Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-28 Merit Appeals Board MinutesMERIT BOARD OF APPEALS Department of Human Resources 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 102 Hilo, Hawai'i January 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaii, was called Item 1): to order at 11:16 a.m. by Chairperson Jubilee N. Kuewa, at the Department of Human Resources Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawai'i, on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Jubilee N. Kuewa, Chair Ms. June R. Rabago, Vice -Chair Mr. David K. S. Nahuina, Member Ms. Ida H. Otake, Member Also Present: Ms. Sharon Toriano, Director, HR Department Mr. Nick Hermes, Deputy Director, HR Department Ms. Diane Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corp. Counsel Ms. Belinda Hall, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corp. Counsel Mr. Danny Patel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corp. Counsel Ms. Glynis Yamada, Secretary -Reporter, HR Department 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 PUBLIC Statements from the Public. Item 3): (There were none.) During this time, Ms. Noda introduced her co-workers, Mr. Danny Patel who is assigned as the attorney for the Merit Appeals Board, effective next month; and Ms. Belinda Hall, who is assigned as the attorney for the Department of Human Resources. Starting next week, she will be moving to the Department of Human Resources as their Labor Relations Manager. Chair Kuewa thanked Ms. Noda for her service to the Board. Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 APPROVAL OF The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, MINUTES (Item 4): Approval of Minutes of September 17 and October 15, 2014. Chair Kuewa referenced Page 7 of the September 17, 2014 minutes, with the topic heading, "Reconvene" which stated, "The meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m." During this time, there was some discussion concerning when the meeting reconvened for the open session. At 2:30 p.m. the open session reconvened and the remaining items listed on the agenda were discussed. For clarification purposes, Chair Kuewa asked that the word "open" be inserted to read, "Reconvene: The open meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m." Motion: Ms. Rabago moved to amend the minutes of September 17, 2014. Seconded by Ms. Otake. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Motion: Ms. Rabago moved to approve the minutes of September 17, 2014, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Nahuina. Chair Kuewa referenced Page 9 of the October 15, 2014 minutes, with the topic heading, "Schedule Next Meeting Date"—and referenced Page 14, which also stated the same thing and was a duplicate. During this time, there was some discussion concerning the duplicate entries. It was clarified that initially after scheduling the first meeting date (Page 9), the meeting was adjourned. However, the meeting was reconvened for further discussion. The discussion was concluded and the scheduling of the next meeting date (Page 14) was again announced, and the meeting was adjourned again. Page 2 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Motion: Chair Kuewa moved to approve the minutes of October 15, 2014. Seconded by Ms. Rabago. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS Communications. Item 5): (There were none.) NEW BUSINESS The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, New Item 6): Business. COMMUNICATION NO. 15-01, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-02, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-03, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-04, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-05, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-06, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-07, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and Page 3 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 COMMUNICATION NO. 15-08, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-09, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-10, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-11, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-12, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-13, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; and COMMUNICATION NO. 15-14, RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 22, 2014, APPEALING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION (CONCERNING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS) BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT Chair Kuewa stated that their function today is to set a hearing date. It appears that the appeals have the same identical issue, were timely and submitted within the 20 days allowed, and have requested a closed hearing. Ms. Noda cited Merit Appeals Board Rule 101-4, "Consolidation" which states that the Board, upon its own motion, may consolidate for hearing or for other purposes, two or more items that involve substantially the same parties or issues, if it finds that consolidation will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and will not unduly delay the proceedings. She said the Board may want to consider a motion for consolidation before the hearing is scheduled. Motion: Ms. Rabago moved to consolidate the hearings concerning Communications 15-01 through 15-14. Seconded by Chair Kuewa. Chair Kuewa asked whether the appellants will be offered an opportunity to present opposition to the consolidation or it's the Board's prerogative to do so. Ms. Noda replied that the Rule states the Board on its own initiative or upon a motion—so the County or the appellant's attorneys could also file a motion to consolidate. Page 4 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Chair Kuewa inquired if the Board notifies them of the consolidation decision, would they have an opportunity to oppose if they wished to do so. They're represented by the same attorney. Ms. Noda replied that, if they wished, they could have a motion for reconsideration and set forth the reasons why they think it should be one case at a time. It's unlikely that they would ask to do this. The Board's letter setting forth the notice of the hearing can include the consolidation. Ms. Otake inquired whether it mattered that the hearing would be closed to the public, and since the hearings are consolidated whether the Board would hear them all at one time. Ms. Noda replied that the hearings will all be closed. Anyone on the street or a reporter would be unable to attend. Witnesses would have to wait outside until they're called to testify. Chair Kuewa clarified that those present at the hearing would include the appellants, their attorneys, the Board, and administrative staff. Ms. Noda added that the County may have their employer department representatives and the Board would have the deputy attorney general. Ms. Noda, on behalf of the County, requested that the consolidated hearing be scheduled in April for the following reasons: The number of appellants, the issue, and also due to the workload within the Office of the Corporation Counsel's office. One of their attorneys retired, she'll be leaving next week, new employees are coming in, and duties are being reassigned. The voice vote for the consolidation of Communications 15-01 through 15-14, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa — 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Motion: Ms. Rabago moved that the hearings be held on April 15 and 16 at the Aupuni Center Conference Room, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Seconded by Mr. Nahuina. During this time, there was discussion concerning the meeting convening at 9:00 a.m. and the Board decided to convene at 9:30 a.m. instead. The Board made the decision to end the meeting at 4:30 p.m. on each hearing day due to concerns of Page 5 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 overtime compensation to witnesses appearing after 4:30 p.m. Also, if the meeting required more than two days that, according to Rule 104-7, where a hearing is continued, the date, time, and place of the next continued hearing date needs to be announced at the end of the hearing. It was also confirmed that Mr. Julian White would be available to attend the meetings. Motion Clarified: The hearings will be held on April 15 and 16 at the Aupuni Center Conference Room, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Chair Kuewa said that it would be useful to him and the Board to have both parties present pre -hearing statements with their positions explained to the Board prior to the meeting. Motion: Chair Kuewa moved that the Board order both parties to present pre -hearing statements, explanations of their positions, and witness list to the Board no later than ten working days prior to the hearing date. Seconded by Mr. Nahuina. Ms. Noda said that Rule 101-5 for filing of documents states that the date the papers are received, if it's hand -delivered, is the date it's filed. If delivered by mail, the postmark date is the date it's filed. There was further discussion concerning the date for the submittal of the documents by both parties keeping in mind the Good Friday holiday on April 3 as well as sufficient time for the Board Secretary to disseminate the information to the Board Members. The Board agreed on the date of April 1. Chair Kuewa mentioned that in regards to pre -hearing statements and witness lists, he would like both parties to address the applicable state law(s) that the appellants cited in their appeals. Page 6 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Motion Clarified: The parties must file their pre -hearing statements by April 1 to the Merit Appeals Board that must include their pre -hearing statements including addressing the state law(s) that are applicable or relevant to their case, and witness list. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. UNFINISHED The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, BUSINESS (Item 7): Unfinished Business. STATUS UPDATE: COMMUNICATION NO. 13-02, RECEIVED ON AUGUST 1, 2013, FROM JAY ISHIBASHI, HGEA MCEC AGENT, APPEALING AN INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER TO ANOTHER POSITION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. (DEFERRED: 08/21/13,09/18/13,03/19/14,05/21/14, AND 09/17/14); AND COMMUNICATION NO. 13-02.1: FROM DIANE A. NODA, DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, DATED JULY 8, 2014, INFORMING THE BOARD THAT THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT BE FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AT THIS TIME Ms. Noda recommended that the appeal be continued and placed on the Merit Appeals Board agenda in July 2015. She spoke with the Appellant's attorney, Mr. Ted Hong, and he stated that there is a related Circuit Court case in which there is a pending settlement agreement. It's anticipated that the appeal will be withdrawn. She confirmed with Mr. Hong that this matter could be placed on the agenda earlier, if needed. Motion: Ms. Rabago moved to defer Mr. Nakasone's appeal until January 2015. Seconded by Chair Kuewa. Ms. Noda informed the Board that their office will follow-up with Mr. Hong prior to the meeting in July. Page 7 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. STATUS UPDATE: COMMUNICATION NO. 10-02.1 (2010), RECEIVED ON JANUARY 20, 2015, FROM ROBERT CRUDELE, ESQUIRE, CRUDELE & DE LIMA, ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT, INFORMING THE BOARD THAT THEY ARE WITHDRAWING THEIR APPEAL CONCERNING AN EMPLOYMENT ACTION BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (REFERENCE: COMM 10-02) Chair Kuewa inquired whether any action is required by the Board. Ms. Noda explained that there was a Merit Appeals Board decision denying the appeal. The decision was appealed to the Circuit Court and they also filed a second lawsuit for wrongful termination. Because of some federal constitutional issues, it was removed to federal court. In the federal court, the appellant lost and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but they also ruled in the County's favor. After that decision, an agreement was made that included the withdrawal of their appeal. In the meantime, the Merit Appeals Board decision went up to Circuit Court and Judge Hara remanded it back for further Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for more details. She thinks it's still on the back burner because we're waiting to see what happens in the federal court case. This withdrawal then ends whatever is on the back burner. Ms. Noda further added that they left the remand from Circuit Court on the back burner. In case Mr. Crudele or the County wanted to place it on an agenda, then we would, but she prompted them and this is the reason why the withdrawal is finally before the Board. She informed the Board that no action is required by the Board. Chair Kuewa stated that to be clear in regards to Communication 10-02.1, no action is required by the Merit Appeals Board and their appeal is closed. Page 8 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa —4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. BOARD APPROVAL REQUIRED: COMMUNICATION 14-02.6, FROM JULIAN T. WHITE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRANSMITTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER CONCERNING COMMUNICATION NO. 14-02, APPEALING A RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION (MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS) ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. BASED ON THE FORGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE MERIT APPEALS BOARD ORDERS THE INSTANT APPEAL SHALL BE, AND IS HEREBY, DENIED Motion: Chair Kuewa moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying the appeal, as prepared by Deputy Attorney General Julian White. Seconded by Mr. Nahuina. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa — 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. FY 2014-2015 ANNUAL EVALUATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND MERIT APPEALS BOARD'S EVALUATION TOOL FOR THE DIRECTOR OF HR (DEFERRED: OCTOBER 15 2014) Chair Kuewa stated that under "Leadership" there were some changes addressing "customer service" and "communications." This was deferred at their last meeting at which time the Board's Chair and the Human Resources Director were to discuss and propose changes to the "Leadership" portion. (At this time, Ms. Toriano distributed a document entitled, "Human Resources Director, Fiscal Year Evaluation, July 1, 2014—June 30, 2015" (SEE ATT. A.).) Page 9 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Ms. Toriano directed the Board to the hand-out, and pointed out to the Board that the amendments under "Leadership" were highlighted in orange. Motion: Chair Kuewa moved to approve the amendments in the "Performance Category" under "Leadership." Seconded by Mr. Nahuina. Chair Kuewa referenced the statement, "Fosters and promotes positive customer service"—and asked Ms. Toriano whether it meant that it's a personal commitment for her as well as encouraging and promoting her employees to do the same. Ms. Toriano replied in the affirmative. She said that according to their survey tool that is distributed to their customer departments, there is a way to measure that because it's not only specific to, but it's a reflection of the entire Human Resources Department. Chair Kuewa commented that it was good because it leaves a lot to her discretion as the leader of the department. Mr. Nahuina inquired about "communication" as this was brought up at their last meeting. He thought they were going to add some language in communication. Ms. Toriano referenced Page 13 of the October 15, 2015 minutes stating that the motion was to expand verbiage in the Performance Category under the "Leadership" portion, and after reviewing the minutes, on Page 12, the focus being primarily on training and customer service. Chair Kuewa agreed and stated that the discussion morphed into customer service factors. In the end, the Board was most concerned in addressing customer service. The voice vote, was as follows: AYES: Board Members Nahuina, Otake, Rabago, and Chair Kuewa — 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Page 10 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 DIRECTOR'S REPORT The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, Item 8): Director's Report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: A) HR QUARTERLY REPORTS; B) HR ADMINISTRATIVE RULES UPDATE; C) HR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES UPDATE; D) BARGAINING UNIT/NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE; E) STAFFING UPDATES; F) ITEMS OF CURRENT INTEREST Ms. Toriano presented the following: A) HR QUARTERLY REPORTS In general, the County runs on a fiscal year, so the reports are for the second quarter (October 2014 — December 2014). The only report that runs on a calendar year would be Workers' Compensation as the OSHA 300 Report requires calendar year statistics. As far as their goals, our measurements remain constant and are consistent with what is reported to the Finance Department in their Annual Reports. B) HR ADMINISTRATIVE RULES UPDATE On December 29, 2014 a public hearing was conducted for the purpose to receive public input. As was expected, it was poorly attended and not much feedback. Historically, there isn't much feedback. After the fact, HGEA did have a lot of questions. The Rules are not subject to consultation by the unions. In the spirit of keeping a good working relationship, we are meeting with them in early February to review and to listen and, hopefully, they can take something back to their members. The process after the public hearing involves the transmittal of the proposed amendments to the Mayor and Council. We anticipate that will be concluded by mid-February and the adoption of the new Rules on March 1. The changes included a lot of housekeeping measures and some procedural changes. The Rules needed to be updated to reflect that. She recalled that about two years ago, both Jube and June were present when they started reviewing and amending the Rules. It was brought before the Merit Appeals Board, who was kind enough to provide their comments. Our Division Heads wanted another review, and we went back and did another review. The Rules do not require Merit Appeals Board review, but as a courtesy, it was brought forward to them. Page 11 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Under the "Internal Complaint Procedure" it's one County -wide human resource complaint procedure. All specific department procedures will become null and void upon adoption of the Rules. This is something that the Merit Appeals Board appreciated, based on earlier comments. Ms. Rabago referenced "Chapter 1, Subchapter 2, Definitions"—"Definition deleted"—the definition of "Termination" was deleted (SEE ATT. B). Ms. Toriano commented that depending on the division and which County policy and procedure, the terminology and definitions weren't consistent. They worked on the inconsistencies, which went to the unions in anticipation of the Rules being adopted. She's comfortable that there are consistent definitions and we would be utilizing them moving forward. She directed the Board's attention to Nick to provide further explanation. Mr. Hermes stated that they're substituting the term "termination" with the term "discharge". The Civil Service Reform Act incorporated the term "discharge" applying to all separations—administrative or disciplinary. The County, up until now, never really incorporated that change in the law, and kept the traditional terms of "dismissal" for disciplinary separation and the term "termination" for "non -disciplinary" separation. Many of their policies incorporated those terms before, but there was no reference to those terms in law, so we're making that transition to be in harmony with the law. So, the term "discharge" can be used for disciplinary or non -disciplinary (administrative) reasons. (A this time, copies were made of the summary sheet, "Rule Amendments Summary, for the Board Members (SEE PREV. ATT. B).) Ms. Toriano thanked Chair Kuewa for attending the public hearing. Chair Kuewa replied that he saw it on the front page of the newspaper, but when he arrived, the public hearing was already done. Ms. Toriano stated that there were two who attended from the public, not including lube. Mr. Hermes stated that he and Sharon were undertaking a continuous review of their policies and procedures, many of which weren't touched for over a decade, so it begged the question of—does it need to be reviewed? Mr. Hermes proceeded to explain the amendments in the Rules: First and foremost they looked at their definitions. They did notice in their former rules and the various policies and procedures that the definitions were all over the lot, while they generally were directed toward the same thing, some of the terminology was really different. Page 12 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 They did an inventory of as many human resource program -related definitions as they could come up with that could apply to more than one functional area, and compiled a list. They evaluated what they thought was the best practical definition was for each one, then incorporated all of those standard definitions into an actual stand-alone policy, so that it could be used throughout the County for whatever application is needed in human resource management. The foundation of any policy is the definitions and the terms used, which is helpful to our office when various divisions work on a policy. So we now have, for lack of a better term, a database to pull from so everything will be consistent moving forward. While it may appear simplistic, it's actually not. It's never been like this before. The two major policies that were affected by their Rule change were the "internal complaint procedure" and the "separation from service." Over the past year, they developed in consultation with a variety of people—whether it be within our office or with the Office of the Corporation Counsel or the unions—and received feedback and made some adjustments and worked with them on it. They are in the process of finalizing this process, to be effective on March 2—the first working day in March. The second policy was the "separation from service." The County never had this policy before. It's a new policy but not a new concept. The State has a comparable policy but what it does, it centralizes and brings together all the different types of separations that are out there into one document that can be referenced. Within the County, we have various forms of separation—we had a rule on resignations, layoff procedures—there were things all over the place. What we did was brought them all into one document. So now we adjusted the Rules to require that procedures on resignation exist there rather than in the Rules themselves. We thought from a customer service standpoint that this was probably the best way to do it. We place ourselves in operation— you'd want to go to one place, so that we could reference the appropriate material dealing with a human resource action. In terms of any policy calls, there was nothing dramatically different. The most notable is that we're better organized where all of these actions exist in one policy. Page 13 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 We've updated other policies—Recruitment and Examination dealing with hiring above the minimum—in order to help with our recruitment and retention of employees. We've also updated our Compensation procedure for dealing with across bargaining unit type of movements and actions. Compensation adjustments are largely dictated by collective bargaining agreements when dealing with actions within a bargaining unit. Without a policy, there is no authority to dictate how to properly compensate someone when they're moving from one bargaining unit to another. For many years we had a policy, but one area that needed to be addressed in a better more organized fashion was the compensation for employees moving from or away from excluded management. Historically, a lot of these actions were done based on extremely old documents and, in some cases, just practice. Those were the most notable reviews. It's been quite a bit of work in the past year with regard to policy updates—maybe the most in this period of time that he can recall. We're committed and we're probably never going to feel like we're done. It's a constant review. Some of the policies he just mentioned will be effective in March along with their Rules. Once we get past that, we'll be looking at other policies to update. A few that come to mind are drug testing for the various programs we have in the County. They haven't been touched for five to ten years, so its' definitely worth looking at—among a few others. Ms. Rabago asked as far as if there's a promotional opportunity, whether they've maintained the 5% rule. Mr. Hermes replied that, by and large, those concepts haven't been tampered with. But to be clear with their excluded management, they did make some adjustments. Once they're promoted into management, it was a practice—if you moved more than two steps it's 10% and if it's three or more, it's 15°x6. They've researched it with other jurisdictions, as well as with our documents that go back to the early eighties where the inception of the EMCP occurred. Frankly, it just appeared to be arbitrary—and occasionally we were asked why. Why is it this? We never really had a straight answer. So, what we did was we scrapped that. And when moving into EMCP or away from EMCP, for every level that you moved—up or down—it's 4%. The root of that 4% is that in most contracts, especially the HGEA where many of the ranges come from— the difference between ranges is 4% or approximately thereof. Now, we know Page 14 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 where it came from and we think it closely models our collective bargaining agreements. Chair Kuewa inquired whether that would apply to temporary—if someone temporarily promoted would be entitled to an increase in pay, but there was a question whether that person actually qualified for that grade level they were being promoted to. Was it addressed that when doing temporary promotions they would need to meet the qualification requirements? Mr. Hermes replied in the affirmative. There's always review and it has to be met. Ms. Rabago commented for clarification purposes, there are "temporary assignments" and "temporary appointments." Ms. Toriano replied that it's not for temporary assignments. Mr. Hermes added that they're two different things. Mr. Hermes explained the terms "promotion" versus an "assignment." A temporary promotion is a "promotion." It has a limitation date, you need to meet the minimum qualifications, and there's a certain computation that would apply. Ms. Toriano added that there's an official change in their job title. Mr. Hermes explained that for a "temporary assignment" there is no official change in their permanent position. They are temporarily assigned to something else. Mr. Hermes added that as far as compensation—once it's determined whether it's a promotion, transfer, et cetera—in our policy in the section of promotions, transfers—the compensation is the same. In 99% of the situations for temporary assignment, you do not necessarily need to qualify for the job. They would need to be able to satisfactorily perform the significant duties of the position as determined by the department head. Mr. Hermes stated that there are some exceptions to this—there are some collective bargaining agreements that actually state "qualify." Some of these situations require licenses or something to that affect, where you may violate a law if you're assigned, and don't have that kind of a license. But that's the vast minority—the vast majority is a managerial determination. Chair Kuewa asked for a clarification concerning temporary assignment, whether they receive an increase in their pay. Mr. Hermes replied that they do. If you were to take that action, you would first want to determine what kind of action you'll be taking because there are some Page 15 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 people who are temporarily assigned to something and it's not a promotion. It could be a transfer or a demotion, while it's rare it can occur. Mr. Nahuina referenced "Leave Sharing" concerning "routine pregnancies" which is included with "illness due to colds or influenza, broken limbs and other non-critical conditions." Generally, "pregnancies" under "leave" has its own section. The minor surgeries and those other things involves a child and there's something more to it, enough so that we take a look at it and give it special attention under "leaves." He'd hate to say it's "just a pregnancy' when it's lumped in with colds and influenza and broken bones. Ms. Toriano replied that it was written to be more aligned with the law and while the term "serious personal illness" is stated, there's always that gray area. When does a routine pregnancy become non-routine—bedridden? In general, if that's what the law states then that's what we're going to say, but we understand we're not medical doctors. In a leave sharing situation, we would require a certification from a medical doctor. Mr. Hermes added that the leave sharing program relies on and is predicated on the donations and generosity of others, so it's a defined resource—it's not unlimited. The general intent is you'd want to preserve those resources to the extent reasonable for your catastrophic or your totally unexpected situations. But, Sharon is correct—we're going to follow the guidance of the professional's certification. There's a general intent to avoid the routine, minor things because, again, you're dealing with the distribution of finite resources, but they definitely do their best to be fair. Chair Kuewa thanked Ms. Toriano and Mr. Hermes for what they're doing. We're the Merit Appeals Board—that's what we listen to—appeals and monitoring the human resource programs as well. This is an organization that is taking enough care to actually go back and review its policies, making them consistent, improving and updating them. That's a great process—the internal review process by the department. He's very glad they're doing it. Ms. Toriano continued with her Director's Report. F) ITEMS OF CURRENT INTEREST It's not enough to go through all of the labor intense review, if you cannot get the information to the departments we serve. It's been a challenge with "Laserfiche" where some departments use it and some cannot. There's the County's "Intranet" but not all the information is on there. Page 16 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 When it comes to access, the County is moving towards "SharePoint" which will be available to all departments who utilize Microsoft Word. As our policies, procedures, and Rules are updated, they will be loaded into SharePoint and made available. So, all of the information is consolidated into one repository. It's exciting, you can actually click on a link, if it's a form, and it takes you right to the form. We are simultaneously working on changing the forms to be fillable. This was something that was recommended by the Merit Appeals Board. D) BARGAINING UNIT/NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE The Governor has selected James Nishimoto as the Director of Human Resources as well as serving as the Chief Negotiator. Bargaining Units 02, 03, and 04 are in negotiations. It's a daunting task to wear two hats—he has reached out to all of the jurisdictions for support concerning Bargaining Unit 14. Nick will provide an update. Mr. Hermes provided the following update: He's participating in an ad hoc committee with the State for this new Bargaining Unit 14. The Legislature created this bargaining unit that is comprised of two very different types of careers: State law enforcement which includes sheriffs, harbor enforcement, and DLNR that work in duo care where they provide enforcement on state lands; and the county side where we have our ocean or water safety officers. We're in the middle of trying to figure out how to best combine these two operations into one contract because there are very different terms and conditions for both, and we perceive there to be similar expectations from both of those areas in the bargaining unit. Recently, HGEA has filed for impasse. He believes the State and other employers are going to be working with HGEA on an alternate impasse procedure that would allow time for possible mediation and then arbitration—and, potentially, during the summer, with a decision that would be rendered and made available for the next Legislature. What this really means that under this scenario, there is no contract and no costs associated with the contract to be approved by the current Legislature. Page 17 Merit Board of Appeals January 28, 2015 Ms. Ota inquired what would happen in the meantime while they're creating the new bargaining unit. Mr. Hermes replied that they're currently with Bargaining Units 3 and 4 and he doesn't know if there're other alternatives at this time. Mr. Hermes added that it's a unique grouping. There's no one involved that he's aware of on the employer's side or the union side, that has any understanding of what it is to create a bargaining unit because it's been so long. It's a very interesting exercise. Ms. Toriano continued her Director's Report: E) STAFFING UPDATES Ms. Diane Noda is our new Labor Manager, effective February 2. Tisha Narimatsu has joined our Department and replaced Irene in December. She's a part of our Processing Center, and she transferred from the Department of Environmental Management. (At this time, the Director's Report concluded.) SCHEDULE NEXT The Chair directed the Board to proceed to the next order of business, Schedule MEETING DATE Next Meeting Date. Item 9): Chair Kuewa announced that their next regularly scheduled meeting would be tentatively held on Wednesday, February 18, it a.m., at the Human Resources Conference Room, dependent upon the receipt of items for the agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, at 12:45 p.m., the Chair declared the meeting Item 10): adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Glyn da Secretary APPROVED: (7 J bilee N. Kuewa 1 hair STAY Page 18 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR FISCAL YEAR EVALUATION July 1, 2014 — June 30, 2015 Employee Name: Sharon Toriano Performance Category Rating Exceeds, Meets or Does Not Meet Goal #1 Participate and assist with redefining the Building Permit process and County reorganization. Conduct re -pricing review of Fire Battalion and Assistant Chiefs. Goal #2 Migrate employee data from Access data base to SQL. Goal #3 Review and update as appropriate 25% of the departments Policies and Procedures. 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. 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. 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,- ecommendations;understands understandsramifications to individual and organization. Leadership DRAFT NOVEMBER 2014 Effectively motivates and supports employees in their professional growth and development to meet individual and group goals aGG0mpI sh tasks and develop employees. Takes action to solve problems. Maintains a good method of sharing information with superiors and subordinates. Fosters and promotes positive customer service and is effective in meeting the customer's needs. Overall Rating _ Meets Expectations _Does Not Meet Expectations Evaluator Signature: RULE AMENDMENTS SUMMARY Housekeeping Measures • Corrections to document number formatting. • Corrections to formatting, spelling, and punctuation. • Department name change from Civil Service to Human Resources. • Title change from Director of Personnel to Director of Human Resources. Chapter 1, Subchapter 2, Definitions • Incorporation of standardized definitions. • Definitions added: o Discharge o Promotion o Reasonable accommodation o Recall list o Registration list o Select priority list o Temporary appointment outside of list o Transfer o Veterans preference points • Definition deleted: o Termination Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, General Provisions • Updates purpose to reflect law defining merit system. • Updates means by which an appointing authority may fill any vacancy in the civil service system. Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, Recruitment • Extends deadline for applications to 11:59 p.m. HST on closing date due to implementation of NEOGOV (Electronic Recruitment System Software). Chapter 3, Subchapter 3, Examination • Adds criminal background checks as an accepted human resources examining technique. • Reduces the timeframe for filing an administrative review of examination rating from ten days to seven days. Chapter 3 Subchapter 4 Medical Standards and Examinations • Adds the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for employment consideration when an applicant fails to meet the health and physical standards of the job. Chapter 3 Subchapter 5, Certification • Adjusts time an eligible shall remain on an eligible list from one year to a minimum of six months. Chapter 3 Subchapter b Types of Appointments • Updates options available to an appointing authority when making temporary appointments. Chapter 5 Exemption from Civil Service • Requires that exempt employees meet federal authorization to work and state residency requirements. Chapter b Internal Complaint Procedures Requires uniform County -wide procedures in accordance with law. Chapter 7, Resignations • Requires resignations to be in writing and in accordance with procedures for separation of service. Chapter 8, Leave Sharing • Specifies that a serious personal illness or injury does not include minor surgeries, routine pregnancies, illness due to colds or influenza, broken limbs and other non-critical conditions. • Includes that an employee must have no administrative record of irregular and/or unreliable attendance within the past two years to be eligible for leave sharing. Chapter 9, Eaual Opportunity • Updates laws concerning non-discrimination and locations where complaint forms are available.