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.
