body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2012--7:0 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-265) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Christina Pence and Debra
Arbuckle.
(12-266) Proclamation Declaring June 6, 2012 as Rhythmix Cultural Works Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Janet Koike and Tina Blaine,
Rythmix Cultural Works.
(12-267) Proclamation Declaring June 23 and 24, 2012 as Relay for Life of Alameda
Days.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Michele Langford, Cobbie Uolla,
Jennifer Uolla, Lisa Leverton and Joan Jensen, Relay for Life.
(12-268) Public Utilities Board (PUB) Update on Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) Work
Plan Initiatives, Annual Planning Workshop, and Financial and Budget Workshop.
PUB Chair Greg Hamm gave a brief presentation.
(12-269) Commendation to AMP Receiving the Reliable Public Power Provider
Designation from the American Public Power Association.
Mayor Gilmore presented the award to PUB Members Hamm and McMahon and the
AMP General Manager.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,2,"(12-270) Presentation to the City of Alameda by the League of American Bicyclists
Designating Alameda a Bicycle Friendly Community (Bronze Level).
Bonnie Wehmann, League of American Bicyclists, gave a brief presentation and
presented the award to the Mayor.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-271) Richard Bangert, Alameda, urged Council to comment on the proposed fence
at Alameda Point.
(12-272) Al Wright, Alameda Resident and Business Owner, discussed the Park Street
streetscape and thanked staff for their work; urged that posts be put up on the new
lights to allow the American flags to be hung for the 4th of July.
(12-273) Ken Peterson, Alameda, commented on the City's budget.
(12-274) Bill Smith, Sierra Club, discussed the Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point; urged
the City to reengage with East Bay Regional Park District; submitted a letter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to continue participation in the
Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program [paragraph number 12-278 was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-275) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 1,
2012 and the Special Meetings Held on May 8, 2012. Approved.
(*12-276) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,498,235.57.
(*12-277) Recommendation to Set June 19, 2012, for a Public Hearing to Consider
Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation Fees and Vacant Building Assessments
Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.
(12-278) Recommendation to Authorize the City of Alameda's Continued Participation in
the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP) for FY 12-13/FY
14-15.
Councilmember Johnson suggested amendment to not require the matter to come to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,3,"Council every three years.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about what established the requirement, Mark
Allen, ACLPPP, stated the original Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) required approval
every year, which was changed to 3 years in 2006.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Council could take said action tonight.
The City Attorney responded the title indicates the agreement is for three years.
The Development Manager stated that the proposed change could be brought back.
Councilmember Tam stated the agreement has been renewed ten times; inquired about
the related grant.
The Development Manager responded the grant is separate and is through Housing
and Urban Development (HUD).
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would continue its role even
though the Housing Authority is now separate, to which the Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney inquired whether the agreement should continue indefinitely when the
matter is brought back, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; noted Council would
consider continuing indefinitely when staff brings the matter back.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*12-279) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Urban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.
(*12-280) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of
Alameda, No. P.W. 05-12-09. Accepted.
(*12-281) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Vegetation Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring
for the South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 05-12-11. Accepted.
(*12-282) Recommendation to Accept Work of Weber Tractor Service for Repair of
Portland Cement Concrete. Accepted.
(*12-283) Resolution No. 14678, ""Approving and Amending Part Time Emergency
Medical Technician Salary Schedule."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,4,"(*12-284) Resolution No. 14679, ""Resolution in Support of Assembly Bill 1648
(Brownley), a Bill Related to Disclosures on Political Advertisements."" Adopted.
(*12-285) Resolution No.14680, ""Calling an Election in the City of Alameda on
November 6, 2012, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Entitled
""Charter Amendment Changing Requirements for When a Citywide Ballot Measure is
Needed to Authorize Certain Sales or Disposals of City Parks."" Adopted.
(*12-286) Ordinance No.3046, ""Amending Article II (Boards and Commissions)
of
Chapter II (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 2-
13.2(a); 2-15.2(a); 2-21.2(a) to Reduce the Membership of the Golf, Economic
Development, and Youth Advisory Commissions; Amending Section 2-17 through 2-
17.5 to Change the Name of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals
Board to Commission, and Repealing Section 2-20 to Dissolve the Film Commission.
Finally passed.
(*12-287) Ordinance No.3047, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Revise the
Regulations Governing the Location of Massage Therapists and Associated Uses
Including Tattoo in the Community Commercial District."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-288) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14681, ""Confirming the Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) Business Improvement Area for FY12-13 and Levy an
Annual Assessment on the Park Street Business Association Business Improvement
Area (BIA). Adopted;
(12-288 A) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14682, ""Confirming the West
Alameda Business Association (WABA) Business Improvement Area for FY12-13 and
Levy an Annual Assessment on the West Alameda Business Association Business
Improvement Area."" Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about membership, the Community
Development Director stated there are approximately 430 members in PSBA and 140 in
WABA; the precise count is difficult due to business turn over.
Urged revisions to the PSBA program: Al Wright, Alameda Resident and Business
Owner; Dr. Michael Torres, Alameda Resident and Business Owner; Barbara Mooney,
Alameda Resident and Business Owner; and Kate Pryor, Alameda Business Owner.
Urged approval of the staff recommendation: Lars Hansson, PSBA; Carolyn Lantz,
WABA; Donna Layburn, PSBA; Bruce Reeves, PSBA; Deb Knowles, PSBA; and former
Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,5,"In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about Council oversight, the City Attorney
stated the Council selects the managing organization and has the authority to include
things in the by-laws, such as the Brown Act.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Council decides the specific types of events, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the organization provides the
plan and budget; BIA funds can be used for activities that are in the categories in the
Municipal Code and State Code; Council can change boundaries, rates and other
similar things.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Council authority includes the board election
process, to which the City Attorney responded Council could select a different board.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the matter is time sensitive, to which the City
Attorney responded the time sensitivity has to do with collection of the business license
tax.
The Community Development Director noted the ordinance requires that the matter be
resolved within 30 days of the hearing.
Councilmember Johnson encouraged members to raise issues with their board; recused
herself and left the dais.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the City Manager stated staff met with
PSBA regarding the publication of by-laws and audits, meeting notices, and elections;
PSBA leadership reacted positively; staff is confident changes would be implemented
and rebuild trust.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the changes are encapsulated in modifications to
the bylaws, to which the Community Development Director responded election oversight
is in the work program; stated PSBA completed and submitted an audit; WABA will do
an audit next year; there will be an annual report next year to show how the money was
spent and whether the work plan was followed.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated concerns were raised by business owners; requested the
changes be outlined.
The City Manager stated the four changes are: 1) bylaws will be posted on the web; 2)
accounting statements and audits will be posted on the web; 3) meeting notices have to
be distributed via hardcopy, not just electronically; and 4) elections will be supervised by
the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City's role is to ensure funding is spent in the acceptable
categories and the organizations prioritize spending; the City should try to get the
business communities to work efficiently and hear all members, but should not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,6,"micromanage.
The Community Development Director noted that the PSBA protests are at 1%.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution for PSBA, with the caveats
put forward from City staff [1) bylaws posted on web; 2) accounting statements and
audits posted on web; 3) meeting notices distributed via hardcopy; and 4) elections
supervised by the City Clerk's office].
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the concerned business owners are happy with the
proposal, to which the City Manager responded that he does not know; stated staff met
with protesting parties first and then, discussed changes with the PSBA leadership.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the matter would come back in a year, to which the
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether oversight would be complaint
driven, the City Manager stated staff would be able to observe whether changes are
occurring.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 30 day requirement, the
Community Development Director stated the ordinance requires the matter be resolved
within 30 days if Council is not ready to adopt the resolution.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether an option would be not moving forward and naming a
successor organization within the 30 days.
The Community Development Director responded at the hearing, businesses can
request to be added or omitted, boundary changes can be made, or assessment level
changes can be made; stated the 30 days allows staff time to ensure noticing is done
before the changes go into effect and are voted on.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the hearing noticing, the
Community Development Director stated a letter was mailed to all members.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution for WABA.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Under discussion and in response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding
WABA, the Community Development Director stated both boards are going to do the
same reporting and have the same transparency.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,7,"Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the same changes would be implemented for
WABA, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there was one protest from WABA, to which the
Community Development Director responded there were two: one letter and one call.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's further inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated one did not like the streetscape project; the other did not want to participate.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-289) Provide Direction on Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point
Based on a Presentation of Alternatives.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the enhanced entitlement certainty proposal does not include
Town Center entitlement; inquired whether the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) grant would provide said entitlements.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated
detailed residential entitlements would be the only thing not funded by the grant.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding what the MTC grant would fund, the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the grant would fund detailed
entitlements for the Town Center and waterfront area, but would not fund detailed
entitlements for the residential area.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the MTC grant would fund a marketing and site plan
and transaction documents for the employment area needed to market a site for a
potential commercial opportunity, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
responded in the negative; stated the work does not require a lot of funding and would
be funded under the scaled down proposal.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the grant would fund the development plan, including
form-based code, needed to implement Town Center development, to which the Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would not be getting the third part [detailed
engineering analysis and large-lot subdivision map needed to sell ""super pads"" for
residential and Town Center development].
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated having
one developer for the Town Center is less likely, which means outside source funding
would be a great benefit to the City; having a Master Developer fund the residential
would be easier.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,8,"Councilmember Johnson inquired about the amount of the MTC grant, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded $200,000; stated the City has to
match the grant funding, which works within the current budget.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff to compare the difference in readiness
between the two plans.
The City Manager stated the scaled back plan only makes a difference for the
residential area.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff recommends doing the
residential work because residential has a greater market; the form based code and
engineering for large lot subdivisions would be used to sell super pads; the difference is
a developer would have to fund said work.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) would be Base wide and include non-residential, to which the Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated there would be CEQA review, but there would not necessarily
be an Environmental Impact Review (EIR).
In response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the City Manager stated not
having residential plans more complete means the developer would have to do work
and expend money up front, which would impact the value; having the EIR for the entire
Base is the most critical.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the residential developer would have to do
CEQA work, but would not have to do an EIR, to which the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager noted CEQA review does not necessarily have to be an EIR.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the intent is to do the EIR and have
very little CEQA work needed when a residential developer comes forward.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if Council went with [staff report] Option 2, a second step
could be taken later to close the delta between [staff report] Options 1 and 2 for the
residential component, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded
in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated trimming back the detailed entitlements on the residential area
saves several million dollars and eliminates the need for bonding.
Vice Mayor Bonta thanked staff and stated that he is ready to move forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,9,"Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the funds could be used for the additional work if a
commercial opportunity creates land sale proceeds, to which the Chief Operating Officer
- Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the impact on the value, the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the amount is not known at this point.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the residential area would not be marketed,
to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about impacts of not completing the
residential work, the City Manager stated staff was betting that having all the residential
work done would draw people in because the process would be so streamlined;
however, not completing the work would allow more flexibility.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the City would balance interest in pads, to which
the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the City would hold the cards as
the property owner.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated the master
infrastructure work would be complete; further stated previous attempts have shown
developers want to develop housing at Alameda Point, due to the location and fantastic
views; getting the commercial aspect to work is harder; the commercial development
would also create jobs.
Councilmember Tam stated both options include the master infrastructure plan which is
critical to understanding cost exposure; inquired whether the EIR is required as part of
the Oakland Chinatown Settlement Agreement.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the
Settlement Agreement requires a project level EIR before construction can start;
programmatic level EIRs have been performed.
Councilmember Johnson stated residential is the one part that can be removed; going
forward with the commercial is focusing on job creation; doing the residential part would
give the City more control.
Speakers: Ken Peterson, Alameda, encouraged proceeding incrementally to not lock in
poor ideas and suggested ideas for earlier scoping sessions be included; Paul Kibel,
Center on Urban Environmental Law, expressed support for a City led process, made
suggestions for proceeding and submitted information; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing
Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES), urged the Council to proceed with
Option 1; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, expressed support for Option 1;
Helen Sause, HOMES; Karen Bey, Alameda, expressed concerns with Option 1 and
urged a Master Plan be prepared; former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,10,"encouraged clean types of industry in the inner harbor area.
Councilmember Johnson stated that her preference remains proceeding with Option 1,
which has a lot of advantages; other ways have not been successful.
Councilmember Tam stated that her preference is Option 2; the master infrastructure
plan would minimize fragmentation; a project level EIR is needed, would include
housing, is required by the Settlement Agreement and deals with integration; finding
residential should not be hard when the market is conducive.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about the amount of the existing bond,
the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the bond was $13 million; the debt is
$350,000 per year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports Option 1; the entitlement process takes
a long time and the City has missed market opportunities; not going forward in a timely
manner would not put the City in a good position.
Councilmember Johnson stated spending $3 million more is very small for such a large
project; inquired about proceeding on a cash basis.
The City Manager responded a staff report attachment outlines moving forward without
bonding.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated Exhibit 4 shows the fund balance
would drop to $2.6 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2012-13 and $1.17 million at the end
of Fiscal Year 2013-14; proceeding on a cash basis would draw down on the fund
balance.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City cannot keep up with deferred maintenance; the
Base continues to deteriorate, which will accelerate as time passes; the extra $3 million
needs to be spent to try to be ready to go when the economy turns around.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she objects to going forward with the bonds; she responds in
the opposite to crumbling infrastructure concerns; shovels will not be in the ground for
several years; questioned what would happen if telephone or sewer lines have an issue
during said time and where the City would come up with funds for repairs.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concern about spending money on infrastructure
that needs to be replaced.
Mayor Gilmore stated existing tenants' lease revenues would be used to pay for the
bond, which is why she is in favor of Option 2.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what the City could lose by waiting to complete the detailed
residential entitlements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,11,"The City Manager responded staff recommendations regarding the residential area
came from discussions with developers; there is a lot of vacant commercial space;
commercial development is unlikely to come back before residential; therefore, focus
would be on doing detailed residential entitlements in order not to lose out on the next
development opportunity.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a private developer could do the entitlements if the
market gets hot, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the EIR has the longest timeframe;
Council could revisit funding the residential work in six months and still catch up with the
EIR; waiting too long could cause the City to miss a window of opportunity.
Councilmember Tam noted previous master developers never caught opportunity
waves.
Councilmember deHaan stated the areas of clean land are an issue.
Councilmember Johnson stated the developers have had difficulty going through the
entitlement process; Option 1 would allow the community to control the process.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City would be getting the same control with Option 2.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City should proceed sooner and not repair
infrastructure that needs to be replaced.
Mayor Gilmore stated the developer would only pay for new infrastructure and not other
areas; funds are needed to patch existing infrastructure for tenants.
Councilmember Tam stated that she does not see Option 1 as necessarily buying more
time; Option 2 would allow the City to get a better bonding rate in the event
infrastructure fails or there is another $2 million fire, like at the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of Option 1, on a cash basis.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion is to do the entire entitlement
process using $5 million on a cash basis.
On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan and Johnson - 2. Councilmembers Bonta, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 3.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,12,"Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of Option 2.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion on Option 2 is to go forward
on a cash basis for $1.86 million, which would fund entitlements and does not include
specific residential entitlements and would not fund the Town Center unless the City
gets the MTC grant.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would support the motion because it moves
something forward.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about whether Option 2 is not cohesive, the
City Manager stated Option 2 includes necessary pieces needed to go forward; staff's
position is Option 2 is not sufficient, but there would be a lot of progress.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the EIR would take 18 months to two years, to which
the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that the schedule is 18 months.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long the residential entitlement portion would take.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the residential piece would
probably generate a lot of community interest and should take around 12 months.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-290) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code, Article IV
(Subsections 30-58.1 - 30-60.5) Related to Water Conservation and Bay Friendly
Landscape Requirements.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation; proposed that Council
consider amending the ordinance to exempt urban agriculture and edible plants
specifically.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there have been efforts to work with Harbor
Bay Isle, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated
discussions could be initiated if Council so desires.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager
stated the organization would have to implement the changes voluntarily; Harbor Bay
Isle is an anomaly because of a 1989 Development Agreement; staff has been working
will all new developers.
Councilmember Johnson stated existing landscaping should be addressed, especially
for larger areas.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,13,"The Planning Services Manager stated people should be educated that making an
investment to switch landscaping can save money.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments
regarding urban agriculture.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Council would include giving direction to staff
to work with homeowners associations and property owners with large amounts of
landscaping to encourage moving toward bay friendly landscaping.
The Council concurred with providing said direction.
(12-291) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Repealing Subsections 18-5.10 (Lateral Testing Upon Sale). 18-5.11 (Private Sewer
Lateral Testing Procedures and Requirements), 18-5.12 (Failure of Test), 18-5.13
(Lateral Certification), 18-5.14 (Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings) of
Section 18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections) in their Entirety, and by
Adding Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) to Article 1 (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII
(Sewer and Water).
The City Engineer gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:22 p.m. and returned at 10:24 p.m.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether a new plumbing fixture means a faucet, to
which the City Engineer responded in the affirmative; noted replacing a broken faucet
would not meet the $90,000 threshold.
Councilmember Johnson stated the ordinance should be very clear.
The City Engineer stated the requirement is that a plumbing fixture be added or
replaced and the project cost is at least $90,000.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a permit is needed to replace a plumbing fixture, to
which the City Engineer responded in the negative.
Councilmember Johnson stated the ordinance should be clear that it only applies to
plumbing fixtures which require a permit.
The Public Works Director stated language stating: ""plumbing fixtures that require a
permit"" be added to the definition of plumbing fixture in the ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,14,"The City Engineer responded the ordinance has to be as stringent as the regional
ordinance [being required by the Environmental Protection Agency].
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether a company is hired to do the sewer lateral
test and the City completes an inspection after, to which the City Engineer responded
the inspectors are present when the test is done.
*
Vice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 10:35 p.m. and returned at 10:37 p.m.
*
Urged adoption of the City's proposed ordinance, [staff report Option 1: Dania Alvarez,
Alameda Association of Realtors; and Marilyn Schumacher, Harbor Bay Realty.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance option 1, with the
clarifying language about a fixture that requires a permit.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-292) The City Manager announced a budget meeting would be held on Tuesday,
June 12th; stated staff would be seeking guidance about how to deal with the equipment
fund; negotiations with Greenway Golf are proceeding and should be completed on
time; Greenway deposited the required $1/4 million; Police reports can now be filed on
line for certain incidents that are: not in progress, have no suspect leads, have no
witnesses and have no related property or evidence to be collected; examples include
auto burglary, identity theft, lost property, theft, vandalism and annoying phone calls.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-293) Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda, stated the community needs
to find a way to finance public safety needs since Measure C did not pass; urged
everyone to vote for Vice Mayor Bonta for State Assembly.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-294) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service
Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,15,"Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Social Service
Human Relations Board, Transportation Commission, and Youth Advisory Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Dean Batchelor to the Civil Service Board; Jonathan Bond
and Alan Ryan to the Economic Development Commission; Dennis Owens to the
Historical Advisory Board; Michael Henneberry to the Planning Board; Elizabeth
Candelario, Daniel Hoy, and Esther Mallouh to the Public Art Commission; Mary Sutter
to the Public Utilities Board; Douglas Biggs to the Social Service Human Relations
Board; Eric Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission; and Mary Orbeta and Luna
Tilles to the Youth Advisory Commission.
(12-295) Written Communication from the League of California Cities Requesting
Designation of a Voting Delegate for the 2012 Annual Conference.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of selecting Councilmember Tam as the
delegate and Councilmember deHaan as the alternate.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-296) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns have been raised about fencing at
the wildlife refuge at Alameda Point; suggested that staff look into the matter.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City uses Peter Russell to address said type of
issues, to which the City Manager responded Mr. Russell has already been retained to
address the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-06,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNEDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:10 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(12-264) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City
Manager John Russo.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that the Council gave direction to the City Manager on next year's
performance goals and objectives.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - JUNE 6, 2012 - - 5:00 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER: 5:03 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 and Senior Management Analysts Jill Kovacs
and Chris Low.
Appellants:
Dave Gossman, Union representative for Operating Engineers Local 3
for Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA)
Trini Blumkin, former Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD)
Recreation Coordinator
Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Coordinator
Andy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Coordinator
3.
AGENDA ITEM:
A. A Special Meeting has been called for the Civil Service Board Members to
Discuss and Consider the Request of Two Applicants to 1) Investigate the
Selection Process and 2) Vacate the Results of the Recently Completed
Recreation Services Specialist Recruitment.
City Attorney Kern introduced Randy Riddle, outside counsel for the Board, who has been
hired to give advice to the Civil Service Board. President Peeler asked Mr. Riddle how to
proceed with the meeting.
Mr. Riddle stated that he will make a recommendation on how to proceed and if all parties
agree the Board can then proceed. Member representatives from each side can weigh in.
He proposed that the Appellant side have ten minutes, the City have ten minutes and then
three minutes for each of the Appellants. Then three minutes for the City and Appellant
representatives to each give additional statements.
Dave Gossman, Union representative for Operating Engineers Local 3, agreed to the
procedure.
Board Member Malloy asked if a question and answer period by the Board would be held
after people speak. Mr. Riddle stated yes. Members of the public will have an opportunity
to comment as well. It should be determined by the Board how long each public speaker",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,2,"will be allowed to speak. The Board agreed on three minutes for each speaker.
Mr. Riddle stated that the City recently instituted the Sunshine Ordinance. One of the
provisions provides that for any item on the agenda, at the same time that the agenda is
provided, all documents given to the Board should also be made available to the public.
The ordinance is still in the process of being implemented and staff is still coming up to
speed on the issue. In this case, given the appellant process that is involved, that has not
happened. If anyone has an objection regarding documents given to the Board in less than
the seven days required they should raise their hand now, in which case it would be Mr.
Riddle's recommendation to the Board to continue this matter to such a time as seven
days have passed to review the documents. If there is not an objection, Mr. Riddle would
view this issue as the Board can proceed to hear the appeal.
Mr. Gossman stated that the Union has documentation for the Board to review. The Union
had previously contacted the Human Resources Department and requested information
and also listed some concerns that they have regarding the testing. As of today, the Union
has not received any written response from the City. There are eight questions, requests
for information from the City. Mr. Gossman has received three answers; test scores, how
long the list would stay open, and the rankings of the list. There is some information, he
still has not received from the City regarding the request from over three weeks ago.
Mr. Riddle stated that if Mr. Gossman would like to explain that information to the Board
and if the Board believes that he should have that information and that they (Board) would
like to have that information, then the Board can make that decision.
Mr. Riddle stated that there are documents that are already in existence and have either
been provided to the Board or will be provided tonight and whether or not folks have an
objection to that happening tonight rather than 7 days ago. If you do, then he recommends
that the Board continue the matter to ensure full compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance if
anyone here objects to that happening. The City is also providing information this evening
as well as the appellants which may contain some of the information that Mr. Gossman is
asking for.
City Attorney Kern stated that what we have to discuss tonight and additional information
the City is willing to present to the Board, the Union Representative, and the public as well.
We can go forward on that basis and the City has no objection. The appeal that has been
filed was not included in the packet that was to be made available publicly seven days in
advance, did not happen. The City is comfortable with moving forward, having the Board
hear it, and providing additional information that has been put together and subsequently,
sharing the information with everyone. If the Board feels that they need more time to look
at it or want us to provide additional information then of course the Board can order us to
do that. The point here is whether we move forward just for the Sunshine Ordinance and
whether we were comfortable that there was adequate noticing of this meeting so that we
can move forward.
Mr. Riddle stated that for clarification the agenda was sufficient and was posted in time.
Page -2-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,3,"their discretion if they want additional time to look at documents. The Board may want
additional information before it is said and done as well. It is up to the Board's discretion.
Mr. Gossman stated that the Union has no objection to moving forward.
Vice President Horikoshi moved that the meeting/hearing continue; Member
Batchelor seconded the motion which passed by a 5-0 vote.
President Peeler invited the appellants to speak.
Mr. Gossman stated that he would provide an opening statement and then he has three
appellants that would like to give a three minute speech and then we could proceed from
there. Mr. Riddle agreed they would have a full 10 minutes between all of them to begin.
Mr. Gossman provided a six-page document/report (with attachments) to the Civil Service
Board.
Mr. Gossman stated that he was at the meeting today to represent three appellants who
were former employees of the City of Alameda and that they have been program park
coordinators for 10 to 11 years working for the City. In March 2012, they were informed
that the City was planning to eliminate their positions. At that time there were four positions
occupied. They were advised that the Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD)
would be eliminating the Park Program Coordinator to create a new classification of
Recreational Program Specialist and that one of the four would be laid off because there
would be four positions cut down to three.
Mr. Gossman also stated that the resolution was taken to City Council and it was stated
that this was going to save $400,000 for the City by going to this new classification. In
essence, that is a false smoke screen because these employees were already being paid
out of the Athletic Trust Fund and not paid out of the General Fund. The fact that they were
changing to a new position had nothing to do with the $400,000. But, when we went to a
union meeting, a meet and confer, the reason for the new classification was to save
$400,000.
Mr. Gossman continued that prior to the testing, two managers who worked for the City,
approached the employees and stated that they were not going to get the new jobs and
Page -3-
G:Personnel\CSB\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,4,"that employees had already been preselected who were going to get the positions. In
essence, we had employees who did not have any fairness or equity in going through the
testing processing. After the oral interviews a manager who sat on the board, came up to
the employee and stated, ""You know what, I was just a pawn. I had no input into the
selection process. It was out of my hands.""
Mr. Gossman concluded that this has been documented in the information provided to the
Board.
Mr. Riddle asked if Mr. Gossman was referring to the letter and there was also something
called an appeal. Mr. Gossman stated that first of all this is an appeal. They have an
appeal. Mr. Riddle asked if this was the initial letter. Mr. Gossman stated yes.
Mr. Gossman stated that right after the examination the employees were told that one of
the examining people had no part of it. Within two days, they were called into the office and
told they were laid off. The employees asked for their test scores. They were told they did
not have test scores and that they just did not pass. So they walked out the door after a
combined 30 years of experience. The employees are very upset and angry because of
the testing process. They all realize that everyone has to take the test and they were
looking for fairness. In this testing process and whole examination, it did not happen in this
case.
The appellants are requesting that the test be vacated, that a new testing process be
completed and that it be completed from outside Human Resources personnel, from
another agency so that the test can be done fairly and correctly.
They were expecting that one person would be laid off and there were three people laid off.
One of the new persons hired was an individual who was a custodian in the Library. In
being objective, how could a custodian who works in the Library have more experience or
training? In fact, he had no training in the parks recreation programs to be selected.
The second issue is that this individual owns a lawn business in the City of Alameda. The
red flag is; how can an employee who works full-time for the City of Alameda and at the
same time have a full-time lawn business while he's supposed to be working for the City of
Alameda. Mr. Gossman feels that is a conflict of interest which is another red herring in
this case. They are requesting than an outside investigation be conducted regarding what
has happened.
Mr. Gossman stated that the bottom line is they are looking for a new test, employees to be
put back whole from where they were, and that the facts and truth come out of what
happened in this testing process.
Trini Blumkin, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, stated that they all have 30
years combined experience. They understood that there was going to be a reorganization
and understood that someone was going to be laid off. They were asking for a fair process.
Page -4-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,5,"They found out that there were some people that had some insight already and understood
who was going to get the job and who was not going to get the job. They had their union
representative call Mr. Russo, City Manager, and they asked him to get someone who
would be unbiased and an outside person to read over the applications and supplemental
questions. Mr. Russo agreed and made the announcement to Lisa Goldman, Assistant
City Manager, and the Human Resources Department to make sure that they got an
outside person, with no bias, to look over the applications because they knew something
was going on.
Ms. Blumkin stated that come to find out, you can ask Chris Low, the person who looked
over the applications was a former City employee who worked with them as a group,
worked in the same department, and is friends with the previous ARPD Director, Dale
Lillard. Her name was Anne Kassebaum; she was the one out of millions of people that
they could have chosen to be non-biased. It was someone who knew us and was the one
grading the applications and supplemental questions when we had asked and they were
directed by John Russo, City Manager, to get someone who was non-biased. And, this
person had previously worked for us and was friends with the previous Director. That was
the ultimate of the ultimate to being unfair. We were just asking for fairness, we knew this
was coming, we knew someone was going to lose their job. But, for three of us who had all
that experience to lose their jobs when we were told there would be one was just crushing.
Ms. Blumkin asked the Board to go to an outside organization and perform an outside
investigation, to show what the Human Resources Department, and whoever else was
involved, how unfair the process was.
Andy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, thanked the Board for hearing
their case. He received his degree from Fresno State and worked in the field for 10 years
full-time, 12 years total. He worked special events and built the teen program from the
ground up. In March 2012, when the job elimination was brought up he understood it.
Being the lowest employee in seniority he sort of anticipated being the first to be let go.
But, he was supposed to have the opportunity for a fair shot and equal opportunity. If you
look at his City supplemental questions, he felt that he was 90 percent qualified for the job.
Mr. Wong also has a Class B license which it says on the supplemental is highly preferable
along with experience in special events and serving at risk youth. He has done a lot of new
programming for the City and ARPD, is a community player, worked with schools and
became a very, very good across the board professional.
On April 19, 2012, he was called into the office and handed a lay-off letter and the Director
said he was not chosen. Mr. Wong asked about his score. It was not given to him, but the
Director told him that he was ranked fourth.
Mr. Wong stated that his wife was devastated knowing that he worked really hard for the
Department. It was a disruption to the family. It was not fair to him to go through an
interview, put his skills down on paper, come in for an interview and the result is someone
who is not even from the recreation background gets hired. The Board would have to look
at some of the other sub-categories on what the person qualifies for. He feels that he was
Page -5-
G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,6,"wrongly laid-off on the basis of not having an equal opportunity through the process.
Mr. Wong thanked the Board for their time and hopes they will make the right decision.
Ms. Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator in charge of Fee Classes
and Facilities Rentals, agreed with what Ms. Blumkin and Mr. Wong had stated. She highly
recommends that the Board review how they selected current program coordinators and
she believes it was not a fair process after hearing from the supervisor and managers that
they used to work with and what they had been told in the office and how the process was
done.
President Peeler invited Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, to provide his information.
Mr. Low stated that he was providing information on the recent work force change
implemented in ARPD, the subsequent recruitment and selection process, and personnel
appointments to Recreation Services Specialists.
Part of what has already been presented by Mr. Gossman, Ms. Blumkin, Mr. Wong, and
Ms. Tsang is that yes, on March 2, 2012 the Human Resource Director informed Linda
Justus, ACEA President, advising her of the City's intent to recommend and implement a
reorganization of ARPD which included eliminating four Recreation Program Coordinator
positions, creating a new classification of Recreation Services Specialist and finally
recruiting and appointing three individuals to that new classification. Implementation of the
work force change and filling of the Recreation Services Specialist positions would be the
first steps of reorganizing ARPD toward a model of maximum cost recovery with no effect
on front-line services.
The parties met and conferred, in good faith, regarding the impacts of the reorganization on
April 17, 2012.
The initial information to ACEA was on March 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the City Council
approved a work force change in ARPD by amending the ACEA salary schedule to include
the salary range for Recreation Services Specialist. A number of folks who are in
attendance today also attended that Council meeting.
As a result of Council's action, on April 4, 2012 a promotional recruitment was posted. The
Human Resources Department received six applications. Application materials were
scrutinized to make sure that the folks who applied did meet the minimum qualifications for
the Recreation Services Specialist and all were invited to participate in the selection
process, which they did.
The recruitment closed on April 11, 2012 and on April 12, 2012 the applicants supplemental
questionnaire responses were redacted of any personal identifying information and sent to
two external subject matter experts to be evaluated objectively. One of those individuals
was named previously and she is with the East Bay Regional Park District. The second
person who was not identified works for the Hayward Area Recreation District.
Page -6-
G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,7,"The supplemental questionnaire responses were sent out on April 12, 2012 and were
returned on Monday, April 16, 2012 and Tuesday, April 17, 2012. On April 17, 2012 all six
applicants were interviewed by Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman, Recreation
Supervisor Patrick Russi, and at that time the City of Pinole's Park and Recreation Director
Amy Wooldridge, who is currently the City of Alameda's ARPD Director. The scores from
the supplemental questionnaire and structural interviews were reviewed and combined and
as a result the eligible list was established and certified. On the afternoon of April 17, the
City and ACEA met and discussed in good faith the impacts of this work force change and
on that afternoon signed the agreement regarding the budget reduction and the elimination
of four Recreation Coordinator positions.
On April 18, 2012, Mr. Low contacted Mr. Gossman to discuss a potential staffing situation
that we (the City) were going to be having that coming weekend with regards to Earth Day.
We (the City) agreed to allow incumbent recreation coordinator employees to work leading
up to Earth Day on Friday as well as Earth Day events on April 21. This is an important
point because lay-off letters to some of the Recreation Program Coordinators were going to
be handed out the next day on Thursday, April 19. Mr. Low contacted Mr. Gossman on
April 18 knowing that the request that he was making on behalf of the City for some
employees to continue working on the following Friday and Saturday, perhaps the day
before they were going to get their lay-off notices, was a very sensitive issue. So on that
April 19, 2012, as was talked about, the City did deliver three lay-off letters to three of the
Recreation Program Coordinator employees and also extended three job offer letters to
become Recreation Services Specialists to the three other applicants.
Mr. Low stated that he provided additional information to Mr. Gossman and the Board to
quickly review so the Board has a sense of how things progressed. Looking at the first
memo from Mr. Low to the Board, via the HR Director, on page one toward the bottom it
indicates that on April 23, 1012 a letter addressed to Human Resource (HR) Director and
Civil Service Board Members was received requesting to appeal the Recreation Services
Specialist examination pursuant to Civil Service Rules Article VI, Section VIII, entitled
Appeal of Rejection. Exhibit Il in the packet is the letter that was received by the HR
Director Holly Brock-Cohn. On April 26, 2012 HR Director met with Ms. Blumkin, Ms.
Tsang, Mr. Gossman, and Ms. Justus. Senior Management Analyst Kovacs observed the
meeting. That is when Mr. Gossman presented the document Exhibit III, Civil Service
Appeal. Responses made to questions raised by Mr. Gossman are attached as Exhibit IV.
Mr. Low stated that, in terms of time, we can talk about those questions, read Mr.
Gossman's requests and provide an answer if it is the Board's desire.
Vice President Horikoshi stated that it was agreed that each side would have ten minutes
and asked if the Board should adhere to the time line. President Peeler stated that the
Board will have to review it. Vice President Horikoshi agreed that it needed to be reviewed.
He was asking as to how the Board should proceed.
Page -7-
G:Personnel\CSB\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,8,"President Peeler asked if there were any objections to hearing the information, or giving Mr.
Low more time.
Don Peterson, Alameda resident and former member of Local 595 IBEW, stated that he
thinks this process is the same as what went on with the hiring process. They (the City)
make a set of rules and they do not stick to it. They (the City) have people set up to be put
in places and when it gets discombobulated they (the City) do not know what to do. Mr.
Peterson thinks you (the Board) need to make a set of rules and live by them. When you
set up rules for hiring someone you need to use those rules not disregard them.
President Peeler stated that the Board needs to review the information now or later. Vice
President Horikoshi stated that the Board can still review the documentation without having
Mr. Low tell the Board about it.
Mr. Riddle stated that each side will have three minutes again. The appellants will have
three minutes and the City three minutes.
Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are looking for justice. You cannot have a
manager going up to people and saying they have already selected them and then 30 or 40
days later give a test and these people have no chance whatsoever. You have all these
different dots out there and when you put it all together and it was a scheme designed to
eliminate these positions so he could hand-pick the employees he wanted to work for the
department. What is important is that Mr. Dale Lillard had made public statements to his
staff prior to the testing of who was going to be selected for the new Recreation Specialist
classification. That is the information that is the facts, that is the evidence and we have
managers who will testify to that. Now the answer from the City is this, ""This statement is
unfounded.""
Mr. Gossman stated how can the City make that statement when they did no investigation.
Then the City says, ""regardless of what Mr. Lillard is alleged to have stated to staff prior to
testing, the testing process was designed by the Human Resources Department with Mr.
Lillard's input, but he had no influence on the evaluation or score."" Mr. Gossman stated all
he (Mr. Lillard) has to do is go to the people who are doing the test and say here are the
people he wants, give them the scores, that is who I want, and that is what happened.
Mr. Gossman stated that they are looking for justice and equality. We have a great city
here. Civil Service is based on merit and not on nepotism and this is what you preach and
is in your Civil Service rules and that is what they are asking for, fairness and equity. They
(the appellants) want a level table.
Mr. Low stated to the Board that it is important to realize that all six applicants for this
promotional opportunity are City employees. Or in this case, were City employees. The
design of the examination process promoted merit in civil service principles and practices.
They (the City) did remove the personal bias and prejudice that is alleged, as the
supplemental questionnaires were evaluated externally from those two other park and
recreation districts. The personal identity of the applicant authors was removed. To say
Page -8-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,9,"that Mr. Lillard could call these people and say he wants them to rate certain people down
so they are not given a promotional opportunity, when the evaluators do not even know
who the authors are, it is hard to say.
Mr. Low responded the interviews were also conducted by subject matter experts who with
the exception of one, Mr. Patrick Russi, did not have any intimate knowledge of the
applicants. The interview panelists again were Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman,
Recreation Supervisor Patrick Russi, and Amy Wooldridge. At this point, the City does not
believe that there is a basis for an appeal of the Recreation Services Specialist recruitment
results or subsequent appointments. All three appellants before the Board applied for the
promotion, participated in the selection process, and all three achieved a rank on the
eligible list.
The City Manager, who is the appointing authority, approved the appointments of the top
three ranking candidates who are considered to be the best qualified based on their relative
performance through the selection process which was how people responded to the
supplemental questions and how they responded to the questions in the structured oral
interview process. All of the applicants answered the same supplemental questions and all
of the applicants answered the same structured oral interview questions. The City
recommends that the Civil Service Board uphold the recruitment and selection process as
well as the subsequent appointments.
Mr. Peterson asked what percentage was based on written and what percentage on the
oral exam. Mr. Low stated that scores were based on 40% supplemental questionnaire and
60% on oral.
Mr. Riddle stated that it is up to the Board to determine if they want questions from the
public to be answered. Mr. Peterson stated that the Board said the public could ask
questions.
President Peeler stated the Board did say they would allow questions.
Don Peterson, Alameda resident and former president of Local 595 IBEW, stated that in the
old days, 20-30 years ago, we used the same process and the reason they used 40% on
the written and 60% on the oral, was to eliminate minorities and applicants they did not
want. They kept the oral as a way of eliminating people that they did not want. The City
can say that their testing is fair but he knows from previous experience as the president of
a local that this was used in the past and it sounds like we do not do that anymore because
it was not fair. The City is using an antiquated system that is not fair so their (the City's)
results to him are moot.
Ms. Blumkin stated that even though the two outside people went through the supplemental
questions, if they were informed by Mr. Lillard who applied for the job even though their
names were not on those applications or supplemental questions, if you were not qualified
you would not be able to answer half of the questions because it asked for specific duties
that you did in a job that we (appellants) were doing. Because it was a promotional job, it
was promotional so it was things that we were doing as a program coordinator already. So
Page -9-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,10,"the people that were reading the applications could figure out who they were by not being
able to answer the questions. There were certain people who did not have aquatic
experience or senior experience and you would have to leave it blank because they could
not answer it.
Ms. Blumkin stated that for Mr. Low to state that was unbiased because there were no
names, Dale Lillard informed those people whose those papers were and they could figure
it out themselves. Ms. Blumkin is almost 100% certain that if you gave her the other
person's name from Hayward, they (appellants) would also know who that person is
because the recreation community is very close and all work together. This was an unfair
process, totally unfair by Human Resources and the outgoing ARPD Director Dale Lillard.
He is no longer working here, but if he was brought into this room today you (the Board)
would be totally shocked.
Ed Tsang, Alameda resident, retired from Alameda County Superior Court and father of
appellant Marcia Tsang, asked what is the racial makeup of the new Recreation Services
Specialists and what the racial makeup of Recreation Program Coordinators are. Ms.
Blumkin stated the ones that were hired are all white. The ones laid off were two Asians
and a Hispanic.
Sandi Bertero, Alameda resident and former employee (retired) with the City of Alameda-
currently part-time, stated that she loves working for the City and working in ARPD. She
really feels that this was an unfair process. She worked with the union for many years and
worked to get the union in the City. Most of the time when they have to do budget cuts,
they usually do layoffs and most of the time it has been by seniority. This was not by
seniority. They decided to reorganize the Department which is fine, but she wanted the
Board to know that in the past it had always been by seniority. Because it was a
promotional thing, her personal opinion is that anybody that qualified in the specific area.
She does feel that there is possibly one person that may not have been qualified to even be
considered for the job. Lastly, in all of her 40 work years, and she has interviewed for
many departments and many jobs, she has never in her life interviewed over the phone. If
you wanted a job you had to be at the interview and that was not the case in this
promotional job.
Mr. Wong stated that going back to April 19, 2012, on that afternoon he had to go back to
work for an event, a Teen Job Search Work Shop showing teens how to interview for a job,
etc. He actually had to sit there and act like everything was okay. His heart was in the job
itself and the recreation field and his commitment was to Patrick and the ideal of ""Parks
Make Life Better"" not what one person has done or did not do. Because it was
a
community event, if he did not show up it would not have been professional to let down his
teen staff, the kids, and some of his colleagues of the department and neighboring
departments. When he was at the event a lot of people were shocked that he was not one
of the few selected.
Mr. Wong is asking the Board to please look at the results and questions. His job search
experience from now and up to the layoff had been that he has put in two applications. He
Page -10-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,11,"sent an application to the City of Novato and he was qualified, but he received a letter that
stated he did not qualify for the job because it was a senior services position. Again there
were a lot of questions that were recreational based. It is a senior service position and he
did not qualify for the job because they found others who met that qualification. He went
through the process at another neighboring city and went through the same process of
answering questions. Their process requires two years of recreation experience and he
has 10 years. Based on their supplemental questions he feels he exceeded their
expectations.
He feels that it is wrong that they (appellants) are in this position. They say it was not
based on merit. Again, they say it is based on percentage but if you look at the questions
and you grade it, he does not know how the other person even moved on to the second
interview. He asked the Board to please look at all the information and consider what is
true and what is not.
President Peeler asked for questions from the Board. Members McHugh and Batchelor
stated they needed to read the material.
President Peeler asked if the Board would like to decide on a timeline and whether to meet
again to make a decision.
Member Malloy asked if deliberations would be in closed session or open session.
President Peeler stated probably closed session due to personnel issues. Mr. Riddle
stated that the Board is not making decisions about individuals at this point. What the
Board needs to decide is did the appellants demonstrate that the test was unfair or that the
merit provisions of the Civil Service Rules have not been complied with. If the Board
decides that is the circumstance, and there is a motion with three votes that reaches that
conclusion based on the evidence, then the next question would be what relief or remedy
the Board would grant. The initial question is, does the Board believe the appellants have
shown that the examination/selection process was unfair and violated the merit principles of
the civil service system.
Mr. Peterson asked how the Board could make a decision that it was fair if they have not
read the materials. Mr. Riddle stated that he is not suggesting that the Board make the
decision tonight. The Board will make the decision whenever they would like to make it.
Mr. Riddle is saying that is the decision that the Board needs to fairly decide.
President Peeler asked if the Board wanted to come up with a timeline to decide to review
all of the materials, and/or make requests for additional information, and have a decision by
a certain date.
Mr. Riddle stated that the issue that he did not respond to was whether to have a closed or
open session meeting. The Board is deciding on whether the particular exam was fair or
unfair. That does not fall within the closed session of the Brown Act. Normally it is a
personnel action that the Board is taking with respect to a particular individual for a closed
session. In this particular situation, the Board is deciding on whether the test was fair or
Page -11-
G:Personne/\CSB\A Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,12,"unfair and may be deciding that the test should be redone.
Member Malloy stated that the Board may decide that the test was not fair with respect to
one, two or three specific individuals and may seek information about those individuals that
may help the Board in making a decision, correct? Mr. Riddle stated that if some of the
information is in written form it may well be confidential. He will look at holding a closed
session as the Board moves forward. The Board can schedule a date for when to hold a
meeting and he can provide advice on whether to do the meeting in an open or closed
session. Normally it is an appointment of an individual, discipline of an individual, or
evaluation of a current employee; those are the types of situations that the Board can
lawfully go into a closed session.
Mr. Riddle stated that the Board will not be making the decision of whether one employee
versus another will get hired. Ultimately that decision is up to the administration. What the
Board will do is determine whether the test was fair and/or whether the test will be redone.
That is what the issue is before the Board. If that happens everyone will presumably take
the test again and there will be new results and selections from that test. This Board will
not be determining which individuals get hired. That is not part of the authority of the Board
in his legal opinion.
Member McHugh stated that she needs to digest the materials and will then have
questions. She feels that there will be people in the room that she would like to question.
She asked if a week would be sufficient. President Peeler stated she is not available in a
week. Mr. Riddle is also unavailable.
Member Horikoshi asked the Board if it is unreasonable to try to read through the material
now. He knows that there is a lot of material. Member Malloy stated that she feels it is
reasonable, but it depends on what time commitment others may have. It is reasonable to
do it and reconvene and ask questions. President Peeler stated she is willing to do that.
Mr. Riddle asked the Board if they would like to take a 20-30 minute recess and reconvene.
Mr. Peterson asked the Board if they really thought that a 20-30 minute recess is a fair time
for a fair perusal all of the information. President Peeler stated the Board needs to read the
information.
Mr. Peterson stated that it could be two weeks; it does not need to be tomorrow. He does
not want to have a rush to judgment. The Board needs to look at all the facts. Needs to
look at who set it up. Why was Dale Lillard setting this up?
President Peeler stated that the Board will take a 20 minute recess and then will
reconvene. The Board may have questions and will reconvene at 6:20 p.m.
Meeting was reconvened at 6:25 p.m.
President Peeler asked the Board if they have any questions.
Page -12-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,13,"Member Batchelor asked Mr. Low if these positions were going to do revenue enhancing
through programming and what drove the job descriptions. Mr. Low stated that yes there
are some similarities between the Recreation Program Coordinator and the Recreation
Services Specialist. The primary difference between the two levels is that the Recreation
Service Specialist is going to be a much more responsible position for creating and
evaluating programs so that the programs created are much more cost recovering then
they are today. As indicated in the staff report, ARPD/City is trying to move ARPD towards
a model of maximum cost recovery of which the goal is initially 60% cost recovery. There
are many other recreation and park departments that get a much higher cost recovery,
closer to 90%. In these lean times when the economy and the State are taking away a lot
of our monies we must be much more creative with regard to delivering those recreation
programs that are valued by the citizens on a cost recovery basis.
Member Batchelor asked if there was talk at any time to look at the four candidates and
make it promotional within their department. Mr. Low stated unfortunately Human
Resources is not able to do that. Other Departments have expressed the same desire to
limit the applicant pool to employees within their departments, but the way Human
Resources has received feedback and instruction from the Board, in terms of implementing
the civil service system here, is that whether it be on a promotional or open competitive
basis you want to be as inclusive on a promotional basis to those who have worked here in
a regular position for at least six months to be able to promote. This way you get a variety
of diversity and you are providing people with the equal opportunity to move up through the
organization, whether it is in that particular department or across departments.
Member Malloy stated that it was intimated that interviews were done by phone and asked
Mr. Low if interviews were done by phone. Mr. Low stated yes. There was one candidate
who was physically unable to come to City Hall to interview. This is not the first time that
Human Resources have made reasonable accommodations to allow candidates to
interview, at least initially, over the telephone.
Member Malloy asked if it was due to a medical condition. Mr. Low stated yes.
Member Malloy asked if it was an ongoing condition such that when the person is
performing the job if they were selected that they would need that type of accommodation
in the future. Mr. Low stated that it was his understanding that it was a temporary disability
that Human Resources were accommodating. Malloy asked if it was verified that the
condition existed. Mr. Low stated yes.
Member Malloy asked to be given a bit of understanding of why Assistant City Manager
Goldman was part of the interview process. Is it customary within the City that someone
who might be familiar with the potential candidates would be an interviewer? She
understands that often panels involve subject matter experts and others but she would like
a better understanding of how Ms. Goldman became involved in the process. Mr. Low
stated that Ms. Goldman has a strong operational background in city government. She is
currently the Assistant City Manager and is on the City Management track, but her prior
Page -13-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,14,"experience also included operational experience layered onto her own expertise on cost
recovery models, Human Resources felt that she could be a very objective panel member.
Member Malloy asked if others on the interview panel were also involved in developing the
supplemental questions. Mr. Low stated no.
Member Malloy stated that she assumes that there was not, what she would call, a full
blown independent investigation yet. She asked for an explanation of how Human
Resources gathered the information to answer the questions. Mr. Low stated that having
been involved from the inception/design of the recruitment he was able to provide the City's
logic and reasoning to address the appellants questions.
Member Malloy asked if Mr. Wong is appealing or not appealing. The letter submitted only
had two names, yet he spoke tonight, are there three individuals or two individuals? Mr.
Low stated that he also has that question. Mr. Wong, as far as Mr. Low knows, was not
included in the initial letter sent by Ms. Blumkin and Ms. Tsang. Nor did he attend the April
26, 2012 meeting between Human Resources staff, two other appellants, and union
representative. For him (Mr. Wong) to now be included in the appeal, that is a question
that Mr. Low also has. Mr. Riddle stated that in the event that the Board choses to vacate
the exam, whether he is a party or not, presumably he (Mr. Wong) would be able to retake
the exam like everyone else. Mr. Gossman stated that when the process started it was Ms.
Blumkin and Ms. Tsang. Once they put their heads together they felt something was wrong
and wanted to talk to other applicants regarding their input and feelings was when Mr.
Wong was contacted. It took a month for him to get involved once they made their appeal.
This process needs to be fair to all those that applied for this test and that is their (Union's)
position.
Member Malloy asked if she should believe that it is not Human Resource's perception that
the applicants are claiming that race is a factor in the ultimate decisions. Should she
perceive that Human Resources has not looked at this appeal from this perspective. Mr.
Low stated that is right.
Member Malloy asked why the recruitment was only a week. Mr. Low stated that since the
beginning of March the union was put on notice that this work force change was being
recommended. The actual item went to Council on April 2, 2012. We knew that we had at
least four viable candidates working in ARPD, plus one former ARPD worker who had been
laid off and had application rights. Given that there were five potential candidates and the
staff report that went to Council on April 2, 2012 had indicated that we needed to start
making this organizational change and have folks in place as Recreation Services
Specialists in the following six weeks the process was fast tracked.
Member Malloy asked how the subject matter experts were identified who reviewed the
applications when they were redacted. Is that the standard way that it is done, that the
applications are redacted and given to someone to rank and review the supplemental
questions. Mr. Low stated that in this case, yes. Human Resources redacted the identity
of the applicant authors because he knows from his experience that the recreation
Page -14-
G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,15,"community is small. Similarly the Human Resources field is small. We know people all
over. With regard to redacting that personal information, we tried to continue to design a
process that would be fair and equitable. Regarding the search for evaluators, we went to
a number of different recreation and park districts searching for a high enough level
individual in those districts who would adequately be qualified to evaluate the responses.
Given the tight time frame the two individuals were available. HR Director Brock-Cohn
stated that anytime that she has done a recruitment that is sent out the names are always
redacted and that is a very common practice especially for public safety positions.
Ms. Blumkin stated that it was kind of ironic how both of them were former City of Alameda
employees and have worked with us (appellants). It is kind of ironic that our little small
community could find two people that have worked for us.
Vice President Horikoshi asked, in terms of the other two candidates who were not working
in that department, he is presuming that Human Resources reviewed their applications and
made sure they met the minimum qualifications before forwarding them to be reviewed
from the outside reviewers. Mr. Low stated yes.
Vice President Horikoshi stated that it looks like the outside reviewers, after reviewing the
applications, believed that they met at least the minimum qualifications and were
competitive in the process, is that correct. Mr. Low stated yes.
Vice President Horikoshi is also assuming that the interviewers that interviewed the
applicants based on the answers the applicants gave, also believed that they at least met
the minimum qualifications. He is asking these questions because there seems to be some
question about how other city employees, who seemingly may not have that kind of
relevant experience, how they could have prevailed in the process.
Member Malloy asked if the questions asked of all the applicants were the same. Mr. Low
stated yes.
Member McHugh asked Mr. Gossman about the issue of the notification that there would
be one layoff and there were three and asked if that is part of the issue or not? Mr.
Gossman stated that when we met we were under the perception that there would be one
layoff. The people that were the four players were going to be taking the test. This was the
same perception given to the four coordinators at their meeting on March 1, 2012 with Mr.
Dale Lillard. That was the perception that started this whole ball rolling. As time went on it
expanded in letting more people who were allowed to take the test, etc.
Member McHugh stated but it is not part of the remedy that the appellants are seeking. Mr.
Gossman stated there are a lot of directions to go. You could vacate the test and take a
new test. Do we really need the specialist position; do we need three of them? There are
different directions to go. We had four very experienced employees with over 30 years'
experience. They already work with contractors, citizens, organizations with building
experience. All they were going to do was train to increase cost recovery from 60% to
90%. All they needed to do was call or get a plan together. Instead they said you are out
Page -15-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,16,"the door and are using this ruse. These people who were rehired they do not know what
the models are and have not been doing those models. They (Recreation Services
Specialists) are running around saying what do we do now, what programs do we use?
Member Malloy asked if the weighted average concept of using 60% interviews and 40%
supplemental questions is standard. Or, was it decided by the department what ratio to use
and how did we (the City) get there? Mr. Low stated that the practice is that Human
Resources tries to go to the essential job duties, knowledge, skills, abilities and tries to use
those as the anchors within a supplemental questionnaire and the relative weighing of
someone to prepare written responses to the questions, also using the same essential job
duties, knowledge, skills, abilities to give the weighing to the interviews. Human Resources
felt that they would put the weighing at 60% interviews and 40% supplemental questions.
Member Malloy stated that it ranges from 50-50 to 60-40 as the range. Mr. Low stated yes.
Member Malloy stated HR chose the 60-40. Mr. Low stated yes.
Mr. Peterson asked if they (public) were going to be able to ask a question. President
Peeler stated not at this time Mr. Peterson stated two of the people that were hired did
not meet the basic qualifications. One of them did not have a degree in recreation and one
did not have any degree. So they should not have even been allowed to take the test. This
whole thing is a charade. If you hire two people who were not qualified to take the test how
can you base anything
President Peeler stated the Board will look into all of that.
Mr. Peterson stated as long as the Board knows the facts because they (HR/City) are not
giving them (Board) all the information.
Mr. Riddle stated that he wanted to clarify what issues are on appeal before the Board and
what issues are not before the Board. There has already been a determination made by
the Council, before it came to this Board, to create this new classification and the reasons
why that was done. That is water under the bridge at this point. It was a decision that was
already made. There was a decision to layoff some employees and that issue is also not
before this Board. The issue before this Board is whether the exam that was given to make
appointments to the new classification was fair or not fair or violated the Civil Service Rules.
A member of the public asked if the Board will ask for the applicants' actual positions and
what they filled out on their applications to see if they were qualified. President Peeler
stated that is something the Board will determine after they look at all of the information.
City Attorney Kern stated that if it would assist the Board the City Attorney's Office would
be willing to, at the Board's direction, hire an independent person to investigate factual
issues, interview people involved, and how the testing went and come back to the Board
with that report, if it would be helpful. While the Board looks at documents and asks
questions, if the Board would like to direct that the City Attorney's office do the investigation
Ms. Kern would be happy to do that.
Mr. Peterson asked if she was directing the Board to only look at the test and not people
Page -16-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,17,"who were qualified to take the test. Or, would all of that be involved. City Attorney Kern
stated that what Mr. Riddle was trying to explain is that the City Council as the legislative
body decided to do this reclassification and restructuring. Then there is a testing process
and what is being appealed is whether this testing process was set up fairly and
administered fairly.
Mr. Peterson stated that it could not be fair if two people did not qualify to take the test.
City Attorney Kern stated that is part of the administration but the idea is not for this Board
to go through and look at all of the applications and decide who they would have chosen.
Mr. Peterson stated that he is not saying that, he is saying that two of them should not have
been allowed to take the test because they did not have the qualifications. City Attorney
Kern stated she hears what Mr. Peterson is saying so they can look at
Mr.
Peterson stated that is a fact
City Attorney Kern stated apparently there was a Human Resources review, there was a
supplemental question review, and the oral review and through all of those they apparently
determined that the people met the minimum qualifications. Mr. Peterson stated apparently
someone did not do their job. Apparently does not cut it.
City Attorney Kern stated she does not have the applications in front of her. President
Peeler stated sir, (Mr. Peterson), the Board is not arguing whether he is right or wrong.
If
the Board decides to investigate all of that would be included and asked Mr. Peterson to let
the Board continue.
Mr. Tsang asked who would do the investigation. City Attorney Kern stated the City
Attorney's Office would hire a third party, someone from the outside. Mr. Tsang asked if
they (City Attorney) would be paying them. Ms. Kern stated yes.
Ms. Blumkin stated that they heard the first time was going to be a fair process. You were
going to go outside and that did not happen, so how can we trust that they will not do it
again.
City Attorney Kern stated that it is up to the Board. She is the City Attorney with the City
Attorney's Office and we
Ms. Blumkin stated she is trying to save their jobs.
City Attorney Kern stated she was not trying to save anybody's job. The City Attorney's
Office would be willing, because they have attorney client privilege, be willing to hire
someone outside who would, independently of any direction from her office, go and talk to
the people and come back and report to the Board on how the process went forward. It is
not up to the public group to decide, it is up to the Civil Service Board to decide.
Mr. Peterson stated that they need to tell the Board what they think. City Attorney Kern
stated they can tell the Board what they think but let's let one person speak at a time.
City Attorney Kern stated that if the Board would find this useful she is willing to do it. The
Page -17-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,18,"Board does not have the authority to direct anybody at the City and does not have any
funds. If the Board does not feel that they will get a fair analysis then do not take her up on
her offer and she will save her funds for something else.
Mr. Peterson stated that he thinks at City Attorney Kern's direction, is she going to direct
them to look at things that may make their (the City's) case weaker. That is his point. City
Attorney Kern stated that she would ask the Board to direct what they want done. But Mr.
Peterson needs to understand that their (the Board's) lawyer is going to help keep them
contained into what is in their purview and it is not going to be who gets the job and who
does not get the job. It is going to be if the process was fair and if the process is found to
not have been fair, then what they (Board) have the authority to do is vacate the whole
thing and start all over again.
Mr. Peterson asked a hypothetical, if the Board finds that two of the people do not have the
qualifications to be considered for the job, would that be enough to say it was not fair. Mr.
Riddle stated that hypotheticals are really not what the Board should be doing at this point.
The Board ought to be making a decision about whether they have the information they
need and what process is needed to go forward.
President Peeler stated the Board feels they need more time and discussed when they
would like to next meet. Mr. Riddle stated that the Board needs to meet again to determine
the steps needed to be going forward after they read all the material.
HR Director Brock-Cohn stated that the next regularly scheduled Civil Service Board
meeting is Wednesday, July 11, 2012.
Mr. Riddle stated that if the Board would like to take up the City Attorney's offer of an
investigation that could be taken up at this time also.
Member McHugh stated that the Board needs to take time to look at material and that the
City Attorney's offer to do an investigation is very appealing to her. Again, once the
material has been looked at there may be more specific questions.
Mr. Riddle stated that if the Board decides they want an investigator and have questions to
be addressed, the Board could send those questions to Mr. Riddle and he would forward
them to the investigator.
Member Malloy stated that in her experience an investigation can take a while to set up and
she is not sure that a week would be a reasonable limit to put upon the Board to send
questions. However time is of the essence, we are talking about individuals lives who are
unemployed and living in limbo.
Mr. Riddle stated that if the next meeting is on July 11 that is about a month to have the
investigation and get the questions out.
President Peeler stated we should have a deadline to get the questions together.
Page -18-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,19,"President Peeler asked if the Board will have any say on whom the City Attorney hires or
approval of who the City Attorney hires. City Attorney Kern stated the Board could give her
recommendations; it may take longer, or try and solicit from others. Ms. Kern wants to
make sure that it is an independent person.
Member Malloy stated that the Board could make a recommendation that the independent
investigator be from the list of the California Association of Work Place Investigators. That
could be part of the motion. City Attorney Kern asked Member Malloy to provide her with
the contact.
Member Malloy made a motion that the Civil Service Board instruct/request that the
City Attorney's Office engage an attorney from the list of members of the California
Association of Work Place Investigators and conduct an investigation into the
examination process, providing a response as soon as possible allowing the Board
to provide questions to that body on or before June 18, 2012. Member McHugh
seconded the motion which passed by a 5-0 votes.
4.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:02 p.m.
Holly B.Col
Holly Brock-Cohn
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Page -19-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf