Union seeks civil service status for city employees

In his memo, Kiluk said AFSMCE officials in recent weeks received encouragement from Council members and their staff, who listed several benefits of civil service, including helping “level the playing field” between public safety and civilian employees; and recognizing that if civil service is viable in other major Texas cities then “Austin should be no exception.”

Other major Texas cities that offer civil service system for non-public safety employees include Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and El Paso. Fort Worth, where Ott and City Human Resources and Civil Service Director Mark Washington previously worked, does not offer civil service protections to such employees.

“We’re just trying to get some improvement,” Kirfman said. “If it’s not a good idea, why do these other cities have it, and why does EMS want it?”

Specifically, the six-page proposal to amend the city charter would “establish a classified civil service in which all employment and promotions shall be made on the basis of merit and fitness.”

It would also establish a three-member Civil Service Commission that would hear appeals of employees who are discharged, adopt civil service rules and conduct investigations if asked to by City Council or the City Manager.

A personnel director would classify employees and set up a process for examinations that will grade candidates on eligibility lists for vacancies. The personnel director would be required to come up with specific civil service rules for approval by the Civil Service Commission and the City Council. The rules would cover specific things such as: initial appointments, promotions and transfers of employees; disciplinary actions; establishment of probationary periods for new hires; and procedures for reductions in force that give consideration to the affected employees’ length of service and past work performance.

Not all employees would be covered by the system. In addition to public-safety employees, those not covered would include: City Council members and direct staff; department managers and assistant department managers; the city manager and assistant city managers; the city attorney and assistant city attorneys; and those appointed or elected by City Council.

Approximately 15 percent of the city’s employees are members of AFSCME, according to the city’s July 1 Official Statement issued in conjunction with an upcoming bond offer. The city has 10,876 employees broken into three categories: 8,270 regular employees, 1,624 police officers and 982 fire fighters.

Ott contended the City already has a “well-designed and effective personnel system” to “ensure that employment decisions are based on merit and fitness for the position.” The city has relatively low turnover of 7 percent a year and surveys show that employees are generally satisfied with their pay and benefits, he said.

“We’re not sure what the proposal is intended to ‘fix,’” Ott wrote Council members.

Ott also complained that AFSCME has brought the proposal forward only about a month before Council needs to decide on the items that will go on the November ballot. “[C]onsidering the time needed for staff to prepare a thorough analysis of the cost and operational issues, I do not believe there is sufficient time before the call for the November election for Council to study, deliberate, and decide these policy questions in a manner consistent with the magnitude of the issue,” Ott wrote.

Regardless of this, Ott said the proposal also would make “it difficult – if not impossible – to bring new, experienced professionals into the organization. The AFSCME proposal may require the City to equalize pay within all job categories based on longevity. This would mean either drastically raising or lowering pay for some employees, bringing all employees to a midpoint, or implementing a step system similar to Fire and Police. As you can imagine, this presents serious fiscal concerns, and may create morale and equity concerns for employees.”

As an alternative, Ott proposed a flexible charter amendment that would give the Council “a window” through Jan. 1, 2015 to enact the ordinances necessary to establish a civil service system. This would allow Council more time “to engage in a thoughtful and deliberative process with input from all relevant stakeholder groups.”

While proponents say a civil service system creates a professional bureaucracy based on merit, critics contend the civil service system “has devolved into a morass of out-of-date rules and regulations that now actually serve to thwart attempts to attract and keep top job prospects,” according to a 2002 report on civil service reforms from Governing magazine. “Convoluted systems for testing, classifying, compensating, and disciplining employees tie management’s hands. Meanwhile, detailed job descriptions and an emphasis on job seniority make general personnel administration difficult and serve to reward longevity over performance.”