Civil Service rules – NOT DULL! Really!
In the thrilling third part of this gripping four installment review of the Charter Review Commission’s proposed changes to Portland’s City Charter, I will clearly explain breathtaking insights and facts that you, the informed Portland citizen, need to know! There are parts of the proposal that are good!! There are parts of the proposal which suck!!! There are parts of the proposal that no matter how many exclamation points I add, the average person is still not going to find them the slightest bit interesting!!!! Keep reading, as Amanda explains it all.
Our current Charter is unusual compared with that of many other cities. It specifies not only the form of government, but also how the city operates. The Civil Service chapter protects individuals and society, by specifying rules for attaining and keeping employment in city government that aim to eliminate political/social bias and make hiring and promotions based on merit – on what you know, rather than who you know or who you are.
Chapter 4 is the Civil Service section, one of the four areas assigned for revision to the current Charter Review Commission.
The Charter’s Civil Service regulations don’t apply to employees of the Portland Development Commission.
Only School District employees and Firefighters are required to be covered by Civil Service rules, under state law – ORS 242.702 .
The proposed new chapter of the Charter cuts 70% in volume – seven pages reduced to two. The goal was to make it more like a Constitution, with fewer specific regulations. The main problem with that is that new administrative rules aren’t being proposed concurrently, so citizens are losing important safeguards with no assurance when or if they will be replaced. Note, I said “citizens are losing”. The Civil Service code protects citizens as well as city employees. One of the main functions of the Civil Service regulations is to ensure fairness in city employment. We don’t want a government where all top jobs are given to friends of the elected officials. If we move to a Strong Mayor form of Council, it will be even more important to have the checks and balances of a clear Civil Service code and a citizen volunteer Civil Service Board with more power.
I wish I could give you a link to the Charter Review Commission’s proposal. The last update on this section posted on the Mayor’s web site are the minutes of the Civil Service subcommittee from 5-24-06. I don’t know if they haven’t met as a subcommittee since then; the 12/19/06 meeting of the entire Commission adopted a proposal for Chapter 4, the Civil Service rules, but it I don’t find it on line. Hey, it’s only January 6, there is plenty of time before the hearing on the 18th, right? Not. I’ll post a link in the comments, as soon as I can persuade someone in City Hall to give me one. In the meantime, I’ll try to explain some of the core issues.
First, the purpose of the Civil Service chapter of the Charter:
* It establishes a system of personnel administration which provides all citizens with a fair and equal opportunity for public service (reducing the risk of nepotism, favoritism, and discrimination – this is good);
* establishes conditions of service which will attract and retain employees of good character, technical knowledge, skill, and ability (good, good, we want that); and
* improves efficiency and economy in agencies by establishing methods of personnel administration (yep yep, duh).
This language is in the current Charter…. it goes away in the proposed revision. On the other hand, the old Charter has nothing on diversity (not considered important back when it was written), while the new proposal has a good value statement for the merit system of hiring: “The goal of the merit system is a workforce that reflects the aspirations and values of the city it serves.” I would still like it to be more specific – the values of the city aren’t necessarily values that protect and promote minorities in city employment.
The current Charter specifies how to give public notice of rule changes. There is no mention of this in the new version.
Gone is reference to Chapter 2-6111, which specifies that Council may pass regulations requiring city workers to live within the city. The current Civil Service regulations allow preference to be given to applicants living in Portland. Many folks active in Neighborhood Associations were troubled when a director was appointed to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement who lived in Tigard. I would like to see the Council pass an ordinance requiring all top managers to live within the city.
Also gone is the requirement that the Chief of Police must have served as a police officer for ten years.
And the proposal eliminates the definition of Temporary Employees. The current Charter allows temporary employees to be hired for a maximum of five months. This causes problems in bureaus like Parks, where seasonal employees are sometimes fired after 5 months, then the same people are hired back from agencies at 30% higher cost. But eliminating the definition isn’t the solution. The concept of limiting temporary employment is in the Charter because it reflects the principle that the city doesn’t rely on temporary employees, and the principle that employees who serve for longer periods deserve the security of permanent employment and benefits. Workers are concerned that with the elimination of all language about Temporary Employees, bureaus will start to use them even more.
Wait, this is getting dull. Time to implement the suggestion of one of my teenagers, when offering ‘helpful’ criticism of my blog: “Post more of Dad’s amazing photos”. OK, here…
There. Deep breaths, in, out. Don’t we all feel better? OK, let’s continue.
Many people think of the Civil Service regulations as protecting mostly union workers. In fact, union contracts and grievance procedures are often more helpful to employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. The proposed Charter newly recognizes the right of employees to organize, but it doesn’t provide new protection in doing so. The Civil Service Board is the only resource for non-represented city employees who feel they have been discriminated against.
So it’s troubling that the proposal would make more upper management staff “at will” employees. Another term for this category is “political appointments”, people whose employment depends on keeping the goodwill of the Commissioner in charge now, and perhaps to a Strong Mayor in the future. The new language doesn’t specify how deeply into the ranks of bureau hierarchy this would go. That’s appropriate to some extent, since designations of job categories can change, and we don’t want to have to change the Charter every time they do. But the proposed language puts the category on “employees with a classification with a major role in the formulation of policy that requires the exercise of independent judgment”. What does that mean, and who does it include? Planners heading projects such as revisions to the Downtown Plan? Plus, the phrase “the exercise of independent judgment” is worryingly reminiscent of the Kentucky River NLRB decision for charge nurses, discussed early on this blog. If charge nurses telling nursing assistants to take dinner to one set of patients rather than another can be considered “exercise of independent judgment”, where is the line in city jobs?
The proposal keeps language specifying that appointments and promotions must be made based on merit, as determined by objective standards such as scores on tests. I would like to see this augmented by allowing consideration of other factors, including citizen satisfaction. In some city jobs, planners or neighborhood outreach workers, for example, the ability to pass a written test should be much less important than whether the employee is responsive and helpful to citizens. The new proposal states “The goal of the merit system is a workforce that reflects the aspirations and values of the city it serves.” That’s lovely. Written tests don’t necessarily ensure achievement of that goal.
One of the troubling omissions in the proposed Chapter 4 is failing to clarify and specify the relationship between the Civil Service Board and the Bureau of Human Relations (HR) and its director. Some folks have commented to me this doesn’t matter as much with the current HR Director, Yvonne Deckert, because she is doing well in encouraging diversity and implementing fair HR practices. BUT suppose a Strong Mayor has other ideas and appoints a different director, where then is the protection and specificity of how HR relates to the Civil Service Board?
Finally (yes, we’re nearly done, thanks so much for staying with me), the role of the Civil Service Board (CSB) is crucial. The new proposal adds language requiring administrative rules and other regulatory changes to be considered by the three-person Civil Service Board. That’s good. And it is more clear than the current Charter about who the three appointees should be – the current language says only all three must be “known to the Mayor to be devoted to the principles of civil service reform”. Note “reform”. The original Charter aimed to fix the problem of Jacksonian patronage. But the new language doesn’t specify that each of the three members has to be nominated by the three constituencies – employees, management, and citizens – only that all three members “represent” those stakeholder groups. And as with the proposed assignment of authority to future Charter Review commission members discussed here, I’m uncomfortable removing specific language on Board operations out of the Charter leaving setting of future proposals and administrative rules to an appointed group.
Randy Ventgen is a citizen who served on the Civil Service Board from 1988 through 1997. He provided many pages of expert testimony to the Charter Review Commission, including detailed suggestions which seem to have been lost in the paring of the Charter, rather than correcting it. His final words to the Commission serve as a good conclusion to this tome.
“Civil Service Boards for the last 100 years have supported a consistent, fair and equitable HR system. [Portland] CSB hearings in the last 20 years have found consistent and persistent concerns with HR practices and issues in other Bureaus including inter-bureau rivalries. Having an independent review panel allows the public and employees to have confidence that such practices will be monitored and hopefully improved and that the original purpose for a Civil Service system that is not based on political pressures or unfair inconsistent practices but instead on merit, fitness, and service and in resolving concerns informally and quickly.”
The Charter Commission’s proposal for revisions to Chapter 4 makes a few positive advances to this goal, but takes several steps back. I think it needs more work before being sent to the voters.