MINUTES
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
AUGUST 9, 2006 3:00 P.M.
SCOTT HEYMAN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present: J. Dennis, Chair; L. McBean-Clairborne; D. Kiefer
Excused: P. Mackesey and F. Proto
Staff: C. Covert, Clerk of the Legislature; A. Fitzpatrick, Personnel Commissioner; B. Kominos, Benefits Manager; M. Lynch, Public Information; S. Martel Moore, Deputy County Administrator; D. Squires, Finance Director
Guests: Chantalise DeMarco, Mental Health Department and CSEA Representative
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Dennis did not have a report.
Update – Fact-Finding Report and Adoption Process
(non-interest arbitrable issues) Road Patrol and Civil Division employees
Ms. Fitzpatrick distributed in summary format and reviewed information outlining the negotiation process to date for the road patrol. In response to a question raised by Ms. Kiefer regarding the selection process for an arbitrator, Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that she is familiar with most of them and will consult with the County Attorney on credentials and resumes and in some cases when she is not familiar with the names she will contact other counties and jurisdictions about their experiences. PERB gives a list of seven arbitrators; each side strikes three and prioritizes remaining four. In New York State there is currently three who are interest-arbitrators for deputy sheriffs.
Below is an outline of the costs to date for this process:
Professional Negotiator and Consultation Services: $20,000 (not final) – Corrections contract fee
Legal Services: $16,300 (each side pays half)
Transcription Cost (Interest Arbitration Hearing): $1,400 (each side pays half)
The amount of $20,000 included one or two negotiating sessions, mediation process, interest arbitration process, and improper practices charges filed between parties over various elements of the negotiations between May 2005 and December 2005. The charges of improper practices need to be resolved before the process can move on.
In addition to the costs noted above, the County is required to pay one-half of the total cost for the neutral arbitrator’s services at $900 per day. It is anticipated this cost will be between $5,000 and $10,000.
Current Status of Processes
The Fact-Finding report as amended by the Legislature was submitted to the Union for approval to produce a tentative agreement. To date the Union has not signed the agreement. All indications are that the Union will sign, but a signed agreement has not yet been received.
The Interest Arbitration Award is expected no later than October, 1, 2006. Unless the panel makes any agreement that goes beyond the statutory framework of interest arbitration, it would be a two-year award. Following completion of that, the next step would be a demand to negotiate which she believes will happen fairly quickly by both parties as the contract will have already expired on March 1, 2006. She anticipates a demand to negotiate by November 2006 following negotiations, absent a settlement, the steps outlined earlier in the meeting will be repeated. Under the current legislation for Interest Arbitration for Deputy Sheriff, the contract must be expired one year to begin the Interest Arbitration process. Before getting to Interest Arbitration, negotiations (hopefully good-faith bargaining), and mediation and fact-finding steps must be taken.
Future Process Steps
The Legislature will need to establish guidelines for negotiations and develop proposals; identify negotiating team members, consultant and legal services selection, and roles and responsibilities for the various parties in the process.
Mr. Dennis commented that he had hoped for a four-year agreement so that this process would not have to begin again immediately.
Ms. Fitzpatrick noted that other unions have the same process with the exception that at the point of fact-finding, the Legislature can impose an agreement, but only for one year.
A brief discussion followed concerning the process for selecting a professional negotiator and the Committee agreed to add this topic to the next agenda. Ms. Kiefer expressed her concern with the apparent conflict of interest involved in the last negotiating selection and would like to avoid that in the future. Ms. Fitzpatrick feels it is appropriate for the next steps for the road patrol negotiations to have the appropriate policy-decision body outline a process and decide what process will be used to select a negotiator and what roles and responsibilities will be assigned, which is critical at an early stage.
Health
Insurance Steering Committee
Ms.
Fitzpatrick distributed and reviewed summary information concerning the Health
Insurance Steering Committee and provided an outline of their goals. The initial charge and goal of the
informal, internal steering committee was to work with the County’s health
insurance consultant and look at the current plan and cafeteria plans as
developed in various other entities.
At this point it has not been coordinated with the Intermunicipal
group’s activities. Plan designs
for other municipalities have been reviewed and the Committee is now in the
final stages of developing a cafeteria plan design with projections for
associated costs. It is the
Steering Committee’s suggestion that a model plan be developed that can be a
pilot program that would not change the current benefits in place but allows
people to select an alternative during the pilot period. There is an opportunity in November
where an employee can select certain benefits for the following calendar
year. It is anticipated that
between now and September the work of the internal committee will be done and
meetings set up with the unions to outline this as a proposal for a pilot
program. If the unions agree there
will be a memorandum of understanding with any union that wants to participate
outlining the pilot program and how long it will last. The consultant would like it to be
two-year to provide useful information in results. She will have more information and report back to the
Committee in September or October.
Ms. Kiefer asked if other health insurance consultants were considered. Ms. Fitzpatrick said not at this stage of the process; however, Mr. Whicher has referenced numerous times about doing a Request for Proposals for new consultant services.
A brief discussion followed concerning union involvement and Ms. Fitzpatrick said she discussed the union’s involvement with Mr. Chase, President of CSEA, who felt based on experience that he wanted a plan brought forward that the union membership could look at versus having an open dialogue. Mr. Chase provided a name of a State Health Insurance CSEA professional for the County to contact. Contact was made to discuss experiences in other jurisdictions and what could be offered through CSEA. The draft proposal was reviewed by this professional for feedback as well.
CanaRx
Ms. Fitzpatrick distributed information concerning TC3’s program with CanaRx. The College negotiated into their contract a component of CanaRx. The County does not negotiate the College’s contract. The pilot program will begin September 1, 2006, as part of their contract. The County’s Finance Director has been involved because of the issues as the County’s third-party administrator for prescription drugs (NMHC) is unable to administer CanaRx. TC3 will continue to pay its current monthly premium to the Tompkins County Pharmacy Benefit Plan. Tompkins County Pharmacy Benefit Plan will pay a detailed bill submitted by CanaRx on a monthly basis as there is currently no way for the County’s pharmacy benefit manager, NMHC, to directly interact with CanaRx.
Ms. DeMarco feels it would be very beneficial for the Committee to have a presentation by this company to get a better understanding of how it operates. There are other counties in the State that have implemented this program. Following a brief discussion, the Committee agreed it was open to having more information and having a presentation at the November meeting.
The pilot program is expected to continue until December 31, 2007, and Mr. Squires said a detailed calculation will be made to determine the savings or additional costs associated with the CanaRx program.
Ms. Fitzpatrick said the question that was raised was why do TC3 employees participate in the CanaRx program and not Tompkins County employees and retirees. In answer to that question, TC3 negotiated it and Tompkins County did not. She reminded the Committee that the County has one plan with subgroups. TC3’s attorney, Ed Hooks, issued an opinion that the College could participate in the Canadian prescription drug program with minimal liability legally. The County Attorney’s office issued a legal opinion for the County indicating there are Federal regulations that say “don’t do it”.
She said meetings have been held with several County officials including the County Administrator, Finance Director, County Attorney, Benefits Manager, etc., and it is the opinion and recommendation that the County delay consideration of this option for County employees and retirees until a review can be made of TC3 utilization under this program.
Rollover Request
It was MOVED by Ms. Kiefer, seconded by Mrs. McBean-Clairborne, to approve and submit the following appropriation to the Budget and Capital Committee for approval. In response to a question raised by Ms. Kiefer, Ms. Fitzpatrick said the funding for consultant services will cover costs through 2006. A brief discussion followed concerning the funding being requested for training and in response to a question raised by Mrs. McBean-Clairborne, Ms. Fitzpatrick said the funding being requested is for 2006 and will offer the supervisor and leadership series again in the Fall. Ms. Martel Moore said she hopes some funding will be rolled over to 2007 for additional training series, if possible.
Following further discussion of the rollover request, a voice vote resulted as follows on the rollover request: Ayes – 3 (Dennis, Kiefer, and McBean-Clairborne); Noes – 0; Excused – 2 (Mackesey and Proto). MOTION CARRIED.
|
Personnel – Purchase four new computers and two printers |
1430.52206 |
$6,070 |
|
|
Personnel – Professional Services to cover Health Care Consultant Contract |
1346.52210 |
$9,261 |
|
|
Personnel – Training, Diversity, and Workplace Incentives |
1987.54442 |
$33,500 |
|
|
Personnel – Purchase Shelving Units for Records Management |
1460.54400 |
$4,000 |
|
|
Personnel – Purchase five Windows Upgrades |
1430.52230 |
$1,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
$54,031 |
Demographic Report
Committee members briefly reviewed the demographic information distributed with the agenda.
Kick-Off Event
Mrs. McBean-Clairborne updated the Committee on the activities being planned for the kick-off event being planned for September. The event is to kick-off the County’s diversity initiatives and the marketing and presentation of the new logo and Diversity Statement. Discussion followed concerning the logo design and Mrs. McBean-Clairborne said it represents elements of waterfalls and four points of a compass. Further discussion followed and Committee members felt that other options should be considered, although there was support for the choice of colors used. Mrs. McBean-Clairborne agreed to take the logo back to the Workforce Diversity and Inclusion Committee for further discussion and encouraged members and staff to provide feedback.
Bylaws
Mrs.
McBean-Clairborne briefly reported that the Workforce Diversity and Inclusion
Committee (WDIC) is working on revising the bylaws of the Community Affirmative
Action Committee with the intent to formalize and create a Workforce Diversity
and Inclusion Committee to replace the County’s now inactive Affirmative Action
Committee. She hopes to
present draft bylaws at the September or October meeting.
Mr.
Dennis said he would like to postpone discussion on this topic to give
Committee members time to review the performance evaluation models received
from the County Administrator. Following
a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to discuss policy and process and
timeframe at the next meeting.
Ms. Fitzpatrick said information concerning salaries for red-circled positions will be made available following establishment of salaries for management/confidential employees. As requested by Ms. Kiefer, Ms. Martel Moore agreed to follow-up on the status of the discussions with management/confidential employees.
It was MOVED by Mrs. McBean-Clairborne, seconded by Ms. Kiefer, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2006, meeting as corrected.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Tompkins County Home Page
Tompkins County Legislature's
Page
Comments
or questions