Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 2/12/2008 Approved, as clarified, 2/26/08 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE – CITY (City) OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Mayor Johnson, City Administrator Sheiffer, Ald. Snead, Ald. Pavelko, Ald. Borgman, Ald. Werner, Ald. Melcher, Ald. Schaefer, Ald. Fiedler (7:30 p.m.) Also present Deputy Clerk Blenski, Department Heads Sharon Mueller (Finance), Laura Mecha (Assessor), Joe Sommers (Information Systems), Craig Anderson (Parks & Recreation), Jeff Muenkel (Plan), Chief Geiszler (Police) and Captain LaTour. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE Deputy Clerk Blenski noted that the meeting had been noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Johnson advised that there were no issues with the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ald. Werner moved, Ald. Melcher seconded, to approve the corrected minutes of the December 4, 2007, the minutes of the January 15, 2008 and the minutes of the January 22, 2008. December 4, 2007—Correction: Under Roll Call, Ald. Melcher should be noted as an excused absence. On page 1, New Business, change Mr. Chiaverotti to Ms. Chiaverotti. On page 2, remove to from towith in second paragraph from bottom. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Non-represented Employees Merit Pay Program Parks & Recreation Director Anderson referred to the packet included, noting the last page for the definition of terms—cost of living adjustment (COLA), merit pay, mid-point of salary range, salary range mobility. Ald. Melcher inquired when COLA was determined, was it December of each year. Director Anderson said that was determined by Council. Mayor Johnson said it is based on two factors. Director Anderson stated by Consumer Price Index and union contracts, believed to be in December so it’s in effect in January. Director Anderson responded to the information that the aldermen had requested. Alderman Fiedler had asked about the current evaluation tool and if it fit the bell curve. He said they took last year’s evaluation that had the ratings on one page and the percentages on the next page. Even if it’s not an equal distribution, it is fairly close to a bell curve. If it was a perfect bell curve, there would be five less in outstanding and five more in effective. It’s close so the tool works compared to previous years. The same thing with the percentages, that’s what yielded the 2.5 percent average that the employees received. On page 7 of the actual evaluation, Ald. Fiedler had some concerns with the unacceptable and provisional especially with the provisional having a percentage of merit. It had 0% to 1%. They went back and took the provisional and moved it up to the unacceptable so if someone is ranked in that rating, they would receive absolutely nothing in merit. It wouldn’t be until they were rated effective. One of the concerns that Ald. Fiedler also had Committee of the Whole February 12, 2008 Page 2 was that at effective, that should be at 0 also. After discussions with Ald. Fiedler, we had told him that typically when supervisors are evaluating, the way this tool works, you evaluate, put them into a category and then look to see where they match up. Some supervisors would probably make it so their employees are going to get a percentage or a merit percentage pay. They would artificially be moving them up to the outstanding just so they would receive something. Then, the tool isn’t working and you don’t get that bell curve. Originally they had it at 0%-2%. They met with the Mayor and the City Administrator and figured that most people are not going to be putting people between 0 and 1 so they put that at 1-2, put a tenth up in the outstanding so it’s 2.1-2.5 under the at or above midpoint and 2.6-3. They did the same thing with the below midpoint, keeping the effective consistent, the outstanding has the maximum to go to 3 and the superior to go to 4. Right now, he believed, their were 11 employees that are below midpoint and the rest of the non-reps are above midpoint. The philosophy is for those people who are below midpoint to get to midpoint and then to fall back down with the percentages. Ald Schaefer commented on the evaluation, she felt that under Part III, #4 Administration to identify any cost savings that the employees are identifying in their department. If they can come up with some effective ways to do that, it should be noted. Ald. Melcher added, under evaluation, page 3, #6 Personal Qualities could communication skills be better arranged in terms of teamwork or taken out completely and made a separate item for communication skills and in terms of courtesy as this seems to be something under customer satisfaction that you’re courteous to customers. Ald. Snead also would like communication skills in its own category. On page 5, Ald. Melcher said if you’re working with someone who is just effective or below effective, do you set goals for these people. Director Anderson said for his department, each individual has goals to obtain as well as department goals. If the goals agreed upon are not accomplished, there are explanations or other projects that fall into the category to get them to achieve goals. City Administrator Sheiffer interjected that most people aren’t doing that and not required in the tool that they have developed. The form is set up to accommodate that if one chooses, but not a requirement and is not being done in many cases. Ald. Melcher stated it should be required if you’re going to make an employee more effective and you specifically want to point out what goal you want to see them work toward in the following year. Ald. Werner said he saw the goals as being means to how you are evaluated, to achieve your goals, you’re doing your job. To do your job, you have to have certain goals in place. As you’re working in your goals, that gives the basis for the evaluation. Ald Snead inquired if most departments are setting goals. Assessor Mecha and Finance Supervisor Mueller’s employees were represented employees. Chief Geizler said everyone of his people have goals for each evaluation period. Then, Ald. Snead asked if they wanted it out or is it an important part of the evaluation tool so maybe on page 8, the words Optional Section should be removed. Even one goal for an employee would be acceptable and it would be a mandatory to have at least one goal. Then, they can look at the goal(s) half way through the year. Mayor Johnson said it is use to be done half way through the year. Director Anderson stated the goals and where they are going are discussed throughout the year. Ald Snead said to set the goal(s) in the beginning of the year, look at them half way through the year, to see if they are on track or if a change in goal(s) is needed. Ald. Werner commented this might best be left in the hands of the department head and then, trust the Mayor and City Administrator to monitor staff. Ald. Snead viewed it as an informal process where they could reflect on their goal(s). Back to the points brought up by the aldermen, Director Anderson said Ald. Werner had inquired if people had the ability to move through their salary range, how long would it take them. Based on the 2.25% average merit increase, someone hired at the low end of their pay scale, it would take them approximately 17 years. If someone is hired at the midpoint, it would take them 8 years. Taking an average salary of $66,581, using a range of 1%-2.5%, an employee would receive between $666 and $1,665. Ald. Melcher and Ald. Snead had wanted to see some incentives for staff that reached the top of their pay scale. Director Anderson said last year because employees were not moving through their salary range, everybody had the ability to get their annual reward which is just a lump sum at the end of the year, which is a check made out to the employee. The committee was recommending that stay for the employees at the top end of their pay scale. Last year, there were five people at the top of their scale and it cost the city about $8,000. But, it makes that employee shoot for something Committee of the Whole February 12, 2008 Page 3 especially with their evaluations with the goals. They also looked at other options other than the annual reward such as putting the money into a health insurance for retirees such as the police department has and is an issue that needs to be explored. It would always be a small minority of employees because not everybody is going to be at the top end of their pay scale. The bigger questions is whether or not the Council wants to have some type of system for people at the top end of their pay scale or if once they get there, they’re done and just receive COLA. The committee’s recommendation is to go back and reinstitute compounding that was with this program for nine or ten years. Last year, they went away from compounding. They would like the compounding to go into effect for also 2007 and have the annual reward for the people at the top end of the pay scale. Ald. Werner asked about the other consideration that instead of getting the cash award, they would get additional days off. Director Anderson said the bigger question is whether or not you want to reward that employee. They can always come back to the options. The one that intrigued people was the health insurance. He said with his staff, they have trouble getting rid of the days off that they have and days off with the evaluation program, makes it tough also. Ald. Snead said she would like to see something for people that have hit the top end cause personally she does not want to see people going away. Once we have people here and we have them doing a good job, she would like to see them stay. If we don’t do something for those people, they are just getting cost of living, what’s to stop them from going someplace else. Her suggestion was that the Council look at some sort of option and it doesn’t have to be a huge, expensive one but some option that would be an incentive for people to continue their longevity with the city instead of leaving. Ald. Schaefer commented that experience has a lot to do with employees and you want to retain them as it costs more to train new employees. It takes time to build up the effectiveness of the employees so she could see where moving through the range makes sense and trying to get to the top end. In conversation with Administrative Assistant Cathie Anderson and City Administrator Sheiffer, she would like to see a comparable with the neighboring community to make sure what they have right now in the range for each of the employees is comparable to others. She wanted to be fair to the employees the city has as well as making sure that they are looking at the taxpayers, too, that the city doesn’t end up paying more than what someone in that same category or job description in the other community is getting paid. She would like to see some comparables for similar type jobs, similar type communities; the ranges and where they are at in pay. Mayor Johnson said they are working on getting comparables especially since the 5% with the police department and was that 5% indicative of everyone. Ald. Schaefer was told by Director Anderson that in the past the same program was going to be reviewed like every 3-5 years. Director Anderson stated that the original committee had recommended that a market analysis be done every 3-5 years. Ald. Schaefer thought that would be good. Next couple of meetings, Mayor Johnson stated that he would bring it forward so they know what the numbers are; in fairness to the cops, that they were brought down 5%, what those ranges are. Ald. Melcher inquired about the 2.5% average merit increase, is that pretty reflective of our union contracts with all of the groups. City Administrator Sheiffer commented that she didn’t know if that had anything to do with that. Ald. Melcher thought they were talking about a reflection of non-represented employees in terms of at least matching them to union employees in terms of what the pay scale is. City Administrator Sheiffer said the union contracts don’t have any performance built in there at all. Ald. Melcher continued, there’s no merit increase at all. City Administrator Sheiffer, none at all. Ald. Melcher, they only get cost of living. Mayor Johnson said they get step increases and cost of living. They were offered merit years ago and they turned it down. Director Anderson said they go to the top end of their scale within three years. Ald. Werner stated the system was better because they are seeing employees that are working towards a goal to get their merit pay. We’re seeing direct results. In the union contracts, that’s not necessarily the case. There’s an assumption that the union employees are doing their job; if not, there are corrective measures being taken by their supervisors to either move them out of the position or correct whatever is wrong. He thought this was a fair system. He had an opportunity to talk to staff on this matter and the compounding issue was taken away sometime ago. They have asked it to come back based upon circumstances based upon what other managers in their positions are being offered in other communities and this is a way of being Committee of the Whole February 12, 2008 Page 4 competitive with other communities and he just thought it was a fair thing and he thought the Council was going to see results because their merit pay is going to be based upon performance and how fast they get from the low end of their scale to the midpoint to top. It’s going to be based upon how they perform and this is a great incentive to get managers working. Mayor Johnson said it was an effective use of the scale. Ald. Melcher questioned the number of non-represented employees. The response was 45 employees. Ald. Werner asked what the consensus was on the issue. Mayor Johnson said once they get a consensus, a resolution would have to be done. Ald. Snead asked what Director Anderson’s next step would be, to look at a market analysis. Mayor Johnson stated they were doing it anyway. Ald. Schaefer said that is something she wanted to see. Ald. Snead asked if they wanted Director Anderson to look at options or not look at options for those people at the top of the scale. Mayor Johnson didn’t know what options they have; the option is whether or not the Council wants to do it, that’s the first question, then if it’s monetary or non-monetary which can be decided in the future. Director Anderson said if the Council were to do the same as last year, there were five people that were at the top of their pay scale, and he presumed it would be the same five, and last year, it cost the city roughly $8,000. Mayor Johnson said which doesn’t compound and they stay at their spot. They get a bonus, an annual reward. Director Anderson said it allows the supervisor to still use the tool effectively. Ald. Snead stated otherwise, what is the incentive for them to continue their goals, for them to stay. Receiving no other input, Mayor Johnson said it would be in resolution form and brought up at the next Council. At 7:35 p.m., Ald. Snead moved, Ald. Fiedler seconded, to adjourn the Committee of the Whole meeting and to reconvene after the Common Council meeting. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. At 8:20 p.m., Committee of the Whole meeting reconvened. Ald. Pavelko was excused at 8:35 p.m. Common Council Goals for City Administrator for 2008 Committee of the Whole members discussed the Council’s goals for the City Administrator for 2008. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Snead moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Seconded by Ald. Fiedler, motion carried unanimously. Stella Dunahee, CPS Transcribing Secretary Note: There is no audio recording of the reconvened Committee of the Whole meeting.