August 1999
In May 1997 the California Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution forbids private contracts for work that civil service employees can perform. The Court stated, "contracting out civil service jobs corrupts the political process, leads to waste and depletes the quality of the public workforce" (emphasis added).
The Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) is sponsoring "the Public Works Initiative" to revoke the 1997 Supreme Court decision and gut merit employment protections. Paid petition-circulators are now collecting signatures for the March 2000 ballot.
Ironically, the CELSOC initiative comes when City/County contracting seems to have run wild with the massive SFPUC capital projects "program management" effort on its way out to bid and continuing intrigue surrounds contracting practices at the Airport and elsewhere. And it's not just San Francisco (-- not just Chicago either); our recent quarterly pipeline illuminated questionable contracting out practices in Santa Clara County, East Bay MUD and Oakland.
If CELSOC qualifies the initiative, we'll keep you informed on the campaign to defeat it.
PUC Votes to Contract-Out Capital Improvement Management:
QUESTIONS REMAIN
On July 27, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved Version 5 - with last-minute additions from the commissioners - of the "Program Management Services" request for proposals (RFP) for its capital improvement program. Both good and bad elements exist simultaneously, and neither diminishes the impact of the other.
On the one hand, many significant improvements were made in response to our suggestions and by the Department of Public Works (DPW), with whom we have been in constant communication for the last eight months.
Management Responsibilities for Capital Improvement Program Unclear - The RFP states that Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB) is responsible for management of the capital improvement program. However, the RFP only specifically refers to the role of the UEB Manager, a single individual who already has a lot of responsibility. And PUC itself freely admits that it has not determined what in-house management structure will exist or which personnel will be assigned to that team. Without that question answered, the services being requested in the RFP are unclear: would the consultant team act in an advisory capacity, or would they actually be responsible for the management of the capital improvement program? The union does not dispute that PUC requires assistance in launching this program, but we are absolutely opposed to the PUC giving away the control of such a huge and central agency function. The City Charter requires that personal services contracts be for expert work, yet many existing civil service employees who have managed complex multi-year, multi-million dollar projects have not yet been tapped for this program.
Not Temporary - A July 7 PUC document regarding the RFP states that the program management consultant team is required (emphasis added) to support SFPUC staff with overall organization and implementation planning for its entire capital program - a period of 15-20 years. The resolution passed by the commission resolves that the PUC authorizes the RFP for an initial period (emphasis added) of four years. Regardless of the services requested in the RFP, this length of time does not meet the SF City Charter requirement for personal services contracts to be temporary. But if the consultant services are indeed to function as the management of the capital improvement program, and that privatized management goes on for 15-20 years, we all - the union, the PUC, the ratepayers, the City of San Francisco - have a big, big problem on our hands.
Conflict of Interest: Staff Training - Effective training programs for civil service staff should theoretically lead to a reduction in the demand for consultant services. So while it makes sense for the consultant to provide some of the specific on-the-job and technical training, there is a conflict of interest in having them do all of the needs assessment, design and implementation of the entire training program.
Improvements to the RFP include the following:
Throughout the last eight months of discussion and work on this RFP, we have maintained a problem-solving stance in negotiating with the PUC. We have met and engaged in productive dialogue and simultaneously have initiated legal proceedings to prevent the City from contracting out the large parts of this work that should be kept in-house.
We have begun brainstorming ideas about how to solidify the commitment to training City staff throughout the capital improvement program with PUC staff. But in light of the outstanding issues mentioned above, we do not plan to drop the legal proceedings.
Also, Budget Analyst Harvey Rose has been instructed by the Board of Supervisors to conduct a
review of the PUC's proposed contract. We will continue to make sure that the study doesn't fall
through administrative cracks, and contribute what information and analysis we have to help
make it a complete document.
WHAT ABOUT EXAMS? Chicago weather by the Bay
San Francisco seems to have abandoned competitive exams as its primary employee selection process for most professional and administrative staff. Two years ago a DHR representative informed a union committee that Human Resources really didn't want to do exams and were offering non-ranked "rule-of-the-list" qualifying reviews "to transition provisional employees to permanent status".
In a final contract reopener in 1997 we reluctantly accepted the City's proposals for "rule-of-the-list" for half the outstanding exams as a one-time-only backlog clean-up; subsequently, employees would be appointed from eligible lists, rather than first provisionally and then blessed with permanency with an alternative to competitive examinations. We agreed to our part of the bargain; - the City welched on the quid pro quo. And some provisional employees have not been transitioned to permanent status. Appointing authorities say they can do whatever they want, despite their agreement for transition purposes.
We are now confronted with a variety of alternatives to competitive testings as the main hiring process; some, like the registry approach, are meant to replace provisional hiring. We have been willing to experiment and have sought alternative approaches to traditional exams, - but our bottom line needs to be competitive merit-based procedures.
Additional problems relate to increased staff turnover at DHR and the loss of some of the most experienced personnel analysts to decentralized departmental sites. While new staff have been hired at 44 Gough Street, training has been minimal and working conditions not great. In contract negotiations we succeeded in raising personnel analyst wages sufficient to recruit in a booming economy, but more than that is required for the innovative personnel agencies San Francisco deserves.
In a chance conversation with a Local 21 representative a former civil service general manager characterized the current system as "Chicago". That's not acceptable
A proposed personal services contract for architectural/ engineering services for SFO Administrative Offices in the new International Terminal went to the Civil Service Commission on August 2nd and approval was denied. Union staff member Leslie Abbott and Bureau of Architecture Chief Tara Lamont went with speeches and handouts.
As you have read in past issues of pipeline, we are suing SFO to stop contracting out the Phase B projects of the master expansion plan. The Airport's Bureau of Design and Construction has consistently contracted-out architectural, engineering and construction management work before offering that work to City staff.
The rationale that the Airport has been using on this particular contract was that the Dept. of Public Works turned down the work in 1992, so that stood for all time. SFO did not call DPW again when they recently pulled this project from the shelf and dusted it off - though the Bureau of Architecture has extensive experience in design of administrative offices and currently has available staff. In fact, the Project Manager at the Airport indicated that a consultant had been called only a couple of months ago.
The Civil Service commissioners voted unanimously to deny approval. The vote is a good indicator on all of the struggles with SFO contracting out work, that presented with the facts of how they do business, people recognize it's not okay.
Our union will continue to work with DPW to secure this work for our architects.
City Health Plan Round Table Discussion
The battle over health care coverage continues with our union taking the City to court over the
implemented changes to City Health Plan 1. The language in the current Agreement required the
City to negotiate before it made major changes to health plans and, further, that the City is
required to arbitrate the issue if there is a disagreement over the interpretation of that language.
The City disagrees and it is these issues that are before the court.
The problems with the health care delivery system go way beyond the members of Local 21. The
problem is systemic and a solution is only possible if all the affected parties work together.
To that end we are hosting a round table discussion concerning the instability of City Health Plan
1 and what can be done to save it and other plans currently offered to our members.
Tom Moore, a consultant on health care benefits, will be on hand to facilitate discussion and act
as a resource.
Guests invited include the Mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors, representatives from
the affected City unions, San Francisco retirees and concerned health plan participants.
Some of the topics to be discussed:
The meeting will be held:
Wednesday, August 25
5:00 p.m.
Local 21's office
1182 Market Street, Room 425
Orpheum Theater Building
