A. Contract Negotiation:
Due to CAO directive, Board members are not
allowed to reveal the substantive issues discussed at MOU contract
negotiations.
A number of members addressed the Board about
low attorney morale. Three principal concerns were expressed:
(1)Bonus pay. There is strong concern that
management will use any bonus pay mechanism in lieu of the merit/promotion
process. Bonus pay is a one-time performance reward; it does not
become a part of an attorney’s base pay for purposes of future
salary increases, nor is it included in the base salary for purposes
of calculating retirement pay. It was stated that if management
finds the merit and promotion process inadequate or unsatisfactory,
notwithstanding the unfettered discretion afforded management
in that process, then the appropriate mechanism for resolution
of those concerns is the meet and confer bargaining process rather
than substitution of a bargained-for process with unilateral action.
(2) Under-utilization of merit and promotion
process: It was explained that the process of merit and promotion
is funded by salary savings that are achieved through a variety
of measures: e.g., employing an attorney at a lower salary step
than is authorized in the budget; replacing retirees with lower-step
employees; and not filling authorized positions. There is a belief
that the City Attorney has hired beyond authorization and at higher
salaries than is authorized. Accordingly, the City Attorney has
failed to achieve salary savings and to plan for any merit/promotion
process which must be funded by such savings.
(3) Advanced hiring. Members stated that
in the past the City has hired attorneys at higher than entry
level steps only where the needs of the office so required, as
when no experienced civil attorneys were available or willing
to work in civil liability and the police employment litigation
unit. There is the belief that the City Attorney has deviated
from this custom and practice, and has instead hired a number
of attorneys from the private sector and other outside positions
at accelerated rank and pay scales (City Attorney IV and Assistant
City Attorney). These employment decisions have drastically reduced
the number of higher salaried positions available to the lower-ranking
attorneys who rely on the merit and promotion process to operate
as a career ladder. To clarify whether the City Attorney has in
fact created or exacerbated promotional compaction by advanced
step hirings, the Association has secured from Chief Deputy Terree
Bowers a commitment to provide a list of all persons hired by
City Attorney Delgadillo and their positions and compensation.
(4) "Rock of City" Recognition
Awards. There is concern that the "Rock" awards will
damage morale even further because of the perception that the
awards will be used in lieu of the merit/promotion process. Additional
concerns are that the "Rock" awards do not serve merely
as recognition of good efforts and results since no more than
one attorney per division will be recognized. This is believed
to work a general inequity since some are so much larger than
others and, further, since many of the more difficult assignments
are necessarily "team efforts." Furthermore, there is
the potential for substantial inequity given the extreme variation
in the nature of attorney assignments within the office -- most
attorneys have no opportunity to work on matters that generate
public notice. In addition, some stated that low morale in the
office is not caused by the lack of praise from management, and
so will not be so rectified by such small measures. On the other
hand, some members stated that any effort to institutionalize
management recognition of attorneys’ work is welcome.
B. Public Records Act Request:
Judith Reel submitted a draft Public Records
Act request and asked that the Association serve it on the City
Attorney’s Office. The draft requested documents in two areas:
(1) the McKinsey & Co. audit and all drafts of the audit,
as well as written management communications regarding the audit;
and (2) documents identifying all persons hired by City Attorney
Delgadillo, their salaries, the funding source of the salaries,
and office communications regarding sources and mechanisms of
said salaries.
Shelley Smith stated that Terree Bowers had
made a verbal commitment to the Association to provide a copy
of the McKinsey & Co. audit. Jule Bishop reported that the
Personnel Office, Sandra Pellen was compiling the list of those
hired by the new City Attorney and their MOU positions, and would
provide a copy on completion. Instead of serving the demand, the
Board decided to confirm by letter the commitments by Terree Bowers
and to request in that letter the additional items sought pursuant
to the Public Records Act. Board members stated that they would
issue a formal statutory demand if the documents are not voluntarily
produced.
The Association will make the Public Records
documents available to Association members when received.
C. Board Election
The election results in the only contested
elections were as follows:
President: Shelley Smith: 97 votes; Rita
Venegas: 94 votes
Secretary: Judith Reel: 93 votes; Lisa Berger:
91 votes
There was a lengthy and far-ranging discussion
about the election process and procedures.
Lisa Berger stated that ballots were mailed
to the printer on the Friday before Halloween. Most members received
their ballots by November 8; ballots were due back by November
26, the day they were to be counted. A few members informed Lisa
during the period between November 8 and 26 that they had not
received their ballots, and Lisa sent another to those persons.
To respond to confidentiality concerns expressed
by members voting at work, two elections ago the Board decided
to allow members to vote by mail. The Board sends ballots to members
using the addresses maintained by the Controller’s Office,
which addresses City employees are required to keep accurate.
Board members count the ballots. In order to protect the confidentiality
regarding the identity of the voters, it has been a general policy
that candidates are not to be present to observe the counting.
Accordingly, of the Board members, only those not running for
re-election may be present. Ballots must be received by the date
scheduled for counting; postmark dates are irrelevant (as was
stated in the letter to members accompanying the ballots.) Further,
there is no time in the day specified by which the ballots must
be received.
At 4:00 p.m. on November 26, Board members
Jule Bishop and Liz Greenwood, met at the Association’s office
for the purpose of checking and counting the ballots. The office
is located in a private office building downtown. Board member
Vince Ewing, was scheduled to be present and assist, but at the
last minute Vince Ewing was held up in court. On arriving at the
Association’s office, Jule Bishop and Liz Greenwood, who
do not have keys or night access to the building, learned that
the office building would be locked at 5:00 p.m. and that the
name of anyone seeking entry after that time had to be given to
the security guard before 5:00 p.m. This new requirement was believed
to be put in place by building management only recently as a response
to the events of September 11.
At approximately 4:15 p.m., Liz Greenwood
and Jule Bishop began the checking- in process. Ballots were put
into alphabetical order and verified via the membership lists.
The process always lasts at least 3 hours, and often longer. Prior
to the commencement of the ballot verification and count, no one
had informed the Election Committee or any other Board member,
of an intention to observe the count. At approximately 5:05p.m.,
on the day of the deadline, Raquel Perez called to say she wanted
to come and watch the counting. Ms. Greenwood spoke to Ms. Perez
and told her that her request was not timely. The process had
already commenced. Since the building was already locked, it was
past the deadline set by the building’s security personnel
to obtain an access permit.
As for the actual counting, Liz and Jule
placed the unopened envelopes in alphabetical order and checked
the names of the persons voting to verify that all were eligible
members of the Association. Next, they opened the outer envelopes,
and separated them from the inside envelopes which showed only
the Branch to which the voter belonged, and not the name of the
voter. They then opened the interior envelopes and removed the
ballots. Because of the closeness of the election, the actual
count was verified three times.
The Board’s policy is to count all conforming
ballots received on or before the date set for counting. At the
end of the day, a member brought a ballot to Mary Dennis and asked
for instructions for last minute voting. Mary Dennis contacted
the Association Office and it was agreed to accept this ballot
via fax. Thus, the Board allowed one Association member to fax
a completed ballot to the office at approximately 5:00, after
the member agreed to forego the confidentiality of the vote. Since
this fax ballot had to be checked against the members’ list,
the members’ name was required. In addition, two members
filled out all three ballots mailed to them (separately pertaining
to the civil, criminal and propriety branches) and returned all
three ballots in the same envelope. These ballots were examined
and one ballot from each was accepted and duly counted when it
was determined that the candidates chosen were clear. Before completing
the counting, other Board members were contacted to ask if there
were any additional ballots in Board members’ possession.
There were none.
Five ballots arrived at Association offices
by mail in the days following the deadline. As in all previous
Association elections, late ballots were not opened or counted.
All voting materials have been retained.
Some members present questioned whether the
counting process violated Article 5, Section 7 of the Association’s
By-Laws, which states in relevant part: "Ballots for any
election, including special elections, shall be verified and counted
by the Secretary/Treasurer and at least two other members in good
standing as the Board may designate." When the by-laws were
adopted, one person held the title of "Secretary/Treasurer."
Jule Bishop is Treasurer; Secretary Lisa Berger was precluded
from counting because she was a candidate for re-election. Another
association member, Christine McCall (formerly Patterson) argued
that the vote-count process was not in violation of the by-laws
because the provision "as the Board may designate" controls
the preceding phrase, and, although the Board could have designated
additional vote counters, the Board did not so designate. The
Bylaws do not currently require outside observers. Six seats on
the Board (out of 11) were up for election in this election cycle.
There was some discussion about whether the
Board should recount the ballots with observers. However, Rita
Venegas stated that a recount would not satisfy her objections.
When asked to specify what exactly about the election Rita contended
was unfair, Rita stated that the count was suspect because it
was conducted by Board members with no other witnesses in attendance.
She also cited the votes by the two people who mistakenly cast
three votes instead of one, even though their votes were accepted
and counted. Ms. Venegas also complained that the building was
locked after 5:00 p.m. When questioned by Eskel Solomon, Ms. Venegas
said that she did not know of anyone who tried and failed to enter
the Association office building to observe the vote count or of
anyone who had requested permission to observe. Ms. Venegas offered
no other specifics in her protest of the results. Finally, Ms
Venegas stated that the only resolution that would satisfy her
would be a new election with the votes counted by persons not
on the Board.
After full discussion, Eskel Solomon moved
to ratify the vote count and the Board approved the motion unanimously.
The Board discussed ways to increase the
membership’s participation and confidence in the election
process. Jule Bishop said that there are professional independent
ballot counters, but that they charge approximately $4,000 - $6,000
per election, and that use of outside counters might violate our
promise of confidentiality. The Board also discussed amending
the by-laws to expressly allow a candidate to designate a representative
to observe vote counting, with 24 hours notice to the Elections
Committee. The Board asked member Lisa Berger to assist in drafting
new election by-laws to accommodate these concerns.
D. Web Site
Jule Bishop reported that the web site is
established, and that the Board is soliciting ideas from Association
members about the content of the web site. Shelley Smith will
request a disk version of the MOU, official copies of which are
kept by the Controller’s office. It was also suggested that
the minutes of the Board meetings and agenda items be put onto
the site.
