June 2, 1999

EXAMS: Provisional Appointments Renewed

On May 19, the Board of Supervisors' Finance and Labor Committee heard a resolution from the Department of Human Resources (DHR) to renew provisional appointments through December 31 for employees who have been employed more than three years, where no eligible list exists because the Department has been unable to conduct exams.

Our staff member Leslie Abbott spoke at the meeting, expressing support for extending the deadline. But she also made the point that DHR's being behind in exams is not unique to the need to place provisionals. She suggested that additional resources be dedicated to exam staff and DHR renew their commitment to conducting regular exams and maintaining the integrity of Civil Service.

Linda Marini, speaking for DHR, responded by saying that current staff was able to handle the exam workload.

Some of you may remember that our union bargained additional money from the General Fund to hire additional exam analysts during Wendell Pryor's administration at DHR. We guess the subsequent (current) DHR administration thought they were doing a good job on exams, because that money was returned.

Contracting Out

Trying to Kill Two Airport Birds with One Lawsuit Stone

We reported in the Spring quarterly Pipeline about contracting out in SFO's Concession Development and Management department. Despite outstanding work on the part of our members, Pacific Gateway Partner-ship was awarded an 18 month, $2.3 million contract to provide tenant outreach and leasing for the food and beverage program in the new International Terminal.

On another front, the massive contracting out of the Airport Master Plan Expansion Program has frustrated City engineers, architects, construction managers, etc. for several years.

Both sections of the airport are now at critical junctions for new phases of work. The Concession Development and Management Department wrote an option in their contract for ongoing management of the food and beverage tenants for up to ten years. The Master Plan is almost ready to launch into the second phase of expansion, the "Group B" projects.

On May 5, we filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctions on the airport. This suit is to restrain SFO from contracting with private companies for tenant leasing management services; for architectural, engineering, and project and construction management professional services for the Group B projects; or for professional services for any other public works or other projects at SFO unless they meet contracting criteria set forth in the SF Charter.

City Agrees to Union Position on "Design/Build"

When the City adopted a "Design/Build Ordinance" for the purpose of providing alternatives for moving City construction and related projects rejected by the voters, we filed a lawsuit to nullify it. Not only didn't the City meet its obligation to negotiate with us prior to its adoption, but the ordinance itself by-passed Civil Service, Controller and union contractual oversight; contract economy and efficiency standards were left to at-will appointees.

Our objections were in fact validated when - after discussions with the Mayor's Office - the City Attorney directed a letter to our Union dated April 13 (with copies to Airport, DPW, PUC, Controller, Mayor's Office and Civil Service Commission) "reconciling the design-build ordinance" with Charter and Administrative Code strictures governing personal service and "Prop J" contracts (and thus "MoU" oversight as well). In other words, any "Design/Build" needs to proceed in the context of applicable law and regulation.

In light of the City's attempts to avoid negotiations and regulation of contracting and outsourcing activities the City Attorney's letter - generally settling our litigation - is most welcome. (Copies of the letter are available from our union office upon request, 864-2100.)

MERIT SYSTEM: Junior Engineer Registry?

Is the cure worse than the disease? It doesn't have to be, but we're having a hard time convincing the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and Department of Public Works (DPW) Personnel.

Earlier this year, DHR and DPW approached our union with a proposal that Junior Engineers be hired through a registry system. Rather than giving exams and hiring from the subsequent lists, DHR would maintain a computer database of applicants. When an engineering department requested candidates with specific qualifications, the computer would sort applicants by marked expertise boxes and generate a list. The department would then conduct the hiring process. DHR and DPW also proposed that all Junior Engineers be consolidated into a single classification, 5201, in order to facilitate the registry process.

When the registry idea was presented to our Professional Engineers chapter in January, it became arguably the most lively PE chapter meeting in recent memory. A Junior Engineer Registry Committee - including members Henry Anderson, Michael Asahina, Ed Byrne, Carol Finucane, Carleen Ho, Cliff Jarrard, Joe Pelayo, and Kathleen Price, and union staff Leslie Abbott, Vitus Leung and David Novogrodsky - was formed. Initially some were supportive of the registry idea, others very much against it.

The "pro" for a registry system is a "streamlined" hiring process. The "con" is potential for abuse. Our committee proposed a number of safeguards regulating the subjectivity of registry-based hiring to guard against abuse - minimum standards for hiring panels, paper screening, the interview process, and the final decision of which candidates would have jobs offered to them. We also suggested that a review of the Junior Engineer Registry Process be conducted after six months that would include DHR, the personnel staff of the City's engineering departments, and our union. Finally, since we knew an Assistant Engineer Registry proposal would be forthcoming, we asked for assurance that existing Juniors meeting the qualifications for the current practice of "flexing up" be offered Assistant positions prior to hiring from an Assistant registry.

The response was a breathtaking "no" on all accounts. Furthermore, DHR moved to finalize the new consolidated Class 5201 Junior Engineer, though we had not agreed to any piece of the package separate from the whole.

We immediately appealed to the Employee Relations Director the lack of true bargaining by DHR and DPW Personnel, and the complete disregard of valid concerns about preserving merit-based hiring. We also appealed the unilateral consolidation of the junior engineering classes. A face-to-face meeting of the union, DPW Personnel and DHR, including Employee Relations Director Geoff Rothman, will take place in early June.

City Health Plan 1 Update: We File Lawsuit

After assessing the many phone calls that have come in from our members concerning the proposed changes to Health Plan 1, we have concluded that proving irreparable damages to the court so they would issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is not feasible. However, a Step 4 grievance has been filed and two grievance meetings have been held with Employee Relations Director Geoffrey Rothman. We have a sincere desire to achieve an equitable settlement with the City over this matter, but as of this date we have not achieved that goal. The City is refusing to negotiate or arbitrate the issue. We had hoped the issues could be settled short of litigation, but that may not be possible. We filed suit in Superior Court on May 28 in order to force the City to arbitrate the grievance and negotiate the pending changes to Plan 1. If our grievance goes to arbitration, we will ask that:

1) the City and the Health Services Board immediately reinstate the health and dental benefits which presently exist,

2) the City and the Health Services Board permit any employee represented by our Union to enroll in Plan 1 after such reinstatement regardless of whether the open enrollment period is still open, and

3) the City must make all employees represented by our Union whole for any out-of-pocket costs or expenses they had to pay as a result of these unilateral changes.

Late Breaking News. On May 26^th, the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution asking the Health Services System to hold an emergency meeting in order to extend the open enrollment period. Health Services passed the resolution on May 28^th and open enrollment will be extended until June 13, 1999.

The walk-in open enrollment site will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 11^th. That site is located on the first floor of 1145 Market Street, with hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Interactive Voice System will remain open for calls until 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 13^th.

PHONY "RESCUE MUNI" PROPOSAL: Don't sign initiative petition

The initiative petition now being circulated would exempt all policy related Municipal Railway employees from civil service protections (such as they are) and, as such, is a dangerous public policy initiative. The initiative is financed by the same downtown business interests that have attempted to block every measure that might possibly benefit our members. It removes political accountability and establishes rigid performance standards almost guaranteed for failure. There are other problems with the initiative, but it would best be abandoned so we won't have to figure out how to live with what is clearly bad legislation.

ATM Fee Initiative

When San Francisco's political structure caved in to the banking industry and blocked an ordinance to limit ATM fees the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO), Supervisor Tom Ammiano and a large number of community organizations decided to pass the ordinance through the initiative process. Petitions are available at our union office for San Francisco voters to sign.

PUC Program Management Contract, Round II

In the February Pipeline, we reported that the SF Public Utilities Commission (PUC) moved to kick off a $3.5 billion Capital Improvement Program with an RFP for a 15-year private "Program Management Consultant" (PMC) at $12 million per year. The Capital Improvement Program is currently in the form of a wish-list of 150 maintenance, operation, construction and upgrading of PUC facilities in the Hetch Hetchy, Water Enterprise, and Clean Water divisions. The PMC would take an active role in planning funding, scheduling, staffing, contracting, and community relations and would be allowed to bid on construction management.

When the RFP was presented to the PUC commission in December, our SF Vice President Kathleen Price spoke against it, citing the need for meetings with Local 21. The motion to advertise the RFP was not passed. Subsequently three meetings were held with our union and managers from the Department of Public Works offering alternative suggestions to the PUC's Utilities Engineering Bureau managers. PUC then embarked on a process of revising the RFP.

Our lawyers filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctions to restrain PUC from advertising the RFP or entering into any contracts for program management unless they meet contracting criteria set forth in the SF Charter. We also enlisted Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano's help in getting Budget Analyst Harvey Rose to conduct a review of the PUC's proposed contract. The motion was passed unanimously by the Board.

Revised RFP

The PUC plans to publicly release the revised RFP on June 8^Th, the day it is first reviewed by the PUC Commission in closed session. They have already scheduled the RFP to be considered by the Civil Service Commission on June 21^st and considered in open session by the PUC Commission on June 22^nd - a highly unusual order of the typical hoops personal services contracts go through.

The two-page summary of the revised RFP reveals that it doesn't seem to have changed much. The RFP still calls for "Program Management" rather than strategic advice - implying decision-making power on core PUC functions at the highest levels. The RFP doesn't isolate management functions, either: the PMC would be able not only to contract to itself for construction management (as in the original RFP), but would also now get to give itself specialized engineering services.

In case the RFP didn't drive home the point that PUC plans to put its future in the hands of outsiders, a flyer for a "Town Hall Meeting" on June 2nd with prospective prime and sub-contractors certainly did. We quote: "This Town Hall Meeting will provide you with invaluable information necessary to take advantage of the millions of actual project dollars available under PUC's $3.5 billion Capital Improvement Plan."

Action Steps

We have quickly been assembling union members from PUC and DPW to create a counter proposal to present not only to PUC staff, but to PUC and Civil Service commissioners. And we plan additional legal action that we will shortly be filing.

Please call our union office if you are interested in participating in counter-proposal discussions.

Update on Local 21 Office Renovation

The end is in sight! The air conditioning units are now operational (just in time for summer fog), the cabinets are installed, the new carpet has already survived one or two spills, and the paint has dried on the walls. We will host an open house as soon as the reception area and staff cubicles are put in place. Please look for the announcement in late June/early July.