$3.5 BILLION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AT PUC
Our Union has been meeting with the management of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB) and other interested parties to discuss PUC's proposed $3.5 billion Capital Improvement Program. Attending the meetings representing Local 21 were: Joe Pelayo, Kathleen Price, Henry Anderson, David Novogrodsky and Leslie Abbott. PUC was represented by Mike Quan, Everett Hintze, Ed West and Mary Williams. In addition, there was a significant presence from the Department of Public Works (DPW), including: Harlan Kelly (City Engineer), Kathy How (Assistant City Engineer), Don Munakata (Chief, Bureau of Engineering), Maurice Williams, Gary Hoy, Tara Lamont, James Chia and Nelson Wong.
The program involves a large number of projects (over 150) which are necessary to continued maintenance, operation, construction and upgrading of PUC facilities under the Hetch Hetchy, Water Enterprise, and Clean Water functions.
OUTSOURCING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The first step currently proposed for initiating the program is an RFP for a consultant to be the "program manager". The RFP anticipates hiring the program manager for a 12 year period at $12 million annually. The program manager would take an active role in planning efforts, such as: recommending funding strategies; deciding project scheduling, financing, and expenditures; leading the way for hiring design consultants; identifying minority and women contractors; recommending changes in available staff resources; conducting community relations work; participating in advertising, award, and certification activities, etc. The program manager would be prohibited from doing design work, but would be allowed to do construction management.
We stated that many of the functions which will be turned over to the program manager are more appropriately done by City staff, and that UEB would be well served to establish a panel with UEB (or together with collaborative support from DPW) to provide the capability for the City to more effectively monitor and control all activities related to the program. We also expressed our position that a great deal of the design work and the construction management is the primary responsibility of the City and should be done by City staff to the greatest extent possible. DPW concurred that this kind of work could be done more effectively by in-house staff.
DHR PROBLEMS
UEB has indicated that they are actively working to enhance their ability to take on the extraordinary level of effort represented by the program. This year, they are planning to increase the level of UEB staffing by 86 positions. They expressed a good deal of dissatisfaction with the slow movement of DHR and the Mayor's Office in filling requested positions. We pledged to take an active role in lobbying any, and all, players in the process (including the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors) to assure that positions are filled expeditiously. DPW also indicated that they are planning to increase staff resources to meet the demands of their current program. In addition, we expect that some of the staff resources that have been added to the Airport for their $2 billion+ expansion will also become available in future years as that program reaches completion. We believe that the City needs to maximize the effectiveness of the application of available staff resources to meet the heavy demands of the extraordinarily large capital program to which it is committed in all of its operations, and we intend to work toward that goal.
Since our meetings with UEB and DPW, we have met with the Mayor's staff and that of Board President Tom Ammiano to discuss these issues.
FINANCING ISSUES (RATE FREEZE)
Another important consideration in the discussion of PUC's ambitious capital improvement program is that the voters have approved only about $400 million in bonds for portions of the program, but the majority of the funding for the program is problematic at this time. The voters have also recently imposed a rate freeze on water and sewer rates over the next 6 years. Revenues which might be necessary to support the program through future bond issues are in question. We do not believe that committing nearly 1/3 of the currently available funding to a "program manager" is a path the City should be embarking on at this time, especially when most of the "expertise" involving the various projects currently resides in the PUC's own staff.
DPW also expressed some reservation in this area.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Hopefully, our discussions, and the City's experience in other programs of this kind, will result in the establishment of a program which will achieve the institutional needs of the various operations within PUC, while providing the City the opportunity to more beneficially utilize and enhance its engineering staff resources. The maintenance and operating responsibilities of the PUC should be "reinvented" to more aggressively confront the challenges of the 21st century (to be able to do more with less), and we believe this program will afford PUC the opportunity to advance to that realization, and to achieve that reality.
COMMISSION MEMORIALIZED
We also brought our concerns directly to the PUC at its December 15 meeting in a presentation by Local 21 Vice President Kathleen Price. Additional meetings and discussions with PUC staff and with DPW on this issue are planned. We will continue to monitor and report on the progress of this effort in future issues of pipeline.
CITY EMPLOYEE UNIONS TO FIGHT FURTHER GUTTING OF CIVIL SERVICE
All City employee unions have united against a proposal to weaken the examination process. The Public Employee Committee of the San Francisco Labor Council will oppose the Civil Service Commission's proposal to revise Civil Service Rule 13 - Certification of Eligibles. Commission representative Gene Rucker said, however, that the Commission will only meet with the unions to take our comments and that they plan to proceed whether or not we reach agreement.
BACKGROUND
In a letter dated January 13 to employee organizations, Rucker, representing the Commission, proposed a revision of Civil Service Rule 13.
The proposed amendment would give the DHR Director unilateral authority to expand the certification rule of 3 scores up to and including rule of the list. Presently, Civil Service Rule 13 requires concurrence by the affected union prior to the expansion of the rule beyond the rule of 3 scores. Appeal rights to the Civil Service Commission would remain (the Charter makes all decisions of the DHR Director appealable to the Commission.) The certification rule would be determined on an exam-by-exam basis.
While the original impetus driving expansion of certification rules (a November 1991 ballot measure replaced the rule of 3 with the minimum score of rule of 3 scores) was ostensibly to provide departments with greater flexibility in hiring decisions, it now appears to be overshadowed by the lack of resources. Adding to the ever-shrinking exam staff at DHR (on top of staffing cuts several vacancies go unfilled, due partly to the less-than-stellar reputation of employment conditions in that agency) is the looming Charter mandate that cancels all provisional appointments effective July 1, 1999, unless extended by the Board of Supervisors. Thereafter, provisional appointments are limited to 3 year durations. Thus, the entire emphasis of DHR's exam program is on transition from provisional to permanent employment, with merit system tenets of competition taking a distant second place. With provisional employment a long-term fixture on the City scene, broader certification rules will only make matters worse.
DHR's answer to this is to shift the focus away from the central agency to the departments. It sees its role as providing lists of candidates who meet minimum qualifications; after that, departments are free to select at will, with very little (at best) regulation of the selection process.
Representing us on the multi-union committee were Barry Biderman, Lonnie Butler, Ron Hundenski, Kathleen Price and Linda Jofuku.
MUNICIPAL UNIONS MEET ON RETIREMENT IMPROVEMENTS
SUBSTANDARD RETIREMENT. Our union has met periodically with representatives of other City employees to plot a strategy to achieve equity with the San Francisco fire and police retirement plans and the existing PERS formula for State and other public employees. (The successful ballot initiatives for fire and police resulted in the elimination of Tier 2.)
MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT? We are also exploring avenues other than a ballot measure to accomplish equity in retirement income security. There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to do this; although we attempted some innovations in last spring's med/arb negotiations, the City's response was that it was non-negotiable and non-arbitrable. It's clear, however, that changing the retirement formula has become a straightforward equity question in light of police, fire and PERS standards.
MEETING WITH MAYOR. On February 2, we participated in a meeting between unions affiliated with the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO) and Mayor Brown to explore options. While the meeting was inconclusive, City unions will continue to chart a plan to achieve retirement equity. We were represented by Ron Dicks, Local 21 V.P. for Legislative & Political Action, at the City Hall meeting. (Ron can be reached at 558-6437.) Stay tuned.
Pre-Tax Treatment of Buy Back Retirement Dollars Marches Forward
Since 1995, our union has been advocating for pre-tax treatment of buy back dollars for employees' shortages in their retirement accounts. Many Local 21 members responded to the last PIPELINE article requesting that the San Francisco Retirement Board immediately act on our continuing requests to implement pre-tax treatment of buy backs. Last month, Supervisor Michael Yaki initiated an ordinance at our request that has now passed the Board of Supervisors. The next step is for the Retirement System to effectuate the ordinance. Let's hope the System doesn't follow its snail's pace of the past four years when acting on this.
STATUS REPORT: Printing New MOU
A final draft of our FY 1998 - 2001 Memorandum of Understanding with the City and County of San Francisco is pending (we are completing discussions with the City's ERD staff over updates to Appendix D, Civil Service Rules). Once finalized, the document will be sent to a printer for reproduction and binding. We anticipate mailing copies of the MOU to members' homes within a few months. . . . In the meantime, the main body of the MOU is available for viewing here on Local 21's website - www.ifpte21.com
LOCAL 21 OFFICE UNDERGOES RENOVATION
Beginning the first week in February and continuing for the next 5 to 7 weeks, our office will be home to heating and cooling technicians, carpenters, electricians, painters and carpet layers. Because the office will remain open throughout the renovation work, staff members now occupy what formerly served as meeting space. Whenever possible, we will reschedule chapter meetings to locations outside the Orpheum Theater Building; in those instances where no other meeting space is available, chapter meetings will be canceled. (Any assistance members can offer staff in finding alternate meeting space would be appreciated. Please call Sandra or Sarah at 864-2100.) When the work is completed, the office will sport new carpet, linoleum, paint and an HVAC system.