HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-20 Merit Appeals Board Minutes
Hilo, Hawai‘i
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawai‘i, was
held in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, 101 Pauahi
Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawai‘i, on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.
Present:
Mr. Gary Yoshiyama, Chair
Mr. Kenneth Rowe, Vice Chair
Mr. Henry “Hank” Silva, Member
Mr. Brian De Lima, Member
Mr. Jubilee “Jube” Kuewa, Member
Mr. Ronald K. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources
Ms. Sharon Toriano, Deputy Director of Human Resources
Mr. Michael Udovich, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Ms. Tammy Kaniho, HR Assistant
Chair Yoshiyama called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2012
MOTION: Mr. Silva moved that the minutes of January 18, 2012 be
approved as circulated. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Kuewa and unanimously carried.
NEW BUSINESS
A) Performance evaluation of Director of Human Resources for fiscal
year 2011-2012
Mr. Takahashi reported on the three goals they had identified as part of
the evaluation. He noted that the process also involves the Board’s evaluation of
him based on responses that were obtained from the departments.
Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
Goal one was to continue with the implementation of the departmental
reorganization plan which promotes doing more with less, moving away from
specialized functions toward a generalist concept that will allow for more
flexibility in assignments.
The Department of Human Resource’s new table of organization was
approved by the Managing Director with an effective date of January 1, 2012.
As of today, all positions are filled. The employee development specialist
position was filled May 1, 2012. That position had been vacant for 8-1/2 months.
Their human resource manager III position, which is a new hybrid-type
manager position, was filled effective today. That position had been vacant for
7-1/2 months. These two positions were vacant the longest. All other vacancies
were filled within two months of the vacancy.
During the past two fiscal years, they unfunded three positions, so the
department is now working with three positions less than they were two budget
cycles ago. They unfunded two during the last budget, with another unfunded in
their next July 1 budget. He believes the department will still be able to
maintain its services, if not at the same level, than better than before. Part of the
goal was to see that the performance indicators from the divisions in each
functional area remain unchanged from previous years with the reduction in
personnel not affecting services.
In personnel and organizational development, the goal was to conduct a
new hire orientation class once every two months, and Mr. Takahashi is happy
to report that with the help of Ms. Toriano and with their previous labor
relations person, even in the absence of a trainer, the department was able to
conduct new hire orientations as planned and accomplish that goal.
In classification and pay, the goal was to review and process actions
received from the department within a specific period of time, and
Mr. Takahashi is very pleased to announce that in that area they achieved
100%. In actuality, from July 1 to March, 154 position/redescriptions were
reviewed and processed all within five working days, which was the goal. There
were 77 reallocation requests for recruitment purposes that were also received
and processed within the goal of 10 working days, so the classification division
has maintained its ability to meet its goal 100% of the time.
2
In administrative services, the primary goal was to audit and approve
payroll transaction forms within five working days of receipt. During the
period, 1,661 payroll certification forms were received of which 1,570 were
reviewed and processed within five days. 1,651 furlough forms were received,
and 100% of those were processed within the goal of two weeks.
For recruitment and examination, the goal was to have the list back to
departments within two months of the request for recruitments that required
written exams. Three out of four recruitments of those requests were conducted
from July 1, 2011 to March 31 of this year. Three out of four were returned to
the departments within two months. However, two out of two were conducted
during January to March, which is 100% of the goal. For large recruitments,
the goal is to complete within three months of the request. Of such recruitments,
four of those were completed within three months. Three out of three were
conducted during the period January 1 to March 31.
Mr. Takahashi is highlighting these areas because the department
received its new NeoGov online recruiting system and went live on July 1. It
required a lot of training and familiarization. That was the time they also
started their reorganization to have more staff work in cross areas. The two
primary areas right now that the generalists are working on are transactions
and recruitment, where previously they had a staff of transactions work
primarily on transactions, and recruitment staff work only on recruitment.
They created a pool of generalists to work through all functional areas in the
department, but because of vacancies that occurred, the new system and
training of new employees, they were not able to meet 100% of the goals that
they had set out. However, from January they were able to meet those goals as
the employees are now better trained and the system has been running for nine
months now, with the employees and the departments now familiar with the new
system. Therefore, Mr. Takahashi believes they’ve progressed to where they’re
now back to being able to meet their goals 100% of the time.
For health and safety, the goal was to conduct reviews of at least 50
workers’ compensation claims per quarter and to coordinate and/or conduct
safety inspections of at least six County facilities. That goal was fully met at
100%.
Equal opportunity’s goal was to respond to and resolve inquiries and
complaints from the public and employees regarding civil rights laws within 14
days from the date received unless there was extensive research or investigation
3
that was needed. 156 inquiries and/or complaints were received during the
period, out of which 145 were closed within 14 days. Three were closed within
15 -30 days, and 8 were closed within less than 30 days from the date received.
Thus all complaints were addressed, received, and closed at 100%. 93% were
completed within 14 days; the others again required more research and
extensive investigation but were closed within 30 days.
The one division where they did not meet their goals is in labor relations in
hearing and responding to employer level grievances within 60 days of receipt.
The position had been vacant for 7 months. Mr. Takahashi redistributed the
grievance hearings to Ms. Toriano, himself, and another staff person in trying to
train her in grievances. They were able to work with the unions to get their
understanding about response times. The unions were agreeable to giving them
extensions on response times, so they have been responding to grievances as
agreed upon with the unions. They were not able to meet that 60-day
turnaround time, but again, they were short staffed in that area. Now that they
have a person on board, he fully expects they will be able to meet those goals.
Goal number two for labor relations was to complete negotiations for new
collective bargaining agreements effective 7/1/11 to 6/30/13, represent the Mayor
at negotiations, provide Mayor with timely and appropriate recommendations,
and provide all necessary technical support to the Mayor. They were able to
negotiate new master agreements and supplemental agreements for HGEA and
UPW bargaining units. Mr. Takahashi represented the Mayor at these
negotiations and set their goals in negotiating supplemental agreements with
these unions, which were different from the master agreement negotiated, but in
line with County employees’ needs and the County’s operational needs.
Mr. Takahashi believes the Managing Director submitted feedback to
Chair Yoshiyama on how Mr. Takahashi represented the Mayor at these
proceedings.
They are still in ongoing negotiations with SHOPO and Fire and are in
line for arbitration. There are several bargaining units that have not been
resolved, the nurses for one, and institutional workers represented by UPW, so
those are all pending arbitrations. Mr. Takahashi is representing the County in
these negotiations for the Police and Fire.
Goal three was to support and participate in the administration’s
budgetary process, addressing concerns related to labor costs, organizational
4
structures and position management; also to facilitate the personnel review
committee (PRC) that makes appropriate recommendations on filling of
positions; provide permanent position reallocation and reorganization analysis
and recommendations; provide recommendations in all area of human resource
management. Requests review by the PRC shall be accompanied by a
classification analysis and recommendation.
A number of requests to fill positions run through the personnel review
committee through Mr. Takahashi’s department. His classification staff
conducts an analysis of these requests as far as organizational structure, current
work flow within the departments, current staffing levels within the
departments; and they make a recommendation through him to the PRC as to
whether they should fill or not fill these positions in these tight budgetary
situations. For every request that comes in, Mr. Takahashi is very appreciative
and proud to say that the staff does an analysis 100% of the time. He believes
that the PRC, which is comprised of himself, the Managing Director, and the
Finance Director, truly appreciates the analysis; and they are relied upon very
heavily in their recommendations to filling these positions. They play an
integral role in the administration’s process of filling positions.
Another goal was to respond quickly to the number of permanent
reallocation requests received annually. As previously reported, the
classification staff turned these requests around 100% of the time within the
timeframe. Mr. Takahashi noted that it’s not simply a matter of just looking at
it and rubber stamping it. The staff meets with the departments; they conduct
audits; they have meetings with departments to recommend work flow,
organizational staffing, etc. They’ve had several reorganizations that
departments have implemented based on their recommendations, so again they
are heavily involved in these areas.
Mr. Silva asked for an example of recommendations to departments that
were implemented.
Mr. Takahashi responded that Public Works had an issue with managing
a large staff in both their administrative and fiscal section. The classification
division head, Ms. Nitahara, conducted an audit and subsequently recommended
a reorganization to basically combine the staff and jobs, eliminating two
positions in the process, and giving them a better workflow. Public Works
implemented the reorganization; and Mr. Takahashi believes they are happy
with it.
5
Mr. De Lima asked where the surveys are that came back from
departments. Mr. Takahashi responded that the surveys went through
Ms. Menezes, and he does not know who sent them. He just has the summary.
Chair Yoshiyama noted that the next phase they are moving into is the
evaluation phase. He asked Mr. Takahashi whether he had a preference as to
conducting it in an open session or closed session.
Mr. Udovic advised that it would be Mr. Takahashi’s choice.
Mr. Takahashi responded that he has no problem with having it done in
an open session.
Chair Yoshiyama asked whether the Board is allowed to go into an
executive session for discussion purposes, to which Mr. Udovic again advised
that it would be Mr. Takahashi’s choice.
Mr. Takahashi responded that he would leave it to the Board’s discretion.
He can step out if they want him to.
Chair Yoshiyama stated that if any member has a preference on that, they
may raise it as they go along. For now, they will conduct the matter in an open
session with a discussion and review of the survey results. Chair Yoshiyama
asked Mr. Takahashi if he had any comments.
Mr. Takahashi stated that he considers these very flattering responses and
attributes the positive comments to the staff. They have a more direct
involvement with the working staff in the departments, and he believes these
reflect a very positive, accurate, and good assessment of the staff.
Mr. Takahashi’s goal is to work with department heads in an overall scheme,
but as a whole he gives his staff credit for all these positive comments.
Chair Yoshiyama asked whether anyone had questions or comments on
items 1-10 on the survey.
Mr. De Lima asked whether they know who made what comments, as it
would help to know who made some of the comments. In talking about the
director’s goals for the upcoming year, he should address some of the criticisms.
6
Chair Yoshiyama commented that as he read the responses, what comes to
the forefront of his mind is how the department is viewed by everyone else
within the County. Are the other departments viewing this department as a
partner? As an enforcer? Adversary or problem solver? To a large extent, part
of Mr. Takahashi’s job is to make sure that the civil service laws are followed,
and a lot of times it’s Mr. Takahashi who has to tell people “no, you cannot do it
this way.” So does that reflect on their responses?
On the other hand, when Mr. Takahashi or his employees are called upon
to provide assistance, are they viewed as another bump in the road, or as a
problem solver? What Chair Yoshiyama is most interested in is how the other
departments felt about this department’s expertise, the timeliness of their
actions, and the competence.
Chair Yoshiyama added up the top two responses such as extremely
effective, very effective. How effective is Human Resources at assisting you to do
your job? He got a 69.3%, so it’s in the top two, but Chair Yoshiyama doesn’t
don’t know if that’s good. Should they be shooting for 80-90% of everybody
saying the department really helps?
Mr. Silva shared his perspective, stating that some of the people making
comments may have their own agendas and their own competencies which could
affect their responses. There will be an array of different responses for
something like this. Mr. Takahashi gave a good example today in the situation
with Public Works. The department could have taken it either of two ways: 1)
“We asked for positions to be filled, but Human Resources showed us how to do
it right, so we are going forward with something much better;” or 2) “We went
to Human Resources for help; they took away one of my personnel, and now
everybody has to work harder.”
Mr. Silva thought it was a good example, and dependent on who the
administrator is and how he takes it is how he’s going to do the evaluation of the
HR director.
Vice Chair Rowe commented that this is a good report on the director and
the system itself. It gives them an evaluation level of where the director is right
now, and from here they can move forward in terms of where they want him to
be and what it’s going to take, as well as how they can support him to get him
there. That’s one thought.
7
The other part of him thinks about HR going into a department and
making suggestions, and then there are the unions to worry about. Has anyone
thought about evaluating the receiving end of the employee and how they feel
about HR?
Mr. Kuewa stated that he considers this an overall positive evaluation
survey of Mr. Takahashi; and these types of surveys are generally that way. He
believes he’s been in the business long enough where they look at that and also
tend to look closer at those things that are not positive. There were a few here,
and the way he addresses it is there will always be people who disagree with
what they do.
One question he’d ask is when Mr. Takahashi and his staff encounter
persons who are objectionable, negative, or very difficult to deal with, how does
the organization respond? Are they defensive? Do they try to resolve it?
Mr. Takahashi responded that he tries to instill in the divisions that
they’re there to work with the departments. They’re not going to agree every
time, and as Chair Yoshiyama pointed out, it is their goal to protect the civil
service system. He tries to project a non-adversarial role with discussions and
recommendations. If, however, something is truly against civil service laws, he
will not sign or process any documents and will explain to them why, perhaps
giving them an alternative.
Mr. Kuewa stated that it seems to be a reasonable approach that
Mr. Takahashi, as the HR officer, would take with his contemporaries; and he
thinks it’s reflected in the overall positive results here.
Chair Yoshiyama stated that he would interpret 11 and 12 as future,
action oriented items. He asked Mr. Takahashi whether he had any responses
or feelings regarding the coverage received.
Mr. Takahashi responded that again he sees them as the gatekeepers of
the civil service laws and the system for the County of Hawai‘i. Not everyone
will agree with them, and there will be people who will be angry at them because
they disagree. However, he will take those comments to heart and look at them,
but he does get these sometimes every day in their dealings when he explains
why they took a certain position. He plans to meet with the division heads at the
next opportunity to go over these comments with them and to get their feedback,
8
talk about it, how they can improve, how they can address some of these
concerns.
Mr. De Lima thought the survey was very helpful and well done. It was
helpful for Mr. Takahashi to understand how people are seeing the department.
How Mr. Takahashi communicates back to the departments in terms of his
reaction to the survey is also important because he thinks being defensive about
it would be wrong, and he doesn’t hear Mr. Takahashi doing that. However, if
some people are perceiving the rules and regulations as not being clear or
available, or that staff is not well versed or there’s a lack of confidence in
rendering decisions, or there’s an issue with the time it takes to make the
decision, then viewing it in a constructive way and trying to develop goals to
address those concerns would be appropriate.
Mr. De Lima suggested sending out a memorandum that they appreciate
people participating in the survey, that comments were very helpful and
constructive, and that they will be working with Mr. Takahashi and his staff to
make sure better service is provided. That would send out a good message that
Mr. Takahashi is receptive to feedback, and they in turn can be receptive to
feedback too.
Mr. Kuewa stated that it was a great idea and that way they can actually
build on this. He noticed that #11 states: what do we need to do for HR to
improve, and #12 states: what changes would most improve service? Mr. Kuewa
suggested that perhaps on the next round, they ask “what are some of the
positive things about HR” so that it allows the departments to make positive
comments as well. He believes there are comments to be made in that regard;
they’re just not captured here.
Mr. De Lima questioned whether other departments send out surveys as
well, as he believes this to be a good practice. Maybe Mr. Takahashi should
suggest that to the Mayor.
Chair Yoshiyama asked Mr. Takahashi to follow up with the letter to
departments with joint signatures (both MAB and the HR department).
Mr. De Lima noted that the letter should include the point about
maintaining confidentiality of responses from the departments.
9
Chair Yoshiyama opened up the evaluation for discussion, going over each
performance category:
Goal 1. Performance indicators for functional areas in HR.
Mr. Kuewa asked how the generalist concept is working.
Mr. Takahashi responded that they are continuing to work toward their
final goal of having the generalists working all areas of HR. Right now they
have been trained in 2-3 areas, but they are getting there. It is working well and
will allow for the continuation of services when staff goes on leaves.
Ms. Toriano added that one of the pleasant outcomes they have
experienced in this approach to creating generalists is the communication and
camaraderie in the department. Where they had silos before, now they’re
talking about what they’re experiencing in recruitment, transactions; they’re
comparing notes; they’re looking at what they can do and how to approach the
work. So there’s more continuity as they move forward.
Chair Yoshiyama stated that in looking at Mr. Takahashi’s report during
the period with reorganization, filling of vacant positions, people learning the
different tasks, being leaner and meaner on keeping results, he would say the
vast majority of goals and performance indicators exceeds expectations.
The Board members agreed.
Goal 2. Execute union agreements and represent Mayor at negotiations.
Chair Yoshiyama noted that they do have a communication from Mr. Bill
Takaba, Managing Director, specifically related to that.
The Board agreed on a rating of “exceeds.”
Goal 3. Feedback from other department directors including HR support
with classification and organization analysis.
Mr. De Lima stated he would give a “meets,” and the Board agreed.
Chair Yoshiyama noted that if Mr. Takahashi wants to make any
comments during the Board’s discussion, he is welcome to do so.
10
Financial Management. Attentive to financial budgets and controls, and
generally operates within prescribed financial limits. Budget overruns are
infrequent, and causes are normally identified and justified; implements plans to
control cost where possible; effective in managing fiscal resources.
Mr. Kuewa noted the recent reorganization of resources to make the
department more effective. He would give a rating of “exceeds.” The Board
agreed.
Planning, Prioritizing and Organizing. Prioritizes assignments
satisfactorily to minimize crisis situations; shows foresight to prevent potential
problems in developing contingency work plans for short and/or long-range
plans; identifies and utilizes resources and personnel effectively; develops goals
of the department consistent with the mission of the County; proposes and
reviews benchmarks to monitor work progress and follows up on assignments.
Mr. Silva commented that Mr. Takahashi is like the hub of the wheel on
this, and he’d give him an “exceeds.” The Board agreed.
Problem Solving/Decision Making. Understands issues; identifies and
clearly defines problems as they occur; accumulates and analyzes relevant
information; uses judgment to select workable solutions to problems; presents
alternative solutions when making recommendations; understands ramifications
to individual and organization.
Vice Chair Rowe stated he would give him an “exceeds.” The Board
agreed.
Leadership. Effectively motivates to accomplish tasks and develop
employees; takes action to solve problems; maintains a good method of sharing
information with superiors and subordinates.
Chair Yoshiyama gave Mr. Takahashi an “exceeds” largely based on
Ms. Toriano’s comments on getting rid of the silo, people working together, and
the County and each other sharing. The Board agreed.
Chair Yoshiyama noted the overall rating is “meets” expectations.
11
Mr. Takahashi thanked the Board and stated that he appreciates the
comments. He will take the Board’s recommendations to heart and follow
through with them.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Takahashi reported the following:
A) They just got through with collective bargaining and believe it or not
have already started the next round. Proposals were exchanged with the unions
this month, and they’re going to actually start negotiating from next month on
the new contract effective July 1, 2013. They’re still working on Police/Fire for
this contract and are moving on with HGEA/UPW for the next contract. It will
be an ongoing process.
B) Mr. Takahashi introduced the department’s new HR Manager III,
Nick Hermes. Mr. Hermes is no stranger to the County of Hawai‘i; he was a
former employee of the department’s before venturing his way to the
Department of Education and then to State DHRD on Oahu. The department is
fortunate to get Mr. Hermes back. Mr. Hermes is in charge of their hybrid
division consisting of EEO, training, labor relations, and employee relations.
The division, as part of the reorganization, has been renamed the Employee
Relations Division. The generalists will be under Mr. Hermes’ supervision and
guidance.
Vice Chair Rowe welcomed Mr. Hermes aboard and asked that he tell the
Board a little about himself.
Mr. Hermes stated that he came from Connecticut in 2004 with his Hilo-
born wife and was very fortunate to land a job as the HR specialist for the
Department of Public Works. Mr. Takahashi was the deputy there at that time
and helped to train him through the years. When Mr. Takahashi became the
deputy at Human Resources, Mr. Hermes became the labor relations specialist
and manager here.
After a few years, he pursued an opportunity with the Department of
Education to be the Big Island’s personnel regional officer until an opportunity
opened up in Honolulu to be the State’s employee relations manager in DHRD.
12
NEXT MEETING DATE
The Board scheduled its next meeting for Wednesday, August 15, 2012, at
9:30 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald K. Takahashi
Secretary
APPROVED:
Gary N. Yoshiyama
Chair vym
13