Ecology UMCC Meeting, 11/8/2010

from Debbie’s notes

Present: Kerry Graber, Alisa Huckaby, Kasey Ignac, Sandra Lange, Roger Johnson, Marcie Mangold, Rebekah Padgett, Susanna Fenner (WFSE), Debbie Brookman (WFSE), Ted Sturdevant (last 25 minutes only), Polly Zehm, Amy Heller, Corrina McElfish, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain, Carol Fleskes, Maia Bellon 

(We got a late start due to VC technical issues) 

Agenda and Discussion: 

Energy Projects Feasibility Study – Carol Fleskes
(Hand-out: McKinstry FIM Matrix Report) Ecology’s goal is carbon neutrality by 2020, per challenge the Governor has given the agency. They’ve been looking at facilities to see what changes can be made to get us closer to the goal. The handout shows a list of feasible, short-term ideas for the buildings owned by Ecology: HQ; Spokane; and Padilla Bay. Most of ideas are around lighting as this is where the most savings and greatest return can be achieved. Some controversy may come up over removal of paper towels from most restrooms but the hand dryers they will be providing are high efficiency and very quick drying.

Kerry asked about the changes to the key card system. Carol explained it the idea is to remove it from the electrical system and put it on the IT network to run off the IT power system resulting in a lower use of electricity. In the long run, it has the capability to be sophisticated enough to turn on your computer, turn on your office or work space lights, etc. when you arrive/depart from work (these capabilities are not proposed for the immediate future – fyi). 

Inclement Weather - Because Carol was available, Kerry asked if there were any remaining issues from the 2009 “inclement weather hot wash.” Carol responded that there will be a communication going out – we anticipate a challenging winter weather season – directing folks to the on-line info on policies regarding building closures, fleet closures, etc.

HQ’s dusty rocks – Again, because Carol was available, Kerry raised a safety issue for those with breathing issues. Is it possible to address the issue of the dusty indoor rock garden through the energy feasibility project funds? No but Carol explained they have good cost estimates on addressing the issues with the rocks, just no $$. They also need to re-carpet the 2nd floor, also due to indoor environmental issues. Carol is aware of the issue.

Budget Update/Issues: 

(See hand-outs: Temporary Layoff Savings Report, 2011-13 Capitol Budget Proposal Summary, 2011-13 Operating Budget Proposal Summary, and an Inside Ecology article “Ecology submitting budget proposals as landscape keeps shifting”) 

Furloughs - The furloughs have resulted in $1,694,613 in savings to-date. Rebekah asked what will happen when Ecology meets the overall $3.2 million goal? It appears we will before the March furlough dates. If so, can we avoid the “double whammy” in February? Pat responded that they talked to OFM to see if an alternative date can be worked out – they didn’t get anywhere. If there is an opportunity to eliminate a day, that will be the top of their priority list. They are hoping to have enough data after the beginning of the New Year to make a decision on whether all the days will be needed or not. Kerry expressed that employees know as soon as possible.

Overall Budget - The next revenue forecast is due on 11/17 or 11/18. It will include impacts from the tax rollbacks, information on the state’s caseload, revenue projections, and a truing up of actual revenue versus prior estimates on some of the dedicated funds (there will be minimal adjustments). The Governor has already given a heads up that there could be additional budget reductions over the 6.3% reductions already implemented. If so, Ecology is looking at work funded by the State Toxics account as there is some flexibility to use that account to pay for work currently being paid for out of the General Fund.

Alisa asked about the budget summaries, capitol and operating – where is the Hanford clean-up on the hand-outs? 

Pat explained that things where they are not changing their prior requests are part of the maintenance level budget. Those items are not identified as line-items. Instead, they are included in the overall base budget amount (this is the status of the Hanford clean-up budget). They’ll make an effort to make this clearer to non-budget folks in the future.

Privatization of Bargaining Unit work – Kerry asked if the legislature has been asking Ecology to look for work that can be privatized? If so, what is Ecology’s position on this? 

Pat responded that there were eight questions the legislature asked each agency to answer, including a list of work that could be privatized. Ecology did develop the requested list. However, none of  those ideas are going forward, no discussion with staff and stakeholders have occurred. Pat anticipates we’ll get more questions about how state government can do things differently, including privatization. Polly further explained that every time they make a hiring freeze exemption request, OFM asks them if they’ve considered any and every alternative to hiring on a state employee, including contracting the work out.

Kerry posed the dilemma about staff hearing rumors about privatization and not really having full information. We need to be sensitive to these things and try to do what we can to keep employees informed about what’s a real concern versus a rumor. Pat suggested that UMCC is a good forum for these kinds of concerns, too. 

10% budget cut exercise – Kerry asked on behalf of the UMCC team if it is true that an excersize to reduce the budget by 10% was done? Pat confirmed it was done early in the biennium, at the request of OFM. All the program managers (PMs) were asked to identify where they would go if they had to take additional reductions. It is not a written plan but Polly and Pat met with each PM to see what they were thinking about. Before Ecology received direction to implement the 6.3% budget reduction, they had been told by OFM to prepare for a 5-10% reduction. Vacancies were held and, as a result, layoffs were avoided. They are worried the November forecast may be bad and that additional budget reductions will be ordered. They’ve asked PM’s to revisit the previously discussed ideas, in case further reductions need to be implemented. There’s nothing written down that they can just pull off the shelf – the ideas evolve with discussion and consideration of how deeply cuts may be needed.

Workload Impacts from Furloughs and Budget cuts - Kerry explained that there’s not a lot of staff-level communication with management about how, exactly, they’re going to prioritize their workload and “do less with less.” What staff need is to have that translated into something real, with practical application to day-to-day workload. Managers need to participate in decisions about what will not be accomplished to keep staff from feeling they are stepping out on a limb. Many employees feel uncertainty about supervisor/managers really understanding the implications of certain decisions. It should be an interactive process – not one-sided on the part of either line-level employees or supervisors. Can you direct each PM to direct each middle level manager and on down have these conversations with staff?  The conversations should include where priorities are being shifted and how expectations are being adjusted. 

Polly explained that she thinks managers may feel they are doing this more than line-level employees think they are. She will continue to reinforce the example Kerry’s manager, Kay, set with this issue.

Kerry explained she knows it is a complicated discussion. Polly reiterated that she understands it’s a constant process and on-going conversation that should be taking place between every employee and supervisor. Pat chimed in that she’s putting a lot of pressure on the PM’s to tell her what is no longer going to get done, based on budget changes. She asking them to identify not just how this impacts workload but also how it impacts the public. The agency needs to have a full understanding of this. 

Rebekah feels there is a lack of connection between the messages the PM’s send out to staff with high level items that aren’t going to be a priority anymore and what decisions staff need to make about what they are actually going to do (or not do) on a day-to-day basis. She knows it’s a challenge because not all supervisors understand what their staff are doing on a day-to-day basis. As a line-level employee, its good to feel empowered and be able to manage and prioritize day-to-day work but does leave employees in a difficult place if they have to make decisions that feel like they’re not doing their jobs.

Marcie expressed concern with how this fits in the evaluation process and overall morale. If we can’t do the job as well as we could before because of a furlough, it’s very difficult. 

Polly understands that challenge – she feels it too. She wants to hear ideas from us on how to effectively fill the gap between what employees think should happen and having the difficult conversation with management. “It’s a journey, not a destination."

Kerry thinks what often happens is the task doesn’t get removed from the workload but the timeframes to accomplish it get stretched out. Are supervisors/managers going to back up employees when external customers complain about response times? Polly committed to reinforce this. In return, she asks that when employees need to explain to a customer that they can’t meet the customer’s expectations, the employee should give the supervisor a heads-up explaining the situation, asking for support, and reminding the supervisor that the decision is consistent with the employee’s understanding  of their conversations about workload prioritization.

Kerry asked for Polly to close the loop with the team over this issue and share with us what she did she do as a result of this conversation. 

Non-Budget Issues: 

Environmental Specialist Class Study – Kerry asked what process they are using to accomplish the class study and when staff input would be included?

Chris Parsons explained that the Department of Personnel has agreed to do an interagency review of the ES series. A schedule has been developed with an ambitious deadline at the end of February. Eva Santos, DOP’s Director, is interested in the issues around the ES series so they have good commitment from DOP for resources but everyone is pretty busy. So far, DOP has recently been provided with approximately 400 PDF’s to review. The next step is for DOP to interview the Program Managers. In addition, DOP has a lot of internal processes plus there are other agencies that use this class series and must be included. Union/staff participation is a good question but one he doesn’t know the answer to.

Chris asks that he talk to DOP about this question and get more information on the process, explaining the Federation is asking about involvement, and that he will get back to us with more information. 

In the meantime, Debbie will gather some general information on how DOP does class studies these days, including when and at what steps employee and/or union involvement occurs. She will follow-up with Chris in a week to find out what he’s found out.

Water Resources Process Improvement  - Maia Bellon, Deputy PM for the Water Resources program, explained their intention to do some process improvement regarding water rights processing. This is a major activity for the program. The last legislative session passed SB6267, requesting the program prepare a report analyzing the activities of the program, funding and fee structure, and provide recommendations on self-sustainability and efficiencies. The program did so. Several efficiencies were identified. Currently, 7,000 water rights permits are backlogged, including 5,500 new applications plus 1,500 seeking changes and transfers of existing permits. The legislature has asked Ecology to identify how to get a handle on the backlog. As a result, the program has reviewed process improvement strategies and chosen “Lean Methods” offered through DOP. Training on the process will be offered on 11/22 and 11/23 to 18 program employees (more signed up than there was room for but additional training may be offered at a later date).  After the training, several “LEAN events” will be scheduled to look at the steps/phases in the permit process. The goal is to empower staff to identify ways to move permits through the process more efficiently, manage workload, and increase morale.

Due to time constraints, the follow agenda items didn’t get fully addressed: 

NWRO After-Hours Spill Responder in BFO – Debbie and Kasey will send a letter following-up on this issue and explaining our concerns.

Employee communication – This was a follow-up item. Chris Parsons will send an update. 

PDP Training – Chris will send an e-mail, explaining where they are at with this issue. 

Posting out-of-state Travel Freeze – This issue was to explain the agency’s response to a safety concern with posting information about out-of-state travel. They will not be posting this information until after the travel takes place, to protect employees from possible theft, etc. Unfortunately, Ecology doesn’t have control over when OFM puts the information on-line but they will control the timing of the information that Ecology posts.

Next meeting – We’ll start looking at dates in January.

Rebekah asked if the agency can notify everyone that the 9-80’s pilot (Furloughs MOU)  is being extended? –Yes 

She also asked about the commitment to get an e-mail out to all to make sure retirement contributions were not impacted for part-timers out on a furlough. Polly explained she did make this commitment but hasn’t followed through yet because she had a mistaken understanding of what the furlough law protects. They are trying to figure it out. Chris will send out a communication on this, too. (FYI - The confusion is whether or not the law protects, in addition to the “Average final compensation” calculation, full service credits for parttime employees who work less than 90 hours in a month due to a furlough). Chris intends to talk to DRS about this and get it clarified as the law doesn’t specifically address is, though everyone thinks that was the intent.

We’ll follow up with the remaining issues via e-mail.

The Director did show up at 4:06. Kerry shared that we were happy with the improvements at the last all-staff meeting – a definite improvement over what happened at the prior one. A lot of issues were raised that we’ve been bringing to UMCC, which was good because it allows a much broader audience to hear the answers to questions.

Rebekah agreed the format was better but more than one week lead time would be better. Polly’s facilitation was good. We liked the thoughtful responses. Having the meeting on a day other than Friday would be great.

Rebekah responded to his request at the last all-staff for personal impacts from the furloughs. She knows of one employee who is cashing in some of her retirement to pay for firewood this winter. Another is being forced out of her house and into their parent’s house and is considering leaving her job. Choices between medications and food are being made by some employees. (NWRO employees are impacted severely due to the high cost of living in that area). She’d like to see him participate more in UMCC – we really appreciate Polly, Pat, Chris, the others, - but think that this is a good way for him to be involved with staff and the regions.

Also, we’d like to see a meeting with Ted and the stewards and UMCC team. Ted would be happy to meet. Kerry will have someone call his assistant and get that scheduled.

Ted asked if there were other ideas to identify and solve problems and identify solutions?

Kerry suggested that Ecology implement DSHS’s on-line forum similar to DSHS’s iESA – which allows employee feedback and comments to articles on their internal web page. Debbie will identify a DSHS contact for Ecology to talk to about what kind of capacity it requires, what problems it creates/solves, etc.

Making lemonade from furlough lemons –

By The Editors
  
We asked some of our members to send us stories about how people are coping with the furlough.  Trying to make the best of a bad situation can help and it doesn’t hurt to keep your sense of humor, either. The following were sent in by members across the agency.

Let them eat cake!


Kaia Petersen from the Hazardous Waste Toxics Reduction Unit at Southwest makes “Furlough Cakes” and brings them in for her section to share.  Kaia already has a reputation for being a fantastic cook and baker, so she has no problem enticing people throughout the region to cruise by and grab a slice.  So far she’s treated the section and other lucky people who catch wind of it, to such cakes as chocolate pound cake and apple cake.  She has pulled out her cookbooks and is busy plotting cakes to bring in for each month there is a furlough day.  Kaia is humble about her talent and often says that “people will eat anything.”  Fortunately, with her baked goods, it isn’t difficult!
Joe Cason and Nannette Brooks “caught” 
with furlough cakes

Ten things to do on your furlough day

In the tradition of the “top ten” lists of the Late Show…

1. Make a great meal with Hamburger Helper and generic-brand spaghetti.
2. Dress like a hobo and ride a freight train.
3. Look for part-time work at a local farm. If there’s no work at local farms, see #2.
4. Fill out the forms to apply for Medicaid.
5. Make furlough cakes to bring to the office.
6. Sell some of your backyard produce at a busy public location. Apples are always popular.
7. Put on a blues album and sing along. Or howl like a dog if you get tired of singing.
8. Go to your house of worship and confess your sin of being a greedy state employee living like a leech on the taxpayers of the state.
9. Go to the union hall or phone or email your union Local and ask how you can help.
10. Call the Governor and your legislators and tell them you are mad as hell at how they are treating you and you plan to use every furlough day to fight back.

Attend OktoberFest-themed furlough rally on Oct. 11

Furlough rally planned for October 11 at Sylvester Park, Olympia from 11 AM - 3 PM

• Food & Music
• Fight the Furloughs
• Update: Health Care & Negotiations
• Guest speakers
• Legislative Info and more.....

Helping others in need


Members from Local 1253 near the Richland Field Office, including Ecology activists, used a recent furlough day to collect and deliver pet food to low income seniors needing assistance to feed their furry companions. 

Kathy Conaway, one of the participants, said “It felt good to do something positive with the time and to help some people.”

Ideas for belt tightening times

• 
In moderation, enjoy good food, enough exercise and positive thoughts – and thus make room for belt tightening.
• Join a carpool, vanpool, ride a bicycle or walk more – it will save money and help the environment to boot.

• Get involved and advocate for the highest good – otherwise, someone else will decide for you.

• Make a list of things you have been wanting to do – Turn off the TV and see what you can accomplish.

• Keep in close touch with the important people in your life – friends, family, work, your banker.
• Find a way to “wish” for what you need – letting someone know your needs is most of the way to receiving your wishes.

• Put a light under your passions – it will be your mirror to the world and make you feel good, too.

• Remember to have compassion - even your worst day is exceeded many times over by those less fortunate.

• Anything is possible - for those who believe in themselves and what they can accomplish.

• The more ideas the better – just take a little time each day and add your own thoughts to this short list

■

An Update on Furlough Grievances

By Rebekah Padgett
     
As we wrap up our third month of furloughs/temporary layoffs, we're learning more about how employees are being impacted.  In July and August, staff working innovative work schedules (such as 9/80 or 4/10) are getting an extra 1-2 hour "ding" above the 8 hours that other full-time staff are receiving.  Whether we chose innovative work schedules to minimize traffic under the commute reduction program or for other reasons, it's unfair to receive this penalty.  We've filed grievances to rectify this inequity.  The grievance was presented at a hearing and we are awaiting a response from Ecology management.
  

A memorandum of understanding between state agencies and the union doesn't fix all of the issues that have come up, but it does set out some fixes to furlough implementation.  For example, those on the 4/10 schedule are allowed to change their schedule for furlough weeks to a 5/8 schedule.  Those on the 9/80 schedule can make a similar schedule change for furlough weeks for September and October, though this is a pilot so we don't know what will happen come November.
    

Finally, Article 34.6 in our contract doesn't allow for the state to reduce employee hours below 20 hours per week. Part-time staff working under 25 hours per week are being forced under the 20 hour mark by the furloughs.  Falling below 20 hours a week ends up impacting retirement eligibility for these individuals.

More grievances have been filed over this issue. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact a union steward in your region. ■

Grievances related to furloughs (number of employees)

• Spill responder exemption: 7
• Part-time below 20 hours: 2
• Alternative Schedule: 78.   

Thoughts on the “Q&A” All Staff Meeting –

By Kerry Graber

I was asked by others to write a response to the all staff meeting held recently by video conferencing.  I’ve been asked to do some tough things lately, but this is one of the toughest. 

I want to be careful about what I say, because I’ve been a proponent in the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) of these direct meetings between management and staff.  I and others continue to urge our leaders to provide clear, direct, and accurate information directly to you, and to allow you direct access to them.  
    What I heard at the Q&A session echoes what coworkers shared with me before the meeting, that the furloughs and their implementation are painful.  By contrast I found myself sitting next to someone in the audience who at various intervals muttered to her neighbor that everyone should just quit whining, and that she was tired of hearing the complaints.

Certainly the applause of anti-union sentiment toward the end made me feel tired, tired on behalf of my fellow activists who have been working so hard for everyone, and tired on behalf of the union staff who are busy suing, filing grievances, and fighting for our right to negotiate over the impacts of management decisions.
     Then I remembered who I am fighting for.  I remembered the receptionist who has been trying to avoid it, but qualifies for Medicaid and really needs to apply even with state salary and benefits.  (About 30% of state employees are estimated to qualify for Medicaid).  I remembered the people at NWRO that are losing their homes because they can’t make their mortgage payments and the property taxes of living in or near Bellevue.  I remembered the person who lost out on a chance to buy a home with Obama’s housing credit because someone in Human Resources told the bank the furloughs would cut her salary too low to qualify.  I remembered all the families who rely on one state salary because a spouse lost their job.  It is with great concern and renewed determination that I resolve to keep speaking out for them.

But where is the empathy for these people in the hearts of Ecology’s leaders? When nervous jokes and uneasy banter take the place of a heart-felt apology, I wonder about this “Ecology” that is being remembered so fondly as a special place to work.  As one person said during the meeting, if a wedge is being driven between management and staff, it is by these leaders who claim to have your best interests at heart, but refuse to fight for you downtown. 

A person in my region stopped me in the hall and said, 

“Someone has to fight for us, because we didn’t cause the financial crisis and we shouldn’t be the ones to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes.”

The Federation and the collective action of union members are the only shield we have from whatever is next as the state’s economy continues to worsen. 

So I ask you, don’t believe the excuses you were told by our leaders at the Q&A.  It is the Federation and fellow union members who are duking it out in the courts, in the legislature, at the negotiating table and in the media on your behalf. 

It was management delays that pushed negotiations on the furlough impacts past the deadline.  It was OFM that insisted the furloughs be implemented in the worst possible way.  It is our management who decided to march to Governor Gregoire’s drumbeat for the sake of “being trusted” to follow orders.

 Our agency leaders gamble that by being good soldiers, Ecology will weather the next storm by being protected as a kind of quid pro quo.  Even I, optimist that I am, do not believe that will pay off.  It is the hardworking people at Ecology who will pay for this hubris in layoffs, health care increases and maybe even more furloughs.  
    It accomplishes nothing to turn co-worker against co-worker at this difficult time.  Please, get active and help us fight for you.  No one cares if you’ve been anti-union in the past. We need your help.   ■

Furloughs - Governor to Employees: “Drop Dead!”

By Rebekah Padgett and Paul Pickett

Your union and your member leaders have been fighting hard to stop or mitigate employee furloughs (“temporary layoffs”).  First WFSE staff and members fought to block SSB 6503 (the furlough bill) which was finally passed by the legislature signed by the Governor into law in April. Then member leaders - stewards and the UMCC – listened to employees and raised their issues to agency management. Despite all our efforts, state managers have ignored the union, refusing to develop an agency plan to mitigate furlough impacts on employees.

By now you’ve probably read Ted’s e-mail.  At 22 other agencies an almost identical e-mail has been sent out to staff.  We want to fill you in on the rest of the furlough story.

WFSE filed a demand to bargain on furloughs because the state has proceeded with plans for implementation without bargaining (a requirement of our contract).  WFSE will bargain over the furloughs on a statewide level.  OFM has yet to schedule that bargaining with the union. 

Furlough FAQ
Based on your input we developed a full page list of questions about the furloughs, including how it will work for staff with part-time and flex schedules, those funded by federal dollars, and Spills responders.  We gave Ecology management that list in April.  Ted’s e-mail has a link to a DOP page that provides some answers, and Ecology management has provided responses as well in Inside Ecology.

Furlough Alternatives
The furlough bill states that agencies need to implement compensation reductions and allows for agency plans to be developed to meet these reductions.  The 10 furlough days are to be implemented if an alternative plan is not prepared.  Member leaders urged Ted and Polly to develop an alternative plan. We developed a list of alternatives to furloughs that could meet or exceed the $3.2M overall savings required under the bill, and presented it to management.  Our list includes:

• Elimination of funded vacancies (management said is this is not an option, although we’ve heard that the State Attorney General’s office is doing it).

• Accounting for educational and voluntary unpaid leave. (although many employees told us they would be willing to take extra days of unpaid leave, management says not enough people would be willing to do this and that it would be too hard for the agency to track) 

• Providing incentives for early retirement. (the State Department of Commerce has done this, even though Ecology management told us this isn’t an option.) 

• Now Ecology management has announced that it will not submit a plan, instead falling back to the 10 furlough days. 

Furlough Equity?
Ecology management stated that the Governor has told all cabinet agencies that she wants to see buildings shut down on the same days in order to have a noticeable impact to the public.  However, according to union and media, some 75% of state employees are exempted from furloughs.  We’ve also heard the Governor say that some agencies won’t have 10 furlough days.  So the impact of the state government closures is watered down.  Also, it’s unfair for only 25% of state employees to bear the burden of furloughs. 

On a recent visit to NWRO, Ted said that if the agencies did develop plans and found furlough alternatives, it would look like we could absorb the cuts, and agencies could get hit even harder next session.  So it seems that it’s more of a political than financial issue.

Mitigation for Furloughs
In May, we also provided management with a list of mitigation approaches to maximize flexibility and mitigation of pay if furloughs are implemented.  Examples include allowing staff to take “voluntary temporary layoff” days on days of our own choosing in place of furlough days, select our own furlough days if we have to take them, and determine what work won’t get done so we’re not trying to do the same work in fewer days.  By the way, Ted said he doesn’t want to see “do same with less” or “do more with less” and asked us to prioritize our work and talk to managers about what timelines may need to be adjusted. 

So far, the only positive response we’ve seen is management’s acknowledgement that staff would get a double whammy in March 2011 with two paycheck hits in one month.

What Can We Do Now?
While we wait for the furlough bargaining to work its way through the system, we’re still working to find ways to lessen the impacts.  Here’s what you can do:

• Read the three documents that Ecology member leaders developed: furlough questions, alternatives, and mitigations. They are posted on our Ecology blog at  http://wfsec2-Ecology.blogspot.com/

• Block out the furlough dates on your calendar.  

• Begin a discussion with your supervisor about reducing your workload to address the lost time from the furlough days.

• Keep in mind that the furloughs are still subject to bargaining.

• Call WFSE Carol Dotlich (WFSE Council 28 President) and Greg Devereux (WFSE Executive Director) at 1-800-562-6002 (on your own time and with a personal phone) and ask them to go to the mat for us.  We’ve passed resolutions at the Local level asking them to seek an injunction and fight the furloughs, but they need to hear from you.

 Read the WFSE Hotline (on www.wfse.org, or you can subscribe to an email feed) to find out the latest information on how WFSE is responding to the furlough situation. ■

UMCC Continues to Push for a More Transparent Budget, Process

By Kerry Graber
For a full text of  Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) notes and agendas for April, May, and future meetings check the blog address above.

Since Ecology management declined to continue talks with the UMCC Budget Ad-hoc committee, the regular UMCC committee meetings have been largely taken up with discussions about implementing Ecology’s Book 2 budget.  Committee members, with the addition of Scott Mallery, Budget Ad-hoc Committee chair, continue to question Pat McLain and Polly Zehm about potential lay-offs, the health of various dedicated accounts, and the impacts of further general fund reductions and furloughs.  It has been a mutually frustrating experience as we try to navigate terminology and understand each other’s point of reference.

I have been personally challenged over the tone of one of the articles in this newsletter that reflected the level of frustration over the lack of transparency in budget matters at Ecology.  I understand this is the reason that future meetings with the Ad-Hoc Budget Committee were declined by management.
Reflecting on this I told the UMCC committee that we have to strive to be clear, and if possible, more straight forward when we ask for something, including why we are asking for it.  We have to realize that the perspectives from the staff level are very different than those at the management level.  We have to continue a respectful dialogue, even when we are frustrated.  Even so, the refusal to meet with the ad-hoc committee feels retaliatory. 

For my part it makes the UMCC meetings less effective because we have been denied our request to have the more budget-savvy members also present.  In this case the contract is being used by management to limit the membership to seven, with a concession of adding only one additional person (Scott).

I’ve had time to take a deeper look at the dynamics of the UMCC process in light of what we’ve all been through in these tough budget times.  I asked myself, why would our management be surprised that we express frustration and rancor?

We’ve asked Ecology’s management to trim their investment in the WMS/EMS system and save staff level jobs. Their response to this has been negligible.  Ecology remains one of the biggest users of the two management systems, with 16% of staff at Ecology either WMS or EMS. 

They have told us they must lay off people; we’ve been through two waves and are approaching a third wave.  Now we are asked to make a public sacrifice of 5% of our salary through furloughs.  They are surprised that we want to know how they are spending money?

The bulletin article on budget asserted there were two possible explanations for the lack of detailed information.  One possibility was a deliberate withholding of the information we asked for.  The other was that the people in charge of the overall budget actually do not know the answers when they should.

I have come to believe the truth is something far more complicated.  It is clear from recent discussions at the last UMCC meeting that the Programs hold the information we are looking for.  Our assumptions that the top managers would know the answers, would need to know the kinds of information we want to know in order to run the agency, are incorrect.  The big budget picture is held, I am sure, with great care and accountability by Pat and the management team.  They believe it is all they need to operate the agency because their concerns are big picture concerns that do not involve detail. They simply do not need to know on a daily or even weekly basis how many funded vacancies there are in the agency or even how they are funded. 

The program budgets that roll up into the big picture are the domain of each program manager.  It was stated to the UMCC in our last discussion that system works on the basis of trust.  Trust that the program managers, and their WMS budget planners, are managing allotments correctly and for the greater good of the agency.  While this apparently feels natural to the managers we meet with in the UMCC meetings, it has caused me to wonder about accountability.

Would a system of trust pass an audit from the State Auditor’s Office...if they could get someone to explain it to them? 

The concerns I have are not without basis.  The first wave of layoffs were caused by over spending in the Water Quality Program, and underperformance of their permit fee fund.  Conveying concerns about whether there is anyone at the wheel of this supertanker is our challenge both as communicators and representatives of Ecology members.

Your UMCC representatives remain resolved to push for a transparent budget, an “open-book” system, so we can all know with a degree of certainty that yes, sacrifices are necessary and yes, all alternatives to our sacrifice have been employed. Please encourage and support your elected representative, this is really hard work. ■

Ted's Regional Visits

By Rebekah Padgett

In an unprecedented effort by an agency director, Ted Sturdevant is heading to all of Ecology’s offices to spend time getting to know the regions and the work that we do.  May 10-13 was NWRO’s turn.  Ted kicked off the visit by meeting with the Regional Management Team and then held an All Staff Meeting.  There was a lot of emotion in the room as applause broke out in support of staff concerns about furloughs.  Ted met with many of the program sections and went on a few tours. 

While most of the visit was heavily programmed with program section meetings and tours, and there was little opportunity for one-on-one contact with staff, our RD made sure that I got in to chat with Ted (thank you Jeannie!).  I had a good meeting with Ted in which we discussed several issues from workload to furloughs to the need for action on geographic pay.  Throughout our meeting I pointed out that the dollar doesn’t stretch as far here as it does elsewhere, so each of these cuts deeper for staff at NWRO.  I also told him that the furlough is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many.  He indicated that being in our office, talking with us this week, did build his understanding of the challenges we face in this region. 

Ted committed to talking with Jay Manning (former ECY Director and current Chief of Staff for Gov. Gregoire) about the furlough issue.  He later told me that there was a “vigorous discussion” at the cabinet retreat last week that included the Governor, but you see where that got us.

I followed up by sending Ted the geographic pay report that we provided to Jeannie, Jay, and Gov. Gregoire.  By the way, if anyone is willing to spend some time updating the report with more current data/research, let me know.

Ted has already made it to NWRO and CRO, but as he makes his rounds to other regions, be sure to get in to talk with him about regional issues, the salary survey, and how the cuts are hurting you (increased health care costs, furloughs, pay inequity with peers outside of the agency, etc.). 

We asked that he make more time in his schedule for one-on-one meetings with staff.  Here’s the current schedule for upcoming visits:

SWRO: split over 6/9-6/10 and 9/13-9/14
BFO: tentatively 7/14-7/15
ERO: week of 7/19

Note: A request to provide time for individual appointments has been made to the SWRO Regional Director.   ■

Ecology Bargaining Unit Begins Strategic Plan Update

Did you know we have a strategic plan?  It is out of date.  Member-leaders are getting together on June 12 to review where we’ve been and where we need to go as a bargaining unit.

If you would like to be in the loop attend the next bargaining unit meeting.  Meetings are held monthly on the second Tuesday of the month at noon.  Check for meeting room assignments at HQ/SWRO or with the stewards in your office on how to attend.

Furlough fight heats up

DSHS IN A DITHER OVER INITIALS IN UNION’S FURLOUGH BUTTONS

From the WFSE.org Hotline 6/1/10

Management representatives in the Department of Social and Health Services have raised objections to the Federation’s “No Furloughs!” buttons.



They apparently are aghast at the art design where the first two letters of the word “furloughs” are made to stand out. They allege that this stands for a scatological term that actually has the initials “FY.”  ■

DSHS, 22 OTHER AGENCIES GIVE UP ON ALTERNATIVES, ANNOUNCE FURLOUGHS STARTING JULY 12; BARGAINING PENDING
From the WFSE.org Hotline 6/2

/10  

The Department of Social and Health Services and 22 other agencies have thrown up their hands and refused to come up with alternatives to employee furloughs.

 

The Office of Financial Management today (June 2) in a letter to Federation Executive Director Greg Devereux said the 23 agencies will not submit a compensation reduction plan. That means the default option—10 furlough days from July 12, 2010, to June 10, 2011.

 

“It is not in the department’s best interest to submit a different compensation reduction plan to OFM,” DSHS Secretary Susan Dreyfus told employees in an e-mail today.

 

Both OFM and Dreyfus said bargaining will take place and only then will a list of exempt and non-exempt job classes be available.

 

In a sign of how far out in the stratosphere management is, they have stopped using the term “furloughs” because of the union’s “NO FURLOUGHS!” buttons. Instead, they call the furloughs “temporary layoffs.”

 

The Federation as you know has filed demands to bargain and is contemplating other action. We are following court proceedings in New York and California where AFSCME overturned furloughs. But we have to build a case on our state’s particular furlough plan because the New York and California furloughs were overturned on a different set of facts. Stay tuned.  The 23 agencies that have declared they will not seek alternative plans are: 

Agriculture; Arts Commission; Commerce; Corrections; Criminal Justice Training Commission; Social and Health Services; Early Learning; Ecology; Employment Security; Fish and Wildlife; General Administration; Health; Health Care Authority; Human Rights Commission; Information Services; Labor and Industries; Licensing; Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises; Recreation and Conservation Office; Services for the Blind; Utilities and Transportation Commission; Veterans Affairs; and Workforce

Agenda for UMCC, May 26, 2010

• Overtime Eligibility Audit update – status report

  Is the IT audit already completed?  Results?  Who is next?

• Budget
• Follow-up with Pat – budget corrections have been made with OFM?
• Vacant funded positions – Amy provided two different numbers, which one is correct?  Why isn’t the funding source for each funded vacancy readily available?

• Lay-off – rumors at NWRO of administrative lay-off; confirm vacant positions eliminated


• Temporary Lay-off/furlough – vacancy rate illustrate there is no need for lay-off; updated documents developed by stewards with questions, alternatives, and mitigations (we will provide copies); still no clarity about whether federally funded workers will be exempt from furlough


• 2011-2013 Budget Process – How can we engage?  Including line staff in a meaningful way; two examples where the conversation is started with staff during program planning


• Government Reform follow up – Current thinking about reducing Ecology’s investment in middle management and WMS/EMS.

• Training needed on Position Description Forms (PDF) and Evaluation Process for all employees, managers – current process is arduous; making evaluation process functional and productive; avoiding common pitfalls

• Acknowledgements on communication efforts
• Paperless pay stub – please clarify for all that printing it out at work is okay, as we agreed.
• Ted’s regional and field office visits

Ecology UMCC meeting notes, 4-30-10

Present:

• WFSE: Kerry Graber - chair, Charles San Juan, Paul Pickett, Roger Johnson, Scott Mallery, Rebekah Padgett, Kasey Ignac (7 attendees)

• Management: Carol Fleskes, Polly Zehm, Pat McLain, Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Corinna McElfish, Ted Sturdevant (7 attendees)

Budget Update –

Kerry offered a couple of thoughts. The last leg session was tough though Ecology did pretty well. But, state employees overall took a beating on health care benefits, furloughs, etc. We ask that management stay sensitive to employees feeling demoralized and beat-up over the whole experience. We are looking for opportunities to collaborate to mitigate impacts. We appreciate the information that’s been sent out so far to the extent that the details are not yet worked.

Pat provided a budget update. She recently published a relatively long article on inside Ecology. She’s updating the budget snapshot for the public web page. Most of the natural resources agencies did ok this session but prior budgets had significant reductions. This cannot be forgotten. For the new budget, a couple of things are being worked on. One reduction – WR data collection – was not characterized correctly. The intent was to take the reduction in WR but it got listed for EAP. This needs to be corrected and spread out farther. There are a number of unspecified cuts. 5% admin cut to be spread across the admin programs. There are 2 pilot map teams for eastern and western Washington to be paid for under Toxics but it was unspecified so they have to find the funds. There was an error on the punch list that was incorrectly taken from the biosolids program fund that didn’t exist. There should be recommended fixes available to Ted by 5/10/10. Longer term budget issues are the adjustments due to the temporary layoffs/furloughs. Even longer term, she anticipates pressure on the general fund will continue into the next legislative session.

Scott asked about the timeframe for the layoffs. Pat said there are no timeline or specifics from OFM available yet.

Charles asked about the water resources IT cuts. Pat said there is a cut to the data collection money for in-stream flow and gauging work.

Scott thanked Amy for replying with the information on vacancies and overall FTE counts, though he realizes that she needs to talk to Debbie about one of the requests. Scott asked about the funding sources – he understands that HR doesn’t track the funding for the FTE’s but does Amy know if any of the vacancies are funded by General Fund? Amy said she does not know and it will take time to obtain this information from the programs.  This is what she needed to talk to Debbie about.

Pat updated us on the dedicated accounts. They are all in positive account balances except for 704, where there is a small cash deficit but it will rebuild in June. The Legislature over-appropriated the local toxics account by about $1 million but this is not likely to be a problem – it almost always gets re-appropriated. We’re looking to the June forecast to know more about the health of the dedicated accounts. We don’t anticipate any big threats.

Rebekah asked about a couple of job postings that recently showed up on the intranet. Did those have to go through the exception process and were they considered as options for anyone who may be laid off? Polly replied that yes, these went through OFM for approval. A series of positions in Richland have been sent over for exception. They are funded federally for Hanford clean-up work. They are being posted internally and externally, at the same time, but very few internal candidates typically apply for Richland positions. So, the impacts to employees with layoffs options are minimal. Layoffs, if they occur, will likely be in the administrative programs rather than the environmental programs – the posted positions would be unlikely to be viable options. For the fiscal office position(s), they went through the exception process and opened both internally/externally, as this is also a position that has few likely internal candidates. They checked the layoff lists prior to posting for recruitment. Polly reiterated her prior message – they don’t want to fill positions from outside state service to only have to bump the new hires soon thereafter. So they continue to analyze positions closely before deciding to fill them. A number of requests are anticipated from the environmental programs to fill additional vacancies. These will also have to go through the exceptions process. Rebekah requested that these be opened internally first for 7-14 days. Polly replied that there have been discussions with HR regarding when to do this – if the goal is to reduce layoff impacts, those impacts are unlikely in the environmental programs. Rebekah clarified that it also has to do with the temporary layoffs – these funded vacancies might mitigate some of the furlough under an alternate plan, if we negotiate a more creative way to deal with the furlough requirement.  Additionally, we want opportunities for internal candidates.

Paul explained that there is a lot of need for folks who are looking for opportunities to promote and/or get into a new position. They like to see the agency support current employees by offering them first shot and providing some mobility, even in these tough times.

Chris thinks he has some statistics that show internal compared to external hiring that will help correct the perception that internal candidates are not being hired – there is a lot more internal hiring than external. Polly expressed a concern;  Is it really necessary to limit recruitment to internal candidates only? Internal candidates are usually the best candidates and shouldn’t be afraid to compete against those from outside.

Joan explained how valuable it is for employees to hear messages about how valued they are and posting internally supports this message by putting actions behind the words.

Scott asked about whether or not our motor pool will be turned over to General Administration.

Carol Fleskes responded to this issue. The Governor has identified IT and motor pool consolidation as two initiatives that are being evaluated. GA is looking into how to manage a state motor pool collectively but there are challenges. Preliminary discussions have occurred but Ecology is a challenge for them – GA is really only interested in our regular cars, not the specialty vehicles. Ecology’s response to GA is all or nothing, so we’re not really high on GA’s priority list. Carol’s best guess is that we won’t see dramatic changes in how the motor pool is handled. She is working hard to minimize any impacts to agency employees, if changes do occur. Scott asked that we be kept in the loop.

Carol explained that we need to find IT savings. The idea behind consolidation is that there should be efficiencies if things are done more globally, e.g. purchases, operations, etc (economy of scale). There’s been a lot of discussion about how to do the transition to the new state data center – how to pay for it, how it will work, etc. There is a lot of concern here. She asked for suggestions on how we believe the IT can be handled differently. She has to report to OFM by mid-July.

Joan explained that she works with DIS and GA and the concept for us has been that the employees go with the work, if there is consolidation. This makes sense for the agencies because they have expertise still available, even if they’re not agency employees. Joan recommends that Ecology make sure over the next year that IT employees continue to develop the highest level of skills and abilities – otherwise DIS won’t want them and you’ll lose that resource. Carol appreciated this information.

Furloughs –

Paul explained he’s been doing some tabling here in Ecology HQ and received quite a bit of feedback from employees on furloughs. He handed out a “Summary of the comments and questions…” document that came from this feedback. In addition, there were some ideas that came out of the tabling. There isn’t consensus on the direction to go but these are ideas and values that fell out of the comments we received.

• Mixed views on building closures. Some employees feel they need to be available due to obligations under federal/state law. If the building gets closed, it would make sense that it be treated as a weekend or holiday. This would allow employees to treat it like an after-hours situation where they could be present, even if the building is closed.
• Employees would like to see the agency develop an individual plan to reduce the budget. It could mitigate the pay losses and provide for greater flexibility. We know this will take work on the part of the agency and some resources.
• Employees seem willing to take unpaid time if it helps others. This is in the form of voluntary retirement, taking extended LWOP (more than one day).
• We like the idea of “voluntary” temporary layoffs, as opposed to mandatory temporary layoffs. This could increase the savings and reduce the amount of furlough days overall. If the ALF system can be modified, it would be a lot easier to track and submit.
• It is vital that supervisors talk to employees about how workload will be managed and what work will not be done, as a result of losing 10 work days.

Polly explained they are in on-going discussions with OFM. The starting place is that 10-days of furloughs will occur, per the schedule in the legislation, and there will be a building closure. Ecology is not exempt except for the Spills responders. We’re not starting from a position of being able to build a flexible plan specific to Ecology.  The cabinet agencies are being told there will be consistency across agencies.

That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to talk about, as far as the ideas Paul put out there, but some are inconsistent with the 10 days. There may be some opportunities to allow some minor adjustments that could be worked out. Polly says the money Ecology needs to save has to be achieved through salary savings from existing employees. Polly is hearing that employees want certainty. She needs to decide at what time they tell employees to go ahead and put those dates on calendars. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Kerry raised a concern regarding an e-mail sent by a well-intentioned Spills supervisor, basically telling employees that spill responders will NOT be exempt. We’d like some clarity on this asap. We’d also like to see managers be cautioned with messages like this, until more is known. We also saw a message from an IT supervisor essentially saying it’s a done deal and he/she doesn’t want to hear any more about it. The agency-level messages have been clear about the uncertainty, but there are a few “cowboy” supervisors out there who seem to be sending information out that jumps the gun.

Kasey commented that staff have consistently told her they need to have some control over this. We have faced so much adversity during the legislative session and from the public. Some of the scheduled days don’t make sense with our work – they’re random – and we have business needs and personal needs that the dates don’t account for. We would like to see flexibility on this. Rebekah confirmed that this is the case in NWRO, too.

Roger raised a number of questions, how will 4-10’s schedules be handled, what about the March 2011 pay dates when both pay checks are impacted, etc. Polly explained that these questions do need to be answered. She thinks the answers will likely be consistent across state agencies.

Joan suggested that the agency make it clear to employees what the law allows, i.e. that buildings be closed if furloughs occur. She also asked that low-paid employees, those eligible for the use of leave during the furlough days, know as soon as possible so they can bank their leave in time to use it to cover these dates. Are they planning on using the shared leave pool?

Chris/Polly – yes, they want to use the shared leave pool. Ecology doesn’t have too many employees who qualify for the shared leave but want to minimize the impact to lower-paid employees.

Paul asked who is making the decision that Ecology can’t implement an alternative plan?

Polly said OFM is providing guidance on how to develop alternative plans. However, the direction to the cabinet agencies is that there will be consistent implementation of the face-value of the legislation, i.e. 10-furlough days across agencies all on the same days. There seems to be some value placed on making the public see what happens when government shuts down for 10 days. If the agencies mitigate the impact to the public and the employees, no one will notice. Additionally there is a high burden to administrate this – we don’t want to burden state employees just because it would be too complicated otherwise but we have to face the reality on this. Polly said this is not intended to preclude good faith bargaining.

Polly explained there might be some room for people to take an alternative day if there is a specific issue such as monitoring the agriculture burn season. She appreciates the questions we provided. They are gathering them, too, and will be posting a Q&A on the intranet website.

Overtime (OT) Eligibility Audit –

Chris shared that they took a step back and are now looking at job classes across the agency, rather than one program at a time. Roll-out won’t occur very quickly. He just did a class on OT eligibility for supervisors/managers this last week. It will take several weeks to get the training done across the state. Once they get ready to roll-out, they’ll also be setting up information sessions for employees on what the changes mean.

Debbie asked that we schedule a meeting, either formal or informal, to discuss the issues raised in the “demand to bargain” she filed over changes to the minimum qualifications. The grievances have been pended, too, and we are probably in a place where we can talk about this now. During the meeting we should discuss the possibility of a Memorandum of Understanding that makes some Ecology job classes as unscheduled/Appendix B (given this, we’d probably need to meet formally). Debbie will send an e-mail requesting that this be scheduled (this has been done – db 5/6/10)

Timesheet Streamlining –

Kerry asked where we’re at with the development of an updated, streamlined interface. Pat explained Debbie Stewart, Ann-Marie Sweet, and others are on an advisory group. They were given four options to consider. It’s gotten a little sidetracked. Pat admitted that she’s the roadblock to moving forward. All the options cost money. She’s been raising questions about spending money at this time given all the other impacts to the budget. She’s not sure this is a high enough priority to justify the expense. It will be reviewed in mid-May by the ITS steering committee. Also, it’s anticipated that OFM will replace this system in the future, reducing the priority even more.

Charles sits on the committee and explained that it is a little disconcerting to employees to see all the money being spent on contracting-out. But, we can’t spend $45,000 to fix this and make employees lives so much easier. Kerry further explained that there is a cost to the agency to continue doing what we are doing – it takes so much more time to do all the input, correct errors from double entry, the cost is indirect but it’s there.

Pat said she understands this. The issue is going to be discussed mid-May and a decision should be made. Kerry asked that if the decision is made to not move forward, that the communication about this be thoughtful. This idea came out of the government reform ideas submitted by employees. It’s going to be a big deal if it doesn’t happen. It will need to be explained.

Another problem pointed out by Charles and affirmed by Pat is that some of the technical IT staff believe the development of an interface for direct entry to the existing system is not technically feasible.  Charles expressed concern that if this is true, this should have been discovered before any other question was answered.

Communication from the Spills Program –

Kerry explained we had a good experience at a recent “demand to bargain” session regarding the Spills conference/mandatory training. Scott explained it became apparent that ERO isn’t in the loop like they need to be, due to the loss of the supervisor position (now located in CRO). This has resulted in some communications not being sent out to ERO staff. And, the communication that is being sent out from Spills is often very dictatorial and not very considerate. This is especially true for the after-hours responders who feel that they are being taken for granted. There needs to be a more conscious effort by the Spills Program to get information out via multiple methods, multiple messages. It’s not enough to send one note or to bury some information in meeting notes that may or may not get filtered down to the line-level, especially for those who don’t work directly in Spills.

Amy agreed it was a good bargaining session and the message about communication was understood. They were not previously aware of the communication breakdown. They are aware now and are addressing it.

Kerry will continue to bring communication issues up – there are some morale issues in Spills and making HR and the UMCC aware of these will help solve them.

Union Activities –

Kerry suggested that we talk about these outside UMCC as we’ve run out of time.

Governor signed the furlough bill; confusion reigns

Excerpted from the WFSE 4/27/10 HOTLINE: 

Gov. Chris Gregoire this afternoon (April 27) signed the furlough bill (ESSB 6503) into law. Expect bargaining on this issue.



The bill directs agencies to cut a total of $45 million in compensation costs, with $10 million coming from Washington Management Service and management-type jobs. Agencies can draw up their own plans using a number of options. If they don’t, the bill mandates 10 furlough/temporary layoff days between July 12 and June 30, 2011. Most state employees are exempt because they are in a public safety, health-related or other such position. Those making $30,000 or less can use leave time if they’re in a furlough-eligible class. In the end, only about 20 percent of state employees may even be eligible for furloughs.

    

And now we learn that where agencies do come up with an alternate plan to avoid mandatory furloughs, the governor wants all such agencies to close up shop on the same days—to avoid public confusion.

    

But clearly, the administration itself is confused.

    

This from today’s The Olympian:




“But (Budget Director Marty) Brown also acknowledged Monday that agencies and the administration have more questions than answers about how to make the furloughs work. ‘It’s lots more complicated than it would appear,’ Brown said….”

    

The governor’s team is realizing the furlough bill may end up being a costly way for the administration and legislators to say, “Let’s screw state employees even more.”

    

Here’s an excerpt from the rest of today’s story in The Olympian:



“Democratic Rep. Brendan Williams of Olympia said he thinks there is a risk the bill won’t save what it is designed to. 


“You look at the example of Oregon and they found this thing has created more problems and costs than were anticipated,’ Williams said Monday. ‘In some cases people have had to work overtime and bill overtime to make up for lost hours. It becomes an administrative nightmare because agencies are designed to be functional.’



“Williams said agencies are designed to provide services but the furloughs raise a question whether the state will stop doing laundry at veterans’ homes or perhaps will skip other work such as processing unemployment claims at the Employment Security Department.


“The Governor’s Office is aware of Oregon’s experience and concerned by it, Brown said. But he said the savings must be achieved, because Washington lawmakers reduced allocations to agencies.



"We are trying to get over the next couple weeks to see what it would take to make it work,’ Brown said. ‘If we shut this down, what are the ramifications? Does it mean the next day people have to work 10 hours? … We’re trying to be as thoughtful as we can … but it’s bumpy.’



“For instance, exempted activities are spelled out in the bill. But Brown said an exemption that protects academic or classroom activities in a community college leaves unclear how much support service must be provided to allow classes to go on.”



Ecology members are scheduled to discuss the furlough bill along with other budget concerns at Friday’s (April 30) Union Management Communications Committee.  Notes from this meeting will be posted here on our blog. 

UMCC Agenda Topics for Friday, April 30: 

• Communications From the Spills Program  
• Time Accounting – Status of Streamlining Project  
• Questions about consolidating into “shared services”  
• Budget Concerns and Furloughs 

Check with your UMCC representative to provide input or find out more. 

Check back here for postings to learn the outcome of our discussions.  ■

Should Ecology have it own local? Part 4: Creating an agency-based local - How is it done?

By Paul Pickett, Assistant Chief Steward

Some employee members of WFSE have been discussing whether Ecology should have its own agency-based Local. Over the last few months we havel explored this issue in a series of articles.

This is the fourth in a series of articles exploring an agency-based Local for Ecology. Previous articles discussed what a Local is and does, some of the trade-offs between a geographic and agency-based local, and how other agency-based Locals do business. This final article looks at process: if we wanted our own Local, how would we do it?

The fundamental requirement of creating a Local is approval by the International (AFSCME) Executive Board. The rest of the process leads to that event, based on principles of transparency and member inclusiveness. The International is most likely to approve a Local if the Council (WFSE) supports the proposal. And the Council is most likely to support the new Local if the existing Locals support the creation of a new Local. The process all starts with the members of the proposed new Local supporting the effort.

So the first step is to ensure support of members. These newsletter articles are part of the process of educating Ecology members about the issue. More information sharing and discussion is likely needed. Eventually Ecology members will need to show their support by their signatures on a petition.

By the rules, members need to petition the International. However, the logical first step is to petition the existing Local to support the new Local. So Ecology members in the Lacey building would petition Local 443 to pass a resolution in support of creating an Ecology Local.

Another step that could be included to demonstrate the support of members would be an advisory vote of members. If this course were desired, the petition could ask Local 443 to run an advisory vote of their Ecology members, and then support the new Local if the Ecology members vote in favor of it.

This process could be repeated in each of the field offices for their own geographic Local if members there wanted to join as “charter members” of the new Local. However, members in field offices could also wait until a new Local is created and later ask to be moved from their geographic Local to the agency Local.

Support of the existing Local is a key step. No formal action by WFSE would be needed. However, discussions with Council leadership would be critical to ensure that any concerns were being addressed and that they would support the decisions of Ecology members and the Locals.

If Ecology members supporting an agency Local were successful in these steps, they would be ready to submit a request to the International. Part of that submittal would be a draft Constitution and By-Laws that meet AFSCME’s requirements. Therefore, members would have to put together a process to develop these documents. A good approach may be to build off the existing Constitutions and By-Laws of other Locals, adding any unique Ecology touches that support our values. These documents would have a process of amendment included, so they don’t have to be perfect the first time around.

So finally, Ecology members would have demonstrated their support of the proposal, won support of existing Locals and WFSE leadership, and developed draft Constitution and By-Laws. They now could develop an application for a Charter for the new Local, which would include documentation of the process, and send it to the International for final approval. If all has gone well and the support is strong, AFSCME would create the new Local. The Ecology Local could then elects its officers and begin doing the Local’s business for its members.  .  ■

If you are interested in being part of the workgroup to explore Ecology forming its own Local, contact Paul Pickett, Rebekah Padgett, or Jim Wavada for more information.

March Union Management Communications Committee Report

– By Kerry Graber and Debbie Brookman

The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) met on March 22 in the first of on a new schedule of monthly meetings.  Meeting monthly was a suggestion from Ecology management to take up the coming budget issues and to allow more timely discussion of issues. 

Four topics of discussion were taken up at this meeting:  Communication Issues, Hiring while preparing to layoff; Overtime Eligibility Audit, and Budget

Present at the meeting:

Ecology Management: Chris Parsons – Human Resources (HR) Director, Corinna McElfish for HR, Pam Durham substituting for Amy Heller, HR labor relations, Polly Zehm, Deputy Director, and Pat McLain, Budget Manager

Ecology Representatives for WFSE: Kerry Graber –Chair and for SWRO, Marcie Mangold for CRO, Kasey Ignac for small Field Offices, Sally Lawrence for NWRO, Kathy Conaway for RFO, Kurt Unger for HQ, Scott Mallery – Resource,  Kerry Carrol - Resource, Rebecca Padgett - Resource, Joan Gallagher – WFSE, Debbie Brookman – WFSE (note taker)

1.     Communications Issues

Kerry opened the meeting with appreciation for tone of the meetings and everyone’s dedication to preparing agenda items and taking the issues seriously. We want to keep focused on exchanging information honestly and towards solving problems. We want communications to evolve to being less formal, less constricted. We’d like to be able to resolve issues without grievances and demands to bargain and use these meetings for that purpose. As we head further into difficult budget times we will need to communicate effectively.

We asked the human resource participants not to change the wording on our agendas when they are distributed to upper management because we choose our wording carefully and deliberately.

The move to electronic pay stubs – we asked for more marketing to employees of this kind of change, with multiple communications and a variety of ways so that the messages don’t get lost.

Overtime Audit – Some employees experiencing the audits or responding to information requests feel blind-sided.  Letters designating individuals as overtime eligible were bureaucratic and blunt.

Budget Communications are the exception.  Pat McLain does a great job with her budget updates. They contain the right amount of detail, and whenever we provide feedback, she is responsive. We’ve heard from our members, and share the comment, that having that information relieves stress. We’d like to see more of that. The up-coming all-staff meeting is another effort that is really appreciated.

Budget Ad Hoc Release Time – Scott Mallery, chair of the Budget Ad-Hoc committee, asked why he was the only person released to attend. The ad hoc group was starting to make some headway and develop some expertise and get into the “meat and potatoes.” We were taken aback when told that only one of us had release time to be here today.

Frustrations were expressed with the lack of detail on the budget at the program level. We want to help and provide solutions to the budget challenges we’re going to have, and to do that we need more detailed information.

Information Requests – Kerry acknowledged that we’ve made a lot of information requests so that we can better understand the issues and be articulate in our conversation with Ecology. The concern is that we often don’t hear directly that there is a problem with fulfilling an information request.  Joan shared that we don’t want to see information requests from the union treated as if they were public disclosure requests (because we have a contractual agreement on how requests should be handled that is different than public disclosure.) We have specific time frames we have to meet, the information is needed to know what our next step should be.

Chris Parsons responded to this issue – they understand there is a difference between public disclosure and Article 39.4 requests. They often receive multiple, overlapping requests from multiple sources. The requests frequently require compilation of information that is not readily available. It would help them if the requests could be coordinated by the union folks before they’re sent off to HR. It would also help if we could identify priorities – which request is most important? Which ones have time frames that must be met?

Joan believes that we can make this process more effective – for both parties. Kerry suggested we work on providing and receiving feedback. She’ll bring this issue up to the stewards group and work harder to not submit overlapping requests  In turn we  hope that HR will do better communicating back to us when there are problems – before everyone jumps to conclusions about requests.

Follow-up on issues raised at UMCC meetings – Kasey Ignac gave an example from the last UMCC meeting where we raised a concern with requiring travel from  the BFO. Kasey acknowledged that Polly made a call to the manager at the BFO and talked to him about it. According to Kasey employees are still being required to travel unnecessarily to staff meetings in NWRO and HQ.

Polly said she would talk to managers again.  She talked to them previously about the difference in perspective between management and staff about whether or not a particular meeting should be attended in person. She cares about folks not having to make that trip if it’s not necessary.

Negotiations – Kerry expressed our concern that we believe a layoff will occur. We also anticipate having supplemental contract negotiations at Ecology. Chris commented that he was not aware that this could occur at Ecology – he’d heard that it would not. Debbie explained that we are pursuing it actively, in discussions with the Labor Relations Office. Joan asked if they are opposed to this idea? No (but they don’t look very excited about it either). Kerry explained the benefits, from our perspective, to engaging in supplemental bargaining.

2.    Hiring while preparing for layoff

Reassignment as a pre-layoff tool – Chris explained that we have done this before and have to be careful not to preclude a formal layoff option for someone else. We look for duties that are funded by other sources where we can move an at-risk employee. It takes looking at the picture 3-5 months down the line. 

Ecology has done this process twice – once during the Water Quality (WQ)  layoffs and the second time with the general budget layoffs. The WQ layoffs and reassignments were very concerning to us. On the other hand, when the second round of layoffs occurred, there was much more transparency and concerns were significantly mitigated.

Educational prerequisites and hiring – We are very concerned that Ecology is making changes to requiring degrees for positions that have not required them before. It has significant impacts to layoff options for a number of Environmental Specialists (ES) who have given a lot of years to the agency. Chris responded that the timing of this is coincidental and is tied into the OT eligibility audit. There is an interest in moving towards requiring higher educational requirements for positions. However, the ES series is one where there are a lot of opportunities for flexibility and differences in specific position requirements. Chris said he would revisit the issue in relation to hiring.

It cuts both ways – it’s been helpful to employees to have a generic job class that they can grow into. Chris thinks it can hurt when it comes to things such as compensation – having a job class that requires higher level degrees can often result in higher compensation. Polly stated that it is not their intent to disadvantage employees who came up through the ranks and gained their expertise through experience rather than formal education.

Kerry explained a core concern.  Employees in positions who are at risk of reduction look to the job announcements and find they are unable to take action on it because all the posted positions have required degrees. Was this intentional? Chris stated that this was not their intent. HR asked managers if a vacant position needed a degree to accomplish the job duties. They look at the job market – do they need to be more flexible regarding a degree requirement to get the candidates they need?

Kerry Carrol explained her experience. She’s been watching the recruitments since June 2009. She’s only seen one position, an ES2, that didn’t require a degree.  Many jobs being filled were previously performed by individuals without a degree, and the position had been filled without one in past recruitments. She believes managers may be thinking that they all need to require degrees so they don’t get “stuck” with the layoff candidate who doesn’t have a degree.

Joan offered an option that recruitments have “desirable” qualifications that require degrees but to not make it an absolute requirement, precluding your existing employees from applying for the position.

Polly doesn’t think the motivation is related to Kerry Carrol’s concern. She thinks some of these issues may be resolved once they make their decisions on what direction to go on the OT audit.  (See topic #3)

Hiring Announcement Deadlines and external hiring – Scott stated a concern that jobs are not being posted, or that a lot of hiring was occurring over a very short period of time with employees denied opportunities to either apply or get hired preferentially over external candidates. We realize the contract only requires seven days posting but we’d like to see fourteen days posting.

Internal candidates are almost always going to be the most qualified candidates. In particular hiring internally avoids setting up the agency to have to layoff people who were just hired and have little seniority.

Polly is surprised to hear that we have the impression that more external recruitments took place than internal. Ecology had to hire externally in the Richland office and will have to seek hiring exemptions for that area – it’s just very difficult to hire in that office. However, almost all the other hiring was done internally. Polly said they were trying to be very attentive to making opportunities available to internal candidates and, sometimes, available to those who were on the statewide transition pool (very few candidates ended up coming from this list). From her perspective there’s been a lot of internal movement. She’s heard from those co-workers who get left holding the bag when their co-worker promotes to another position and vacancies are left open.

Scott was asked if he had data to support our assertion that all this external hiring is occurring? Scott replied that this is part of the problem – the lack of data – compounded by some information that has come out showing that vacancies were being filled.  We couldn’t really tell whether it was internal or external hiring. We may have jumped to a conclusion when the job announcements were all “open” to the public. This is an area where communications could be more effective.

Polly stated that this is a challenge, to figure out how to communicate this kind of information effectively. She said “The conversations we have at the UMCC obviously isn’t getting the job done or you wouldn’t jump to these conclusions.” She has been keeping an eye on keeping a reservoir of funded vacancies to manage the budget. She cannot guarantee we can avoid a layoff – not today and not immediately after the budget comes out – but she is doing what she can to keep the agency in a position where it can be mitigated or, hopefully, avoided. We may not agree to go to fourteen day notices but we are looking at better ways for postings and transparency. She could use our help and our trust.

Joan suggested that one possible solution is to post higher level positions for internal candidates only. Kerry suggested that Polly may also choose to respond to this during Friday’s all-staff. We try to trust in what we are told, but when employees come to us upset and with questions it is easy to begin doubting what we thought we understood.

3.    Overtime Eligibility Audit 


Chris explained some challenges they’ve run into. They have mixed units in some program areas where some positions require degrees and some do not.  In struggling to use the “learned professional” criteria provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, some end up in OT exempt positions and some end up OT eligible (for example when applying the degree requirement). Ultimately, many more employees may end up being OT eligible – at the same time acknowledging Ecology cannot afford to pay OT. 

Communication Plan - Chris shared that they have a communication plan to help employees prepare for changes as the audit progresses: 

a. Setting up on the HR website links to  “OT eligibility information” for employees, supervisors, and managers.

b. Power point presentation on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and another one on both FSLA and the contract.

c. Quick reference guide for supervisors and managers which had originally been used but has been modified to be more understanding of the professional, OT eligible employee. 

d. Updated articles on the issue and links to the prior articles by Chris. 

e. Revised training plan for managers and supervisors on how to manage 40-hour work week employees by Chris.

Next Steps - The IT groups in the environmental programs are going to be the next to be piloted for the audit. The employees are going to be prepped before they give out any letters, including an information session for the IT group to ask questions. This will be happening soon. It will be discussed at Friday’s all staff.  Polly committed to have Amy, Joan, and Kerry meet before the IT roll-out to talk about what’s going to happen and to whom.  Chris will keep us in the loop.

Joan asked if we can preview the power-point and training curriculum before it is presented – we may have valuable feedback. Chris will send Debbie a copy.

4.    Budget 

Funded Vacancies

Do budget funded vacancies have to be reported to DOP on a monthly basis?

Pat explained that we have information on funded FTE’s and it was sent through the end of January in mid-February. They haven’t sent an update because they’re waiting for the budget to come out before redoing the work. It’s not simple data to gather, due to the complex and sometimes uncertain funding of many FTE’s They understand that we need this information to discuss layoffs and to answer questions our members have regarding what kind of opportunities they may have, if they face a layoff.

Climate Policy Group budget - Kerry raised a concern with the positions themselves. They are high level EP’s and were all hired from outside at the highest salary steps in their salary range. Polly explained that they were all hired through “open competitive” process. She’s not sure who was in the candidate pool or if internal candidates applied or met the qualifications. Polly was pressured to make them WMS positions and she wouldn’t do that. In light of the discussion on hiring, Kerry asserted that these positions are the types of jobs that should go through internal recruiting first.  Polly said there may not have been the expertise needed internally for the specialized work.

We are also concerned that the out of state travel rules don’t apply to this group. We’ve got members complaining to us that they can’t drive to Portland, and then we note that the travel budget for this policy group is  mostly for out of state. Polly explained that there is slightly better language coming on out-of-state travel for those Portland trips. However, the Western Climate initiative is required by executive order. The travel is related to that work – Janet Adair is a co-chair and is on one of the subcommittees. They just sent a request for an exception to the Office of Financial Management to allow this out-of state travel – it’s not optional. The meetings occur at least every two months and require in-person negotiations (they do not allow teleconferencing for these particular meetings).

Health of the dedicated funds – Pat explained that fund transfers occurred in State toxics, local toxics, and the litter account (there is information on this on the web page). The transfers were made a variety of ways. When the flood and litter account transfers were made, program reductions had to be made. Those reductions freed up money that was transferred to the General Fund. In the state and local toxics accounts, the operating expenditures were kept whole. During this session proposals were made to restore the fund balances for state/local toxics as originally intended

There are other funds where we primarily get fee money. In Water Quality, it comes in sporadically through the year. What is different now is we are not going to be surprised.  Keeping track of the money coming in will help us mitigate the situation so that layoffs are not necessary.

Air Quality has big fluctuations and State/Local toxics accounts are based on the price of a barrel of oil. We have to be strategic with how much margin we leave in these budgets to buffer and protect staff resources.  Overall, the accounts are in pretty good shape.

Kurt asked about the water resources bill that WFSE supported that would move the program away from being reliant on the General Fund. Can WFSE help to gain legislative support on these kinds of issues? Pat replied that they can do so, like any other interested party, but the positions need to line up with the Governor’s budget priorities. Ecology must support the Governor’s budget.

What is the agency’s position on furloughs? Pat explained the bills as currently written give agencies some flexibility, $30,000 or less earners can use vacation leave to cover the 10-days of furloughs, retirement is unaffected, and health benefits are protected if you’re a part-time employee. In the name of equity, the house has proposed applying it to positions, regardless of funding sources. Once the bill is passed Ecology will look to the Governor’s office for guidance, specifically from OFM on what direction must be taken. Currently the impact is an unspecified reduction across all fund sources. If the bill allows agencies to develop their own plans, they expect to hear from OFM what can and can’t be included in those plans.

More meetings scheduled for April and May.  The UMCC will hold more discussions with our managers on April 30 and May 26.  Reports on these meetings will be provided in future bulletins. Contact your UMCC representative to suggest discussion topics ■