Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes
Friday, February 22, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Committee members present were Alderman Kopplin, Alderman Lampe and Alderman Rudebusch. Also present was Robert Kufrin, Tom Bauer, Caesar Geiger and Marie Pellett. Jerry Hammernik arrived at 7:15 a.m.
Item 1. Roll Call
Item 2. Approval of minutes of September 19, 2001 and November 15, 2001
Alderman Lampe, seconded by Alderman Rudebusch, made a motion to approve the minutes. All aye; motion carried.
Item 3. Review and consider approval of tuition reimbursement applications
The requests of John Edwards, Jerry Biggart, Robert Carter and Tom Rosandich were approved.
Item 4. Update on health insurance
The Personnel Committee members that attended the recent employee health insurance committee meeting felt that it went well.
Item 5. Update on wellness programs
Caesar indicated that the Wellness Committee met yesterday and unanimously chose Aurora as the provider. Aurora seemed more receptive to our needs, is willing to work with us, and had lower costs. The committee has scheduled dates in April to conduct health risk assessments and health screenings and will be organizing donated incentives to raffle off to participants. Aurora will then return two weeks later to discuss results with individuals. Tom suggested providing the Personnel Committee with a copy of Aurora’s responses to the Wellness Committee’s questions to them regarding our expectations and what Aurora can do for us. In response to a recent media exposure, Alderman Kopplin indicated that the City was not hiring a paid personal trainer, but implementing an overall wellness program for employees. As far as Bob is concerned, the only wellness program initiative that he will not support is membership at health clubs. There may be a way to utilize the fitness equipment that is currently available in City facilities. Jerry indicated that a fitness coordinator will be providing training to Fire Department employees on how to properly use the equipment, but that person will not be on staff.
The expectation is for the Wellness Committee to bring a formal presentation to the Personnel Committee to discuss what the range of activities will be and how people can participate. Alderman Lampe asked if incentives will be provided. Caesar explained that the Wellness Committee discussed promoting the plan initially by providing incentives to people to take the assessment and screenings. The Wellness Committee members are going to brainstorm on ideas for incentives at their next meeting. Tom indicated that giving employees time while on duty to attend the screenings may be incentive in itself. Caesar explained that the reason for conducting the health risk assessment is to use the results to develop a plan for the year.
Jerry indicated that the Fire Department expects to bring a recommendation to the Personnel Committee for the selection of a provider for the Fire Department program. Alderman Lampe stated that she is in support of the programs.
Item 6. Discussion of non-union annual adjustment for 2002
Last fall when the non-union wage increase was discussed, there was a miscommunication between the committee members and Bob Kufrin and therefore no wage comparisons were done. It was clearly understood now that the Committee wants a wage comparison to be completed. The information available to MAMEA members through the Carlson Dettmann study will be used, attempting to match positions based on responsibilities. Alderman Kopplin asked if private sector comparables were available. Bob indicated that Carlson Dettmann does have private sector information, but he doesn’t know if we have access to that information and if there is an additional fee to access it.
In the past, two different types of analysis were completed on a 3-year cycle: internal comparables to unionized positions with average overtime rates, and external comparables to other communities of comparable size. Alderman Lampe and Alderman Rudebusch agreed that the comparables should be performed every other year just to be on a regular schedule and know how we’re doing.
Jerry stressed the importance of keeping the internal comparables in mind because to managers it isn’t as important what the Chief in South Milwaukee is making as it is what the union is getting and if it means taking a pay cut, the employees will not want to be promoted to management positions.
Alderman Rudebusch questioned putting off the decision until a study is done, but agreed that there are factors other than what our neighbors are paying to take into consideration.
Alderman Lampe added that the committee needs to take into consideration that every time we negotiate with the unions we have a wall built in front of us because of what management gets. They use management as a comparable, comparing the percentage of health insurance premium copays to their salary. Jerry indicated that the contrary argument is that the cost of health insurance is a much greater percentage of that employee’s cost than it is of their supervisor’s cost and they seem to forget that. The union employee’s fringe benefit percentage is much higher; the benefit cost is almost equal to the employee’s wage cost.
Alderman Lampe prepared calculations from the July 2001 non-union salary ordinance showing the percentage difference in the additional $120 that the employee would be copaying this year versus the $30 last year. Her calculations showed it was far less than 1%. She also calculated what percentage of salary that the premium copay represents. There are only 5 positions that are above the 1% difference between the 2.9% that most of the unions get and the 3.9% that was given last year. Tom Bauer added that the difference is also in the fact that the union employees can earn overtime pay. Jerry Hammernik told the Committee that he, Assistant Chief Krudop, and Assistant Chief Rosandich were at a fire on Monday morning and all though the night without any additional pay and there were Fire Department employees who didn’t roll out of bed, claiming various excuses for not being able to respond. The guys that he can count on to be there all the time don’t get paid overtime.
Tom reminded the committee that management receives increases after the union contracts. Last year the union contracts were 2.9% plus non-union employees received 1% because of the copay. That was one particular year. Usually, if it’s 2.9%, then that’s what the non-union employees get. The 1% in July is not guaranteed, but based on performance. Ann stated that maybe the merit increase should be done away with.
Ann’s calculations showed that based on the current salaries if the increase was 3.9% it would be $86,000 and the 1% merit would be $11,500. So for 3.9% plus the 1% in July you’re looking at almost $100,000.
When Tom became Chief, he told Bob and Mike Brever that he didn’t care what the other Chiefs in Milwaukee County are paid. What matters to him is the compression in our own agency. So if patrol gets 2.9% every year for the next 10 years, then the Sergeants should have a cushion of 5% and then the Lieutenants, Captains and Chief. If you keep that percentage so that there’s no compression so that our inside people don’t get upset that Sergeants are making more than Lieutenants and that’s all he cares about. He doesn’t care what Franklin’s Chief makes. Ann’s comparison also showed which positions received additional adjustments last year to offset wage compression issues.
Jerry stated that new alderpeople don’t necessarily know Oak Creek’s personnel history. Alderman Lampe indicated that she went back to 1993. Jerry stated that he’s been in management for 16 years and he went for a stretch early on where 10 out of the 11 years he got less of a raise than the union did and no one ever wants to remember those things. Unfortunately it’s always a different group of aldermen.
Alderman Lampe’s conclusion was that if you give the non-union employees a 3.9% increase plus 1.0% in July, which was what was budgeted, except for 4 people, they will be making out on the copay.
Bob indicated that there are two real issues: (1) what’s the cost of health insurance and (2) how much should employees pay for it regardless of their salary. There is no different cost in health insurance between that person and the newest employee. In fact, the new employees may have larger families and a variety of issues. Health insurance costs are driven by the number of family members. The wage rates are a function of duties, responsibilities and abilities in terms of what’s contributed to the organization.
The committee decided not to make a recommendation to Council until the wage survey is completed. Bob expected that it could be done by the end of March.
Alderman Lampe wanted it noted that the Assistant Fire Chief car allowance should be added to the final salary ordinance.
Item 7. Discussion on comments received on performance evaluation process
No discussion took place.
Item 8. Discussion on Fire Department Off-Duty Employment Policy
Alderman Kopplin indicated that she understands what Jerry is trying to do and she understood anything directly related to medical and fire being restricted, but she wasn’t sure that the City could legally tell employees what they couldn’t do while off-duty. She asked if the policy as presented had been through legal review. Jerry indicated that it was not legally reviewed, but that it mirrors the Police Department’s policy. Jerry indicated that the City does have the ability to have certain controls over employees’ personal lives. Rob added that if in an employee’s conduct they bring disregard to disrespect to the City, that’s where the linkage is. He added that it’s a policy issue because the committee could say that based on the type of committee and the type of city we are, we only want to regulate at a certain level. We’ve had some past history in the Fire Department and that’s why it’s relevant (off-duty conduct). Bob indicated that the media tend to focus on public sector employee’s public employment (the municipality and job title) when off-duty conduct becomes an issue. Tom added that the community sets the standard as to what types of conduct are acceptable, which is why it can change from community to community. Alderman Lampe questioned the wording on the signature page in relation to insurance. In response to Alderman Lampe’s question if the union knows that this policy is forthcoming, Jerry indicated that there is a policy currently, but it is not as well written. Alderman Kopplin asked Rob if the City would limit the number of hours an employee can work at a second job. Rob indicated that this was the first time he had seen the draft policy and that he would advise the Committee after reviewing the policy in full. Alderman Kopplin also questioned the extent of the word "delivery" in relation to alcoholic beverages—does that mean a Firefighter could not be a truck driver for an alcoholic beverage company? She added that she could understand how limiting employment from investigative work for attorneys, insurance companies, collection agencies or security firms may apply to Police Officers, but would that preclude a Firefighter from doing personal investigations, e.g., marital relations? Tom responded that it applied to Police Department employees. There are fire and arson investigations that this section could apply to. Alderman Kopplin asked for clarification on how Guidelines (B)(1)(g) would apply. Jerry deferred the question to Rob. Rob indicated that in a community where the person was well known, some type of immoral or problematic conduct which would affect their credibility, especially in the ability to exert command authority or control, if they ended up coming to provide a service they would be recognized that they weren’t effective. For example, Tom stated that Al Downs’ ability to make a command decision regarding towing services or Pat Mitchell when he was working for Al Downs. That could impact his ability to make a command decision on the street. The example was more relevant to (B)(1)(h). Bob gave an example where a firefighter wanted to be the lockbox distributor and was saying that the Oak Creek Fire Department, of which I’m a member, uses this. He was attempting to use his official position to state that the City of Oak Creek endorsed this product. Alderman Rudebusch added that it is better for a policy to have broad statements to allow for the Committee’s interpretation and discretion rather than to have the policy too specifically defined. Jerry added that employees have two methods of appeal—the Personnel Committee and the Police and Fire Commission. The policy will be brought back to the committee for another review before implementation.
Item 9. The Committee went into Executive Session at approximately 8:13 a.m. pursuant to Wisconsin State Statutes Section 19.895(1)(e) for:
a. Discussion on status of labor negotiations with Police Clerks
b. Discussion on status of fire arbitration, other grievances and other issues
c. Discussion on status of negotiations with Local 133
Item 10. Consider a motion to reconvene into Open Session at 9:03 a.m. to take action on any or all Executive Session items
a. No action was taken.
b. No action was taken.
c. No action will be taken until the April election has passed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:03 a.m.