Government Performance and Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

I'd to call the order of the Government Performance Finance Committee meeting of 05/05/2026. Clerk, please call the roll.

Chair Bunchnell. President Hood. Council Member Reba. Here. Council Member Sedolgate.

Here.

And Chair Heintz.

Here. Alright. Moving on to public comment. Clerk, To

request to speak during public comment for items

on the agenda, please sign up in the

front of the room if you've not done so already. If you are speaking virtually, please

press the big scan button near the bottom of the

Zoom window or star nine on your phone. Your name and the last four digits of your phone number will be

We'll start has anybody got the hand raised virtually?

Nobody online.

Looks like we got someone signed up in person.

There is two in person.

Perfect. Alright. So let's set the clock for, say, three minutes. An hour or two people. People are three minutes.

So time for two minutes is bad. K.

Let's go ahead. Public comment. We're gonna do a public comment first. Oh. Who do we have sign up first, Kate?

We have Alice.

Alice coming up. Can we have Byrnego? Byrnego? Yes.

Alright.

Alright. Works.

You there's a lot of choices for

you guys. So what I want, Alright. There you go. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. So just as a matter of introduction, my name is Byron Allen. I'm currently a business manager for IVEW forty three. And up until a month ago, was the chair of Home Joint Labor. And in just a little under a month, I won't be a business manager anymore either. So here

you go. Retired of it? I'm retiring. Good for you be

here this month. Yeah. Next year. Anyway, so I'm here to speak to the proposal that's being brought before the committee with regards to the personnel rules, and there's a proposed personnel new personnel rule that the sole service board chair Hanson will be speaking to more specifically. But I wanted to just kinda give you our position on this issue and why we believe it's an important issue to bring before the board for the community.

So what does a housing analyst, engineer, registered nurse, water operations and maintenance analyst have in common with the city manager, city attorney, city council member, director of Tacoma Public Utilities, and their administrative base? Nothing other than that they are all listed as unclassified employees at the city of Tacoma. What determines whether a position is classified or unclassified at the city of Tacoma? Both the city charter in section 6.1 and the Tacoma municipal code in section one point two four point nine two nine zero identify how a physician is to be listed as either classified or unclassified. Those requirements are civil service, the city is hereby this is from the city charter.

The civil services of the city is hereby divided into the classified and unclassified services. The unclassified service shall consist of, a, officers elected by the people and persons appointed to fill vacancies in elect boxes, b, the members and boards and commissions, c, officers appointed by the mayor and council or by boards and commissions as provided by law or by this chart. D, all department heads, one confidential secretary for the city manager and one as director of utilities, and such are the principal officers and assistants to department heads as the council may prescribe by the affirmative vote of not less than six members. E, not more than three administrative assistants or aides to the city manager. F, personnel professional personnel in the office of the city attorney.

G, persons employed in a professional or scientific capacity to conduct a special inquiry, investigation, or examination. The classified service shall comprise all positions not specifically included in the unclassified service. That meaning all the rest of the employees with the city's going. A classified worker is hired using a transparent civil service process. The applicant's qualifications and experience are utilized to create a hiring list from which employees are hired.

This list remains in place for a minimum of one year unless an extension is granted. After serving a probationary period, the new peer first the new employee will be covered by the sole service rules and will have the right to appeal certain disciplinary actions. An unclassified worker is hired under a process that is not transparent. Candidates are chosen at will. And once an employee and once an employee, they have no disciplinary appeal rights. They're they are an employee at will.

We're not on your time to fire you. Okay. All good to me.

Alright. Let me make my closing closing remarks. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that we were on the time clock. So why is this important? The city charter and municipal code clearly identifies the requirements and processes to be used in determining whether a physician is classified or unclassed. This raises the question of why it is that one third of the employees of the city of Tacoma are listed as unclassified. How can it be that over 1,000 employees fall under one of under one of the seven requirements to be unclassified? The hiring process for one third of positions at the city that is not transparent, does not fall under the civil service guidelines, cannot be set to promote diversity, equity, inclusion. You.

Starting. Means I gotta talk fast. Good afternoon. Appreciate I'm here as the president of Pierce County Central City Council, but I also have history as a past business manager of IDW forty three for twenty seven years. This issue has been on our radar for years, and there is creep going on to where the civil service board, there are a lot of managers within the city of Turks that don't like it.

They would like to get rid of it. The problem is that it is a very open and transparent process for discipline in hiring that the employees we can go through for terminations on representative employees, we can go through the grievance process that can take years. And if we're if we prevail, the city of Tacoma's gonna be responsible for those wages. Going to the civil service board is quicker, and it's more effective. So that's where the creep comes in.

We don't like that process. We can't get around it unless we make all of the employees unclassified, then they don't fall under civil service rule rules, and they are, as Byron referred to, at will. That has happened more and more since the pay in comp state, where physicians that do authority free work and other local union work have been slowly converted to unclassified and taken out of bargaining units or reclassified so they're not in the bargaining unit anymore. And it's very hard. You challenge it, Alice.

Go to the civil service board. File a grievance. Claim that that that there's skimming going on. That's very hard to prove, but we all know what's happening. So the question here from Pierce County's perspective, is this going to be a city that is transparent, inclusive, and promotes diversity, or are you going to be Trump yet?

I'll just put it out there. Where you're going to hide things, you're going to misrepresent the truth to make life easier for managers. That that's the question. So with that, I thank you for your time and appreciate you considering this change to the civil service. Thank you.

Thank you, Mhmm. Is there anybody else standing up to us on anything? Chamber? Okay. I'll go ahead and post public comments. Thank you. And we'll move on to the breathing items. And first and quick reminder today is the proposed personnel rules, memos code chapter 1.24. I'd to call on chair Hanson from the civil service story.

Morning. Thank you for your time. So you've all we we talked about this in September, and I don't mean to I don't wanna bore you guys, but I had a brief meeting with councilmember Hines. Actually, a member of. Yeah.

He mentioned that that councilmember Sadalgay is new, and that I wanted to go over some stuff very quickly so that I could bring you up to speed. And I know we've haven't done this for a while. It was about six months ago where I presented this, and it it might be a good review for everybody. Because at this point, what we're gonna be doing is filing these proposed rules for the city clerk of Texas after our our board meeting on May 7. So this is gonna be coming before you fairly quickly.

So I just wanted to give you all an update so you know what's remember what's going on. It's been a while. So if we have the next slide. So like I say, we're gonna this is gonna be an issue that's coming gonna be coming before the council fairly quickly. So next slide.

So council member wanted me to update everybody, particularly council member on what the civil service board is, because a lot of people aren't familiar with it. So it's a part of the city charter, and it's part of the city government. It's authorized under charter section six point one one six point one one. So the civil service board is is a five member body. It's made up of three elected members who are elected through the general election, and also two that are appointed.

One appointed by or elected by classified employees in the city, and the other one is appointed by the city manager and the director of public utilities. So next slide. So so, basically, there are a number of duties under the charter that the Civil Service Board does. One of them is to investigate all matters relating to conditions of employment. So that's what that's the subject of what we're doing right now.

And Alice Burke originally brought this to our attention, and then Byron Allen followed up on on this issue. And that's how we become became aware of what was going on. So we decided to look into it and see what was going on. The second rule that we have is to enforce the provisions of the city charter relating to civil service through the enactment of personnel rule ordinances. In order to get those passed, we have to have the approval of four members of council.

And, generally, the courts have have looked at civil service boards as kind of the gatekeeper to the civil service to maintain the civil service. And as you all know, most public employees are covered by civil service provisions. That's this is not a new idea, obviously. This is an idea that that has been going on for quite a while. Also, what we do is we're a quasi judicial policy body in that we hear appeals to disciplinary issues, and that includes terminations and suspensions for more than thirty days.

And these appeal hearings are a lot like a court trial where we have testimony. We have cross examination, and then we consider the documentary evidence as well as sworn testimony. And then we also have jurisdiction over a violation of a personnel rule ordinance. So if an employee appeals of an what what they consider to be a violation of an ordinance, then they can appeal to us. And then, again, we would have a hearing to determine the facts and then apply the relevant law to the facts.

Second go to the next slide. So we conducted our investigation. And as you all know, we reached the conclusion that the city had been allocating over a third of the workforce to the unclassified category. And I in my memo, I I explained how this violates the terms of the charter. The charter is very, very specific.

It lays out who's in and who's And and if the charter allow any employee to be allocated to the classified category at any time, there there really wouldn't be a civil service. I mean, if you could do that, you could ultimately get rid of the whole civil service in violation of the charter. And so, gradually, what's been happening is that they've been eating away the city's management or the particularly the HR department has been eating away at civil service rapidly for the last several years so that so that really even though the charter cons contemplates that only a limited number of employees should be categorized as unclassified. The a number of employees have been put into that category. And I went through a lot of that, you know, that statutory interpretation issue, and I know that that's kind of getting in into the weeds.

But but, really, that that you know, ultimately, that's those are the principles that have to be followed in order to determine, you know, what what does the charter actually provide. And, really, when you look at what is the common sense of this issue, the common sense is, like I say, if the if the directors of the charter had wanted to exclude a number of employees or they or they wanted to give the discretion to HR or the city council or whoever to exclude a number of employees, they would have provided for that in the charter. And in fact, probably, they wouldn't even have civil service. Because if you if you could just eliminate civil service with your at your discretion,

there's

there was really there really would be no need for civil service provisions in the charter. And and that's just common sense, really. And so the city is proposing the personnel rules to address this. And part of the part of these rules provide that the civil service board would have oversight in the determination as who's unclassified and who's unclassified. So why so you made me think, well, why why should we let the civil service board do this?

Basically, what what we've determined is that in the past, the HR has been making these deterrent HR department's been making these determinations. And then having the counsel and rather than saying to the council and and correct me if I'm wrong. But my what I found out is rather than explaining to the council, we were proposing to exclude these employees because they fall under provisions of the charter for unclassified employees. Rather than doing that, they just you know, they label someone as a as unclassified or classified. They include that in compensation ordinances as we make a decision and pass on those pass on that ordinance.

Now I I I haven't seen any, know, any indication that the council members have been informed of what they're being asked to do. And and the first memo I mentioned that I had talked to a former mayor and former councilman, they they were not even aware of this is a machine. So and then I looked at I went through the charter several times over and over, and I could not find a provision that designates the body to make the determinations for who's classified and who's classified. It's very clear that the council decides whether or not an individual's principal officer or an assistant to that principal officer. So that's very clear.

But other than that, employees, other than in those categories, the charter is silent on that issue. And as I say, that's being done by the human resource department. And I I understand the human resource department's thing that, you know, if we don't without the civil service, we don't have to we don't have to do testing. We don't have to to individual warrants termination or discipline. We don't have to go for the civil service.

And I I can see what they're thinking. But that that's not what the charter intends. The drafters of the charter were very concerned about the due process rights of employees. And and as you know, that that's a very important right in this country. And what due process gives employees is the right to tell their side of the story and the right to keep employers honest.

Now I, you know, I I think some people think, well, employers are always gonna act in good faith, and they're gonna make decisions based on fairness. And I'd I'd love, you know, I'd love to to believe that, but, you know, lawyers have are employed. They have their employment based on human beings not being able to get along and not always acting in good faith. And I've seen that in my thirty seven years as a liquor lawyer. I have seen employers not acting in good faith.

So what this does is it keeps the employer honest. They have to cross the the t's and dot the i's. They have to document the deficiencies. They have to give someone notice of those deficiencies. Have to give people an opportunity to improve. They have to go through those steps, and they have to prove that this employee warrants termination. They don't have to do that for an employer. And and when you look at the devastation that occurs, most of us are not trust fund babies. On my own at 18. You know?

And I think most of us live and I'm retired now. I have a pension, so I'm worried about it now. But most of us, when I was working I lost my paycheck. I lost my health insurance. I lost everything else.

I was out, like, you know, pretty close to being out on the street. And if an employee is terminated, well, maybe there's cause for their termination, but maybe not. And if they if they are terminated, they they they're they're losing everything. It's a major impact. But with the civil service board hearing, as Alice mentioned, you can get a hearing within a few weeks, and you can get that determination made.

And and if employee does not want a termination, you can save that employee from a a lot of undue hardship. Now and and unclassified employees and, you know, unclassified employees, you know, they have the option of of suing their employer, but they don't I mean, for one thing, of course, they don't have jurisdiction over unsatisfactory performance issues, unless, of course, there's discrimination going on or something else. So they don't have jurisdiction on case. Also and I mentioned this to counsel around when we met. So I I did a lot of litigation when I was in my position with the VA with the Washington Education Association.

And they so when I was filing a lawsuit in Pierce County, I and don't know what it is now, but it's probably worse than it was. But it it took a year to get a trial date in Pierce County. And then I had one case that went to Superior Court initially, and then I appealed that decision to court, failed to move up and to the state of Supreme Court, and then it went back to Superior Court. That whole process took five years. So that that's to me, that's not really a remedy for an employee who may be unjustly terminated and is looking being put up in rehearsal for for family.

So it it can be very devastating. And classified employees are put in that position. So we have the next slide, please. So, like, yeah, I've already kinda addressed this particular issue. I guess so if we move on to the next slide, please.

And and I'll just mention this, but when you look at and I or maybe Byron Allen's comments. But when you look at the when and you've all seen the list. And when you look at these lists, there's a the problem is self evident. And and you don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out. It's it's there. It's arbitrary. You know, these people are not they're not principal officer. The nurses, engineers, data analysts, they're not principal officers. They're not assistants. I mean, they're not, you know, they're not confidential secretaries or assistants to principal officers.

They're they're clearly, they don't fall into that category. Then the drafters of the charter did not contemplate that anybody could go in needs to go in the unclassified service. It just that just didn't happen. The and, also, you know, you look at those lists and you think, god, you know, I wish I could find a pattern here, a rationale for what for placing these employees in these categories. And I looked at them, and I just I just couldn't find When you don't and there's when you don't have specific criteria, this is what we're proposing.

When you don't have a specific criteria, what you've got is you've got arbitrary or voracious governmental action. And the courts are clear, and and for good reason. But that's not the way citizens want their governments to function. Citizens want their government to make decisions based on equity and fairness and and criteria that is discernible to everyone. And I I tell you, I do I I you know, and I'll spare French on this. I wanna follow-up on you is I do have a problem with this whole process being kept in the dark. And, you know, when we when we started

Her name's Alice Phillips.

Or Alice Phillips. I'm sorry. I don't know where

I got that.

I I'm sorry. That's okay. And I I you know, I'm getting on. I'm with you. I I'm I'm with you. I'm corrections because I didn't wanna keep saying in the. I had I guess I learned I knew another. But I've known Alice quite

a while. I don't know why.

But so when we started this process, you know, we were told, okay. We you know what? We we wanted to know. I mean, we wanted to know what happened. You know? What's going on here? We wanted to get everybody's side of the story. And so we asked management, you know, so what's the criteria? What did you do? What what's your rationale for assigning people to different categories?

And they said, well, that's they said, well, that's over by attorney client privilege. And then we had a criteria, but we we can't talk about it. It's over by attorney client. Well, a, our our employees entitled to know what you know, if there's significant impact to their employment, and they had no

longer have

due process. But aren't they entitled to know why? You know? That's just that's just. And and now we're saying, well and I am I'm not you know, I I will be a later time.

You know, I mister Baca has met with us and has given us his opinion and has told us that he doesn't want to disclose because it's. I don't know why you know, attorney client privilege is basically if you have a client who has secrets that would severely impact their their liberty or their property of rights or whatever. Prevail that information. That's why we have attorney clients. I don't see why they want to apply a credit line approach in this situation.

I and, again, I think if employees are being severely impacted, they have a right to know why. You know? But it's just pretty basic. And so that's why I've been agreeing with this whole thing. And the the the council can't weigh you out. You know? But I I think the citizens and employees have a right to know why. If if the status quo is maintained, they have a right to know why that's not me. That's only fair. So the next issue part of the slide, I mean.

So, again, you know, when you have employ when employees know they're gonna be treated equitably and fairly, I've heard Trace previously, they feel a lot better about going to work. It's just a basic human psychology. And I I've seen really bad you know, I didn't go to workplaces that were functioning well. I went to sick workplaces. And the impact of those sick workplaces is that is that people are putting their energy into being stressed out over what their managers are doing to them rather than what what they need to do to do their job.

And that that diminishes the effectiveness of the employee. I talked about the legal liability. I think I don't know if there's a thinking that and I don't know if the city's been sued over a due process rights before. They may have. I don't know.

But even if they have, I think I don't think it's a good legal strategist to say, well, they haven't sued us before, so they're not gonna sue us. We don't have to worry about it. I just don't think that's a good legal strategy, and that's not what I advise my clients to do, not worry about it. And these these lawsuits, these due process section nineteen eighty three laws, these these are expensive lawsuits because you're talking front pay, back pay, attorney attorney's fees, they can that can be, like, $203,100,000 dollars just for attorney's fees. Damages for man language.

You're talking punitive damages, which could be assessed against individuals, not the city, but against individuals. So that that could be some pretty substantial liability. And you know what? I I I just don't see you know, I I've done these, and I was talking to council member Hunt. I've done these suits.

I I and I don't know. I I've looked at I've looked at this to be real honest with you. I've looked at the situation here, and to me, this is a slam dunk. If someone like a nurse is in an unclassified category and is terminated without a hearing, I think it's a slam dunk, I think. And, particularly, when you know, the first thing they're they're largely gonna do is say, look at these lifts.

Does this make any sense to you? I mean, if the city had had really looked at this chart carefully and tried to follow the chart, that might have might have been a different story. But you've got people all over the map who, without Rymer or Reeves, are assigned to this unclassified cabin door. It just, you know, it's just really bad evidence against the city. And service quality, I mentioned that as well.

You know? Employees who are stressed out, they, you know, they're not they don't have the energy or all of the energy to put in the jobs that they're they should be doing. If you have a look. Next slide here.

So

by enacting these proposed rules, we we not only do we avoid the city

avoid The one word. Yeah. There's one record for it.

Yeah. Oh, okay.

It's going fast here.

There you go. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, yeah, so we're trying to clarify some of the the holes in the charter that the city basically has driven through to to put employees in the unclassified category and further define principal officers and assistants so the city doesn't come back and say, well, you know, anybody's in the system. And so we can just put anybody we want to and call them an assistant and keep them out of the specified service.

I you know, also in our investigation, we found an instance where under this so the charter provides that professionals who are employed for special inquiries, investigations, or examinations should be unclassified. But that's, you know, that's very limited. You know, the drafters of the charter has had said, well, all professional employees should be excluded from the classified categories, that's the language they wouldn't use. But instead, they use the language professional employees who are employed for a special inquiry investigation or examination are excluded. And the one instance that I saw, the woman was appealing the her allocation to the unclassified category.

And the HR person said, no. You're a professional employee, so you're unclassified. And that that not only did that happen, they were told that they could not appeal that decision to the civil service department. Well, for one thing, and I think you all know it, you know, an administrative body that has jurisdiction or a court or whatever that has jurisdiction over particular issues, they make the decision as to whether or not they have jurisdiction. The HR department doesn't make.

And to discourage employees from from exercising that. Right? To me, that there's there's something wrong. That's just not proper. So I think I've covered some of the the rest of that as well. So if we could have the next slide, please. So, again, yeah, I've talked pretty much about that particular issue. And I think it you know, we I talked about last night about cronyism and nepotism and arbitrary conduct. You know, what the what the drafters were, they were also concerned about cronyism and nepotism. That's why they said we want a merit to someone.

Because we don't want, you know, Joe to be hiring his bowling team buddy in a position for which he's not qualified and which for which another person would be qualified through some sort of competitive competitive testing. Let's see. So I think we're on to the next slide here. So, yeah, we're going to be be filing this with the clerk, all the proposed rules. So that's the that'll be coming up.

And then you would have 45 to consider the merits of those proposed rules, and they can't be enacted by a vote of four council members. So I think that's pretty much it. I I certainly appreciate your time, and I know we've gone through this. But I appreciate your time and patience with this. And, you know, if for next steps, if you need, you know, if you'd like to have a study session with the the board, I mean, certainly do that.

Or if you have any

but if you have any questions, I mean, certainly, you can take a look at this. And you can also remember when I'm gonna spend my time to discuss this. I mean, you can look at this, and you have the option of saying, well, we like this part, or we don't like this part. And what's, you know, what's gonna work for us? We don't think this part's gonna work. We like this. Oh, you have the option of altering that or you know? So there's a number of different options that you can pay. But I think this is a very important issue for the city. You know, the the the employees of the city, they provide very essential services to the citizen. And I So that's all I have.

Thank you. At this point, I'll open up for first of all, thank you, and thank you for making a return trip back to GFC. Given background. Just wanna open up for questions from committee members. Thank you, chair. And just to send the bar of me here. Me see if there's answers. If

I could. Yes. So that's what I was getting asked. Do could you talk? Well, I didn't understand how you weren't involved in any of this process. So, yes, I'm Martha Lance. I'm the deputy city attorney. I have many roles. The one that brings me here today is I am the assigned attorney adviser to the civil service board. So in that context, I sit with them, assist them with their process, all the things, you know, open meetings, all of that when they have the hearings that the chair was speaking of, help them reach an adjudicative opinion, write those things up.

And I sit with them, and I do offer legal advice if requested. That advice would come from the office of the city attorney. The city attorney is the sole attorney to all of the city's entities to municipal corporation, including its boards, committees, and commissions. However, in this particular instance, I think it's important that, you all understand the role. As the chair explained, this was an investigation of the civil service board.

They reached the conclusions that they reached, which include legal conclusions in a sense in that the way that the chair any way, his background and that he's written it up. They identified legal risks that were perceived and, I guess, determined to be risks and possibilities as a result of their investigation. That was not advice that was requested or provided by my office. And Chris Badger, as you know, as the city attorney, is the attorney to the council. And when we're talking about privilege, the advice that comes from the city attorney's office through Chris to you all, that's the the the privileged advice.

So you're entitled to speak with him. And under that privilege, whatever you wanna ask him about legal analysis and all of that. So I don't know if that's answering your question, council member, but the the city attorney's office at this juncture with my role, I'm not here to tell you that it was our office's advice one way or the other as to what the board has concluded. They've given you the results of their investigation as they determined it to be the case. Yeah.

And there's always another side. And so that's what I was trying to understand on there. It doesn't I appreciate that you have all this information. I'm just trying to understand what the other side is. I don't understand, and I don't think I can my answers here, really. I'm concerned that I'm not gonna be able to get what need to get today. For instance, I'm curious. I remember talking about the class and comp study. Some of this is related to class and comp that we've done through the human resources. I also realized that some of the positions that we have at the city, and this is just from, you know, being here for four years, some of them are funding issues, like how something's funded.

And I that's a question I have is if a job is funded a certain way, they could still be classified as nurse, but it's not maybe a union nurse job because it's classified as a possibly a certain type of money that we're getting, and it wouldn't reach that. That's I'm just curious about that part and to have more information about that. And then I just want them to understand the authority of the civil rights board and where that the civil service thank you, civil service board. I wanna understand the authority. I just I I just don't really under I I appreciate the job that you had and how you could bring your experience to this. My husband was a plaintiff's attorney for people who work work work

comp. Oh.

And so I really understand that there are two sides to everything. I don't have the other side. I feel like I don't really have enough information, and that is gonna be the job of the city to, like, educate us about so for instance, if we make wait. 70% of our our staff of our staff is union positions are classified positions. I think 70% is is high, but I'm being told that that's not high.

And so I was a city planner at the city of Kent for a long time, and it was an unclassified position. And I understood why it was unclassified. I do wanna understand more about the classifications, and I really appreciate Alice and Iron being here because I really care about Indians. I just don't have enough information about I wanna understand both sides of everything so I can make a good decision.

Absolutely. And and and so you'll be getting a oh. And one second,

Sherry, just for for the record. Can you explain the interesting classified, unclassified represented numbers? Because people tend to think of them as the same, and they are

Oh, okay. Well, the actually, the unclassified, and and they you guys know more about but the unclassified, you have club party and rights as far as I know. Right? And they and they can't be organized, and they can be part of

the union. So So Yeah. They're not mutually exclusive. Right? So No. We have we have people who are part of union who are representative, and people who are not part of union who are unrepresented. And then we have classified people that meet the requirements. They've been decided by the city and unclassified, which has there's been decisions about both. So they are often similar, but not Right.

Mutually exclusive. So, yeah, you can have in a whole group of unclassified drug.

I'm gonna

represent by hand. You know? And I understand, you know, you wanna hear both sides of the story, and that's like, that's what due process is all about. People get to tell their side of the story. I will be and I've sent a memo to customer. I will be sending and our attorney has advised me that in order to not to waive attorney's phone bill, which I need to send those to council members and habituated. And, you know, I never had the opportunity to come on. You know? I'm giving you phone call. I'm making you I'm talking to you about it. But I do have a response to Mr. Baugher's legal advice.

And, yeah, I guess just to to there's a lot of attorney client privileges floating around, so I just wanna make a little bit clear. What chair Hansen is talking about is Chris Vaca, a city attorney, came and briefed the civil service board and offered this opinion of the office of the city attorney to that board that because the city attorney's client is ultimately you all, Chris's conclusions contained in that briefing are subject to the attorney client privilege that belongs to you. So it can be waived collectively with, you know, any advice consultation with with Chris and. But that's the reason that the chair is saying that the civil service board's response to the analysis that was provided to them by the city attorney. All of this remains under this privilege.

So it's okay to discuss it one on one with him K. But not to reveal it. One more question. Yeah. Of course. I I will get my information. Okay. Thank you so much. My other question is when we go to take a vote or and it says we need two thirds of the vote. And what if the vote fails? Does that mean that this just becomes law with our code? Well, the the charter section has time frames for sure. If you do nothing Yeah. In forty five days. But if by two thirds of the you modify or reject But what if you don't get two thirds? Then get me home square minutes, but I would check the price on the right. Okay.

Take care. Sure.

Alright. So it sounds like I have a lot of questions that can't be answered. Right. And, again, just in terms of process, going to file with the city clerk on Friday morning. So that's when your forty five day clock will will begin. So I'm assuming that the city manager and the city attorney will work with you all to schedule whatever brings me to all of that that that you need. But just to but that limited window, do you have to take some action or no action? And no action has. So, essentially, becoming law.

Miss Lance has done a great job navigating these issues. They get they get pretty complicated in my mind. Yeah. Just quite She's You're so sorry. Done an illogated job over the one. And I

guess I would just add that that the second attorney client privilege issue that the chair discussed in the context of their investigation was when they were inquiring of the human resources personnel. As the chair was mentioning, what is the analysis that was used to place various positions that are on the list that was revealed in the investigation into the unclassified service? And that analysis also is subject to an attorney client privilege that the HR department, for whatever reason, didn't didn't wish to waive. So there's several layers of privileged communications floating around, and it does get it does get

I think that that's key to

the question I had. The the last statement you made with HR. You

said HR had a a a justification of classified versus unclassified shared, but it's not being shared publicly.

It was not shared with the civil service board on the grounds that the advice that HR was given and this was several years back now, but that the advice that HR was given was subject to the attorney client privilege. That privilege could have been waived

if it had gone through

that analysis, but it didn't. And, again, just for for role setting, you know, I that would have been a different set of attorneys that would have sat with HR and said, you know, here's why we think this list of folks should, you know, go should be recommended to go into the classified service. It's not revealed to the civil service board subject to an attorney client privilege.

So that's not true. Right? Well, I, like I said, take issue with whether or not they had an analysis, but I

was gonna Right. Right. Alright.

No. I mean, this is our and I just as a reminder. Right? So we are in a unique situation. Civil service board is have is a do independently elected by of folks that functions at the city. It's Two of the members appointed three are in the elected by the city of Tacoma. Right? So they they can have the they have their own area of work, the stuff they focus on, their own opinions, and then our system is kinda looking at whole. So you could imagine in situations where, you know, if you represent two separate independently, like, bodies have different opinions on things that are made or may not be, you know, instances where it needs to be a bit of a separation between the two. Right?

So but I I think that's generally of these interesting that answers the conversation. Because, do you have any questions for chance? Now recognizing that I've talked, like, there's nothing in the churches they have to come finance. We're not actually taking any action today. They but just for us, this will obviously become a discussion with the rest of the council once they submit their proposal. And I guess I see us as the expert group on this. So this is a chance to maybe talk to the chair about thinking from the board, what they were looking at, the rationale behind the. And I don't if you have any other questions or come back.

How about me? Like, can I listen to everybody else? I

guess the problem I'm trying to figure out the problem statements. The problem statement to me was a large portion. You said a third. I don't know if that number is right. I'm a math guy, so I like to see actual numbers. But you say a third are unclassified, and that's too that's that's your problem statement. In one of years, that is somehow.

So let's see.

That would be a question for eight or nine. Because of the seven, I I agree that the seven kind of charters specific reasons on why some would be better unsatisfied. There only seem to be two that

lend itself to a large

number, which is whether you're an assistant and whether you're a professional or scientific person doing something as an investigation. That seemed to be the only one that had any sort of interpretation from what I read, but maybe HR would tell me another one in there. So I would, of course, wanna know you know, I totally see, you know, a nurse that was here for a year to work on was thinking I don't know. 13 temporary project that we had. Sure.

Yeah. That HR's gonna help. Both are only gonna be here for a certain period. So I don't know what that third is. Back in regards to their kind of thoughts I had is it appears that this classified versus nonclassified, and the councilmatic authority, and I think you said it yourself, is rested in budget process and as our ongoing ordinances around, you know, whatever our you know, often we have all sorts of personnel, like, ordinances that are coming.

So I do have one point of contention in that it is noticed. People don't know where it is, and there's at least two times when someone can comment on classification, not classification because ordinances are. So I do have one point of contention on whether it is transparent or not. I can say that it's hard, but there is a a regular process in in reviewing that. I am some you know, the rest of it, I I get the problem statement.

I don't know if these are the right answers. I think I can come around after after talking internally to understanding how to prescribe or be more open about the the classification process. But I think I was just gonna have to have a few more internal conversations on on how to do that. Right? And, ultimately, it might just even be if it has to be, you know, how many employees do we have?

I don't know if a third of them are, you know, are CDC members. They're just included in that, know, from CBCs, honestly, and they're called nonclassified. Right? Did that bump up? I I don't know those numbers. I haven't seen that.

But I think the HR department have the final numbers. So if you wanna know what the fund and they can all the time. So at one time, I had some numbers, and I think I at our last meeting, I

Is this specifically with city employees? Well, all TPU employees are city employees, but just is it with TPU specifically, or is it TPU and the city or just the city side?

It's it's all city employees. But but roughly No.

No. It's the problem Oh. More in one or the other? Is it across?

I think that's

across the board. You know? But the the number like I said, I mean, the numbers, they do change, but, basically, they've been holding it pretty close to a third of the workforce being.

And HR can run those reports.

They do But our chart for you. Yeah. So they have those those numbers change all the time. And then and you can request that from HR, and they'll I'm sure they'll give that to you very quickly.

I will tell you where I am

looking, sir.

It seems to me the charterer clearly puts the has put the the the decision through the the council in some way. And so I am confused with what the civil service board kinda does Well Because I was I was kind of surprised when when you had it as a recommendation, civil service board decide whether it's classified or not classified. So, obviously, that implies that you don't have that today. Correct?

Currently, generally, their powers are to advise.

Right. So and I and I look at that because I know that's an issue. And I look at that under the and I, like I said, I read the charter over and over and over again. The chart and the chart is very clear that the council has exclusive authority to determine who's a principal officer and who's an assistant. The language of the charter, I believe, is also very clear that assistance are limited, you know, if a confidential secretary or person that is for working directly as a that you know, the property has a system.

Not someone who's out in the field checking feeders or whatever. But the the so the charter's very clear on that issue. But apart from principal officer and the systems of principal principal officer, the charter does not address that issue. And so the the board would have the authority in in that, the the charter specify that the board would have to thoroughly make that a nation. Part of it is not, say, the HR department makes that decision.

They've just been doing that as a practice. Now and so what I'm the reason why I'm, like I said, the reason why I'm proposing that the civil service lawyer do that is department has been assigned

in

place with the idea that well, we we don't want them in the civil service, so that's why we've got a third out of it. And the and like I said, the the courts have basically said the civil service board is a is a gatekeeper for the civil service to maintain the integrity of the service of civil service. And I could not think of any other way to maintain the integrity of the civil service other than having the civil service board in kind of an oversight capacity. So the HR department would first make that as an initial determination or or the council. And then the civil service board will look at it say, well, you know, that's fine.

But does that you know, it has to comply with the charter also. Those decisions have to comply with the terms of the charter. And by proposing that more specific criteria, we would have a better idea of, you know, what applies to the charter and what doesn't and then make that determination. But it's we're not saying the civil search board initially decides. It's we're proposing that they act with an oversight test to ensure compliance with the Turner.

That's not what it sounded like when you when you put it up there as an oversight.

Oh, okay. Okay.

Sorry. Also, I'm not even sure if we that's, like, something we can do if the charterer specifically I guess it's

a question I'll have to ask.

Like, if the charterer specifically says to to sit in our cells to decide whether we will need

to add the group design.

I I just don't know the answer to that. Okay. I think I'm just gonna answer some

questions with with our. Understand.

I I would also thank you for pointing it out. I was not as aware of this. So because one of the things I will ask them is just to see if they can explain to me if they just wanna do a chart. There's a chart here. Classified versus unclassified versus unrepresentative, represented, what that means if they can that person.

But but I would like to point out that if the status quo is maintained, that we're gonna continue to have arbitrary assignments to the unclassified family. And that that to me is

this governments

should not act arbitrarily.

Well That's because your contention is not arbitrary. I've heard that there is a reason. It just hasn't been shared. You know? So

I you know what? I haven't heard the reason. And I and Mr. Bacha talked to us. He did not give us a reason. We were meeting at an attorney client privilege meeting. He did not give us a reason. Well, I I talked to council members. They're not aware of. And and when Well,

the reason is in the chart, there's seven bullet points on what you can determine to be classified versus unclassified the question becomes which of these seven is used per position? And that's a question I will have to take. Yeah.

And I I think if if if you could look at a the term assistance and say, well, assistance can be anybody. That would mean that that you could you could completely eliminate civil service without going through the charter review

process.

Because it's really it's really the citizens that make determine the future whether or not we're gonna have a

and that can be amended through the charter review process.

So if you wanna eliminate I mean, either and, you know, having either you know, you're either gonna have a civil sole service or you're not. But but kinda doing this halfway, that that just that just doesn't work. I mean, it becomes an arbitrary and gracious decision. And I I you know, if the civil service or if the city says, no. We're better off without a civil service, then you do that you amend the charter through the charter review process, and the citizens make that determination.

Sure. Wasn't one of the other categories that your investigation focused on was the term principal officers, other such principal officers?

Right. Yeah. And I think that's where that term was very clear just from its, you know, principal officer. Principal officer doesn't include, like, a civil principal officer is not a civil rights investigator. I mean, they're a higher level employee. And

But just to to speak to your to your question, councilmember, I just wanted to to indicate that was a third category of however you define it of items that were within the discretion of the city council to place Right. Yeah. And classify.

Right. Yeah. Exactly.

Vice chair? Thank you, chair. And thank you, chair Hanson, for bringing this to us. We really appreciate all the the work that you've done and work with others around this. I I kinda my take on this is I think the the one third of the employees, it's it's a symptom, right, not necessarily a problem.

The problem is, from my perspective, that the process is unclear. There's it's unclear on the justification for the classified and unclassified. And if if if it is determined through the process that these employees are to be classified or unclassified, and that's what it is, that number can go up and down. So this I think the real problem is is the process is not transparent from or or appear to be fair from the perspective of the employees on where they should fit in the classification table. And so I I'd really have some questions I'd like to ask.

Apparently, there's a lot of I'm being told that there is a process for just. I'm not aware of what that process is, but I'd be curious what it is. And if it is under attorney conduct privilege, I think it

makes sense that we'd have an executive session so we can

go through that. And at the end of the day, how that classification determination is, you know, I think that could be so if that's kind of coming you're coming with solutions. So one of your solutions is potentially trying to have a service work. Again, the legalities behind that, I don't know. I'd have to look at that further. But I appreciate you also trying to bring a solution to what what appears to be a problem. But for me, it appears to be a system of not being transparent and clear about the justification or classification, and that's what we're trying to solve. And so am I am I getting that correctly?

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. So

and then it sounds like there's there's some legal issues going on here, and and and I appreciate councilor Morumba bringing up the concerns around funding. Well, if if how how positions are funded is of concern, that should also be transparent. Right? He's like, okay. There is a justification there, but that justification isn't clear. And so so it could mean maybe one third is the right number based on the justification, but we just don't know what that is. So that's that's kind of so the the number is not really the issue here. It's it's the system and

the transparency behind it that's the problem. Yeah.

And so I, you know, I again, I'd have to talk with our attorneys to figure out what what what is the justification, why why this is all tied up

in the attorney plan. So I'm very curious about it.

That sounds like an executive decision. So I I guess I don't have any questions. That's just kinda how it appears to be. Right? That's good.

Sounds good.

So I shared yeah. Thanks for answering the last question before, and so I appreciate all the time. I just chat. I think one question I have is we're looking at the proposal you're making. Are the duties or the classification titles that are found in the charter just basically cut pasting in TMC, Martha?

Yeah. I think I think pretty much. You can mean Is the language in the chart are the same as the TMC?

Yeah. Because Yeah. What you're proposing is adding in

the

TMC definitions below. Right.

That would be more above

and beyond within the chart.

Right. And and so yeah. And so, basically, in the in administrative where you've got an executive branch and legislative branch, the private executive branch or state agencies or any kind of agency, the sub service board's name. And so the legislators yourselves will then have legislation. But there may be some gaps in that legislation that are unclear when you go into, you know, the everyday.

How do we apply this? So agencies have the authority to fill on those gaps with regulations. And what we're proposing is is a it's kind of a regulation to fill in the gaps in the legislation. So when you look at I mean, I I was working with I did a case in the court of appeals regarding unemployment insurance, which changed, you know, the which filled in some some of the gaps in the legislation. So I worked with and some other one of the other members or employees who were concerned about the issue.

We worked together to develop regulations that were not in the terms of the legislation, but filled in the gaps in the legislation and helped clear up some issues so that the when the agency was functioning on an everyday basis, they had ways to address these questions through their regulation. So any agency, if you look on there's this legislative website. I can't it's like wpguana..gov.

Yeah. Why don't What? Yeah.

So I you look at that. I mean, you look at all these regulations

that they are stepping belong to the.

Right. So look at all these regulations, and they're not they're not legislate it's not statute. It's expanding on what's in statute.

I I think to answer your question a little bit differently just from a process standpoint, that is what these proposed rules, the the first additions to post additions b, c, d, and e to existing 2.9 or Yeah. C, d. Sorry. Or to flesh out to offer a definition to flesh out the higher level terms that were that the three that we're talking about, principal officers, assistantship department heads, and special inquiry examination. Yeah. So those are for your consideration. Yeah. And the second Which one? Edition.

Yeah. UTS. Mhmm. But I guess my question, getting back to, right, the idea that we're we're talking a lot about the intention of the charter and what the freeholders wanted back in 1952 and what that is. Right? And then I see language of the charter here, and then I see new language being added, but it's a TNC. So my question was we're not changing the charter for the proposed language of TNC, and the classification of the TNC currently aligned with what's in the charter. And we're adding new information in the TNC just to basically define those. But that's I'm trying to make sure I'm track I'm looking at the seven dots at the same time. It's not TMC, your proposal, the charter, trying to look at all these at the

same time. So that that

I understand where that's coming from, so that makes sense. Right? Because my question would be, if if the chart just says top part and the TMC says below

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Then which prevails that situation? Right? So at what point do I say, like, well, I sorry.

I don't need to

go on that rabbit hole.

But my second question my my more important question to get to the problem statement, Sherry, was you've been doing investigations. Have you run into certain employees who said, I am misclassified? I should be in the classified service, but I'm currently unclassified. Again, I understand I mean, thank you to our our partner, because this is an issue that's been ongoing for them for a long time, misclassification. But if you run into employees who have said raised their hand and said, hey. You know, I should technically be classified and receive these protections, and I'm really unhappy with my job because I don't have those. Did you have anybody come up, or did you have anybody say that to you

in Well, front of okay. No. I know I did not talk to him at all points. But the thing also is the city's disagreement on need. They the employees can appeal that decision to the service board. And then the service board couldn't make a final and binding decision on that issue until charter.

Now You did have an appeal filed. But Right. But I mean, it was on other grounds, but it never came before.

That was the instance where the HR department told an employee they can't appeal it. So they've made it a complaint rather than appeal. And I told them that that it could be an appeal as well.

But

And and I think the city ultimately just didn't contest that, that that matter was not

Yeah. I don't know what happened. But, anyway, there's not been this, you know, giant uprising on this issue. Because to be real frank with you, Atwell employees, they don't like to make waves. Gotcha. Because then next thing they're thinking is my supervisor will come to me and and say, you know, you're a troublemaker, and you don't have troublemakers.

You know?

So people are really reluctant to do that. Okay. So but, anyway, also, with regard to your other question, we had an issue with on with the TMC mail over the charter or vice versa. What the the GMCs that we're proposing comply, in my view, comply with the charter. So there's there's really not that not issue. That's that issue is not present because those regulations use some blood with the charge. Flushing it.

You know? So I get there's a group of, you know, the challenge of, like, having one person say, hey. I should be classified. If not, I'd be a troublemaker. But if could I come forward to you all under your current powers and say, I'm a business analyst. One. Mhmm. We're unclassified. I should we, as a collective, should be classified. Are you able to look at cross? Currently in your powers, can you look at a broad swath of employment? Like, could you not already look at all of the unclassified employees right now and make a determination where they should be classified?

I mean, that's interesting. So you're talk talking kind of basically about a class action complaint. I think I have you guys did I don't know if you guys have ever done a class action. Ravens. Not yet.

But I I you know, I I mean, I did I probably did about five class actions when I was working with the VA. And I I looked at this and thought, wow. This is this isn't right for a class action because you've got a uniform policy, which is to not really have any criteria in signing people to cert. And then, you know, could but as far as, you know, could you could there be a class of all, you know, to answer your question, that issue would have to come before the board Yeah. An appeal.

Okay. And then the issue would become, well, can we have a class action appeal? And that would be something that, of course, Martha It would help us on and and if that issue ever came before us, but it's never had us at this point.

Okay. And and reading this, that would be binding. Right? So if a class came forward and said we should be classified as a civil service works decision is binding at that point in time. Correct. I'm gonna read the charter. I

mean, there's a lot of plaintiffs there. Okay. But but, yes, the the in terms of an adjudication, the civil service court's ruling is final and binding. Okay.

Right. So that's thank you for answering that. That's something I was kicking around in my mind. Mhmm. Answer this. I'm just making sure my questions there. That what you were just said properly, all the questions I have. Okay. That makes sense to me. I mean, I understand kind of the thinking behind it. We're adding more here. Oh, man. There was a question I have. I guess I'll go to my next one. The recommendations.

So I guess where I'm getting concerned the question I have, right, is the current powers and duties of the civil service order articulated very clearly in the charter to advise the council, investigate all matters, pass upon claims, hear appeals. And what it looks like you all are doing through this ordinance is creating additional power. It's not currently contained in the charter. Well Or but you're or are you saying that what you're adding falls under the investigatory and recommendation tool? Because when I read the charter, I read people can make recommendations to us, and we can choose or not.

What I'm reading in proposal is everything will go through you, and you will decide that for us and then get it back to us. And that sounds like a recommendation, but it sounds like we're abrogating power that's still served for.

No. Well, no. Actually, what we're proposing is that you would like, for the principal officer and the assistant, you would make that determination. And then we would we would act we would review it to see if it's the policy charting. We go ahead and make that decision. Well, if it would not come to us

and say Yeah. But let's take that to lunch line. We make we get a decision. This person should be unclassified. It goes to you while you say, they should be classified. Then Mhmm. That's binding.

Uh-huh.

Right. So you we would remove the power from us to make the decision to the civil service.

Well, that could have potentially happened

Right now through an appeal process. Yeah. Exactly. This would be no appeal, flat out civil service board gets to

make final call on those things. Which Right. We would have them review review capacity. And what part of what the charter says is that we have the authority to enact with the approval of court members of council in the Charter. And so this would be a means of enforcing these provisions because without what's status quo now is those provisions are not being enforced. They're being ignored.

Well, yes. I I think we're I guess what I'm coming back to is why did the framers not put that power in the charter? Well Was there an assumption that we wouldn't

get in this position where

we need to have that final say by you all?

Well, that goes back to and always anticipate every possible contingency. And so they didn't run their back in the chart rapidly chartered it. They didn't think through, well, who's gonna be making this determination as to who's in and who's out. And so it's not it's silent on that issue other than principal officers and new systems. Okay.

I I think that's just a a a question that I as I'm reading through this, right, it it is definitely a shift, what you're proposing. Absolutely. It's a shift of and and to your point of who's making this is TMC two point nine two point nine zero says the HR director has a responsibility of making the choice of who's classified and unclassified. It's in the TMC. Like, they're making a call. Like, they decide those things. I but I

don't I don't see that.

So people well, I I I can go read I mean Oh, okay. I can read the TMC, and it says right here, administer the system of position with the city based on duties, responsibilities, and nature of work performed. Right? So Well, that well,

that addresses they so the city class as you all know, they have that classification study where they classify positions as, well, these these employees do similar works or work. But that that that's not the the decision as to whether or not a person under the charter Okay. Under another provision of the charter would be considered classified or unclassified. And so you've got you've got a different that is something that's causing

something to. Yeah. I mean, classifieds are in the bunch of time classification class. Yeah. Like, what's the

Right. And they use that at

different context. Yeah. I mean so that's that was just like so it's there could be some interpretation here that there's that that process, that the that the TNC says that that's there. I think your what you all are saying is that is they have gone outside of the scope of what we're able to for classified classified, and it's not fitting. I look at the rationale, like, about the reasons on that.

I think, you know, I have much more many more technical questions. I just you know, I appreciate all the work you all have done here. I think that I just for the for the record, right, though we don't know why these are being determined other ways, I would hesitate to say it's arbitrary and ambitious without kind of hearing what the why. Like, we need to know why. Because, I mean, there are lots of decisions that are made that I could say are arbitrary and ambitious, though, if I ask the person to give me the rationale, they can explain it.

So I just before we like, there's there's definitely an underserting assumption here that what the city is doing is arbitrary versus, though I've yet to I don't think I can quite say that that's what I think at this point in time. The other part of this conversation is I I do think this is really important, and and a lot of your concerns you've raised about, you know, who gets classified or sign classified, and that conversation is something I look forward to taking Seriously, when it comes forward, we can't stop you.

I'll send this forward.

I think those are oh, that was my question. If your subposition is that the city could just eliminate the classified service by interpreting everyone under this for, like, categorization, why have they done that?

Why have they not done that? Yeah. There's a potential to do that. I don't I don't yeah. But I can't answer that question. But but but I think I mean, if they're think they're kind of chipping it away, so they're doing it gradually so that there's not a big kind of a big shock to the the whole system.

I mean, I think that's just every once a physician is determined it's classified, can they unclassify it at some point in time? Could the city HR department say, no. That was classified, now but it's not?

Or I I think they've done that in the past. They they're saying yeah. Okay. And they I mean, Mr. Allen and

Yeah. Yeah. Miss Phillips,

I gotta write this. He did? Yes. Okay. You're aware.

Yeah. No. I think that's just a question I underskirting all of this. Like, if it was seen as such an obstacle, but yet it somehow exists for two thirds of our employees. Uh-huh. A question for someone called I'd love to see if all the new classifications going that have been created, how many of them are classified, and what how those numbers have trended over the last years. That would be something I would love to know just to kinda see a a snapshot of time.

Yeah. And I'm sure you can get that information on the HR and Yeah. Okay. That for you pretty quickly. Yeah. Alright.

Well, it's saying I don't know if there's any other questions. I'm sure I had to go. That's a real problem. Okay. With that, Chancey, thank you so much. We'll look forward to reviewing the final proposal that comes through from your board after May sound.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Thank you, Martha.

Of course.

Okay. You can now

well, my next item here, let's see. Topics for upcoming meetings. Andrew, I'd like to talk to you about topics for upcoming meetings.

Yeah. Two coming up on May 19. One is an election or interviews for We're

on electing a meeting.

Yeah. Interviews for our from a utility board.

I think it's the. Yep. And then we have a presentation from our person group on some different types of ways to

think about hiring contractors for small accounts.

Cool. Great. Alright. Are there

any other items of interest? So move the second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed.