Loading...
08-24-2010 POLMHutchinson Police Commission Minutes The Hutchinson Police Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 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, City Administrator Gary Plotz, and Brenda Ewing, Human Resources Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Mark Jelkin at 3:30 p.m. The Commission noted that Brenda Ewing, Human Resources Director, would be the designated minute taker for the meeting. Chairperson Jelkin asked the Commission to consider the approval of the minutes from the August 17, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Meyer noted the following required corrections: 1. Page 1, paragraph 3 – The last sentence, “Not a hearing” is not a sentence and language should be added earlier in the paragraph that Chair Jelkin indicated that the meeting of August 17, 2010, was not to be considered a hearing. 2. Page 2, paragraph 4 – Mr. Meyer noted that the minutes should be changed to correctly reflect that his inquiry regarding the Commission addressing errs by the Chief regarding the layoff process is to be noted as a hypothetical situation. Motion was made by Julie Jensen, seconded by Verne Meyer, to approve the corrected minutes from the August 17, 2010, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Jelkin asked if Chief Hatten had anything to add or present to the Commission under the agenda item of 2011 Budget Update Continuation. The Chief responded that he would offer his written layoff proposal previously provided at the August 17 meeting for consideration by the Commission. Chair Jelkin iterated that the Commission has a duty to forward on to the Council the names of those employees subject to layoff, and the Commission needs to draft a letter to accomplish this. He indicated he hopes there is consensus amongst the Commission on what information is to be forwarded. Mr. Jelkin asked the other commissioners what they believe is the Commission’s task for today’s meeting. Mr. Meyer and Ms. Jensen agreed that it is the Commission’s responsibility to draft the letter. Chair Jelkin asked if members had questions or issues regarding this matter. Commissioner Jensen questioned what is the level of importance of the duty of the administrative/records staff to relieve staff or be a fill in for the dispatch room. Chief Hatten responded that staffing dispatch is critical, but the frequency of filling in is limited on a daily basis. It is critical when there is an emergency situation. Ms. Jensen noted that at the last meeting Dispatcher Kris Lindell spoke and indicated that only one of the records technicians is able to work in the dispatch room. Mr. Hatten responded that one of the records persons does get called in to assist in the room. Neither is called in to run the room independently. Ms. Jensen indicated that she hoped the Chief could refute the premise that Lisa Grina is working on tasks of which the great majority are different or unique to the position she holds. The Chief answered the tasks are materially different, but there is some overlap. Mr. Meyer spoke to the job descriptions of both positions. Fundamentally, from a qualifications standpoint, they are similar and are the same pay grade. He inquired if it would be better to consider the positions a pool of three administrative staff for layoff purposes, rather than the two separate classes. Mr. Hatten that, argumentatively you could consider this, but historically, the positions have been unique or distinctively different in description and task, along with to whom the positions report and responsibilities and authorities. Mr. Meyer asked if the authorities of the positions are significantly different. The Chief noted that outside of him, the administrative secretary is the only position that has access to the police administrative files. Mr. Meyer inquired if, because of that reason, that would be a position to be kept. Mr. Hatten replied, on the contrary, the need to maintain the records staff is more important. Mr. Meyer asked if, hypothetically, would Chief Hatten agree the positions should be in a pool of three, and, if so, should someone else be up for layoff. Mr. Hatten replied that he does not agree, and the fact is that they are not currently in the same class. He has to base his decision on the descriptions, classes, and roles currently in place. Mr. Meyer asked if, hypothetically, the three positions could be merged. Mr. Hatten stated that all members of the department help out where needed, when needed. He believes all his staff can be trained for other positions. What he has to currently do is make a decision on current staff, look at daily tasks, and determine which position has the least impact on the day to day operation of the department. Commissioner Jensen noted it is not the Commission’s role to consider the chief’s judgment. The argument is that the Administrative Assistant position has overreaching duties. She asked if the other commissioners believe there are multiple possibilities in regard to what the Commission can decide to do. What option, other than moving forward the two names identified by the Chief to the Council, do they have. Commissioner Meyer stated they may review the layoff process for appropriateness and openness. Chair Jelkin indicated there is some difference of opinion on the layoff process since the Commission has not been through it for twelve years, and, how process is written in the rules, doesn’t lend itself to many options or judgments. They need to determine if the process has been correctly followed. If they disagree with the names identified, they can put that in the letter to the Council. Mr. Meyer noted that he understands the Commission’s role. For the record, his opinion, based on what he has learned and the emphasis on the feedback received from department employees, is that one police records position should be eliminated and the secretary retained. The secretary has skills that are more encompassing and broader, and the position can do the records job with limited training. Mr. Jelkin stated he tends to agree with Mr. Meyer’s statement. Ms. Jensen indicated she is concerned and has questions, but is not in full agreement with other members at this time. Mr. Jelkin urged the Commission to act to provide to the Council what is needed in writing. At the previous meeting the Commission acknowledged receipt of the written layoff recommendation from the chief and had discussion on the content of the letter. Ms. Jensen moved that the Commission complies with Section 21B of Police Civil Service Rules by furnishing to the Council the names of the following employees for layoff: Robert Winslow, Community Services Officer, and Lisa Grina, Administrative Secretary. Ms. Jensen indicated that she took the language for her motion directly from the rules. Mr. Meyer indicated that he did not believe the motion is required. Chair Jelkin stated that the Commission should draft the letter to the Council and then act upon the completed letter. Commissioner Jensen withdrew her motion. Mr. Jelkin offered that the Commission would write something of the like to the Council. He inquired if the Commission is in agreement with the wording he offered. Ms. Jensen argued for a minimum message to the Council, forwarding the names for layoff. What was discussed at the previous meeting, where discussion was held, is documented in detailed minutes that are available to the public. Ms. Jensen provided such prepared correspondence to the Commission for consideration. The correspondence gives no opinion, does not summarize the August 17 meeting, and only cites what the Commission needs to do per the rules of Section 21B. She added that not every issue related to this matter the Commission is considering is concern for the Council. Mr. Meyer related that the final decision lies with the Council. The Commission holds the open hearing and states opinion. Mr. Meyer wondered if a brief letter is provided, does it address the requirement for an open process. Mr. Jelkin asked if Ms. Jensen’s letter speaks to openness and fairness with best judgment. The openness is per the details of the minutes. Mr. Meyer stated the Commission is shortcutting their ability to provide comment and opinion to the Council if a brief letter is provided. Mr. Jelkin asked if all the Commission members are in agreement with the titles and staff selected for layoff. Mr. Meyer iterated his thoughts on combining the three administrative positions and noted that he probably does not agree with the chief’s decision. Ms. Jensen believes that the Administrative Secretary is alone in title only and that there is a pool of three, but she doesn’t know all there is to know about this. Mr. Meyer asked if she would be open to providing opinion to the Council. Commissioner Jensen replied she is open to that and noted that her proposal for brief correspondence is an option the Commission can still consider. Mr. Meyer stated he would proceed as Mr. Jelkin proposed, earlier. Chair Jelkin noted that the Commission probably doesn’t need to include all details included in the minutes in the correspondence. He feels the Commission’s concern is that the administrative secretary position should have been considered for layoff only if included in a full pool of three administrative positions. Mr. Meyer added he feels that would have been a reasonable approach to pool the positions and the selection made there from. The positions are substantially the same and require the same qualifications. He commented on how he may have completed the layoff process if in the role of the chief, and noted two items in the process that bothered him: 1. Notification of the Commission – This occurred after those who were directly involved or identified for layoff were notified. These types of processes are generally taken is steps to ensure complete agreement prior to employee notification. In his opinion, the communication came in reverse order. The Commission should have been notified earlier as to which positions and persons would be affected. This should be corrected for the future. Chief Hatten stated he did not disagree, but the process would require that the names of the affected positions would have to be brought to a public meeting, and that is how the employees would learn of the layoff actions. This is a reality of the open meeting process. They would not hear it from their boss, but with the rest of the general public at a public meeting. The value of the employees and their feelings is of concern to the Chief. Mr. Meyer asked if all communication of and to the Commission is public. Mr. Hatten responded that it generally is, and it is difficult to talk with any specifics with this subject and not identify specific employees. Commissioner Jensen asked what value there is in including additional information to the Council about the process. Mr. Jelkin thinks there is value in providing opinion and information about the process, so that the Council is informed. If the process needs to be addressed, it can be. Mr. Meyer’s second issue is: 2. Community Services Officer positions - There are two employees, but the tasks completed by each are different on a regular basis. They have the same title and pay grade. Seniority and possession of a boiler’s license are the reasons noted for the layoff decision. The City position description does indicate that a qualification is only to be able to obtain the licensing. Information provided at the last meeting about the employee identified for layoff by other staff was admirable. He is concerned about the decision regarding the Community Services Officer position. These are the items he would suggest be put in the correspondence to the Council. Ms. Jensen noted that the Commission did not hear any information about and don’t have knowledge about the other Community Services Officer employee. The Chief does have this knowledge. Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the other employee was not present. In lieu of that, staff was talking publicly in front of their boss about their coworker, and he believes that takes a lot of guts. Ms. Jensen concurred the comments were compelling for Mr. Winslow, but again stated she knows little about the other Community Services Officer employee. Chair Jelkin stated there is agreement that the Commission must acknowledge that the Chief has identified the positions and names of the employees subject to layoff. He asked if there was agreement with other content to be included in the Council letter. He is disappointed that the Chief informed staff prior to receiving prior approval or giving prior notification to the Commission. He felt the layoff process was not followed in proper order because of that. He understands Ms. Jensen’s point regarding staff feedback on the Community Services Officer positions. Commissioner Jensen noted she understands the Chief has notification obligations and doesn’t see where he needs the Commission’s approval. Mr. Meyer and Mr. Jelkin agreed that the rules do not require Commission approval of the Chief’s layoff selections. Chair Jelkin’s issue is the order of communication, staff, and then commission. He asked if the Commission wants to state their opinion about the process to the Council. Ms. Jensen feels such action is not germane to the Council’s process at this point. Mr. Meyer noted that Commission can’t reverse the Chief’s selection at this point, nor can the Council change the process. Mr. Meyer and Ms. Jensen noted that the process can be addressed at the Commission level. Commissioner Meyer indicated he is open to accepting Ms. Jensen’s proposal with an addendum including comments about the communication sequence and is the layoff process is well designed, fair, open, and, in the end, that they agree with the positions and employees selected for layoff. Ms. Jensen is open to an addendum addressing the communications sequence, but added the Council level may not be the right place for this. She feels the Commission has been as fair as could be in their capacity with this matter. Addenda language could be a huge can of worms if this layoff process has to be faced again, and she doesn’t know that opinions are useful at this time. Mr. Meyer provided information to the Commission as to what he would deem appropriate as addendum language. He questioned if the records staff are able to do all tasks of the administrative secretary position. The Chief responded that he believes all staff are talented and could be trained to do all duties of each position. Ms. Jensen offered another option to allow the individual commission members ,on their own behalf, be allowed to each attach an addendum. Attorney Sebora commented that it would be nice if the Commission agreed to provide joint correspondence, but this option technically meets the communication requirement to the Council. Ms. Jensen questioned if the Commission can agree on joint addendum language. Mr. Jelkin asked Mr. Meyer if he would agreeable to providing separate addendum. He indicated he is. Mr. Jelkin asked if a brief statement similar to the one supplied by Ms. Jensen that also includes language about the specific requirements of Section 21 of the Police Civil Service Rules could be included. Ms. Jensen indicated this is agreeable to her. Her understanding is that the addenda are the commissioners’ personal statements/opinions, and not those of the full Commission. Mr. Sebora noted that the joint correspondence can have language added to note the addenda, and that they are personal opinions that reflect only the opinions of the individual commissioners, not the collective body of the Commission. Mr. Jelkin reviewed possible language of the correspondence to the Council with the other Commission members. Mr. Meyer asked Ms. Jensen if she disagreed with the other commissioners’ concerns. She indicated she has issues regarding the process and does agree with aspects of the concerns noted, but, again, this is not for the Council correspondence, but work the Commission needs to do after this current process. Mr. Jelkin read the proposed draft of letter to the Council from the Commission. Mr. Meyer will revise his addendum and provide it to Chair Jelkin in the near future for inclusion with the letter to the Council. Chair Jelkin asked if the Commission needs to review the addendum prior to its inclusion in the letter. Mr. Sebora stated this is not required. He advised the Commission should probably include in their letter what they do agree upon. Ms. Jensen asked the other commissioners if a short paragraph addressing the major issues noted, including, treatment of layoffs in the rules; communication sequence; job description/job titles issues; would suffice and would result in no addenda needed. Mr. Jelkin indicated his agreement, but Mr. Meyer has additional issues about the job descriptions and the layoff selections he would choose to include. The Commission determined they are not in agreement with providing a letter with no addenda. Mr. Jelkin recommended that the Commission act on the letter with language they do agree upon, and Commissioners may attach addenda of their choosing. Mr. Sebora noted there has to be some official action on the layoff notification to the Council. Mr. Jelkin read the proposed language for the letter, as follows: From the Hutchinson Police Civil Service Commission, Attn: Hutchinson City Council The Hutchinson Police Civil Service Commission is fulfilling our requirement to provide in writing the names of the employees to be laid off, and order of layoff per Section 21 B of the Police Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations. The Hutchinson Police Commission acknowledges that the Chief of Police has identified the following positions per Section 21 A, of the Hutchinson Police Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations. We hereby furnish the names of the employees to be laid off: Robert Winslow, Community Services Officer Lisa Grina, Administrative Secretary Also included are addenda that reflect opinions of the individual commissioners. Mr. Jelkin moved to accept this letter to be sent to Council. Second by Ms. Jensen. There was no other discussion, and the motion passed unanimously. The letter will be prepared by City Administrative staff and provided to the Commission members for signature. Mr. Jelkin asked if the Commission addenda need to be part of the meeting minutes. Mr. Sebora indicated, no, but they will be part of the public record of the City Council. Chair Jelkin made comments to recognize the difficulty of the layoff process for all involved. He appreciates the participation of all department staff, and that speaks to the quality of the Police Services team. Mr. Jelkin called for any new items for presentation to the Commission. There were none. He asked for any comments from the floor, and recognized Lisa Grina. She spoke to Section 21A of the Civil Service Rules. The rules require the Chief only to give position titles, not the specific name, of the employees subject to layoff. She noted Section 21D indicates review of service records by the Commission. She asked if the Commission had reviewed any employee service records related to the layoff. Mr. Jelkin indicated he did not. Ms. Grina stated she understood this provision does not apply to her position, but the Community Services Officer position. Mr. Jelkin added the decision was based on seniority and no service record information was offered for consideration by the Commission. Mr. Meyer spoke to his understanding of the rules that do not give the Commission the authority to determine the employee(s) to be laid off. Sgt. Nagel spoke about the difficulty of the layoff process for the Commission and all involved. The outpouring of support from employees exhibited at the August 17 meeting was not unique to the two individual employees involved. This would happen regardless of which employees would have been selected. He also noted he appreciated the communication from the Chief to all staff about the layoffs. Morale was not affected and employees were able to continue to concentrate on their work. The Commission set the next meeting date for September 21, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Hutchinson Emergency Operations Center. Motion by Mr. Meyer, second by Ms. Jensen to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.