Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-21 Merit Appeals Board MinutesHilo, Hawaii Wednesday, September 21, 2011 A public hearing and the regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaii, was held in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawaii, on Wednesday, September 21, 2011. Present: Mr. Gary Yoshiyama, Chair Mr. Kenneth Rowe, Vice Chair Mr. Henry "Hank" Silva, Member Mr. Brian De Lima, Member Mr. Ronald K. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources Ms. Diane Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ms. Yumi Nakamura, Clerk III Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary- Reporter Chair Yoshiyama called the public hearing to order at 9:00 a.m. and stated that: This hearing is to consider for adoption amendments to Title II, Rules of the Civil Service Commission/Merit Appeals Board, of the Rules of the Department of Civil Service, County of Hawai i, Chapter 100 through Chapter 104, and to afford all interested persons the opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments orally or in writing to the Civil Service Commission or Director of Human Resources for consideration. A notice of this hearing which included a summary of the proposed amendments was published in the Hawaii Tribune - Herald and West Hawaii Today on August 14, 2011, and the proposed amendments have been on file for inspection at the Department of Human Resources, County of Hawai i, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawai i, and was available for mailing to any interested person who contacted the Board for a copy. There was no input from the public. Hawaii County is an EquaCOpportun%ty Provider andEmproyer. Ms. Noda stated that HRS 91 -3 allows the agency to consider all oral and written submissions, of which she believes there are none. Therefore, the Board can either make a decision at the public hearing or the business meeting. Chair Yoshiyama confirmed that no written testimonies had been received. Ms. Noda stated that they had discussed the amendment to Rule 100 -6 regarding meetings, and the original rule says regular meetings shall be on the third Tuesday of the month beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the HR conference room or at such other time and place as specified. Ms. Noda pointed out that right now the County Charter, Article X [H, Section 13 -20, requires that the time and place of all regular meetings of a board shall be in its adopted rules. There is a proposed possible Charter amendment for this section, but at this time, the Charter requirement is in place. Right now the rule specifies "in the conference room" of the department, and the Board is changing Civil Service to Human Resources. They also have the caveat "or at such other time, place, as may be specified by the Board," so the place could change if they have "as specified by the Board." The main consideration for the Board is what and when to specify as the regular meeting day. Ms. Noda's interpretation is that the Board needs a specific time to meet at a specific place rather than just say "time and place as they choose." Chair Yoshiyama noted for the record that the Board had previously voted to meet at 9:30 a.m., the third Wednesday of every month in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, so with the advice of counsel, based on Charter, that should be inserted into the rules rather than by making a policy decision. Ms. Noda noted the other proposed changes, such as changing the Department of Civil Service to Department of Human Resources, Civil Service Commission to Merit Appeals Board, etc. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to adopt the amendments to Title II, Rules of the Civil Service Commission/Merit Appeals Board, of the Rules of the Department of Civil Service, County of 2 /`N Hawai i, Chapter 100 through Chapter 104. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Rowe. Discussion: Chair Yoshiyama asked whether they insert now the date, time, and place. Ms. Noda responded that in Rule 100 -6, the original proposal was that the regular meetings would be on Tuesday. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to amend the day from Tuesday to Wednesday. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Rowe. Discussion: Ms. Noda noted that the rules would read "regular meetings of the Board shall be on the third Wednesday of every month, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, or at such other day, time, or place as specified by the Board." A vote was taken on the above motion, and the motion carried unanimously. A vote was subsequently taken on the previous motion (adopting the amendments), and the motion carried unanimously. The public hearing ended at 9:10 a.m. 3 A"'1. Chair Yoshiyama called the regular meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2011 MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the minutes of July 27, 2011 be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and unanimously carried. OLD BUSINESS A) Proposed amendments to Administrative Rules Chair Yoshiyama noted that action on the above had been taken care of at the public hearing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) Formulate procedures for annual evaluations of the Director of Human Resources Mr. Takahashi recalled that at the last meeting, the Board had asked for his goals and objectives for the department. He and Ms. Toriano met and developed documents containing the mission statement and goals for the Board's consideration. They reviewed the materials that were presented by Mr. De Lima and Mr. Silva and came up with a suggested recommendation that was "short and sweet." The Board recessed at 9:33 a.m. to review the document and reconvened at 9:35 a.m. Vice Chair Rowe noted that he didn't see anything about communication and policy development, to which Ms. Toriano explained that that could overlap into planning, prioritizing, organizing, problem solving, decision making, and leadership. When she thought about how they would measure each of these performance categories, she couldn't help but think that at some point, they are going to have to survey the users, the department directors. Therefore, in that 4 A01% in that survey, which hopefully is very generic, they can speak to any one of these performance categories as it relates to communications, policies, procedures, etc., so she left that as not so much a performance category, but a criteria in all of these. This may not be the actual form that's given, but whatever they use to survey should be reviewed by the Board to make sure they're asking the right questions for the Board to evaluate the director. Mr. De Lima commented that he has no problem with what Mr. Takahashi and Ms. Toriano prepared. The whole purpose of providing them with the EUTF form was to provoke thought about specific goals that the director could be judged by during the year. The process requires prioritization of goals that are not always equal, as there are some that are more important than others. If he had to think about something that he really doesn't like and that he wishes some attention was paid to, it would be the salary structure of cabinet members. When he was on the Council, Michael Ben proposed a tiered approach, which was eventually approved by the Council, of cabinet officials' salaries and then increasing salaries over time. For example, a new Corporation Counsel would start at a lower level pay and then over the years get stepped up. Mr. De Lima never liked that proposal and wishes it could be revisited. The Parks and Recreation director probably has the largest number of employees to supervise, and he's not in the top tier. He's in the secondary tier. While Mr. De Lima doesn't know how they could put it on the agenda, it's something that he would like revisited. However, in terms of the director's goals, he has no problem with everything that is being recommended. Mr. Takahashi addressed Mr. De Lima's concern about the salary structure. Per the Charter, the executive pay is now under the charge of the Salary Commission; and the Salary Commission develops the pay plan, not the Council anymore. Mr. Takahashi serves in an ex- officio capacity, and Ms. Menezes is the secretary- reporter to that commission as well. Right now, however, the Salary Commission does not have a quorum, as there are only two active members out of nine. The nominations are made through the Mayor's Office. The Merit Appeals Board could make recommendations to that board. Mr. De Lima commented that the handouts the Board received today were excellent. He has no problem with implementing this, and as Mr. Takahashi goes through the year, he may develop other goals that he could add for next 5 11.1 10"k. year. Mr. De Lima likes the concept of identifying obtainable goals that the director can be judged by, and he think it's much fairer to the director as well. Mr. Silva suggested putting a time element on this, maybe of three years, to see if it works, or if it needs modification, etc., and revisit the process. Ms. Toriano noted that when looking at the goals, in particular the last one on the second page, performance feedback from department directors is huge in evaluating the achievement of this goal. She would ask for the Board's assistance to come back and visit the process. Chair Yoshiyama stated that he certainly appreciates having clear goals and the evaluation form being straightforward and clear. He questioned the "how to" in getting feedback. The questionnaire that was given to all departments back in 2006 -2007 did not produce much feedback, so his question would be how do they get the information out and get feedback so that they can do the evaluation. Mr. Silva requested that the director and deputy design such a form, bring it back to the Board, and the Board will send it out to the department heads asking for a response by a certain date. Mr. De Lima suggested surveying the union people that are involved in negotiations. If the people Mr. Takahashi is negotiating with thinks he's a fair and evenhanded person, that's something the Board should take into account. Another thing he thought about was randomly selecting applicants who deal with the office and sending them a form. While the director is not actually the person they deal with, it might be good feedback for the office. Vice Chair Rowe agreed with doing something like that in terms of surveying the recruitment consumer, noting that only about 10 -15% are going to respond. Along the same note, he stated that there are free online surveys that can be emailed to people. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to adopt the evaluation process as outlined in their discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva. Discussion: P r Chair Yoshiyama noted that Mr. De Lima is specifically speaking to the County of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Mission Statement and Goals and Human Resources Director Fiscal Year Evaluation July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. That's what the Board is accepting and approving. Mr. Silva noted his suggestion about putting a time limit on it, of about three years, and then reviewing it again. Mr. De Lima stated that he considers that part of the process that they're adopting. Every year, the director needs to submit his goal of the year, but Mr. De Lima considers that part of the motion. Ms. Toriano asked if they could leave the process for another discussion to refine. The tool is what is being considered right now. Ms. Noda asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. De Lima and Chair Yoshiyama confirmed that the Board is adopting the evaluation tools entitled Human Resources Director Fiscal Year Evaluation July 1, 2011 -June 30, 2012 and County of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Mission Statement and Goals. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. B) Restructure Activities Report Chair Yoshiyama noted that the Board received a handout "Merit Appeals Board, Draft for Discussion, Human Resources Report." Mr. Takahashi stated that Ms. Toriano was tasked with working with the division heads to revamp the report subject to the Board's review and any subsequent changes. Mr. De Lima noted that the EEO /ADA report gives a percentage for inquiries and complaints but doesn't give a number. Percentages can be misleading; for example, it can be only two complaints. He would like to have a numerical understanding of what is being reported. The comments under website accessibility says "coordinated a review of external websites, provide a report to the Mayor Kenoi." Mr. De Lima has been very critical of, and has personally spoken to Mayor Kenoi, about the County's website. His 7 00*%,. /�N understanding of the problem is that there are certain requirements that need to conform, and he doesn't know if the EEO /ADA person is the person to assist in that, but he does know that when the department did the recruitment software system, somebody in the office went down and searched for the best available software. He knows the County has its technology people, but does Mr. Takahashi view the EEO /ADA person as the person to assist in the task of making websites accessible? She is the person attending the seminars on the mainland and is in the best position to know what's out there. Mr. Takahashi responded that he believes the EEO /ADA coordinator's task in this area is to advise the creators of the website as to whether it's compliant or not and to suggest to them where to go and what to get. However, she's not the person who's actually going to make the website compliant. Mr. De Lima agreed, but thought that she should coordinate and assist departments in making their websites accessible. He doesn't expect the ADA/EEO person to go there and do the actual work, but she's in the best position to know what's out there for them to utilize, as she has been going to those conferences. He had suggested to the Mayor to ask the EEO /ADA coordinator for assistance in improving the County's website accessibility, which was an impetus for the Mayor to ask her to review the external websites. Mr. De Lima is also interested in the data that's being recorded and thinks it should reflect the number of complaints. Ms. Toriano responded that what Mr. De Lima is speaking to is very problematic. The department's ADA division is extremely well versed in what is necessary to become compliant; and they do provide that education, but the loop that needs to be closed is what Mr. De Lima is describing. Knowing the departments have a deficit, how then does the division help to close that loop? Much of what is required, and this is not offered in the conference training, is IT specific. It's knowing what software is out there; it's knowing how to adapt and write programs to say "okay convert to;" and that's where, if that's the gap, the department will be working on what it can do. What are the tools, where is the money, how do they strengthen maybe not only the department's IT but also the master web developer? Some of the departments have actually contracted this service, and it's not compliant. So, they have completed that assessment and have to stand by the users and help them. It's not enough to just identify what's not compliant, it's coming up to that next level of service that Mr. De Lima speaks to. 000%, AO*% Mr. De Lima thought that was good, because otherwise it opens up the County to lawsuits and damages, and they should spend the effort up front to avoid the cost down the road. The only alternative would be to close the site down, which would be ridiculous. Ms. Toriano stated that they may need help, because when the departments say they didn't budget the monies for these softwares, or they don't have the resources and IT manpower to get it done, they will have to weigh out the risk and benefit. Mr. De Lima noted that there are foundation grants they can seek to ask for money, and it's important to know that these ADA conferences do have vendors there plying their wares, making sure that people know the options are there. He does appreciate Ms. Toriano's comments. Ms. Toriano stated that one of the Board members had asked what the incident rate was for Health and Safety, and the report in the draft would be a sample of an annual report. When OSHA 300 is completed at the end of the calendar year, at that point they can calculate and submit it. Chair Yoshiyama asked whether this is of any value to the director. Mr. Takahashi responded in the affirmative, stating that this is tied to their budgetary goals so it will blend in with the reports to the Board. Mr. Takahashi noted that they're turning the monthly report to a quarterly report now. Ms. Toriano asked whether the Board would be acceptable to the first quarter being July, August, September, and reported in October, and then it would have that three -month flow. The Board approved. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Takahashi reported the following: A) Items of current interest. A Board member had asked for a count as to the users of their application software that they just opened up on July 18. As of last week they had a total of 1,203 applicants. The system is not completely implemented yet. They're still working toward a full implementation in six 0 months or so, but it's doing what it was intended to do, and they believe it's working well. Mr. De Lima asked whether, if he's "Joe Public" and turns in an application for a job and two months later wants to apply for a different job, he has to enter all the fields again. Ms. Toriano responded that it'll pull up the last information. It also allows the person to fill out an interest card so that all the positions that the applicant is interested in can be marked off and the system will send out a notification when the position becomes open. Mr. Takahashi further explained that in the NeoGov system, alerts will be sent to the user for the State and all other jurisdictional job openings as well, because they all have NeoGov. Alerts may be even gotten from any mainland companies that may have it. Ms. Toriano referred to the graph in the Recruitment and Examination draft report. Normally she would only focus on three years of information, but the division felt strongly that this trend, which shows a steady decrease in terms of recruitments, allowed them to look at the utilization of their resources, cut back on manpower, leverage technology, and still accomplish a lot more. So with that being said, Ms. Toriano allowed the graph to remain, but she noted that the Board may not see it in the future. This is just one way they monitor their workload and performance. Vice Chair Rowe noted that the graph shows that automation is taking care of a lot. He asked how would they know how many people got hired. Ms. Toriano responded that it's reported in the upper section. There are timeframes associated with giving the department a Iist. Once it leaves HR's possession, they don't have control over when the other departments do the interviews or if they don't accept the applicants. NEXT MEETING DATE The Board scheduled its next meeting for Wednesday, October 26, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. H .014%, ,.k The meeting adjourned at 10:19 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ronald K. Takahashi Secretary APPROVED: Gary N. shiya a Chair vym