{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2012--7:0 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-265) Proclamation Declaring the Month of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and\nTransgender (LGBT) Pride Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Christina Pence and Debra\nArbuckle.\n(12-266) Proclamation Declaring June 6, 2012 as Rhythmix Cultural Works Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Janet Koike and Tina Blaine,\nRythmix Cultural Works.\n(12-267) Proclamation Declaring June 23 and 24, 2012 as Relay for Life of Alameda\nDays.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Michele Langford, Cobbie Uolla,\nJennifer Uolla, Lisa Leverton and Joan Jensen, Relay for Life.\n(12-268) Public Utilities Board (PUB) Update on Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) Work\nPlan Initiatives, Annual Planning Workshop, and Financial and Budget Workshop.\nPUB Chair Greg Hamm gave a brief presentation.\n(12-269) Commendation to AMP Receiving the Reliable Public Power Provider\nDesignation from the American Public Power Association.\nMayor Gilmore presented the award to PUB Members Hamm and McMahon and the\nAMP General Manager.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 2, "text": "(12-270) Presentation to the City of Alameda by the League of American Bicyclists\nDesignating Alameda a Bicycle Friendly Community (Bronze Level).\nBonnie Wehmann, League of American Bicyclists, gave a brief presentation and\npresented the award to the Mayor.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-271) Richard Bangert, Alameda, urged Council to comment on the proposed fence\nat Alameda Point.\n(12-272) Al Wright, Alameda Resident and Business Owner, discussed the Park Street\nstreetscape and thanked staff for their work; urged that posts be put up on the new\nlights to allow the American flags to be hung for the 4th of July.\n(12-273) Ken Peterson, Alameda, commented on the City's budget.\n(12-274) Bill Smith, Sierra Club, discussed the Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point; urged\nthe City to reengage with East Bay Regional Park District; submitted a letter.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to continue participation in the\nAlameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program [paragraph number 12-278 was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-275) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 1,\n2012 and the Special Meetings Held on May 8, 2012. Approved.\n(*12-276) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,498,235.57.\n(*12-277) Recommendation to Set June 19, 2012, for a Public Hearing to Consider\nCollection of Delinquent Administrative Citation Fees and Vacant Building Assessments\nVia the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(12-278) Recommendation to Authorize the City of Alameda's Continued Participation in\nthe Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP) for FY 12-13/FY\n14-15.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested amendment to not require the matter to come to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 3, "text": "Council every three years.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about what established the requirement, Mark\nAllen, ACLPPP, stated the original Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) required approval\nevery year, which was changed to 3 years in 2006.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Council could take said action tonight.\nThe City Attorney responded the title indicates the agreement is for three years.\nThe Development Manager stated that the proposed change could be brought back.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the agreement has been renewed ten times; inquired about\nthe related grant.\nThe Development Manager responded the grant is separate and is through Housing\nand Urban Development (HUD).\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would continue its role even\nthough the Housing Authority is now separate, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the agreement should continue indefinitely when the\nmatter is brought back, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; noted Council would\nconsider continuing indefinitely when staff brings the matter back.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*12-279) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Urban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.\n(*12-280) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of\nAlameda, No. P.W. 05-12-09. Accepted.\n(*12-281) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Vegetation Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring\nfor the South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 05-12-11. Accepted.\n(*12-282) Recommendation to Accept Work of Weber Tractor Service for Repair of\nPortland Cement Concrete. Accepted.\n(*12-283) Resolution No. 14678, \"Approving and Amending Part Time Emergency\nMedical Technician Salary Schedule.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 4, "text": "(*12-284) Resolution No. 14679, \"Resolution in Support of Assembly Bill 1648\n(Brownley), a Bill Related to Disclosures on Political Advertisements.\" Adopted.\n(*12-285) Resolution No.14680, \"Calling an Election in the City of Alameda on\nNovember 6, 2012, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Entitled\n\"Charter Amendment Changing Requirements for When a Citywide Ballot Measure is\nNeeded to Authorize Certain Sales or Disposals of City Parks.\" Adopted.\n(*12-286) Ordinance No.3046, \"Amending Article II (Boards and Commissions)\nof\nChapter II (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 2-\n13.2(a); 2-15.2(a); 2-21.2(a) to Reduce the Membership of the Golf, Economic\nDevelopment, and Youth Advisory Commissions; Amending Section 2-17 through 2-\n17.5 to Change the Name of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals\nBoard to Commission, and Repealing Section 2-20 to Dissolve the Film Commission.\nFinally passed.\n(*12-287) Ordinance No.3047, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Revise the\nRegulations Governing the Location of Massage Therapists and Associated Uses\nIncluding Tattoo in the Community Commercial District.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-288) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14681, \"Confirming the Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) Business Improvement Area for FY12-13 and Levy an\nAnnual Assessment on the Park Street Business Association Business Improvement\nArea (BIA). Adopted;\n(12-288 A) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14682, \"Confirming the West\nAlameda Business Association (WABA) Business Improvement Area for FY12-13 and\nLevy an Annual Assessment on the West Alameda Business Association Business\nImprovement Area.\" Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about membership, the Community\nDevelopment Director stated there are approximately 430 members in PSBA and 140 in\nWABA; the precise count is difficult due to business turn over.\nUrged revisions to the PSBA program: Al Wright, Alameda Resident and Business\nOwner; Dr. Michael Torres, Alameda Resident and Business Owner; Barbara Mooney,\nAlameda Resident and Business Owner; and Kate Pryor, Alameda Business Owner.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Lars Hansson, PSBA; Carolyn Lantz,\nWABA; Donna Layburn, PSBA; Bruce Reeves, PSBA; Deb Knowles, PSBA; and former\nCouncilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 5, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about Council oversight, the City Attorney\nstated the Council selects the managing organization and has the authority to include\nthings in the by-laws, such as the Brown Act.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Council decides the specific types of events, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the organization provides the\nplan and budget; BIA funds can be used for activities that are in the categories in the\nMunicipal Code and State Code; Council can change boundaries, rates and other\nsimilar things.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Council authority includes the board election\nprocess, to which the City Attorney responded Council could select a different board.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the matter is time sensitive, to which the City\nAttorney responded the time sensitivity has to do with collection of the business license\ntax.\nThe Community Development Director noted the ordinance requires that the matter be\nresolved within 30 days of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Johnson encouraged members to raise issues with their board; recused\nherself and left the dais.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the City Manager stated staff met with\nPSBA regarding the publication of by-laws and audits, meeting notices, and elections;\nPSBA leadership reacted positively; staff is confident changes would be implemented\nand rebuild trust.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the changes are encapsulated in modifications to\nthe bylaws, to which the Community Development Director responded election oversight\nis in the work program; stated PSBA completed and submitted an audit; WABA will do\nan audit next year; there will be an annual report next year to show how the money was\nspent and whether the work plan was followed.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated concerns were raised by business owners; requested the\nchanges be outlined.\nThe City Manager stated the four changes are: 1) bylaws will be posted on the web; 2)\naccounting statements and audits will be posted on the web; 3) meeting notices have to\nbe distributed via hardcopy, not just electronically; and 4) elections will be supervised by\nthe City Clerk's office.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City's role is to ensure funding is spent in the acceptable\ncategories and the organizations prioritize spending; the City should try to get the\nbusiness communities to work efficiently and hear all members, but should not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 6, "text": "micromanage.\nThe Community Development Director noted that the PSBA protests are at 1%.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution for PSBA, with the caveats\nput forward from City staff [1) bylaws posted on web; 2) accounting statements and\naudits posted on web; 3) meeting notices distributed via hardcopy; and 4) elections\nsupervised by the City Clerk's office].\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the concerned business owners are happy with the\nproposal, to which the City Manager responded that he does not know; stated staff met\nwith protesting parties first and then, discussed changes with the PSBA leadership.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the matter would come back in a year, to which the\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether oversight would be complaint\ndriven, the City Manager stated staff would be able to observe whether changes are\noccurring.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 30 day requirement, the\nCommunity Development Director stated the ordinance requires the matter be resolved\nwithin 30 days if Council is not ready to adopt the resolution.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether an option would be not moving forward and naming a\nsuccessor organization within the 30 days.\nThe Community Development Director responded at the hearing, businesses can\nrequest to be added or omitted, boundary changes can be made, or assessment level\nchanges can be made; stated the 30 days allows staff time to ensure noticing is done\nbefore the changes go into effect and are voted on.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the hearing noticing, the\nCommunity Development Director stated a letter was mailed to all members.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution for WABA.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion and in response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding\nWABA, the Community Development Director stated both boards are going to do the\nsame reporting and have the same transparency.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the same changes would be implemented for\nWABA, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there was one protest from WABA, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded there were two: one letter and one call.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's further inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated one did not like the streetscape project; the other did not want to participate.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-289) Provide Direction on Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point\nBased on a Presentation of Alternatives.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the enhanced entitlement certainty proposal does not include\nTown Center entitlement; inquired whether the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\n(MTC) grant would provide said entitlements.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated\ndetailed residential entitlements would be the only thing not funded by the grant.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding what the MTC grant would fund, the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the grant would fund detailed\nentitlements for the Town Center and waterfront area, but would not fund detailed\nentitlements for the residential area.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the MTC grant would fund a marketing and site plan\nand transaction documents for the employment area needed to market a site for a\npotential commercial opportunity, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded in the negative; stated the work does not require a lot of funding and would\nbe funded under the scaled down proposal.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the grant would fund the development plan, including\nform-based code, needed to implement Town Center development, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would not be getting the third part [detailed\nengineering analysis and large-lot subdivision map needed to sell \"super pads\" for\nresidential and Town Center development].\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated having\none developer for the Town Center is less likely, which means outside source funding\nwould be a great benefit to the City; having a Master Developer fund the residential\nwould be easier.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired about the amount of the MTC grant, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded $200,000; stated the City has to\nmatch the grant funding, which works within the current budget.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested staff to compare the difference in readiness\nbetween the two plans.\nThe City Manager stated the scaled back plan only makes a difference for the\nresidential area.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff recommends doing the\nresidential work because residential has a greater market; the form based code and\nengineering for large lot subdivisions would be used to sell super pads; the difference is\na developer would have to fund said work.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) would be Base wide and include non-residential, to which the Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated there would be CEQA review, but there would not necessarily\nbe an Environmental Impact Review (EIR).\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the City Manager stated not\nhaving residential plans more complete means the developer would have to do work\nand expend money up front, which would impact the value; having the EIR for the entire\nBase is the most critical.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the residential developer would have to do\nCEQA work, but would not have to do an EIR, to which the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager noted CEQA review does not necessarily have to be an EIR.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the intent is to do the EIR and have\nvery little CEQA work needed when a residential developer comes forward.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if Council went with [staff report] Option 2, a second step\ncould be taken later to close the delta between [staff report] Options 1 and 2 for the\nresidential component, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded\nin the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated trimming back the detailed entitlements on the residential area\nsaves several million dollars and eliminates the need for bonding.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked staff and stated that he is ready to move forward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the funds could be used for the additional work if a\ncommercial opportunity creates land sale proceeds, to which the Chief Operating Officer\n- Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the impact on the value, the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the amount is not known at this point.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the residential area would not be marketed,\nto which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about impacts of not completing the\nresidential work, the City Manager stated staff was betting that having all the residential\nwork done would draw people in because the process would be so streamlined;\nhowever, not completing the work would allow more flexibility.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the City would balance interest in pads, to which\nthe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the City would hold the cards as\nthe property owner.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated the master\ninfrastructure work would be complete; further stated previous attempts have shown\ndevelopers want to develop housing at Alameda Point, due to the location and fantastic\nviews; getting the commercial aspect to work is harder; the commercial development\nwould also create jobs.\nCouncilmember Tam stated both options include the master infrastructure plan which is\ncritical to understanding cost exposure; inquired whether the EIR is required as part of\nthe Oakland Chinatown Settlement Agreement.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\nSettlement Agreement requires a project level EIR before construction can start;\nprogrammatic level EIRs have been performed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated residential is the one part that can be removed; going\nforward with the commercial is focusing on job creation; doing the residential part would\ngive the City more control.\nSpeakers: Ken Peterson, Alameda, encouraged proceeding incrementally to not lock in\npoor ideas and suggested ideas for earlier scoping sessions be included; Paul Kibel,\nCenter on Urban Environmental Law, expressed support for a City led process, made\nsuggestions for proceeding and submitted information; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing\nOpportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES), urged the Council to proceed with\nOption 1; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, expressed support for Option 1;\nHelen Sause, HOMES; Karen Bey, Alameda, expressed concerns with Option 1 and\nurged a Master Plan be prepared; former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 10, "text": "encouraged clean types of industry in the inner harbor area.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that her preference remains proceeding with Option 1,\nwhich has a lot of advantages; other ways have not been successful.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her preference is Option 2; the master infrastructure\nplan would minimize fragmentation; a project level EIR is needed, would include\nhousing, is required by the Settlement Agreement and deals with integration; finding\nresidential should not be hard when the market is conducive.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about the amount of the existing bond,\nthe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the bond was $13 million; the debt is\n$350,000 per year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he supports Option 1; the entitlement process takes\na long time and the City has missed market opportunities; not going forward in a timely\nmanner would not put the City in a good position.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated spending $3 million more is very small for such a large\nproject; inquired about proceeding on a cash basis.\nThe City Manager responded a staff report attachment outlines moving forward without\nbonding.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated Exhibit 4 shows the fund balance\nwould drop to $2.6 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2012-13 and $1.17 million at the end\nof Fiscal Year 2013-14; proceeding on a cash basis would draw down on the fund\nbalance.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City cannot keep up with deferred maintenance; the\nBase continues to deteriorate, which will accelerate as time passes; the extra $3 million\nneeds to be spent to try to be ready to go when the economy turns around.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she objects to going forward with the bonds; she responds in\nthe opposite to crumbling infrastructure concerns; shovels will not be in the ground for\nseveral years; questioned what would happen if telephone or sewer lines have an issue\nduring said time and where the City would come up with funds for repairs.\nCouncilmember Johnson expressed concern about spending money on infrastructure\nthat needs to be replaced.\nMayor Gilmore stated existing tenants' lease revenues would be used to pay for the\nbond, which is why she is in favor of Option 2.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what the City could lose by waiting to complete the detailed\nresidential entitlements.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 11, "text": "The City Manager responded staff recommendations regarding the residential area\ncame from discussions with developers; there is a lot of vacant commercial space;\ncommercial development is unlikely to come back before residential; therefore, focus\nwould be on doing detailed residential entitlements in order not to lose out on the next\ndevelopment opportunity.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a private developer could do the entitlements if the\nmarket gets hot, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the EIR has the longest timeframe;\nCouncil could revisit funding the residential work in six months and still catch up with the\nEIR; waiting too long could cause the City to miss a window of opportunity.\nCouncilmember Tam noted previous master developers never caught opportunity\nwaves.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the areas of clean land are an issue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the developers have had difficulty going through the\nentitlement process; Option 1 would allow the community to control the process.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City would be getting the same control with Option 2.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City should proceed sooner and not repair\ninfrastructure that needs to be replaced.\nMayor Gilmore stated the developer would only pay for new infrastructure and not other\nareas; funds are needed to patch existing infrastructure for tenants.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not see Option 1 as necessarily buying more\ntime; Option 2 would allow the City to get a better bonding rate in the event\ninfrastructure fails or there is another $2 million fire, like at the Fleet Industrial Supply\nCenter.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of Option 1, on a cash basis.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion is to do the entire entitlement\nprocess using $5 million on a cash basis.\nOn the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson - 2. Councilmembers Bonta, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 3.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of Option 2.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion on Option 2 is to go forward\non a cash basis for $1.86 million, which would fund entitlements and does not include\nspecific residential entitlements and would not fund the Town Center unless the City\ngets the MTC grant.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would support the motion because it moves\nsomething forward.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about whether Option 2 is not cohesive, the\nCity Manager stated Option 2 includes necessary pieces needed to go forward; staff's\nposition is Option 2 is not sufficient, but there would be a lot of progress.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the EIR would take 18 months to two years, to which\nthe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that the schedule is 18 months.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how long the residential entitlement portion would take.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the residential piece would\nprobably generate a lot of community interest and should take around 12 months.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-290) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code, Article IV\n(Subsections 30-58.1 - 30-60.5) Related to Water Conservation and Bay Friendly\nLandscape Requirements.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation; proposed that Council\nconsider amending the ordinance to exempt urban agriculture and edible plants\nspecifically.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there have been efforts to work with Harbor\nBay Isle, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated\ndiscussions could be initiated if Council so desires.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager\nstated the organization would have to implement the changes voluntarily; Harbor Bay\nIsle is an anomaly because of a 1989 Development Agreement; staff has been working\nwill all new developers.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated existing landscaping should be addressed, especially\nfor larger areas.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated people should be educated that making an\ninvestment to switch landscaping can save money.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments\nregarding urban agriculture.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Council would include giving direction to staff\nto work with homeowners associations and property owners with large amounts of\nlandscaping to encourage moving toward bay friendly landscaping.\nThe Council concurred with providing said direction.\n(12-291) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nRepealing Subsections 18-5.10 (Lateral Testing Upon Sale). 18-5.11 (Private Sewer\nLateral Testing Procedures and Requirements), 18-5.12 (Failure of Test), 18-5.13\n(Lateral Certification), 18-5.14 (Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings) of\nSection 18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections) in their Entirety, and by\nAdding Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) to Article 1 (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII\n(Sewer and Water).\nThe City Engineer gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:22 p.m. and returned at 10:24 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a new plumbing fixture means a faucet, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded in the affirmative; noted replacing a broken faucet\nwould not meet the $90,000 threshold.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the ordinance should be very clear.\nThe City Engineer stated the requirement is that a plumbing fixture be added or\nreplaced and the project cost is at least $90,000.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether a permit is needed to replace a plumbing fixture, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the ordinance should be clear that it only applies to\nplumbing fixtures which require a permit.\nThe Public Works Director stated language stating: \"plumbing fixtures that require a\npermit\" be added to the definition of plumbing fixture in the ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 14, "text": "The City Engineer responded the ordinance has to be as stringent as the regional\nordinance [being required by the Environmental Protection Agency].\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a company is hired to do the sewer lateral\ntest and the City completes an inspection after, to which the City Engineer responded\nthe inspectors are present when the test is done.\n*\nVice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 10:35 p.m. and returned at 10:37 p.m.\n*\nUrged adoption of the City's proposed ordinance, [staff report Option 1: Dania Alvarez,\nAlameda Association of Realtors; and Marilyn Schumacher, Harbor Bay Realty.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance option 1, with the\nclarifying language about a fixture that requires a permit.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-292) The City Manager announced a budget meeting would be held on Tuesday,\nJune 12th; stated staff would be seeking guidance about how to deal with the equipment\nfund; negotiations with Greenway Golf are proceeding and should be completed on\ntime; Greenway deposited the required $1/4 million; Police reports can now be filed on\nline for certain incidents that are: not in progress, have no suspect leads, have no\nwitnesses and have no related property or evidence to be collected; examples include\nauto burglary, identity theft, lost property, theft, vandalism and annoying phone calls.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-293) Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda, stated the community needs\nto find a way to finance public safety needs since Measure C did not pass; urged\neveryone to vote for Vice Mayor Bonta for State Assembly.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-294) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service\nBoard, Economic Development Commission, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 15, "text": "Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Social Service\nHuman Relations Board, Transportation Commission, and Youth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Dean Batchelor to the Civil Service Board; Jonathan Bond\nand Alan Ryan to the Economic Development Commission; Dennis Owens to the\nHistorical Advisory Board; Michael Henneberry to the Planning Board; Elizabeth\nCandelario, Daniel Hoy, and Esther Mallouh to the Public Art Commission; Mary Sutter\nto the Public Utilities Board; Douglas Biggs to the Social Service Human Relations\nBoard; Eric Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission; and Mary Orbeta and Luna\nTilles to the Youth Advisory Commission.\n(12-295) Written Communication from the League of California Cities Requesting\nDesignation of a Voting Delegate for the 2012 Annual Conference.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of selecting Councilmember Tam as the\ndelegate and Councilmember deHaan as the alternate.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-296) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns have been raised about fencing at\nthe wildlife refuge at Alameda Point; suggested that staff look into the matter.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City uses Peter Russell to address said type of\nissues, to which the City Manager responded Mr. Russell has already been retained to\naddress the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNEDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-264) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City\nManager John Russo.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that the Council gave direction to the City Manager on next year's\nperformance goals and objectives.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - - JUNE 6, 2012 - - 5:00 P.M.\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER: 5:03 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Members\nDean Batchelor, Linda McHugh, Marguerite Malloy, Executive\nSecretary Holly Brock-Cohn and Randy Riddle (outside counsel for\nthe Board).\nStaff:\nCity Attorney Janet Kern and Senior Management Analysts Jill Kovacs\nand Chris Low.\nAppellants:\nDave Gossman, Union representative for Operating Engineers Local 3\nfor Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA)\nTrini Blumkin, former Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD)\nRecreation Coordinator\nMarcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Coordinator\nAndy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Coordinator\n3.\nAGENDA ITEM:\nA. A Special Meeting has been called for the Civil Service Board Members to\nDiscuss and Consider the Request of Two Applicants to 1) Investigate the\nSelection Process and 2) Vacate the Results of the Recently Completed\nRecreation Services Specialist Recruitment.\nCity Attorney Kern introduced Randy Riddle, outside counsel for the Board, who has been\nhired to give advice to the Civil Service Board. President Peeler asked Mr. Riddle how to\nproceed with the meeting.\nMr. Riddle stated that he will make a recommendation on how to proceed and if all parties\nagree the Board can then proceed. Member representatives from each side can weigh in.\nHe proposed that the Appellant side have ten minutes, the City have ten minutes and then\nthree minutes for each of the Appellants. Then three minutes for the City and Appellant\nrepresentatives to each give additional statements.\nDave Gossman, Union representative for Operating Engineers Local 3, agreed to the\nprocedure.\nBoard Member Malloy asked if a question and answer period by the Board would be held\nafter people speak. Mr. Riddle stated yes. Members of the public will have an opportunity\nto comment as well. It should be determined by the Board how long each public speaker", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 2, "text": "will be allowed to speak. The Board agreed on three minutes for each speaker.\nMr. Riddle stated that the City recently instituted the Sunshine Ordinance. One of the\nprovisions provides that for any item on the agenda, at the same time that the agenda is\nprovided, all documents given to the Board should also be made available to the public.\nThe ordinance is still in the process of being implemented and staff is still coming up to\nspeed on the issue. In this case, given the appellant process that is involved, that has not\nhappened. If anyone has an objection regarding documents given to the Board in less than\nthe seven days required they should raise their hand now, in which case it would be Mr.\nRiddle's recommendation to the Board to continue this matter to such a time as seven\ndays have passed to review the documents. If there is not an objection, Mr. Riddle would\nview this issue as the Board can proceed to hear the appeal.\nMr. Gossman stated that the Union has documentation for the Board to review. The Union\nhad previously contacted the Human Resources Department and requested information\nand also listed some concerns that they have regarding the testing. As of today, the Union\nhas not received any written response from the City. There are eight questions, requests\nfor information from the City. Mr. Gossman has received three answers; test scores, how\nlong the list would stay open, and the rankings of the list. There is some information, he\nstill has not received from the City regarding the request from over three weeks ago.\nMr. Riddle stated that if Mr. Gossman would like to explain that information to the Board\nand if the Board believes that he should have that information and that they (Board) would\nlike to have that information, then the Board can make that decision.\nMr. Riddle stated that there are documents that are already in existence and have either\nbeen provided to the Board or will be provided tonight and whether or not folks have an\nobjection to that happening tonight rather than 7 days ago. If you do, then he recommends\nthat the Board continue the matter to ensure full compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance if\nanyone here objects to that happening. The City is also providing information this evening\nas well as the appellants which may contain some of the information that Mr. Gossman is\nasking for.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that what we have to discuss tonight and additional information\nthe City is willing to present to the Board, the Union Representative, and the public as well.\nWe can go forward on that basis and the City has no objection. The appeal that has been\nfiled was not included in the packet that was to be made available publicly seven days in\nadvance, did not happen. The City is comfortable with moving forward, having the Board\nhear it, and providing additional information that has been put together and subsequently,\nsharing the information with everyone. If the Board feels that they need more time to look\nat it or want us to provide additional information then of course the Board can order us to\ndo that. The point here is whether we move forward just for the Sunshine Ordinance and\nwhether we were comfortable that there was adequate noticing of this meeting so that we\ncan move forward.\nMr. Riddle stated that for clarification the agenda was sufficient and was posted in time.\nPage -2-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 3, "text": "their discretion if they want additional time to look at documents. The Board may want\nadditional information before it is said and done as well. It is up to the Board's discretion.\nMr. Gossman stated that the Union has no objection to moving forward.\nVice President Horikoshi moved that the meeting/hearing continue; Member\nBatchelor seconded the motion which passed by a 5-0 vote.\nPresident Peeler invited the appellants to speak.\nMr. Gossman stated that he would provide an opening statement and then he has three\nappellants that would like to give a three minute speech and then we could proceed from\nthere. Mr. Riddle agreed they would have a full 10 minutes between all of them to begin.\nMr. Gossman provided a six-page document/report (with attachments) to the Civil Service\nBoard.\nMr. Gossman stated that he was at the meeting today to represent three appellants who\nwere former employees of the City of Alameda and that they have been program park\ncoordinators for 10 to 11 years working for the City. In March 2012, they were informed\nthat the City was planning to eliminate their positions. At that time there were four positions\noccupied. They were advised that the Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD)\nwould be eliminating the Park Program Coordinator to create a new classification of\nRecreational Program Specialist and that one of the four would be laid off because there\nwould be four positions cut down to three.\nMr. Gossman also stated that the resolution was taken to City Council and it was stated\nthat this was going to save $400,000 for the City by going to this new classification. In\nessence, that is a false smoke screen because these employees were already being paid\nout of the Athletic Trust Fund and not paid out of the General Fund. The fact that they were\nchanging to a new position had nothing to do with the $400,000. But, when we went to a\nunion meeting, a meet and confer, the reason for the new classification was to save\n$400,000.\nMr. Gossman continued that prior to the testing, two managers who worked for the City,\napproached the employees and stated that they were not going to get the new jobs and\nPage -3-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 4, "text": "that employees had already been preselected who were going to get the positions. In\nessence, we had employees who did not have any fairness or equity in going through the\ntesting processing. After the oral interviews a manager who sat on the board, came up to\nthe employee and stated, \"You know what, I was just a pawn. I had no input into the\nselection process. It was out of my hands.\"\nMr. Gossman concluded that this has been documented in the information provided to the\nBoard.\nMr. Riddle asked if Mr. Gossman was referring to the letter and there was also something\ncalled an appeal. Mr. Gossman stated that first of all this is an appeal. They have an\nappeal. Mr. Riddle asked if this was the initial letter. Mr. Gossman stated yes.\nMr. Gossman stated that right after the examination the employees were told that one of\nthe examining people had no part of it. Within two days, they were called into the office and\ntold they were laid off. The employees asked for their test scores. They were told they did\nnot have test scores and that they just did not pass. So they walked out the door after a\ncombined 30 years of experience. The employees are very upset and angry because of\nthe testing process. They all realize that everyone has to take the test and they were\nlooking for fairness. In this testing process and whole examination, it did not happen in this\ncase.\nThe appellants are requesting that the test be vacated, that a new testing process be\ncompleted and that it be completed from outside Human Resources personnel, from\nanother agency so that the test can be done fairly and correctly.\nThey were expecting that one person would be laid off and there were three people laid off.\nOne of the new persons hired was an individual who was a custodian in the Library. In\nbeing objective, how could a custodian who works in the Library have more experience or\ntraining? In fact, he had no training in the parks recreation programs to be selected.\nThe second issue is that this individual owns a lawn business in the City of Alameda. The\nred flag is; how can an employee who works full-time for the City of Alameda and at the\nsame time have a full-time lawn business while he's supposed to be working for the City of\nAlameda. Mr. Gossman feels that is a conflict of interest which is another red herring in\nthis case. They are requesting than an outside investigation be conducted regarding what\nhas happened.\nMr. Gossman stated that the bottom line is they are looking for a new test, employees to be\nput back whole from where they were, and that the facts and truth come out of what\nhappened in this testing process.\nTrini Blumkin, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, stated that they all have 30\nyears combined experience. They understood that there was going to be a reorganization\nand understood that someone was going to be laid off. They were asking for a fair process.\nPage -4-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 5, "text": "They found out that there were some people that had some insight already and understood\nwho was going to get the job and who was not going to get the job. They had their union\nrepresentative call Mr. Russo, City Manager, and they asked him to get someone who\nwould be unbiased and an outside person to read over the applications and supplemental\nquestions. Mr. Russo agreed and made the announcement to Lisa Goldman, Assistant\nCity Manager, and the Human Resources Department to make sure that they got an\noutside person, with no bias, to look over the applications because they knew something\nwas going on.\nMs. Blumkin stated that come to find out, you can ask Chris Low, the person who looked\nover the applications was a former City employee who worked with them as a group,\nworked in the same department, and is friends with the previous ARPD Director, Dale\nLillard. Her name was Anne Kassebaum; she was the one out of millions of people that\nthey could have chosen to be non-biased. It was someone who knew us and was the one\ngrading the applications and supplemental questions when we had asked and they were\ndirected by John Russo, City Manager, to get someone who was non-biased. And, this\nperson had previously worked for us and was friends with the previous Director. That was\nthe ultimate of the ultimate to being unfair. We were just asking for fairness, we knew this\nwas coming, we knew someone was going to lose their job. But, for three of us who had all\nthat experience to lose their jobs when we were told there would be one was just crushing.\nMs. Blumkin asked the Board to go to an outside organization and perform an outside\ninvestigation, to show what the Human Resources Department, and whoever else was\ninvolved, how unfair the process was.\nAndy Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, thanked the Board for hearing\ntheir case. He received his degree from Fresno State and worked in the field for 10 years\nfull-time, 12 years total. He worked special events and built the teen program from the\nground up. In March 2012, when the job elimination was brought up he understood it.\nBeing the lowest employee in seniority he sort of anticipated being the first to be let go.\nBut, he was supposed to have the opportunity for a fair shot and equal opportunity. If you\nlook at his City supplemental questions, he felt that he was 90 percent qualified for the job.\nMr. Wong also has a Class B license which it says on the supplemental is highly preferable\nalong with experience in special events and serving at risk youth. He has done a lot of new\nprogramming for the City and ARPD, is a community player, worked with schools and\nbecame a very, very good across the board professional.\nOn April 19, 2012, he was called into the office and handed a lay-off letter and the Director\nsaid he was not chosen. Mr. Wong asked about his score. It was not given to him, but the\nDirector told him that he was ranked fourth.\nMr. Wong stated that his wife was devastated knowing that he worked really hard for the\nDepartment. It was a disruption to the family. It was not fair to him to go through an\ninterview, put his skills down on paper, come in for an interview and the result is someone\nwho is not even from the recreation background gets hired. The Board would have to look\nat some of the other sub-categories on what the person qualifies for. He feels that he was\nPage -5-\nG:Personnel\\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 6, "text": "wrongly laid-off on the basis of not having an equal opportunity through the process.\nMr. Wong thanked the Board for their time and hopes they will make the right decision.\nMs. Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator in charge of Fee Classes\nand Facilities Rentals, agreed with what Ms. Blumkin and Mr. Wong had stated. She highly\nrecommends that the Board review how they selected current program coordinators and\nshe believes it was not a fair process after hearing from the supervisor and managers that\nthey used to work with and what they had been told in the office and how the process was\ndone.\nPresident Peeler invited Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, to provide his information.\nMr. Low stated that he was providing information on the recent work force change\nimplemented in ARPD, the subsequent recruitment and selection process, and personnel\nappointments to Recreation Services Specialists.\nPart of what has already been presented by Mr. Gossman, Ms. Blumkin, Mr. Wong, and\nMs. Tsang is that yes, on March 2, 2012 the Human Resource Director informed Linda\nJustus, ACEA President, advising her of the City's intent to recommend and implement a\nreorganization of ARPD which included eliminating four Recreation Program Coordinator\npositions, creating a new classification of Recreation Services Specialist and finally\nrecruiting and appointing three individuals to that new classification. Implementation of the\nwork force change and filling of the Recreation Services Specialist positions would be the\nfirst steps of reorganizing ARPD toward a model of maximum cost recovery with no effect\non front-line services.\nThe parties met and conferred, in good faith, regarding the impacts of the reorganization on\nApril 17, 2012.\nThe initial information to ACEA was on March 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the City Council\napproved a work force change in ARPD by amending the ACEA salary schedule to include\nthe salary range for Recreation Services Specialist. A number of folks who are in\nattendance today also attended that Council meeting.\nAs a result of Council's action, on April 4, 2012 a promotional recruitment was posted. The\nHuman Resources Department received six applications. Application materials were\nscrutinized to make sure that the folks who applied did meet the minimum qualifications for\nthe Recreation Services Specialist and all were invited to participate in the selection\nprocess, which they did.\nThe recruitment closed on April 11, 2012 and on April 12, 2012 the applicants supplemental\nquestionnaire responses were redacted of any personal identifying information and sent to\ntwo external subject matter experts to be evaluated objectively. One of those individuals\nwas named previously and she is with the East Bay Regional Park District. The second\nperson who was not identified works for the Hayward Area Recreation District.\nPage -6-\nG:Personnel\\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 7, "text": "The supplemental questionnaire responses were sent out on April 12, 2012 and were\nreturned on Monday, April 16, 2012 and Tuesday, April 17, 2012. On April 17, 2012 all six\napplicants were interviewed by Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman, Recreation\nSupervisor Patrick Russi, and at that time the City of Pinole's Park and Recreation Director\nAmy Wooldridge, who is currently the City of Alameda's ARPD Director. The scores from\nthe supplemental questionnaire and structural interviews were reviewed and combined and\nas a result the eligible list was established and certified. On the afternoon of April 17, the\nCity and ACEA met and discussed in good faith the impacts of this work force change and\non that afternoon signed the agreement regarding the budget reduction and the elimination\nof four Recreation Coordinator positions.\nOn April 18, 2012, Mr. Low contacted Mr. Gossman to discuss a potential staffing situation\nthat we (the City) were going to be having that coming weekend with regards to Earth Day.\nWe (the City) agreed to allow incumbent recreation coordinator employees to work leading\nup to Earth Day on Friday as well as Earth Day events on April 21. This is an important\npoint because lay-off letters to some of the Recreation Program Coordinators were going to\nbe handed out the next day on Thursday, April 19. Mr. Low contacted Mr. Gossman on\nApril 18 knowing that the request that he was making on behalf of the City for some\nemployees to continue working on the following Friday and Saturday, perhaps the day\nbefore they were going to get their lay-off notices, was a very sensitive issue. So on that\nApril 19, 2012, as was talked about, the City did deliver three lay-off letters to three of the\nRecreation Program Coordinator employees and also extended three job offer letters to\nbecome Recreation Services Specialists to the three other applicants.\nMr. Low stated that he provided additional information to Mr. Gossman and the Board to\nquickly review so the Board has a sense of how things progressed. Looking at the first\nmemo from Mr. Low to the Board, via the HR Director, on page one toward the bottom it\nindicates that on April 23, 1012 a letter addressed to Human Resource (HR) Director and\nCivil Service Board Members was received requesting to appeal the Recreation Services\nSpecialist examination pursuant to Civil Service Rules Article VI, Section VIII, entitled\nAppeal of Rejection. Exhibit Il in the packet is the letter that was received by the HR\nDirector Holly Brock-Cohn. On April 26, 2012 HR Director met with Ms. Blumkin, Ms.\nTsang, Mr. Gossman, and Ms. Justus. Senior Management Analyst Kovacs observed the\nmeeting. That is when Mr. Gossman presented the document Exhibit III, Civil Service\nAppeal. Responses made to questions raised by Mr. Gossman are attached as Exhibit IV.\nMr. Low stated that, in terms of time, we can talk about those questions, read Mr.\nGossman's requests and provide an answer if it is the Board's desire.\nVice President Horikoshi stated that it was agreed that each side would have ten minutes\nand asked if the Board should adhere to the time line. President Peeler stated that the\nBoard will have to review it. Vice President Horikoshi agreed that it needed to be reviewed.\nHe was asking as to how the Board should proceed.\nPage -7-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 8, "text": "President Peeler asked if there were any objections to hearing the information, or giving Mr.\nLow more time.\nDon Peterson, Alameda resident and former member of Local 595 IBEW, stated that he\nthinks this process is the same as what went on with the hiring process. They (the City)\nmake a set of rules and they do not stick to it. They (the City) have people set up to be put\nin places and when it gets discombobulated they (the City) do not know what to do. Mr.\nPeterson thinks you (the Board) need to make a set of rules and live by them. When you\nset up rules for hiring someone you need to use those rules not disregard them.\nPresident Peeler stated that the Board needs to review the information now or later. Vice\nPresident Horikoshi stated that the Board can still review the documentation without having\nMr. Low tell the Board about it.\nMr. Riddle stated that each side will have three minutes again. The appellants will have\nthree minutes and the City three minutes.\nMr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are looking for justice. You cannot have a\nmanager going up to people and saying they have already selected them and then 30 or 40\ndays later give a test and these people have no chance whatsoever. You have all these\ndifferent dots out there and when you put it all together and it was a scheme designed to\neliminate these positions so he could hand-pick the employees he wanted to work for the\ndepartment. What is important is that Mr. Dale Lillard had made public statements to his\nstaff prior to the testing of who was going to be selected for the new Recreation Specialist\nclassification. That is the information that is the facts, that is the evidence and we have\nmanagers who will testify to that. Now the answer from the City is this, \"This statement is\nunfounded.\"\nMr. Gossman stated how can the City make that statement when they did no investigation.\nThen the City says, \"regardless of what Mr. Lillard is alleged to have stated to staff prior to\ntesting, the testing process was designed by the Human Resources Department with Mr.\nLillard's input, but he had no influence on the evaluation or score.\" Mr. Gossman stated all\nhe (Mr. Lillard) has to do is go to the people who are doing the test and say here are the\npeople he wants, give them the scores, that is who I want, and that is what happened.\nMr. Gossman stated that they are looking for justice and equality. We have a great city\nhere. Civil Service is based on merit and not on nepotism and this is what you preach and\nis in your Civil Service rules and that is what they are asking for, fairness and equity. They\n(the appellants) want a level table.\nMr. Low stated to the Board that it is important to realize that all six applicants for this\npromotional opportunity are City employees. Or in this case, were City employees. The\ndesign of the examination process promoted merit in civil service principles and practices.\nThey (the City) did remove the personal bias and prejudice that is alleged, as the\nsupplemental questionnaires were evaluated externally from those two other park and\nrecreation districts. The personal identity of the applicant authors was removed. To say\nPage -8-\nG:Personnel\\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 9, "text": "that Mr. Lillard could call these people and say he wants them to rate certain people down\nso they are not given a promotional opportunity, when the evaluators do not even know\nwho the authors are, it is hard to say.\nMr. Low responded the interviews were also conducted by subject matter experts who with\nthe exception of one, Mr. Patrick Russi, did not have any intimate knowledge of the\napplicants. The interview panelists again were Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman,\nRecreation Supervisor Patrick Russi, and Amy Wooldridge. At this point, the City does not\nbelieve that there is a basis for an appeal of the Recreation Services Specialist recruitment\nresults or subsequent appointments. All three appellants before the Board applied for the\npromotion, participated in the selection process, and all three achieved a rank on the\neligible list.\nThe City Manager, who is the appointing authority, approved the appointments of the top\nthree ranking candidates who are considered to be the best qualified based on their relative\nperformance through the selection process which was how people responded to the\nsupplemental questions and how they responded to the questions in the structured oral\ninterview process. All of the applicants answered the same supplemental questions and all\nof the applicants answered the same structured oral interview questions. The City\nrecommends that the Civil Service Board uphold the recruitment and selection process as\nwell as the subsequent appointments.\nMr. Peterson asked what percentage was based on written and what percentage on the\noral exam. Mr. Low stated that scores were based on 40% supplemental questionnaire and\n60% on oral.\nMr. Riddle stated that it is up to the Board to determine if they want questions from the\npublic to be answered. Mr. Peterson stated that the Board said the public could ask\nquestions.\nPresident Peeler stated the Board did say they would allow questions.\nDon Peterson, Alameda resident and former president of Local 595 IBEW, stated that in the\nold days, 20-30 years ago, we used the same process and the reason they used 40% on\nthe written and 60% on the oral, was to eliminate minorities and applicants they did not\nwant. They kept the oral as a way of eliminating people that they did not want. The City\ncan say that their testing is fair but he knows from previous experience as the president of\na local that this was used in the past and it sounds like we do not do that anymore because\nit was not fair. The City is using an antiquated system that is not fair so their (the City's)\nresults to him are moot.\nMs. Blumkin stated that even though the two outside people went through the supplemental\nquestions, if they were informed by Mr. Lillard who applied for the job even though their\nnames were not on those applications or supplemental questions, if you were not qualified\nyou would not be able to answer half of the questions because it asked for specific duties\nthat you did in a job that we (appellants) were doing. Because it was a promotional job, it\nwas promotional so it was things that we were doing as a program coordinator already. So\nPage -9-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 10, "text": "the people that were reading the applications could figure out who they were by not being\nable to answer the questions. There were certain people who did not have aquatic\nexperience or senior experience and you would have to leave it blank because they could\nnot answer it.\nMs. Blumkin stated that for Mr. Low to state that was unbiased because there were no\nnames, Dale Lillard informed those people whose those papers were and they could figure\nit out themselves. Ms. Blumkin is almost 100% certain that if you gave her the other\nperson's name from Hayward, they (appellants) would also know who that person is\nbecause the recreation community is very close and all work together. This was an unfair\nprocess, totally unfair by Human Resources and the outgoing ARPD Director Dale Lillard.\nHe is no longer working here, but if he was brought into this room today you (the Board)\nwould be totally shocked.\nEd Tsang, Alameda resident, retired from Alameda County Superior Court and father of\nappellant Marcia Tsang, asked what is the racial makeup of the new Recreation Services\nSpecialists and what the racial makeup of Recreation Program Coordinators are. Ms.\nBlumkin stated the ones that were hired are all white. The ones laid off were two Asians\nand a Hispanic.\nSandi Bertero, Alameda resident and former employee (retired) with the City of Alameda-\ncurrently part-time, stated that she loves working for the City and working in ARPD. She\nreally feels that this was an unfair process. She worked with the union for many years and\nworked to get the union in the City. Most of the time when they have to do budget cuts,\nthey usually do layoffs and most of the time it has been by seniority. This was not by\nseniority. They decided to reorganize the Department which is fine, but she wanted the\nBoard to know that in the past it had always been by seniority. Because it was a\npromotional thing, her personal opinion is that anybody that qualified in the specific area.\nShe does feel that there is possibly one person that may not have been qualified to even be\nconsidered for the job. Lastly, in all of her 40 work years, and she has interviewed for\nmany departments and many jobs, she has never in her life interviewed over the phone. If\nyou wanted a job you had to be at the interview and that was not the case in this\npromotional job.\nMr. Wong stated that going back to April 19, 2012, on that afternoon he had to go back to\nwork for an event, a Teen Job Search Work Shop showing teens how to interview for a job,\netc. He actually had to sit there and act like everything was okay. His heart was in the job\nitself and the recreation field and his commitment was to Patrick and the ideal of \"Parks\nMake Life Better\" not what one person has done or did not do. Because it was\na\ncommunity event, if he did not show up it would not have been professional to let down his\nteen staff, the kids, and some of his colleagues of the department and neighboring\ndepartments. When he was at the event a lot of people were shocked that he was not one\nof the few selected.\nMr. Wong is asking the Board to please look at the results and questions. His job search\nexperience from now and up to the layoff had been that he has put in two applications. He\nPage -10-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 11, "text": "sent an application to the City of Novato and he was qualified, but he received a letter that\nstated he did not qualify for the job because it was a senior services position. Again there\nwere a lot of questions that were recreational based. It is a senior service position and he\ndid not qualify for the job because they found others who met that qualification. He went\nthrough the process at another neighboring city and went through the same process of\nanswering questions. Their process requires two years of recreation experience and he\nhas 10 years. Based on their supplemental questions he feels he exceeded their\nexpectations.\nHe feels that it is wrong that they (appellants) are in this position. They say it was not\nbased on merit. Again, they say it is based on percentage but if you look at the questions\nand you grade it, he does not know how the other person even moved on to the second\ninterview. He asked the Board to please look at all the information and consider what is\ntrue and what is not.\nPresident Peeler asked for questions from the Board. Members McHugh and Batchelor\nstated they needed to read the material.\nPresident Peeler asked if the Board would like to decide on a timeline and whether to meet\nagain to make a decision.\nMember Malloy asked if deliberations would be in closed session or open session.\nPresident Peeler stated probably closed session due to personnel issues. Mr. Riddle\nstated that the Board is not making decisions about individuals at this point. What the\nBoard needs to decide is did the appellants demonstrate that the test was unfair or that the\nmerit provisions of the Civil Service Rules have not been complied with. If the Board\ndecides that is the circumstance, and there is a motion with three votes that reaches that\nconclusion based on the evidence, then the next question would be what relief or remedy\nthe Board would grant. The initial question is, does the Board believe the appellants have\nshown that the examination/selection process was unfair and violated the merit principles of\nthe civil service system.\nMr. Peterson asked how the Board could make a decision that it was fair if they have not\nread the materials. Mr. Riddle stated that he is not suggesting that the Board make the\ndecision tonight. The Board will make the decision whenever they would like to make it.\nMr. Riddle is saying that is the decision that the Board needs to fairly decide.\nPresident Peeler asked if the Board wanted to come up with a timeline to decide to review\nall of the materials, and/or make requests for additional information, and have a decision by\na certain date.\nMr. Riddle stated that the issue that he did not respond to was whether to have a closed or\nopen session meeting. The Board is deciding on whether the particular exam was fair or\nunfair. That does not fall within the closed session of the Brown Act. Normally it is a\npersonnel action that the Board is taking with respect to a particular individual for a closed\nsession. In this particular situation, the Board is deciding on whether the test was fair or\nPage -11-\nG:Personne/\\CSB\\A Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 12, "text": "unfair and may be deciding that the test should be redone.\nMember Malloy stated that the Board may decide that the test was not fair with respect to\none, two or three specific individuals and may seek information about those individuals that\nmay help the Board in making a decision, correct? Mr. Riddle stated that if some of the\ninformation is in written form it may well be confidential. He will look at holding a closed\nsession as the Board moves forward. The Board can schedule a date for when to hold a\nmeeting and he can provide advice on whether to do the meeting in an open or closed\nsession. Normally it is an appointment of an individual, discipline of an individual, or\nevaluation of a current employee; those are the types of situations that the Board can\nlawfully go into a closed session.\nMr. Riddle stated that the Board will not be making the decision of whether one employee\nversus another will get hired. Ultimately that decision is up to the administration. What the\nBoard will do is determine whether the test was fair and/or whether the test will be redone.\nThat is what the issue is before the Board. If that happens everyone will presumably take\nthe test again and there will be new results and selections from that test. This Board will\nnot be determining which individuals get hired. That is not part of the authority of the Board\nin his legal opinion.\nMember McHugh stated that she needs to digest the materials and will then have\nquestions. She feels that there will be people in the room that she would like to question.\nShe asked if a week would be sufficient. President Peeler stated she is not available in a\nweek. Mr. Riddle is also unavailable.\nMember Horikoshi asked the Board if it is unreasonable to try to read through the material\nnow. He knows that there is a lot of material. Member Malloy stated that she feels it is\nreasonable, but it depends on what time commitment others may have. It is reasonable to\ndo it and reconvene and ask questions. President Peeler stated she is willing to do that.\nMr. Riddle asked the Board if they would like to take a 20-30 minute recess and reconvene.\nMr. Peterson asked the Board if they really thought that a 20-30 minute recess is a fair time\nfor a fair perusal all of the information. President Peeler stated the Board needs to read the\ninformation.\nMr. Peterson stated that it could be two weeks; it does not need to be tomorrow. He does\nnot want to have a rush to judgment. The Board needs to look at all the facts. Needs to\nlook at who set it up. Why was Dale Lillard setting this up?\nPresident Peeler stated that the Board will take a 20 minute recess and then will\nreconvene. The Board may have questions and will reconvene at 6:20 p.m.\nMeeting was reconvened at 6:25 p.m.\nPresident Peeler asked the Board if they have any questions.\nPage -12-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 13, "text": "Member Batchelor asked Mr. Low if these positions were going to do revenue enhancing\nthrough programming and what drove the job descriptions. Mr. Low stated that yes there\nare some similarities between the Recreation Program Coordinator and the Recreation\nServices Specialist. The primary difference between the two levels is that the Recreation\nService Specialist is going to be a much more responsible position for creating and\nevaluating programs so that the programs created are much more cost recovering then\nthey are today. As indicated in the staff report, ARPD/City is trying to move ARPD towards\na model of maximum cost recovery of which the goal is initially 60% cost recovery. There\nare many other recreation and park departments that get a much higher cost recovery,\ncloser to 90%. In these lean times when the economy and the State are taking away a lot\nof our monies we must be much more creative with regard to delivering those recreation\nprograms that are valued by the citizens on a cost recovery basis.\nMember Batchelor asked if there was talk at any time to look at the four candidates and\nmake it promotional within their department. Mr. Low stated unfortunately Human\nResources is not able to do that. Other Departments have expressed the same desire to\nlimit the applicant pool to employees within their departments, but the way Human\nResources has received feedback and instruction from the Board, in terms of implementing\nthe civil service system here, is that whether it be on a promotional or open competitive\nbasis you want to be as inclusive on a promotional basis to those who have worked here in\na regular position for at least six months to be able to promote. This way you get a variety\nof diversity and you are providing people with the equal opportunity to move up through the\norganization, whether it is in that particular department or across departments.\nMember Malloy stated that it was intimated that interviews were done by phone and asked\nMr. Low if interviews were done by phone. Mr. Low stated yes. There was one candidate\nwho was physically unable to come to City Hall to interview. This is not the first time that\nHuman Resources have made reasonable accommodations to allow candidates to\ninterview, at least initially, over the telephone.\nMember Malloy asked if it was due to a medical condition. Mr. Low stated yes.\nMember Malloy asked if it was an ongoing condition such that when the person is\nperforming the job if they were selected that they would need that type of accommodation\nin the future. Mr. Low stated that it was his understanding that it was a temporary disability\nthat Human Resources were accommodating. Malloy asked if it was verified that the\ncondition existed. Mr. Low stated yes.\nMember Malloy asked to be given a bit of understanding of why Assistant City Manager\nGoldman was part of the interview process. Is it customary within the City that someone\nwho might be familiar with the potential candidates would be an interviewer? She\nunderstands that often panels involve subject matter experts and others but she would like\na better understanding of how Ms. Goldman became involved in the process. Mr. Low\nstated that Ms. Goldman has a strong operational background in city government. She is\ncurrently the Assistant City Manager and is on the City Management track, but her prior\nPage -13-\nG:Personnel\\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 14, "text": "experience also included operational experience layered onto her own expertise on cost\nrecovery models, Human Resources felt that she could be a very objective panel member.\nMember Malloy asked if others on the interview panel were also involved in developing the\nsupplemental questions. Mr. Low stated no.\nMember Malloy stated that she assumes that there was not, what she would call, a full\nblown independent investigation yet. She asked for an explanation of how Human\nResources gathered the information to answer the questions. Mr. Low stated that having\nbeen involved from the inception/design of the recruitment he was able to provide the City's\nlogic and reasoning to address the appellants questions.\nMember Malloy asked if Mr. Wong is appealing or not appealing. The letter submitted only\nhad two names, yet he spoke tonight, are there three individuals or two individuals? Mr.\nLow stated that he also has that question. Mr. Wong, as far as Mr. Low knows, was not\nincluded in the initial letter sent by Ms. Blumkin and Ms. Tsang. Nor did he attend the April\n26, 2012 meeting between Human Resources staff, two other appellants, and union\nrepresentative. For him (Mr. Wong) to now be included in the appeal, that is a question\nthat Mr. Low also has. Mr. Riddle stated that in the event that the Board choses to vacate\nthe exam, whether he is a party or not, presumably he (Mr. Wong) would be able to retake\nthe exam like everyone else. Mr. Gossman stated that when the process started it was Ms.\nBlumkin and Ms. Tsang. Once they put their heads together they felt something was wrong\nand wanted to talk to other applicants regarding their input and feelings was when Mr.\nWong was contacted. It took a month for him to get involved once they made their appeal.\nThis process needs to be fair to all those that applied for this test and that is their (Union's)\nposition.\nMember Malloy asked if she should believe that it is not Human Resource's perception that\nthe applicants are claiming that race is a factor in the ultimate decisions. Should she\nperceive that Human Resources has not looked at this appeal from this perspective. Mr.\nLow stated that is right.\nMember Malloy asked why the recruitment was only a week. Mr. Low stated that since the\nbeginning of March the union was put on notice that this work force change was being\nrecommended. The actual item went to Council on April 2, 2012. We knew that we had at\nleast four viable candidates working in ARPD, plus one former ARPD worker who had been\nlaid off and had application rights. Given that there were five potential candidates and the\nstaff report that went to Council on April 2, 2012 had indicated that we needed to start\nmaking this organizational change and have folks in place as Recreation Services\nSpecialists in the following six weeks the process was fast tracked.\nMember Malloy asked how the subject matter experts were identified who reviewed the\napplications when they were redacted. Is that the standard way that it is done, that the\napplications are redacted and given to someone to rank and review the supplemental\nquestions. Mr. Low stated that in this case, yes. Human Resources redacted the identity\nof the applicant authors because he knows from his experience that the recreation\nPage -14-\nG:Personnel\\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 15, "text": "community is small. Similarly the Human Resources field is small. We know people all\nover. With regard to redacting that personal information, we tried to continue to design a\nprocess that would be fair and equitable. Regarding the search for evaluators, we went to\na number of different recreation and park districts searching for a high enough level\nindividual in those districts who would adequately be qualified to evaluate the responses.\nGiven the tight time frame the two individuals were available. HR Director Brock-Cohn\nstated that anytime that she has done a recruitment that is sent out the names are always\nredacted and that is a very common practice especially for public safety positions.\nMs. Blumkin stated that it was kind of ironic how both of them were former City of Alameda\nemployees and have worked with us (appellants). It is kind of ironic that our little small\ncommunity could find two people that have worked for us.\nVice President Horikoshi asked, in terms of the other two candidates who were not working\nin that department, he is presuming that Human Resources reviewed their applications and\nmade sure they met the minimum qualifications before forwarding them to be reviewed\nfrom the outside reviewers. Mr. Low stated yes.\nVice President Horikoshi stated that it looks like the outside reviewers, after reviewing the\napplications, believed that they met at least the minimum qualifications and were\ncompetitive in the process, is that correct. Mr. Low stated yes.\nVice President Horikoshi is also assuming that the interviewers that interviewed the\napplicants based on the answers the applicants gave, also believed that they at least met\nthe minimum qualifications. He is asking these questions because there seems to be some\nquestion about how other city employees, who seemingly may not have that kind of\nrelevant experience, how they could have prevailed in the process.\nMember Malloy asked if the questions asked of all the applicants were the same. Mr. Low\nstated yes.\nMember McHugh asked Mr. Gossman about the issue of the notification that there would\nbe one layoff and there were three and asked if that is part of the issue or not? Mr.\nGossman stated that when we met we were under the perception that there would be one\nlayoff. The people that were the four players were going to be taking the test. This was the\nsame perception given to the four coordinators at their meeting on March 1, 2012 with Mr.\nDale Lillard. That was the perception that started this whole ball rolling. As time went on it\nexpanded in letting more people who were allowed to take the test, etc.\nMember McHugh stated but it is not part of the remedy that the appellants are seeking. Mr.\nGossman stated there are a lot of directions to go. You could vacate the test and take a\nnew test. Do we really need the specialist position; do we need three of them? There are\ndifferent directions to go. We had four very experienced employees with over 30 years'\nexperience. They already work with contractors, citizens, organizations with building\nexperience. All they were going to do was train to increase cost recovery from 60% to\n90%. All they needed to do was call or get a plan together. Instead they said you are out\nPage -15-\nG:Personnel\\CSBV Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 16, "text": "the door and are using this ruse. These people who were rehired they do not know what\nthe models are and have not been doing those models. They (Recreation Services\nSpecialists) are running around saying what do we do now, what programs do we use?\nMember Malloy asked if the weighted average concept of using 60% interviews and 40%\nsupplemental questions is standard. Or, was it decided by the department what ratio to use\nand how did we (the City) get there? Mr. Low stated that the practice is that Human\nResources tries to go to the essential job duties, knowledge, skills, abilities and tries to use\nthose as the anchors within a supplemental questionnaire and the relative weighing of\nsomeone to prepare written responses to the questions, also using the same essential job\nduties, knowledge, skills, abilities to give the weighing to the interviews. Human Resources\nfelt that they would put the weighing at 60% interviews and 40% supplemental questions.\nMember Malloy stated that it ranges from 50-50 to 60-40 as the range. Mr. Low stated yes.\nMember Malloy stated HR chose the 60-40. Mr. Low stated yes.\nMr. Peterson asked if they (public) were going to be able to ask a question. President\nPeeler stated not at this time Mr. Peterson stated two of the people that were hired did\nnot meet the basic qualifications. One of them did not have a degree in recreation and one\ndid not have any degree. So they should not have even been allowed to take the test. This\nwhole thing is a charade. If you hire two people who were not qualified to take the test how\ncan you base anything\nPresident Peeler stated the Board will look into all of that.\nMr. Peterson stated as long as the Board knows the facts because they (HR/City) are not\ngiving them (Board) all the information.\nMr. Riddle stated that he wanted to clarify what issues are on appeal before the Board and\nwhat issues are not before the Board. There has already been a determination made by\nthe Council, before it came to this Board, to create this new classification and the reasons\nwhy that was done. That is water under the bridge at this point. It was a decision that was\nalready made. There was a decision to layoff some employees and that issue is also not\nbefore this Board. The issue before this Board is whether the exam that was given to make\nappointments to the new classification was fair or not fair or violated the Civil Service Rules.\nA member of the public asked if the Board will ask for the applicants' actual positions and\nwhat they filled out on their applications to see if they were qualified. President Peeler\nstated that is something the Board will determine after they look at all of the information.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that if it would assist the Board the City Attorney's Office would\nbe willing to, at the Board's direction, hire an independent person to investigate factual\nissues, interview people involved, and how the testing went and come back to the Board\nwith that report, if it would be helpful. While the Board looks at documents and asks\nquestions, if the Board would like to direct that the City Attorney's office do the investigation\nMs. Kern would be happy to do that.\nMr. Peterson asked if she was directing the Board to only look at the test and not people\nPage -16-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 17, "text": "who were qualified to take the test. Or, would all of that be involved. City Attorney Kern\nstated that what Mr. Riddle was trying to explain is that the City Council as the legislative\nbody decided to do this reclassification and restructuring. Then there is a testing process\nand what is being appealed is whether this testing process was set up fairly and\nadministered fairly.\nMr. Peterson stated that it could not be fair if two people did not qualify to take the test.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that is part of the administration but the idea is not for this Board\nto go through and look at all of the applications and decide who they would have chosen.\nMr. Peterson stated that he is not saying that, he is saying that two of them should not have\nbeen allowed to take the test because they did not have the qualifications. City Attorney\nKern stated she hears what Mr. Peterson is saying so they can look at\nMr.\nPeterson stated that is a fact\nCity Attorney Kern stated apparently there was a Human Resources review, there was a\nsupplemental question review, and the oral review and through all of those they apparently\ndetermined that the people met the minimum qualifications. Mr. Peterson stated apparently\nsomeone did not do their job. Apparently does not cut it.\nCity Attorney Kern stated she does not have the applications in front of her. President\nPeeler stated sir, (Mr. Peterson), the Board is not arguing whether he is right or wrong.\nIf\nthe Board decides to investigate all of that would be included and asked Mr. Peterson to let\nthe Board continue.\nMr. Tsang asked who would do the investigation. City Attorney Kern stated the City\nAttorney's Office would hire a third party, someone from the outside. Mr. Tsang asked if\nthey (City Attorney) would be paying them. Ms. Kern stated yes.\nMs. Blumkin stated that they heard the first time was going to be a fair process. You were\ngoing to go outside and that did not happen, so how can we trust that they will not do it\nagain.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that it is up to the Board. She is the City Attorney with the City\nAttorney's Office and we\nMs. Blumkin stated she is trying to save their jobs.\nCity Attorney Kern stated she was not trying to save anybody's job. The City Attorney's\nOffice would be willing, because they have attorney client privilege, be willing to hire\nsomeone outside who would, independently of any direction from her office, go and talk to\nthe people and come back and report to the Board on how the process went forward. It is\nnot up to the public group to decide, it is up to the Civil Service Board to decide.\nMr. Peterson stated that they need to tell the Board what they think. City Attorney Kern\nstated they can tell the Board what they think but let's let one person speak at a time.\nCity Attorney Kern stated that if the Board would find this useful she is willing to do it. The\nPage -17-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 18, "text": "Board does not have the authority to direct anybody at the City and does not have any\nfunds. If the Board does not feel that they will get a fair analysis then do not take her up on\nher offer and she will save her funds for something else.\nMr. Peterson stated that he thinks at City Attorney Kern's direction, is she going to direct\nthem to look at things that may make their (the City's) case weaker. That is his point. City\nAttorney Kern stated that she would ask the Board to direct what they want done. But Mr.\nPeterson needs to understand that their (the Board's) lawyer is going to help keep them\ncontained into what is in their purview and it is not going to be who gets the job and who\ndoes not get the job. It is going to be if the process was fair and if the process is found to\nnot have been fair, then what they (Board) have the authority to do is vacate the whole\nthing and start all over again.\nMr. Peterson asked a hypothetical, if the Board finds that two of the people do not have the\nqualifications to be considered for the job, would that be enough to say it was not fair. Mr.\nRiddle stated that hypotheticals are really not what the Board should be doing at this point.\nThe Board ought to be making a decision about whether they have the information they\nneed and what process is needed to go forward.\nPresident Peeler stated the Board feels they need more time and discussed when they\nwould like to next meet. Mr. Riddle stated that the Board needs to meet again to determine\nthe steps needed to be going forward after they read all the material.\nHR Director Brock-Cohn stated that the next regularly scheduled Civil Service Board\nmeeting is Wednesday, July 11, 2012.\nMr. Riddle stated that if the Board would like to take up the City Attorney's offer of an\ninvestigation that could be taken up at this time also.\nMember McHugh stated that the Board needs to take time to look at material and that the\nCity Attorney's offer to do an investigation is very appealing to her. Again, once the\nmaterial has been looked at there may be more specific questions.\nMr. Riddle stated that if the Board decides they want an investigator and have questions to\nbe addressed, the Board could send those questions to Mr. Riddle and he would forward\nthem to the investigator.\nMember Malloy stated that in her experience an investigation can take a while to set up and\nshe is not sure that a week would be a reasonable limit to put upon the Board to send\nquestions. However time is of the essence, we are talking about individuals lives who are\nunemployed and living in limbo.\nMr. Riddle stated that if the next meeting is on July 11 that is about a month to have the\ninvestigation and get the questions out.\nPresident Peeler stated we should have a deadline to get the questions together.\nPage -18-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 19, "text": "President Peeler asked if the Board will have any say on whom the City Attorney hires or\napproval of who the City Attorney hires. City Attorney Kern stated the Board could give her\nrecommendations; it may take longer, or try and solicit from others. Ms. Kern wants to\nmake sure that it is an independent person.\nMember Malloy stated that the Board could make a recommendation that the independent\ninvestigator be from the list of the California Association of Work Place Investigators. That\ncould be part of the motion. City Attorney Kern asked Member Malloy to provide her with\nthe contact.\nMember Malloy made a motion that the Civil Service Board instruct/request that the\nCity Attorney's Office engage an attorney from the list of members of the California\nAssociation of Work Place Investigators and conduct an investigation into the\nexamination process, providing a response as soon as possible allowing the Board\nto provide questions to that body on or before June 18, 2012. Member McHugh\nseconded the motion which passed by a 5-0 votes.\n4.\nADJOURNMENT: 7:02 p.m.\nHolly B.Col\nHolly Brock-Cohn\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nPage -19-\nG:Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}