Government Performance and Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Oh, didn't

say the recording in progress again.

It doesn't do. Oh, it

doesn't do? Oh, wow. That's my cue. I'd like to call the order of the government performance finance committee meeting of 09/16/2025. Clerk, please call the rolls.

Director Bushnell? Present. Deputy mayor Daniels? Here. Council member Rumbaugh? Absent. Thanks, chairman.

Here. Alright. Clerk, we did that part. Moving on to public comment. Clerk, will you please read?

To request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in the front of the room if you have not done so already. If you are speaking virtually, please press the red flag button near the bottom of your phone window or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of the phone number will be called out when it is your trip to speak. Alright.

Clerk, does anyone sign up to speak virtually or in person?

I don't see any hands raised online. Okay.

That will go

ahead and post public comment, and we'll move on to our briefing items. And the first briefing item is proposed amendments to Tacoma municipal code sections one dot two four dot two nine zero and one dot two four dot two nine five of civil service. I'd like to call Eric Hansen share the simple service story. Okay.

Great. Thank you. I wanna you know, I wanna I I don't know if you you probably have received my memo, I think. Yeah. And and I wanna just start out with you know, I'm gonna be questioning what the human resources department has done and to some extent the city attorney.

And I I just wanna point out that, you know, it's been my experience at the human resource department. They're very competent, hardworking people. But we, you know, we have a disagreement on this issue. And our role, obviously, as you know, with the civil service board is that, you know, we make independent judgments. We're not gonna always follow what the human resource department does.

For example, very often, we have termination hearings, and it's our job to make an independent determination whether or not there's grounds for termination, whether or not we agree with the human resource department. So I just wanna wanna make that caveat that the people that that work in the human resources department are very hardworking people, very confident. But with with respect to this particular issue, as you know, under the charter, the civil service board is mandated to advise the council on civil service and personal personnel administration and to investigate employment conditions. And so with in that mind with that mind, several months ago, the Joint Labor Council came to us and they said, you know, it looks like the city has allocated a large number of of employees to the unclassified category. No.

Excuse me. And so we, you know, we had been invite informed of this, and so we conducted an investigation. Now and, obviously, when you conduct an investigation, you're you're trying to get both sides of the story. And I'll I'll go into that a little later on. But we we made an effort to get both sides of the story, both from the joint labor council and from management and the human resource department.

So we conducted that investigation. We determined that, in fact, yes, there had been an excessive number of of employees who are out who are allocated to the unclassified category. And so, what we did was take a look at, you know, how how can we rectify this situation. And so what we're what we're doing is we're proposing and we haven't voted on this yet. You know, we haven't started the process of enacting a a personnel rule.

But what we're proposing is to amend the TMC one two four two ninety to provide clarification as to who should be in the unclassified category and who should be classified. And what we're doing is we're trying to further define the parameters of the charter. And there are a few instances in the charter where there's some ambiguity as to who should be in and who should be out. And so what we're doing is we're trying to clarify those ambiguities. And, also, we're proposing that the civil service board be given oversight authority in determining who should be in and out of the classified or unclassified categories, and also to give the the the board the authority to look at reclassification.

So now as you know, there are two categories of employees in the the in the service for the city. There are the classified employees and the employees. The classified employees are covered by what the charter refers to as a merit system of employment, and I I'm sure you all know or familiar with that. So, basically, what the merit system of employment mandates is that you have testing to determine, you know, who should be hired, who's the best candidate, and also, you know, whether or not or who should be promoted. So you have testing in both of those categories to ensure that you get only the best employees, who are promoted and hired.

Also, classified employees are are covered by the just cause provision of the charter. So the charter says that classified employees cannot be terminated or or disciplined severely without just cause. So just cause, and we all know just cause is basically you've gotta you've gotta have to have a pretty substantial reason to terminate someone or discipline someone before you do that. And what the just cause provision also gives classified employees is a decision on neutral decision maker, which is the civil service board. And, basically, under, this procedure, employees the classified employees are provided due process.

And due process is one of kind of kind of one of the fundamental building blocks of the the American system of justice. And, basically, what due process says is that you get to tell your side of the story before a neutral decision maker. And that's one of the basic principles of the American system of justice. And so what classified employees have is they have that right to have a hearing before the civil service board. They have a right to call witnesses.

They have a right to cross examine witnesses. They have a right to submit documentary evidence. They have a and they have a basically, they have a right to have a neutral decision maker such as a as a civil service board make a decision as to whether or not there's grounds for their termination or discipline. Unclassified employees have none of those rights. So they don't they're not subject to a merit system of employment.

So they they don't have to be tested for hiring or promotion or anything else. Also, they could be terminated for any reason. There's no just cause provision that provide that applies to the classified employees. And so, basically, they can be severely disciplined or terminated for little or no reason. There's there's no constraints on what the civil or what the city can do other than the state laws regarding discrimination and and other instances of lawful termination, or, you know, those sorts of things.

So what we determined was, this this is a little murky. When we conducted our investigation, we asked the we well, we did as I said, we determined that the HR department had improperly designated almost a third of the workforce as unclassified. And so we asked the HR department several times. We wanna hear your side of the story. You know?

We this is what we see. Is there any reason for doing what you're doing? And we and, basically, we'd like to know the criteria that you used to allocate people from the classified or unclassified. And we were told that that was subject to the attorney client privilege. And so that basically, that's a secret that they were not gonna disclose to us.

What what do you do with that? I don't know. You know, when you conduct an investigation, right, as I say, you want both sides of the story. They the city was not the HR department was not giving us both sides of the story. I asked, you know, you know, are you were you consulting with your attorneys? If that's attorney client privilege. They said, we talked to a guide. I think his name was Fosby, or I can't remember his name. Maybe some of you remember Fos Fosbury. Fosbury. Yeah. And we were told, he's retired. He's unavailable. I said, you know, I'd like to talk to him while he's unavailable. So we couldn't we couldn't get the other side of the story.

And, you know, we didn't have an agenda when we did were doing this. We wanted to find out we just were conducting an investigation to find out what was going on. And so we kinda reached a dead end. And so they with that without information, we had to assume that the city was not operating under any criteria to determine who should be unclassified and who should be classified. And I'll you know, just to give you an example of that, and I looked at this.

You've got you've got the list of unclassified and classified employees. And I looked I was looking at this list the other day. And so in the unclassified category on the first page, they had listed as unclassified business service analyst and business services analyst and business systems analyst principal. So those are in the unclassified category. Then when you go to the classified category on the first page, they have listed as classified business and economic development analyst and business and economic development analyst associate.

So I'm I'm trying to figure out, okay. What am I missing something here? Or what you know, is there a criteria that they're following, or is this just kind of a random designation of we're gonna put you in this category? One of the things I didn't put in my memo, you know, I I did in my previous life. I'm retired now, but in my previous life, I did quite a bit of litigation against agencies, working for the Washington Education Association.

So, basically, that's all I did was litigation. And one of the things if I would, file a lawsuit against an agency but, obviously, in my role now, I'm not, you know, I'm not a litigator. I'm a, you know, a neutral decision maker. But in in my role, you know, I would I would take action against administrative agencies, you know, Department of Retirement Systems, one case I did against the Department of Corrections. And one of the arguments that you have when you sue a governmental agency is the idea that a governmental agency cannot act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

That's very, very basic. That's fundamental black letter. Black letter laws is law that is beyond question. It's so it's been around for so long that it's it's completely accepted. So I looked at this and I thought, this this really kinda looks arbitrary and capricious to me.

When we've got job a job title that seems to be very similar, except one is classified and one is unclassified. And so, you know, I and then, again, I asked the city, you know, what's going on here? And the city said, basically, the HR department said, we're not gonna tell you. Okay. You know?

What what can we do with that? I don't know if, you know, if this issue ever came up before us or in a court or wherever. I you know, if the if the they wanna if a judge or if the, the board wanted to hear the city's defense to an improper classification, would the city say, gee, I'd like to give you an argument, but we that's subject to attorney client privilege. So, I mean, I don't know how that that would work. You know? But who knows? You know? So I'm so you know, I Oh. I was gonna tell you. You okay.

And I just got so wrapped up in this. I've given you know, there's some examples of wrongly unclassified positions. And so I you know, in my memo, I listed or or quoted the provisions of the of city charter. And I don't if you guys I don't know. I I don't wanna have if I read it, I may read that again. That might be kinda tedious for you all, but I can go okay. I won't go through that again. But I you know? Yeah. I looked at, like, these are some of the positions that are listed as unclassified.

These are not principal officers. They're not people hired to conduct some kind of special investigation. They don't fall into any other category of unclassified employees. The the drafters of the charter were very careful to narrow very narrowly describe who's gonna be unclassified because they wanted they it stayed in the charter. They wanted to have a merit system of employment and they wanted to ensure that employees were treated fairly and equitably.

The problem is when you don't have a just cause provision, as I said, you can terminate someone for any reason. So what that does and then and, you know, and I worked in public employee labor law for thirty seven years. What that very often does is that people who are not covered by those provisions, they can you know, you can create if you've got a bad supervisor, you can create a lot of stress in the workplace because you're just hanging out there on a limb, and you could be let go just like that. When you when you create a and I've seen school like school buildings and and councilman Heinz knows what goes obviously knows what goes on in the school building. And he knows that if you've got a rotten principal in a school building, that whole building is gonna be stressed out, and the kids are not gonna get the education that they otherwise should be entitled to.

So by by eliminating the just cause provision from people who should otherwise be classified, you're putting a lot of stress on people which create which obviously reduces the productivity in the workplace. I guess the next okay. Risk and impacts. So I've you know, in my former life, I did a few nineteen eighty three lawsuits. And, basically, well, nineteen eighty three lawsuit involving public employees is is it's basically if you get terminated if you have, if you're covered by a just cause provision, whether that be by statute or whatever, and you're terminated without a full blown hearing, like the hearing that that employees can get before the civil service board, then you can sue for damages because the US constitution, the due process clause of the US constitution says, if you have a property interest in your employment and a property interest is employees covered by a just cause provision, if you have that property interest in your employment, you have an absolute right to a hearing.

That's what due process is all about. It's I get to tell my side of the story and I get to cross examine witnesses and I get to have a neutral decision, a decision maker make that decision. So let's take for example an employee, you know, who's clearly like a nurse, I think one of was one of the categories. Let's say, for example, a nurse. I mean, nurses are clearly they're not they're not principal officers. They're not hired to conduct some kind of special investigation. So you take somebody like a nurse who's terminated. They're unclassified. You terminate them without a hearing. They say, you know, I'm sorry.

We're gonna terminate you, and that's it. That employee potentially has grounds to bring a 1983 lawsuit because they were terminated without a hearing, which is required by due process. So that creates some liability for the city. You know, a lot of those lawsuits, you get damages for mental anguish as well as back pay and and front pay. A lot of times, the damages for mental anguish can be substantial.

And so that could be some big time liability. The with regard to the public trust, you know, the public re the public, they want they want people who are the best employees to provide city services. They don't want you know, Charlie says, gee. I wanna hire my nephew. He's he's kind of a screw up, but, he's my nephew, and so I'd like to hire him.

They don't, you know, they don't want somebody hired because, you know, the supervisor is their uncle or they you know, Fred is their fishing buddy and Fred wants to hire him. They want they want the best employees that that they can get. You know? And people, you know, they're they're they work hard, and they pay taxes, and they wanna get the best city services possible. So, again, with with respect to the service quality that you know, when people are stressed out, that results in lower productivity and and reduced employee morale.

So, none of the charter so under the charter, the civil service board has the power under section six fourteen to make and enforce civil service personnel rules. And the courts I've cited one case. The courts basically have said the civil service board is one of the functions of a civil service board is really kind of to protect the civil service system and to enforce the civil service system. And so the charter gives us that authority. And so we may and as you know, we may make make rules and amend rules, and the council may amend or reject those rules with a two thirds majority vote.

So that's what we're looking at right now. And we're as I said before, we're proposing, an amendment to TMC one two four two ninety. And so so, basically, what this amendment does is there are a couple of places where there is some ambiguity in the charter. And so what this amendment seeks to do is to really nail down these ambiguities to conform with the charter to make sure that the the charter is followed. And so what we're pro what we're proposing is some definitions for principal officer, and I've cited a number of cases, that support the idea that the term principal officer, which is kind of a general term, takes its meaning from the more specific terms of department head.

And so we're basing the the definition of principal officer on an individual who's a department head or higher, to provide clarity to that term. And, also, we're providing clarity to the term assistance to department heads to include only those administrative assistants and secretaries who are who are supporting that department head or higher. And then what we found is that in the charter, there is a provision that states the following is excluded, from the classified service. Persons employed in a professional or scientific capacity to conduct a special inquiry investigation or examination. So, obviously, we don't have a third of the workforce conducting special inquiries, investigations, or examination.

Special, as I stated in my memo, is something that is not in the ordinary course of business of the city. And so what we found, at least I found in one instance, is that an individual who wanted to appeal their classification as a as a unclassified, employee, they wanted to appeal that determination, and they were told that, well, you're in a professional position, so you're unclassified. If the drafters had wanted all professional employees to be excluded from the unclass or from the classified category, that's what what they would have stated in the charter, that they could have done that. But they they provided that they had to be in involved in conducting a special a special inquiry investigation or examination. That's not all professional employees.

That's only a very limited number. So we we wanted to provide a definition to provide clarity further clarity for that. Also, in the new rule, as I said before, it gives the board the authority to approve the classification decisions and to reclassify positions if necessary. And then the benefits of you're getting you're really good at this. Benefits of reform, and I think I mentioned a lot of these before.

The the further clarity in the definitions provide make sure that the decisions with respect to classification, are made in conformance with the charter. It provides fair treatment for employees. What you know, employees should another thing too is that if you're going to strip an employee of a substantial due process right, that employee should have a right to acknowledge of notice of the criteria that was used to make that decision. And that's what these rules are doing. They should not be told, gee, that's the secret. You know? We're not gonna tell you. You know? We're just gonna make that decision, and and that's that's it that. You know?

So, again, it protects the city from potential litigation. It improves morale. And, you know, it doesn't strengthen the the public trust because public the public, as I stated before, they want the best. They want a merit the public wants a merit system of employment. They're they're they don't want cronyism or nepotism. They want a merit system of employment. So the status quo. So without this, the status quo right now is, as I pointed out, there seems to be kind of an ad hoc decision making. And this this has been going on for a while, and it's not limited to the last few years. It's it's been going on for a while.

The the ad hoc decision making, why why would a business economic development development analyst be in a classified category and a business service services analyst be unclassified? You know? That kind of ad hoc decision making is what puts governments in trouble Because people look you know, the courts look at that and say that's arbitrary and capricious. I looked at that and thought this kind of textbook arbitrary and capricious to me as far as I can tell. Also, you know, it as I said, it violates the charter.

The status quo is violating the charter, and there's a high risk of potential lawsuits. So another thing I wanted to point out is all you as you all know, and I think as elected officials, I think, you know, I can't remember exactly the oath, but I think we all swear to uphold the charter. The chart the charter is is it's it has the force of law. You know? And if the HR department is not happy with the civil service system, there's a process that they can use to amend the charter.

And then we you were recently involved in that process. You know? If you but you don't amend the charter by violating the charter. That that disenfranchise disenfranchises the voters. The voters have a right to vote on whether or not there's gonna be a civil service.

And when you just ignore those provisions, you're disenfranchising those voters. So yeah. And, again, fiscal impacts, there's no direct fiscal impacts, but potential cost of preventing lawsuits. So, like, that's about, you know, that's about it. And if you have questions or comments, you know, feel free.

That's why we came here. I wanted to make sure that, you know, if things were unclear or if you had different ideas, to let me know. And is there something that we can do that that you guys think would be more you know, that you would like to see or things that you don't like, and then just let us know. And so feel free to let me know. You know?

Yeah. Great.

And then just a reminder of the process, chair Hanson, just so you're because you are a charter organization and if elected, so you could make these recommendations, and then they would be notice the clerk, and then they move forward to the full council for our consideration. Give respect to kinda how what this is for information period for us, but they independent organization or body, like a body, can put that forward. So I just wanna make sure we're all clear for that. Thank you for coming in and sharing all this. I'll now open up to questions from my committee members if they have any.

Let's start with vice chair. Thank you. Appreciate you coming in and explaining this to us. I know that it clearly took a lot of research and time, so thank you. One of the questions I had is the does this apply to both general government and TPU, or is this confined to general government?

I don't know. I should scope responsibility for this. Specifically?

Well, my the TPE is also covered by the civil service. Right? Yeah.

So so the so the is so this the concerns that you're having with the job classification is also a part of the broader TBU as well? Yes. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. And then second, I I think I have a lot of questions for HR. And so but one of the questions that you might be able to help answer is, do we have an you said one third of the of the the employees. Do you have a specific number?

Well, you know, the the last number that I got and this was a little while ago, so it probably changed a little. But the last number I got from the HR was 1,051 are unclassified and one thousand nine twenty four are classified. But but those numbers could change. Yeah. Could have changed sometimes.

And then do you know how many job classifications are in conflict that you feel is, like, conflict matter?

Well, no. I haven't really made that determination.

Got it. Alright. Those are the quick questions I have, and then I think I have a lot of questions to reach out later. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? K. Anybody else?

No. I think the the explanation is pretty thorough on kind of just looking at the process and but yeah. K.

Okay. But I do I have a you know, the the process that you described, I have a I just wanna make sure I had a panel on that. So I wasn't sure. So this so then you, this goes to your committee. And then from there, I wasn't sure what happened.

You just have to from my understanding, you just need to submit your motion changes to the city clerk, and then that and at that point, kinda triggers the council meeting to take it up to conversations.

Okay. So you is there any opportunity for me to talk to other council members about

Yeah. I think if we could there's both we could have you set up meetings with different council members or groups for a conversation outside of the members that are outside of GPC. I could talk to staff about whether or not this is something we wanted for a study session to be able for broader conversation too. I would imagine it might even be a topic we wanna talk to the TPU board about. This has to make sure they're aware of kind of the proposal too. So, we should chat more about kinda what that would look like, and I'm happy to help kind of facilitate the conversation you could talk to next.

Oh, okay. So you wanna so you wanna could I contact you then later on when we could set up a For sure.

Okay. I just had a couple questions, though, for you. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. And then before or chair, do you have any question?

Well, yeah. So, I appreciate all the work you've done and the the sort of principles behind this classified system that you talked about, you know, being merit based hiring and then just cause employment and sorts of things. And the the way that my experience with that is, you know, testing for when I became a lab or lab assistant decades ago, get on, take a test. And are is there some modification or is there some developments in that whole system that would support some of the newer kinda constraints in the job market with, you know, say, IT professionals that, you know, it's not the same as a lab assistant when I got hired. Mhmm.

Or, you know, sort of specific, maybe they do or don't comply with those criteria you described, but they're they're certainly high demand, you know, not positions that have typically had a a civil service test and the time frames involved in that to get to decisions. And is it it is the civil service, is it really the way it was back in the eighties, or has it changed? Or

I I the idea that employees should be protected by just cause provisions and there should be a merit system of employment, those are very old ideas that have not died. We have but to address your question with regard and I think your question is Has that been modified the way that's implemented over No. Not really. The basic idea like I say, the basic idea is that if you're a Just Cause employee, you have a right to due process. And that, you know, that has not changed.

The due process requires a hearing before the civil service board. But with regard to hiring to address your issue and I think your question was, we were trying to compete with other with private employers to get these IT professionals. The best. And we have to go through this all this rigmarole. And one thing we've done to make it a little easier is that for now at least we've waived the residency requirement.

So that gives you a much greater pool of IT potential potential IT professional employees. The other thing is that in many instances, we waive testing, competitive testing, particularly, like, for example, the apprenticeship program. If someone completes the apprenticeship program, basically, they're hired. They don't have to go through testing. They don't have to do any of those things.

So we can waive these provisions. And and usually, a supervisor will come to us and say, you know, we've got this situation. Can we waive this particular this testing requirement or whatever? So and I know that the human resources department has has had the very same your very same concern. We've got these high demand positions. We need to move quickly.

Mhmm.

And that's one of the reasons why we waived the residency requirement because we did not we have a blanket waiver. We did not want to have have to have the the department come to us every time there was an applicant for, you know, a high demand position and asked for a waiver, we just said, well, we'll just grant a blanket waiver to get these people on. So we we did try to streamline that process. We can streamline that with regard to testing too. And the, you know, the testing doesn't have to be sitting down and doing a written test, you know, and then having it graded and that kind of thing.

It can be, you know, an interview. You know? It could be on any number of things. But, basically, it's an objective determination to determine who's the best qualified for this position. So it doesn't have to be sitting down and grading a written test and that kind of thing. Does I don't know if that does that address kind of your

That was my question. Yeah.

Okay. Alright.

Yeah. Thanks for your answer. I mean, I think the the tension why question? So because the other and I'm sorry that you didn't get the answers to your questions from HR. I don't wanna ask you to make an assumption about maybe what their process is to determine that. But I think one of the challenges that I have heard around the civil service process is just the sheer amount of time it takes to get someone into a position. And so you talk about the conversation around waiving and things like that, I think, makes sense. Right? Uh-huh. Even though we have a broad pool of, you know, say, IT professionals from across the country, if they have to take a test, say it's coma, and then we don't call them until six months later because that's by the time we've worked our way through the list Yeah.

Calling them. They're like, hey. Actually, I'm in Boston, and I got another job that they hired me three days after I applied. Right. Do you so have you all talked about ways to address some of that competitive advantage or advantage there?

Yeah. We were gonna look at that, you know, and and my thinking was this whole idea of testing to address maybe your concern too, it's that's outdated to some extent. And, also, there's a lot of times, there's difficulty. When you're testing people for hiring or positions or or hiring or promotion for positions, sorry, when you're testing those people, you've got to make sure that your test does not have an adverse impact on a protected group. And if it does, then what you end up with is a class action lawsuit, which is a headache that I'm sure the city would rather not have to deal with.

So there's there's problems with testing. And we had talked about, you know, let's let's take a look at this this system of of testing. And like I say, I mean, the charter does not mandate. You've gotta have a written test. You've gotta have a 100 questions. You've gotta you know, it's gotta be graded, and then you've gotta be put on a list. It doesn't mandate that process. And I think we've got we do have an antiquated process. Obviously, I think you're gonna wanna sit down and interview everybody, but that that's testing. That's a way to determine merit for the position.

So that's but that's something that we wanted to take a look at and we haven't gotten to, but that's something that we certainly, and that's a great idea because we had that that had gotten off our shelf of things to do, but that we had talked about that, and then we should really take a look at that.

Yeah. Because I think in my mind, that would be if I was can we I wouldn't have talked HR too. But there one of the the ish challenge I've heard with the system is this the time period by which someone applies to by which we can hire them. That that's something we got to kinda address more on. My second you answered my second question, which was, if I read this correctly, it said charter says you have to live inside the state's coma in order to be a classified physician, but you all waive that.

Yeah. We have a blanket waiver.

Could you all rescind that waiver at any point in time?

Yeah. It doesn't look like we're we wanna do that. I know you guys, the council has also enacted a blanket waiver. And and the problem, you know, and I recognize the charter says only residents.

You know?

But I recognize that there is a lot of competition for this, especially with IT, to get people in these positions. And a lot of people, say, well, gee, you know, I I can make more money in in the private sector. A lot of people say, you know, wanna work for the city because of the benefits and and the pension. And as as we all know, pension is a very and I'm realizing that now since I have I'm under a pension. Yeah. That it's a very valuable benefit. And it's a very it's a very it's a good way to attract people to work for the city because everybody else, you know, they've got four zero one k's. Yeah. You know? And that's and they live and die by the stock market. You know? And who wants to do that in their retirement?

For sure. Okay. I think my only other question, and, you all did not mention this, but part h of who's not qualified is people on point on special projects, programs, low generation, major construction projects, or programs or projects financed by grant and aid agreement with federal or state governments. So did you when you look at some of the unclassified, maybe maybe I don't know if you were able to crosswalk with HR or not, but how many of those folks may actually be partially or completely financed by either state or federal jobs? Okay.

Because I think that because I could see, like, a a financial analyst in one department being classified another one being unclassified because they're being paid for by a grant state or the feds. Yeah. CED is a great example where we were hosting the MBDA, which is completely funded by state federal. Uh-huh. But they were city of Tacoma employees. So those folks may be similar to but a classic.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, I mean, we have to follow that. Okay. And we're not and it it does say persons employed on special projects have a limited duration. Yeah. But, again, you know, we were basically and I hate to say this, but we were basically stonewalled.

Yeah.

And then they never said, well, you know, this person's in this category.

And so And I think that's information that have lots of questions for HR based on this conversation with chair Hansen and that I think there's more information to understand. Because at the end the day, you are correct that we don't want this to be done in an arbitrary purchase manner. We want there to be consistency, and the public needs to have an explanation of why it's being basis. And just as a quick separation, can remind me. Classified and classified is separate from represented, nonrepresented. They're two separate Yes.

Yeah. And they you can be, you can be unclassified and be represented. There's no prohibition against them. So, yeah, we're covered by the city's covered by PERC, and the PERC basically excludes supervisors and confidential employees. But, you know, as far as unclassified or classified, that's the criteria that Perkins chose.

Yeah. Okay. So they sparked a question about your responsibility yesterday. Yeah. I think I just had a one quick question, and I'll probably have to talk to attorney about this. But since you guys are a separately elected body, do you not also do you have the ability to go into executive sessions and talk about, you know, these things? Like, so I don't know. So how does attorney client privilege kind of apply to that? Because we we're we can have, you know, executive sessions and stuff like that. Do you guys are you guys able to do those as well?

Right. Yeah. I mean, but I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but, yeah, I mean, we can have that's true. But the the thing is the the really, the the kind of the the purpose of an attorney client privilege is that you've got that privilege to maintain secrets of your client. And although you can make it, but there's if there if there's really no reason for an attorney client privilege to apply, you don't it's it's not an absolute thing.

I mean, anytime a person talks to an attorney, whether it be the city manager or whoever, I mean, you can make an argument, well, that's attorney client privilege. But that doesn't mean that that can never be disclosed. It's not absolute. So and as I say, if you are operating under some criteria, and I don't know one way or another if they are, But if you're operating under a criteria that has a substantial impact on the rights of employees of the city and you're not disclosing that to employees, that to me is a problem. And that goes back to the fairness and equity.

Am I being treated fairly? Mean, gee, I'm a business and economic development or I'm a, you know the other what's the other I'm a business service analyst. I'm unclassified. Fred over here is a business and economic development. Why does he why does he get to be classified and I don't? You know? And if they're gonna terminate Fred, he gets to have a hearing. I don't. They can just say, you know, see it. You know?

You're gone. Yeah. I I guess I'm just trying to figure out why there seems to be that attorney privilege bubble being used as a way to kind of not necessarily get you guys information you need

to assess things. That's my question then.

And if it's something that maybe it shouldn't be necessarily about broadly in public, then

that could

be maybe something that could be talked about in executive session. Sure. You know? Because that that's where I'm kind of like, well, why? Why is this happening since you guys are separately elected lobbying that?

Well, they weren't gonna talk to us. They never said we can disclose this in executive session, but we can't do it in public care. They never said that. They just basically said, initially and I hate to say this, but initially, they said this is none of your business. And then they said, we're not gonna disclose it to you because it's covered by attorney client privilege. Yeah. And I don't, you know, mean to cast aspersions. And like I say, I mean, I I have a lot of respect for everybody in the human resource department, but, you know, we've got an obvious disagreement on this issue.

Sure. Yeah. Yep. That's that's the question I have. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you, chair Hanson. I appreciate it. I can call up in a chat and kind of Great.

So I'll just email you. Can I have your email?

Yep. Okay. And then we'll go from there and we could talk further about next steps and kind of what other council members or board members you wanted to talk to and try to facilitate that conversation.

Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I really appreciate your time. I know this is kind of a it's a can of worms for sure, so I appreciate your listening. We

appreciate your, first of willingness to serve, to be on the ballot and then do the work Jared.

Well, thank you.

You. Alright. K. And then great. So now we'll move on to briefing item number two, which is the Easy Fiber Texas LLC telecommunications franchise agreement. I'd like to call on Jeff Leaders with the media and communications office. Morning. My

name is Jeff Leders. I'm the meeting communications ops division manager of cable communications and franchise services. Next slide. Before you today is a franchise request for ordinance for a telecommunications franchise agreement with EZ Fiber of Texas LLC, which is a new provider to our community. EZ is successfully operating in Texas and New Mexico.

And but if you see below there, they're in Washington communities, Kent, Lakewood, Des Moines, Federal Way, Issaquah, and they're almost complete in Bremerton and fully complete in Vancouver, Washington, and Salem, Oregon. And as you know, due to the twenty twenty or two thousand one Auburn case, we can't get franchise fees from a telecommunications franchise agreement. Next page. So this is a request for a ten year franchise, allows the provider to operate in the right of way, requires necessary bonds, letter of credit, and insurance required by title 16 b and title 10 of the municipal code. Next slide.

Yeah. These are some of the services that they provide, and they also have some scenarios where they offer dark fiber services. So the special thanks to Charles Lee, deputy city attorney, and Garner Duncan, and Austin Christopherson from EZ Fiber Texas for all of their efforts as we negotiate the terms of this agreement. And, these would be the next steps. Would go to council, not on the twenty third as I originally thought because that date is canceled.

It's moved to the thirtieth, and then the final reading would be in October 14. Publication date would be October 17, I believe. So but the effective date would be the October.

Alright. I'm gonna ask the question I think people have, which is, Jeff, what are dark dark fiber serves?

Dark fiber is where they have a path in the community that they they wanna get from point a to point b, and they don't wanna install it. They wanna they offer they they'll install it, but someone else is gonna light it up with their own electronics. Yeah. So Okay. So they basically, it's like, we'll put it in, and then they'll operate it. You know? So At

least not so many. Okay. Great. That was you have the difference?

Yeah. My only other question for you, because we have these all the time. Yeah. I know there's a 2,001 case that says that we can't charge. Can we deny these permits? Could we decide that we have too many because there's just so many in there hanging on? It's I mean, we just it's like, is there a possibility that we could decide it's just, like, a lot? Or

I don't know. I yeah. Councilmember, Rommel, I I don't know. I would have to confer with legal on that because It it's kinda like saying, we have too many McDonald's or we have too many Burger Kings or something. You know?

Saying of.

Well, because, I mean, you have one power company. You have one water company. You know, pretty well, you have two power companies. POC does part of the city. But, I guess my point is, I wouldn't I from just a personal perspective, I wouldn't go there because you want people to have choices and you want the market to to give the lowest price for the, you know, for The the right

of way is a limited area.

Oh yeah.

Speaker And that's why I'm saying this. When we talk about land use, when you filled up all the land use for commercial, then you can't have one: that use. Speaker Right. And what I'm saying is, is there a point where we get to where we say our right of way is pretty full the way this is going? We're not sure how we're going to add more. That's I mean, it's the same thing with the power line, like, with the poles.

You know? You can only

have so many attachment before it becomes dangerous

Right.

For them falling and, you know Yeah. Just I'm just thinking about it that way.

Yeah. No. I agree. I also know that some colleagues and myself are working. We'd like to get state law changed to say, hey. Everybody needs to pay their fair share being in the right of way, not just the cable providers, not just the natural gas Right. Provider. You know, that

We need to get into this conversation. It's worth something for you to be there. Right. You're gonna pay to be there. Yeah. That's my question.

No. I totally agree.

At the end of the day.

At this at this point in time, I don't think we can limit it, and you'll find that out because we have two more coming right behind it. So but it was a buyout. AT and T bought out Lumen. So now we're just transferring that. So that's a whole different equation, but it'll be coming in another month.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, Jeff. Yeah. We're looking forward to more of these. Yeah. I think we're getting used to how it works. So Auburn case, 2001.

So I think you Yes.

I am so with that, Jeff, I'll for the community, there's no further questions. I'll entertain the motion. I move to forward close all communications franchise agreement with the UC Fiber Texas LLC. We'll see the council consideration.

Second.

I move a second. All those in favor signify to say

aye. Aye.

Opposed? Motion started off. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. And I did pronounce it as e for the first two months. I was working on it, and I clarified how it's easy. I'm like, oh, easy. Go.

It should be two Es in the front and

one that you I

have to start two Es on the back. Right?

Used for

the correct spelling and called themselves.

Easy e. That's why I think easy. Thank you, Jeff. Alright. That'll be good.

I will ask you to your joke right now. Okay. With that, I'll turn it over to, Thomas for upcoming meetings, and I'd like to call on HRL, executive liaison for topics for upcoming meetings.

Thanks, Cher. The calendar is getting tight. There's probably only six meetings left in the course of the year when you look at calendar and cancellations. So some things are shifting around, but right now on our calendar, October 7, we have short term rental property update coming your way, and that's from tax and license and PDS because that was an issue that popped up earlier. October 21, we have an insurance one zero one thing to talk about what the city does for our insurance policies and how we handle all of the risks the city bears.

November 4, budget update is on the calendar. And one last thing just for super clarification to make sure you guys all understand, the materials, conclusions, and analysis presented by the civil service board is their independent analysis. It is not an opinion of our city, attorney's office or HR department. So I know you guys will have tons of questions, and those are probably the right places to go to ask those, in the future. So

Yes. I, anyway, we should talk to the city attorney about potentially setting up the session first.

Yeah. I think it's an executive session conversation we'll need to have on these Yeah.

Utility conversation and council. When's our next joint utility board council?

I can check.

November, I think. November 17.

Let double check.

I think so.

Yeah. You know, I think this is, time time sensitive, and it is you maybe they get told me that once the civil service board submits to clerk, we have how many days?

Forty five days. Twenty five days.

To respond and whether we need to adopt their proposals or amend it. And as the charter says, two thirds vote to do those, either one of those.

And you can reject as well.

Or you can reject. Yep. Because we're both.

I have a topic that I'm interested in for NFT.

Yep.

We've been talking a lot about MFTEs, but we really don't talk about who who the MFTEs are rented to. And I'm curious to know, first off, if we're allowed to ask that information. Secondly, I did have a conversation with someone who's a senior citizen and she is living in the Proctor Station and there are other people like her living there that are in the affordable units. I wanted to discuss understanding the population that might be utilizing that and how we might be missing a target audience of senior citizens who are getting priced out of their houses and kinda combining them, in some way with the opportunity of an MFTE unit. So I just I'm wondering if that's something that could be on the the dock that we could talk about.

Is it possible to ask about who's renting those units?

I will talk with CED. I know they gather information because it's required. I don't know if they have it down to the level of who's renting and income and age and those kinds of things you're

thinking income, but they might not have the other stuff. Yeah. I don't know if they can if they can ask that.

So I will do more exploration, and we'll get back to you.

And I don't know if that's something that people are interested in, but I am interested in that that data.

Best of our conversations. Okay. There any other items of interest today? Seeing none, I'll entertain the final sheet. Do agree?

Second.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Missed to adjourn? Thank you.