Seattle City Council Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 12/12/2024

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is Thursday, December 12th, and the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee will come to order.

It is 2.02.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Present.

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Rivera?

Present.

Councilmember Saka?

Here.

Chair Nelson?

Present.

Five present.

Thank you very much.

Well, folks, this is our last committee meeting of the year, and before proceeding with approving of the agenda, I just want to thank my committee members, all of you, for your deep engagement and hard work on all the things that we've been doing this year and the many accomplishments that we've been able to deliver.

So as I look back on what we've done together, I want to elevate three things that I think have had and will continue to have significant beneficial impacts.

So first would be the adoption of Council Bill 120766 on April 16th to improve SPD officer recruitment and hiring processes.

And I won't go into all the things that that bill effectuated, but one thing was adding a staffer so that anyone who applied to SPD would get a personalized response from a human being within 48 hours saying, thank you for applying to SPD and sort of establishing later on a point of contact.

And that is what other jurisdictions do, and it's really important that we do have that first contact because we're competing with other jurisdictions that those applicants may have applied to.

So I would say that the evidence, the changes mandated in that bill combined with the updated SPOG contract, which brought SPD officer salaries back into competitive ranges with neighboring jurisdictions, the evidence that's working is clear in the fact that for the first time since 2020, there was a net positive increase in the number of hires in the last report.

And so that is something to celebrate.

I don't think it was very many, maybe I believe it was less than five, but we've got a long way to go, but that is still a move in the right direction.

And I've always maintained that bringing staffing levels up in SPD is the single most or one of the most important things that we can do to respond to the public safety issues that we've still got going on in our city.

And my vice chair was the co-sponsor of that.

So thank you very much again.

All right, the second thing is not a piece of legislation, but rather the audit that was presented in committee on July 11th on the overlap of concentrations of overdoses in crime and recommendations for how to deal with both.

And this presentation got a lot of media attention.

There was a full table of stakeholders, internal and external, at the table to talk about aspects of that audit.

And shortly after that we saw the notion, one of the central recommendations or theses of that audit is that we need to take a place-based approach to crime and to problem solving in general.

And subsequent to that we heard mention of that phrase in the media.

We also saw that approach replicated in the soda and soap legislation that was passed later that year.

And also I remember very clearly the moment when the mayor's office head of public safety, Natalie Walton Anderson, raised her hand and identified herself as the champion that would ride herd on the implementation of those recommendations.

And since then, we have seen the development of the downtown activation plan, which is implementing some of the recommendations, primarily that agencies have to be internal and external partners have to be coordinated in how they address issues downtown.

And so that is, I'm really happy to see the formation of the Downtown Activation Plan and look forward to continued progress downtown.

So that was important.

I think that we sort of set the stage for some of the good positive change that can proceed in the months ahead.

And then finally, the last thing I'll mention is the music venue parking permit program.

The committee passed Council Bill 120827 on September 12th, and then Council passed it unanimously on September 24th.

And again, if people don't know what I'm talking about, this new program provides for the ability to establish a couple parking spaces in front of qualifying music venues.

so that musicians and either touring or local musicians have a place to park that is secure and convenient.

And that is really important because we have heard that Seattle is being bypassed for lack of this, it's not an amenity, it's a necessity for being able to ensure that musicians are able to get their equipment in and out of the venue and be able to park there for the length of the show.

So That will have an immediate tangible benefit for artists and the nightlife sector and creative economy as a whole.

But I think that, I don't know, not necessarily more important, but it is an example of, first of all, why we need commissions with industry experts to tell the city what they need and what would really help.

But it's also an example of the city listening to the voices of...

of a sector of our economy and really trying to make what they are asking for a reality.

The Music Commission had been advocating for that for about over 10 years, and we finally made it happen.

I sort of pushed work with SDOT, and voila, we now will have these parking places available for our artists.

But I want to also note that the legislation requires that SDOT conducts deep and sustained outreach with other users of limited curb space and parking spaces along the block.

So they won't go just in automatically without conversations with other businesses, organizations, and uses along that block.

But anyway, so three things that I think that we did really, really well, and I'm sure that I'm omitting some other things that are also appreciated by our constituents.

But I just want to say that this committee has a lot on its plate.

It's governance, accountability, and economic development, and I think that we've balanced our time and gotten some good things done.

All right, so with that, we will have today a briefing discussion and possible vote on three appointments and one reappointment to the Domestic Worker Standards Board, and then a briefing discussion and a possible vote on Council Bill, let's see, I'm not having, I don't have the full number here, on the Department of Human Resources fourth quarter employment ordinance.

So that's what we've got before us, and if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted, and let me read the full number of that council bill.

It's 120925. All right, with that, we'll now move into the public comment period on those agenda items.

Clerk, how many people have signed up to speak today?

We have two people signed up in person, one person online.

All right, we'll give everybody two minutes, and we'll start with the two in-person speakers.

The first in-person speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Okay.

Stop.

Your abusive language constitutes disruptive behavior, as is your failure to speak.

Well, I don't know what you're going to talk about, but Over and over and over again this year, I have called attention to that abusive language, and this is a warning, and the next time this happens, I will have to consider some exclusion from council public comment.

You're welcome to proceed with non-abusive language on items on the agenda.

Go ahead, please.

Let me know.

Write to me.

What does I need talking?

I will talk in everything what is your right to.

Please run them.

Go ahead.

Go ahead and use your time.

So it's very important because you're talking right now about government accountability.

For my understanding, I, Alex Zimmerman, together with my friend Donald Trump, talking about clean, dirty government to the bones.

It's too many dirty places in government what is we have.

So for example, I have give you classic example.

You know what it means?

For 20 years, you terrorized me practically in every meeting.

Every meeting.

But is the item on the agenda that you are going to be speaking to, please?

Exactly.

I speak about our government.

This is number one.

Right now, you terrorize moralists.

So what has happened now?

You are real bandita.

You are real Nazi.

I terrorize me, it's okay.

But why terrorize Morales?

So my proposition to you very simple right now.

She have different opinion, I have different opinion, probably thousand people have different opinion.

You are now warned again that you are in, that your comments are in violation of our council rules.

What is rules you talking?

They bring this rule to power five year ago.

I remember Mosquita did this, and this piece of garbage, another woman.

I remember these rules.

You bring these new rules five, six years ago.

Everybody knows these Alex Zimmerman rules.

What are you talking about?

So I demand open better room in City Hall.

So people like Morales and Alex Zimmerman can come with different opinion and speak one time per week for three minutes.

Thousand people will be speaking.

You are a freaking Nazi.

You not shame be a Nazi.

You don't shame be a fascist.

You can do publicly doing this and talking about law.

What is you broke?

Stand up.

The next speaker is Alberto Alvarez.

200,000 Seattle voters demand the investor class pay into the city budget with a progressive tax.

300,000 Seattle renters are burdened with higher and higher rents.

400,000 Seattle workers spend four, five, or six hours of commute time every week, effectively paying a worker's tax that subsidizes the commercial real estate in the city.

Axios headline reports.

Mr. Alvarez, are you going to speak to an item on the agenda that is the overall economic status of the city?

What item on the agenda are you speaking to?

Just the fact that you guys are here to focus on the development of our economy, right?

This committee's rule for public comment is that you speak to an item on the agenda.

So please identify the item that you're speaking of.

Isn't that?

No, it's not under the...

No, council committees have the option of designating just to the items on the agenda or under the purview.

Just for the sake of argument, if the report on GDP, which is tied into our own economic development here in the city, isn't that essentially what this is about?

That is not an item on the agenda, so you are welcome to look at the agenda.

It's disappointing, then.

Thank you, then.

Disappointing.

Okay, we will now move to the online remote commenters.

There is one signed up, Mr. David Haynes.

Mr. Haynes, please be sure to press star six to unmute yourself.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

I would like to address the agenda's BIPOC priority for paying government employees during an election year.

I thought that the city council was going to get rid of all the racist, woke, bottom of the barrel, bad spending priorities and bad policies that were racially tainted from when the George Floyd protesters flash mobbed the city hall and intimidated the progressives who defunded the police and created all this racially tainted bad policy.

And then they created an emphasis of like skin color data to prioritize, regardless of the character.

Okay, Mr. Haynes, can you please identify the item that you're speaking to?

Yeah, the sales tax downturn that you guys are still concerned about, it seems to have a connection to the fact that City Hall is still exempting the drug pushers, and that's a bad police chief who's not trained properly.

The cops that are coming up with all the common excuses.

We've got appointments to the domestic worker standards board and the fourth quarter employment ordinance from the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate your engagement and we'll now close.

Are there any other speakers?

There are no further speakers signed up.

Thank you very much.

The public comment period is now closed and we'll move on to our first item.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

I'm going to read agenda items one through four, which are all appointments.

Agenda item number one, appointment 02945, appointment of Becca Miller-Rose as member of the Domestic Workers Standards Board for a term to February 28th, 2025. Agenda item number two, appointment 02946, appointment of Gia Bassett as member of the Domestic Workers Standards Board for a term to February 28th, 2026. Agenda item number three, appointment 02947, appointment of ELVIA CORTEZ-CORTEZ AS MEMBER OF THE DOMESTIC WORKER STANDARDS BOARD FOR A TERM TO FEBRUARY 28, 2026. AND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, APPOINTMENT 02948, REAPPOINTMENT OF EDILCA DOMINGUEZ AS MEMBER OF THE DOMESTIC WORKER STANDARDS BOARD FOR A TERM TO FEBRUARY 28, 2027. ALL FOR BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.

Thank you very much.

And we have the Office of Labor Standards with us today.

And so I would like you to introduce yourselves, and then we will hear about each of the appointments and provide for opportunities for folks to ask questions.

And then we'll go ahead with the votes on each.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Council President and members of the committee.

My name is Diana Salazar.

I am a policy analyst for the Office of Labor Standards and I'm also the board liaison between our office and the Domestic Workers Standards Board.

I will also be doing some brief interpretation with our members.

And thank you for taking the time today to consider the four appointments today.

And I will first start by doing a quick overview of the board, and then I will pass the mic to the members to introduce themselves.

Okay, so the board was created through the domestic workers ordinance that went into effect in 2019. As of 2020, the board is now 13 seats, and it's a mix of domestic workers, employers, individuals that hire domestic workers, excuse me, that contract domestic workers, and worker organization.

as well as one community representative.

The function of the board is to make recommendations to you all, the City Council, on domestic worker standards, such as legal protections, benefits, working conditions, and also to provide feedback to our office on our outreach and enforcement implementation of the law.

This year, the board celebrated five years of the law.

They had a community celebration.

They also held a retreat where they finalized their next two-year work plan.

And they also participated in door-to-door outreach talking to people about the law.

They continue to receive requests from state and local government, as well as journalists and academics interested in learning more about the board and how the board has been able to function with supporting similar, and able to support similar work that other cities or states wish to implement as well.

I myself was once a board member, and now I'm the staff liaison, so I'm really excited to be able to continue to support the work of the board, and I'm sure we're all excited to welcome potentially new members and increase the capacity of the board.

Now I will pass the mic to Elvia, who can introduce themselves.

We have Eddie as well, and I believe online we should have Gia and Becca.

I can't see the screen, so okay, cool, all right.

I will pass the mic to Elvia.

And I will do consecutive interpretation.

Buenos dias.

Mi nombre es Elvia Cortez.

Soy trabajadora del hogar desde hace 15 años y organizo trabajadoras del hogar de la organización Casa Latina.

Gracias por la oportunidad de estar aquí y elevar mi voz y voces de quienes trabajan en el hogar en Seattle.

y promover el reconocimiento, los derechos y el bienestar de nuestra comunidad, y que cada trabajador merece dignidad, respeto y condiciones laborales justas.

Hello, my name is Elvia Cortez.

I have been a domestic worker for over 15 years, and I also organize domestic workers with Casa Latina.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to not only share my voice, but to also share the voice of other domestic workers in Seattle, and for the general awareness of our rights and well-being of the community.

Each worker deserves dignity, respect, and a just working condition.

Mi participación en esta mesa es porque puedo aportar una perspectiva auténtica y necesaria para garantizar que las decisiones que tomemos respondan a las necesidades reales de nuestro sector.

My participation with the board is one where I can bring my authentic perspective necessary to ensure that the decisions we take is responsive to the realities of this workforce.

In addition, I am willing to actively collaborate to build solutions that generate positive change.

I am looking forward to actively collaborate for constructive solutions that will lead to positive change.

Espero contribuir con mi experiencia como trabajadora del hogar, compromiso y pasión por el bienestar de las trabajadoras del hogar, trabajando en equipo para lograr avances significativos en nuestra misión.

I hope to be able to contribute using my experience, commitment, and passion for the betterment of domestic workers and working as a team member to make significant achievements towards our mission.

Thank you for listening to me.

Hello, my name is Eddie, and I have been a domestic worker for over 10 years.

I have been an volunteer and an organizer with the organization Fair Work Center to help raise awareness of the ordinance and our community of nannies in Seattle.

I am so proud and honored to represent the voices of our community of nannies that are afraid to raise their voices for their rights.

My collaboration with the board is to bring my voice as a nanny and an organizer and the voice of a lot of nannies, their struggles, their needs, their experience for them to work together with the city and find solutions to our community.

Thank you very much.

Is Becca or Gia able to?

Yes.

So let's go with Becca first.

I believe that that is.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Hello.

I apologize.

I'm on video today.

I'm in transit.

But my name is Becca Miller-Rose.

I'm a lifelong Seattle resident, a mom of two, and an operational leader at a healthcare startup.

I'm also an employer of nannies and domestic house cleaners and very passionate about the role that the board has in helping employers be the best possible employers they can be and helping make their home a safe and equitable place for workers to be.

So excited to be here today and excited to be part of the board more formally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

GO AHEAD.

OUR LAST APPOINTEE.

GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TIME TO HEAR THE APPOINTMENTS FOR THE DOMESTIC WORKERS ORDINANCE BOARD.

My name is Gia Bassett and I would like to tell you about my connection to domestic work and why I wish to join the board.

I'll try to make it brief but concise.

My grandmother, who my mother and I lived with growing up, was a Serbian immigrant and a house cleaner for private households.

She fit in housecleaning side jobs as a way to make ends meet for our family.

In 2008, I began cleaning for private households myself.

And at that time, I was finishing my master's degree in education and raising my toddler son.

And that was the beginning of Green Cleaning Seattle Odium Maid Services, which is a health cleaning company that I now own in Seattle.

Green Cleaning Seattle has been in business for over 15 years as a Seattle small business.

And we provide eco safe home and office cleaning services throughout the city.

We employ over 25 domestic workers as employees.

So our company prides itself on maintaining a respectful, diverse and inclusive work environment.

But as many of us know, many domestic workers do not have safe working environments.

And data shows that employers and hiring entities steal billions of dollars yearly from workers' paychecks.

And domestic work is not the only industry where this happens, but workers in this industry are at a very high risk for wage theft and abuse.

And wage theft hits low-income families the hardest and forces them to rely more heavily on public assistance.

And so living in a high pressure city like Seattle, I think that most of us can recognize that the cost of living is becoming increasingly worrisome.

Food costs alone can devour an entire paycheck.

And I think if we can all agree on just one thing, it is at a bare minimum, every worker in the city should be afforded the assurance to be paid no less than the current minimum wage.

And they should not be retaliated against by their employers for requesting simple rest and meal breaks and safe working conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so I will soon open up the floor to my colleagues to ask any questions they may have.

I wanted to first, however, ask you, Diana, because you mentioned it, can you give us a preview of any of the policy issues or some of the priority policy issues that we can look forward to in your 2025-2026 work plan?

Yeah, so the board has subcommittees where policy is one of them.

They decided to start meeting soon, so their first meeting will be in January to put together the priorities, so I can definitely let you know when they've decided what their policy priorities are and can share that with the team.

Okay, so it is not yet completed, but you're working on it.

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right.

Oh.

Gianna, I am mispronouncing your name, but I got a phonetic post-it.

Okay, thank you very much for that explanation.

And I will ask my colleagues if they have any questions about the board itself or for any of our appointees, prospective appointees.

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

I don't have a question, but I do want to thank the new appointees for their service.

This is really important, obviously, when we are talking about worker protections to ensure that the folks that are most impacted are participating in the process.

So I really want to thank you for, and we recognize, you know, I was at a recognition event for boards and commission members.

volunteers this past Friday where I saw some of the folks here and I just want to acknowledge that these are unpaid positions.

People take time out of their busy schedules and their families and lives to do this work because it is so important to them and And as I said on Friday, even though it was a Friday evening, on a holiday Friday evening, the room was packed with a bunch of volunteers who serve on boards and commissions.

And it's a testament to how important the work is that folks who volunteer the time showed up.

And so I really want to thank you for their service.

And I'm so happy to be able to vote on your appointments today.

Thank you.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Council President.

I should know not to put my hand up after Council Member Rivera.

No, no, no.

Lesson learned, won't do that again.

I just wanted to first, as Council Member Rivera said, to thank you for your service.

As she noted, volunteering and taking the time and effort is really important, and the work that you do on behalf of others is also important.

And it should be recognized and also understood because there's a lot of people out there that don't appreciate how many people out there that are working on behalf of others for no pay, nothing along those lines.

So some recognition is in good order.

My question is, given this is a Seattle commission, I was curious about, and you may not have an answer, maybe you do from OLS, is what do other cities do in King County?

What does the county do?

Is there any organizations where there's collaboration or cross-referencing and working in terms of insuring?

Because obviously, this business flows and the people flow from inside, outside Seattle.

And I was just curious if there's any work in neighboring jurisdictions throughout the county that kind of have a norming across the entire county and not just have Seattle be one that's doing it.

Thank you.

Great, great question.

I will also lean on the experts here too to help, but I'm not aware of the county having something.

However, the state is looking into potentially passing a statewide, similar to the domestic workers ordinance here, potentially the state passing similar legislation.

making a pitch.

The campaign launch will be on Monday.

You are all invited.

Thank you, thank you, and thank you to your special advisor.

Yeah, that's Sylvia.

I see Councilmember Saka and Hollingsworth hand up, but I don't know who put theirs up first.

Go ahead, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

I, too, just want to pile on here and just cross-reference everything that my distinguished colleague, Councilmember Rivera, just said.

I just, look, this, every last one of you, I've reviewed all your resumes, listened to you speak directly right now, and listened to you all speak so eloquently.

And I just want to say, I...

greatly appreciate every last one of you.

I think you are all exceptionally well qualified and our city would be lucky to have you and benefit from your expertise on these important issues.

And these are volunteer unpaid positions.

And but they're very important and highly impactful.

And I've served on personally a number of volunteer board service things like this before.

And and so I just want you to I personally review.

the work from various of these community commissions like this, especially for those groups that report up to the council committees that I sit on.

So it is your work and your service and your sacrifice for your city and for your community does not go unnoticed and does not go unrecognized at all levels of our city government.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

We're lucky to have you.

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Council President.

I didn't want to be the only one not to speak, and thank you all for your service, and like my colleagues had said, it's volunteer positions, and just super grateful, and hablas espanol muy poquito, so not like Council Member Rivera, but just wanted to Thank you all really for your service to our city.

It really means a lot because you all are the backbone that keeps the city going and providing service for a lot of folks in our city who rely on it.

You often travel miles away, you know, just getting to the city of Seattle and being able to provide these services.

So I just wanted to say thank you for making it better for people.

And it really, really matters.

So thank you.

So now for the really hard questions.

So I have a couple questions.

One is for Eddie.

So you're the only reappointment here, and I am wondering what you found to be the most meaningful and rewarding part of your work on the board, or what...

What changed or what have you convinced needs to be done to enhance the spirit of the legislation that formed the board?

And I'll give you a second to think about that because I do want to also give a shout out to...

to Gia because her business won the King County Executive's Small Business Award in the year of 2018, and she was offering cleaning services to things like small neighborhood breweries back in the day.

So I just wanted to say, from your experience, and my question to you is, are there specific issues that you feel are really important that other small business owners keep in mind?

You've already talked about following the law, A unique thing about this board is that we've got employers and workers on the same board.

And I really feel like that is what has to, those are the ingredients for really productive conversations.

So any words of advice you would give, Gia, to other small businesses, I'd welcome to hear.

But back to you, Eddie.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

I will say that having workers and employers in the same war, it makes a whole difference because we can connect, we can communicate, we have answers, we struggle together, and we find the solutions.

We have the solutions, and then between all this, needs and struggle, we work with the city.

And it makes a whole difference because before this, we were not, our voices didn't matter.

Where do we go?

We just ask for help and wait for, to be heard.

But this is a safe space where we can really bring what is happening to workers, and we feel like we are really hurt by the city.

One of the most meaningful things that I bring for me doing this job is changing lives.

I have many, many domestic workers that I have read the ordinance and they were like, I didn't know this, or my employer doesn't know this.

How can I do to change my positions?

Because if they go to their employers, they don't know what the law is.

So it's my job to try to guide them, to try to make workshops, to try to bring them together and really raise the standards together as a community because only one of us cannot make the change.

That is really important.

Thank you very much for that insight, because I'm not going to assume the motives of all small businesses, but the fact is they do need education.

And just making sure that people understand the law goes a long way toward compliance with our regulations.

So thank you very much for that work.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I really appreciate, Council President, in your response the fact that you said we have the answers and we can work together with the employers to get there.

That is so important because by the time a small business or other employer gets to the level of a legal action, what we want is the collaboration so that the employer and particularly so many of these are small businesses want to do the right thing, and you can help them do that.

And that is so critical because it's coming from the people that are actually doing the work.

And I think that that cannot be under...

stated or overstated, I should say.

Because Spanish is my first language, I'll admit sometimes I mess up the English language.

So I meant to say overstated.

But that is so critical.

And this is why I very much appreciate this board and many of the other boards, because that is the work.

that board members provide is that experience.

They're the ones doing the work and they're in the best position to say what's needed.

And it always works best in this collaborative way to get employers on board and get them to doing the right thing.

I mean, hopefully.

Notwithstanding, I understand sometimes there are some bad actors in every industry out there, I think for the most part we see that folks really want to collaborate and do the right thing.

And so I really appreciate you saying that the working together makes it better for everybody.

And so thank you.

Thank you for that work.

Thank you.

And it's hard work.

And then also I wanted to say in terms of the education piece to your peers that are also doing the work the other workers that are doing the work because folks don't have access to information.

And it's really hard, actually.

And so this is critical that you're able to share the information.

So really cannot overstate that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then one last question I have is for Becca.

Your experience is with workers who provide medical care.

And so what are some of the unique challenges that those workers face that may be different from other domestic workers?

Well, that's a great point, Councilmember.

Well, I also employ domestic workers.

So I help run a health care company that does in-home health care.

So we certainly have home care assistants in the home.

But I also employ a gardener and a nanny for my kids.

And so I come at it from both angles, whereas from personally, my life is not possible.

I cannot do the job I do.

I cannot pay the taxes I pay and I cannot take care of my children by myself.

It takes a lot of help.

And so I'm just constantly aware of that.

And how much my livelihood depends on the people who help support me and my family and really committed to trying to, like we were talking about earlier, do the right thing for those people.

And then I also have a large group of folks not in the city of Seattle.

Actually, my company is mostly based in California, but we have around 200 folks who are in the home doing home care.

with patients every single day.

And we think a lot about workplace safety in that context.

But it is different because they have a company behind them.

They have standards and HR and compliance, and they have a whole set of infrastructure to help keep them safe in the home to escalate concerns.

And that is so often not true for domestic workers who are self-employed or employed by much smaller organizations or individuals.

And so I'm highly aware of the discrepancy there when you're employed by a much larger company with all that infrastructure.

Thank you very much for that answer.

That is food for thought for me.

All right.

Are there any other questions or comments?

I'll add my heartfelt, although often said, thank you very much because at the beginning of this meeting I touted the fact that the Music Commission brought us an idea and then we made it happen and that is the value of commissions and you're giving of your time voluntarily and your expertise and so thank you very much.

All right, moving on.

If there are no more questions or comments, I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 02945, 02946, 02947, and 02948. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and second to recommend confirmation of the appointments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendations that appointments 02945, 9-4-6, 9-4-7, and 9-4-8 be confirmed.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Si.

Council Member Saka?

Si.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

That's five in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Congratulations.

The motion carries and the committee recommendations that...

It's great to have an enthusiastic fan in the audience.

Yay.

They'll be forwarded to the City Council Committee for final consideration.

All right.

Moving on.

Let's see.

Will the clerk please go ahead?

Oh, okay.

However, don't go yet.

I do have to say that because it is 2.45, we have a rule in council that anything passed in committee after 1 p.m.

has to wait until a week from the following, from the next Tuesday to be voted on.

And these appointments cannot be sent to the December 17th city council meeting for final action unless we suspend the rules.

So I would ask that we suspend the rules, otherwise we will have to wait until January 7th.

And why do that with a unanimous vote?

So is there objection to suspending those rules?

All right, there is no objection.

The rules will be suspended to recommend that the appointments be sent to the Tuesday, December 17th city council meeting.

All right, thank you very much.

All right.

They're suspended and that will happen.

Okay, moving on.

Will the clerk please read item five into the record.

Agenda item number five, Council Bill 120925, an ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2024 employment ordinance, exempting positions from the civil service system, returning positions to the civil service system, retitling existing titles, establishing new titles, and adjusting salaries for existing titles, all by a two-thirds vote of the city council for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you very much.

So this is the human resources fourth quarter employment ordinance, and it proposes changes to civil service classifications, job titles, and rates of pay.

And the city council authorizes certain city personnel actions through quarterly employment ordinance.

And this fourth quarter 2024 employment ordinance would authorize the director of the city's Human Resources Department to exempt four positions from civil service, return 11 positions to civil service, revise two job titles, establish 13 job titles and corresponding rates of pay, and adjust rates of pay for two job titles.

And we've got our experts here at the table, so I'll go ahead and let our central staff ANALYSTS AND DIRECTOR, INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND THEN TAKE US THROUGH THE INFORMATION.

THANK YOU.

I AM KARINA BULL FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.

AND I'M BEN NOBLE, CENTRAL STAFF DIRECTOR.

Well, we have prepared a presentation for committee members this afternoon that provides a high-level overview of this fourth and quarter employment ordinance, and we realize that there might be interest in more detailed information about these recommended personnel actions, and so we are continuing to connect with the executive to get summaries of these recommendations of which there are many in this fourth quarter employment ordinance.

This year you've only considered one quarterly employment ordinance and this last one bundles everything else that has happened in the year into one piece of legislation.

So we're looking at close to 30 recommended personnel actions.

As Council President Nelson said, the chair said, this council bill would allow council to approve two types of personnel actions that require council approval.

They fall into two different categories.

The first include changes to civil service and the recommended actions are exempting four positions and returning 11 positions.

And then the next category includes changes to job titles and rates of pay.

And so those recommendations would include retitling two job titles, establishing 13 new job titles, and adjusting the rate of pay for new job titles.

There is no direct and immediate fiscal impact from approving these actions.

The department head would have the authority to implement these recommended personnel actions if council approves them.

However, The department head would not have the ability to do that if not for council's approval.

So there is a connection here.

The department head can choose to do something or not do something with the approved personnel action.

So with this in mind, central staff is working with the city budget office to develop what we're calling potential associated costs with this legislation.

And we'll discuss that near the end of the presentation.

For background, STHR, Seattle Department of Human Resources, has broad administrative authority to administer and develop the city's classification and compensation program.

This is an extraordinarily important because it determines how to classify the jobs that the city employees perform and how to pay for those jobs.

And any individual decision that SDHR is making regarding the pay and classification of a job is considered within the context of all of the classifications and all of the pay schedules across the city with an aim for equity and competitive payment for city workers.

So within that broad administrative authority, which is given or which SDHR receives from the city charter and the Seattle Municipal Code, they have the ability to determine reclassifications on their own with their administrative authority, which they do upwards of close to 600 per year, at least for 2023. However, there are some things that are outside of their administrative authority, and that includes changes to civil service status and then establishing new job titles or changing job titles and establishing or changing rates of pay.

Those two categories of actions under the charter and then under the code for rates of pay and job titles do require council approval.

Changes to civil service status actually requires a two-thirds council vote.

And we'll go into why civil service status requires that level of council vote in a moment.

So changes to civil service status.

Just as a primer, I'm telling you things that you may, or I'm describing things that you may already know, but just starting from the ground floor for this presentation, is that the city charter presumes that all positions in the city are civil service protected.

That is a presumption.

It exists to make sure that city workers can do their work separate from any sort of political influence.

It gives employees certain job protections, including merit-based hiring, which means that there's a competitive process rather than an appointment, an opportunity to correct performance issues, And for cause terminations, which means that a discharge or termination can only be based on unsatisfactory job performance.

About 90% of city employees are civil service protected.

For those that are not, those positions are listed either in the charter or in the code, SMC 4.13.

The positions that are exempt...

can be appointed without a competitive hiring process and are subject to out-will employment, which means they can be discharged for any reason.

As I've already said, SHR can make a decision on whether to make a recommendation, a decision to recommend a change to a position civil service status based on a classification review.

The department, if SDHR is recommending to exempt a position, they can only do it in certain types of situations.

The first one would be that the position is automatically exempted by the charter or the code, or what could be classified as more subjective.

Situations when the positions require a particularly high degree of professional responsiveness and accountability, they require a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the appointing authority, or judicial positions that require insulation as a third branch of government.

Just to let you know, in case you aren't already aware, SDHR is embarking this year on a five-year multi-phase project to completely overhaul and revamp their classification and compensation system.

It is over 30 years old and needs to be updated, both for increased efficiency in running the city and also to make sure that it's fair and equitable.

So they do have appropriations in this year's and next year's budget to start that work.

and to make sure that it's very clear what the criteria is for exemptions.

Yes.

Can I ask you a question?

One of the questions that I was going to ask, but you just touched on it.

I was wondering, because the memo says the SDHR director recommends for each of the five categories of changes in your memo, and so my question was, well, what motivated that recommendation?

Was it the department director or some other appointing authority?

And so what you just said about a systematic overview, are these recommendations part of what you just mentioned to be a kind of a systematic look at our civil service system and the designation exempt or civil service?

So the five-year project to evaluate the entire classification compensation system, from what I know, will take into consideration how SDHR and the city determines whether positions should receive that exempt status if they have that individual accountability, if they have...

the fiduciary relationship.

Within the context of how SDHR makes those decisions now, they've got their own system for how they do it, and they develop their own criteria and ways of measuring how to make that decision.

What initiates the whole classification process can depend on the unique situation.

It can be initiated by a department, a department head that has an interest in changing the body of work for an existing position, or perhaps they have a vision for an entirely new position that is not yet funded and they don't have position authority for it.

Or it can be at the behest of the department or an incumbent employee about a position whose body of work has changed over time, at least over six months.

And so in that instance, it could be either the department, an employee, or even the union initiating that request for a classification review.

OK, thank you for that answer.

And if you know who was the requester or what initiated the changes you're about to address, throw that in if you happen to know.

If you don't, that's fine too.

Just to add a little more color, if you will, At a high level, HR is acting as a partner and to agree in service to departments, but also as a meaningful check as well.

So a department may, and I've been in these situations in both directions, may come in and say, hey, I have a position that I think should be exempt.

And it explains to HR why.

And HR takes that request seriously.

And again, the initial goal is to be helpful to the department.

if you will, but at the same time, there are a set of criteria, and if it is not met, if this position is not appropriate for civil service protection, they will not recommend as such.

Similarly, you'll see there's some classifications here.

The department is asking to change a position from a body of work X to a body of work Y, that HR is not the one who's asking which bodies of work they need done, but rather, if you want this new body of work, tell us what this person is supposed to be doing.

We're going to go look at the city's classification system and see which position title applies.

Or in some cases, and you'll see those today, oh, we don't have a position classification that covers that body of work.

we need to make up a new one.

Oh, and once we've made up a new one, we actually need to figure out what it should be paid.

And you'll see all of that today.

And again, and HR is working in partnership again and in service, but also as a check on the departments in that role.

And then for some of these things, you are further that check because it requires legislative council approval to make some of these changes.

Thank you.

Go ahead, please.

So in regards to your question, Chair, about...

what entity initiated these requests.

For this particular fourth quarter employment ordinance, there is a very simple answer in that all of the requests were made by the department except for one, which was made by the incumbent employee, and I'll get to that later.

As far as these charts, that are next in the presentation.

I don't want them to give the impression that it is the intention to provide a deep dive into the reasons behind each of these recommended personnel actions.

Instead, they're intended to provide a snapshot For example, for these four positions that are recommended to be exempted from civil service, this snapshot gives you an idea of the types of changes that are happening.

For example, in Seattle Public Utilities, the first one in the chart, it's movement from a strategic advisor one into an information technology professional A position.

exempt so that is for almost all of these that are being exempt from civil service it's an upward mobility situation and so one might consider it to be the reward of the potential for higher pay is helping to accommodate for the situation where the position would no longer have civil service protections but again that decision about what to pay The person in that position is up to the head of the department.

You'll also see here that three of the four positions are vacant.

One of them is filled, and so the person, the employee in that filled position going from an information technology professional B to an A.

A is the higher paying category.

It would be up to the department head to determine whether or not to give the person in that role a pay increase.

And sometimes, because of the overlap of the salary schedules, it might not be imperative to give a pay increase because the incumbent's pay might fall in between both of them, but that is something for the department head to decide.

And further, in that situation, SDHR will review the body of work that the position is doing and confirm that it is consistent with the title of IT professional A.

And this sort of situation happens where someone is hired into a role and their body of work evolves into a greater responsibility.

Not that unusual.

But that person can make that assertion, but then again, it is on the HR to confirm And they don't rely just upon the department's assertion or concurrence, or in the case of the employees, but rather look at the body of work, evaluate it against the description for that position, and determine whether or not that's the match that's appropriate or not.

And again, I've dealt with these situations.

HR is doing that from a, it's not their issue about retention or not.

They need to know, is this body of work consistent with the proposed title or not?

And if it does, then maybe that can work for retention.

If it doesn't, it doesn't.

And we might lose a person or there's going to be some other approach or some other solution.

Sorry, I just want to...

Yeah, yeah, that's helpful context.

And SDHR has shared that they are making these decisions about classification purely on the merits of the situation.

And so they require the departments to provide all kinds of information to inform their decision.

And with the example of this first reclassification on the list, it was the result of the department coming to SDHR requesting an information technology professional A and not getting it the first time.

And so then they asked for reconsideration of HR's decision.

And then the second time, providing more information, providing more robust presentation, SDHR decided, OK, this reclassification would be appropriate.

Also, SDHR shares that they are making these decisions in isolation from any sort of fiscal impact because they want their decision to be purely based on the merits of evaluating the job, not implications of what it would cost the city.

That's a separate decision that can be made by the department and by council through position authority and appropriations.

And just weighing in on previous roles, the budget office then has a role in that as well in sort of evaluating what the department has sufficient resource or whether they would require a request for additional resource as well.

We'll talk more about the financial situations here.

And then just at a really high level, because I thought about this for a second, It might not seem curious to you that IT professionals would qualify for civil service exemption, but if one takes a step back and considers the sorts of information they could well have access to on our computer networks and the kind of judgments they are making about things like security, it's maybe not a surprise.

So if you hadn't thought about it that way, it took me a second to think about it, so I thought I'd share that observation.

The next category of recommendations is returning positions to civil service.

And you'll see here that there's a range of differences.

Some of them are larger or smaller than others.

About half of the positions are filled versus vacant.

So you're seeing more variation here.

And just to add, for the positions that are filled that are moving from exempt to civil service, I think for one of them, the strategic advisor, one exempt to a personnel analyst senior in SDHR, there is a pay decrease.

So the department will have a cost savings that is also a filled position, which means that the person in it might...

receive a pay decrease.

There are different ways that departments handle that situation.

It could be that the current pay is within the band of the personnel analyst, and maybe they'd be hired or moved at the top step of the personnel analyst senior position.

It could be that maybe the employee begins to look for different roles in the department.

It's a case-by-case basis, but sometimes that does happen where an employee is in a position that is then reclassified to one that pays more or less.

You characterized, just before you go on, so returning to civil service often results in a pay decrease.

However, you also mentioned at the top of your presentation that membership in the civil service core does provide more protection.

So there are benefits on both sides is what I'm gleaning.

Yeah, and I don't know if there's any in this.

Oh, there is one right here.

If you look at number eight at Office of Economic Development, there's potentially no difference in pay there.

It is moving from a strategic advisor one exempt to a strategic advisor one general government.

Strategic advisors and managers are positions where they can either be exempt or civil service protected.

So there's been a shift in the past couple of years among departments asking SDHR to reconsider whether a strategic advisor or a manager position really is correctly classified as exempt.

And in many cases, the SDHR has decided that actually this position merits civil service classification.

And so that's what you're seeing there with number eight on the list.

Thank you.

Keep on going back and then forward again.

The mouse is eluding me.

The next category of recommended changes is changes to job titles and rates of pay.

Again, this would result after performing a classification review.

This change can be initiated by the incumbent appointing authority, depending on if they're interested in a new body of work for a new position or a new body of work for an existing position.

So examples of this in this legislation include just two items.

One of them is in Seattle Center.

One of them is in SDHR.

I do happen to know a little bit about both of these situations due to the information that I received from SDHR and just as background information.

Central staff does receive what are called classification reports for each of these recommended personnel actions.

Central staff does read those, but they don't provide the full story of each recommended personnel action.

But it does give a flavor of what's happening.

And so that's what I'm gleaming this information from.

And then for certain ones I will go and reach out directly test HR for some more information for so for this first one Seattle center facility technology supervisor H back technology supervisor that was a situation where.

It's a field position, and there was an inversion situation happening where due to the coalition contract wage adjustments, the subordinate employees of the supervisor position were earning more after their wage adjustments than the supervisor.

And so the department reviewed the situation and determined that the supervisor position actually was performing a greater body of work than contained in the current classification and had special licensing requirements, and so requested SDHR to reevaluate the job title to see if it could be moved into a different job title, existing job title that is compensated more and requires more of that expertise and the licensing.

So that's what you see here.

It does result in a big jump in pay for it.

a potential jump in pay for that employee and for midpoint salary status as well.

The SDHR revised job title is for a special exams analyst.

And as you all recall, there was approval to transfer six positions from SDHR to the civil service commissions to perform public safety commission work.

And so all of that work is now getting its own job title.

Some of it's a new job title and some of it's a reclassification.

That's what you see there.

Next up is the establishment of 13 new job titles.

So this is the fresh start.

None of these are all, these don't exist.

They're not vacant or filled.

However, in some situations, there might be employees performing this work under another job title that has no relation to this.

And so they could go on continuing to do that work under their existing job title that's likely a poor fit for what they do.

Or if council approves these job titles, it'll be switched around for them.

I think a good example of that is this last one, glass two, 12 and 13 and FAS.

request for a veterinarian and veterinarian principal job titles.

Right now that work would happen under a manager job classification because that's the best that they have.

And so this job title would be a more appropriate classification for that work.

I'm going to share a personal anecdote that I already share with Karina that actually helps explain some of this as well.

When I first started Central Staff almost 25 years ago, my initial assignment was Seattle Public Utilities.

One of my first projects was the review and ultimately council approval of a design-build-operate contract for a new water treatment facility for the Tolt River.

So we had a private contractor come in design and build the water treatment facility and then operate it for essentially 25 years.

The reason it was structured that way is the theory and I think in practice was that the who designed and built it should be forced to operate it because that way they will design it and build it in a way that can make it operate it efficiently.

So it was a unique approach to public contracting to get all the incentives correct.

And 25 years later that contract has reached its end and it makes sense for the city now to take on that responsibility.

And we didn't have the right position titles, so they are proposed to be created here so we can take over that.

So it feels like, for me, like a certain personal turn.

But anyway, it also explains what's going on here and why don't we have those titles.

That's because for 25 years, we've had a separate entity operating that facility.

And then last, there's a recommended adjustment of pay for two existing job titles.

The first is for a fire equipment technician in the Seattle Fire Department.

I believe this is the single instance of an incumbent employee requesting a classification review within this fourth quarter employment ordinance.

And then the last is a rate of pay for a temporary counselor in Human Services Department.

As mentioned earlier, this legislation would not directly result in increased cost for departments, but Council's approval of the legislation could lay the foundation for departments making decisions that could result in additional cost for the department.

Any change in compensation for a new hire or for an incumbent employee would be subject to the department head.

If a department needs position authority or appropriations to enact any of these new titles, for example, that of course would require council approval.

In many cases for these reclassifications, not the new job titles necessarily, although some of them, the departments will absorb these costs.

They can use their salary savings to absorb the cost.

Some of these changes to civil service status will result in increased salary savings for the department, which they can choose to use for other situations in their personnel labor budget.

It can happen, though, over time, especially for small departments who have high staff retention, that at some point, if employees have reached the top step or if they're paying more to employees to remain competitive in discretionary pay programs, that they might come to council asking for additional appropriations to cover the cost of maybe this reclassification decision that was made 10 years ago that was never reflected in the budget until this particular point.

So in order to calculate the potential associated costs with these decisions, a city budget office has calculated the difference based on the midpoint salary of the initial job title and the recommended job title.

So as we all know, the council personnel budget is based on the midpoint salary of positions.

And so when one thinks about changing to a different position one can look at the beginning midpoint salary and the end midpoint salary and look at the difference and think okay that could be an estimation of the cost but it really could fall above that or below it as well all of this said the The net impact of the Civil Service reclassifications, revised job titles, and adjusted salary steps would be a net impact of less than $10,000 for the ones in this particular ordinance.

The summary fiscal note lays out a detailed explanation of what the differences in the midpoint salary for each of those recommended personnel actions.

does not have accompanying information from city budget office in the summary fiscal notes.

So central staff worked with them to learn what we could about the impacts of those positions.

And there's attachment two to the memo that says whether appropriations are included in the 2025-26 budget or are not.

And the department might come forward at a later date asking for those appropriations.

You'll see here is the chart.

Returning positions to civil service has a midpoint salary decrease of $210,000, exempting results in an increase in cost, and then revising to job titles increase and adjusting pay rates just under $3,500.

Any questions about that?

So next steps is this could be considered for a possible vote in committee today.

It could be referred to, if it passes and is approved, could be referred to a council vote next week through suspension of rules or in early January.

Thank you for that summary.

I would like to open the floor up to questions or comments from colleagues.

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Karina, for the presentation and Director Noble for being here.

I admittedly had a brief conversation with Karina and Ben both about the fact that I will be abstaining from this vote because I did not get enough information by which to make an educated decision about whether to vote for these things or not.

Having worked at a department and actually requested classification changes from the department you know there is a lot that goes into requesting a classification change there are some positions that i noted in this list that I would be interested to know more information about and why they're getting reclassified.

For instance, there's some positions in OED, which is a department that I very much care about.

What are these new, or not new positions, but why are these positions reclassified?

What new body of work or different body of work will be happening?

And without the appropriate information, I don't think I would be doing my due diligence Obviously, both the charter and the SMC requires us to be the approval authority for these things for a reason.

And I feel that without the information, I would simply be rubber stamping somebody else's decision, and I don't feel good about that.

So for those reasons, I'm going to be abstaining from this vote today.

Thank you.

Just to respond to that, I completely respect that statement.

You know, these used to go straight to full council and not even go through committee.

And I remember I raised a lot of stinking questions about the first quarter supplemental.

So I understand that.

And I want to pause on the decision about whether or not to have the committee vote today or, you know, or have you abstain.

But I'd like to hear Council Member Kettle, your questions first or comments.

Okay.

Well, thank you, Chair, Council President.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate the briefing.

Of course, the history lessons that Director Noble provided.

as well, really appreciate that as well.

And yes, it's interesting.

I don't have the background of my colleague, Council Member Rivera, but obviously we've been doing different actions this year as it relates to HR, as noted in the opening remarks related to the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.

So it's good to see these changes show up here in the briefing as reviewed by central staff.

So thank you for that.

I was also going to pivot and take advantage of the fact that I can ask questions from an HR perspective.

One of the things, going back to public safety, and as everybody here on the dais knows, I like turning every committee into a public safety committee.

There's been different things in different departments included within the public safety related departments, issues surrounding Workday and its implementation and people getting paid on time and so forth.

I know this is coming out of left field, but do you have any background on that, or is that something that we can maybe look to get an update on at some point?

Yeah, so any updates on the implementation of Workday I think would be best to direct to SDHR in combination with Office of City Finance because they are administering it together.

And I don't have any particular information probably to respond to your questions, but I think that sounds like an appropriate update that they could provide.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Sorry, I'm done.

Go ahead.

Well, I just wanted to thank you for that question because there was a lot of attention to this issue a couple weeks ago, and then things went quiet.

Meanwhile, I know that you're hearing from your committees.

I had had a question.

I'm supposed to be the overseer of the department, so I am also curious what's going on.

However, I also recognize that there's been murmur of lawsuits, et cetera, on behalf of employees, so I don't know what is too sensitive to have before committee, but I was thinking about maybe having a briefing next year, and I spoke with our labor relations, our departmental labor relations person about...

ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE ADVISABLE AND WHAT HE'S HEARING FROM PROJECT 17, ET CETERA.

SO LET'S HOLD OFF ON THAT AND I WILL REACH OUT ON MY OWN AND FIND OUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT'S IMPACTING A LOT OF PEOPLE AND I CERTAINLY WANT TO SIGNAL TO OUR CITY WORKERS THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION.

SO MORE ON THAT LATER.

And if I may, of course, central staff is able to help facilitate any questions between council members and Office of Finance and SDHR as well, offline.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I had a question about, and then we'll return to the point that Council Member Rivera made, but I had a question about the established positions.

I noticed that, well, I have two questions.

First of all, I noticed in the summary and fiscal note, two recommended changes that result respectively in a significant increase and decrease to the midpoint salary of positions, in particular the FAS The executive two position is reclassified as a painter crew chief, which reduces the midpoint by about $80,000.

And then in the Seattle center, a facility tech supervisor is retitled as an HVAC tech supervisor SC, increasing the midpoint by about 83,000.

Can you tell us more about how that happens?

Why would HR make this change through the reclassification process instead of the department abrogating the original position and then requesting authority to create a new one?

Yeah, it's such a great question.

I think the short answer is that departments can make these sorts of requests and have these changes happen through SDHR rather than, say, through a budget process because it's their prerogative.

Right now, SDHR has brought authority to develop and administer the classification system under the charter, under the ordinance, and and including rulemaking.

And there are existing personnel rules, personnel rule two and three, that lay out the criteria for when a department can request classification.

We've gone over it.

It's the incumbent employees has new duties or that over time the department head envisions a new body of work for an existing position or would like to propose a new position.

Those situations require classification, and they only involve counsel if there's changes to, say, civil service status or a new job title or rate of pay.

So within the existing framework, Departments can choose how they want to go ahead and there's whether they want to go through the SDH are reclassification process or whether they'd want to abrogate the position and then request position authority at a later date through a budget process as well it's I think it's largely left to their discretion.

Just to say that in another way, if you will, and to reflect back on my comments about kind of the role of HR.

Existing roles, I mean, I'm going to use a specific example.

When I was just not so long ago managing the forecast office, I had a position that I wanted to reclassify from a strategic advisor two to a strategic advisor three, a small change.

And I don't...

It doesn't strike me as something that council would necessarily want to engage itself in.

I had an existing pocket, and I wanted to change its title.

That's what's happened here with FAS.

They wanted a new painter supervisor position, but presumably there's more painting to be done.

They looked around to see, hey, do we have any existing position?

Do I need to request a new position, or do I have an existing position that I could convert to the painter?

My example, SA2 to SA3, just a small distance, if you will.

Exec 2 to painter supervisor, a bigger difference.

But the rules don't preclude that change.

And HR, their role wouldn't be necessarily to ask the why, but rather, OK, you're asking for a painter position.

Show us the body of work you need covered for painting, and we're going to tell you, oh, that's not just a painter.

That's a painter supervisor, if you will.

wasn't there for the actual discussion.

So the rules allow it, HR's role is to make sure that the new classification is appropriate for the position at hand.

And that's what they've done.

And in this case, it moved from civil service exempt to civil service, so that requires your approval.

If it had not, if the swap had been from a civil service to a civil service, you wouldn't see it.

And again, at some level, that might make you uncomfortable and at another level there are 12,000 positions in the city and you have to figure out what that balance is.

And I'm not telling you what it is.

I'm just sharing that observation.

Well, it doesn't...

This is a theme from the beginning of the year.

It makes a difference because if it's just civil service to civil service classification change, usually the departments have the money to absorb that change for the year or so.

But on an ongoing basis, that's a teensy bit of money compared to the broad scheme of things on how much employee salaries cost us.

I THINK YOU OPENED UP SAYING, KARINA, SOMETHING ABOUT 600 CHANGES, AND THIS IS COMING BEFORE US.

THAT'S A LOT OF CHANGES, AND IT ADDS UP, AND THEN SO, YOU KNOW, AS THE BUDGET-MAKING AUTHORITY COUNCIL, IT'S THE ACCRETION OF CHANGES DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT DOES ULTIMATELY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE BUDGET GOING FORWARD.

you know, so small as to be thought of as insignificant, but we have to, we, you know, we do have to mind it.

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

Well, you, thank you, Council President.

I just was going to respond that, um, Yes, Ben, even though we wouldn't see it if it hadn't been that change of classification from exempt to civil service, but SDHR sees it because you always have to, if you have a position that you're trying to repurpose, we typically in departments call it a repurposing of a position.

That means they have the position authority for that particular position, but they have a need elsewhere and they've decided they no longer need this position but need that other position better.

I do think, though, Council President, what I hear you saying, and I share this if this is what I'm hearing you say, you know, departments should be, ideally departments are making these changes during the budget process because then we have more transparency into what is happening at the department level.

And so I, too, have this level of or I have this, I'll speak for myself, I would much prefer to be handling these changes during the budget process when we can really see what's going on, if there's a repurposing or a change into positions or if they need to request a position.

To me, it's a better way of doing it and it does offer a level of transparency that isn't always the case here.

because we don't get this information on why these changes are happening, which is why I feel uncomfortable.

We just didn't have the level of information necessary, and this happened sort of quickly.

So yeah, I don't know if I understood your point, but yeah.

Yes, you did understand my point.

Okay.

One last thing, and then we can make our decision about what we're doing today.

I also wanted to know a little bit more on why would HR make, when it comes to the establishment of 13 job titles, Why would or what gives SDHR the authority to establish job titles and what motivated the establishment of these 13 job titles?

Because I see an attachment to that the 2025-2026 budget includes no position authority or funding for positions 1, 5, 6, 12, and 13. Yeah, so SDHR has the authority to

perform a classification review upon request of a department to recommend a new job title and rate of pay.

the authorization to implement that job title and pay is only at council's approval.

So what SDHR is doing is the first step of evaluating the scope of work that the department is proposing and then figuring out, all right, does this fit into an existing job title?

Does the city need to create a new one?

What's the rate of pay?

What are other...

positions paid for this in the community and other jurisdictions, et cetera.

But then it's up to council, it's council's prerogative to approve that new job title and pay.

So that's how that process works.

And in terms of whether or not there's been a request for a position with that title, in some ways there's a chicken and egg question here.

So the departments are coming, SDHR is coming to request the creation of the position title And then there's the potential, and I don't know whether it's for all of these or not, for the departments to then say, okay, now that we have the right title and we know what the salary band is, now we're going to come forward with a proposal to actually add such a position to our budget and bring the fiscal note that would explain the financial impacts of that.

But if the title doesn't exist, they can't ask for the appropriate position because it's not there.

So again, you get sort of that chicken and egg kind of piece about that.

And also sometimes the department would not need to request position authority or appropriations because, for example, there's the body of work being performed in an existing title that is an imperfect title.

Right.

And so then it's just sort of like an even deal.

So, for example, that would be the manager positions in FAS for the veterinarians or in SDHR, the public safety civil service examiner positions for personnel analyst.

So sometimes it's just breaking even.

Got it.

Yeah, it seems like sometimes it's a tweak, and then the way I was reading some of this, it just seemed as though if it's not on the budget, but the title is established, and it requires a higher pay than that human being is already making under a different title, then how is that person going to get paid with that job title then?

requires.

Yeah.

And the short answer there is to understand the departments have the CBO and the city will largely budget to the midpoint, right, so that they may then have to use some flexibility.

So they may have some positions that are below the midpoint that provide some relative savings that they can apply then now to bring this position up to a slightly higher salary in the scenario that you're suggesting.

So it's, you know, the council doesn't approve the individual salaries, but rather sort of, you know, the midpoint, the average, if you will, and then the department's And I do this work myself.

You know, some people are paid higher, some people are paid lower.

And as a manager, you're constrained to maintain that balance.

And in a large department, you know, you can do that across many positions, and that's relatively easier to do.

In smaller departments, that becomes trickier because there just aren't that many people to trade off against, if you will, or between or among.

I understand.

But the CBO knows about all of this, right?

They're tracking that.

When I was budget director, understanding what HR was doing and the financial impacts were a regular thing that we were keeping track of ourselves and working with HR to be sure that they weren't putting us into an awkward, we put the budget office at the time, into an awkward position about department's budgets.

But the biggest message being that just because you get a reclass doesn't mean you get more money.

That was a consistent and important message to the departments that we are, That's a separate question.

You have to manage your finances.

Yes, you have meaningful management flexibility because we do not, again, there's a perspective that was under the mayor at the time and I think in general, we don't want to be micromanaging individuals.

Again, there are 12,000 positions.

Don't want to be managing individual positions, but we are managing your budget.

And so you have to be able to pay for these positions with the existing resource.

Go ahead.

Yes, Ben, but SDHR doesn't get involved in department's budgets, so they're making these decisions not knowing whether or not departments actually have the funding for whatever contemplated change.

So I've always found that, and I continue to be troubled by that, because if SDHR is making decisions...

On a request that a department is making and it has a fiscal change associated with it that's more than they were paying before for any position, then that department needs to make up the difference, and SDHR doesn't necessarily know that.

In fact, they don't because they don't ask you, They don't see a department's budget when they're making these decisions.

They're simply looking at the position itself and the job description.

Excuse me.

What is the position doing?

So does it match the classification to what the position is doing and what it should get paid?

But they don't know whether the department has the money to pay it.

And so then they're just making the decision based on that.

That's why I was answering the question with respect to how CBO is involved, and it's also precisely why Karina reached out to CBO and said, okay, what are all the financial implications here?

And again, this gets back to the comment I made about HR's role as a check on the personnel side, but also in a customer service role.

The financial part is within the way the executive is organized.

That's not their role, and they will tell you as much.

But we're relying on CBO and on the department directors and managers to ensure the financial side.

But I'm not contradicting you.

I'm only reinforcing what you're saying.

Yes.

And also, I don't understand, given that why, and we just passed the budget, why we're taking this up now and why this wasn't just part of the budget that we just passed just weeks ago.

Anyway, thank you.

Yeah, and thank you very much for checking in with the executive, but from our original conversation this year, I think that everybody at that table in that discussion knew that we'd be asking these questions every single quarter, and so I would hope that that information, that filler information that they know that we're interested in, I don't mean to say filler because it's not important, but what we've been talking about for the past 15 minutes would have been kind of just provided or...

voluntarily because we're sticklers up here, I guess.

I will say that the mayor's office doesn't always know necessarily.

I mean, this is very in the weeds with the department and SDHR.

They don't always know, so I want to be mindful not to say this is...

a mayor's office issue.

There were a number of people at that table and we just got done with the budget and it's been really busy.

Okay, so can you please explain what would be the implications if we held the vote until, because I don't want you just to abstain because you need more information.

So what would be the implications if we held the vote until next committee meeting and then the following council meeting?

It would delay the department's authority to implement the recommended personnel actions.

And I have not heard about urgency in this being passed in 2024 from SDHR.

So it would delay implementation of the approval of any of these recommended personnel actions.

It might delay a department's hiring for some of the new job titles.

but I don't know of any specific dire consequences.

I'm not apprised of that.

Okay, because some of these positions are vacant, so they already exist, and some of them are changed.

So if there is no objection from my committee members, let's just consider this a briefing and discussion today and then continue on with the possible vote changes.

Do you have a date, Steven, for...

Well, it'll be the first Thursday of January, if I'm not mistaken, or the second Thursday of January.

That would be January 9th.

Okay.

If that is okay with you, please report back, and there's always the...

there was always the possibility that we could talk amongst ourselves and then bring it to full council for a vote like it's always done in the past.

But I certainly don't want people to go unpaid that need to be paid.

So with that, though, let's continue this discussion at our next meeting.

Okay.

All right.

So that concludes our last item on the agenda.

Does anyone have any business for the good of the order before we close the meeting?

It feels kind of funny.

I do have to say that our last meeting of the year kind of just, you know, will be continued next year.

But that's the way we go.

We're thorough.

Okay.

Go on.

Didn't mean apologies.

We could have done the vote and I could have gotten information subsequently.

But apologies if I

No, no, no.

It is not you.

I just think that we are the oversight body, and I want people to feel comfortable with what they're going.

And if it's simply that you can't decide your position on something, then that's the reason for an abstention, but just not knowing.

That is partly, that's my responsibility.

I should have made sure that there would be somebody from SDHR here at the table, perhaps to answer questions on the fly.

Sounded like your questions were more detailed anyway, but you know.

I want people to feel good about the decisions they're making at the dais.

All right, this concludes the December 12th, 2024 meeting of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee.

And our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 9th, 2025 at 2 p.m.

And not seeing any further business, I will say this meeting is adjourned.

And happy holidays.

Happy New Year, everybody.

It is 3.40 and this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.