– By Kerry Graber and Debbie Brookman
The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened in January with five primary agenda items to discuss, and two items added at the beginning of the meeting. The following were present:
Ecology Management: Polly Zehm, Corinna McElfish, Amy Heller, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain; Ted Sturdevant attended the last half hour.
Ecology Representatives for WFSE: Kerry Graber - chair, Kurt Unger, Charles San Juan, Scott Mallery, Shara Trantum, Kathy Conaway, Roger Johnson, Kasey Ignac, Sally Lawrence, Debbie Brookman
1. Hiring Practices – Employee concerns were raised about a number of hiring practices that are unfair, and create the perception of the system being manipulated to favor certain employees over others. Examples of changes in past practices were discussed. There were certain practices, such as announcing position openings consistently by internet, which are now not being done.
We asked for more transparency, for jobs to continue to be posted on the intranet, and for recruitments to be as broad as possible.
Chris replied that they’ve been trying to fix the problem of rampant reallocations rather than promotions. They have been having recruitments that limit opportunity to within the section to avoid budget issues and/or layoffs. Ecology is trying to create a process that allows promotional opportunities. He agreed that they also like to open recruitments as wide as possible – agency wide. But, circumstances don’t allow it if it requires an alternate position in the program to be abolished. (For example, if the person awarded the promotion will have their position abolished “behind them.”)
Amy feels the contract provides the ability to limit recruitment. She agreed with Chris that they do prefer to have broad recruitment but it is not always possible. Chris has been emphasizing to program managers that there are a lot of tools out there so that overuse of reallocations should be reduced.
Chris will let Debbie know if there are any changes to hiring processes between now and the next UMCC.
2. Budget Ad Hoc – Scott thanked management for sitting down with us over the last few months to discuss budget related issues in the wake of the last reduction-in-force (RIF). The remaining issues:
a. Feedback on WMS numbers
b. Priorities and workload
c. Positions vs. FTE’s – which numbers are correct?
d. Funded vacancies – Where are they? How are they being filled? How are they funded?
Amy and Chris want to sunset the adhoc committee and instead talk about budget at the Statewide UMCC. They are willing to meet more frequently, i.e. monthly, and to allow an additional person to attend (Scott, as a resource). The union could also adjust the participation and agenda at specific meetings where the budget will be discussed more extensively.
Kerry expressed concerns about leaving out the people on the budget adhoc that are fully engaged in the topic, and burdening the UMCC with this potentially time consuming agenda that might dominate over other employee issues. Also meeting more often is difficult given scheduling challenges. We agreed to take this to our leadership group and the adhoc committee.
(Note: The next UMCC meeting could not be scheduled until March because the video conferencing system would not be available until then.)
3. Budget Update – Pat McLain explained there’s not much that’s new since the last updates that have gone out to all staff. Ecology’s internet page has a budget snapshot available.
Kerry asked about revenue options and what the agency is doing in that direction. Pat explained that they’ve created a table of all fees and an estimation of how much of the work is actually paid for by the fee for the Office of Financial Management. The legislature has been asking for information on fees, too. The governor has not officially taken a position on increasing revenue and Ecology has not been asked for specific revenue packages. A few fee adjustments have been proposed.
Given this, a lot of the internal focus in on the ’11-13 biennium – we need a supported, thoughtful package for the legislature. This spring, the agency’s strategic plan will be updated. They’ll be looking at the fund portfolio and developing a strategy for improving revenue. They’ll be looking at what should be moved to general fund, and what federal funding should be increased.
Kurt expressed concern that the Water Resources program sees the Water Quality section actively going after fees while Water Resources seems to want to give the work up to the private sector. Polly explained further the timing of the issue – whether or not to move the Water Resources program into a fee based system rather than a general fund based system.
4. Travel Limitations – For some employees avoiding unnecessary travel has worked out. In other cases employees have been compelled to travel to meetings that could have been easily attended by conference phone.
We believe employees should not attend in person if they don’t need to and that we should all challenge ourselves to travel less and attend via VTC and phone more. We’re also seeing PMT’s revert back to more frequent meetings with managers starting again to travel regularly across the state to attend in person.
We realize managers may need to travel more than line-level employees but it just doesn’t look right given the extent to which it is happening. Some employees complain that they’re being denied training opportunities and travel – there’s not much consistency program by program. The burden is not being equally shared. Kurt suggested the PMT might not need to meet as often – maybe every 6 weeks instead of monthly.
Charles made an observation that we’ve heard criticism from staff that their managers end up going to conferences in place of line staff. We’ve seen examples where the person working on the project doesn’t get to go but the manager does. It makes no sense.
Kerry also expressed the concern with out-of-state travel. There’s a lack of transparency that creates a perception by employees who feel they can’t get the travel and training they need to do their job. On the other hand, we see managers traveling to Copenhagen paid for by entities with which Ecology has a contractual relationship, an ethical concern.
Polly explained an NGO paid for the Copenhagen trip. She said was evaluated to ensure there were no ethics violations, although she did not offer any details.
Polly understands the concern the union is expressing. She thinks there will always be criticism. However, she is committed to working with managers about travel issues. She’s heard these concerns from other sources as well. She wants travel to occur when necessary and to not occur when there are less expensive options. She will continue to work with managers on management team travel. She’ll touch basis with the NWRO management team to make sure they’re sensitive to the travel issues between Bellingham and Bellevue.
Polly assured the team that she evaluates very closely any out-of-state travel requests. Most of this travel is related to the climate change governor’s executive order.
5. Communication Issues – Kerry complimented the quality of communication sent to employees on important issues. However, the timeliness of communication is occasionally a concern. For example, the print cost-tracking software was in place a few months before it was announced. This created a rumor of a “conspiracy” to collect information against staff.
Pat shared that the state auditor recently commended us for implementation of the print management program but agrees that the more information employees have, the less likely they are to think there is a conspiracy. (Ted Sturdevant was able to join the UMCC at this point in the agenda…)
6. Contracting Out - Debbie explained that we see patterns in the use of contracting-out that may be better served by building skills in-house. For example, Ecology seems to have an on-going need for facilitation. The amount of money spent on facilitation contracts is enormous. Other examples include high-level hydrogeologist modeling, community outreach, and management consulting.
Ted agreed to consider “contracting-in” when we have the talent, especially when we have such difficult budget times.
Kurt added that a lot of the work contracted out in the Water Resources program goes to consultants for the rule making processes. The issue is becoming more pronounced as we do more of this. The consultants rely on the staff that has all the program knowledge. We end up feeling that we do all the work for them but they get all the dollars. It doesn’t make sense. The need for 3rd party neutrality as the reason to hire facilitation outside the agency comes up repeatedly but it’s unfair to assume that Ecology employees can’t be objective or neutral. We are capable of listening and responding to stakeholders.
We’ve also seen a few cases where the summary of the contract provided the union for review doesn’t match up with the details of the contract and work assignment. We may be asking for more information. We’ll be paying more attention to all of this because jobs are at stake. Every dollar spent on a contract is money that could be spent on jobs in Ecology.
Ted asked for more information regarding Storm Water contracting. Scott explained that almost 1.5 million dollars in grant money was allocated to give to local governments/entities to develop strategies for low impact development (LID). Pat explained that these grants are funded through the local toxics account – the grants can only go to local entities. She explained that this statutory requirement is putting us the spot where we really can’t do the work because of how the funding is structured in the statute. Kerry pointed out to Ted that as Director we (the employees) work for him. When he’s talking to the legislature about bills that give out grants to others for our work, he needs to be looking out for his people and fighting for us too.
Ted gave us some thoughts… There are shared interests here. Growing capacity is something he thinks about. With the facilitation example, there are issues there that can’t be ignored. Sometimes there’s a concern with neutrality, in reality and in perception. If we’ve gotten into a mindset where we always default to an outside contractor for neutrality we may need to change that mindset. Capacity and appropriate skill sets are also an issue. Regarding capacity, how do we build capacity for work that is intermittent? It’s a challenge. Due to the current budget issues, we’re not in a mode of building capacity – we’re in a mode of reducing capacity.
Two key things to look at - will it be viewed as an objective process if Ecology is running it? There’s a lot of tension in the public about Ecology’s motives. The other issue is the intermittent nature of some of the work. We try to find balance.
Kerry said that we have worked on agreements on contracts that meet intermittent needs, and by agreement it hasn’t set a precedent for contracting out our work indefinitely. The point is we can work things out, even for intermittent needs as long as it is done wisely and with jobs in mind.
These issues deserve scrutiny - we are asking the agency to push back when managers ask to contract out.
Ted responded that if we can come together and have a discussion about building capacity, he has no problem keeping as much work in-house as possible.
7. Legislative lobbying (management issue) – Ted explained a need for on-going conversation about legislative priorities. Ecology employees and union membership can create a conflict with time and lobbying. We also don’t want to provide ammunition to those who look for impropriety or an appearance of inappropriate collusion.
Kerry committed to bringing this message to our union leadership group and stewards so that we all understand where the line is. We may not always agree where the line is drawn and that requires a continued discussion at the UMCC when issues arise.
Charles asked if Ted had any suggestions for how we can work more cooperatively on issues where we do have an intersection of interest. Ted did not have a quick answer but is interested in hearing ideas. ■
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ecology push for stricter WMS limits
Ecology members who have studied the growth of the Washington Management Service in depth used a hearing Monday on a bill limiting special pay for WMS employees to push for further reforms.
Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-26th Dist., called the special pay freeze for WMS and exempt employees a "common sense temporary pause."
Local 443 Ecology member and Federation Executive Board member Kerry Graber applauded the bill, but said more could be done.
She presented charts showing that pay for WMS in Ecology is out of whack with national averages for executive pay. She also presented data about how the state could save tens of millions of dollars by trimming the size of WMS, including just not replacing WMS employees who leave state service.
"We're seeing an inequity and we'd like to see more reform in this area," Graber told the House Ways and Means Committee.
Stan Leja, an Ecology hydrogeologist and member of Local 443, said the current fiscal crisis presents an opportunity for action.
"It think it's (HB 2998) something that's needed but doesn't go far enough," Leja said. "I think it needs to be permanent."
Seaquist said further legislation getting at the WMS problem is coming.
Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-26th Dist., called the special pay freeze for WMS and exempt employees a "common sense temporary pause."
Local 443 Ecology member and Federation Executive Board member Kerry Graber applauded the bill, but said more could be done.
She presented charts showing that pay for WMS in Ecology is out of whack with national averages for executive pay. She also presented data about how the state could save tens of millions of dollars by trimming the size of WMS, including just not replacing WMS employees who leave state service.
"We're seeing an inequity and we'd like to see more reform in this area," Graber told the House Ways and Means Committee.
Stan Leja, an Ecology hydrogeologist and member of Local 443, said the current fiscal crisis presents an opportunity for action.
"It think it's (HB 2998) something that's needed but doesn't go far enough," Leja said. "I think it needs to be permanent."
Seaquist said further legislation getting at the WMS problem is coming.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Get on the bus and come to Olympia for the Presidents' Day Rally and Lobby Day
Join thousands of other public employees at noon on Monday, February 15, on the Capitol steps in Olympia to rally the legislature for revenue to protect our future.
Cuts to safety net programs are unjust. Safety net programs have already been cut to the bone. We're urging legislators to support raising new revenue and closing some of the $14.8 billion tax loopholes to help save our safety net.
We must show legislators how much is at stake if huge proposed cuts go through. Anti-state employee forces will also be rallying that day, so we must be there to counter their wrong-headed message.
RSVP here - REGISTER today:Send us the letter below to tell us your plans for the day. When you RSVP, we'll arrange for your lunch and make appointments for you to meet with your legislators.
Here's what you can do:
- Attend the rally at noon on Monday, February 15 - President's Day holiday.
- Schedule to meet with your legislators while you're at the Capitol.
- Can't attend the rally? Call the legislative hotline at 800-562-6000 on February 15th and leave them a message urging them to support revenue options that include closing tax loopholes.
But if you can't make the briefing, you can join us at the rally.
Green it up! Wear your green AFSCME t-shirt. Don't have one? Pick one up at the AM briefing.
Schedule:
- 9 AM - Briefing at the Natural Resources Building Cafeteria.
- 9:30 to Noon - Opportunity for appointments with your legislators.
- Noon Rally - Capitol steps.
- 1:30 - Opportunity for afternoon appointments with legislators.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Newly Elected Union Management Communications Committee Meets
The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened with representatives of the management team after seating several newly elected members. Tied headquarters representatives Charles San Juan and Kurt Unger graciously attended together with the understanding that the run-off election will be conducted to decide the tie.
Other unfilled positions were occupied by volunteers who were asked to serve as voices for their respective offices.
Also present for the meeting, all or in part, were Sally Lawrence from NWRO, Kathy Conaway and Alisa Huckaby from RFO, and Kerry Graber for SWRO. Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Pat McLain, and Gary “Mace” Maciejewski (IT) were there representing the management team.
Inclement Weather Policy – Polly let us know that they would not be changing the policy, but had changed the decision making criteria to include more safety considerations. The new criteria will be posted on Inside Ecology.
Natural Resource Reform – Polly will be meeting with the Natural Resource Reform Cabinet on November 13 to formulate recommendations to the Governor. Polly said they are still looking at employee input. While there appears to be little enthusiasm for the most drastic option of consolidating into one giant agency, it is also not acceptable to the Governor to get a “no action” recommendation. She shared that much of this effort may get overshadowed by budget problems. Printer Management – Members wanted assurance that the new print management software would not be used as a source for “going after” employees. Gary “Mace” Maciejewski clarified that efforts to reduce printing stems from a legislatively adopted - “paper conservation act” – climate-related goal to reduce paper use by 30% for state government. The goal deadline to achieve reduction is July 1, 2010. To meet this challenge Gary found software that provides the costs of print jobs. When you push “print” a bubble will pop up giving you the cost of the previous print job and asking whether you are sure you have to print this one. In the future they hope the software will estimate the cost of the print job you are about to send to the printer. Gary said this focus on awareness and the ability to catch errors in print decisions (oops, you didn’t mean to ask for the whole document for example), may go a long way toward meeting the required goal. Each individual will be able to look up a summary of how much they printed. (No one else, other than the administrator of the system, will be able to do this.)
We briefly discussed the status of efforts to move toward electronic record keeping. Polly said plans to buy software for electronic archiving are on hold due to budget difficulties.
WMS and Management Reductions – Polly was asked whether there had been further thought about reducing the number of managers at Ecology and increasing the minimum “span-of-control” numbers to flatten the organization. Polly said that she is continuing to look at reductions where they make sense, and urging program managers to look at this before they fill positions. A reorganization and reduction in one manager at the Richland office was pointed to as an example of this. Polly committed to looking at taking cuts in management “commensurate with staff cuts.” Other than this, a broader or systemic look is not being conducted. Polly believes the issue is getting attention with talks between the Federation (WFSE) and Department of Personnel (DOP). Chris Parsons shared that from research he found the private sector has made significant movement toward flatter organizational structures.
We continue to urge Ecology to look at the WMS band 2 level and evaluate what the agency really needs. Chris said he would be doing a profile of WMS 2 managers, and acknowledged he had committed to provide that to the budget team. He said that DOP is considering two categories within WMS, one for managing people and one for advisors.
Kerry Graber explained that members have expressed concern about program budget planners being in WMS. By placing them in WMS the potential exists for being ethically compromised. This idea was flatly rejected by Pat. Chris was quick to point out that WMS are protected by the civil service rules. The subject was dropped for now.
Budget Ad-hoc Report – Pat shared that she has been putting together a “budget 101” presentation using the budget questions posed by the committee. January is being considered for rolling this out to the rest of the agency. This might be timely with the legislative session starting. The supplemental budget has been posted on Inside Ecology. We reviewed with Pat some of the information she provided during the recent All-Staff meeting. Pat said a list of activities funded by general fund – the mandatory list – is the next deliverable to OFM.
Kurt asked why not move the Water Resources Program to a fee-based system, with an annual assessment. Washington needs to place a value on water it gives away for free. A database would have to be developed in short order. We discussed recent successful efforts by Oregon and California to shift to a fee-based system. Pat said that although this would alleviate the Water Resources Program’s reliance on the General Fund, it is only 380 million in relation to an over 1 billion budget deficit. A more serious discussion about this will likely occur in the 2011/13 biennium. Although Jay Manning has talked about a fee publicly this is a tough political environment to try to get something passed. Legislators are averse to any new revenue legislation.
Timesheet Processing – Amy Heller reported that talks have been held with IT staff on developing an interface program that would allow employees to directly enter their timesheet information and eliminate double logging. They are also looking at off-the-shelf technology. A decision on which way to go will be made in the next five weeks.
Overtime Eligibility – In anticipation of a U.S. Department of Labor audit, the agency will be reviewing previous determinations on overtime eligibility on a position-by-position basis. Amy said HR is anticipating some reversals from exempt to eligible. The evaluation primarily looks at salary level and job duties. There will be a formal notice to the union when this evaluation is complete.
Environmental Specialist Series – Chris Parsons was asked whether there has been any further work on quantifying recruitment and retention problems due to the low salaries of this series. Chris said they have put a system in place to follow up with employees who leave Ecology to help HR quantify retention problems and build some data. Chris said the agency is still supportive of efforts to gain high-cost compensation, not limited by job class, for the Bellevue office. Members will be renewing this request through the contract proposal process in hopes that compensation will be honored by the Governor and legislature in the next CBA.
Summary – The UMCC meets a minimum of three times per year under the CBA. This UMCC hopes to pursue a more frequent meeting schedule particularly as we face another tough legislative session and more budget crises. Please talk to your UMCC representative about your issues and concerns. ■
Other unfilled positions were occupied by volunteers who were asked to serve as voices for their respective offices.
Also present for the meeting, all or in part, were Sally Lawrence from NWRO, Kathy Conaway and Alisa Huckaby from RFO, and Kerry Graber for SWRO. Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Pat McLain, and Gary “Mace” Maciejewski (IT) were there representing the management team.
Inclement Weather Policy – Polly let us know that they would not be changing the policy, but had changed the decision making criteria to include more safety considerations. The new criteria will be posted on Inside Ecology.
Natural Resource Reform – Polly will be meeting with the Natural Resource Reform Cabinet on November 13 to formulate recommendations to the Governor. Polly said they are still looking at employee input. While there appears to be little enthusiasm for the most drastic option of consolidating into one giant agency, it is also not acceptable to the Governor to get a “no action” recommendation. She shared that much of this effort may get overshadowed by budget problems. Printer Management – Members wanted assurance that the new print management software would not be used as a source for “going after” employees. Gary “Mace” Maciejewski clarified that efforts to reduce printing stems from a legislatively adopted - “paper conservation act” – climate-related goal to reduce paper use by 30% for state government. The goal deadline to achieve reduction is July 1, 2010. To meet this challenge Gary found software that provides the costs of print jobs. When you push “print” a bubble will pop up giving you the cost of the previous print job and asking whether you are sure you have to print this one. In the future they hope the software will estimate the cost of the print job you are about to send to the printer. Gary said this focus on awareness and the ability to catch errors in print decisions (oops, you didn’t mean to ask for the whole document for example), may go a long way toward meeting the required goal. Each individual will be able to look up a summary of how much they printed. (No one else, other than the administrator of the system, will be able to do this.)
We briefly discussed the status of efforts to move toward electronic record keeping. Polly said plans to buy software for electronic archiving are on hold due to budget difficulties.
WMS and Management Reductions – Polly was asked whether there had been further thought about reducing the number of managers at Ecology and increasing the minimum “span-of-control” numbers to flatten the organization. Polly said that she is continuing to look at reductions where they make sense, and urging program managers to look at this before they fill positions. A reorganization and reduction in one manager at the Richland office was pointed to as an example of this. Polly committed to looking at taking cuts in management “commensurate with staff cuts.” Other than this, a broader or systemic look is not being conducted. Polly believes the issue is getting attention with talks between the Federation (WFSE) and Department of Personnel (DOP). Chris Parsons shared that from research he found the private sector has made significant movement toward flatter organizational structures.
We continue to urge Ecology to look at the WMS band 2 level and evaluate what the agency really needs. Chris said he would be doing a profile of WMS 2 managers, and acknowledged he had committed to provide that to the budget team. He said that DOP is considering two categories within WMS, one for managing people and one for advisors.
Kerry Graber explained that members have expressed concern about program budget planners being in WMS. By placing them in WMS the potential exists for being ethically compromised. This idea was flatly rejected by Pat. Chris was quick to point out that WMS are protected by the civil service rules. The subject was dropped for now.
Budget Ad-hoc Report – Pat shared that she has been putting together a “budget 101” presentation using the budget questions posed by the committee. January is being considered for rolling this out to the rest of the agency. This might be timely with the legislative session starting. The supplemental budget has been posted on Inside Ecology. We reviewed with Pat some of the information she provided during the recent All-Staff meeting. Pat said a list of activities funded by general fund – the mandatory list – is the next deliverable to OFM.
Kurt asked why not move the Water Resources Program to a fee-based system, with an annual assessment. Washington needs to place a value on water it gives away for free. A database would have to be developed in short order. We discussed recent successful efforts by Oregon and California to shift to a fee-based system. Pat said that although this would alleviate the Water Resources Program’s reliance on the General Fund, it is only 380 million in relation to an over 1 billion budget deficit. A more serious discussion about this will likely occur in the 2011/13 biennium. Although Jay Manning has talked about a fee publicly this is a tough political environment to try to get something passed. Legislators are averse to any new revenue legislation.
Timesheet Processing – Amy Heller reported that talks have been held with IT staff on developing an interface program that would allow employees to directly enter their timesheet information and eliminate double logging. They are also looking at off-the-shelf technology. A decision on which way to go will be made in the next five weeks.
Overtime Eligibility – In anticipation of a U.S. Department of Labor audit, the agency will be reviewing previous determinations on overtime eligibility on a position-by-position basis. Amy said HR is anticipating some reversals from exempt to eligible. The evaluation primarily looks at salary level and job duties. There will be a formal notice to the union when this evaluation is complete.
Environmental Specialist Series – Chris Parsons was asked whether there has been any further work on quantifying recruitment and retention problems due to the low salaries of this series. Chris said they have put a system in place to follow up with employees who leave Ecology to help HR quantify retention problems and build some data. Chris said the agency is still supportive of efforts to gain high-cost compensation, not limited by job class, for the Bellevue office. Members will be renewing this request through the contract proposal process in hopes that compensation will be honored by the Governor and legislature in the next CBA.
Summary – The UMCC meets a minimum of three times per year under the CBA. This UMCC hopes to pursue a more frequent meeting schedule particularly as we face another tough legislative session and more budget crises. Please talk to your UMCC representative about your issues and concerns. ■
Budget Team’s Impact On Lay-off Subtle but Tangible
– By Kerry Graber
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
- An agreement to slightly modify the collective bargaining agreement (contract) procedure for the benefit of members identified for lay-off
- A more objective and fair process as a result of the team’s advocacy
- As a result of the engagement with management more effort was made to find places for RIF’d folks
- Without the additional time to talk to management and the expanded process many of these improvements would not have been discussed.
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
- What are the functions of WMS 2 section managers within the agency?
- Why did the Water Quality Program take the TMDL program supervisors from Natural Resource Specialist 5s to WMS 1s?
- Why is Ecology’s percentage of managers the highest among natural resource agencies? (See table next page – OFM website source data.)
- Will Ecology roll out a “budget 101” to clearly explain to employees where the money goes, and why?
- Why did it take so long for Program Managers to provide the number of vacant, funded positions to Polly when she asked for it? Why isn’t this information readily available?
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
Negotiations Over Internal Policies Yield Results
– By Alisa Huckaby
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Friday, September 18, 2009
Federation Natural Resources Task Force Needs Your Feedback on State's Reform Ideas
– WFSE Hotline
The Legislature ordered the governor to convene a work group of natural resource agencies to "identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs.
The Legislature ordered the governor to convene a work group of natural resource agencies to "identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs.
"That subcabinet group released a set of ideas on Sept.14, and is now seeking public comment. The Federation's internal Natural Resources Task Force also needs to hear from you so we can present your perspective to the administration.
Visit WFSE's Natural Resources Policy Committee blog to submit comments and feedback on our website.
Or go to www.wfse.org and look for the "flash" display at the bottom of the main page. Or you can go to www.wfse.org > WFSE Blogs and More > Natural Resources Policy Committee.
There, you will find state documents detailing the ideas and you can link to an online survey.
Your Natural Resources Task Force will then compile your comments and present them to the governor and public lands commissioner.
They need to hear from you by Oct. 5.
The Federation task force includes representatives from several natural resource agencies, including Ecology, Parks andRecreation, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Health
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)