Home
Meeting
Schedule
Agendas
Meeting
Minutes
Commission
Members
Commission Operations
Contact
Us
DRAFT Meeting Summary
Meeting 16– October 23, 2003
Members:
Richard Bonewits
Richard Derham
Mark Endresen
Dave Gering
Steve Goldblatt
Arun Jhaveri
Sharon Maeda
Jim Montgomery
Bill Ptacek
Kathleen Royer
Steve Williamson
Consulting
Team:
Berk
& Associates, 206-324-8760
Marty Wine, Senior Associate
Cherienne Tibbetts, Associate
Council
Staff:
David
deCourcy, Council Chief of Staff, 296-0343
Scott White, Council Staff, 296-0324
Gennevie Cook, Committee Assistant, 205-5079
The Commission on Governance meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m., 44th Floor, Wells Fargo Building, 999 – 3rd Avenue, Seattle, Washington by Co-Chair Dave Gering.
Commission
members present: Richard Bonewits, Richard Derham, Mark Endresen,
Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Sharon Maeda, Bill Ptacek, Kathleen
Royer, Steve Williamson
Absent: Arun Jhaveri, Jim Montgomery
Audience Members: Russ Carlsen, King County Council, Kathy Lambert’s Office; Anthony Hemstad, Suburban Cities Association, City of Maple Valley; Kimberly Lockard, King County Council, Julia Patterson’s Office; and Kathi Oglesby, King County Labor Liaison; Rick Hayes, King County Labor Relations.
1. Approval of October 9 Meeting Summaries: Bill Ptacek moved and Richard Bonewits seconded the approval of the October 9 minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.
2. Update: Employment Policy Subgroup
Steve Williamson reviewed discussion at a recent meeting of the Employment Policy
Subgroup, stating that today’s meeting would provide additional input. The
following focus for today’s presentation were suggested:
3. County Workforce Characteristics, Trends, Issues
Shelley Sutton, William Nogle, and David Randall, all staff of the King County Council Committee of the Whole, presented from an October 8 presentation to Council. The discussion below followed the presentation.
Q: Does the County have a policy of using overtime to keep employment down?
A: Most overtime is in criminal justice: jail and Sheriff’s office. We have a clear
understanding of the value of overtime versus hiring new FTEs and try to find
the optimal balance between these two options. Departments have to stay
within their budget or request an appropriation, which they don’t like to do.
Q:
Do you know why the Governance Commission was charged with looking
at
labor issues?
A: Not a direct answer. But it’s an obvious area to focus on when you’re trying
to control costs: what are your labor policies and what is your flexibility?
Q: Has the Council ever rejected a contract proposal?
A: No. Council can accept or reject agreement only – can’t change it. Council
can also influence parameters the Executive follows by establishing policy.
Under the Charter, the Executive is the County’s labor negotiator. The
Council can’t be overly prescriptive, as that would be unfair labor practices.
Q: Has King County enacted performance measures?
A: There have been many past efforts; reading packet contains latest initiative
to develop performance measures unveiled with 2004 proposed budget.
4. County Employment Policy – Executive Labor Relations
Kathi Oglesby and Rick Hayes responded to Commission questions which
had been submitted previously. Kathi summarized these questions
saying the Commission seemed most interested in the complexity of
the County’s workforce relations. Kathi Oglesby spoke briefly about
interest arbitration in particular, saying about 40% of total County
employees are covered by interest arbitration, though the County
has never to date gone to interest arbitration. She said that the
Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association
of Counties are making a big move to get a handle on arbitration.
Other states and counties have experienced more interest arbitration
than King County. The County recognizes that arbitrated agreements
can be more costly than negotiated contracts.
Q: To what extent does the fact that interest arbitration exists
affect the County’s bargaining position?
A: It has a huge impact. It has likely led to greater COLA increases,
for example. Bargaining is harder because everything becomes part
of the record, which can be stifling. Because King County has good
relationships with labor, the preference is to have some off the
record negotiations. It also changes the market you look at for
comparables, causing the County to include California. Need to assess:
what would be the likely outcome of an arbitrated decision – look
at trends in arbitrated settlements. These tend to be higher or
at least have a different COLA. Our goal is to make sure our agreements
are within the reasonable realm of outcome under arbitration.
Q: How is it determined which employees have interest arbitration?
A: All interest arbitration designations have come from the state
or federal government, except for 911 operators, which originated
with the Council.
Q: Why does King County have so many bargaining units?
A: The vast majority were inherited from before the state had the
Public Employee Relations Commission. Many bargaining units were
created under Labor & Industries, with many unions in place 30 years
ago. It depends on the Exec’s philosophy around organizing. Prior
to Ron Sims, there was a deliberate attempt by the Executive to
fragment labor, keeping groups small and isolated. Ron Sims prefers
to seek broad bargaining units: it’s better for King County to have
one large contract for many employees. Executive Sims has worked
with unions to create bargaining units that make sense. This involved
some shifting of employees from one union to another, which can
be scary for them. This was enabled by management’s good relationships
with labor.
Q: Do some unions have multiple units and do some units bargain
together?
A: Yes. For example, in crafts, each union may represent a small
number of people. The unions have joined together and are represented
by a Teamster negotiator who negotiates on their behalf. They can’t
be together, as they wouldn’t be an appropriate unit, but they are
represented by one individual.
Q: Is there any legal mechanism to consolidate bargaining units?
A: The County or union can file for a unit clarification, used to
consolidate stranded groups. Groups with interest arbitration cannot
be mixed with those without. Most groups that are separate have
to remain separate.
Q: Are there any state laws that could be enacted or other structural
changes that would make labor arrangements less complex?
A: Nothing comes to mind. The County faces the same labor regulations
that the private sector and other public entities face.
Q: What if we consolidated to 15 units? What would be the costs and benefits?
A: Relationships are more important than the number of bargaining units.
While the current situation may seem complex, we relationships are positive
and so the general situation is good. The greatest difficulties arise when a
new group or guild is created which doesn’t care about the others. Most of
our unions are under the AFLCIO and they work together. There would be no
clear benefit from reducing down to 15 unions.
Q: Why is there no “circuit breaker” on pay increases in times of economic
hardship where the County has lower revenue?
A: We are required by law to bargain wages. The Council has one “secret” labor
policy: 90% of COLA, 2% floor, 6% ceiling. That’s what we bargain. We try
very hard not to bargain outside the policy of the Council. Unions have made
a firm stand: it is better to lay off employees than not have pay increases.
There is a law of diminishing returns in the public sector: if you stop giving
COLAs when you’re already at the median, not at the top of the pay range,
you have a very difficult time recruiting. There is a real cost to that. Even if
the Council decided and the Exec supported to not give COLAs, 40% of the
King County workforce has interest arbitration, so it would be very unlikely to
limit cost of living increases. If the structural gap continues, there is no clear
solution in sight. But we need to get there in partnership with our
employees, not by taking it out of our employees.
Q: Why does the County use market comparatives in determining pay scales?
A: We looked at a number of alternatives, but kept coming back to what our
comparables offer: first City of Seattle, then Bellevue. We looked at some
very complicated alternatives, but none seemed to fit how we were working,
setting salaries. The Class/Comp work formalizes this model.
Q: Does the County enter into project labor agreements?
A: Yes. Have it for the construction at Harborview, have a commitment for it at
Brightwater, Sound Transit has a project labor agreement. Executive Sims
strongly supports project labor agreements for any large building, but at the
moment we’re not building anything. We have Labor Management Committees all over the County. We have a labor
policy supporting labor-management committees in departments. We have a Labor
Management Insurance Committee that bargains benefits across the whole County
with the exceptions of the Sheriff’s Department. That’s a very important
committee. We also have a Joint Labor Management Partnership Committee that
meets with the Executive once a month, with a number of union reps who come in
and discuss what’s going on with Exec and department heads. We have an unusual
labor management committee in the jail which is actually the Health Department,
Facilities Department and Jail – with 8 or 9 unions. It’s unusual to have crossdepartment
labor management committees.
Q: Is there an ongoing process for Council and the Exec to discuss labor issues?
A: The Council has the Labor, Operations, and Technology (LOT) Committee
which meets twice a month. I try to attend all of those and we work very
closely with the staff of that committee. We really need each other: we
bring the contract up and they pass it.
Q: From a governance perspective is there anything you see in the relationship
between the Council and the Exec office that could be made smoother, more
efficient through structural changes?
A: We have good relationships with the LOT and the Exec’s labor relations staff.
It gets bumpy sometimes with the Council as a whole. Labor relations can
see very complex from the outside. We’ve been working on ongoing
education so Councilmembers are more familiar with issues and processes.
We have a Council which genuinely values employees and unions, so we
have a shared interest. We try not to set employees against each other.
Unlike other governments I can think of, we have a pretty unified approach.
Q: What role does partisanship play between the Exec and the Council?
A: Not an issue by itself. Some of strongest union supporters can be
Republicans. Some clearly have different views, but I don’t think it’s driven
by partisanship.
Q: The Executive’s proposal on solid waste, which results in a transfer of funds.
Could this be done without the history of good labor relationships?
A: Absolutely not. We view the unions as an asset, because we can talk to a
handful of individuals, rather than negotiating with individual employees.
Union leaders can be much more effective than bosses in bringing employees
along. We could not have made the changes we’ve made in waste water,
solid waste, and other areas, without the full support of the labor movement.
Q: The City of Seattle has a formal committee involving both the mayor’s office
and the City Council to discuss labor policy. Would there be benefit to
adopting this type of formal approach?
A: The City labor policies are written by the City Council behind closed doors.
King County is much more open, with most policies written jointly by council,
Executive and unions. It is a very different environment than in the City.
5. King County Coalition of Unions
Dustin Frederick spoke to the group, stating he had a number of points he would
make representing labor’s perspective:
Q: Given labor’s preference for layoffs of a freeze on wage increases, if revenue
stays constant are there service areas we should shut down?
A: Look at median income and tax burden per capita for this county and
compare it to other counties. We have a low tax burden per capita. We
operate in a representative government, and while the average citizen
doesn’t understand, someone needs to do the right thing by creating a tax
base that will respond to the ups and downs of the economy. We need a new
tax structure in this County. Prior to I-695 we did not have a budget crisis.
Q: Property taxes here are higher than many parts of the country, as is sales
tax. Maybe we’re encouraging too many services.
A: There’s no state income tax.
Q: You said there was no crisis before Initiative 695, but the crisis did exist
according to the taxpayers. The private sector would have to downsize – a
corrective device when the revenue base squeezes. It’s not fair to ask you
where we should downsize because you have obligations to the employees
you represent. But how would you suggest we go about looking at what
units to downsize?
A: Flexibility exists with labor leaders to deal with doomsday scenarios. We’ve
already downsized: look at parks. The public sector has downsized similar
to the public sector, but is faced with mandated services it must provide.
Q: How do you recommend we look at criminal justice for cuts in services?
A: Need to do a full cost/benefit analysis of service cuts. If you
decrease prevention and treatment costs, you increase long-term
costs of enforcement and the penal system: it’s a bad economic decision.
These types of cuts get made, however, because of short-term needs
to balance budgets.
Q: What should the Governance Commission do in this regard?
A: Look at the whole system. Be larger than the politics at play. Look at the
role of the Prosecuting Attorney, what the County chooses to take to trial.
Not all of that is mandated, much is discretionary.
Q: Will organized labor help reform the criminal justice system?
A: Organized labor would be very progressive on the topic. The relationship
between labor and management is very good, with lots of collaboration.
Q: Does contracting out offer any potential we should explore?
A: No. The County legally can’t contract out any work done currently by County
employees. Additionally, the private sector requires a profit margin, so while
private firms may underbid at the beginning, private contractors will slowly
increase costs until their required profit margin is attained. Therefore there
are no long-term savings to the public sector in contracting out.
The Commission discussed the complexities of the workforce issue. One member stated that while there is a lot of money there, there may not be a lot of savings, and another stated that perhaps it was an area the Commission could not contribute to. There was discussion of the “trap” of a cheaper short-term contract arrangement, which might result in greater long-term costs. One member stated it was important for the County to have the leverage gained from having the option to contract out. It was stated that from a governance perspective, it is critical to look at long-term solutions, not short-term balanced budgets: for example it’s more important to keep kids out of the criminal justice system than to set up efficient systems for prosecuting and imprisoning them.
The group asked the employment subgroup to draft concluding comments on the workforce issue, with the general direction that there is a lack of flexibility in the realm of labor relations to allow significant innovation and cost savings, and that everything the Commission heard indicated there were no structural barriers impeding efficient labor relations.
5. Scope and Discuss Annexations, Urban Subsidy, Regional Finance and
Marty Wine introduced the topic as one relevant to the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission needs to decide how it will pursue this issue, through a subgroup or via the larger group, and who they would like to hear from. To date, the Commission has discussed annexations, the annexation strategy for “urban islands,” the “urban subsidy,” GMA requirements to develop regional finance and government plans, how infrastructure is provided, and the boundary review board process.
Members expressed their respective interests in these issues. Dave Gering distributed a handout with an excerpt of the Countywide Planning Policies, stating that while the state’s Growth Management Act requires concentrating growth in urban areas, the drafters of the CPP recognized that the County and cities don’t have the tools to make it work. Regional governance and financing mechanisms in the State of Washington are not adequate to allow these jurisdictions to attract growth. The flaw is the County can’t provide the extra boost of money that a city like Renton might need to tap into a regional pool to implement the regional plan. Cities other than the largest (Bellevue or Seattle) can’t generate more money than they already do, and so there’s really no way to make this plan work. The text from the CPP that was passed out acknowledges the lack of these tools and states that a major reworking of regional governance and financing will be done to achieve the goals of GMA. For lots of reasons, this hasn’t happened.
Marty Wine asked whether the Commission would like to form a subgroup to explore this issue or have a panel, perhaps including Councilmembers to address the entire group. In interest of expediency, the group elected to form a subgroup: Kathleen Royer, Dave Gering, Dick Derham, and Arun Jhaveri, whose first task would be to frame the issue for the larger group. The group would then have another opportunity to direct the work of the subgroup.
Dave Gering reiterated that he saw the relevant issue for the Commission not being a referendum on GMA, but a focused analysis of work that was agreed to be done, but what has not yet been done, under the Countywide Planning Policies.
5. Meeting Wrap-Up
Marty presented and highlighted eight issues or areas where the Commission has said that they have the potential to make governance recommendations.
6. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.