body,date,page,text,path
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - AUGUST 28, 2012 - - 5:00 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Members
Dean Batchelor, Linda McHugh, Marguerite Malloy, Executive
Secretary Holly Brock-Cohn and Randy Riddle (outside counsel for
the Board).
Staff:
City Attorney Janet Kern, Assistant City Attorney II Stephanie Sierra,
Senior Management Analysts Jill Kovacs and Chris Low, and HR
Administrative Technician Sharlene Jackson.
Appellants:
Dave Gossman, Business Union Representative for Operating
Engineers Local 3 for Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA)
Trini Blumkin, former Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD)
Recreation Program Coordinator
Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator
Andy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator
Investigator: Karen Kramer, Esq., Kramer-Weise Business Management
Consultants
3.
AGENDA ITEM:
A.
A Special Meeting has been called for the Civil Service Board Members to
Discuss, Consider, and Act on the Following:
1. Results of the Personnel Investigation - City of Alameda Recreation
Services Specialist Recruitment dated August 13, 2012 conducted by
Karen Kramer, Esq.
President Peeler stated that Ms. Karen Kramer, Esq. will be given ten- minutes to present
her findings of the investigation and then Board members will have an opportunity to ask
questions. Then the Appellant's will have ten-minutes to speak and the public with be able
to make comments. Comments from the public will be allowed three minutes per speaker.
President Peeler invited Ms. Kramer to present her report to the Board. Ms. Kramer stated
that she had been asked to conduct the fact-finding investigation for the Recreation
Services Specialist Recruitment and she had concluded her investigation on August 13,
2012. The scope of the investigation was two-fold: 1) Involved the allegations of possible",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,2,"Street
racial discrimination by the three minority Appellants; and 2) Involved the fairness of the
recruitment process. As stated in the report, there is no evidence suggesting that racial
discrimination played a role in the recruitment or selection process. Ms. Kramer stated that
the Appellants do agree on this finding.
Ms. Kramer also stated that as far as the fairness of the recruitment process is concerned,
whether Dale Lillard, then ARPD Director, had a predisposed plan to have his candidates
selected, or that he in any way influenced the outcome of the recruitment there was no
evidence indicating that the selection process was conducted in a biased or unfair manner.
The facts that were presented to Ms. Kramer did not corroborate with any of the
allegations.
Ms. Kramer found that there were three parts to the recruitment process. The first part was
a written application in which all of the minimum qualifications were met by all of the
applicants and to which the Appellants did not object.
There were two issues that were raised; 1) one applicant not having a degree and; 2)
another applicant not having enough number of years of experience required. Both
allegations were also not corroborated and unsubstantiated.
The second part of the recruitment process involved the supplemental questions. During
the interviews, Appellants did acknowledge that there were no objections to the
supplemental questions. These questions were prepared by Chris Low, HR Management
Analyst. The questions were reviewed by Mr. Lillard, but no changes were made to the
questions prepared by Mr. Low. Completed supplemental questions were reviewed by
subject matter experts who were recommended by Mr. Lillard. Neither of the subject matter
experts communicated with Mr. Lillard regarding the questions. There was no indication
that he in any way had impacted the evaluation of the responses to the questions. There
was no evidence that the subject matter experts were in any way impacted in their
evaluation of the responses and there was no evidence the subject matter experts were
biased to the applicants.
The third part of the process involved an oral interview panel. For the most part, none of
the Appellants objected to the members of the interview panel. Two of the Appellants were
concerned about the involvement of Ms. Lisa Goldman, City of Alameda Assistant City
Manager, since she is or was Mr. Lillard's immediate supervisor. The panel members were
chosen by the City Manager and there is no evidence that shows any bias against any of
the applicants. The questions that were asked of the applicants during the oral interview
were created by Mr. Low and Ms. Goldman. Mr. Lillard was not involved in the creation of
those questions. There is no evidence that the questions were leaked prior to the
interviews.
There was a concern raised by the Appellants that one of the applicants was interviewed
by telephone, and a legitimate explanation for that has been provided.
There was concern about corroboration about the rating process which was found to be
Page -2-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,3,"to
without merit.
Another issue raised was the weighing of the interview and supplemental questions. The
ranking would not have changed whether or not it was 40-60 or 50-50. The top three
applicants were selected based upon the scoring conducted by Chris Low. None of the
applicants objected. Also, there was no indication that Chris Low was biased in the
selection of candidates.
There were several comments attributed to Dale Lillard, where one of the Appellants
believes that there was bias in the recruitment process, that the selection of applicants was
a ""done deal,"" these comments were not corroborated. Recreation Supervisor Patrick
Russi denied making comments attributed to him about being a pawn in the process.
Based on her investigation Ms. Kramer concluded that the recruitment was a fair process,
Mr. Lillard's involvement was very limited, and did not impact the final outcome of the
recruitment.
President Peeler thanked Ms. Kramer and asked Board Members for any questions.
Member Malloy stated that Ms. Kramer had mentioned on a number of occasions that
information was not corroborated. Ms. Kramer believed the person that comments had
been made. Ms. Kramer further explained that she did not feel that anyone was
intentionally deceitful. She thinks that it was more of a perception issue.
President Peeler invited the Appellants an opportunity to address the report presented.
Dave Gossman, Business Union Representative for Operating Engineers Local 3 for
Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA), stated that he is representing not only the
Appellants but all union members applying to the City of Alameda. He did find that the
investigation was thorough and complete and stated that there were facts brought up in the
report that the Appellants were not aware of and that there were also facts which show that
the examination should be overturned. Mr. Gossman provided the Board with a report
containing comments regarding the results of the investigation and acknowledged the
findings that there was no issue of discrimination of race, creed, or marriage.
Mr. Gossman stated that their first issue was a preselection issue prior to the investigation
and examination even taking place. He further stated that not only did the applicants know
that Mr. Lillard had a predisposed plan; but that Chris Low also knew that there were
rumors of a predisposition and who the applicants were. Mr. Gossman stated that upon
confronting John Russo, City Manager, Mr. Russo stated that he already knew what was
happening and that he would take care of it.
The second issue was the selection of the test evaluators. Whether there was any
communication between Mr. Lillard and the test evaluators, Mr. Gossman expressed that
Mr. Lillard knew who the test evaluators were due to a previous employment.
Page -3-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,4,"the
Mr. Gossman stated that Mr. Lillard had called Ms. Kassebaum and asked her to review
written responses to the supplemental questions. Mr. Lillard also told Ms. Kassebaum that
the City would likely keep 3-5 employees. Ms. Kassebaum assumed Ms. Bailey was one of
the candidates since she was previously informed by Mr. Russi that Ms. Bailey's position
would likely be eliminated. Mr. Gossman stated that there was indeed communication
between Mr. Lillard and Ms. Kassebaum as indicated in page 12 of the investigative report.
Mr. Gossman stated that the third issue was that there was no notice to applicants on how
the grading process would be conducted. The candidates did not know that the
supplemental examination was to be weighed and how much the oral examination would be
weighed or that it was unknown. Mr. Gossman continued to compare the bulletins
published by the Human Resources Department pointing out the weighing of the
examination for the Senior Civil Engineer is clear and that the interview weighed as 100%
versus the bulletin for the Recreation Services Specialist. Typically, jurisdictions utilize
supplemental questions to reduce the size of the applicants. Supplemental questions,
typically, are not used to score the application.
Mr. Gossman stated that another issue was why there were two panels interviewing for a
promotional position. Also, the supplement questionnaire clearly and in bold black print
dictated the examiner was to score the answer in the following scoring method: 0 - to
indicate no experience, 1-4 to indicate minimal experience, 5-7 to indicate moderate
experience, or 8-10 for extensive/quality experience. Ms. Blumkin clearly answered the
questions and received no credit, pointing to Addendum #3 in the report he had provided.
This is clear evidence that shows one of the raters failed to follow the scoring matrix
resulting in an inaccurate score for Ms. Blumkin.
Mr. Gossman stated that in Addendum #6, identifying discrepancies in the Oral Interview
matrix, there were seven questions to be answered during the oral interview and only six
categories to score the applicants. The specific scoring matrix did not have categories that
matched the questions. The matrix does not match and was not accurate; it is quite obvious
that the scoring matrix was used from another examination. In addition, the raters did not
even comment on any of the questions; the questions were very complicated, and only 25
minutes was given for candidates to answer the questions.
The real issue of this reclassification is a budget issue; the City is going to change the
budget by removing positions; and the individuals (applicants) are already being paid from
the Athletic Trust Fund. The City is trying to get rid of certain employees, even senior
employees. Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are just looking for fairness and
equality. The recruitment process was flawed, inaccurate, and he wants to have this
rectified.
President Peeler invited Mr. Andy Wong to speak before the Board.
Mr. Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, called attention to the report he
provided to the Board. He stated that an actual number should be used to determine the
outcome of an average score and not a check mark. The checkmark was used to indicate
Page -4-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,5,"She felt this created confusion. She recommended having guidelines and information
specific to conducting interviews be provided to candidates in the future.
Mr. Don Peterson, concerned Alameda resident and former member of Local 595 IBEW,
stated that the whole recruitment looked to him like an inside job and thought the
investigation was flawed. The investigator took the word of the people that had more
power. Mr. Peterson claimed that Mr. Lillard is a disgrace and should not be working for
the City because he only hires people that he likes. Mr. Peterson expressed his concerns
Page -5-
G:Personnel\CSB\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,6,"San
about the minimum requirements stated in the bulletin for the Recreation Services
Specialist recruitment and explained that it should clearly state what the minimum
requirements are and whether it is only with a 4-year college degree from a university, or
no degree with years of experience. The bulletin should clearly state what the
requirements are and be specific. Mr. Peterson also stated that Dale Lillard has fired people
in the past and only hired people as he chooses.
President Peeler asked the Board if they would accept or deny the investigator's finding.
Vice President Horikoshi and Members McHugh and Batchelor voted to accept the
investigator's findings.
Member Malloy stated she'd like to further discuss some finite specific areas with the
investigator about some issues raised in the report.
Member Malloy asked Ms. Kramer if at any point in the investigation had she checked the
scores and if at any time she realized that Ms. Kassebaum had not provided the score to
one of the applicants in the areas that clearly address responses within the supplemental
questionnaire. Ms. Kramer replied that she did not check the scores and took the
responses provided as being accurate.
Member Malloy asked Ms. Kramer whether or not she thought the selection process was
fair in light of a scorer excluding scores in entire categories. Ms, Kramer replied that the
process was fair due to that there was no intent and likely just an oversight and/or
mathematical error. Member Malloy stated that the investigation clearly speaks for itself.
President Peeler asked the Board for a motion. Member McHugh made a motion to
accept the report prepared by Karen Kramer, Esq. Motion was seconded by Vice
President Horikoshi. Motion passed by 5-0 vote.
2. The Request of Claimants to Vacate the Results of the Recreation Services
Specialist Recruitment.
President Peeler addressed the other issue at hand, whether or not the scoring would put
someone else into position to get the job over the current position. She addressed the
Board on their opinion how to entertain that request.
Member Malloy stated she wanted to ask Mr. Riddle, outside counsel for the Board, as to
what the Board's role is and how they should continue and whether or not to order another
examination process solely based on the results of the current investigation. Or, should
they bring up a review of new items that came to light. Ms. Malloy asked if the Board
needs to determine and make a decision as to whether or not the scores are accurate.
Mr. Riddle stated that the City staff should provide their statements on the matter.
President Peeler asked members of the City staff if they had received copies of the
documentation provided by the Appellants today. City staff stated they had not. Ms. Peeler
Page -6-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,7,"San
asked City staff to review the documentation. A 30-minutes recess was given to them for
review.
President Peeler called the meeting back to order at 6:30 p.m.
City Attorney Kern addressed President Peeler and the Board and stated that the City
concurred that there was a mathematical error in the scoring as stated. Ms. Kern thanked
everyone for their time and hoped that there would have been a settlement.
HR Director Brock-Cohn reminded the Board that the names on the list are selected by the
Interview Panel and Department Head can select whomever she/he wanted on the list. The
question still would remain as to whether she/he would have taken the top three or skipped
around on the list and taken different candidates because of the new order. There is still
the question of whether the Department Head would have selected the exact same people
since there may have been a different order on the list.
President Peeler asked if the selection was by the top three or rule of the list. HR Director
Brock-Cohn stated that it is the rule of the list. The person making the selection can select
whomever they want off of the list.
Mr. Riddler asked for the difference between candidates three and four on the list.
Management Analyst Low stated that the difference would be that Mr. Wong would have
72.6 points and Mr. McDaniel's would have 72.2 points. This results in Mr. Wong
increasing by 1.2 points, or .40 more than Mr. McDaniel on the published list.
Mr. Gossman stated the issue now is that the scoring was inaccurate. His recommendation
is to have a new test for fairness and equality.
Ms. Kramer stated that the important point from her perspective was that with the scoring of
the supplemental questions there appeared to be some comment about applicants not
being evaluated properly because they did have certain experience that was reflected on
their applications. Ms. Kramer went back and reviewed the rating sheets prepared by the
raters (Ms. Kassebaum and Ms. Ely) and they actually indicated that they wanted to give
the applicants a zero. These zeroes were not ignored and oversights on their part. In fact,
Ms. Ely wrote that in giving five different categories a zero rating, ""provided very few details
due to way in which questions were answered, unable to determine specifics of experience,
no real length of time or other key information provided to score."" Ms. Ely intentionally
gave these applicants zero where it is indicated on the pieces of paper as opposed to
making a mistake and not rating them a particular category.
Ms. Kramer also stated that just to clarify, the candidates or Mr. Gossman stating that
mistakes were made in the scoring of the supplemental questions, while he might disagree
with the numbers given, those were the numbers given. There is no evidence/indication
that either Ms. Kassebaum or Ms. Ely had any sort of bias against any of the applicants or
this rumor of a predisposed plan by Mr. Lillard in any way impacted their subject matter
evaluation of the supplemental questions.
Page -7-
G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,8,"Mr. Peterson asked the Board if he could speak. He stated that he has a problem with
someone getting a zero for experience that has 15-18 years of experience. How can that
be rated a zero. He does not care if someone does not like them or not, the experience
counts for what it is. A person who has been running the adult program for 18 years and
she got a zero is not right. Ms. Kramer stated that what the raters relied upon was the
actual response to the supplemental questions, by giving a zero it was their perception that
the response to the supplemental questions did not evidence any experience.
Vice President Horikoshi asked Mr. Riddle what the options were for the Board. Mr. Riddle
stated that there are three different Appellants. The Board has three different appeals; 1)
at one point all three wanted the process to be redone; 2) to have an investigation which
has now happened; and, 3) to have the testing done over again and Mr. Wong is now,
based on the arithmetic, the third highest person.
Mr. Riddle stated that the Board can; 1) deny the appeal based on the investigation and the
findings; 2) based on the arithmetical mistake; grant Mr. Wong's appeal in which case he
would be considered the third ranked person. Again it is rule of the list, so there is no
guarantee that he would have been picked; and, 3) grant the appeal for all three Appellants
and direct that a new examination be given.
President Peeler asked how the rule of the list is usually applied. Management Analyst
Low stated that once an eligible list has been established the number of names certified to
the hiring authority is based upon the civil service rules. The appointing authority has the
ability to choose any of the names regardless of how they scored on the eligible list. There
have been incidents where higher scoring candidates have been passed over for promotion
and were not selected for a variety of legitimate reasons. For instance, they did well in the
selection process and the appointing authority knows that they tested very well but there
are deficiencies that do not make them necessarily the best candidate for the job. For
example, in a number of our departments, Mr. Low can recall that certain
employees/candidates scored very well throughout the testing/selection process but were
passed over for the promotion.
Mr. Gossman stated that in this investigation on the day of the exam they were determining
whether to use a 50-50 or 60-40 weighing and they did the calculations to see who the
highest three were. It was not about their discussing who they wanted to select, they had
predetermined who they were going to take to the top three highest scores.
President Peeler asked the Board for a motion.
Board Member Malloy stated that her challenge is that we have heard from the City that we
selected the top three. She thinks there should be three separate motions. City Attorney
Kern stated that it is accurate that the top three were selected. The point that the City has
made is that it is not preordained in any and all recruitments. The appointing authority can
select from all eligible candidates. Member Malloy stated that she feels that there should
be separate motions because Mr. Wong's case is clearly different than the other two cases.
Page -8-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,9,"things
Mr. Riddle stated that maybe someone should make a motion to grant Mr. Wong's appeal
and then grant the other two candidates appeal. His understanding is that if there is not a
motion to grant any of the three appeals, the effect of that is to deny the appeal.
President Peeler asked based on the City saying that the top three were chosen and Mr.
Wong is now in the top three can the Board move that he be appointed to the position.
City Attorney Kern stated that what is before the Board is whether or not the processes
were fair, not who should get the job. The Board is deciding if the process was fair. It is
not the Board's decision on who should get the job.
Member McHugh moved that the Board grant the request of the Appellants, not for
all of the reasons given, but as to what was brought out in Ms. Kramer's
investigation; there was a need to rush, mistakes were made, lack of deciding what
the rating criteria would be in advance, and announcing the job posting. All are
things that normally do not happen. For those reasons the test should be redone.
Batchelor seconded. Motion passed 4-1.
President Peeler stated that the test will be redone.
4.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:50 p.m.
Holly Brock-Cohn
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
Page -9-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-08-28,1,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M.
Present: Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Harp, Commissioners Fort, Kirola, Warren,
and Deutsch.
Absent: Commissioner Tam
2.
MINUTES
2-A.
The minutes were approved with changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
John Knox-White/Planning Board acknowledged Chair Lord-Hausman's attendance at
the August 27, 2012 Planning Board Meeting regarding the design construction at 1600
Park Street Development. He noted that her recommendations were accepted by the
Planning Board.
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko (guest), Alameda resident, noted that delivery trucks have parked
in disabled parking spaces and wondered if others had that experience? Chair Lord-
Hausman indicated, "" Yes, she had, at Bridgeside "" and that the CDI would follow up.
Ann Steiner (guest) requested inviting the APD Chief to a Commission Meeting.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
CDI Restructuring (Alex Nguyen, Deputy City Manager)
Chair Lord-Hausman introduced the Deputy City Manager Nguyen regarding
restructuring. Deputy City Manager Nguyen stated that due to staff resources it is
recommended to hold four (4) formal meetings a year. The Commission can hold work
sessions where no formal votes can be taken.
Deputy City Manager agreed with nine (9) members
Commissioner Kirola asked for clarification regarding the difference between the formal
meetings versus the working sessions, and Vice-Chair Harp asked if the working sessions
would conform to the Brown Act, to which the Deputy City Manager stated he would
clarify in writing what the working session rules are.
1",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-08-28,2,"Ann Steiner asked if the work sessions would be staffed to which the Deputy City
Manager stated no staffing would be present, but notes would be available.
Chair Lord-Hausman suggested a ""January-April-July-October"" schedule as a
framework. Secretary Akil stated she will hold the fourth Mondays for both the formal
meetings and work sessions.
Ann Steiner stated she is extremely alarmed at the last CDI Meeting Minutes and staff's
perception of the CDI overall and reducing the monthly meetings. Chair Lord-Hausman
expressed her appreciation and acknowledged that it will be different but that as Chair,
she has the ability to call a fifth meeting.
Vice-Chair Harp stated she would prefer six (6) to four (4) meetings
Commissioner Warren appreciates the four (4) meetings and the ability to have work
sessions.
Secretary Akil discussed the elimination of the Assistant Risk Manager position, her
promotion to Risk Manager and the very limited resources.
Commissioner Fort expressed his appreciation for allowing the members to remain at
nine (9) to which Secretary Akil stated Deputy City Manager Nguyen made that possible.
4-B.
Park Street Benches (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman stated she received a call from an elderly lady that there are no
benches or rest spots along Park Street. Deputy City Manager Nguyen and Chair Lord-
Hausman discussed. She has also reached out to the Park Street Business Association.
Deputy City Manager stated he and Secretary Akil also walked up and down Park Street
and the project will be led by the CDI. Deputy City Manager also recommends the CDI
reach out to other businesses for buy-in.
Chair Lord-Hausman will think of some next steps, forming a sub-committee and
reaching out to other businesses.
JoanAnn suggested an ""adopt a bench"" for fundraising type of program.
Ann Steiner stated she had park benches donated in memory of someone as a method of
raising money.
Deputy City Manager suggested focusing on getting the first few done on Park Street
ASAP and then focus on fundraising later.
2",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-08-28,3,"5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Goals and Objectives 2012 (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Universal Design Ordinance.
5-B.
Universal Design Work Group Update (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that things are going well.
Vice-Chair Harp stated that on July 3 and 17th the City Council discussed and passed the
Housing Element with the suggested Universal Design language. The work group
continues to meet regarding other cities' ordinances and proposed language
JoanAnn asked where would the language apply to which the Chair and Vice-Chair
responded primarily housing.
Deputy City Manager Nguyen stated that the City is being sued by the East Bay Regional
Park District and it could severely slow the project but it should not affect the CDI work.
5-C. Disability Awareness Month (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Banner Dates:
Chair Lord-Hausman stated the banner hanging dates are reserved:
September 11-25- Webster Street
October 2-16 Central/Oak Streets
October 16-23 Park/Webb Streets
Guest Editorial in ""The Sun"": Chair/Vice-Chair will write this together. Deputy City
Manager suggested making the Park Street benches a theme with Disability Awareness
Month.
Proclamation: Secretary Akil to follow up.
5-D. City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort)
Commissioner Fort stated nothing to report other than Vice-Chair Harp's report out on
the Housing Element.
5-E.
Planning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman spoke at the August 27, 2012 Planning Board Meeting regarding
the Lincoln / Park Street Development. She pointed out the need for a safe redesign of the
Park and Lincoln Street intersection in anticipation of increased pedestrian activity. She
also requested sidewalk benches be installed in front of the new development.
3",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2012-08-28,4,"6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil announced that Public Works would like to use the CDI as a public
meeting for potential installation of pedestrian accessible audio sounds at nine (9)
intersections.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A.
Next meeting: October 29, 2012, followed by December 3, 2012 (1st Monday).
7-B. Chair Lord-Hausman: Universal Design Committee - October 2, 2012 6:30 p.m.
Secretary to find available public meeting room.
7-C.
Commissioner Fort: Bus Stops: Cars parking too close- Chair Lord-Hausman will follow
up with Chief Noonan.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
4",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2012-08-28.pdf