{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\nDraft\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2012\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Members Dean Batchelor,\nLinda McHugh (late), Marguerite Malloy, and Executive Secretary Holly Brock-Cohn.\nABSENT: None\nSTAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Kern, Personnel Management Analysts Emily Hung, Jill Kovacs, and\nChris Low\n3.\nMINUTES:\nA.\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 11, 2012.\nPresident Peeler asked for clarification on if there is an annual training for the Sunshine Ordinance. City\nAttorney Kern stated that the training is a one-time only training.\nMember Malloy moved that the July 11, 2012 Minutes be approved. Motion was seconded by Member\nBatchelor which was passed by a 4-0 vote.\nB.\nApproval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 8, 2012.\nMember McHugh moved that the minutes of August 8, 2012 Special Meeting be approved as written.\nMotion was seconded by Vice President Horikoshi which was passed by a 5-0 vote.\nC.\nApproval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 28, 2012.\nVice President Horikoshi stated that in the first paragraph on page 3, weighing should be changed to\nweighting. On page 4, third paragraph, second line, supplement questionnaire should be changed to\nsupplemental questionnaire. On page 7, fifth paragraph, Mr. Riddler should be changed to Mr. Riddle. On\npage 9, in bolded paragraph, Motion passed 4-1. It should be noted that the one vote was an abstention and\nMr. Horikoshi would like the record to reflect that abstention.\nVice President Horikoshi moved that the minutes of August 28, 2012 Special Meeting be approved with\nthe corrections stated. Motion was seconded by Member McHugh which was passed by a 5-0 vote.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nD\nDraft\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR\nOCTOBER 10, 2012\n4-A.i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAssistant City Attorney Il\n4/23/2012\n2012-15\nCustodian\n5/18/2012\n2012-23\nFire Captain\n1/30/2012\n2011-32PR\nJourney Lineworker\n8/29/2012\n2012-32PR\nPublic Works Coordinator\n7/16/2012\n2012-24\nRecreation Services Specialist\n4/17/2012\n2012-16PR\nRecreation Services Specialist\n9/25/2012\n2012-25PR\nSenior Electrical Engineer\n7/26/2012\n2012-21\nSenior Engineer\n7/24/2012\n2012-22\nSenior Librarian\n8/23/2012\n2012-10\nSupervising Librarian\n5/24/2012\n2012-18\nPolice Officer\n8/4/2012\n2012-27\nAllen, Richard\nClifford, Alfred\nFerreira, Kevin\nMcDowell, Scott\nPangelinan, Bryant\nWoulfe, Brendan\nPolice Officer\n9/25/2012\n2012-27\nAguilar, Junior\nMatos, Israel\nViray, Ludivico\nAllen, Jennifer\nMcCants, Matthew\nWaters, Thomas\nBernales, Pio\nMontgomery, Sean\nYuen, Edward\nBorman, Lee\nNanthasiri, Katan\nBradley, Nyal\nNeese, John\nDe La Rosa, Junior\nO'Guinn, Lance\nDeLuna, Daniel\nPalmer, Michael\nFurness, Patrick\nReeder, James\nGibson, Jacob\nRingler, Christopher\nHall, Mark\nSablan, Daniel\nHuie, Alexander\nSalgado, Jaymie\nJones, Gary\nShokair, Mark\nKonze, Kyle\nSocarras, Chano\nTurner, James\nPolice Officer\n4/16/2012\n2012-05\nAnderson, Jeffrey\nGroh, Jay\nOlsen, James\nAsefi, Mostafa\nGoyt, Shane\nPerdue, Dan\nBoyer, Coopy\nHalog, Jordan\nRhodus, Steven\nConcepcion, Pete\nHolmes, Benjamin\nRhoton, Kyle\nCote, Tyler\nHoudashelt, Richard\nSaffold, Darryl\nDeys, Jon\nHowells, David\nSanjideh, Arvin\nElliot, Joseph\nHuff, Jonathan\nSherman, Matthew\nFuller, Christopher\nLew, Eugene\nSlater, Ari\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nGlaspy, Daniel\nMoore, Aaron\nStevenson, Bryce\nGreen, Andrew\nMourdriak, Sergey\nTatarian, Vatche\nVieira-Riberio, Alexander\nViera, Jonathan\nViveros, Victor\nWagner, Justin\n4-A.ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAccounting Supervisor\n3/14/2012\n2012-04\nAdministrative Services Coordinator\n12/19/2011\n2011-26PR\nAdministrative Technician Il\n5/29/2012\n2012-20\nAssociate Civil Engineer\n8/30/2011\n2011-21\nAssistant City Clerk\n5/3/2012\n2012-19PR\nCustomer Service Representative\n4/19/2012\n2012-13\nDivision Chief\n10/10/2011\n2011-16PR\nEmergency Medical Svc Education Coordinator\n1/7/2011\n2010-36\nFire Apparatus Operator\n3/11/2011\n2010-43PR\nFire Captain\n1/30/2012\n2011-32PR\nLibrary Technician\n10/18/2011\n2011-35\nMeter Reader Collector\n3/31/2011\n2011-08\nPolice Lieutenant\n2/13/2012\n2012-02PR\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\n4/4/2011\n2011-02\nSenior Management Analyst\n1/18/2012\n2011-39\n4-A.iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAccount Clerk\n12/14/2011\n2011-40PR\nAccounting Technician\n11/10/2011\n2011-37PR\nAdministrative Technician Il\n11/21/2011\n2011-31PR\nAssistant City Attorney Il\n4/23/2012\n2012-15\nChief System Dispatcher\n9/27/2011\n2011-25\nCommunications Engagement Specialist\n1/18/2012\n2011-39\nEnergy Resources Analyst\n1/5/2012\n2011-33\nIntermediate Clerk\n9/6/2011\n2011-28PR\nJourney Lineworker\n8/29/2012\n2012-32PR\nMaintenance Worker I\n3/12/2012\n2012-01PR\nOffice Assistant\n7/19/2011\n2011-15\nPlanner I\n5/4/2011\n2011-12\nPolice Officer\n7/1/2010\n2010-21\nPolice Officer\n7/30/2010\n2010-18\nPolice Officer\n4/20/2011\n2011-04\nPolice Officer\n4/16/2012\n2012-06\nPolice Sergeant\n5/10/2011\n2011-11PR\nPublic Works Coordinator\n12/16/2010\n2010-41\nPublic Works Maintenance Team Leader\n8/16/2011\n2011-20PR\nPublic Works Supervisor\n3/18/2011\n2011-10PR\nRisk Manager\n3/19/2012\n2012-09PR\nSenior Energy Resources Analyst\n1/5/2012\n2011-33\nSenior Engineer\n10/6/2011\n2011-23\nUtility Information & Billing Systems Supervisor\n3/20/2012\n2012-12PR\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\n4-A.iv. ELIGIBLE LISTS REDO ORDERED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO\nRecreation Services Specialist\n4/17/2012\n2012-16PR\n4-A.v. LIST OF SPECIFICATION\nCity Planner (New Class) (removed from 7/11/2012 CSB Agenda for follow-up)\nMalloy asked how this position fits into the scheme of the Department. Laurie Taylor, Community\nDevelopment Director, was at the meeting to answer any questions of the Board. Ms. Taylor oversees three\ndivisions (Economic Development, Building, and Planning which includes Code Enforcement).\nIn Planning, there were two Planning Services Managers which were equal. One handled advanced planning,\none handled current planning. Current planning is when someone comes in at the counter and pulls permits,\netc.\nThe Department was reorganized so that there would be a City Planner position slightly higher than the\nPlanning Services Managers so that all divisions would have a division head similar to the building official or\neconomic development manager for consistency. This was to streamline operations.\nMember Malloy asked if it now is a City Planner above the current people applying for permits, etc. Director\nTaylor stated no, it is one City Planner - a division head for all of planning. They oversee advance planning\nand current planning. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that this was one part of a departmental\nreorganization. There were a total of approximately nine positions involved in the total reorganization which\ninvolved developing a new classification. The reorganization of the department and addition of the position has\nalready been approved. At hand today is not the positions per se, the issues are do the job specifications\nrepresent the work to be performed, do the qualifications support the work and is it fair so it does not look like\nwe are trying to hire someone's brother-in-law.\nMember Malloy asked if the position was now being done by three people, just part-time, or if the function is\nnot being done at all. As an example, if she is the head of planning and is performing 55 functions and it is too\nmuch for her, are we going to parcel off eight of the functions to create a job. She is just trying to get a lay of\nthe land to see if this person needs to be the department manager. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs\nstated that the position and staffing structure has already been approved. Ms. Malloy stated that she is not\nquestioning it; she just wants to understand to whom the person reports to and who reports to this person. Ms.\nKovacs stated that the City Planner will report to the Director. There are a variety of other planners that are to\nbe reported to. There is an organizational chart in the budget book which shows the reporting structure which\ncan be provided to the Board. Member Malloy stated she wants to understand before the position was created\nhow the function was performed; was it performed or who did it. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs\nstated it was spread over a variety of different things so what they are doing is consolidating current and\nadvanced planning reporting to one position.\n4-B. Report Recommending Limited Exception to Allow the Executive Secretary/Human\nResources Director to Place Three Police Officer Recruits on a Police Officer Eligible List Prior to\nCompleting the Police Academy.\nMember Malloy asked for Item B to be removed for discussion.\nMember Malloy asked what month in 2010 that the list was certified. Vice President Horikoshi stated that the\nlist was originally certified, and then the Board stated that it was okay to continue to add names onto that list.\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nEven though the list was certified in 2010 the names of the three officers were added in 2012. Personnel\nManagement Analyst Kovacs stated that is correct.\nMember Malloy stated the Board can extend that list up until 2012. She would like to know what rank they are\ncertified in. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that at this time, we are now certifying the names\nto the rolling list as they come in because we have \"open until filled\" positions.\nPresident Peeler stated that there was a hardship in finding police officers which is why this was done\ndifferently. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that is correct.\nMember Malloy asked if a list can be extended for more than two years. Personnel Management Analyst\nKovacs stated no, a name can be on the list. A list could have started in January, but a name may not have\nbeen put on the list until October. The name would have two years from October on that list.\nMember McHugh asked when the officers would start the Police Academy and when they will have completed\nthe Academy. Police Chief Noonan stated they started the academy on October 1, 2012. The Academy lasts\nsix months and they will complete it in March 2013.\nMember McHugh asked if it was normal for them to wait almost two months before they start the Police\nAcademy. Police Chief Noonan stated this is not normal. In this case, these were such good, high quality\ncandidates that they wanted to hire them before the list expired. The purpose was to get quality candidates,\nget them oriented before going into the Academy for the Department administrative tasks, and orientation of\nthe city so that would be one less thing for them to worry about when coming out of the Academy in six\nmonths.\nMember Malloy asked if there are more names on the list. President Peeler asked Human Resources Director\nBrock-Cohn to explain to Ms. Malloy the difference between the police officer recruitment, other recruitments,\nand how they are different. Police Chief Noonan stated that the list is good for two years. The Police Officer,\nPolice Lieutenant, and Police Sergeant lists are good for up to two years. Every six months the list is sent to\nthe Police Chief for renewal.\nMember Malloy asked if there were more names on the list but those three came off the list. Personnel\nManagement Analyst Hung stated there may have been more names on the list but these were the officers that\nwere selected for hire.\nMember Malloy asked if it is customary that we (the City) select before the completion of the six month\nAcademy. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated no. There are many cities that when they do hire\nthey make the recruit an employee. However, in this particular case because of the pension reform that was\nrecently approved, these people were hired with the understanding that they will be under the current formula.\nThe length of the Academy is such that they will not become permanent employees if we do not do this until\nafter January 1. They would be considered new employees at that time and would not be eligible for the same\nbenefits that they were hired under. The concern is because there are other cities that do hire recruits in the\nAcademy, we may lose them.\nChief Noonan stated that these are three entry level police recruits that were hired to fill the vacancies. They\npassed the background check, medical, polygraph, and psychological testing. They are always hired before\nthe Academy. We hired them a little earlier than normal because we did not want to lose these three\nindividuals. There are other lists that they work off of; laterals, officers coming from other police departments,\nand people who have put themselves through the Academy. It is not uncommon for us to hire prior to the\nAcademy for entry levels. We did it a little earlier than normal this time because they were such high quality\ncandidates that we did not want to lose them.\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nChief Noonan stated that if they successfully complete the Academy then they become police officers and\ncome back for more training within the Police Department.\nMember Batchelor asked when the city was informed about the pension reform going to the new formula.\nHuman Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that it was in late August early September. Member Batchelor\nstated that was after we hired them in July.\nMember Malloy asked if there were not any other people in the Academy now that the Chief would like to come\nonboard before the 31st. Chief Noonan stated no. There are people there that if they are qualified, he may\nrecruit them. Everyone is looking for quality police officers.\nMember Malloy asked how likely it is that these three people could jump into some other jurisdiction to find\nwork and be hired as employees before December 31st. Chief Noonan stated that it is quite good, very likely.\nBecause every city has different hiring processes and if they are in the Academy they are considered an\nAcademy grad technically. Other cities can expedite the testing process. A perfect example is that Fremont,\nUnion City, Newark, and Oakland put their people through as police officers. Other cities will come in with a\nwaiver from the recruit and take a look at our background check, etc. and the hiring would be expedited.\nMember McHugh asked if Oakland and Fremont hiring them as police officers is to prevent poaching in the\nAcademy. Chief Noonan stated yes.\nMember McHugh asked why we changed the rules and maybe we should reconsider the policy we have.\nPersonnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that it was changed approximately 15 years ago because there\nwere high instances of injuries. As a full-time regular police officer the disability benefits are very different for a\nnon-sworn officer. Policy was changed due to high incidences of injuries.\nMember McHugh asked if there has been any thought to reconsider the policy given how hard it is to recruit.\nPersonnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated it could go either way.\nVice President Horikoshi stated that in Assistant City Attorney Sierra's memo it states that the Police Chief, at\nhis discretion, can consider them full-time sworn employees at the time they begin the Academy. When Mr.\nHorikoshi looked at BART requirements it states that they cannot be considered sworn until they finish the\nAcademy. Ms. Sierra reiterated that if they are in the Academy they are considered sworn officers while in the\nAcademy.\nMember Malloy stated that under the pension reform legislation the goal is to not have people make decisions\nwith the sole purpose of enhancing someone's retirement benefit. She feels that the main reason is to not\nhave to go to the expense and energy of recruiting new people through the program and being down 11\nofficers. There are other goals here. She will not support something in essence that is designed to enhance\ntheir retirement benefit.\nMember McHugh stated that for her it comes down to the City making a good faith effort to the recruits. The\ntimeline revealed says to her that the City moved as quickly as they could to try and mitigate the situation. She\nfeels that all parties were acting in good faith.\nVice President Horikoshi made a motion to allow the Human Resources Director on a limited exception\nto place three police officer recruits on the Eligible List prior to completing the Police Academy.\nMotion was seconded by Member Batchelor which passed by a 4-1 vote.\n4-C. Information Report on Cancellation of Eligible List - Assistant City Attorney II, 2012-15.\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nMember McHugh asked how we can have an eligible list with seven candidates who are qualified or no longer\ninterested or qualified but do not possess the specific legal expertise the City Attorney needs. Personnel\nManagement Analyst Low stated that an Assistant City Attorney II can have a wide variety of legal\nresponsibilities that are assigned. As an example, Assistant City Attorney II Stephanie Sierra was hired from\nthe list but she is not an expert in every aspect of municipal law. The current vacancy is more of a litigating\nattorney. There were some litigating attorneys on the list but who have subsequently taken other positions.\nOther qualified candidates could do this level of work, but were not litigators, and do not meet the needs of the\ncity any longer. The City Attorney has indicated that the current eligible list does not meet the business needs\nof her office or the city. Therefore, she is recommending to cancel the current Eligible List and go back out to\nget an attorney that does meet their needs.\nVice President Horikoshi asked if they were trying to hire two different Assistant City Attorney Il's with different\ntypes of expertise. Personnel Management Analyst Low stated that at the time the recruitment was done Ms.\nSierra met those business needs.\nHuman Resource Director Brock-Cohn stated that another vacancy has occurred and so the needs that they\nhave to fill that new vacancy are different than the ones they had for the existing list. Vice President Horikoshi\nstated that because it was a generalist classification you could have different assignments with different sets of\nskills but it just so happens that the people who are left on the list do not have those. Human Resources\nDirector Brock-Cohn stated that is correct.\nMember Batchelor asked if there are two vacancies. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated no there\nis one vacancy. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that the recruitment was held and\nMs. Sierra was hired and then another attorney left. The second vacancy occurred subsequent to the filling of\nthe first vacancy.\nMember McHugh asked if we need to do a better job with how we describe these positions, or will this always\nbe a problem, where we go out and recruit and then find out that more expertise is needed and requires more\ndetail in another area. Vice President Horikoshi stated that this is similar to the Park and Golf maintenance\nworker classification where you may have an opening in the parks but it is a generalist classification. You hire\nthat person and then you need someone in the golf area. Sometimes a park maintenance person can work in\ngolf, but if the answer is no then you have to do another recruitment. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn\nstated that if they know multiple people are leaving in a department then Human Resources can do a\nrecruitment that would meet the needs of multiple positions. In this case, Human Resources had no idea that\nthis person was leaving, it was a complete surprise.\nMember Batchelor asked if this is more of a general position. Litigation issues would have been somewhere in\nthis job description and there were some folks on the candidate list, some are gone, and some are still on the\nlist that we said were qualified. Why are they all of a sudden not qualified? Human Resources Director Brock-\nCohn stated that her understanding is that they were qualified for the original position that they applied for, they\nare not qualified for the new position that they now need to fill.\nMember McHugh stated that the memo in the packet says that they are qualified but they do not have the skill\nset needed. Ms. Sierra, Assistant City Attorney II, stated that there are four attorney's in the City Attorney's\nOffice. The four attorneys have to provide services throughout the whole city. Ms. Sierra's expertise is in\nconstruction law, human resources, and affordable housing which were needed at the time. Unfortunately, the\njob classification in general sort of encompasses everything, but the people on the list had strengths in those\nareas. But the person who left after she was hired was a strong litigator and her background is litigation. The\npeople on the list may have had some litigation background but the people on the list were strong in human\nresources, construction, etc. Their real strengths were not in litigation. The City Attorney's Office is looking for\nsomebody with specific skills in litigation.\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201: Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 8, "text": "07/30/12\nPublic Works\nAssistant Engineer\n07/30/12\nLibrary\nSupervising Librarian\n08/14/12\nPolice\nPolice Officers (3)\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/04/12\nCity Clerk\nAssistant City Clerk\n07/29/12\nFire\nAdministrative Technician Il (2)\n08/26/12\nAlameda Municipal Power\nSenior Electrical Engineer\nTRANSFERRED JOB CLASS PER CIVIL SERVICE ARTICLE IX\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n07/01/12\nAlameda Municipal Power\nto Utility Energy Analyst\nFrom Senior Management Analyst\nDEMOTION TO FORMER POSITION\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n07/01/12\nAlameda Municipal Power\nto Stock Clerk\nFrom Apprentice Line Worker\n07/02/12\nCommunity Development\nto Planner I\nFrom Planner II (in lieu of lay off)\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 9, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 9\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/03/12\nCity Clerk\nAssistant City Clerk\n06/16/12\nPolice\nPolice Officer (2)\n06/30/12\nPolice\nPolice Lieutenant\n08/02/12\nRecreation/Parks\nOffice Assistant\nLAY OFFS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n07/12/12\nPolice\nJailer (6)\n07/12/12\nInformation Technology\nTelecom Maintenance Tech\n07/12/12\nPolice\nAdministrative Technician III\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/14/12\nCommunity Development\nPermit Technician III\n06/27/12\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n06/28/12\nPublic Works\nAssistant Engineer\n08/05/12\nFire\nFirefighter\nMember McHugh asked about the layoff of six jailers in the Police Department, when we are hiring three new\nPolice Officers. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that the six jailers were laid off due to the\noutsourcing of jail services.\nVice President Horikoshi asked how many Police Officers are budgeted. Personnel Management Analyst\nKovacs stated that there are a total of approximately 99 sworn officers of which 66 are actual police officers.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nVice President Horikoshi stated that Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn was going to talk to the Board\nabout how the Council handles decisions in the budget and what the purview is of the Civil Service Board.\nHuman Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that there was a question regarding could budget items come to\nthe Civil Service Board first. The answer is no. The answers to the questions are in the Special Meeting\nMinutes of August 8, 2012. It is the City Council's purview to determine new positions layoffs, elimination of\npositions, all of those types of items.\nMember Malloy asked how many of the current city employees with 25 years of service are likely to retire due\nto AB3040 as of January. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that current employees really are not\nimpacted too much other than a cap on the retirement.\nMember Malloy stated that for some jurisdictions counting vacation/sick pay into their final salary will affect\ntheir retirement and make enough of a difference for some people that they are retiring early. For some\njurisdictions it has become an issue. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that her understanding is\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-10-10", "page": 10, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 10\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 10, 2012\nDraft\nthat for current employees they will be able to continue to do that.\nA.\nReview of 2013 Civil Service Board Meeting Dates.\nThe Board discussed 2013 Civil Service Board Meeting Dates. The Board agreed to move the January\nmeeting to Wednesday, January 9, 2013. And the July meeting will be moved to Wednesday, July 10, 2013.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHolly B. Col\nHolly Brock-Cohn\nHuman Resources Director and\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\AI Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-10-10.pdf"}