Comments in red are
opinions by me.
Boldface type was added by me for emphasis.
Click here for the Original Pottygate!
THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE MAIN
CONFERENCE ROOM, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD, WI.
ALDERMAN PONTO IN THE CHAIR
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman Clappier, Alderman
Kilkenny, Alderman Wolff, and Alderman Garvens
MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: none
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Director of Human Resources
Jim Zwerlein, Director of Finance Robert Scott, Director of
Information Technology Fred Miller, Director of Library Services,
City Attorney Sue Schalig, Assistant City Attorney Karen Flaherty,
Paralegal Laurie O’Shea and City Clerk, Kris Schmidt
The meeting was called to order by Alderman Ponto at
7:00 p.m.
2. Personnel Committee Minutes of October 14, 2003
Alderman Garvens moved approval of the minutes of
October 14, 2003. The motion was seconded by Alderman Wolff and
carried unanimously.
3. Discussion and possible action on a Resolution
approving the City’s Health Insurance program for calendar year
2004.
Staff distributed documents* to the Committee.
(*documents on file at the City Clerk’s office) The Committee was
informed that the insurance quote that came in had a 27.8% increase.
Staff was budgeting for a 20% increase. Staff developed a new option
that takes into account the increase in medical as well as a
favorable quote for dental from Fortis. Mr. Zwerlein and Mr. Scott
met with Frank Haack and Associates, the insurance consultant, and
developed a new option. The 2004 plan breakdown was discussed. If
all the employees stayed with the standard plan, the increase would
be 27.8%. If all employees took the alternative plan, the increase
would be 1%. If 50% went with one plan and 50% went with the other,
the increase would be 14%. Staff would recommend that the choice of
insurance plans be limited to the value plan. By limiting the choice
to the value plan, the cost differential would increase from $.77 to
$1.13.
Alderman Kilkenny asked how this increase happened
and why wasn’t there any advanced warning. Mr. Zwerlein stated the
insurance claims in August were higher than normal. Due to the
amount of the claims, we will hit the stop loss. Cost was 10% more
than identified? An increase was expected and would have been more
if we were not self insured. Robert stated that the lack of data
contributed to the increase. There was only 8 months of data for
this new program. The stop loss quotes were not guaranteed.
Fortunately the news from the State was good as we will get back
more money then we anticipated.
Alderman Kilkenny asked if the non – represented
personnel were bearing the burden for the increase in cost. Mr.
Zwerlein stated, “not really”. Mr. Zwerlein explained the premium
cost differential. Other questions were asked concerning the impact
on employees. Mr. Zwerlein noted there was problems just finding
companies that were willing to bid.
Alderman Clappier asked if the City could become
more inventive in offering incentives to those who do not take the
insurance. Mr. Zwerlein noted that even though employees choose to
not take the insurance, they would still receive the differential
and that might be incentive enough. Alderman Wolff stated some
employers offer a bonus to not take the insurance. When it was
pointed out that there is a discrepancy between non represented and
represented employees, Mr. Zwerlein stated he will be approaching
the other groups to reduce the health benefit to the same level of
the non representative. Mr. Scott stated this is an attempt to get
stability into the cost for employer and employee.
The Dental offset to the insurance was explained.
The City recently received a quote from Fortis that was very
competitive and reduced the total insurance package.
• Alderman Garvens
moved the resolution approving the City’s Health Insurance Program
for the calendar year 2004 and limiting that plan to the value plan
only. The motion was seconded by Alderman Wolff and carried with
Alderman Kilkenny voting no.
• Alderman Garvens moved the resolution approving
the City’s Dental Insurance Program for the
Calendar year 2004 with Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company. The motion was seconded by Alderman Clappier and carried
unanimously.
4. Policy determination on the applicability of
Section 2.14.030 to 2003 rates of pay for certain titles.
Alderman Kilkenny noted that according to the Pay Plan, adjustments
in grade should have been accompanied by adjustments in pay. If the
rules are applied an increase in salary should have been made to 5
positions. The cost to rectify the situation would be about $21,700
to achieve equitable pay within the salary grades.
Mr. Zwerlein indicated that when the old system was
transferred into the new pay grades, 5 individuals were placed in
the next higher salary grade. There is a question as to whether the
promotional rules should be applied. According to the City Attorney,
this question is a policy decision. By placing the individual into
the next higher salary grade, there is a greater potential for
increased pay.
• Alderman Kilkenny moved to adjust the 5 positions
according to the pay administration program in Section 2.14.030. The
motion was seconded by Alderman Clappier.
Alderman Clappier asked for a definition of internal
equity and asked if this was the solution to the problem. Alderman
Kilkenny stated that the rules should apply to all and the market
rate seems to increase disparity in the salary grades. This motion
would take a step to improve the system.
Alderman Ponto stated he saw no mistake in the past and will vote
against the motion.
Karen Flaherty and Sue Schalig stated this situation
was brought to their attention by Mr. Zwerlein. Mr. Zwerlein agreed
that he had been the source of the information. The question was
whether the salary ordinance compelled the treatment as Alderman
Kilkenny proposed.
• The vote was taken and the motion failed two ayes
and three nos. Alderman Kilkenny and Alderman Clappier voting Aye.
5. Discussion and possible
action on proposed revisions to the proposed 2004 Salary Ordinance.
Alderman Kilkenny indicated this issue is one of disparity and
involves the Deputy City Clerk and the secretary in the Clerk’s
office. This is a movement in grade and does not necessarily involve
a pay change.
• Alderman Kilkenny moved to move these positions
into a higher salary grade. The motion was seconded by Alderman
Clappier.
Mr. Zwerlein noted this issue is opposite of the
previous issue. He suggested that instead of moving the positions
into the next pay range which would require a promotional
adjustment, a footnote should be placed into the 109 pay range
that would indicate that these positions be placed in the 110 pay
range for pay only. Then higher merit adjustments could be assigned
without moving the title to a higher pay range.
Kris Schmidt pointed out her memo* to the Committee
relative to the changes being requested and noted that Mr. Zwerlein
did not have the proper pay ranges identified. The individuals
concerned were the secretary in pay range 106 and the deputy City
Clerk in pay range 109. She stated in the pay range adopted in 2002
for 2003, the deputy clerk was demoted and the secretary was not
given the correct pay range as it pertains to their duties. The
Committee should look at both sides of the schedule, the side where
positions are listed under the pay ranges and the pay ranges
themselves. It was obvious that there was confusion as to what
positions and what pay ranges were being considered.
• Alderman Ponto moved to table. The motion was
seconded by Alderman Garvens and carried with Alderman Kilkenny
voting no.
It is interesting to note
that all these alleged position and salary disparities "for women
only" that were argued by Ald. Kilkenny were created during the term of (female) Mayor Kate
Bloomberg. The people affected never did get Kilkenny's proposed
catch up raise and are still employed by the city, except for
City Attorney Schalig who left for private practice.
6. Discussion and possible action adjusting the
salary grade and job description of the City Clerk position.
Alderman Kilkenny noted that the Clerk was the only
person reporting to the Chief of Staff. She noted that the
comparisons offered by the Clerk were fair. With the added
responsibilities pertaining to televising, it could be argued that
this position is closer to a department head. The Clerk can step in
and provide continuity, the Chief of Staff can not step in and do
the Clerk’s job. Compensation should be adjusted and the position is
not really supervised by the Chief of Staff, therefore the pay range
and position description should be adjusted.
• Alderman Kilkenny moved to move the pay range of
the City Clerk up as well as adjust the position description to a
Department Head. The motion was seconded by Alderman Clappier.
Alderman Wolff asked for the history of the position
and why it is described as it is. What are the legal ramifications?
What is the arrangement in other communities? He needs more
information. Alderman Clappier stated she also needed more
information. How would this affect the other positions?
Alderman Ponto stated there are implications for other positions. If
the Chief of Staff no longer supervises the City Clerk, the position
is greatly affected. We are talking about how the City is
administered.
Alderman Garvens agreed that there was not enough
information to redo.
Alderman Clappier stated perhaps each department
needs to be reviewed. Mr. Zwerlein agreed and indicated he was
finishing the review of the Police Department and had finished the
review of Human Resources and Information Technology. He stated that
he had to redocument what incumbents are doing. He was committed
that the Clerks department would be next for review. He hoped to
start in January.
Alderman Kilkenny restated her argument for moving
the Clerks position to that of department head and increasing the
pay range.
• Alderman Wolff moved to table. The motion was
seconded by Alderman Clappier and carried unanimously.
7. Discussion and possible action on the proposed
2004 Salary Ordinance.
Alderman
Kilkenny temporarily left meeting and a break was declared at this
point. Alderman Kilkenny returned to the meeting when it
was reconvened. (This comment placed in the minutes per Alderman
Ponto request).
Mr. Zwerlein noted that since all the figures are
now known, the differential of $1.13 could be added to the blank in
Section 7 of the pay plan. This differential will compensate for the
additional cost of the insurance to the non represented group. Mr.
Zwerlein noted there were a few other changes that would be
highlighted in the ordinance given to the Aldermen.
• Alderman Garvens moved to accept the differential
of $1.13 and approve the other modifications to the pay plan. The
motion was seconded by Alderman Wolff.
There was a question as to oversight of the pay plan
as well as over merit for Department Heads. Who is responsible.
Alderman Ponto stated he would talk to the Mayor relative to
oversight. Alderman Clappier A discussion on the merit system
followed. The funding of merit and market adjustments would be out
of the contingency fund. Alderman Wolff stated adjustments should be
earned and not automatic.
Alderman Kilkenny asked why increases are different
for Part I Section I and and Part I Section II Employees. Mr.
Zwerlein stated that the amounts are a function of the fact that
managers are paid more than non managers and if you look at the
bottom line, the actual percentage increases are about the same.
• The motion carried unanimously.
8 Adjourn
• Alderman Wolff moved to adjourn. The motion was
seconded by Alderman Clappier and carried unanimously. (9:20 p.m.)