Loading...
Minutes 01-14-04 (2)MORNING SESSION OF JOINT WHITE AND BLUE COLLAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2004 AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING ROOM, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present For NCF&O: Sharon Munley, President, Local 1227 White Collar: Debbie Lytle, Steward, Utilities Michael Ricard, Steward, Building Division Blue Collar: Bob Kruper, Union Steward Mike Osborn, Union Steward Don Roberts, Union Steward Richard Smith, Union Steward Richard Stone, Union Steward Mike Taylor, Union Steward John Wolcott, Union Steward For the City: Wilfred Hawkins, Assistant City Manager Arthur Lee, Director of Human Resources Patricia Spoerri, Professional Development Manager Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 10:18 a.m. Mr. Hawkins introduced Ms. Patricia Spoerri, Professional Development Manager, who was in attendance to make a presentation about the City's Performance Evaluation system. Mr. Hawkins indicated that at the conclusion of Ms. Spoerri's presentation, John Jordan, Assistant Human Resources Director, would speak about plans for the future. He stated that questions could be raised at any time. Ms. Spoerri indicated that the whole presentation normally takes more than half a day, so she selected specific forms that would show how the evaluation is put together. All the managers/supervisors in the City have been given this same presentation, excerpts of which follow. The Performance Evaluation Manual contains an Overview of Preparing an Employee's Evaluation including common subjective errors (biases); Definition of Rating Terms; Establishing Performance Standards; Performance Factors & Measurements - Quality of Work, Volume of Work; Management Skills Performance Factors; Completing the Evaluation Forms; Employee Status; Guidelines for Conducting Evaluation Interview; and Performance Evaluation Checklist. The Evaluation Forms consist of: 1) Six-Month Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 Evaluation (a single page document to be used for appraisal discussion by September 30; 2) Employee Goals & Standards of Performance. There are Self-Evaluation forms for EMPLOYEES to complete. The performance evaluation for employee/appraiser is to be completed by March 31. Ms. Munley asked to be given a copy of the Performance Evaluation Manual On hearing the word "Biases" in the presentation, Ms. Munley stated that the Union's biggest problem was related to biases and how the standards of performance are established. She stated that something was 'falling down" between the evaluator and the employee. Ms. Spoerri stated that this was an issue for the "other side of the table." Six-Month Evaluation Feedback on employee performance is an ongoing process. Employees receive a six-month Evaluation by September 30th. HR will send out reminders - Employee and Supervisor will schedule a time for discussion. The supervisor reviews the employee's performance to date and documents topics discussed. This form can be used to suggest areas for improvement and avenues to Success. Ms. Spoerri stated that the City expects that employees will participate in the six-month evaluation to discuss any areas they have any concerns with and to bring forward all those areas in which they feel they have excelled. She stated that the Goals and Objectives and Standards of Performance have to be updated at this time also. There might be something that will prevent the employee from reaching a particular goal. This is the point at which they can say whether it is on schedule or behind schedule and why. Perhaps it is no longer relevant or there has been a shift in the department that takes it out of the individual's responsibility. At six months, the supervisor talks with the employee about what he or she is actually doing on the job. There is a space for the employee to sign the form to indicate that he or she has participated in this discussion with his or her supervisor. Ms. Munley said that if the reviewer and the employee decide that a goal will be impossible to achieve, would that affect the annual "score?" Or, is there going to be some revision on the 6-month evaluation document? Mr. Hawkins stated that it could be revised at this point. You can rewrite your goal at the six-month point or eliminate it altogether. Ms. Spoerri said that you would document on this form that this goal change was discussed. Ms. L ytle stated, "We get it, but the feedback from people supervised in other areas is nothing close to what is being presented. Some departments have only one goal. If it is not completed, they do not get to roll over to the following year. The problem is that the dissemination of this information is not unbiased and clear-cut with all departments across the board." She offered to give several examples. 2 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida .lanuary '14, 200~, Ms. Spoerri stated that what she was presenting was the exact same presentation that was given to every supervisor. Ms. Lytle understood that, but said that "in every class there is an A person and an F person." Ms. Munley asked whether there were a policing mechanism for making sure that the process was consistent for everyone. Ms. Lytle added, "and whether the supervisors pass the test before they evaluate you." Ms. Munley said that it was not just one or two isolated incidents, and that all the stewards had told her, in unison, of the various problems. Mr. Hawkins stated that he heard what was being said, but Ms. Spoerri was just the messenger. Ms. Spoerri stated that the only assurance she could give was that the exact same information is given to all the supervisors and the supervisors are tested for their comprehension of the material at the time they are given the information. Ms. L ytle stated that for the record, in her area they did not adjust any of the weights on the goals from the form that they were given three years ago. Ms. Spoerri said if the goals were still relevant, one would not want to change them just for the sake of change. Ms. Spoerri asked if anyone had questions on the Six-Month Evaluation form and how it was used. Mr. Osbom asked if a copy of this form was given to the employee at six months to let them know where they stood along with the six-month evaluation? Various people said they had never seen one. Ms. Spoerri said if something has to be changed on the Six-Month Evaluation form, then a discussion will have to take place between the supervisor and the employee. The discussion will be detailed on the Six Month Evaluation form. The outcome of it will be detailed on the Goals and Standards of Performance. Ms. Spoerri commented that there was a space for the employee's signature on the Goals and Standards form for the Six-Months evaluation and on the Six-Months Evaluation. Mr. Hawkins stated that on the annual evaluation, the first column is done at the beginning of the year when the initial goals are set. This form can be brought out at the six-month juncture if you are going to change anything. If you are not going to change anything, this form may not need to be brought out at the six-month period. Mr. Osbom said, "Wouldn't you want to put down when you attained your goals, if you attained them before that six-month period?" Mr. Hawkins said that was fine, but if there was no change, and there was no reason to change the original goals, you may not need to see this form at the six-month juncture. You could indicate a discussion on the Six Month evaluation form, but if anything changes from the initial discussion at the beginning of the year, then the discussion form and the outcome in the six-month block needs to be rewritten. Ms. Munley said ff that is the case and everything is on target and you don't need to see that form (the Goals and Standards of Performance), then at the end of the rating period you should be passing your scores. If there is no six-month signature on that form, the person should not fail his or her review. Mr. Hawkins agreed. The Six-Month evaluation form is important. If a person is on target at the six-month period, unless something really changes, he or she should be able to pass that goal. If there is a problem happening and some concern about whether or not they are going to make that 3 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 goal, that six-month conversation is extremely important. Ms. Munley said that for policing purposes, everybody should know (if this process is left in place) at six months if they are on target or almost or exceeding their goals. Otherwise, you are in a dark place until the end and you do not know what you are going to get. Ms. Spoerri said there is a place for the employee to sign on the Goals and Performance form at the six- months' juncture. That signature being there should say, "I've seen this, dealt with it, and the results are on the Six-Month evaluation form in the Discussion section. Mr. Kruper stated that he had never seen the Employee Goals and Standards of Performance. He also stated that there was no time taken in his department to discuss anything. Employees were told to sign the paper and that was it. (This discussion will resume after the rest of the charts are depicted below.) Employee Evaluation Review the descriptive statements associated with each factor. Determine the level of performance which best describes the employee's ability and performance for each factor. Assign a level of performance for each factor on the evaluation form and enter that number in the appropriate column. Goals & Standards of Performance · :, Supervisors and employees work together to decide on Goals and SOPs. · :o Assign 3-5 goals for each employee and include target completion dates. · :o Compile the Standards of Performance, which are derived from the .lob Description and outline the employee's key responsibilities. o:, Assign weights to the Goals and SOPs and include them on the Employee Evaluation Form. Comments · :° On the Supervisor's Summary Comments, add specific comments, which exemplify and support the level of performance you have selected for each category. · :° Ratings above or below 2 MUST be supported with specific comments. Rewarding Comments Provide comments, which will assist the employee in their self-development. Comment on those areas where the individual excelled and provide specific examples. Comment on the major strengths the employee brings to the position. Meeting Minutes ]oint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida .January 14, 2004 Challenging Comments · :, Comment on areas where results were not achieved or work habits were unacceptable. · :, Give examples of the behavior or unsuccessful results and specify the negative impact on the performance and department. · :, Specify the behavior expected to meet job standards and ensure that the employee understands the requirements. · :- Suggest programs or avenues the employee can take to help them improve. · :, Define a timetable for noticeable improvement. Ms. Spoerri also displayed the forms that are associated with each piece of the evaluation process. A copy of this presentation is available in the City Clerk's office. Since there were so many questions and comments, the presentation was halted many times. The discussion continued, with Mr. Taylor saying that different people were receiving different forms. Ms. Mun/ey stated her concept of the process as follows: An employee s/ts down with his or her supervisor, works out the employee's goals and objectives together, and then they sit down at six months to see how the employee is doing so the employee has some clue whether he will pass or fail at the end of the year. Mri Stone stated that the previous year, many of the supervisors did not get it right. According to the contract, there is supposed to be a preliminary evaluation. Mr. Hawkins stated that they had already put out a notice on that and people were working on it. Mr. Stone asked if this was part of the Performance Evaluation manual. Mr. Hawkins said that it was not. Mr. Stone read from the contract, "The employee's supervisor shall issue the employee's preliminary performance evaluation. Employee shall be evaluated in an unbiased and fair manner." Mr. Lee thought it was the annual review but it was being done earlier. The review is before the employee by February 1. Then, the person knows exactly where they are at this point in time. This is done early so that if there were areas of performance that needed work, the person would have a couple of months to improve before their evaluation on April 1. Ms. Lytle said then it only had to be done for people who were not meeting standards. Mr. Lee said the supervisor sits down with everyone prior to the February i date but the evaluation is ready to go. Ms. Lytle commented that an employee and supervisor should be able to sit down any day of the year to discuss this and there did not have to be a formal instrument to do that. Ms. Spoerri spoke again of the signature spots on the documents, which signify that the supervisor and the employee are to come together and have discussion about the documents and indicate by signing them that they have talked about it. 5 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 Ms. Spoerri suggested that one successful method of working with the Standards of Performance was getting together groups of people with similar titles and job descriptions. The supervisors and the people in those groups sit down together to work out the Standards of Performance. Mr. Osborn stated that there were two water plants and there were mechanics at each plant but their Standards of Performance were different, even though they do the same work. Ms. Lytle said that in Public Works, they had a team-based group. Ms. Spoerri said it had been done in other parts of the City also. She said she and Arthur Lee were available as facilitators if any department wanted to try this approach. Ms. Lytle asked if the Standards of Performance would change yearly. Ms. Spoerri said that they should not change that quickly, if there should be a dramatic change in the content of what a person is doing on his or her job, the six-month and annual evaluation is a good time to tell your supervisor that the job content has changed dramatically. If something has to be changed drastically, the issue has to go to Human Resources for review. Mr. Kruper did not recall sitting down and establishing any standards. Mr. Lee said that many people used the job description as a basis. Ms. Munley said that once the goals and objectives were set for the people operating front-end loaders, for example, the standards of performance would probably always be the same. Questions were raised about how to get a "4" on an evaluation. Mr. Hawkins stated that if a person goes beyond the goals that were set and performs over and above the standards that were set, this should be documented and that person should get a 4. He later said that in the Goals section of the forms, an employee can say, "here is how I get above a 2." Mr. Stone favored "pass-fail." If you meet standards you get a certain %. They were not opposed to pay for performance, but he felt it should be for over and above the minimum standards. Ms. Spoerri said this would also require measurement. Ms. Spoerri recapped by saying that the employee has an opportunity to sit with his supervisor on multiple occasions to discuss his job performance in a structured manner. This does not mean that an employee cannot sit with his supervisor at any other time to discuss these things. This is simply an official tool to ensure that this takes place. If it is not happening in your area, then you need to ask yourself why you are not talking to your supervisor. On the Employee Evaluation form, the comment was made that the employees did not sit down with any manager to set the weights in the Standards of Performance. Another steward said that they had sat down to establish the weights, but then the manager had changed the weights. 6 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January :~4, 2004 Mr. Osborn referred to the evaluation, saying that a person would either pass or fail - that is they either met the standards or did not, for the six-month evaluation. Then, when the annual comes around, they give you the same list and it is pass or fail. How can you get a 1, 2, 3, or 4 when for the whole year you have been graded on pass-fail? Ms. Munley said he might have uncovered a flaw. She understood about setting goa/s, but when you have qua//ty of work, vo/ume of work, job know/edge, etc., is there a p/ace where what that means is out#ned? So a person cou/d exceed expectations in that area? I~lr. Jordan said there was a p/ace that this could be done. I~lr. Lee stated that on the "pass-fa//" sheet, there was a comments sect/on. In that comment sect/on, it cou/d say, the person met this but he a/so went beyond by doing th/s, th/s, and this. If this shows up in severa/ other categories, then that person shou/d get more than a 2. Ms. Munley said there was no place on the form for "exceeds standards." It is either that you met or did not meet them. There are goa/s for extra work, but when it comes down to qua//ty of work, etc., where do you te// them how to exceed expectations for that? Now, it becomes again you met or did not. I~lr. Lee said that this re/ated to the Standards of Performance, which is the actua/ job. In (~ua//ty, this is where you wou/d score the qua//ty of their job. Ns. Spoerr/ said that this is why there was space for a narrative. When you go to the comments form, the information from the narrative part of the form is listed. Mr. Hawkins said there should be comments if someone is being rated as more than 2 in a particular area. Ms. Munley said, "How does the employee know that the quality of his or her work meets the employer's expectations?" Where is it written down? The comment was made that some of the supervisors who were giving the evaluations did not have the skills and abilities, with respect, to do this properly. The stewards expressed feelings of frustration with this process. Mr. Stone said he understood that when the evaluation process took place, your standards of performance were basically a reflection of your job description. "This is a list of things I actually do in my job." l~f he does all those things that are listed, why should he get a "2," meets standards. Why shouldn't he get a 4? The response from Mr. Hawkins was that he was hired to do those things. Ms. Lytle said that in her group, they had a broad job description but had settled on a list of 10 activities that were the most important. If a person is doing all l0 of them, he or she is meeting standards or a 2. If he or she is doing 13 of them, he should get a higher rating, and if he is doing 15 of them, his rating should be higher still. This met with agreement on both sides. Ms. Lytle stated that the City hires people that do not meet the job standards and gives them six months to a year to get the licenses, certifications, or what necessary to meet them. Mr. Hawkins said that the City had to decide if it would continue to hire people under these circumstances. Many companies are getting away from that approach. 7 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 Mr. Hawkins said, "When I hire you, you are hired to get a 2. The 3 and 4 are things that we will talk about as your skills and abilities are developed and this should be stipulated in the goals and in those things that you volunteer to do extra. Maybe you are a smart person and a quick learner. Absolutely you should be rewarded for that." Ms. Lytle said that there were many areas in the City where your quantity of work is limited by what your supervisor provides. Mr. Hawkins agreed. The comment was made that this is where the weighting would come in. Another comment was made, "What is to stop a supervisor from having personal issues with an employee who is subject to that through the evaluation?" Mr. Hawkins stated that was a universal human relations problem. The employee did not feel that it mattered if he exceeded or not. From the beginning, they were told that this would not be used as a disciplinary tool and it IS being used that way, and this is why they have a problem with it. Supervisors' attitudes reflect in the evaluation and if they have an issue with an employee, it will appear in the evaluation. Either the supervisor likes you or not and that is a problem. The employees compare their observations of a person's work with the rating they got and feel that there were areas where hardly anyone got over a 2. In other areas, there were a large number of 3's and 4's. This did not seem fair. Mr. Lee said that if you do a self-evaluation form, the supervisor is required to look at it. If they come up with something different, the parties are supposed to sit down and discuss it. IVls. Spoerri said that one important document refers to the 3's and 4's and that is the Comment sheet. The comments may be extracted from the Goals and Objectives, Standards of Performance, observations, things you have done through the year to acquire certificates or whatever you have done and volunteered to do. The supervisors are required to make specific comments that exemplify and support the level of performance that he has selected for each category. Ratings above or below 2 must be supported with specific comments. The supervisors are also asked to provide comments which will assist the employee in his or her self-development, comment on those areas where the individual excelled with specific examples, and comment on the major strengths the employee brings to the position. They are also to provide comments on areas where things were not acceptable and give examples. They are to specify the behavior expected to meet job standards and ensure that the employee understands the requirements. The supervisor is to suggest programs or avenues the employee can take to help them improve and define a timetable for noticeable improvement. This is to make sure that people are recognized for their strengths. It seemed to Mr. Stone that the City was going to have to have a monitoring system so that every aspect of this was being done fairly and objectively. Mr. Lee mentioned that Meeting Minutes Joint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 he had asked .lohn .lordan to come in since he had done a lot of work on this program. He wanted the employees to hear some of his comments about the tracking and reinforcement aspects of the program. The stewards asked how supervisors could be brought into//ne on this. Ms. Spoerri stressed that communication between the employer and employee was crucial to the success of this process. She stated that a performance evaluation was a tool that helps a person to develop. If a person is not doing as well as possible, this could be the basis for a discussion and comments and recommendations of how to move beyond this. When an employee does a self-evaluation, he is responsible for making sure that the supervisor knows about all that he is doing. Zt/s his responsibility to make sure that the supervisor/s made aware of his pertinent skills and ab/l/t/es. I~ls. ~lun/ey said that a lot of the people/n the Un/on were not capable of doing that. She did not fee//t should be incumbent on the employee to do this and that responsibility for a "score" should be squarely on the supervisor. In most cases, if an employee wants to bring something forward he can. If somebody gives a score, they should be able to just/fy what it is. It can be interactive, but does not have to be. Mr. Lee thanked Ms. Spoerri for her presentation and everyone said it had been very informational. Mr. Lee said that a lot of the comments that had been made at this meeting were very valid and that it was not the first time that he had heard them. The Performance Evaluation was not designed to be a disciplinary too/but was meant for employee development. It is not supposed to be, "When your evaluation comes up, "X" will happen. You should never hear that. The evaluation should not be linked to that." Also, there should be mutuality between the supervisor and the employee in the area of communication. This PIUST happen in order for the program to work. A lot of the situations he had heard about at this meeting came about because this did not take place. Regarding the Standards of Performance and Goals, the Standards of Performance could be done in a group setting or individual. The guidelines should initially be the job description. When it comes to evaluation, the individual from the group will meet with his or her manager/nd/v/dually, not as a group, even if the Goals and Standards of Performance were set in a group. IVlr. Lee introduced .lohn .lordan, the Assistant Human Resources Director. Mr. Lee wanted the Union to hear his thoughts because one of the things Mr..lordan worked with at Motorola was the Performance Evaluation system and its electronic tracking feature. He had asked Mr..lordan to examine Boynton Beach's Performance Evaluation system and give his assessment of where it stands and where it needs to go. Mr..lordan stated that he had heard everything that had been said by the Union representatives and it was not the first time he had heard some of the comments. He 9 Meeting Minutes .loint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 indicated that two of the biggest things with Boynton Beach's system were accountability and quantifiability with the goals. Right now, it sounded to him that people wanted to know how they could get beyond a rating of "2." Right now, he did not believe that the goals were being effectively quantified, referring to the goals within each area in which a person is being measured. He gave an example of a "2" rating for a meter reader where a hypothetical goal might be to read 95% of the meters accurately. A "3" would be 97%, and a "4" would be 99% or better. Or in reverse, where reading less than 95% of the meters accurately would merit a "1." The system does take a lot of work and a lot of feedback and interaction to establish the goals in the beginning. Mr. Jordan then talked about accountability. He felt that quantifying the goals helped to take a lot of the bias out of the process. An employee is able to establish his or her goals and know how he or she is being measured. Mr. Jordan stated that in regard to accountability, there were some inconsistencies in how the program was being applied. He felt that employees should be made aware of the entire process, how it works and how it affects them. The goals are supposed to be established at the beginning between the manager and the employee. The evaluations will be done in IVlarch and the establishment of goals should take place at the beginning of the year between the supervisor and the employee. The completed goals should be approved by the employee, the manager, and on up through the organization. Some goals might come from the top of the organization downward, "Everybody in the organization will be meeting these goals." The goals would be a combination of things that might be mandated as part of your job and some additional personal goals. Mr. Jordan mentioned that he was participating in a group effort to discuss the evolution of the Performance Evaluation process and this would, hopefully, address these issues, but it is still in process. Ms. IVlunley asked whether Mr. Jordan was aware of the performance evaluation computer program at Riviera Beach. Mr. Jordan was aware of it and said that Riviera Beach was in the learning stages also. Ideally, he would like to make this entire process on-line. Employees could use it to go in and say, "! did this or ! did that." Things can be documented along the way, which should make the end result more complete. There is no system in place that can do that but the City is looking at various systems for potential transition. Ms. Munley asked for a realistic goal of when the current program was going to run smoothly. Mr. Jordan stated that he would love to say, 2004, but that would be unrealistic. He added that if he were able to drive the effort in the direction in which he thought it should go, in 2005 everybody could be up to speed and the issues with the current system could be worked out. l0 Meeting Minutes Joint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January :[4, 2004 Ms. Lytle thought this view was optimistic. She asked Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lee whether the current program was accomplishing what they wanted. Was the amount of time and energy and expense put in it making better employees or making the City better? She did not know why the City was spending money and resources on an evaluation procedure that was not working and had not worked, and was not finely tuned. She asked them to address the goals they hoped to achieve through the current evaluation system. Mr. Jordan said that the current Performance Evaluation process, while currently tied to merit (and unfortunately so in his view), is essentially an employee development tool. And, it had not been done in the City before and bringing in a system is an evolutionary process. Ms. Lytle asked why there was so much trouble in Boynton Beach compared to the rest of the country. Ms. Spoerri said that the program had actually worked very successfully in other cities, and MFi Jordan agreed. Ms. Lytle asked what the learning curve had been? How many people were hurt? How many people benefited? Mr. Jordan stated that from the taxpayers' point of view, the City would have a more efficient workforce through this. Ms. Lytle asked why the City was testing 800 employees who are meeting standards to weed out the 5% that are not. Mr. Jordan stated that if the current tool were used correctly, not only would it help to identify people who were not meeting standards, it would reward those who are exceeding standards. Mr..lordan felt that there were many things that could be done with the current tool for people - to help them increase their value and be able to earn more money. Mr. Stone commented that there were other ways of achieving that and Mr. Jordan agreed. Mr. Jordan commented that a City committee was being put together to review the current process, get input, discuss with the City Manager and the Leadership Team, and look for improvements to make the current process smoother and more meaningful. He referred to a scenario when if you get "meets expectation," there would be a base increase or market adjustment. Then, depending on the percentage score above that, there would be an additional increase. Ms. Lytle asked whether most of the employees were meeting standards, and Mr. Jordan responded at the last evaluation, 92% were meeting standards. He personally thought that was biased because there did not have to be any documentation for a "2" rating. So, more people got 2's than might have otherwise. Ms. Lytle asked for and received confirmation that the current system was evolving, was a work in progress. Mr. Jordan stated that there were a number of solutions to all of the things mentioned today. He could not promise that the improvements would be in place for the next evaluation o/cie, but he will try. Worst case, he wanted to pilot something in an area in order to test the improvements prior to implementing them across the board. 11 Meeting Minutes Joint Blue and White Collar Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida January 14, 2004 Ms. Munley said that this would be discussed during the lunch break and the Union would come back to the City with some thoughts on safeguards for their workers while the evaluation process is still in development so the employees do not suffer financially again. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (012204) 12