Loading...
09-27-2010 POLMHutchinson Police Commission Minutes The Hutchinson Police Commission held a meeting on Monday, September 27, 2010, at the Hutchinson Emergency Operation Center. Present at the meeting were, Mark Jelkin, Julie Jensen, Verne Meyer and Chief Dan Hatten. Others present were Scott Lepak, City Legal Counsel, City Administrator Gary Plotz, and Brenda Ewing, Human Resources Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Mark Jelkin at 5:30 p.m. Chair Jelkin reviewed the agenda items that include approval of August 24, 2010, Commission meeting minutes and the following items: 1. Review and recommendation regarding Community Services Officer (CSO) layoff actions: Commissioners to have reviewed each CSO performance records prior to meeting. Pending performance records seek to approve/disapprove layoff by years of service 2. Legal review of: Define the term “position” within the rules. Is this understanding that position equals job title and job description? Address the term “grade” in the City Police Civil Service rules, meaning positions with the same compensation or pay grade. 3. Review the position of Administrative Secretary: Commissioners to have reviewed City of Hutchinson pay grades & job titles prior to meeting. Action: Approve / disapprove this is one unique position 4. Legal expert discussion with commission regarding: Advise the Commission on their role in the City layoff process in the determination of position(s) to be identified for layoff (Section 2A and, subsequently, Section 21 in the Civil Service rules). Clarification of the Commission’s role in a “discharge” versus a “layoff” needs to be addressed. Legal advise regarding bumping” / "no bumping" rights for the position of Administrative Secretary as the employee has not held a different or lesser graded position within the Police Department Chair Jelkin asked Chief Hatten, City Administrator Plotz, and the Commissioners if there were any additional agenda items. No additional items were added. The Commission discussed the draft of the minutes from the August 24, 2010 meeting. Mr. Meyer indicated that he has received, nor reviewed them. Chief Hatten reported the minutes were e-mailed to the Commissioners shortly after the meeting. Commissioner Jensen will provide Brenda Ewing, minute taker, with the suggested corrections to the minutes. Approval of the minutes will be tabled until the next meeting. Chair Jelkin spoke to the matter of the layoff recommendation being sent back to the Commission by the Hutchinson City Council so that the Commission could review the Community Services Officers’ service records and to review Chief Hatten’s recommendation to lay off one employee based on seniority or years of service. The Commissioners noted they did individually review the service records with City Human Resources Director Brenda Ewing prior to the meeting. No specific discussion of the records or employee performance was conducted, as required, at the public meeting. Chair Jelkin asked for comments regarding this matter from the Commissioners. Mr. Meyer concluded that, based on performance records, both employees may be considered a better candidate. Upon reviewing the records, he found nothing to dispute the Chief’s decision on the layoff selection for CSO. Ms. Jensen noted she agrees with Mr. Meyer’s statements. Mr. Jelkin also noted he reviewed the records and both CSO employees are performing well. He concluded that the Chief’s recommendation for layoff, based on seniority is appropriate. Commissioner Julie Jensen moved to uphold the Chief’s recommendation for the Community Service Officer layoff based on years of service. Commissioner Verne Meyer seconded the motion. There was no additional discussion, and the motion passed with a unanimous vote of the Commission. The meeting discussion then moved on to the proposed elimination of the position of Administrative Secretary. Chair Jelkin recognized Attorney Scott Lepak of the firm Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., legal counsel for the City, and requested assistance for the Commission regarding the definition of position within the City of Hutchinson Police Civil Service rules. Mr. Lepak introduced himself to the Commission and related information about his background. He indicated he serves as the City Attorney to the cities of St. Francis and Becker and works with a private firm that represents about twenty public entities on labor issues. He noted he was present in an advisory role to the Commission. Attorney Lepak reviewed with the Commission the definition of the term “position” as defined in the Hutchinson Police Civil Service Commission rules. He spoke to a definition of “position” from the working arena meaning a distinct classification that exists separate from other positions or classifications within the City or organization. Mr. Lepak noted that he contacted the City of Hutchinson Human Resources department to learn how the City reports positions for pay equity and for hiring. Several positions have the same grade, but the positions are separate. Chair Jelkin asked if Mr. Lepak had any comments on the law and how it relates to the City positions. Does position mean classification, but a grade level may have several jobs or classifications? Mr. Lepak noted that as long as there is a separate description and noted separately in terms of pay equity, the position is separate. Mr. Meyer noted he has a background in human resources and previously served as a private sector Human Resources Manager. He offered an example from the private sector where a company has 10 office administrative employees. The manager therefore has a pool of 10 individuals to draw from to provide the proper talent to the various departments within the organization. Mr. Lepak noted that this is a good analogy. He represents a large private sector hospital in a similar situation that has the ability to cross train employees and have staffing flexibility. He spoke to the State of Minnesota and its approach to gain gender equity to ensure similar compensation for employees with similarly evaluated positions. The State requires cities and municipalities to draw lines and have distinct positions identified within this pay equity process. Practically, jobs overlap and do similar duties, but the jobs are still separate. Mr. Meyer asked about pay equity and minimum qualifications requirements. Mr. Lepak responded that the public sector probably has more fragmentation in this area than the private sector. Mr. Meyer noted there are three incumbent employees in the Police Department with almost identical requirements for their positions. The employees are smart and can learn other duties. He sees that the positions can be pooled, but understands the pay equity requirements. Mr. Lepak suggested that the City do a periodic review of job descriptions to see if the positions are separate or should be pooled. Mr. Jelkin asked if in Mr. Lepak’s opinion the Administrative Secretary position in the police department is separate from the Records Technician position. He responded they are because of separate descriptions and being listed separately on the job classification table of the City. There was further discussion regarding position points, pay grades, and position descriptions. Mr. Lepak gave an example of a pay equity comparison where the position of a County deputy and a social services worker have the same pay grade and are paid equitably. Mr. Jelkin commented that the layoff matter has been both difficult and contentious. He offered that he reviewed the City information regarding separation of positions. He added because of the available evidence and the legal opinion of Mr. Lepak, he believes the position of Police Administrative Secretary is separate from the position of Records Technician. He then asked the Commissioners for comments. Mr. Meyer noted that given the way the City looks at this, Chief Hatten operated within the policies of the City and within his scope and reached a reasonable decision to select the position of Administrative Secretary for layoff. Ms. Jensen indicated she agrees with the comments of both Mr. Jelkin and Mr. Meyer. Chair Mark Jelkin made a motion to affirm that the position of Police Administrative Secretary is a unique position as defined by the City of Hutchinson, and, therefore, to move forward with the layoff of the Administrative Secretary, employee Lisa Grina. Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion. The Chair asked if there was any further discussion. There being none, the motion passed unanimously. Chair Jelkin asked legal counsel to assist the commission with the definition of the terms discharge and layoff, and the question: does layoff fall under employment and discharge? Mr. Lepak spoke to the wording of the rules in Section 2 of the Police Civil Service Commission rules and the authority noted, therein. He continued that the focus in this area is on hiring, employment, suspension, and discharge. State law that creates civil service dates to 1929 and the statute language from that date remains basically unchanged. There is limited or no case law on this issue, but he cited a case from the City of Willmar in 1987. He advised the Commission that it is generally up to the entity drafting the rules to define a term, in this case, “layoff”. The current rules do address layoff, and they are not contrary to statute. Mr. Lepak spoke to the seniority issue in union contracts. Historically, there have not been a lot of layoffs in the Minnesota public sector. It is now becoming an issue and old language may need to be reviewed and/or changed to make terms clearer. Commissioner Jensen asked about Section 31of the rules and the Commission’s ability to amend their rules at any time with a unanimous decision. Mr. Lepak noted that the statute that allows commissions does provide for a large amount of authority to the Commission. He noted Hutchinson is a charter City, but the commission has a lot of discretionary authority. The Commission came after the charter and therefore must act with discretion to the charter. Mr. Meyer expressed his opinions on the authority of the Commission. He noted that the Commission has control over discharge, and he believes the Commission has authority over layoffs and the layoff process. It seems staff and the City Council, in sending the matter back to the commission, has control. In addition, he cited the Random House dictionary definition of discharge would also indicate the Commission has authority. Mr. Lepak cited Section 21 of the rules and the layoff process. He noted the Commission control over the review of service records. He commented on the Chief, as the supervisor, knows his department better than anyone else. The Commission is in place to review in an oversight role that the Chief is acting properly – fairly, no favoritism, etc. The Commission is in place to remove any politics from the process – i.e. cronyism and partiality. This Commission did this in this current process and did their job according to the rules. Chair Jelkin commented that the point that, historically, there have not been layoffs in Hutchinson Police Department and this has not been an area of scrutiny in the annual review of the rules. Hindsight would lead the Commission to take a closer look to clarify the language of the rules. Chair Jelkin asked Attorney Lepak for any advice he would offer regarding this issue. Mr. Lepak noted this language is not unique to Hutchinson. This is the opportune time to look at changing the language. His recommendation is to do it in the context of structure. When you attach people to positions, it is more difficult to make these changes. After the layoff issue settles, that is the better policy making time. The Commission needs to follow the rules in place to deal with the immediate crisis. Then, go back afterward, and review the language. He also offered that there is no upside to the layoff process. Mr. Jelkin asked Chief Hatten and City Administrator Plotz if they had questions for Mr. Lepak. They did not. Mr. Jelkin thanked Mr. Lepak for the advice on the ability of the Commission to be able to review the service records of the CSO employees to ensure no oversight in the area of service record review. Mr. Meyer noted there are things that could be done better in the future and suggested the Commission review the language in the future. Mr. Jelkin asked for any issues from the floor. Chief Hatten asked for clarification from the Commission regarding the letter from the Commission to the City Council regarding the proposed layoffs. He questioned if the original letter should be forwarded back to the Council. Chair Jelkin asked Mr. Plotz if he believed providing a copy of the meeting minutes would suffice. Mr. Plotz noted that the minutes would not be approved prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Lepak noted the two motions acted on at this meeting and reporting these actions to the Council should be sufficient for the Council to act upon at their meeting tomorrow, September 28, 2010. There being no additional items from the floor, the Commission noted the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Jensen moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 6:19 p.m.