{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda Page 1\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\n30\n$\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, April 4, 2018\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m. by President Dean Batchelor.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Dean Batchelor, Vice President Marguerite Malloy, Members Jan\nBrandt, John Nolan, Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary\nof the Civil Service Board, Nancy Bronstein\nABSENT:\nMember Troy Hosmer\nSTAFF PRESENT: Robin Young, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nSabina Netto, Human Resources Analyst II\nJessica Romeo, Human Resources Analyst I\nSteven Woo, Human Resources Analyst I\nNafisah Ali, Administrative Technician II\n3.\nMINUTES:\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of January 3, 2018.\nPresident Batchelor moved to accept the January 3, 2018 Minutes. Motion was\nseconded by Member Brandt which was passed by a 3-0 vote (Batchelor -\nAbstained).\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A. SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND\nCLASSIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 18, 2017\n4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\n(December 1, 2017 - February 28, 2018)", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nApprentice Electrical Maintenance Technician\n12/04/2017\n2017-7790-02\nApprentice Lineworker\n01/17/2018\n2017-7785-02\nAssistant General Manager-Engineering & Operations\n01/11/2018\n2017-7060-01 (02)\nCity Engineer\n01/31/2018\n2017-3180-01\nDeputy Public Works Director\n12/04/2017\n2017-2601-01\nDivision Chief\n12/04/2017\n2017-4550-01\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n12/11/2017\n2017-7770-01\nEngineering Manager\n12/15/2017\n2017-7200-01\nFleet Mechanic\n02/13/2018\n2017-2360-01\nLibrary Technician\n12/18/2017\n2017-3515-01\nManagement Analyst (Community Development Analyst) 01/29/2018\n2017-1420-02\nPark Maintenance Supervisor\n02/15/2018\n2018-5144-01\nPermit Technician Il\n02/28/2018\n2018-3270-01\nPolice Records Supervisor\n12/01/2017\n2017-4065-01\nPublic Works Coordinator\n01/08/2018\n2017-2605-01\nSenior Building Code Compliance Officer\n01/29/2018\n2017-3246-01\nSenior Librarian\n01/02/2018\n2017-3540-01\nSystem Operator Trainee\n02/09/2018\n2017-7761-01\nPolice Officer\nAquilar, Erick\n01/18/2018\n2017-4057-02\nBardosh, Mark\n01/11/2018\n2017-4040-01\nBeza, Benjamin\n01/18/2018\n2017-4040-01\nBhardwaj, Rajiv\n01/11/2018\n2017-4057-02\nBuchanan, Tyrone\n12/21/2017\n2017-4040-01\nCaughey, Dylan\n12/21/2017\n2017-4057-02\nConn, Jacob\n12/21/2017\n2017-4057-02\nDrexier, Nic\n02/08/2018\n2017-4057-02\nHagemann, Matthew\n01/24/2018\n2017-4057-02\nHansen III, Robert\n01/11/2018\n2017-4057-02\nHawks-Garcia, Steven\n12/21/2017\n2017-4040-01\nJensen, Jarred Michal\n12/21/2017\n2017-4057-02\nJimenez, Luis\n02/26/2018\n2017-4040-01\nKim, Peter\n02/26/2018\n2017-4040-01\nLambert, Patrick\n02/26/2018\n2017-4040-01\nLicari, Joseph\n01/11/2018\n2017-4057-02\nLomanto, Dylan\n12/21/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMaurer, Nika\n12/18/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMcKinley, Eric\n01/11/2018\n2017-4057-02\nNelson, Brian\n02/08/2018\n2017-4057-02\nOrtega, Juan\n01/18/2018\n2017-4057-02\nOverton, Stefan\n12/18/2017\n2017-4057-02\nPacht, William\n12/18/2017\n2017-4057-02\nPoppe, Mason\n01/24/2018\n2017-4057-02\nPowell, Caroline\n12/18/2017\n2017-4057-02\nReeves, Alicia\n02/26/2018\n2017-4057-02\nRuby, Anika\n01/24/2018\n2017-4057-02\nSaengsourith, Mory\n01/18/2018\n2017-4040-01\nSequiera, Michelle\n01/24/2108\n2017-4057-02\nSingh, Manpreet\n02/08/2018\n2017-4057-02\nSmith, Eric\n12/21/2017\n2017-4057-02\nSmith, Jonathan\n12/05/2017\n2017-4057-02\nStanton, Randall\n02/08/2018\n2017-4057-02", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nTran, Raina-pham\n12/18/2017\n2017-4057-02\nTroy, Cortney\n01/18/2018\n2017-4057-02\nVasquez, Rafael\n02/08/2018\n2017-4057-02\nVenikov, Joseph\n01/18/2018\n2017-4040-01\nWitt, Maurice,\n01/24/2018\n2017-4057-02\nBrown, Austin\n02/26/2018\n2017-4057-02\nYi, Jonathan\n02/26/2018\n2017-4040-01\n4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO\nAccounting Technician\n01/23/2017\n2016-62\nAssistant General Manager - ERP\n09/19/2017\n2017-7056-01\nEnergy Resources Analyst\n12/27/2017\n2016-49\nFire Apparatus Operator\n07/07/2016\n2015-21PR\nGardener\n06/28/2017\n2017-21\nHuman Resources Analyst I\n06/28/2017\n2017-22\nIntermediate Clerk\n07/14/2016\n2016-22\nPolice Lieutenant\n08/29/2016\n2016-33PR\nProgram Specialist II - Clean Water Program\n01/23/2017\n2016-52\nPublic Works Supervisor - Sewers & Stormwater\n08/30/2017\n2017-2650-01\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nAdministrative Technician I\n01/04/2016\n2015-89\nAnimal Control Officer\n02/16/2017\n2017-02\nAssistant City Attorney Il - Land\n08/16/2017\n2017-26\nAssistant City Attorney Il - Rent\n12/05/2016\n2016-54\nConstruction Inspection & Survey Supervisor\n11/16/2017\n2017-3080-01\nCrime Prevention Technician\n06/29/2017\n2017-20\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n12/11/2017\n2017-7770-01\nPolice Sergeant\n01/19/2016\n2015-71PR\nPublic Safety Dispatcher - Lateral/Graduate/Attendee\n03/06/2017\n2017-03\nPublic Works Coordinator\n01/08/2018\n2017-2605-01\nSenior Librarian\n01/02/2018\n2017-3540-01\n4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\n- None\nNew Classification Specifications:\n-\nFire Information and Billing Systems Specialist\nVice President Malloy moved to approve Consent Calendar items 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, and\n4-A-iii. Motion was seconded by Member Brandt, which was passed by a 4-0 vote.\nItem under section 4-A-iv was pulled for further discussion. Vice President Malloy asked\nif anyone has filled this position before. Senior Analyst Young answered that this\nclassification resulted per the request from the Fire Department to conduct a class study\nof a current incumbent who may have been working outside the scope of their job. The", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda Page 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nstudy was conducted by an outside consultant and they concluded there was not a\nclassification within the City that covers the work being performed. The current incumbent\nwould be reclassified to the new classification. Vice President Malloy preferred to change\n\"conduct audits\" listed under example of duties #3 because it implies they are auditing\nthemselves. Senior Analyst Young clarified that most of the data that is being audited are\nentered by those out in the field such as Paramedics. It was agreed to change the term\nthat will clarify what the incumbent will actually be doing.\nMember Brandt asked how \"enthusiastic\" listed under abilities, will be defined. Senior\nAnalyst Young responded that perhaps a more appropriate word would be \"positive\" and\nwill update the specifications to reflect the change. Member Brandt asked how years of\nwork experience will equate to the two years of college coursework. Senior Analyst Young\nanswered that subject matter experts will help review if the applicant has the technology\nexperience to succeed in the position. The experience and education is written to capture\nthose who may not have the education but have worked in the industry to gain the\nqualifications.\nPresident Batchelor asked if the current incumbent travels to the other fire stations. Senior\nAnalyst Young answered the incumbent resides in Fire Station 1 which is the\nadministrative building with occasional travel to other stations. President Batchelor asked\nhow the employee would get around if the job description requires potential after-hour\nresponse but a valid driver's license is only required at the time of appointment. Senior\nAnalyst Young answered that there are options such as Uber or taxi cab and that the\nrequirement is the ability to get to another location and not necessarily being able to drive\na vehicle.\nVice President Malloy moved to accept the specifications listed on item 4-A-iv with\nthe recommended changes. Motion was seconded by Member Brandt, which was\npassed by a 4-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. Activity Report - Period of September 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/05/17\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n12/19/17\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n12/20/17\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n1/02/18\nAMP\nExecutive Assistant\n1/08/18\nAMP\nUtility Energy Analyst\n1/08/18\nPublic Works\nAssistant Engineer\n1/08/18\nAMP\nAssistant General Manager- Energy\nResources Planning\n1/08/18\nAMP\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n1/08/18\nFinance\nAccountant I", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\n1/08/18\nPublic Works\nConstruction Inspector\n1/16/18\nAMP\nApprentice Electrical Maintenance\nTechnician\n1/16/18\nInformation Technology\nInformation Technology Systems Analyst\n1/22/18\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician\n1/29/18\nBase Reuse\nSenior Transportation Coordinator\n1/29/18\nAMP\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n2/05/18\nAMP\nAssistant General Manager - Engineering &\nOperations\n2/05/18\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician\n2/12/18\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n2/12/18\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n2/12/18\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n2/20/18\nLibrary\nLibrarian\nCERTIFIED TO CIVIL SERVICE (FROM COMMUNITY PARAMEDICINE)\n2/18/18\nFire\nDivision Chief\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/10/17\nFire\nFire Captain\n12/11/17\nPolice\nManagement Analyst\n12/11/17\nAMP\nSenior Energy Resources Analyst\n12/24/17\nPublic Works\nConstruction Inspection & Survey\nSupervisor\n12/24/17\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n12/24/17\nPublic Works\nDeputy Public Works Director\n1/08/18\nBase Reuse\nSenior Transportation Coordinator\n1/21/18\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\n1/22/18\nLibrary\nSenior Librarian\n1/22/18\nPublic Works\nPublic Works Coordinator\n2/05/18\nAMP\nEngineering Manager\n2/18/18\nFire\nDivision Chief\n2/18/18\nFire\nFire Captain\nVOLUNTARY DEMOTION\n1/8/18\nPolice\nIntermediate Clerk\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/15/17\nAMP\nSenior Utility Accountant\n12/18/18\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n12/21/17\nFire\nDivision Chief\n12/28/17\nLibrary\nSenior Librarian\n12/28/17\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda Page 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\n12/28/17\nFire\nFire Captain\n12/30/17\nAMP\nJourney Lineworker\n1/19/18\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician\n2/01/18\nCommunity Development\nAdministrative Services Coordinator\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n1/03/18\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n1/25/18\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n2/01/18\nPublic Works\nCity Engineer\n5-B. Informational Report, February 20, 2018, Regarding Application to\nTemporarily Vacate Civil Service Position:\n- Christopher Marks\n5-C. Informational Report, February 20, 2018, Regarding Application to\nReturn to Civil Service Position:\n- Allyn Richterman\nVice President Malloy asked if the employees listed under section 5-B and 5-C are\nswitching assignments. Senior HR Analyst Young answered that the movement of the\nemployees is the result of a Division Chief retiring. The employee in the grant funded\nDivision Chief position is moving into the Civil Service position and the other employee is\nbeing promoted into the grant funded Division Chief position. HR Director Bronstein\nadded that employees are notified that those in grant funded positions depend on the\navailability of the grant. She added that the Civil Service process is still followed for grant\nfunded positions. If the grant goes away, the employee has bumping rights to their\nprevious position and a subsequent domino effect for the other employees.\nPresident Batchelor moved to accept 5A, 5B and 5C. Motion was seconded by\nMember Brandt, which was passed by a 4-0 vote.\n6.\nGENERAL DISCUSSION OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES\n6-A. Edits to Civil Service Rules\nHR Director Bronstein stated that HR went through the rules and tried to capture the\nchanges mentioned in the previous meeting along with noting new changes and\nquestions. She brought up the option of scheduling separate meetings specifically to\ndiscuss the Civil Service Rules. The Civil Service members agreed to see how far they\nwill get during tonight's meeting and set extra meeting dates to discuss the Civil Service\nrules further possibly in May and June before the July Civil Service meeting. HR will\nfollow up and send out possible dates and times.\nIt was agreed to start reviewing the document by skipping the definitions section until", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda Page 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nthey reach the end of the review to avoid going back and forth in updating the\ndefinitions.\nArticle I Section 2 - HR Director suggested adding another line to catch all identified\nprotected class since the law changes continuously. Vice President Malloy suggested\nadding \" All statutorily protected statuses. to capture various changes.\nVice President Malloy asked if the Civil Service Rules cover the concept of out-of-class\npay. Senior HR Analyst Young responded that it is covered in most of the\nMemorandums of Understanding (MOU). Vice President Malloy suggested adding\nlanguage in a section within Article VIII or IX referencing out-of-class pay to refer to the\nMOU especially for non-represented employees. HR Director Bronstein noted that the\nCity has an administrative rule that allows for acting pay for non-represented\nemployees. It was agreed as they review the document, they can find an appropriate\nsection. Member Nolan asked if the term \"y-rate\" is still being used. HR Director\nBronstein answered that term is no longer being used and all forms have been updated\nto say Acting and Additional Duties pay and would like to update the language in the\nMOUs as well.\nArticle V Section 4 - Member Brandt asked if the promotional opportunities are for those\nwho have been with the City or have been in the job for six (6) or more months. Vice\nPresident Malloy mentioned that if someone on probation is promoted and does not\npass probation, they may not get bumping rights because they did not pass probation in\ntheir previous position and something to look at while updating the language. President\nBatchelor added that there are organizations where once an employee passes\nprobation the first time there are no more probationary periods but that may require\nunion negotiations. It was agreed to keep the language as it is for now. Member Nolan\nasked if Fire and Police have longer probations. HR Director Bronstein confirmed two\n(2) years for Police Officers and eighteen (18) months for Firefighters.\nArticle VI - Vice President Malloy stated people may not know that reasonable\naccommodations are available throughout the exam process and whether it should be\nadded within the Civil Service Rules even though it is mentioned on the job bulletin. It is\nagreed to add language that speaks to accommodations somewhere in the document.\nArticle VI Section 1 - Vice President Malloy suggested not to have an exhaustive list\nthat would disqualify an applicant in case of future changes. President Batchelor asked\nin section (g) regarding submitting an application within the prescribed time limit, may\ncontradict with Article VI Section 3, where the HR Director may allow applicants to\namend their application. HR Director Bronstein stated that she prefers the statement to\nbe broad so she may review the circumstance of the requested amendment and decide\nwhether to grant it or not. Vice President Malloy asked whether enough time is given\nbetween allowing for an appeal process for applicants who were disqualified and step\ntwo of the exam process. HR Director Bronstein answered that typically there are two\n(2) weeks, if not more time until the next step and that notifications are sent via email or\nby mail if there is no email provided. There is a seven day appeal window after the", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 8, "text": "City of Alameda Page 8\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nexamination is over. Vice President Malloy asked if there should be a number of days\ngiven to applicants who were disqualified so they have a timeline on when to respond.\nHR Analyst Netto stated that those who are disqualified at the minimum or best\nqualification review receives a generic notice that they have not been selected to move\nforward. The notice does not specifically state that the applicant did not meet minimum\nqualifications. Vice President Malloy asks how the applicants know that they can appeal\nthe decision that they are not moving forward since the notice does not state that they\ndo not meet the qualifications. HR Director Bronstein responds that the letter leaves it\nopen for applicants to call. Vice President Malloy suggest perhaps send two different\nnotices, one for those not moving forward due to the strength of the applicants, and\nanother for those being disqualified, which then allows applicants to appeal the\ndecision. HR Analyst Netto added that by offering a window of time for appeals, it may\ndelay the exam process. HR Director Bronstein believes there may be a compromise by\nadding language to the notices.\nArticle VI Section 4 - HR Director Bronstein explained that items listed under (f) through\n(i) were crossed out and moved into a different section due to changes in laws where\nthese examination components cannot be completed until after the contingent job offer\nhas been made. President Batchelor asked for clarification if item (d) is similar to the\npractical exam such as an agilities test that has been crossed out in item (f). HR Analyst\nRomeo answered that this item is a performance exam such as a writing test and not\ntesting for physical ability. HR Director Bronstein said language can be added\ndescribing a practical exam component. It was agreed to keep item (f) listed in this\nsection.\nArticle VI Section 8 - Vice President Malloy stated the second sentence is general\nregarding results are \"given\". It was suggested to revise to results are \"provided to the\ncandidate\" and that the appeal must be filed seven (7) days from the date of the\ndocument.\nArticle VII Section I - Member Brandt wanted clarification on what a \"regular\" employee\nmeans listed in item (e). It was agreed to return to this section after discussing how to\ndefine the term \"regular\".\nArticle VII Section II - Member Brandt mentioned that there is the term \"permanent\nemployee\" used verses \"regular employee\". It was agreed there will be consistency\nonce it is agreed which term to use and define under the definitions section. Vice\nPresident Malloy suggested changing the word \"belonged\" at the end of the first\nsentence. It was agreed it will be reviewed and updated.\nHR Director Bronstein addressed Member Nolan's question regarding how candidates\nare notified before and after departmental interviews. She described that candidates are\nnotified of their standing on the eligible list and the Civil Service Rules have been\nupdated to reflect that candidates are notified within two (2) weeks. The notice to the\ncandidate states that the department may or may not contact them for the next step.\nThose who did not pass the exam receive a notice stating that their score was not high", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 9, "text": "City of Alameda Page 9\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 4, 2018\nenough to qualify them to be on the eligible list. HR Director Bronstein did note that they\ncan work with the department to find out a time frame for when they will contact\ncandidates so that can be added to the notices. She added that supervisors are being\ntrained on the new system (Neogov) so that they can notify candidates. Vice President\nMalloy suggested HR to update the status of the position so if a candidate checks online\nthey can see that the position has been filled. It was agreed to check Neogov to see if\nthere is the ability to make this update and perhaps auditing the status to make sure\nsupervisors are notifying applicants.\nHR Director Bronstein described that even though a certain amount of names are given\nto the department, the department can chose to only interview the top few names, but in\nrank order. President Batchelor added that in the past if for example five (5) names are\ncertified to the department, then you have to interview all five (5). HR Director Bronstein\nresponded that may have been an internal rule but not a Civil Service requirement.\nPresident Batchelor added why a department would not interview all of candidates to\ndetermine the best applicant. It was agreed to revisit this topic if they want to discuss it\nfurther.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo comment from the public.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nNo communication from staff.\n9.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nThe July meeting was confirmed for Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 5:00 PM. HR will\nprovide dates in May or June for a special meeting to discuss the Civil Service rules.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 6:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director\nand\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MEETING MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nWednesday, April 4, 2018, 6:00PM\nCALL TO ORDER\nActing Chairperson Sherman Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:06PM.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Acting Chairperson Sherman, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,\nCommissioner Liz Rush\nAbsent: Chairperson Daniel Hoy (excused)\nLois Butler (PAC secretary) and Amanda Gehrke are present as staff to the Commission.\n2. MINUTES\nMotion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Mark Farrell to\napprove the minutes. The motion carried 4-0.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A 2018-5422: Reprogramming of Cultural Arts and Arts Programing Funds Not Awarded Through the\nRequest for Proposal (RFP) Process. The Public Art Commission (PAC) held a public meeting to consider\nideas for reprogramming cultural arts and arts monies not recommended for funding through the recent\nRFP process.\nAmanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.\nMs. Gehrke then gave an overview of why the report was written. She indicated that there was $20,000\nnot awarded in the Cultural Arts and Arts Programing RFP process in the $5,000 and $15,000 categories.\nShe presented a few alternatives, suggested by staff, and in part based on feedback from the selection\npanels on how the monies not awarded could be re-released, and how the RFP could be updated to\nreflect learnings. The two main subject items were:\nFunding increments - smaller grant amounts\nInteractive feedback with the selection panel and the proposers\nCommissioners asked clarifying questions.\nPublic Speaker(s) (paraphrased comments):\nCollin Blake:\nA common lament during the interim of time when the monies were not being distributed was that the\nmonies were just trapped. He wanted to know was the money invested. He said, this was germane to\nDraft Meeting Minutes\n1 of 4\nPublic Art Commission\nApril 4, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 2, "text": "tonight's discussion. The monies could be invested. Could there be an endowment so that these funds\nare generating funds, so that we are not thinking of these funds as a onetime thing and they can be\ngenerating funds year after year.\nPat Colburn:\nAre there any additional funds forecasted for the art fund?\n(Ms. Butler clarified that questions are not answered at this time. The Commissioners can choose to\nanswer questions as part of the discussion.)\nShe liked the idea of having a personal interview when you make a decision on the finalist and having a\none-to-one with the people applying.\nCheryl Aaron:\nAppreciated staff coming back so soon and what is the schedule going forward. She said she love the\nsuggested review of the process. She is with Island Alliance of the Arts and personally believes if they\nhad had the opportunity to address some of the questions, it would have been helpful. But it's a new\nprocess.\nPublic Comments closed\nDiscussion:\nActing Chairperson Sherman: What is the possibility of an endowment?\nMs. Butler: We need to research this. Monies go into interest bearing accounts.\nA Commissioner stated that he has done research on this and a City can form a nonprofit and administer\nan endowment.\nAdditional Public Speaker:\nWes Warren: He like the review process option.\nCommissioner Farrell: Lois, when you say the money is in an account is it a money market, how is it\ninvested?\nMs. Butler: She would need to research this and follow-up. The interest from money invested is credited\nto the account.\nActing Chairperson Lewis do we know how much interest was generated? Ms. Butler: She would need to\nresearch.\nCommissioner Gillitt: Do we have a forecast of any developers that plan to donate in lieu of onsite art?\nMs. Butler: She does not know of any developers.\nCommissioners discussed proposal amounts.\nMs. Butler indicated that this is the meeting to determine what should happen to with the funds that\nwere not disbursed.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\n2 of 4\nPublic Art Commission\nApril 4, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Rush suggested four $5,000 awards, Commissioner Farrell would like to see smaller\nawards and suggested ten $2,000 awards. Farrell suggested a survey, Rush agreed.\nActing Chairperson Lewis moved to accept the proposal to survey to inform the levels of award\namounts. Commissioner Rush second the motion. The motion carried 4-0.\nMs. Butler indicated staff will put together a survey and report back to the Commission. Ms. Gehrke\nasked for direction on the process for interaction with the proposers. Commissioner Farrell indicated\nthat interaction should happen in writing or in person after the initial meeting of the panel.\nCommissioner Gillitt agreed that there should be an additional step in the process.\nCommissioner Gillitt moved that there should be an additional step in the process between the initial\nreview with the selection panel and the awarding of grants by the Commission. The intermediate step\ncould be in writing, by email, or an in person interview. The survey should include questions on the type\nof interaction preferred. Acting Chairperson Lewis second the motion. The motion carried 4-0.\nCommissioner Farrell asked what would be the lowest amount of the grants. Commissioner Gillitt\nprefers to see a range of amounts from $200 to $500. Commissioner Farrell suggested that the survey\ninform the Commissioner second the motion.\nSpeaker Wes Warren asked if the survey was going to the general public. Commissioner Farrell said it\nwas only going to the Arts Community. Speaker Wes Warren suggested that the Commissioners just pick\nan amount.\nActing Chairperson Lewis asked if there were any other questions or discussion. Commissioner Farrell\nasked if we answered the questions asked by the public speakers. Commissioner Rush indicated that\nthere was a question on timeframes. Ms. Gehrke indicated that there is no timeframe for the next\nrelease. She indicated that our next steps are designing the survey, then going back to the PAC with a\nproposed RFP and releasing the RFP soon after it is approved by the PAC. Ms. Butler describe how she\nenvisions the survey monkey questions. Commissioner Gillitt asked when the survey would come back\nto them. Ms. Gehrke confirmed that it would be sometime in June. Ms. Gehrke also informed the PAC\nof a May 14th tour of the physical art sites. Commissioner Farrell indicated his concerned about\nWednesday meetings due to the fact that he is an actor. Ms. Butler indicated that we could talk about\nthis during Commissioner Communications.\n5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMs. Gehrke checked in with PAC on whether they prefer an electronic link to the packet or a paper copy.\nCommissioner Farrell indicated he was okay with the electronic link if it was short. Acting Chairperson\nLewis agreed Commissioner Farrell. Ms. Butler introduce Commissioner Rush as a new PAC\nCommissioner. She did a short introduction of herself\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no written communications.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\n3 of 4\nPublic Art Commission\nApril 4, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-04-04", "page": 4, "text": "7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Farrell indicated that he hopes the meetings will not be on Wednesday in June.\nActing Chairperson Lewis hopes that the meetings won't be at the beginning of June as he may be\nout of town. Commissioner Rush hopes that the PAC meeting is not on the summer solstice as she\ncelebrates it.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Farrell moved and Commissioner Lewis second the motion to adjourn the meeting.\nActing Chairperson Lewis adjourned the meeting.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\n4 of 4\nPublic Art Commission\nApril 4, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf"}