Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-22 Merit Appeals Board Minutes MERIT BOARD OF APPEALS Department of Human Resources 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 102 Hilo, Hawai`i May 22, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawai`i, was called (Item 1): to order by Chairperson Kenneth M. Rowe, in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawai`i, on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Kenneth M. Rowe, Chair Mr. Jubilee"Jube"N. Kuewa, Vice-Chair Ms. June R. Rabago, Member Excused: Mr. Brian J. De Lima, Member Also Present: Mr. Ronald K. Takahashi, Director, HR Department Ms. Sharon Toriano, Deputy Director, HR Department Ms. Diane Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corp. Counsel Mr. Nick Hermes, Manager III, HR Department Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary-Reporter, HR Department Ms. Lee Botelho, Program Specialist, HR Department Ms. Jamie Martines, HR Assistant, HR Department Members of the Public Present: Ms.Nancy Cook-Lauer,Newspaper Reporter, Stephens Media Group Mr. Maile Etherton, Union Agent, HI Government Employee Association ADDENDUM TO The Chair directed the Board to the next order of business, Addendum to AGENDA Agenda. (Item 2): (There was none.) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public. PUBLIC (Item 3): (There were none.) APPROVAL OF The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, MINUTES Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2012. (Item 4): Motion to Approve: Ms. Rabago moved that the minutes of December 19, 2012 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kuewa. Merit Board of Appeals May 22, 2013 The roll call vote to approve the Minutes of December 19, 2012, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Kuewa, Rabago, and Chair Rowe—3. NOES: None. ABSENT: Board Member De Lima— 1. EXCUSED:None. UNFINISHED The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, BUSINESS Unfinished Business. (Item 5): A) UPDATE ON STATUS OF TERENCE S. IGNACIO APPEAL. Ms. Noda reported that there is no update. However, Mr. Ignacio's attorney, Mr. Bob Crudele,requested that this matter be placed on next month's agenda. This was noted by Chair Rowe. DIRECTOR'S The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, Director's REPORT Report. (Item 6): A) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATE. Mr. Hermes provided the following update concerning collective bargaining: Bargaining Unit 1 (represented by UPW): They have a new four-year contract beginning on July 1St which reflects a two percent across-the-board increase on October 1st and April 1St. Also,they have a 60/40 EUTF, which is based on the new State's Benchmark HMSA's 75/25 Plan. Bargaining Units 2, 3, and 4: They have a new two-year agreement that reflect a four percent increase to their pay each year. Their EUTF benefits reflect a 60/40 contribution split based on what's commonly termed as the "prevalent plan" (HMSA'S 80/20 Plan). Bargaining Unit 13: They are about to begin mediation and, at this point, thinks that they will not come to a settlement for a new agreement. Bargaining Units 11 and 12 (fire and police): They are anticipating a Unit 12 decision, but we don't have any indication from the Employer's spokesperson. We're anticipating it may even be by the end of the month. Unit 11 is still some months away, and thinks that they want to have the opportunity to see what the Unit 12 decision is and move on from there. Page 2 Merit Board of Appeals May 22,2013 Mr. Takahashi added that Bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreements are subject to approval by the respective county councils. The increase of cost items have been submitted to the respective county councils and will need to be approved before they officially become agreements. This has yet to occur. Chair Rowe inquired whether the increase of the cost items was reflected in the Mayor's budget. Mr. Takahashi replied in the affirmative. B) NEW COUNTY-WIDE HIRING PROCEDURES. Mr. Hermes provided a brief history stating that about 12-13 years ago, Mayor Harry Kim had instructed the previous HR Director and other department heads to develop individual policies for filling civil service positions. There were 19 to 20 different policies submitted regarding the same subject matter across the County, which had been in effect up until this year. Effective March 1St, we developed one standard for County departments to follow rather than having 19 to 20 policies. The general process of requesting approval from the Administration is basically the same, but it was more or less to try to streamline the number of policies that we had with regard to that subject matter. Embedded in this new policy was some brief language stating that this policy supersedes all other policies. Chair Rowe inquired whether it will affect those employees hired 13 years ago or only the newer employees. Mr. Hermes replied that it was prospective, and that it didn't affect an employee's terms and conditions of work(just the manner in which the decision is arrived). Mr. Kuewa inquired whether the policy affects internal or public hiring. Mr. Hermes replied that the policy reflected all of the options which could be utilized to fill a civil services position—whether it be a transfer, demotion, internal promotion, or hiring from the outside. Mr. Hermes stated that the policy is packaged so that all options are available to an appointing authority. Mr. Kuewa inquired whether there was a plan or a timeline for evaluating the effectiveness of this policy after its implementation. Mr. Hermes replied that they do have a vehicle that they use in his division where a staff member meets regularly with HR representatives from County departments to obtain their feedback. He also stated that both the HR Director/Deputy Director receive feedback from their peers. Page 3 Merit Board of Appeals May 22,2013 Mr. Hermes informed the Board that this policy is flexible and can be adjusted over time. There is consultation with the unions and decisions from the Administration,relative to other authorities out there. Mr. Kuewa inquired whether there will be annual reports comparing the old policy with the new one. Mr. Hermes replied that they hadn't considered that because the general process hasn't changed, so there really wouldn't be any different reportable item. The main purpose was to get rid of the 19 to 20 different policies and to standardize it to just one. C) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO INCLUDE NAME CHANGE, EXPANDED DEFINITIONS, EXTENDING DEADLINES AND REDUCING TIMEFRAMES, INCLUDING ADVERSE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEES, ADDING DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS, AND REQUIRING EMPLOYEES SERVING ON AN INITIAL PROBATION DEMONSTRATE FITNESS AND ABILITY. Ms. Toriano provided the following update to the HR Department's Administrative Rules proposed changes: Name Change: Information was added regarding the name change from "Civil Service"to "Human Resources." Electronic Recruitment System: The deadline for submittal of applications was extended to midnight because now it's a 24/7 web-based recruitment. The timeframe for filing an administrative review has been changed from ten days to seven days. Sub-Chapter 2 (definitions): Expanded the definition of"probationary appointment." Also, added definitions for attorneys, such as"reasonable accommodations,""recall list,"registration list," select priority list," temporary appointment outside a list," and"transfer." Ms. Rabago inquired whether other county or state entities will adopt the same clarification for"probationary appointment." Mr. Takahashi informed the Board that the amendment was whether a termination of an initial probationary appointment was appealable to this body (MAB) or not. The HR position was that it was not. There were several hearings or rulings by the MAB,through the influence of the Attorney General's Office, who represents the MAB in the appeal process hearing that it is appealable. He stated Page 4 Merit Board of Appeals May 22, 2013 that two former MAB Chairs instructed them to change the Rules to make it clear whether it was appealable or not. Ms.Noda informed the Board that during the appeal hearing,the department would normally file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction by this Board, saying that the highest level for a probationary employee would be the supervisor,the department head, and the employer, but not MAB. MAB would normally deny that department's motion. Mr. Takahashi informed the Board that the State had it in their rules that it's appealable. He thought that it's the State's rules, and that there was a distinction with the County, so we adopted the rule changes to make it clear. Ms.Noda further clarified that the State MAB hears all State probationary employee appeals and that they have it in their State Administrative Rules. Chapter 6, Internal Complaint Procedures: Complaints relating to recruitment and examination were expanded to include those actions taken against an employee who has failed to meet HRS 76-27 (probationary service and other requirements for membership in the civil service). This was also expanded to include complaints involving discrimination and harassment, which violates the County's Anti-Discriminatory/Harassment Policy. Chapter 6-4 requires that employees serving an initial probation demonstrate their fitness and ability for their current positions by meeting all performance requirements for their positions. This may be problematic in how we can operationally do this as"fitness" and"ability" sounds broad. We're looking at this as a continuation of the selection process and it's covered under"recruitment." At this time, Ms. Toriano asked if there were any questions, concerns, or comments. Ms. Rabago inquired about"Definitions/Transfer" in regards to the salary schedule located on Pages 1 through 9. She asked if they're trying to implement or incorporate this language of the 95 percent or the five percent rule to make it clearer. Mr. Takahashi replied that the intent was to define "transfer"especially when changing schedules. He further clarified that it's not a demotion or a promotion, but a transfer when the compensations are of equal value, and said that the general Page 5 Merit Board of Appeals May 22,2013 five percent or 95 percent rule is used. (If it's less than five percent, it's a transfer.) At this time, Mr. Takahashi announced that Secretary-Report Velma Menezes will be retiring at the end of the month. Chair Rowe and Members of the Board congratulated Velma and thanked her for all of her hard work over the years. Mr. Takahashi also expressed his appreciation. Also, Mr. Takahashi introduced the newest member of the Human Resources Department, Ms. Jamielyn Martines, who filled a vacant HR Assistant position. SCHEDULE NEXT The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, Schedule MEETING DATE Next Meeting Date. (Item 7): The next meeting will be subject to the call of the Chair. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, at 9:55 a.m., Chair Rowe declared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ronald K. Takahashi Secretary APPROVED: Kenneth M. Rowe Chair RKT/gy Page 6