People who have been affected by this proposal are mostly older women, mostly of color.  To send them out there to start all over again is really a travesty.  Workers have rights and you as the Civil Service Commission are the guardian of those rights and this needs to be brought forward.  She stated that there are many who would come forward because they have already been targeted and are afraid of retaliation.  She suggested putting out a citywide survey so people could respond to it without fear or retribution.

Gregory Cross, Field Representative SEIU Local 1021 stated that the arguments you have heard already are very persuasive.  The only problem in his view with disruptions is when management do not take the time to train a new employee for their specific department.  Even though the classification is the same, the duties may vary from one department to another.

Emma Gerould, SEIU Local 1021 concurs with all the other speakers.  She stated that at least two hundred clerks in the 1400 series were laid off in the Department of Public Health last year in order to use a lower class clerical position where they were put.  

Jacqueline Sowers, stated that she concurs with all the speakers and suggested that the Chair repeat the statement regarding pulling the item off calendar due to the fact that some of the people in the overflow room did not hear it.

Larry Bradshaw, SEIU Local 1021 is interested in talking about Civil Service reform but only that which strengthens and not weaken.  We want to return to a civil service system that protects our members and protects the public.  We want to return to a system where we get hired or fired not on the basis of who we know but on what we know.  He asked that the Commission not just pull the item but decidedly reject it.

Lorrie Beth Slonsky, San Francisco Fire Department Retiree stated that this proposal represents the erosion of the merit system, it weakens the protections against favoritism and is an insult to senior employees who have invested their working lives, their dedication and their education in making this City as great as it is.

Steve Pitocchi, SEIU Local 1021 spoke on behalf of the membership who requested he put their three main concerns: favoritism, nepotism and retaliation before the Commission.

Scott Barlow, Carpenter stated that he is one of the most recent hire in his department but he is in favor of keeping seniority and not eliminating bumping rights.  If we are going to maintain a stable and dedicated and professional workforce within the City to give those with seniority the right to bump across departments.

Dave Gossman, Operating Engineers Local 3 stated that he concurs with all the speakers and noted that all the unions are here as one voice pulling together.

Audrey Leong, SEIU Local 1021 asking the Commission to vote down Proposal; have to keep seniority rights and civil service protections.  City has shown favoritism to certain employees.  In her previous department, the superintendent hired his friend’s son—she was on the same eligible list.  After hiring the person, she was asked to train him and after training him, she was laid off.  Fortunately, because of citywide bumping, she has a job and continues to use her skills as an Account Clerk.

Rafael Cabrera, TWU Local 250A agrees with all speakers.  He believes this is the right Commission and that their heart is in the right place and he believes they will do what’s right.

Charles Ward, fourteen year Painter at the Airport said he came to the City to work because he felt he had security.  It’s best not to fix something that’s not broken.

Teresa Lewkowitz, along with others in her department was bumped from her position.  They later found out the person who replaced them was their supervisor’s sister-in-law. 

Action:

By consensus  1)  The Commission directed the Executive Officer to schedule a Special Meeting and calendar for action the rejection and removal of the Proposal to Eliminate Interdepartmental (Citywide) Bumping from the Civil Service Commission Agenda.  2)  The Commission also requested a study of bumping and directed the Executive Officer to work with DHR on a report of a study on its reform rather than its removal, to make it more efficient, cost-effective and less disruptive to both management and the bumped individual.

0025-11-1

Briefing and Report by the Department of Human Resources on the Development and Administration of the H-50 Assistant Chief Examination, San Francisco Fire Department.  (Item No. 11)

Speakers:

Chief Joanne Hayes-White, San Francisco Fire Department

Dave Johnson, Department of Human Resources

Micki Callahan, Human Resources Director

Matthew McNaughton, Candidate on the examination process stated that he participated in the exam from the beginning.  I’m here to comment on a case that the Commissioner brought up and that is Ricci v. DeStefano.  It has haunting similarities to what’s going on here.  Again, this is a case in the Supreme Court when the Civil Service Commission or what they call the Bureau of the New Haven, Connecticut did not certify an examination because the list had disparate impact.  Factually, the list makes up an absolute parallel.  Ricci addressed the need of a strong basis in evidence to uphold the job related aspect of the exam.  The uniform guides on employee selection procedures codified in the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice and the EOCC were cited as the Rosetta Stone to go ahead and formulate these exams which are formulated for the purpose of promoting affirmative action.  Our exam unit follows these guides to a “T”.  A review of the validation standards in the examination team’s product will show that this examination is both valid and legally defensible.  In Ricci, the Supreme Court spends over eight pages just talking about the political influence in this case.  And what they meant is, in New Haven, the Mayor was influenced by a civil rights leader who wanted to put a stop to the examination.  The Mayor, DeStefano, who was the other companion in the case allowed this exterior political process to influence the Civil Service Bureau, our functional equivalent of the Commission.  But the holding includes these salient facts; tests that are administered under the guides validated with sound job analysis applicable to the job are legally defendable.  In the job announcement, page after page of the knowledge, skills and abilities were indeed tested and all four fire problems and the counseling session.

In fact, Ricci instructs all of us in the United States that all of us has a race and it’s protected under Title 7.  Do not simply react because exam results are not what are expected or desired.  Support your human resources department, their hard work and their strong basis in evidence supported by twenty years of this safety team’s analysis and development of these tests allow you and implore you to validate the examination.

Kevin Burke, President, San Francisco Fire Chief Officers Association and exam participant stated that when the H-50 Assistant Chief exam was announced most of their members anxiously awaited the test.  For some of the members, especially those in acting H-50 positions, the anxiety was due to the knowledge that a poor performance on that test could result in a demotion or unplanned retirement.  Other members’ anxiety was due to the opportunity that lay in front of them and that opportunity was to compete for the H-50 Assistant Chief position in a testing process that had not been seen in over twenty years.

Part I of the test was the Fire Scene Simulation.  Preparation materials were distributed and his Association did not receive any formal complaint regarding the process. 

When the preparation material for Part II the Training and Performance Counseling Exercise were distributed concerns were raised.  The Chief’s Association held a meeting to discuss those concerns and all Chief Officers, even non-members of our organization were invited for input.  After discussion, a motion was made, a vote was taken and a letter was drafted to the Civil Service Commission and DHR raising our concerns with the second part of the test.  It was not a universal vote; I believe it was 23-7 to protest that part of the exam.  Also during that meeting, two individuals who are now protesting the process did ask him personally why they were not addressing Part I of the test and this was one week before Part I was to be given but no one brought it to the organization.  There was no formal protest.  After that, it was never brought to our organization again.

So DHR was sensitive to their concerns and postponed Part II of the exam process.  DHR redesigned that Part II and it became a Supervision and Performance Counseling exercise and materials were distributed.  The Association received no formal protests on the new Part II.  So as President of the Fire Chief’s Association and an exam participant, I found the exam process for the H-50 Assistant Chief to be thorough, challenging and job related.  I ask the Civil Service Commission to uphold the results of the testing process and deny the appeal.

Kevin Smith, President Black Firefighters Association stated that it was his group that authored the document bringing forth some their issues regarding the H-50 exam.  Commissioner Casper covered a lot of the issues they brought up but there is one other issue regarding security that was not addressed.  In fact, there are some claims pending before the Commission.  In addition, an independent review of this exam would allow the Commission to take the findings and use that knowledge and make a well informed decision if they’re going to take any action at all on this particular exam.

Tom O’Connor, President, Fire Fighters, Local 798 stated that he is here originally to speak on the validity of the examination and to address whether or not the job was reflective of knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for the rank of H-50 Assistant Chief.  But hearing the comments that Commissioner Casper brought up, he thinks perhaps it is time that we have a thorough and fair review so that we don’t belittle the accomplishments of those who are on the promotive list.  He also thinks it imperative that we do so in a very timely manner because there are a host of other people waiting to move up in the ranks who are being held up by any protests with this List. I also think it imperative for us to understand the burden that those who are waiting to be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant, Captain, Battalion Chief are all stalled in this process when this top level job is held up and some of those lists will be expiring soon, perhaps in October.

Bryan Rubenstein, candidate in the first H-50 exam offered by the SFFD in over twenty years and he takes this opportunity to support the exam.  It is a valid test that is job related.  They tested our knowledge, skills and abilities against measurable standards.  I would also like to say, I appreciate the attention and study given to this matter by the Commission.  Clearly you’re actively pursuing …. related to its validity.  Tests are extra-ordinarily difficult to take and I can only imagine what it’s like to create and to score.  It is with humility and expectation that you are aware of these statements that I must say that everyone has a race and it’s protected under Title 7.  Please do not take any extraordinary actions that would not permit to select from this List.  Test results that may not have been what was expected do not justify throwing out a list. 

There is a strong basis of evidence supporting the test validity and its defendability.  Title 7’s terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular group.

Kevin Taylor, Appellant and H-50 participant stated that he wanted to make it known that all of his appeals were filed in a timely manner and also requested that the H-50 examination be thoroughly investigated.

Action:

By consensus the Commission directed the Executive Officer to schedule a Special Meeting and calendar for the Commission to take action on the Adequacy of the H-50 Assistant Chief Examination, San Francisco Fire Department. 

Note:

The Commission also directed that the appeal of Kevin D. Taylor be placed on calendar prior to taking its action on the H-50 Examination.

0026-11-1

Department of Human Resources Briefing and Response to the Inspection Service Request of Concerns Raised by Cornelius Johnson Regarding the Q-80 Captain Examination, San Francisco Police Department.   (Item No. 12)

Speakers:

Jaye Erickson, Department of Human Resources

Lt. Cornelius Johnson, Complainant

Action:

By consensus the Commission directed the Executive Officer to schedule a Special Meeting and calendar for action the response to concerns raised in the Inspection Service Request by Cornelius Johnson regarding the
Q-80 Captain Examination, San Francisco Police Department.

In addition, the Human Resources Director acknowledged the Commission’s request not to adopt the Eligible List until this matter is heard by the Commission.  The Commission could not take action as this was calendared as a “No Action” item.

Note:

DHR will investigate and report to the Commission its findings on the allegation of a rater having led a study group for the Q-80 Exam.