CITY OF GLENDALE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
June 22, 2016
TO:
Members of the Civil Service Commission
FROM:
Matt Doyle, Director of Human Resources
SUBJECT:
Discussion of Proposals to Amend the City Charter on Matters
Relating to Civil Service
STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT
The subject before the Commission is a discussion of various proposals that would
modify some traditional Civil Service practices at the City of Glendale and modernize
the system to be more in alignment with contemporary employment practices. This
effort does not seek to abolish Civil Service in Glendale, but rather update the system to
provide more flexibility and better meet the needs of the organization. The four key
areas under discussion would require amendments to the City Charter (Article XXIV),
which would ultimately require a vote of the public.
BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale has operated under a Civil Service system since the 1930’s. It was
common in those days for local governments to adopt such systems to counteract the
proliferation of the “spoils” system in government employment practices that had existed
since the turn of the century. Typically, Civil Service systems were adopted to establish
“merit-based” employment practices and prevent elected officials from staffing government
jobs with friends, relatives and political supporters.
The key elements of a Civil Service system typically involve structured, merit-based
competitive exam processes for government jobs; the development of employment
standards based on knowledge, skill and ability; the establishment of career paths and
opportunities for advancement; and the protection of one’s employment status from
arbitrary action, favoritism or political coercion.
This system has historically served the City well, and all of the aforementioned
characteristics of a Civil Service system continue to make good sense in not only
managing an organization the size and scope of Glendale, but also in providing a
workplace that is competent, productive and rewarding to its workers. The discussion over
these proposals does not seek to change any of these general principles. Rather, the
discussion is intended to explore methods of improving the system that currently exists
and modernize some of the elements within Glendale’s Civil Service process that are in
need of updating.
The Commission is well aware of the economic and budgetary challenges the City has
faced over the last ten years. The organization as a whole has had to reduce its staffing
by nearly 25% and work smarter and more efficiently to continue to provide the
44
outstanding levels of service that our residents expect. City departments have had to
reexamine their core missions and put into place the necessary management and support
staff needed to continue to function in a more efficient and smart manner. In many cases,
this has required the establishment of more specialized and complex job classifications
which better reflect the actual work performed and the needs of the operating
departments. In this vein, it is imperative that systems be in place that will enable the
organization to adapt to changing needs and the flexibility to hire and retain the most
qualified and competent individuals to meet its continuing demands.
THE CHARTER AND CIVIL SERVICE RULES
The Civil Service provisions of the City Charter are set forth in Article XXIV. While one
might expect the Charter to contain very general guidelines for the establishment and
governance of a Civil Service system, Glendale’s Charter is very specific and detailed in a
number of its provisions. This is particularly unusual, given the fact that the Charter does
authorize the formation of the Commission and essentially grants the Commission the
authority to establish and amend its own rules, which it has historically done, subject to the
approval of the City Council.
The Civil Service Rules and Regulations are appropriately more extensive and detailed
than the Charter provisions. The Rules are the instructive document for staff in the
administration of the City’s recruitment and staffing efforts. While the Commission has
amended the Civil Service Rules and Regulations numerous times since their inception
nearly 80 years ago, the specific items being brought forth for consideration would require
amendment to the Charter itself. This again is due to the specificity of the Charter
language.
PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION
There are four key areas being explored for this discussion, which are addressed below:
1. Modify existing layoff/bumping procedures to limit “bumping” to within the department.
The existing layoff procedure is a very complicated and disruptive process of “bumping”
across departmental lines based on seniority and overall service time with the City.
Essentially, an employee subject to layoff has the ability to bump other employees with
lesser seniority out of their job, regardless of the City department. Accordingly, the
employee being bumped can likewise bump other employees with lesser seniority, as well
as service time. This process of bumping can go on five, six or seven times following the
layoff of a single position.
While the policy of basing layoff and bumping on seniority and service time is inherently
fair, the process of bumping across departmental lines is abundantly disruptive and
chaotic. Recent experience has shown that this process most often results in employees
being placed in departments where they are ill-prepared, unfamiliar and often lack the
basic skills to function effectively for that department. The employee must attempt to learn
an entirely new set of skills. The respective supervisors must re-train an individual who
may or may not have the necessary knowledge, skill or ability to succeed in the job. Every
time there has been a layoff, this scenario is all too familiar.
45
When this model of layoff/bumping was first envisioned years ago, job classifications were
more generic and interchangeable. An analyst, engineer, technician, office assistant or
manager could likely function regardless of the department assigned. Today, job duties
have become more specialized and complex; recent experience indicates that the bumping
process across departmental lines is highly ineffective. Additionally, due to recent budget
circumstances, departments have had to tighten their belts to such an extent that they no
longer have the capacity and time to take on and train staff who are ill-prepared for
particular assignments. Additionally, the public safety departments, Police and Fire,
typically require thorough background investigations, which create a dilemma under the
bumping scenario.
The proposal for discussion maintains the principle of seniority in layoff, but would limit the
bumping to within the respective City department.
2. Modify existing “Rule of Three” requirement in hiring process.
One of the most limiting aspects of the existing Civil Service process in Glendale is the
“Rule of Three” in hiring, which is set forth in both the Charter and Civil Service Rules &
Regulations. Currently, following the completion of all the elements of a recruitment and
selection process, an eligibility list is established based on a ranked order of scores of the
examination process. Candidates have to pass all phases of the examination process in
order to earn a spot on the eligibility list. The list of eligible names is then provided to the
hiring department (Appointing Authority) to make the final hiring decision.
Under the Rule of Three however, the Appointing Authority may only choose from among
the three highest ranked names on the eligibility list, regardless of the number of names on
the list. This places a very firm limitation on the appointing authority’s hiring options.
In some cases, three candidates are not sufficient, particularly if it is discovered that any of
the three individuals have a poor work history or negative references. Or, a candidate may
be very strong relative to their experience and skills yet may not be the right “fit” for that
particular department or work unit. In some instances, the Civil Service selection process
may produce candidates who test or interview very well, yet their work history is
demonstrably weak. An organization that demands exceptional job performance and
maintains very high work standards should not have to settle for candidates who are barely
adequate, due to limited options in the final hiring process.
Additionally, the City’s efforts to diversify its workforce can be enhanced if more options
are available to hiring departments.
The proposal under discussion would maintain all of the same standards and rigorous
selection procedures currently in place, yet at the conclusion of that process, provide the
hiring department with abundantly more options in making the actual hiring decision. The
proposal would expand the final hiring options beyond three candidates to a higher number
or perhaps the entire eligibility list.
46
3. Reduce eligibility list duration from two years to a shorter time period.
The third item under consideration would be the reduction in duration of eligibility lists
from two years to a shorter time period. Under existing Charter provisions, eligibility
lists remain in effect for a total of two years. While “open” eligibility lists can be
cancelled by the Commission prior to two years, “promotional” lists must remain in effect
for the full two years.
While two year lists generally serve the organization well, on occasion they do serve as
a “roadblock” to moving ahead within hiring decisions. Often, months after an eligibility
list has been established and the initial hiring appointments have been made,
candidates on the list may no longer be interested or have taken a job elsewhere. This
typically occurs between the 6th and 24th months of the list’s duration. Candidates
become difficult to reach, they lose interest and staff has to keep moving down on the
list to identify those still interested. This generally results in delays for the hiring
department.
As it stands now, at least a few times a year, the Commission is asked to cancel open
lists after they have become exhausted and stale. The proposed change would
eliminate the need for the Commission to have to take this action.
Reducing the duration of eligibility lists will provide more flexibility to hiring departments
and provide them the option of considering new candidates with greater frequency.
Additionally, similar to the previous item (#2), this proposal could also enhance the
City’s diversity goals. Essentially, if diversity goals are not met with a particular
recruitment process, this proposal would enable additional attempts without the
standard two-year wait period.
Also, reducing the duration of eligibility lists eliminates a fairly common problem that
occurs on promotional exams when candidates apply for positions they do not
necessarily want in order to get on an eligibility list for that particular classification. This
too, creates unnecessary work, causes delays, and prevents departments from moving
ahead with hiring decisions due to the existence of a list with individuals who in all
likelihood may not even be interested in the current opening.
4. Modify selection process for promotional reallocations.
Currently, under the Charter and Civil Service Rules, any effort to promote an individual
employee from one position to another through a budgetary reallocation requires the
posting of a promotional job bulletin and thus the solicitation of applications Citywide.
As with the previous item (#3), even though the position is relatively specialized and
intended to procure candidates with specific skills and experience within that particular
department, candidates Citywide will apply and compete for what is clearly an internal
departmental promotion. While this process can be viewed as an open, transparent and
competitive-based effort to promote an individual, it is relatively burdensome and often
viewed as superfluous or farcical.
Additionally, if an employee’s position is reallocated from one position to another
47
through the budget process and that individual tests for the position and is not
successful in ranking within the top three candidates on the eligibility list, the
department faces a dilemma. The options would be to either appoint one of the other
individuals who scored among the top three, and layoff the employee whose position
was reallocated, or simply not fill the position.
This proposal seeks to explore some alternative method of addressing the promotional
reallocation process without the associated problems and risks addressed above.
DISCUSSION/PROCESS
The above recommendations are presented for discussion purposes. As has already
been stated, this effort in no way seeks to abolish the Civil Service system that has
worked abundantly well at the City of Glendale for many years. It is rather an effort to
improve upon a system that seeks excellence and merit in employment and modernize
the process to better meet the changing needs of the organization. These proposals
continue to fully embrace the objectives of a merit-based Civil Service system, but do
provide the necessary flexibility and practicality to make a good system better.
The City Manager and staff have discussed these issues with the City Council and are
thus seeking feedback from the Commission. The next steps would be to engage
representatives of the employee associations should they request to meet and confer
over these issues.
While it is anticipated that these four items being explored will likely be modified
following the various discussions between key stakeholders in this dialog, it would be
the City Manager’s and staff’s intent to have the outcome of these discussions prepared
for presentation in the form of a Charter Amendment for the next municipal election in
2017.
ACTION
This item is presented to the Commission for discussion and appropriate action.
48