Weak
In the URL for Nigel Jaquiss’ article in Willamette Week today on Measure 26-90, the proposed changes to the Civil Service section of Portland’s Charter, it’s labeled “editorial”. Good to know, as opinions are mixed in with the facts. It states:
“A proposed change to civil service rules in Portland’s city charter has up to now focused on whether voters should make it easier to fire more city employees. But the change on the May 15 ballot also poses an ironic twist that’s received little attention. A powerful city union is pushing to preserve a cushy contract for temporary workers that does not benefit its 900 members.”
Cushy? How is a Charter provision that limits temporary workers’ tenure at the City, “a cushy contract”? And how about mentioning that both the temporary and permanent workers are members of the same union?
“The charter now limits total hours a temporary city employee can work to five months, a period that’s been defined by a judge as 860 hours. “Temporary appointments shall be used for the purpose of meeting emergency, non-recurring and short-term workload needs of the City,” says Section 4-302 of the charter.”
“Because of the 860-hour cap, the Portland Parks and Recreation Bureau faces a hurdle when it wants to use “temporary” workers year-round at four community centers and particularly at those centers’ indoor pools.”
Um, yeah. Using temporary employees year-round means they’re really permanent employees, doesn’t it? The point, and the value, of the Charter’s current limitation on employing temporary workers, is that the founders of Portland didn’t want the City to depend on temporary employees to do the City’s work. If workers are really permanent employees, the City should budget for their positions, with both the City and employee having job security and clear understanding that the purpose is to serve the public.
After they’ve worked for many years, all employees deserve some pension benefits – especially considering the cost of hiring back the workers from agencies, 28% higher than their wages as temporary employees, is comparable to the cost of a city benefit package. Why pay it to the employment agency rather than as retirement support to the employee? The SW Neighborhoods Parks Committee heard a couple of months ago, from a woman who’s been a “temporary, seasonal employee” for 26 years. She works only summers, so she didn’t cross the 860-hour line. But I believe there a public value in her expertise and service, that should be rewarded with 860 hours-worth per year in retirement benefits.
Charter Commission staff Judy Tuttle is reported as saying, “By leaving the language as is, you have no flexibility. Take it out and you have the option to negotiate.” This is the core problem with the changes to the Civil Service chapter. By slashing seven pages of rules to two pages of general oversight, e.g., setting up the appointed, three-member Civil Service Board, the Charter is losing both specific mandates and broad values. The 860-hour limitation is not only a measurable number, which may or may not need to be changed. It speaks to the principle that city employees should be primarily dedicated to city business and pursuit of the long term public good, and should be employed as permanent staff except in rare situations. We don’t want parks laborers routinely running independent landscaping businesses on the side – sometimes bidding on contracts, sometimes working as hourly parks staff, increasing the chances of conflicts of interest and patronage.
The Civil Service proposal in 26-90 falls down, by not only removing the specific limitation on hours worked by temporary employees, but failing to add in its place a general, Constitution-like statement of the value the regulation implemented. In removing “Temporary appointments shall be used for the purpose of meeting emergency, non-recurring and short-term workload needs of the City,”, in order to eliminate the 860-hour rule, the ballot measure takes a sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is needed. In many places in Measures 26-89 (future Charter Commission), 26-90 (Civil Service), and 26-91 (Form of Government), important principles and specifics are absent, with only vague mention of future new administrative rules, policies, and practices in return. I’m been dealing with the City too long to have trust in promises that aren’t specific and guaranteed to be implemented.
The Willamette Week article ends without explaining why the current Charter language is “cushy” for temporary workers.