Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-21 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MTN11TFC September 21, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. Office of the Corporation Counsel — Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commissioners Wayne T. Joseph, Acting Chair ( "Chair") present: Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Patricia Provalenko, Commissioner Melvyn K. Sakaguchi, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Also present: Michael R. Ben, Director of the Civil Service Department Ronald K. Takahashi, Deputy Director of the Civil Service Department Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 MEETING The Chair requested that this item be deferred to after the presentation by the Civil Service Department. All members were agreeable to this. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members of the public present. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There was no addendum or supplemental agenda. 5. PRESENTATION AND QUESTION /ANSWER SESSION BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT The Chair introduced Michael Ben and Ronald Takahashi, who were there to represent the Civil Service Department. Mr. Ben, the director of the Civil Service Department, was requested to give an overview of his Department. He said they refer to themselves as the "central personnel agency" for the County. Civil Service is responsible for the recruiting, examining, ranking, and referral of qualified applicants to the various County departments, which then do the actual interviewing and decision - making on hiring. Civil Service is responsible for all phases of human resource management, which includes health and safety, recruitment and examination, employee and labor relations, general training for departments, and to some degree, strategic planning. They also do the "classification process," which is studying the duties and responsibilities of positions and deciding upon the appropriate pay for particular positions. Mr. Ben said there are six County departments which have human resource personnel within them. Those personnel work with the Civil Service personnel in human resources. Another important responsibility of the Civil Service Department, which it received two years ago, is ensuring Equal Employment Opportunity. The Department is responsible for ensuring compliance with all the federal and state Fair Employment and anti - discri mination laws as they apply to the public. All services provided by the County must be provided to everybody equally, to the disabled as well as to immigrants who may not understand English. These members of the public are entitled to the same County services as everyone else. This is a requirement under federal law. In addition, if the County puts on programs, such as recreational or outreach programs, the disabled are entitled to equal access to the programs along with everyone else. Civil Service has one employee, who is doing a great job, assigned to this area. Mr. Ben said this was the overview of his Department, in a nutshell. Mr. Joseph asked how many Civil Service employees the County has. Mr. Ben said the County has about 2,800 employees, of which 2,400 to 2,500 are Civil Service positions. Mr. Joseph asked how many employees the Civil Service Department had, and Mr. Ben said they have 26 positions. Mr. Joseph explained that the COGC had come up with additional questions for the Department of Civil Service, which started at "g" on the agenda, and requested that Mr. Ben address those questions. g. Incentives for employees. Mr. Ben said there is an annual employee award program, which recognizes the best employees nominated that year. It includes a recognition ceremony with a luncheon or dinner, and all the nominees receive a $100 savings bond. The eventual winners receive $250. There is also a service award program, which recognizes years of service for employees. After an employee has worked 5 years, he /she gets $25; at 10 years, $50; at 15 years, $75; at 20 years, $200; at 25 years, $250; at 30 years, $300, and it continues at $50 every five years if they don't retire after that. He has heard that employees look forward to this award. There is also a "suggestions" award program, which rewards employees who come up with ideas that save money, or other good ideas. If savings to the County is involved, the employee could receive up to 20% of what the County saves. Otherwise, the employee could receive $15 to $500, based on 2 a table of award. This program has not been utilized much, though from time to time they publicize that it is available. He has seen only three of these awards given in his 18 years with the County. He does not know whether this is because people are not making suggestions or because they don't know about the award. Mr. Sakaguchi asked how Civil Service publicizes the award, and Mr. Ben said they issue memos from time to time and also print it in the monthly newsletter, which goes to every employee. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether there is a Whistle Blower protection provision and what the protection is. Mr. Ben said there is a law they follow on this, and the protection is basically that no retaliation is allowed by the department or people involved. Mr. Sakaguchi said he has read where Whistle Blower employees become ostracized by the employer and given "lousy assignments." Mr. Ben said if there is retaliation, the employee would need to file a suit, though most people would not want to go through the hassle and years of a courtroom battle. Mr. Ben said that under the current administration, retaliation would not be tolerated and would be recognized for what it is. If it came to his attention, he would immediately report it to the mayor and seek his guidance. Mr. Sakaguchi said "you guys" should be in charge of stopping the retaliation, not the mayor. Mr. Ben said that like all governmental agencies, their powers are described; and it is not within their power to force other departments to do something. Civil Service can inform departments that they are violating the law, but it cannot force them to stop. If Civil Service cannot persuade a department to change something it is doing, it will report it to the mayor and work through the mayor. Ms. Nicholson said that the COGC has spoken to other departments, who expressed the need for a way to reward employees who do not call in sick, or who go above and beyond their duties. They have given things like a cash bonus or time off work. She asked whether departments have any flexibility, beyond the current system, in recognizing or rewarding employees. Mr. Ben said they do. The departments have the authority to implement whatever system they want. Civil Service would get involved if union negotiations were necessary, although generally the unions want everything equal across the board for employees. His Department would encourage incentive awards by other departments, but the departments would need to design and fashion the awards to target their own employees, or set up goals and objectives applicable to the various divisions of work. A blanket award system, applicable to both a field laborer and a division chief, would not work. Ms. Nicholson mentioned that there seemed to be a morale issue with some departments. Some departments would not find giving employees a day off a workable incentive, because they are already so short- handed. She asked whether departments could budget for awards and build it into their department, or whether they would have to negotiate with the unions to put in place their own award system. Mr. Ben said they would probably need to do both. The award would need to be funded somehow, possibly through a department's savings, if permitted. He said he was not sure of the fiscal requirements. As for the Civil Service Department, it has a small budget for an attendance program. Small awards, such as movie tickets or gift cards, are given out each month for attendance, and the employees seem to enjoy these awards. The budget is about $500. He said that most of his employees, however, are exempt from the unions, so he does have to deal with the unions on the award. Ms. Nicholson asked whether each department would have to deal with the unions, and Mr. Ben said yes. If there were to be a County -wide incentive program, it would have to be very general. Departments would still need to come up with their own objectives or criteria to be met, or ways to measure. They would need to determine what a field laborer would have to achieve to be awarded a $300 certificate, for example, as well as what a division chief would have to achieve. One goal could not be applicable to both. The Civil Service Department could provide assistance in dealing with the unions, if necessary. Mr. Ben explained that his Department is responsible for dealing with union issues and labor relations. They are responsible for negotiating with the unions on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. They sit at the bargaining table for all County employees to develop the master contract, and departments are allowed to negotiate their separate needs, which could include their incentive programs. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether the County hires a negotiator or uses Mr. Ben when negotiating contracts with the unions. Mr. Ben said that under state law, all counties and the State count as one employer, for multi - employer bargaining. A negotiator is not hired. He said he sits at the table representing the County and speaks and makes decisions for Hawaii County. Each jurisdiction has someone like him to do this, which means he and his counterparts need to collectively decide what their position will be on the pay raises and benefits, subject to ratification. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether Mr. Ben and his peers negotiate the preliminary agreement, and the mayors and unions ratify them. Mr. Ben said they reach a tentative agreement, which the union takes to the members for approval, and the counties take to the respective councils for approval and budgeting. The employees or the councils could reject the agreement or not fund the agreement, and they would have to go back to the table. Mr. Sakaguchi asked about the non -cost items, and Mr. Ben said those are still subject to ratification, although they do not need Council approval. There was a recent change in the law such that even if cost items are not approved, they can still be implemented. Mr. Sakaguchi said that some departments have said they would like to reward employees for good attendance or for not taking sick leave by giving some kind of time off for them. He asked Mr. Ben's opinion on this. Mr. Ben said his opinion is that employees should not be rewarded for coming to work, because that is what they are supposed to do. However, the reality is that many do not come, and something should be done about this. The normal course would be to discipline an employee; however, there have been numerous arbitration decisions that prevent departments from taking disciplinary action. In addition, the unions have rejected any kind of program the County in has come up with for taking action. Mr. Ben said that some hospitals had a monetary award system for employees who did not take sick leave for something like six months. A result was that employees were coming to work sick because they were close to getting the award. So this system could work, but it could also "go the other way." Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether, when the County outsources a service, it sets standards for the contractors to observe for the contractors' employees, and Mr. Ben said no. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether, if the County decided to turn over all billing and collections to a bank which had bid on and won a contract to do so, the bank could follow its own policies in terms of employee benefits, vacation, sick leave, etc. Mr. Ben said yes, currently, but if the County wanted to, it could put certain conditions in the contract. For example, he said he believed the City and County of Honolulu has a requirement that bidders have a sexual harassment program in place in order for them to bid and be awarded. The Chair asked that they return to the agenda. h. Flexibility or authority for supervisors to hire quickly. Mr. Ben said he was not sure what was being asked on this item. He said to keep in mind that there is a Civil Service system, a merit principle system, in place. For the 65 to 70 years that the system has been in place and in process, its purpose has been to protect and prevent nepotism. In doing so, a system of equal opportunity to work for the government has developed so that it's not "who you know" that gets a person a job with the County. The County has to go through the process of announcing an opening to the public and conducting the examinations. Once Civil Service has a list of approved applicants, it is good for a year. If, for example, they have a current list of Planner applicants and the Planning Department tells them there is an opening, they will turn the list over to the Planning Department upon its request by the next day. If there is an immediate need and there is no current list of applicants, the department is allowed to hire on a temporary basis until such time a list is available, and then they would have to hire a permanent employee from the list. Ms. Provalenko asked whether a temporary hire could go on the list, and Mr. Ben said if that person applied and qualified, yes. The only requirement in hiring on a temporary basis is that the person meet the minimum qualifications. The temporary hire would have to go through the regular civil service process to be placed on the eligible list. Mr. Joseph asked whether the fire fighters and police officers are in the Civil Service, and Mr. Ben said yes. Mr. Joseph said the Fire Department is lagging behind in recruits and that vacancies are not filled in a timely manner. He asked if this was because of inadequate funding for recruitment classes. Mr. Ben said there are a variety of reasons. The recruitment class has to be of a certain size, something like 12 -15 recruits. This is for the 5 police as well. Vacancies may be occurring more rapidly. The Police Department has gone from one class per year to two. Mr. Joseph asked whether Civil Service provided the testing and ranking of the police applicants, and Mr. Ben said yes. In addition, they do the physical agility testing, which is part of the Civil Service exam, for both the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Ben said he was surprised when Mr. Joseph said that the Fire Department had difficulty filling positions, as his Department works with Fire on getting applicants and setting up schedules according to when Fire wants to start a recruit class. He said they have no want for fire fighter applicants. On the other hand, the Police Department used to receive 300 to 400 applications, but all counties are now having difficulty getting police officer applicants, which is partly due to the Police Department's very stringent requirements on who they'll accept as officers. About 50% of applicants are screened out because of their background checks and psychological testing results. Mr. Sakaguchi asked who performs the psychological testing, and Mr. Ben said the Police Department does. They have a person on contract who does it. Ms. Stremski asked whether Fire personnel also receive psychological testing, and Mr. Ben said that currently only the Police do. He does not know if the Fire Department is considering this, but Civil Service would allow them to do so if they wanted to. However, there is always the need to be careful about conforming to the ADA. Certain things are not allowed to be done before an employment offer is given, such as getting into a person's medical history. Under the ADA, mental illness may be a protected disability, which means psychological testing cannot be performed to undercover it. Mr. Joseph asked whether any County department was in critical shortage of civil service personnel. Mr. Ben said it depends on the definition of "critical," but there has been a shortage of engineers for years. He has not seen any real negative effect from not filling engineer positions, because there are ways of getting the work done, through temporary hires or contracting out. If something is very important, it will get done. Ms. Stremski asked whether the shortage of engineers was due to the pay scale, and Mr. Ben said that was the primary reason. However, if the County's pay scale is too low, they are authorized to add an additional amount so they can recruit. As examples, engineers as well as water treatment operators, who run the facilities for the groundwater in Waimea, are positions which are given additional amounts. Mr. Sakaguchi asked what an "additional amount" is and whether it is forever. Mr. Ben said it is forever and only gets reduced if the employee leaves the position. As long as the employee stays in the position, he /she will continue to get the additional amount, which might also be adjusted if the County finds the pay is still under the market. 31 Mr. Sakaguchi asked what a beginning engineer is paid, and Mr. Ben said he did not know offhand—he would need a salary schedule. Ms. Stremski asked whether the additional pay was an incentive to draw engineers to Hawaii, since the cost of living here is higher than on the mainland. Mr. Ben said the additional amount is strictly based on the outside market. Also, the State and the counties try to match their pay so that they are not competing with each other at the public sector level. i. How to fill positions in West Hawaii to avoid having East Hawaii employees drive to Kona and incur mileage and per diem costs. Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Ben whether there are East Hawaii employees who have to commute to work, and Mr. Ben said he does not know where the employees live. However, he said the County has the same problem as employers in West Hawaii: there are no good applicants out there. Ms. Stremski asked whether this is because of the pay scale, or whether applicants were unqualified. Mr. Ben said there are just not many applicants. Ms. Provalenko said West Hawaii has a shortage in the labor force. Mr. Ben said that applicants from Kona also do not want to work full -time or do not show up for work, especially water safety officers. But he reiterated that the County's problem is the same problem the private employers in Kona have. People are just not applying for jobs there. Mr. Joseph asked whether the Civil Service Department has a West Hawaii division, and Mr. Ben said no. However, people can pick up announcements and applications at the Kona Mayor's Office, as well as from the County website. The Hilo office will also mail them to people if requested. His employees also travel to Kona to give the Civil Service examinations on that side. j. Orientation for new employees. Mr. Ben said they started doing this again about three months ago. However, the employee assigned to this is taking a long -term leave of absence, so the Department needs to figure out how to keep it going. Mr. Joseph asked what the major issues are, or major focus is, for new employees. Mr. Ben said the orientation deals with what employment with the County means, including the benefits, policies, and procedures. The orientation is general, because they are dealing with all employees from all departments. He expects each department to give its own department - specific orientation. The orientation by Civil Service is more general in scope, dealing with the County's organization, general benefits, policies, and health fund and retirement benefits. Ms. Stremski asked whether the County has a booklet for new hires, delineating the code of conduct. Mr. Ben said no. Mr. Sakaguchi asked Ms. Stremski whether she thought there should be such a booklet for new hires, and Ms. Stremski said that when she worked at the hospital, each department head went through the booklet with employees and had them sign an 7 agreement that they would conduct themselves as much as possible in the manner described. This might be something for the County to consider. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether this would need to be negotiated with the union, and Mr. Ben said they would need to consult with the union. Mr. Ben explained that hospitals are different in the sense that they are a homogenous group. The County is not—it has everything from laborers up to high -level engineers within one department. Each department is responsible for promulgating its own rules. Mr. Ben said that there is an Ethics Code which employees are bound by. Mr. Takahashi said that he used to do the employee orientation for the County about 15 years ago. He would provide all new employees with a copy of the County's Code of Ethics. He said he is unsure on whether that is still being done, but he will follow up and start it up again if it is not. He used to pass the Code out and explain to employees what they should or should not do regarding gifts and equipment, etc. Mr. Takahashi said the training program went stagnant for awhile but is starting up again, and he will make sure the ethics handout is a part of it. Mr. Ben clarified that when he spoke about orientation and the general policies and procedures, the Code of Ethics is to be a part of that. Mr. Sakaguchi asked where drug testing comes into the picture. Mr. Ben said drug testing is done for all employees who come under the federal law. This includes CDL drivers, fighter fighters and police officers, and the testing is random. Mr. Ben said the COGC needs to understand and be aware that public employees are protected by both the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution in regard to the right to privacy. There is a right to privacy law which states that the government shall not invade peoples' privacy. Courts have ruled that drug testing is an invasion of privacy. The private sector can drug test its employees, but government employers are subject to constitutional restraints. Court cases have ruled that police officers, fighter fighters, and CDL drivers may be drug- tested because of catastrophic events that could happen during their work. The County cannot give drug tests to all employees who drive cars, because the general public also drives cars. Public employees are protected by the privacy provisions of both the federal and state constitutions. Ms. Nicholson asked whether it was the responsibility of the Civil Service Department to orient a new employee who may be a brand new supervisor on how to supervise people, or whether Civil Service's orientation is purely on County policies and benefits. Mr. Ben said he would not be able to cover this issue in one session. They are in the process of trying to identify the core skills and knowledge needed by supervisors in order to fashion a course to help train and develop those skills. However, it is up to the hiring department, through the selection process, to pick someone who possesses those supervisory skills. The best worker may not be the best supervisor, as different skills are required. Ms. Nicholson asked whether Mr. Ben felt it was a department's responsibility to make sure its employees were adequately trained. Mr. Ben said yes, but that Civil Service will do what it can to help. Mr. Joseph asked how long Civil Service's orientation took, and Mr. Ben said four hours. Mr. Joseph asked when the orientation was held and whether new employees are required to attend. Mr. Takahashi said that currently it held once a month, on the last Wednesday of each month, during work hours. It is scheduled in Hilo and Kona on alternating months. Employees are required to attend, and departments are informed that employees must attend the orientation within 90 days of hire. Mr. Joseph asked, since they had restarted the program three months ago, how long the lapse was prior to those three months, and Mr. Ben said it had been years, from 1992 to three months ago. Mr. Ben said that for ten of those years, they were not allowed to have a training officer and were not authorized to fill the position. Departments were told they could set up their own orientation. Mr. Takahashi said that although there was a 13 -year gap without a trainer, he would do the training himself when a department indicated a need. Though the program was not structured at that time, he would do it every so often and fit it in when there was a need. In addition, he performed the training for every police and fire recruit class. Other departments would call him if they needed training done. He said that although they did not have a structured program during that time, training was still done, and they intend to keep it going every month now, even though the employee assigned to this is on extended leave. Mr. Joseph asked whether it was written somewhere that all County employees need to go through orientation, or whether it was a policy; and Mr. Takahashi said it is a Civil Service policy. Mr. Ben said that they sent out a memo or circular to the effect that there is a program, that it is held once a month, and employees are required to attend within 90 days of hire. Mr. Sakaguchi said this could be made a recommendation. Mr. Takahashi said there is also a checklist for departments to follow with new employees. The list includes the various issues which need to be discussed with each employee, including going over again the issues covered in the general orientation. Mr. Ben said he wanted to mention that at one point, previous to the trainer they have now, they had a trainer who worked with them for three to four years. She worked on a leadership course that all fire fighter supervisors went through. It was one day per week for six weeks and covered various supervisory aspects and duties. His Department is trying to develop this class again. They did not have property rights to the course given by the previous trainer. Ms. Provalenko asked whether they received feedback from the departments about the course and how many attended. Mr. Ben said the feedback was always positive, and he could get the attendance if needed. M Mr. Ben said they also experimented with e- learning for employees, but many would not show up, or the departments would not give them time off. They have had problems with departments not allowing employees time during work to attend. k. Out - sourcing projects rather than hiring more employees. Mr. Ben said there is nothing to prevent out - sourcing, but certain requirements would need to be followed. (A break was taken from 11: 05 a. m. to 11:09 a. m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order) Mr. Ben said there are parameters concerning out - sourcing. There was a 1995 or 1996 Hawaii Supreme Court case concerning the landfill at Puuanahulu. The County had contracted out the building and operation of this landfill, and the Supreme Court ruled that because it was historically a civil service job, the County could not contract it out. They would need a specific law exempting those workers from the civil service, similar to how county attorneys and department heads are exempt. Act 90 states that if the services can be done as well as or better than a civil servant doing it, and at a lower cost, then it can be contracted out. Act 90 sunsets next June, so the County needs to get it extended or made permanent. The parameter is if someone can do a job better at equal or less cost, it can be contracted out. Also, if civil servants never did perform a particular job, it can be contracted out. The Court has said that this provision covers current services and any future services which may develop. Mr. Ben said this leaves a gray area, since future services could not have been done by civil servants. There is another exemption which says if it cannot be predicted how much time is involved to produce a product, it can be contracted out. This means a lot of engineering projects are contracted out, even though the County has engineers whose duties encompass the work. 1. Implementation of a payroll lag. Mr. Joseph stated that the COGC is considering recommending a five -day stagger to the current payroll, to be in line with the State's system. Mr. Ben asked why, and Mr. Joseph explained that sometimes hourly employees send their time sheets in early and are overpaid, which generates more paperwork to get the County reimbursed. A lag would help alleviate this problem. Mr. Ben said that the State had problems which the County does not have. The County works very well with its employees in collecting money when there is an overpayment situation. The controller works with the employee to devise a payback schedule, and there have not been issues concerning this. A payroll lag has been fiercely objected to by the unions, and there is a detailed history on how the State managed to achieve this. Mr. Joseph asked whether Mr. Ben's position was that "the County is doing an adequate job, don't change it." Mr. Ben said that if the Finance Department wants this lag, it wouldn't be told no. However, they would need to sit down with the unions. Mr. Joseph asked whether the COGC should recommend the payroll lag, and Mr. Ben said that was the COGC's purview. 10 Mr. Sakaguchi said the lag was recommended because the COGC was told that many corrections need to be made, and it was a humbug for the payroll staff. Mr. Ben said he agreed that paperwork is involved. Ms. Nicholson asked Mr. Ben to address the issue in relationship to response number 5 in his letter, regarding reevaluating and retooling the FRESH HR/Payroll system. Mr. Ben said that although he is not too familiar with all of the details, the FRESH system has caused the Civil Service Department a tremendous amount of overtime. His Department has spent two years and over $50,000 in overtime. Three to four employees have been working extensive overtime, tweaking this and that and making sure the program is running. Ms. Nicholson asked what the FRESH system is, and Mr. Ben said it is a payroll and accounting system which has a human resources component to it. Many of the payroll items in the system are triggered by what is inputted on the human resources side, in hiring, promotions, etc. The work is being done by human resources even though it is affecting payroll. Mr. Ben said the system has been so bad that he has had to create two additional positions to accommodate it, which seems to be the opposite of what computerization is about. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the system was imposed on him, and Mr. Ben said they were part of the selection process. He does not know where the communication broke down on what the system could do, but they have found out that it cannot do many of the things it was hoped it could do. Employees cannot be paid until someone on his staff does the input, and if that staff member is sick on pay day, no one will get paid. Mr. Takahashi explained that there are windows within pay periods to input information. The input has to be done within those three -day windows. The system is a current snapshot. They cannot input information in it today for tomorrow. If a person gets promoted, there is a three -day window in which to input all the changes. Instead of providing human resources, they have been doing payroll auditing. They have turned into the payroll auditor for the County and have to audit each form for employees to get paid. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether the County bought the software or had it developed, and Mr. Ben said it was bought. It was supposed to be modified or tweaked to accommodate the County's needs. Ms. Nicholson asked how the system interfaces with the issue of mistakes and corrections needed on payroll forms, and whether it was all computer- based. She asked whether departments submit electronically to Civil Service their payroll forms, or whether they go to Finance. Mr. Ben said that payroll for employees in which nothing has happened does not come through Civil Service. Those are just time sheet entries. The problem is in cases where an employee has been transferred, or has gone on leave without pay, or has been promoted—anything that involves a change in pay. There is a 11 significant amount of this which goes on, and the payroll lag deals with the issue of overpaying employees. The following further questions were asked: Ms. Nicholson asked whether the leave forms go through Civil Service, and Mr. Ben said no. Leave forms are approved by department heads. If the COGC wanted to pursue the lag, five days may not be enough time to catch the overpayments. They would need to ask the Finance Department about this. Ms. Nicholson asked whether Mr. Ben wanted the COGC to consider passing on this recommendation he gave them in May. Mr. Ben said yes, but they need to better understand what the system does. The only people who really know the system are the payroll people. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the payroll people had made the recommendation in his letter, and Mr. Ben said no, it was Civil Service's response because their needs were not being met. They have not been able to get the reports they want and have had to request two new positions just to handle this new aspect of their work. Though contractors would say the system is running like it is supposed to, there is something wrong with it. They need to jump through hoops to get what they want. Mr. Joseph asked the commissioners if they had any further questions. Ms. Nicholson asked whether Mr. Ben had any other recommendations, since his May response, that he would like the COGC to consider. Mr. Ben said he believes a cultural change is needed in terms of government operations. He feels that supervisors and managers are often not accountable for what they do. They look to department heads for answers and are not taking responsibility, and this should change. His department is working towards this with their strategic planning process. Part of their leadership training incorporated the idea of being responsible and honorable. Mr. Ben said that one of his pet peeves is that most supervisors do not have disciplinary authority —they need to go to the department head, and this does not create a healthy environment. Supervisors need to be able to control their operations. Things have become better with the current administration—departments are more responsible and accountable, and Big Brother is not telling them they can't do this or that. However, the departments need to be able to spread that down to the lower levels. Mr. Sakaguchi said that the issue has come up of money being set aside for professional development and training opportunities. If a percentage of the operating budget should be set aside for this purpose, he asked if Mr. Ben felt the money should be centralized with Civil Service or left within each department. Mr. Ben felt it should be left with each department. He felt each department should be accountable for its own operations and have responsibility. He wants to stay away from being a gatekeeper. On the issue of training, they offered training on conflict management, in addition to supervisory skills and the required training, but departments did not send them employees to train. Putting aside money for this will not make employees come. 12 Mr. Sakaguchi said the COGC was concerned about being able to send employees to mainland conferences to get new ideas and strategies, and that travel expenses were always a problem with the departments. Mr. Ben said it lies in the individual department. After no further questions, Mr. Joseph thanked Mr. Ben and Mr. Takahashi for coming. (They left the meeting at 11:34 a.m.) 6. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON ITEMS TO ADD TO FINAL REPORT BASED ON PRESENTATION BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved that the COGC recommend there be a mandatory new employee orientation program within 90 days of employment. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said this seemed to be the Civil Service Department's biggest weakness. Ms. Stremski said employees should be told what is expected of them. Ms. Garson said that for the record, employees do get this orientation on a department - specific level. Ms. Nicholson said the motion could be amended to clarify that they are recommending formal orientation, provided by the Civil Service Department, but Mr. Sakaguchi said it should not be centralized to that Department. Mr. Joseph said they could fine -tune the recommendation later. Vote: All commissioners present voted in favor of the motion. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to recommend that the information about employee awards and incentives be more widely publicized and distributed to all employees. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said this information may already be provided to all County employees, as Mr. Ben mentioned them looking forward to certain incentives. The possible weakness seemed to be in the suggestion award program, although it is explained on page 8 of the Employee Awards handout. Mr. Joseph said the Employee Awards document should be part of the new hire orientation packet, along with the Code of Ethics, and Ms. Nicholson agreed. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on the motion. Mr. Sakaguchi said that they learned today that random drug testing can be done on County police officers, fire fighters, and CDL drivers. This contradicted the statement the COGC received earlier. Mr. Joseph pointed out that it was the Solid Waste division chief of the Public Works Department who wanted to be able to drug test the CDL drivers. Mr. Sakaguchi queried whether there needs to be in- service training for supervisors. Mr. Joseph asked Ms. Garson whether the CDL drivers receive random drug testing, and she said she did not know. However, any supervisor could call Mr. Ben or Mr. Takahashi to ask them about it. 13 Ms. Nicholson said she got the impression that supervisors do not know they can pick up the phone and call someone at Civil Service like that. The issue seemed to be that they did not know that there is help or free advice available from Civil Service. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to recommend that it be mandatory for all supervisors to attend a workshop on their responsibilities, their authority, and the information sources available to them in the County. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said this recommendation was vague to him and questioned whether the workshop would be a one -time thing or continue annually for supervisors. Ms. Provalenko felt it should be annual, to bring people up to speed. It could be a shorter session for those who received it before, and longer for new supervisors. Mr. Sakaguchi said he would recommend that the Civil Service Department develop such a course to be offered to supervisors on an annual basis. Civil Service can decide if they or the hiring department runs the course, but the goal is to have everyone informed of their duties, their authority, and who to call if they need consultation. Ms. Nicholson said they still need to decide whether this should be a one -time thing for supervisors or be required annually. Mr. Joseph said Civil Service should design the course and then decide how to implement it. He said he liked Mr. Ben's attitude that departments should handle things, but there needs to be consistency. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on the motion, and that the training should be annual and headed by the Civil Service Department. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to recommend that ' /z of 1% of the personnel costs in the budget be set aside for professional development activities. No one seconded the motion, so it died. Mr. Sakaguchi explained that he deferred this issue at the prior meeting because he wanted to review the budget. He figured out how much is allocated to each department and took 1 %, which was a high amount. So he went back and took 1/2% and it seemed more reasonable. He said he felt that half a percent of the amount allocated for personnel costs should be set aside for professional development, and he wanted it on the record that he did this. Ms. Nicholson said there was a potential recommendation from Mr. Ben, that supervisors need disciplinary power over their employees. She said it is not clear whether they have this power now and just do not know it. Ms. Garson said she believed Mr. Ben was saying that supervisors have the ability to make a recommendation to a department head about something, but ultimately in some cases the department head will not go along with it. Ms. Nicholson said she did not want a motion on this if it could be abused, but felt it should at least be part of the training for the supervisors. Mr. Sakaguchi suggested she amend it to make sure it is covered in training for supervisors, to inform them as to how much authority they have. Mr. Joseph said they could do that when going back and looking at the recommendations —they could be added to or deleted at that time. Ms. Garson volunteered to follow up with Mr. Ben on this, and whether it pertained to particular people or positions, or across the board. 14 Ms. Nicholson said another concern of Mr. Ben was the whole human resource payroll system, which was obviously frustrating his department. She wondered if there was a way to address this when Mr. Ben himself did not clearly understand it. Ms. Garson said Finance personnel would know about the system. She said she believed it was not only a payroll system but also had a purchasing element. The program encompasses multiple different aspects of the way the County functions. Mr. Ben may be having a problem with a specific part of the program, and not necessarily with the whole system. Ms. Provalenko mentioned that Mr. Ben's problem was on one aspect of payroll, while the other departments had the real problem of dealing with time sheets and employees filling them out ahead of time. Ms. Garson said she could ask someone from Finance to speak at the October 5 meeting about the payroll lag and FRESH system, as Data Systems was the only other department on that agenda. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to add Finance to the next agenda, to speak about a payroll lag and the FRESH system. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The Chair asked whether there was any further discussion on item 6 of the agenda. There being none, he moved the meeting back to agenda item 2. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2006, MEETING The Chair said he asked for a deferral on discussing this item because some things were missing from the minutes, and he did not want to hold up Mr. Ben and Mr. Takahashi. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to accept the minutes, and Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: The Chair referred the commissioners to page 3 of the minutes, wherein Mr. Sakaguchi was very upset with him about speaking to the newspaper. He said he did not want Mr. Sakaguchi's "upsetness" to be omitted, and he wanted the record to show what was said, which included Mr. Sakaguchi saying, "I'm really pissed off at you, who the hell do you think you are." The Chair stated that as he read the minutes, he wondered whether they were in violation of the Sunshine Law, for several reasons. The discussion of the newspaper article was not placed on the agenda, which is a requirement of the Sunshine Law. In addition, there was discussion on whether only the chair would be allowed to speak for the COGC, as well as on whether they should recommend that the reporter be reprimanded. None of those discussions were on the agenda. The Chair also said that it appeared to him in reading the minutes that some commissioners knew this topic was going to be discussed, which perhaps meant that someone had discussed it prior to the meeting. This also was possibly a violation of the Sunshine Law. He requested that the Corporation Counsel get an informal opinion from the Office of Information Practices on whether they were indeed in violation of the Sunshine Law. 15 Ms. Garson suggested they deal with the issues one at a time, starting with the omission of Mr. Sakaguchi's words from the minutes. The Chair said that would be okay, but he wanted the opportunity to address the Sunshine Law issue and did not see how to do so outside of approval of the minutes. Mr. Sakaguchi said that the Chair was right in that certain things were omitted and agreed they should be put back in. Ms. Stremski asked for "Commissioner" to be put after her name on page 1, if the minutes were to be changed. Mr. Sakaguchi said his name needed correcting on page 3. Ms. Garson passed out a verbatim transcript which had been made of the portion of the minutes the Chair said were omitted. She suggested the commissioners review this portion rather than have the secretary try to come up with the right language. If they approved the transcription, it could be inserted into the appropriate place in the minutes. It would be placed right after Mr. Kamelamela left the meeting and end right before the next agenda item. Ms. Nicholson indicated she felt the minutes met their purpose as they were and that they could just state that Mr. Sakaguchi was very upset with Mr. Joseph about talking to the press. The commissioners spent a few minutes reading the verbatim transcript. Mr. Sakaguchi said it was fine with him to include the verbatim transcript in the minutes. Ms. Nicholson said that not having been a party to the discussion, if the people involved wanted it verbatim, she had no objection. Ms. Garson pointed out there was a motion on the floor for approval of the minutes. It could either get voted down, or someone could move to amend the minutes, since inserting the verbatim section may not be a friendly amendment. Mr. Sakaguchi said that including the verbatim portion would add a lot of pages to the minutes. The Chair said that No. 24 of the Sunshine Law said that any board member or commissioner can ask that information be included that was excluded from the minutes, and that this is all he is doing. He said he did not feel the COGC had a choice on this. If a commissioner requested that it be included, it cannot be denied, as long as it was said. However, this may be moot if everyone agrees to the minutes as they are. Motion Amended: Ms. Nicholson moved to amend the minutes to include the verbatim portion. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. Mr. Sakaguchi said he would accept as a friendly amendment the insertion of the verbatim portion. Vote: All commissioners present voted in favor of approving the amended minutes with the insertion of the verbatim portion. The Chair said that for clarification, he just wanted an informal opinion by OIP on whether or not these issues should have been discussed at the last meeting at all. The matters were not agendized and the public did not know the COGC was going to discuss the article. The 16 Chair said that according to the rules, he could call OIP on his own but is trying to do this in a polite way. Ms. Garson said she would call OIP. The Chair asked if there was any motion to defer the rest of the items on the agenda, as Mr. Sakaguchi had to leave. Motion and Vote: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to defer the rest of the agenda to the next meeting. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and the Chair clarified that the motion was to defer items 7 through 14 of the agenda. All commissioners present voted aye. 15. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA Other than adding the Finance Department to the next agenda for further questioning, there were no further items added. 16. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 17. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting for October 5, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. at the conference room at the Hilo Department of Liquor Control, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, Hawaii. Ms. Garson asked who would be present for the October 5 meeting, and all but Mr Sakaguchi, who will be in Vietnam, indicated they could attend. 18. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Stremski moved to adjourn, Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: .%1)l L441 � Mary E. 4osson, Secretary 17