Loading...
08-17-2010 POLMHutchinson Police Commission Minutes The Hutchinson Police Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, August 17, 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 Marc Sebora, City Attorney, and Brenda Ewing, Human Resources Director. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jelkin at 5:29 p.m. Chairperson Jelkin addressed changes to the meeting agenda. Jelkin indicated that the additions include a presentation by the City Attorney, a change in the designation of the official minute taker, and that this meeting is not considered a public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Meyer to change the agenda as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. Jelkin made a motion, seconded by Jensen, to designate Brenda Ewing as the official minute taker. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Jelkin asked the Commission to approve the previous meeting’s minutes. Motion was made by Julie Jensen, seconded by Verne Meyer, to approve the minutes from the July meeting. Motion carried unanimously. City Attorney Marc Sebora addressed the Commission. Attorney Sebora noted the following: For 2011, the City of Hutchinson is facing a $1.45 million budget deficit. City departments have been directed to reduce staff, and two full time positions are to be reduced in the Police Services Department. Per the City Charter, the City Council controls the creation and reduction/ abolition of all City positions. The Police Civil Service Commission does not control whether layoffs happen in the Police Department, but maintain slight oversight of layoff process. Chair Jelkin asked if costs can be cut in other non-staff areas. Mr. Sebora responded that the Council has determined it is necessary to reduce staff to achieve the necessary budget reductions. Commission responsibilities include hiring, discharge, demotion, and discipline. Layoffs are not included on this list. Section 21 of the Police Civil Service Rules addresses layoffs. The 2-week notice to the Commission is prior to the layoff action scheduled for no later than October 31, 2010. The Commission is required to provide the layoff list to the City Council. Mr. Sebora reviewed the language that provides the right to return to a lower position or “bumping”, however, this does not apply to the positions noted for reduction. The Commission has some discretion to review service records, but only if there is more than one employee in the position. This applies to Community Services Officer position, but not the position of Administrative Secretary. The Commission is not in a position to approve the Chief’s recommendation or decision, but only to accept or not accept it. Section 27 of the rules is regarding reinstatement after layoff. A one year period is the maximum time frame for this action. The Commission was informed that the City Council would have to recreate the positions identified for elimination for this to occur. Commissioner Meyer noted that he is new to the Commission and had a question about the rules and State Statutes addressing Civil Service Commissions. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Sebora what basis he used to make the interpretations he did regarding the Civil Service rules. Attorney Sebora noted his professional opinion, previous case law, and other City layoff processes. Mr. Sebora provided an example of the rules. If the Commission did have the control to decide layoff actions, it would usurp the power of the City Council to reduce positions/staff. The Council creates and eliminates positions; the Commission addresses most all other employment matters in between. Mr. Jelkin stated he has no debate with the Council controlling number of positions, and he is waiting to hear the reasons for the proposed reductions. Also, he noted that the City has not used this section (21) of the rules for 12 years, and there has not been subject to rigorous review or interpretation of the rules since that time. Mr. Sebora also noted the language in the rules that gives discretion to the Chief to identify positions for elimination. Mr. Jelkin stated that he believes the Commission is in place in part to review the layoff process. Commissioner Jensen asked some questions about the process (steps 21A, B, C & D, the 2-week notice and the identification of the positions for layoff) and which apply to this process. Mr. Sebora noted that nothing in Section. 21 gives the Commission the right to decide the list. Mr. Jelkin stated that he does not think the Commission can act on items 21b, c & d, or pass any judgment until they hear the reasons from the chief to support the layoff actions. Mr. Meyer questioned if the Commission’s role at this time is to only make sure the proper process is being followed, and not to determine other items related to the layoffs. Commissioner Jelkin recognized Todd Grina from the audience. Mr. Grina questioned the language in the rule that gives the Commission the complete control over the hiring process, and questioned if this also means layoffs. Mr. Sebora noted his previous comments regarding the Council having control over the creation and abolition of positions. Mr. Meyer inquired if hypothetically the Chief errs in designating the positions for layoff, where in the layoff process is that addressed. Mr. Sebora advised the Commission can list any concerns in their correspondence to the Council regarding the layoff list. Mr. Meyer questioned if it is the better forum for the affected employees to voice their concerns at a City Council meeting. Mr. Sebora noted that the Civil Service Commission meeting ensures the layoff process is discussed in a public forum. Chief Hatten presented written notice to the Commission regarding the necessity for Police Services to reduce staff by two (2) full time positions, the identification of those positions, and the reasons supporting the decisions. Chief Hatten spoke to the reduction of one of the two existing CSO position. He noted lack of funds available, the need to maintain the custodial and animal control nature of the positions, the requirement for a boiler’s license, and the overall affect of the reduction of the position on public safety services provided by the department as reasons for his decision. The employee to be affected by the layoff is Robert Winslow. The reasons expressed for the elimination of the Administrative Secretary position includes lack of funds, duties in position no longer being valid, duties can be assumed by other positions, and the impact to the delivery of overall public safety services. Lisa Grina is the employee affected by this layoff recommendation. These employees have been notified of the proposed layoff action to be effective no later than October 31, 2010. Chair Jelkin opened up the discussion to the Commissioners for questions. Mr. Meyer asked about the CSO positions and if each individual in the position has different duties on a daily basis. Chief Hatten answered that the positions, within the current list of duties shared, do focus on different tasks. Commissioner Jensen noted the boiler’s license is a major requirement of the position. Chief Hatten noted that without an employee with a license, those services would have to be purchased or outsourced by the department. Chair Jelkin moved to accept Chief Hatten’s written recommendation for the type and number of positions to be eliminated. Mr. Meyer asked to clarify the motion and that this means the reduction of the Administrative Secretary position and one CSO position as noted in the Chief’s correspondence and recommendation. Mr. Jelkin responded that is a correct clarification. Mr. Meyer inquired if the employee in the position of Administrative Secretary is qualified to perform the duties of the Records position and vice versa. The Chief stated they may both be qualified, but the positions and the position descriptions are different. Mr. Meyer commented if it would not serve the purpose better to have someone who can do both jobs. Chair Jelkin recognized Lisa Grina. She stated that Chief Hatten provided the Commission with the City position descriptions and not the descriptions included in the police manual/general orders (G170 and G171). Commissioner Jelkin asked why they would be different. Chief Hatten noted that the City description is the official City document and that is what is used when a position opening is advertised. Ms. Jensen asked which gaps in the duties vacated by the elimination of the Administrative Secretary position the records staff could absorb, and which they could not, due to qualifications. Chief Hatten noted there will be a learning curve for employees assuming duties. Not all duties are to be reassigned to the records personnel. Some will go to him as Chief, and to other staff. Ms. Jensen also asked Chief Hatten what the impact of the reduction of either the Administrative Secretary position or the reduction of one Records staff has would have on the department. The Chief noted the reduction of the Secretary position would have the least affect on the pubic safety service. Commissioner Jensen inquired as to the impact on the delivery of service the reduction of one Records employee will have. Commissioner Meyer asked about the role of seniority specific to the positions identified for layoff. Chief Hatten answered that it is not an issue for the Administrative Secretary position because there is only one person in the position. Mr. Meyer also asked about service record impact on the decisions. Ms. Jensen questioned the ability of the Records personnel to take on the duties of the Administrative Secretary. The Chief said they will not be taking on all of the duties. Chair Jelkin asked if duties on the description are listed in order of importance. Chief Hatten indicated, not necessarily. Mr. Meyer asked if attitude, performance, attendance, and continuing education, of staff have been considered in this matter. Mr. Jelkin again asked the Commission to address the recommendation of the Chief for the proposed layoffs. Chief Hatten noted that all positions were reviewed to determine the impact on the department if abolished. Those with the least negative impact were then further reviewed. Those with the least impact on ability to provide public safety service to the community were identified for layoff. For those positions with only one incumbent, there was not a necessity to look at service record. Mr. Meyer stated he believes that one of the Records personnel will have to take on the duties or flow into the position of Administrative Secretary. Mr. Hatten, as noted in a previous response, indicated that not all of the administrative duties will be assumed by the Records employees. There will be a new structure in the Police Department to address those duties. Commissioner Jensen asked if the proposed reductions will allow the department to continue to meet the mission of the department, and if either position has greater effect on that ability. Chief Hatten stated that he believes the elimination of the Records position is more detrimental. Ms. Jensen asked Chair Jelkin if the Commission needs to act on whether Chief Hatten has met the requirements of section 21A of the rules. Mr. Jelkin said if the Commission believes he has, it is their job to accept the proposal. Ms. Jensen stated she was not ready to second a motion to that effect until audience members have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Meyer noted the Commission has no responsibility as to who is selected for reduction/layoff. He wants the Commission’s ability to include opinion in the letter to the Council to be included in Mr. Jelkin’s motion. Chair Jelkin believes the major question before the Commission at this time is to determine whether or not the Administrative Secretary and the Records positions are different. Chair Jelkin moved to table his motion to entertain comments from the floor. All members agreed. Lisa Grina again addressed the Commission. She asked a question to clarify if Chair Jelkin’s motion is accepted and approved, is it accepted from the Chief only, or does it also mean that the specific recommendation moves on to the Council? Ms. Grina was informed that if it is accepted by the Commission, it is then forwarded on to the City Council. Ms. Grina questioned the difference of impact between the Records and Administrative Secretary positions. She stated she thinks that if a Records position is eliminated, the duties of that position would fall only to the remaining Records employee and the Administrative Secretary where in comparison the Secretary duties would fall to many other staff. She spoke about the positions actually being very similar, with the only difference to whom each reports, and asked that the duties be compared from an updated description – not the official City descriptions. She mentioned redundancy of the records positions. She believes that the Administrative Secretary position should be maintained. Ms. Jensen clarified that if the Commission approves the Chief’s recommendation, the position of Administrative Secretary is eliminated. Chair Jelkin noted that there are similarities and differences between the two positions. Bob Winslow, CSO, addressed the Commission. He noted his position is the one that is proposed to be eliminated. He noted that the duties of the two CSO positions are vastly different. He claims that the elimination of his position will have a more significant affect than that of his counterpart. He believes the requirement of the boiler’s license is the main issue. He has held a license in the past and has not been given the option by the department to obtain one. He presented the official City job description for the review of the Commission. He states it is vastly different from the actual duties. He will not discuss service records, but he will put his record up for review, if requested. Mr. Winslow spoke to his duties related to the police storage facility and presented the general orders description of CSO to the Commission. Mr. Winslow was originally hired as a Security Guard, and when that position was eliminated, he was offered the CSO position. He talked about duties that assist the police officers such as booking, transporting prisoners, and mental health transports. Mr. Winslow feels that what he does impacts the department and the police officers. He mentioned seniority and asked if it outweighs performance. Todd Grina was recognized by Chair Jelkin. He stated he does not believe there are significant differences in the Administrative Secretary and Records positions. He indicated that previous duties of the Administrative Secretary have, in the past, been transferred to the Records positions. Jason Mathwig, Police Officer, acknowledged the role of the Commission and asked the Commission to be the check/balance for the department. He encouraged them to meet privately with the Chief to make sure they are moving in the right direction and doing what is best for the department and community. He noted he is not speaking on behalf of any individual department employee. Police Officer Jason Pederson spoke to Mr. Winslow’s duties and the assistance it gives the officers. He assists with prisoners and officer safety and allows them to have the time to do their duties. Chair Jelkin asked Officer Pederson if he is speaking to the loss of the position or specifically about Mr. Winslow. Mr. Pederson stated he believes the CSO positions are different. Brian Beffert, Part Time Police Officer, stated his opinion that Mr. Winslow provides duties that will be missed by the City if a layoff occurs. The other CSO position that holds the boilers license and does custodial work can be missed. Mr. Beffert noted that the officers feel Mr. Winslow is valuable and that is why staff attended the meeting to support him and speak on his behalf. Kris Lindel, Emergency Dispatcher, noted that Lisa Grina can take over/relieve in dispatch and that only one of the Records personnel is able to do this. Police Officer Ryan Sayre spoke on behalf of both co-workers, Ms. Grina and Mr. Winslow. He feels the Police Department is a family. He has worked with both for five years and stated they are both valuable employees. Commissioner Jensen noted the discrepancies between the written description and the general orders is causing her concern and are troublesome. Chief Hatten noted that all descriptions/orders and what employees actually do were taken into account while contemplating his decision. He admits that losing two full time positions in the department is going to be extremely difficult as will be the subsequent transition. Ms. Jensen stated her frustration due to her miniscule option in this process, determining whether or not the Chief met the requirements of Section 21A of the Civil Service Rules. Mr. Sebora again confirmed the Commission’s role in the layoff process – ensuring an open process, proper notification to the Commission, and identification of positions and reasons for reduction. Mr. Sebora noted the difficulty in making a recommendation to reduce an employee’s position. The Chief has made this decision and ultimately must live with the decision if approved by the Council. Mr. Sebora reminded the Commission that the proposed layoff is slated for no later than October 31, 2010. Officer Beffert and Mr. Jelkin questioned if a decision has to be made today and if the City Attorney’s interpretation is accurate regarding the rules. Chair Jelkin stated that the Council does decide number of positions and the requirement to reduce two positions, and this is not within the scope of authority of the Commission. Commissioner Meyer spoke again to the mission of the Commission’s charter – absolute oversight over departmental employment versus slight control over the layoff process. Chair Jelkin reopened the discussion regarding the Commission action to accept the Chief’s recommendation. The Commission spoke of setting a closed session to discuss this matter and to formulate their letter to the Council. Attorney Sebora spoke to the open meeting requirements and that the Commission may not hold a closed meeting for that purpose. Mr. Jelkin asked if the drafting of the letter could be closed. Mr. Sebora noted that open meeting law would not allow this, either. Chair Jelkin stated he would like some time to review the material provided, reconvene at a later date, and have each Commission member bring draft ideas for the letter to the Council. Mr. Jelkin noted there was no second to his previous motion. Chief Hatten asked if Commission was accepting his recommendation as the Commission is not in a position to draft a letter if they have not. Motion by Chair Jelkin to acknowledge that the Chief has provided the written notice to the Commission regarding the layoff and provided a list of employees subject to layoff. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Jensen moved that the Police Commission acknowledges that on August 17, 2010, Chief Hatten provided the Commission with a document that he believes is in compliance with Section 21a of the Civil Service Commission rules. Second by Chair Jelkin. The motion passed, unanimously. Ms. Jensen asked the Commission to set a meeting date for the near future to discuss the draft of the letter to the Council. The next meeting date was set for Tuesday, August 24, 2010, at 3:30 p.m. at the Emergency Operations Center. Bob Winslow asked the Chief to reconsider his layoff recommendation based on what truly impacts the department and the community. He added he does not want this decision to affect the position of a Police Officer. With there being no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Jensen, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried, unanimously. Time of adjournment was 7:28 p.m. Next Meeting to be held on, August 24, 2010, at 3:30 pm. Julie M. Jensen, Police Commission Secretary