Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-19 Merit Appeals Board Minutes Merit Appeals Board Department of Human Resources 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 102 Hilo, Hawai‘i December 19, 2018 (Wednesday) Call to Order (Item 1) The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaiʻi, was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chair David K. S. Nahuina, at the Department of Human Resources (HR) Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, on Wednesday, December 19, 2018. Roll Call – Present Mr. David K. S. Nahuina, Chair Mr. William Chillingworth, Vice-Chair Ms. Luahiwa Namahoe, Member Mr. Mitch Tam, Member Also Present Mr. J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corp. Counsel Mr. William V. Brilhante, Jr., Director, HR Department Ms. Glynis Yamada, Secretary-Reporter, HR Department Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: Let’s see here—agenda. Is there any addendums to the agenda? No. Addendum to the Agenda (Item 2) There was none. CHR. NAHUINA: Any statements from the public—nobody is here today or present to make any statements. Statements from the Public (Item 3) There was none. th CHR. NAHUINA: The approval of the minutes for September 19. I know we’ve all had a chance to take a look at them. Approval of Minutes (Item 4) September 19, 2018. CHR. NAHUINA: Are there any questions or any comments about the minutes from September? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Move the minutes be approved. MS. NAMAHOE: Second. th CHR. NAHUINA: I have a motion to approve the minutes and a second of September 19. All those in favor say, “Aye.” All those opposed? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Namahoe, Tam, and Chair Nahuina – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. th CHR. NAHUINA: Same sign. The minutes are approved for September 19, 2018. What else do we have here—setting a hearing date for the issue regarding firefighter—his name— MR. TAM: Justin. CHR. NAHUINA: Fire recruit—thank you. What date— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: You know what, Mr. Chair, before we get there— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes? Page 2 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. CHILLINGWORTH: I’m not quite sure what to do about these communications—Number 5 on the agenda—communication from the Charter Commission and then our response. Is there anything we need to do with those documents— Communications (Item 5) Communication No. 18-01.01, dated September 27, 2018, from the Merit Appeals Board (MAB) to Charter Commission, informing them that they do not have any comments or recommendations at this time concerning the Hawaiʻi County Charter; and Communication No. 18-01.02, dated October 1, 2018, from the Charter Commission Secretary, acknowledging receipt of MAB’s response to their request for input concerning the Charter. (Note: Communication No. 18-01 dated August 1, 2018, from the Hawaiʻi County Charter Commission, was seeking input from MAB as to how the County Charter affects their role and operations within the County, and any proposals they may have to amend the Charter. This matter was filed at its meeting held on September 19, 2018.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: You can just file them. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: File them? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Motion to file and just so you acknowledge it on the record. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Okay. All right—so moved. MR. TAM: Second. CHR. NAHUINA: It’s been moved and seconded that we file the communications. All those in favor say, “Aye.” All those opposed? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Namahoe, Tam, and Chair Nahuina – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAHUINA: The ayes have it, and we shall file these communications. We did—when I think about it—we did respond to the Charter Commission, correct? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: We did. CHR. NAHUINA: That one we did, yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: Then, I guess, for clarification why do they appear on the agenda? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: For filing. Page 3 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. YOSHIMOTO: For filing—yes, for the record. Yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Just to be clear. Yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: All right. CHR. NAHUINA: And then, New Business—oh, wait, no, wait—wrong one, sorry. Communication No. 18-02, received on October 25, 2018, appealing an employment action (concerning discharge from the fire recruit process) by the Hawaiʻi County Fire Department. Board Action Required: Setting a Hearing Date CHR. NAHUINA: We need to set a hearing date for appealing an employment action concerning discharge from the fire recruit process by the Hawaiʻi County Fire Department. So, look at our calendars. rd MS. NAMAHOE: May I offer the 23—Wednesday. rd MR. CHILLINGWORTH: 23of January— MS. NAMAHOE: January. CHR. NAHUINA: January. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Good for me. MR. TAM: I’m good. MS. NAMAHOE: David, when is your spring break or when is your next teacher’s— CHR. NAHUINA: It starts on Monday. So, Christmas Eve is the beginning of it. MS. NAMAHOE: For the winter break? CHR. NAHUINA: Ah-hmmn. MR. TAM: And then you go back on— th CHR. NAHUINA: I go back on the 7. th. MR. TAM: 7 CHR. NAHUINA: So, yeah. Page 4 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. YAMADA: Bill actually asked me—there’s, a Salary Commission meeting on January thrd 24. Since—and since this is a hearing, if we schedule the 23, it’s going to be a little challenging for me, actually—because it is a hearing. MR. TAM: Okay. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. th CHR. NAHUINA: So, the 16 is looking better and better— thth MR. TAM: 16 or 30? Let’s see, 16— MR. BRILHANTE: May I provide input? CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: There’s going to be deadlines for exhibits, witness lists— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Right. th MR. BRILHANTE: —prior to the hearing. So, if you set it for January 16 as opposed to the th 30—you’re backing up against the holidays and all that. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. th MR. BRILHANTE: My recommendation, is maybe the week of the 30, if that’s on the table between the two dates. thth MS. NAMAHOE: Or, if not, may I make a suggestion and we offer the 20? February 20— which is also Wednesday—I know we’re pushing it back, but— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Good for me. MR. TAM: Yeah, either date is good for me. th MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, the 30— MR. TAM: It’s tough for you? MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah. MR TAM: Okay. MS. NAMAHOE: I’m not going to be here. Page 5 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 th MR. TAM: Let’s go for the 20? th MALE SPEAKER: February 20, that’s fine. CHR. NAHUINA: Does that work with everybody else’s calendar? th MS. NAMAHOE: February 20. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. MS. YAMADA: And then, I’ll be sending them a letter to confirm the date, time, and location. Will it be at 10? CHR. NAHUINA: Might we need more time than that? I mean— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: How much time you think we need, J? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Maybe ‘till—four hours I would think? I mean, for the entire meeting, right. There’s (inaudible) I think we have—there’s something we’re going to have? CHR. NAHUINA: That’s right—(inaudible) that day. MS. YAMADA: 10? MS. NAMAHOE: 10 till 2? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Sounds good. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah. If you guys have that block of time available. CHR. NAHUINA: Absolutely. MR. BRILHANTE: At this point, a little more detail (inaudible)— CHR. NAHUINA: I think as I read through that, I thought it would—might be longer because of issues of ADA. And then, I was thinking about the issue of—that the County has to—if that’s going to command a question and then if we’re going to have people coming in to talk about hearing—I mean, I was just trying to think—timing it—of this. And so, I don’t know. MR. BRILHANTE: And you’re exactly on point. From my understanding of the situation is that it is going to be a fairly detailed issue where there’s going to be potentially medical testimony being provided. And then, information regarding specific job requirement and details—training—all those secondary factors that all will become part of your guys deliberative process. Page 6 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 So, I think it’s going to be a long hearing—in just in my estimation, but who knows? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Start earlier—is that what you’re thinking? CHR. NAHUINA: I think so. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. CHR. NAHUINA: And when I looked at it, I mean, honestly, I was trying to read through it and I thought—wow, this—I thought this would be more than one day, actually. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Oh, okay. CHR. NAHUINA: For me, but that— MR. YOSHIMOTO: No, no, no—I mean, that’s up—yeah—the parties and— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: 9 o’clock’s fine. MR. YOSHIMOTO: 9? CHR. NAHUINA: 9. MR. YOSHIMOTO: And just go till— MS. NAMAHOE: 9—9 o’clock. MS. YAMADA: This room should be sufficient, you think? MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah, I would think. ‘Cause I don’t think there’s going to be that many—I would assume there’s not going to be that many— MR. TAM: Witnesses? MR. BRILHANTE: Well, I know there’s going to be a number from the Fire Department. And I’m not sure—see, it all depends on how aggressive the plaintiff is going to—or the appellant is going defend his position. So, it could be quite involved or it could be—he kind of just stays down and says, “I just wanted to have my day in court”—so to speak. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Ah-hmmn, right. MR. BRILHANTE: So, it’s really hard to tell. It seems like this guy—previous interactions with this guy is that he’s doing to, kind of, go pretty far along as to providing his (inaudible). Page 7 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: But he doesn’t have counsel coming, so— MR. BRILHANTE: Not to date. MS. NAMAHOE: Is he required to inform you if he does bring counsel? MR. BRILHANTE: Not necessarily. He can show up, but it’d be better off for him to have—if he’s going to retain an attorney—to have that attorney work on the case prior to the hearing date with the submission of exhibits and witness lists (inaudible)—but he’s not required. Sometime—oftentimes, what we see and what has happened previously is that the appellant will come to the hearing. And then, at the hearing, they’ll say, “Oh, I just retained counsel, can I have additional time to prepare for it.” MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Ah-hmmn, for sure. MR. BRILHANTE: Sometimes that happens, so— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Yeah, that’s happened. CHR. NAHUINA: I can see that where he feels he’s in over his head. He needs to retain counsel—maybe ask for a recess. Okay. Now that—thinking of that, if I extend February to March, does that create a problem if he extends past the continuance and we start it in February? Let’s say we start, but then he asks for a continuance—and then, my term finishes? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: When is your term up? CHR. NAHUINA: Well, today. MR. YOSHIMOTO: You’re going to extend to the 90 days. CHR. NAHUINA: When Glynis very politely asked me and I said, “Sure, we can extend to another three months”—I cannot say, “No” to Glynis, of course. So— MR. TAM: Six months. MS. NAMAHOE: I just forgot to breathe here. CHR. NAHUINA: But—am I correct in my timing? MS. YAMADA: Correct. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. So, I wanted to—I want to ask that question—does that— MR. BRILHANTE: That’s a question to J but— Page 8 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. YOSHIMOTO: We’ve addressed those situations—yeah, it should be fine. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Because even if you start taking evidence, whoever—if you’re not still on the Board at that time—whoever takes your place would be able to have an opportunity to review the minutes, review the record—and then, make a decision on whether they can weigh in or not. So, there is a process to— CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. MR. YOSHIMOTO: —address that. CHR. NAHUINA: And we need to make sure that—because I know it came an issue with the battalion chiefs— MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. CHR. NAHUINA: When we had a—from Kohala, that woman— MS. NAMAHOE: Mrs. Otake. MS. YAMADA: Ida. Ida Otake. CHR. NAHUINA: Ida—yeah. Because she had—I think she missed one or something and, of course, she couldn’t review the minutes—but, that was the issue. So— MR. YOSHIMOTO: It should be okay. th CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. All right. So, February 20? MALE: Sounds great. MS. YAMADA: What—when is the deadline for the submission— CHR. NAHUINA: At 9 o’clock. MS. YAMADA: —witness lists, exhibit list—when did you folks want that deadline for? So, it can be included in the letter to the appellant and corp. counsel. CHR. NAHUINA: J? MR. YOSHIMOTO: A week or is there—two—depending on what the Board. Usually a week is sufficient, I think, as far as— Page 9 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: That’ll be enough for you? MS. YAMADA: I think a week-and-a-half ‘cause I’d have to— MR. YOSHIMOTO: Oh, that’s right. Yes. MS. YAMADA: —prepare the documents. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. Well, let’s make it two weeks, Glynis— MS. YAMADA: Yeah, two weeks, yes. th CHR. NAHUINA: So, deadline the 6? th MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yes, that sounds good, yeah, February 6. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. So, we’ll make—just to review—we’ll make the deadline February thth 6 for submissions, and the hearing will be on the 20 at 9 o’clock in this building. MR. BRILHANTE: Do you want to check with next door to see if that room’s available for the th 20? MS. YAMADA: If I do, I’d have to ask Planning Department to set up the microphones and hire Island Court Reporting. Do you want me to check? CHR. NAHUINA: You didn’t feel that it would be a huge group of people? MR. BRILHANTE: Hard to say. I would reasonably expect—I don’t know—I’m thinking at least 5 witnesses from fire—and I’m not sure if they’re going to be—wanting to be here the whole time. Our attorney besides—Halvorson comes in— MR. YOSHIMOTO: Halvorson, right. MR. BRILHANTE: —Halvorson come in and then John Mukai— MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: —would be the attorney for—so. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I think we should be okay over here, I mean, we’ll manage, I think. I mean, it’s up to you guys, ‘cause everything is— MR. TAM: ‘Cause we got reserved seating. Page 10 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, but I’m just thinking about when we used it the last time for the— MR. BRILHANTE: And that’s what I’m referencing back— MS. NAMAHOE: All right. Yeah. MR. TAM: We’re not sure who’s he going to bring, too, right? And they’ll probably want to be there the whole time, too. MS. NAMAHOE: To be honest with you, I—that’s a lot more comfortable for me than having a whole— CHR. NAHUINA: It’s a strange venue, sometimes I think here, when we have a lot of people because we have witnesses on both sides, kind of, surrounding us and we’re in a fishbowl. MS. YAMADA: Let me check. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah, let’s check and see if we can—if that’s available. Yeah, that would serve well. As I was reading through it—and I also thought this could set a lot of precedence, I would think, because the ADA is involved here. I don’t know. So, I thought it could be interesting the number of people that come into—on both sides. MS. NAMAHOE: Right. What preparatory precautions do we need to be trained to hear? What to look at—what will be our jurisdiction and what won’t be our jurisdiction. This is going to be really (inaudible). So, how do we make sure that we’re making the proper decisions versus the gut driven ones? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: That’s what J is here for. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Actually, the Deputy AG will be handling— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Yeah, Jim Halvorson. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Jim Halvorson. CHR. NAHUINA: Jim’s going to come in for that one? Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: ‘Cause you’re right, those are legitimate issues. CHR. NAHUINA: Absolutely. MR. BRILHANTE: Considerations and determinations and decisions that need to be made. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, is somebody going to tell Jim to be ready for it? Page 11 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: We do—Glynis will. MR. YOSHIMOTO: He still covers MAB, right, Jim? MR. BRILHANTE: The last I heard. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: And he came for the last two that we’ve had. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah, he did. MS. YAMADA: There’s two options—one is the ACCR it is open; and the other option is the stnd Council Room. But the Council Room is open on the 21/22—Thursday/Friday. MR. BRILHANTE: The ACCR is Aging? MS. YAMADA: Right next door. MR. BRILHANTE: Oh, that one’s open? MS. YAMADA: Yeah. The most convenient is the Council Room, probably, ‘cause it’s already set up—versus setting up next door—but it is on Thursday. I can reserve it for Thursday and Friday. CHR. NAHUINA: I have no problem with the Thursday, then, I don’t know how others— schedules are. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: No problem. th MS. NAMAHOE: Thursday, the 17? st MS. YAMADA: The 21. st MS. NAMAHOE: Thursday, the 21. nd MS. YAMADA: And then, if we continue, we need to continue the 22 can be reserved as well. st MR. TAM: Yep, I’m open on the 21. MS. NAMAHOE: Wait one second, I’m on the wrong month. Excuse me. Page 12 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: Mitch, did you say you’re available? MR. TAM: A-huh. th MS. NAMAHOE: Okay, so February 17? MS. YAMADA: 21. MS. NAMAHOE: February 21— th CHR. NAHUINA: The year—you’re in the right year? ‘Cause the 17 is a Sunday. MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, I know, as why I— CHR. NAHUINA: I just want to double check. st MS. NAMAHOE: February 2019—the 21 at—all day. I got this. Thank you. Sassy people— CHR. NAHUINA: I—it happens. st MS. NAMAHOE: I tell you, it’s all good, right? Starts on the 21. Okay, thank you. Got it. st CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. So, we’ll—let’s schedule that meeting for the 21 and we’ll keep the th same deadline of the 6. MS. YAMADA: At 9 o’clock at the Council Room Chambers. st CHR. NAHUINA: Yes, on the 21. Yes—9 o’clock at Council Chambers. MS. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MS. YAMADA: Thank you. CHR. NAHUINA: And the easiest—has—have you been there? I can’t remember (inaudible). MS. NAMAHOE: Council Chambers? CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. So, you know where to park and all that kind of good fun stuff? MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah. Page 13 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. BRILHANTE: Oh, we might have to get them parking passes. MS. YAMADA: Yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: Speaking of— MS. YAMADA: Oh, they already have, they already have. MR. BRILHANTE: For that Council— MS. YAMADA: At both sides. MR. BRILHANTE: Perfect. MS. NAMAHOE: I need a new parking thing—mine ripped. MS. YAMADA: Okay. MR. TAM: I got to update my license plate. I keep getting a warning. Your pass is not registered through this vehicle. Please call and—but I change vehicles every couple of months. MS. YAMADA: Just give me the vehicle information and I’ll update it for you. MR. TAM: Or do it right before, ‘cause I don’t know if I’ll change vehicles by then. MS. NAMAHOE: I need a new plastic mirror (inaudible). MR. TAM: You just call and say can we switch you out okay? I’ll be there. MS. NAMAHOE: Thank you—so funny. CHR. NAHUINA: All right. So, we’ve set the hearing date. MR. BRILHANTE: So, did we change the date of witness and exhibit list? th CHR. NAHUINA: We kept it the same for the 6. MR. BRILHANTE: I’m sorry. CHR. NAHUINA: And is that enough time for you? I mean, that’s really the key. MS. YAMADA: Yep, plenty time. Thank you. CHR. NAHUINA: Plenty—okay. We move on to “New Business.” Page 14 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 New Business (for discussion and appropriate action) (Item 6) FY 2018-2019 Annual Performance Evaluation of the Director of Human Resources (HR): Merit Appeals Board’s Evaluation Tool for the Director of HR for FY 2018-2019; and includes the HR Director’s department goals and objectives for FY 2018-2019 (postponed on September 19, 2018); SurveyMonkey questions for FY 2018-2019. The Merit Appeals Board anticipates convening an executive meeting regarding the above matter, pursuant to HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(2) and 92-5(a)(4), for the purpose of evaluating an officer or employee of the County of Hawai'i, where the consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved and consulting with the Board’s attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the Board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. A 2/3 vote pursuant to HRS Section 92-4 is necessary to hold an executive meeting CHR. NAHUINA: Looking at our annual performance evaluation of the director of Human Resources and we wanted—I know that the—and some other Board members that—expressed the desire to look at the items again—and just to review them. And you’ll find them in your green folder—the questions or items 1 through 12 for the human resource director’s review. I’d like to open up for discussion—I know we got—just—look at these before and you, rightfully saying are these items that we would like to have on the survey and are there—and weigh in on it so— MS. NAMAHOE: Well, I’m not prepared to comment at the moment. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. I know that—I mentioned this the last time that I came in when this was developed three years ago, and it was an exhaustive process—is my understanding. And I wasn’t part of that process, though. I came in right as they were finishing it up. And I’m not sure how we would go about choosing different items. I mean, I think first of all, if there’s an item where we’re concerned about—we should just have a discussion of it. MR. YOSHIMOTO: So—excuse me, Mr. Chairman—so, are we talking—should we be going into executive session, then—are we going to go into detail as far as— CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I’m not sure, yeah, which path you want to go down as far as— CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. So, looking at the evaluation tool for the director of human resources fiscal year 2018—that includes—we were looking at the SurveyMonkey questions. I’m sorry, did I take it out of order? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay, you were looking at the survey questions. Let’s see— Page 15 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. YAMADA: Is it okay if I give Bill a copy of the survey questions? I didn’t give him one. I wanted to check with you first. CHR. NAHUINA: Hasn’t he seen them before when he sees the results? MS. YAMADA: He sees—well, the results has the questions. CHR. NAHUINA: Right. So, has he seen them before? MS. YAMADA: Well not—he—through the results, he has seen the questions. CHR. NAHUINA: He has. Correct. Yes, then that would be more than appropriate. Would— MS. NAMAHOE: A penny for your thoughts, David? CHR. NAHUINA: Well, I guess, at the last meeting when we had our discussion it was—are these appropriate and do we want to change them? And I’m not sure what we might be looking for that’s different than is being asked in these items. MS. YAMADA: I have the executive session minutes in draft form, if you want to read about the discussions you had about those questions—if you guys would like a copy just to look at? MS. NAMAHOE: I’d appreciate that. CHR. NAHUINA: That would be awesome. MR. BRILANTE: I’m going to—and I don’t know maybe J can—I’m going to request that since we are talking about my evaluation and then we move into executive session— CHR. NAHUINA: We move into executive session— MR. BRILHANTE: —‘cause there’s some information I might like to put on the table, and I’m not sure if I want it to be public information. CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: I think there’s a privilege to some of the issues. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. Can I hear a motion to go—move into executive session? Do I hear a motion to go into executive session? MS. NAMAHOE: Should we read it out—this way— CHR. NAHUINA: Oh, I’m sorry. Page 16 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. NAMAHOE: —for the Merit Appeals Board evaluation tool? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah, you can just read the— CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. MR. YOSHIMOTO: —blurb that’s on the agenda. CHR. NAHUINA: Okay. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. I make a motion that regarding “New Business (for discussion)” regarding the Merit Appeal Board—Merit Appeals Board’s evaluation tool for the director of HR for fiscal year 2018-2019 including HR director’s department goals and objectives for fiscal year 2018 and 2019, which was postponed previously on September 19, 2018. I move that we go into executive session. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I’m sorry—pursuant to HRS— MS. NAMAHOE: Pursuant to HRS—pursuant to HRS sections 92-4, 92-5, subsection (a)(2) and 92-5, subsection (a)(4)—for the purpose of evaluating an officer or an employee of the County of Hawaiʻi where the consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved in consulting with the Board’s attorneys on questions and issues pertaining to the Board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. A two-thirds vote pursuant to HRS section 92-4 is necessary to hold an executive meeting. Therefore, I move that we go into executive session. MR. TAM: And I second. MS. NAMAHOE: Thank you. CHR. NAHUINA: It has been moved and seconded that we go into executive session. All those in favor say, “Aye.” All those opposed? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Namahoe, Tam, and Chair Nahuina – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAHUINA: Same sign. It has been approved that we’ll be going into executive session. RECESS: The Chair called for a recess at 10:45 a.m. (to convene executive session). RECONVENE: The regular meeting reconvened at 11:37 a.m. Page 17 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 FY 2018-2019 Annual Performance Evaluation of the Director of Human Resources (HR): Merit Appeals Board’s Evaluation Tool for the Director of HR for FY 2018-2019; and Includes the HR Director’s Department Goals and Objectives for FY 2018-2019 (Postponed on September 19, 2018); SurveyMonkey Questions for FY 2018-2019 CHR. NAHUINA: So, given the discussion on the fiscal year 2018-2019 annual performance evaluation for the director of human resources for the Merit Appeals Board evaluation tool for the director of HR—do I have a motion to accept it as it is for the coming year? Is that okay? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah. MR. TAM: So, I make a motion that we accept the fiscal year 2018-2019 annual performance evaluation of the director of human resource questions as they are currently in its present state. MS. NAMAHOE: I second that. CHR. NAHUINA: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say, “Aye.” All those opposed? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Namahoe, Tam, and Chair Nahuina – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAHUINA: The ayes have it. It’s unanimous. We will be continuing with the survey as it is for fiscal year 2018-2019. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Before we leave that subject, were we going to be looking at other possibilities in terms of questionnaires as to how we can improve the presently worded ones that we’re (inaudible)— MS. NAMAHOE: So, I don’t know if we’re going to put this as an agenda item for the next meeting, but eventually we will bring it to the table to revisit the survey and to bring additional materials of what successful 360 degree reviews look like, as well as when there’s—perhaps, discovery of what previous tools were used in the County. And then, at that time, we’ll be able to put that on the agenda. And thank you so much, Bill, for bringing it up. You got silver points, we appreciate it. CHR. NAHUINA: Thank you. MR. BRILHANTE: Thank you for listening to me and taking my input into consideration. Page 18 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: As we look at other instruments—your comment there—there are other Merit Appeals Board’s, obviously, with the other counties. Is that something that maybe we want to request from other Merit Appeals Boards? MS. NAMAHOE: I think that— MR. CHILLINGWORTH: It’s something to think about. CHR. NAHUINA: Think about—why don’t we think about it and then as we come to the—to revisit, we can always make that request. I’m sure that we can send that letter out in a timely manner—they’ll respond to. Okay. I like that. MS. NAMAHOE: We’ll see what tools are available. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. Okay. That finishes up our new business. Unfinished business—we have none. Unfinished Business (for discussion and appropriate action) (Item 7) (There was none.) CHR. NAHUINA: Which moves us to our director’s report. Director’s Report (Item 8) A) HR Quarterly Reports: July – September 2017; B) HR Benchmarks for FY2017-2018; C) Post Audit Progress Report on Hiring Practices for 2018; D) Items of Current Interest MR. BRILHANTE: Again, thank you very much for affording me an opportunity to provide information to the Board. As far as the Quarterly HR Reports—if you look at your packet, it’s under the yellow tab—you have the information from each of our various divisions regarding timelines, deadlines, and how our staff has performed under these benchmarks. So, the first page is from our Administrative Services Division. We’ve identified, historically, three areas where we know—again, service to our clients is an utmost priority and there’s a timeliness to that service. And so, we identified the first goal is conduct two departmental audits. And, as you can see, we’ve satisfied those goals. Administrative audit is different from a recruitment audit, which I alluded to earlier in our previous discussion. And this is where we look to ensure that proper performance evaluations are being conducted of the staff, all the federal OSHA requirements are being followed, the proper federal and state documentation for each employee is currently on file and being housed properly. Page 19 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 And so, we go in and—our administrative staff goes in and meets with various departments. And we go, sit down, and we look—and we evaluate, and we provide information as to whether or not they’re in compliance or if there’s some areas of concern. It’s almost, like, when HIOSH comes in and conducts a safety audit—so, that—“Oh, you had an extension cord in the breakroom. Remove the extension”—kind of, along the same lines. Goal 2 was mass pay adjustments. What a mass pay adjustment is—as the union contracts move forward, they set specific deadlines as to when pay raises should be effectuated. And, stst oftentimes, all of SHOPO pay raise effective July 1 or January 1; HFFA, which is Fire, same dates; HGEA, same dates; UPW, same dates. So, in essence, we take our 2,800 County employees and we have to do a pay adjustment because in that 2-week period of time, effective st January 1, two weeks later—the employees expect to see their pay raises—and if they don’t they’re very upset by it, so. So, we do pay adjustments. There’s been circumstances where, maybe, UPW would give their pay raise a different date than HGEA. And so, we have to come in and we have to set the deadline and establish, but it requires us going into the system, we have all withholding requirements, we have tax reporting requirements—and it’s fiscal software program—“Eden Fresh” that we used. But, unfortunately, everything has to be manually entered, and you’re talking about various levels of employees, various pay schedules, various steps—so you could have one welder who’s on BU1, Step 3—same—his counterpart because of years of service, BU1, Step 5, so when you give a 2 percent raise, there’s a difference—2 percent amount for the Step 3 person as to the Step 5 person. MS. NAMAHOE: When you say “manual”—how manual is it? Even the calculation of the 2 percent or? MR. BRILHANTE: No, no, no, no. Fortunately, it’s not that manual. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: We’ve removed ourselves from the abacus— MS. NAMAHOE: That’s why I like know how manual. CHR. NAHUINA: And I happen to be with the State, so I know that—you know we’re moving over to a new payroll system? MR. BRILHANTE: Yes. CHR. NAHUINA: Is that a system that we’ve looked into or we were already there or that we— for another discussion? Page 20 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. BRILHANTE: We can have that discussion down the road, but you’re right. Our system is antiquated. At the time we brought it on board, it was very expensive. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: For the State, their—one of their departments—ERS—is doing a transition to a new system— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: —and the estimated cost associated with that is close to $10 million. So, I mean—so we’re talking real numbers here every time we sit down and want to address some type of payroll— CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: —software program. So, as everybody knows, the current economic situation—I was just going to report it later in my presentation but the expectation or the—we’re ancitipa—the anticipation right now moving forward with next year’s budget is we’re going to have a $20 million shortfall. So, that’s what we’re dealing with from the County. Just costs of increased expenses with the lava flow— CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: —loss of revenue— CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: —from properties lost, and just whatever the valuation of properties in general. CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: And, of course, union raises on the other side of the ledger that’s—our expenditures are going up and revenues aren’t climbing as quickly as the expenditures. So, that’s why (inaudible) $20 million shortfall. And I think the Mayor—that’s not privileged information. My understanding is that has been reported to council already—that number. And then, the final one is Goal 3 is the flexible spending—and that’s where employees can elect to use pre-taxed dollars to offset unanticipated expenses. But sometimes it’s better, it’s a perk that government employees are able to partake in. So, we’ve been very responsive with that. The Classification and Pay, that’s the area where we look at each employee’s job. We look at the scope of their duties and we make a determination as to whether or not they’re performing within the proper class. And, if they’re not, if they’re doing work that’s a higher level—higher Page 21 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 class of work, then they’re—it gets adjusted so—because the premise or the operating guidelines under the HRS is that all of our employees are—get equal pay for equal work—and with that in mind, if we identified them as doing higher level work that has to be adjusted. So, again, we have—one of the—two of the mechanisms that we use to address those concerns are redescription and reallocation. So, we do a redescription—we had 35 requests for redescriptions—that’s where we come in and we look at a particular job and if the duties and responsibilities of that job are outside the scope of the job—somebody’s doing too much or they shouldn’t be doing that—then we reassess and we re-evaluate and we redraft what the proper requirements are for that level of work. So, we had 35 request for redescriptions, we were to respond within 5 working days. And, as you can see, all 35 of them have been responded to within the 5-day (inaudible). CHR. NAHUINA: What a great job your department is (inaudible). MR. BRILHANTE: The reallocation is where a department submits a request—they say, you know what, I have this worker and although he’s classified to do work at this level he’s been doing higher level work, and we need him to do that higher level work as opposed to a redescription—it’s called a “reallocation.” So, then, we assess the job and we make a determination as to whether or not that position should be reallocated. We have a reallocation up and inversely we also do a reallocation down. Sometimes we’ll do a reallocation down for our recruitment purposes. And, say, we have a job which requires specific governmental knowledge. Say, for example, and I’m just putting it out there—say, motor vehicle registration clerk. Say a Clerk III requires somebody to be performing that job for three years—that might be a minimum requirement for that job. And the only way— there’s nobody else out there in the State—but for, maybe, City and County of Honolulu, the other three jurisdictions that perform that type of work. There’s no need for it—you’re not going to get—the private entities aren’t doing it. CHR. NAHUINA: Right. MR. BRILHANTE: DOE or those state workers aren’t doing it. The only way you could obtain those three years of experience is by working in the motor vehicle registration department. So, what we do is we reallocate that position down to a “I”—a level I. So we took that Level III, we reallocate down to a Level I where the minimum requirements are much lower, then we get a bigger application pool, the individual comes in, they start working, and as they progress in their years of experience, then they keep reallocating up. So, it kind of works both ways. So, we’ve had 59 of those requests come in from the last quarter from the various departments. Our requirement is to get those out in 10 days. And, as you can see, all 59 have been gotten— had been responded to within six days or less. Page 22 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 Equal Opportunity—these are just our ADA request for reasonable accommodations and the like. No real deadlines except that we just articulated the various questions and responses that we’ve been having to address. So, you can read those and, if you have questions, I’ll be happy to answer those. MS. NAMAHOE: The mayor has a Committee on People with Disabilities? MR. BRILHANTE: Yes, he does. It’s an advisory committee, and they provide information, requests, advice to the mayor—but he’s not compelled or required to respond to it. The next question—the next division that (inaudible) here is Work Comp. And, as you can see, for—so far—2018, new claims—127 new claims for workers comp—and I’m not sure why 2019-20 were identified. This must be on a calendar year—no, not even that would be. I’d have to double check this where this 20 for 2019 came from. MS. NAMAHOE: That’s amazing considering the lava. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MS. NAMAHOE: That have—this number— MR. BRILHANTE: To date—in response to your concern, to date, we’ve only had one work comp claim filed related to the lava event. CHR. NAHUINA: Wow, that’s awesome. MR. BRILHANTE: And that was for a police officer who suffered a insect bite. Yeah. MR. TAM: (Inaudible.) MR. BRILHANTE: But, that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. MR. TAM: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: Because we’ve received three requests from one each from HGEA, UPW, and police—requesting that the County pay hazard duty pay to all of the employees who were in the lava inundation area during the eruption. MS. NAMAHOE: On top of the 20 million shortfall we have? MR. BRILHANTE: Correct. So that would be a 25 percent adjustment to their (inaudible) salary for that time that the employees—the reason fire hasn’t submitted anything—HFFA—is because unbeknownst to me or anybody else in the County, one of the battalion chiefs authorized fire to pay their firefighters the 25 percent hazard pay bonus. So, that’s been thrown in our face as it relates to a Step 2 grievance with SHOPO. Page 23 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 The first sentence that came out of the union agents—business mangers mouth when I met for the Step 2 grievance meeting was—“You know, fire paid all their guys 25 percent you know. How come you no can pay the police?” I was like, “Wow, really?” Well, the—and the reason that fire did that is there’s a glitch in the collective bargaining agreement where SHOPO, Public Works, and HGEA—the chiefs aren’t—or the department heads aren’t authorized—the HR director is the only one authorized to approve the hazard—the extra hazard pay. Unfortunately, in fire—they didn’t put that specific language in the CBA. CHR. NAHUINA: Battalion chiefs— MR. BRILHANTE: So, the battalion chief felt—feels that he has the authority. MS. NAMAHOE: And they did. Yeah. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Well. MR. BRILHANTE: So, hoping—what I’d like to see with these numbers both for the new claims and open claims is there’s somewhat of a downward trajectory in the numbers—and every dollar we save there, we have a $2.2 million budget for workers comp. And so, for every dollar we save, out of that $2.2 million—it goes directly back to the general fund. So, for us that’s something. The other thing I like is the—that same downward trajectory with the County of Hawaiʻi vehicle equipment property damage reports. If you look 2014—228; 2018—knock on wood—167. So, that was another area where—because—and what makes this so important from both the workers comp aspect and the property damage aspect is the County of Hawaiʻi’s self-insured. So, it’s not like we’re—if something were to happen we can send it out to our assurance—insurance agent and they’ll cut us a check—for every dollar we spend on this is dollar that comes directly under work comp. MS. NAMAHOE: What’s the gentleman’s name, again—the—your work comp? MR. BRILHANTE: Oh, we have Allan— MS. NAMAHOE: Allan. MR. BRILHANTE: Yoshimura— MS. YAMADA: Yokoyama. MR. BRILHANTE: Yokoyama. CHR. NAHUINA: Yokoyama. Page 24 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. NAMAHOE: Allan Yokoyama. MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah—Yokoyama. And so—yeah. So, he’s my deputy but I’ve been, kind of, assigning him to work comp. The next page is just the Personnel and Organizational Development report, and you can see these are the amount of trainings and the various trainings that we offer to County employees. The reason you see all “zeros” here is because Waylen Leopoldino was our trainer. He’s been out. He’s coming back as our Recruitment and Exam— MS. NAMAHOE: (Inaudible) when? MR. BRILHANTE: January 7. MS. NAMAHOE: Good for him. CHR. NAHUINA: Nice. MR. BRILHANTE: So, he’s coming back. But we just recently hired—well, we took one of our managers from Classification and Pay and she requested that she do a lateral transfer into this division. So, in next—the next quarterly report will reflect the amount of training she’s been doing and the numbers are substantially and significantly higher. But this—these—the previous quarterly reading is this way—it’s because it’s just been a vacant position. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Right. MR. BRILHANTE: Although we have been conducting training because Gabriella Cabanas, in which I’m covering in my next report, which is the post audit progress report, made it her goal— and we sat down with the administration and she required mandatory interview training classes, as well as interview—mandatory skill assessment and evaluation training classes for all of our employees who are going to sit on a interview panel. CHR. NAHUINA: Nice. MR. BRILHANTE: So, within her 3-month period of time, she conducted over 1,000—she trained over 1,000 County employees. MS. NAMAHOE: (Inaudible.) MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Wow. CHR. NAHUINA: That’s impressive. Page 25 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS NAMAHOE: Wow. CHR. NAHUINA: That’s impressive. MR. BRILHANTE: And then, that leads me to the last category, which is our Recruitment Examination. Gabriella Cabanas, through her credit, gave her 42 years of government service, st and she retired effective December 1. And so, she thought the time was right for family is— was previously living on the mainland with her grandson, decided to move back home, so she’s getting ready, they should be back home within the next several months. So, she’s doing all home projects—her and her husband—and the timing was right. So, she—we had our office Christmas lunch yesterday and we had an opportunity—she—we invited her and she joined us— and it was good timing. She looks really happy. CHR. NAHUINA: Nice, wonderful. MR. BRILHANTE: It’s so nice that when you see somebody who’s retired—and they’re retired and they’re comfortable with their retirement? They have this glow about them. CHR. NAHUINA: ‘Cause they don’t have to go back to work. MR. BRILHANTE: She had that glow. MS. NAMAHOE: (Inaudible.) MR. BRILHANTE: So, then, the next report is just the benchmarks. So, what I incorporated that is each year we have to submit a County budget and a departmental budget. So, this is the information that I attached to the budget—to our budget submittal. Again, you’re facing a $20 million deficit. So, the administrative advice or instruction was to submit two budgets. One is a status quo with no increase—every department was required to do that. And the second budget was to do a budget with a 3 percent reduction. So, this is the message you guys—you can read it, if you have any questions about this budget message under the benchmark, I’d be happy to address that—address it. So, we submitted a status quo budget and we submitted a 3 percent reduction. Just to let you know, majority of the 3 percent reduction—and I know it’s not a good thing, it’s never a good thing but we were fortunate enough—see, when you’re a department like that, we’re somewhat unique to other departments—for Council it’s the same. All we have is people. We don’t have vehicles—one or two vehicles. MS. NAMAHOE: Right. Page 26 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. BRILHANTE: We don’t have capital projects. We’re not going, we not doing all these other stuff that Public Works may do. We’re not buying equipment. We’re not buying a drywell cleaner for $1.5 million. We’re not buying fire trucks for $900,000. We’re not buying ambulances, we’re not buying buses. So, when we say we’re going to reduce—we need to reduce 3 percent—let me tell you, we’re cutting at the quip. We’re already barebones and that was—that statement during our budget hearing, which was on last week Friday—it was stated to us where the budget director was very appreciative of the fact that we have been so fiscally responsible. And I can’t take that much— this is dating back to 10, 12, 15 years ago—that HR has been so fiscally responsible. We’ve been—we really have such a good staff—I have such a responsive staff that my managers would take a—will do a schedule—a change in their schedule—as opposed to submitting a request for overtime. And I can do that—that’s acceptable with the EM’s, unfortunately, I can’t do that with the clerical staff or the SR’s but I have to afford them the—they make the selection but, I just want to say that I have such a good staff, such a responsive staff that I can’t take the credit for that. It always goes back to the staff as it relates to these type of overtime claims and the like. So, you can read that and if—we highlighted some of the areas that we’ve been working on. The next report—Number C, is the post audit progress report. And, again, Gabe—Gabriella was really spearheading this because the audit was specific to the County’s HR hiring practices. And there were several items that they identified—areas of concern. So, out of the 7 items, here are 6 of them, and this is how we specifically addressed them. We came up—we established a new referral system for continuous entry-level recruitment. We have some positions in the County where when we’re talking about the Motor Vehicle Clerk III, we had the minimum requirements in order to—they need 3 years of that specific work. Where there’re some positions within the department—that they’re called “registration class recruitments.” So, all you have to do is submit your name and then you’re considered. There’s no minimum requirements—eight grade education—and those positions are like a park caretaker, public works laborer, (inaudible) station, or parks custodian. There’s positions—those are entry-level positions, which everybody—you’re a County employee, you’re no less than any other employee, but— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: —just because of the requirements of the job, what are we going to say— “You need 5 years of cleaning toilets”—it’s just hard to quantify what the minimum requirements would be for those positions. So, they’re called “registration recruitments.” And so, what we did is was we came up with a system where it’s fairer because the referrals now are based on a lottery. So, when people Page 27 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 submit their names, it’s in a closed period of time. We announce to the public—“Eh, for the next 2 weeks, we, the County will be accepting names for”—and we’ll identify all the various positions—parks caretaker, custodians, whatever—we say, “These are all the positions we’re looking for, submit your names.” And then, what we do is we take all those names—there’s been years where we’ve had up to 900 names. We don’t see those type of numbers currently because I think the hotels and everything are so full that we lose—we’re losing a lot of potential candidates to that—the employment rate is so low that we’re not—we’re seeing numbers more like 2—300 now. And so, we take those numbers—you submit your name, you submit your information, you put it in the hat, and then now we’re using excel—and we have a generating process where if a department is looking for a—Parks is looking for a custodian, they’ll say, “Eh, we have one custodian position, can you please forward names to us—candidates, eligible candidates”—so then, we’ll run the que and 10 names will randomly come up. And then, we will forward those10 names to the department—say, “Okay, here’s your 10 names for this position”—and just because you get—the only way you get crossed off that list is if you actually are selected and you accept the job. So, there may be—so, it’s just fair and equal to everybody. Nobody can complain there’s favoritism, nobody can complain that if you’re somebody’s cousins, brother’s nephew—you’re getting selected before anybody. So, our hope going forward is that—it’s just a fair, simple process where everybody has the same opportunity to have their name selected. And when the selection from excel comes up, names don’t come up—numbers. And so, prior to running the excel shuffle, we assign a number to each name. So, there’s never—and we have two separate people doing it. CHR. NAHUINA: Nice. MR. BRILHANTE: So, the person who’s doing—running the query for the numbers, never knows who those numbers—who the names are associated with each number. So, hopefully, as we continue that process, we’ve been getting good response and feedback from the public. ‘Cause, ultimately, that’s our goal. In this case, the concern is from the public as to whether or not the public has a fair and equal opportunity to get one of these jobs. ‘Cause although it’s a entry-level job, I mean, we have—one of our parks superintendents—who started off as a—in one of these entry-level jobs. So, there’s significant room for advancement. So, although you’re coming out the bottom floor, you can advance through your career quite well. So, we’ve—Number 2 is the training classes that I alluded to earlier where we conducted a significant number of training, whether it relates to proper interviewing, skillset developing— development, developing interview questions, and the like. Page 28 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 We—Number 4 was the audits that I was referring to. We’ve initiated a system where our recruitment division goes in and it will notify a department of a particular recruitment that they’re doing—and we touch base with them. And we ask them to provide us all of their recruitment information. And we sit down and we evaluate—and it’s just on a—it’s nothing scheduled. It’s just on a random basis, and we evaluate the packets, and we make sure that the questions that they’re asking are proper, the selection of the interview panelists are appropriate and the like. And we did our first series of that—those audits. I think we audited—I’m not—the information is here—but we audited, I believe—one, two, three, or four departments. And the departments have been very responsive because it’s departments that we work well with—we’re still waiting for police—the police department has thrown a little wrench in that they’re telling us that’s privileged information that we shouldn’t have access to. So, we, kind of—I’ve been going back and forth with the police chief, but the four other departments have been really responsive—really good feedback. We’ve identified—we’ve seen areas of concern that we’ve addressed and we sat down with the departments—the HR staffing from the departments. And, to the “T,” every—so far to date—every one of our recommendations have been satisfied and— CHR. NAHUINA: Nice. MR. BRILHANTE: —they’ve been followed through with by the departments. So, they’ve been really receptive and, to me, it’s just been a “win-win” for everybody so far going forward. Again, we were this moni—Number 5 is us monitoring—that’s a in-house function that we do through our NeoGov recruitment software program and we’ve been doing a better job with that. We initiated better expectations of our employees. So, when they run a recruitment, the recruitment—a referred list is good for 90 days. So, now the first 30 days, we send a reminder that you have 60 days left to do your recruitment, and then 30 days later we send another reminder—you only have 30 days left to do your recruitment. And then, the final reminder is, “You haven’t done your recruitment, it’s been 90 days, can you please send the director a e-mail identifying why you haven’t completed the recruitment”—and, so far, we’re—I’ve only had to address two of those e-mails. So— MS. NAMAHOE: Still two. MR. BRILHANTE: Well, still two but with the point you raised with the lava and everything— say, for example, one was Civil Defense. They were looking for a new staff manager. There was no way Civil Defense was going to be able—during the lava, be able to get three people, come up with interview questions, come up with interview board and everything in the mid—no, that was absolutely no way that was going to happen. So, that was one of the letters. And then, the—Number 6 is something that we’re working on and I’m just going to tell you— we’re doing a lot of work here, it’s the whistleblower. What became really interesting to me Page 29 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 during this process during our investigation, during our due diligence is—just how many governmental entities have a contractual relationship with a third party company to monitor this whistleblower component. We found out DOE has one, Judiciary, UH—each of the campuses at UH—they all have this contractual relationship with a third party company that monitors 800 hotline where employees or members of the public can call in and can report concerns they have. Whether it be ethical concerns or concerns regarding improper use of monies—all the way to City and County of Honolulu gets concerns about failure to repair potholes. But, it’s really good because what it does, it affords—what we found out from this—the audit, the overriding premise was that the reason that some of the issues identified in the audit weren’t being reported was the fear of retaliation—whether it be real or just in their mind. Nobody wants to tell on their boss because, “Oh, man, I’m going to end up in Siberia.” Right? And that’s human nature, there’s no—it is what it is. And I understand that. So, we never had this outlet, where they could make—file a report. And so, we started looking into it. We’ve identified a third party. That same company services all those other governmental entities I alluded to—City and County. The only problem is—now, it comes down to cost. It’s $20 to $24,000 a year for them to do the monitoring. So, that’s where we’re at now, and we’re having that discussion. The second component that we need to discuss is where should that be housed? Where should that—where should the party—the third party entity— CHR. NAHUINA: Who they report to. MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah, who they send it to? For DOE, I think they send—you have your— CHR. NAHUINA: Board of Education. MR. BRILHANTE: Yeah. UH Manoa, they have a separate compliance officer—all the UH systems and there’s one for overreaching and then each campus has their own. So, for us, we don’t have that. We don’t have that in place. So, then, if they send it to us then, of course, the assumption from the public is, “Man, if HR is monitoring—watching the chicken coop, there’ll never be a problem with HR”—or if—same thing with Corp. Counsel. If Corp. Counsel responds to the mayor—so, if the concerns are inappropriate things that the mayor are doing— Corp. Counsel’s not going to raise an issue because they’re appointed. So, there’s all these externalities that need to be—and perception trumps reality often times and the public perception is what I’ve been alluding to. So, with that in mind, we’re working with the prosecutor’s office because the prosecutor is a elected office. The State Ombudsman has already turned us down. And so, we’re trying to look at—so the two areas of concern, right now, that we need to address going forward is: 1) Cost associated with the software; and 2) where should the reporting—who should be the proper (inaudible) for the reporting. Page 30 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 So, I think Mitch Roth has made representations that he could be comfortable with it. Under another entity that we’ve had discussions with, is the Legislative Auditor—and that’s the entity that actually does the audits. So, we’re thinking if they had a position there, they’re independent. They’re removed. They come under the Legislative Branch as opposed to the Administrative Branch—they’re the auditors for the— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: —legislators. So, if they have a employee or we could, kind of, set up something through them where they are the reporting party—they already have auditors. If they needed it to get an investigator to—when the complaints come in—the ones they deem to be worthwhile— CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: They have an investigator we’re thinking that might be the best course of action. So, we’re still in the discussion stage with that, so it’s ongoing, and that’s really the only real recommendation that we haven’t addressed. In those regards, you’ll see that this letter with the post audit report went to the county council, it went to the legislative auditor, it went to the mayor. So, what we also came up with—and it went to all the department heads—and I sat down, prior to sending this out, I sat down with the mayor and I sat down with the various powers (inaudible) and we went through our Human Resources Best Practices because that was one of the concerns that the departments—the auditors felt that the departments weren’t given sufficient enough guidance as it related to certain HR functions. So, we came up with a 2-page report on best practices from—3-page report, up to 12. So, as to what our best practices are, what we feel—items should be handled, how items should be appropriately handled—and you can go through this report. We had a lot of back and forth—I involved my whole executive staff and we met maybe about 7 or 8 times. This final report is thth maybe the 6 or 7 revised draft that we all agreed to. And so, a lot of thought, a lot of time, a lot of information went into drafting these best practices. And what we did on the final page is, we thought that, “Why have best practices? What do best practices do? Where does it get us?” And so, what we did was we came up with organizational goals. Again, departmental organizational goals, ‘cause we felt that if we’re going to send all of the departments our best practices—in order to get better compliance, better understanding— they had to know why. And that’s why—and we weren’t going to say, “We’re done with the audit”—from our standpoint. We did the recommended changes, we have one area—the whistleblower—that we’re having to address. But, you know what, we have addressed it. We’ve gotten better. We moved on. We don’t want to keep going back to the audit. Page 31 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 So, what we want to do is when we came up with these best practices, we wanted it to relate to something positive. And the positive is—what’s our goals? Why do we need you to perform these best practices—because here’s our organizational goals. And that’s what we’re looking to get. So, you can go through these three items with the bullets (inaudible) best practices. And, I’d be happy to answer questions about that. Just the final item I wanted to bring up was items of current interest, and that was—that relates to work comp. We’ve separated work comp and I think I alluded to it earlier, but we’ve separated work comp and our safety division, so now they’re two separate sections under one division. So, we’ve moved Ryan Chong and Doug McCormick to safety; and we’ve kept the work comp separate. I’ve had Allan supervising the work comp. division. Unfortunately, we’re down to one person in work comp. The reason for that is our—one of our technical—technicians submitted a disability retirement request, and it was accepted by the State. So, she went out on medical disability. Our other technicians’ husband has been diagnosed with a serious illness and she had sufficient enough time to retire, so she took her—she retired. And the third employee was identified to have a medical condition that required surgery, and so she’s out for two months and she’s undergone the surgery removal of a tumor and now she’s recovering. So, we’re down to one. We have one adjustor. So, to kind of help bridge the gap, I brought in an employee under a contract. So, we have a contractual employee. We were fortunate, she—Hawaiʻi resident, was living in the mainland, worked for HMSA or Blue Cross—she worked for the “blues” in California—so Blue Cross/Blue Shield— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: And she was a claim—medical claims adjustor. She had worked with doing disability appeals. So, I brought her in on a temporary contractual basis and we’re done— we’ve already did a recruitment for the cleric—for the Claims Adjustor III. Unfortunately, again, that’s another position really unique. You need to have specific work comp experience for 3 years. We had 9 applicants—none of them met the MQ’s. So, what I did was I reallocated the position down for recruitment, so we’re running two—it just closed yesterday. We’re running two recruitments for a Claims Adjustor I, which requires 3 months of experience and a Claims Adjustor II, which requires a year of experience. And I’m—I should be getting those numbers this afternoon. When I checked on—last week Friday, we had a pretty good pool. CHR. NAHUINA: Nice. MR. BRILHANTE: So, I’m thinking once we get those numbers, we get it all good to go—I already have the interview committee set up, where we’re going to work through questions. I’m hoping we can bring somebody in, if not the middle of January—I don’t know if that’s practical stst with the holidays—at least for September 1 we should have somebody—September 1. Page 32 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 One of the things I like is one of the applicants is a current County employee. So, that could be a really quick transition. And the other applicant who met the MQ’s is our current contract worker. So, that’s another one I could move—it would be a really quick transition. So, and the reason for me, it’s really concerning is because our one stand-alone claims adjustor who’s in the back there holding down the fort—has already given me notice that her doctor feels that she’s undergoing too much stress, so he’s authorized her to take leave because of her stress- related concerns. So, I’ve been really—I’m just going to tell you—I’ve been really, really accommodating. Without her there’s nobody. CHR. NAHUINA: Sure, sure. MR. BRILHANTE: I’ve been really accommodating. As a matter of fact, she’s been out the last 2 days. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: And I reassigned some of our clerical staff here, to work to help support and pick up some of that workload from workers comp. So—and, like I said, I said this when I accepted this job and I’ll say it to this day—I have an incredible staff. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: And it’s just—it’s amazing how receptive and how supportive they are to ensuring that our department keeps going. And not only does their job, but we do our job at a really high level. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: And they’re committed to the department. And I would be remiss if I didn’t keep reminding myself of just how fortunate I am. And sometimes I sit here guilty because you guys talk about good things the department did and—me, I may have directed, but I didn’t do it. It’s because I have such a great staff. And so, yesterday we had our Christmas party luncheon—and, again, as I—I thought we had a lot of fun. The staff was really receptive—we got back and we got a lot of e-mails of appreciation. So—and I think my philosophy, what I share with them and I—as much as I can— is a job is a job. There’s priorities in life. One of—and, especially, when we’re in the holiday season and we’re going through this—to me, I stated to them because I think, I don’t want—I want them to hear it coming from the boss. And what I want—the message I’d like—I need to send to them and I feel is important is that—we’re all in this together. We spend a significant amount of time here in the office together. But at the end of the day, family is first— Page 33 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: Family is foremost. And I want to—I often—I always tell them my door’s open if there’s ever a situation where you need help, you need this, or you need that—please, don’t hesitate. And I think from what I see—and, Glynis, you can provide input if you feel differently but—from what I see is that the staff appreciates that. And I see—I think it translates to the amount of work and the quality of work and just how accommodating they are to me and to our request—and it’s a two-way street. So, I appreciate that. And, again, I just wanted to put that on the record. So, that’s basically the end of my report. I’m happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have. MS. NAMAHOE: I actually want to bring this up now. And I want to thank you for the report. It’s a request for the next quarterly report. Since we’re—I know that you just came through— what, December you had negotiations with the rest of the Employers and July’s coming up in a few months, and you’re going into the next year, and we’re also understanding this $20 million shortfall before there’s the—let’s just call it $25 million shortfall, since you’re going to need to add another 20—another quarter— MR. BRILHANTE: I was talking about more like a 12. MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, okay— MR. BRILHANTE: Let’s go in the other direction. MS. NAMAHOE: Let’s go 30—let’s go the other way—$32 million shortfall. To help us understand, one of the last pieces of information that your previous HR director had shared with us was the—for the actual tables required for the payroll for the County. Everybody had to move a schedule lower—had to move a column over. MR. BRILHANTE: Correct. MS. NAMAHOE: She was not comfortable bringing more of that information forward. I don’t know how much of that was public record. But it went—it preceded immediately the transition of where we are today. So, my thought is if, I put that request now that will give you some time to train us and acquaint us in the future of quarterly reports so that we understand that that’s probably some of the burden you’re having to face as well. And we’d like to help us understand that additional burden that you have. Page 34 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 I mean, you’ve done a great job talking to us about the compliance pieces and a lot of the communication pieces, but we haven’t heard about that piece. And it’s been in the back of my mind. So, I’d like to ask you to bring it forward. MR. BRILHANTE: Okay. MS. NAMAHOE: Thanks. MR. BRILHANTE: I can, definitely, do that. And you actually triggered another area that I wanted to address, so I’m just going to briefly touch up on it. Labor negotiations—as you know, we have four unions that we deal with—HGEA, UPW, HFFA which is fire, and SHOPO. SHOPO and UPW, two years ago entered into a 4-year agreement. So, we’re concluding the second year of that 4-year agreement. So, going forward we have two more years of contractual, harmonious relationships. Unfortunately, Fire and HGEA only entered into a 2-year agreement, so that collective bargaining union—that CBA—expires June 30 of 2019. So, both unions have declared across-the-board impasses. So they’re saying we’ve met enough with the Employer, we can’t agree so we’re going to the Labor Relations. They went to the Labor Relations Board and required that the—that further negotiations go through an arbitration. So, Fire—we’ve identified our arbitrator. We’re set for arbitration the first week of January— thth well, the first full working week of January the 7 through the 11. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: Arbitrator’s coming from Seattle. All the parties are set—exhibits, witnesses, everything’s all set in place. So, I was selected to be on the Employer’s Panel for that arbitration, so it’d be myself, a representative from the union side, and then the arbitrator. So, we’re the arbitration panel—so, I’ll be serving in that capacity going forward. Primary issues of concern—outstanding areas where we can’t enter an agreement—a settlement relates to cost items—salary increases, percentage of salary increases, and some other increases as it relates to night alarm differential, increase in meal allowance—those type of cost items because of our looming budget issues, we haven’t been able to agree. My marching orders with the Administration is—no raises. Zero, zero raises—no increase in cost items. And so, it is what it is. That’s the mayor’s position. The other area—the only other really outstanding area is that regarding the ability—the authority for union members to wear like a union baseball cap on duty and stuff like that. So, more lower hanging fruit, but it’s important to the union to—and their members to allow for that. So, that’s where we’re, kind of, at. I think that negotiation, again, is going to come down to a numbers issue. We retained an expert—Patrick Kilbourne to come in and do a financial assessment of Page 35 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 what our ability to pay is. So, he’s on board. All five of State—and then the four other counties are all sharing in his—the expenses, especially with retaining him going forward. So, he’ll be there and then each of the various county finance directors will be testifying as well. So, we should get a ruling in about 60 days after the hearings and we’ll see what happens. HGEA—all of the units of HGEA from 2 all the way to 13, now 14—have declared impasses. So, for the County, fortunately, the first one up is Unit 9, which is state nurses. We don’t have to—we’re not a party to that because we don’t have any state nurses; HSTA—impasse; the college university of professors and the administrative staff—impasse. So, fortunately, three of those we’re not directly involved. But Units 3 and 4 and 13 and 14—3 and 4 are our HGEA white collar workers. Unit 13 are our HGEA supervisors and Unit 14 are all our water safety officers. So, those are the four units that have declared an impasse. And what makes it unique this time, why I’m bringing it up is because this is the first time HGEA is saying they’re not going to negotiate collectively. They going have each unit go separately. So, we’re probably going to have to retain a separate arbitrator for each unit. MS. NAMAHOE: For each one. Oh, they going wear you down. CHR. NAHUINA: Yeah. MR. BRILHANTE: This is the concern is—obviously, I mean, it’s not that far out of the realm of possibility that if you have a separate arbitrator for each unit, the arbitrator might come up with separate decisions for HGEA. So, you might have some units getting a very small percentage raise, no raise. You might get some with very high raise. There’s no reasonableness, there’s no continuity between the two because, I mean—Judge Chillingworth will attest to this, is when I used to go to Family Court, man, we wanted to have a certain judge and we didn’t want to have certain other judges ‘cause we knew the decisions could be different. But that’s going to be the same thing that’s what an arbitrator is. CHR. NAHUINA: Sure. MR. BRILHANTE: So, that’s what’s—what makes this unique and interesting. CHR. NAHUINA: Let’s see how this plays out. MR. BRILHANTE: So, I’ll keep you guys posted on that. CHR. NAHUINA: Thank you. MS. NAMAHOE: I look forward to that. MR. BRILHANTE: I didn’t realize just how much fun that was—the negotiations. MR. TAM: Sounds like fun. Chess match. Page 36 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MS. NAMAHOE: Checkmate. CHR. NAHUINA: Thank you. I don’t have any other questions. MR. TAM: I have none. CHR. NAHUINA: Thank you for that report. Excellent. That takes us to the end to look at our th next meeting. We already did that. It’ll be in February 20 (sic.)—we already made that decision. At the time—I guess—we’re done with everything— MR. BRILHANTE: Can I make a request as it relates to the next meeting? CHR. NAHUINA: Absolutely. MR. BRILHANTE: I mean, it relates to the agenda of the next meeting? CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: Because we’re going to be doing that hearing— CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. BRILHANTE: I would request that we remove the director’s report for the next meeting, and then I’ll give it at the next quarterly meeting—if that—if you’re comfortable? CHR. NAHUINA: Absolutely. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Sure. CHR. NAHUINA: Yes. MR. TAM: We need a motion for that? MR. YOSHIMOTO: No. MR. TAM: Okay. CHR. NAHUINA: Thank you. All right. MS. NAMAHOE: And you will include information— MR. BRILHANTE: (Inaudible.) MS. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Sir. Page 37 Merit Appeals Board December 19, 2018 MR. BRILHANTE: I'll talk to you more about it, too. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: Specifically, what you would like to see. MS. NAMAHOE: What she started and then just the continuity of that. It's really up to you to educate us. Schedule Next Meeting Date (Item 9) The next Merit Appeals Board meeting will be held on Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at the Council Chambers. Adjournment (Item 10) CHR. NAHUINA: Do I hear a motion to— MS. NAMAHOE: I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Second. CHR. NAHUINA: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn this meeting. All in favor say, "Aye." All those opposed? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Namahoe, Tam, and Chair Nahuina–4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAHUINA: Meeting adjourned (12:37 p.m.). Happy Holidays, everybody. Thank you. MS. NAMAHOE: Happy Holidays. R-./.ectfully s bmitte , ntt Glyn's Yama a, Secretary-Reporter APPROVED: goat* David K. S. Nahuina, Chair Merit Appeals Board Page 38