1979 Study: Civil Service by JCCI

, .'

"JACKSONVILLE

COMMUNITY

COUNCIL,

INC.

A Report To The Citizens Of Jacksonville MAXMORRIS, CHAIRMAN

JULY, 1979

A REVIEWOFJACKSONVILLE'S CIVILSERVICESYSTEM SCOPE OF THE STUDY JCCI study issues are adopted by the JCcr Board of Managers upon recommendations of the program committee. The program committee receives suggestions from Qany sources; the members of JCCI, staff, previous study committees, community agencies and government leaders. In the case of the civil service study every source listed above recommended the issue, indicating that the civil service -system was widely perceived as an area in need of ser.ious review. The charge given to the JCCr committee by the JCCI Board of Managers was to review the City of Jacksonville's civil service system and to consider alternatives to the present system. The ideal -system would be one in which public employees are given protection to assure that the processes of ~election, promotion and dismissal are based on qualificiations and performance rather than on ~olitically motivated decisions. At the same time this ideal system would give protection to taxpayers, assuring them that public employees are productive in providing effective governmental services. Civil service literally means service to the state and therefore refers to 311 public personnel matters. In bureaucratic circles, however, civil service has come to mean the so-calle~ merit system which grew out of the spoils system. This merit system was based on open competition for public jcbs, a fair objective method of selecti0n, equal pay for equal work, an appeal procedure for unjust personnel actions and elimination of favoritism and politics as a basis for hiring, promotion, and discipline. The scope of this study is local civil service as a merit system rather than the broader sense of all personnel management in local government. Nevertheless, it was necessary to gain an overview of the total personnel functioning in local government and the roles and relationships of the various participants in order to assess the merit system itself and how it meshes with other parts of personnel functioning. Readers unfamiliar with the personnel functions of Jacksonville's background information at the end of this report.

government

should refer to the

HIGHLIGHTS MAJOR PROBLEMS:

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS:

An elective Civil Service Board which has a mixture of judicial, legislative, and executive functions

An appointive Civil Service Board, consisting of some members appointed by the Mayor and some members elected by employees; with power to decide employee appeals and advise the Personnel Department on personnel policies

Executive responsibility vested in the Mayor and department heads without corresponding authority, resulting in a lack of accountability for personnel actions

A Personnel Department with expanded executive and legislative functions, placing personnel management in the hands of professionals

A reward system which fails to distinguish between satisfactory and clearly superior performance

A study to devise methods to stimulate productivity by means of appropriate rewards

A closed sys~em which severely lateral entry

Opening the system to allow outside competition for jobs above the entry level

restricts

A lack of training for supervisors sonnel management

in per-

Adequate funding for the Personnel Department to provide for its new personnel management functions and training for managers

THE STATUS

OF MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED

STATES

This section slliDrnarize~ t~e literatura in prufessional journals which constitutes committe-='s data base. Sp~cific sources are listed in tllt:: refet:'ences.

of the ~a~ager from the selection process. Freq Ijcntly, however, they discriminate against: certain ethnic groups or minorities. But, worst of all, they frequently do not prove effective as a tool to predict job performance.

In the uatior. a reform ;novement is taking place l.r-. civil servic~ systen:s ~'.t tile feaeral, stat-= a'ld local lev-=ls. Chang~ has been;; timulated by the fact that times and conditions have changed since the civil service was first set up to com~at the ills of the spoils system. ~len civil service began, its purpose was to give public employees some job security by preventing a newly elected office holder from dismissing the old set of employees and replacing them with his friends or supporters. The civil service system was very effective in doing just that. Critics charge that that very system, designed to prevent abuses, has become rigidified and obsolete ap-d now often stands as a roadblock to effective personnel management and thereby hampers the effective delivery of government services. Many of the methods used by the merit systems to protect against past abuses have actually served to exclude well qualified persons, to limit the flexibility of responsible elected officials and to curtail the effectiveness of the public service. In today's world a public official can better insure his re-election through demonstration of productivity and efficiency in government, rather than by patrcnage.

An overemphasis on seniority as a basis for promotions. In many jurisdictions employees are given extra points of credit on examinations for each year of service. In others, outsiders are not eligible to take the test. In effect this means that there is no lateral entry into the system and no influx of new ideas and stimulation. Systems which are found to be in conflict with sound principles of personnel administration. The civil service commissions are often given authority to make rules and policies, to administer these rules and to interpret these rules through a quasi-judicial forum. These commissions often are given administrative powers which belong in the hands of management who are the ones accountable to the public for sound administration. In selecting new employees or promoting old employees, managers are frequently limited to the 'rule of three' or the 'rule of one'. This means that they must select from the top or three top persons as determined by test scores with the additional points for seniority and veterans' preference. Given the invalidity of most tests, this becomes a meaningless method of selection.

The shortcomings of the traditional civil service system in local governments have been well described in the press and the professional literature of public administration and personnel management. They are $ummarized here. An inadequate system of rewards to distinguish the truly competent and able employees from the incompetent. Pay is seldom related to merit. It is extremely difficult to dismiss an unproductive employee who d0es not flagrantly violate the rules. Employee performance is rarely evaluated as a basis for promotion. .

part of the

Long delays in hiring and firing. The time involved in recruiting, scheduling examinations, grading examinations and certifying eligible candidates often takes four to six months. By this time, the candidates at the top of the list have often take other jobs. Procedures for dimissal are often cumbersome and drawn out.

An over use of written tests for employee selection and promotion to the exclusion of personal judgment. In looking for an impartial and objective system, it was quite natural that early civil service commissions turned to the use of written tests. With the beginning of intelligence testing during the first world war, testing grew as an important field in psychology. Recently, under the impetus of increasing opportunities for minority groups it has become clear that written tests, even when constructed with the best of intentions, are not necessarily fair. They are effective in removing the personal judgment

Separation of authority from responsibility makes it difficult to pinpoint responsibility and encourages buck passing. Managers use the system as an excuse for poor management and employees may also give up trying. Inclusion of key department heads in the civil service system. Department heads should be in tune with the policy goals of the chief administrator in order to carry out his platform effectively. In some jurisdictions there are few exemptions from civil service.

earlier in 1962 in the report of the Municipal ~~npower Commission. These proposals essentially returned administrative power for personnel fun~tiolling to the responsibility of the chief executive, established a citizens' board as In 1970, the National CivilS~rvice League updated advisors to the personnel department and established a hearing officer to handle grievances its model law fo~ public personnel administration Since 1970, hundreds of local in order to streamline and modernize merit systems. and appeals. jurisdictions have adopted part or all of the They followed closely the principles set for~h provisions of this model code. Inadequate training programs for supervisory a~d middle management personnel. Local legislative bodies seldom adequately fund employee training and development programs.

FINDINGS ~~CKSONVILLE/S CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM Findings are derived from published materials listed in the references committee understanding as reported by resource persons.

or from a consensus

COVERAGE Of the approximately 20,000 local government employees in Jacksonville, including school personnel, 13,000 come under civil service. In the central government itself, 99% of ~loyees are include~incivil service. Among those exempted from civil service in the independent agencies all are certificated personnel at the .School Board and physicians at University Hospital.

by and responsible to the Mayor. However, changes in this draft were made by the legislature prior to submission of the charter to the voters. Provision was made for an elected Civil Service Board which was given some executive functions, as well as policy making powers. Although executive responsibility still rests with the Mayor and is delegated to the Personnel Director and other department heads, their orders and policies may be countermanded by the Civil Service Board.

Exemptions in the central governwent are based on the principles that the Mayor should have an opportunity to appoint those who are supportive of his goals and objectives. Therefore, those in policy making posistions, i.e., department heads, deputy directors and division chiefs are exempted. Employees in confidential positions are also exempt from civil service.

DISPERSAL

There is no central point of accountability for personnel actions. Power and authority are dispersed among many different offices or sections of local government. Although legislation has attempted to c~arify roles and responsibilities, areas remain where jurisdiction is unclear or overlapping.

MONITORING ROLE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

OF ACCOUNTABILITY

BOARD

The administering of the job classification function is monitored by the Civil Service Board to ensure freedom from manipulation or favoritism by management.

Since consolidation, forces outside local government have brought about further dispersion of the personnel functions. The addition of new offices and responsibilities has made the system so complex that few even in local government itself have an understanding of the total personnel picture.

The Civil Service Board reviews and revises the job classification system to ensure that throughout local government persons in similar jobs work under comparable pay scales.

The passage of the collective bargaining law in the State of Florida and subsequent changes in the city charter to allow for collective bargaining, in effect, removed pay and working conditions from the jurisdiction of ~he Civil Service Board. An employee relations office under the Mayor was created. A grievance procedure for union employees now parallels the grievance process handled by the Civil Service Board.

AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Jacksonville's civil service system is not fully under the control of the Mayor. The original draft of the consolidated charter gave all personnel responsibilities except that of hearing appeals to the Personnel Director, appointed

The movement to broaden representation of minorities and women in the public work force has been strengthened and promoted by federal action under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Jacksonville now has an affirmative action office to monitor implementation. In addition, the affirmative action office offers the first step of a grievance procedure when an employee believes discrimination on the basis of race, sex or age has occurred. Still another local government agency, the Community Relations Commission, conducts hearings if the matter is not resolved by conference. Local offices, agencies and branches of government affiliated with personnel functions involving policy and judgment include: 'ÂŁhe Mayor

The Personnel Department Department Heads City Council The Civil Service Board The Affirmative Action Office The Employee Relations Office The General Counsel's Office The Community Relations Commission Appropriate sections of the independent agencies

The persons accountable to taxpayers fQr the productivity and efficiency of employees are not given authority co~ensurate with that responsibility. Under the theory of consolidated government, the Mayor is responsible for the effective use of personnel. The Jacksonville Civil Service Board is charged with developing and maintaining the merit system for public employees and it is not directly charged with looking after the taxpayers' interest in effective and efficient public service. Responsibility and authority, therefore, are separated and diluted between the Mayor and the Board. This is no small concern, since personnel costs make up 80% of the cost of government. Personnel in state and local governments throughout the nation have grown by 132% over the past 20 years. Although 20 year data are not available locally, for the nine year period from 1969-1978, personnel in the government of Jacksonville grew from 15,196 to 20,693, an increase of 30%. This includes employees of the central government, the School Board and the independent agencies.

CONFLICTING

GOALS

The goals of the Federal government to increase the representation of women and minorities in the public work force are in conflict with preferential hiring policies for veterans. When such conflict occurs it is not easily resolved and morale suffers.

Disputes over jurisdiction and power are not uncommon. They result in delays, decisions which are not final, and less effective management. For example, must the elected Civil Service Board comply with mandates from the Affirmative Action Office if they feel these affirmative action requirements are in conflict with their rules and their interpretations of the merit system? For a time it seemed the answer was no. After the City Council passed an equal opportunity ordinance in response to federal requirements, it was unclear whether the Council or the Civil Service Board would prevail. Very recently, the Board changed its rules to allow for a random listing of eligible candidates who had passed the entry level tests, without refererences to test scores. (Unless written tests have been sufficiently validated as predictors of job performance, EEOC regulations require that their use be limited to setting a minimum level of qualifications.) Matters of pay are determined by bargaining agreements under the collective bargaining addition to the City Charter. However, in a case now before the courts, =~e Sheriff, a union and the Civil Service Board are in conflict regarding jurisdiction over a pay matter. In this case, step increases were denied by the Sheriff to certain police officers because of alleged abuse of sick leave privileges. The Civil Service Board intervened to order that the pay be granted. The proper jurisdiction for this matter is yet to be determined.

The veterans' preference policies are established by federal legislation and further strengthened and implemented by Florida statutes. The local Civil Service Board in its rules has provided for awarding points to veterans over and above examination scores. This has applied only to those who have achieved a passing score on the examination. Recently, this method of according preference to veterans was challenged by EEOC rulings as expressed in the local affirmative action ordinance. Now names of those candidates for employment who have passed entry level tests must be given to management in random order without regard to test scores. Therefore, the new way of signalling preference to veterans is by designation of their names with an asterisk or in the case of disabled veterans a double asterisk. Legal opinions are now being sought regarding the compliance of this method with Florida veterans' preference legislation.

EMPLOYEE PROTECTION Employees have protection against unfair dismissal, hiring and promotional practices, and a grievance procedure. However, there was disagreement among resource persons'who spoke to the committee about whether this protection in some areas is excessive and/or duplicated.

.; . ..

.. -~

t <. 1

Most employees now have several routes to take concerning grievances, or appeals to disciplinarj actions.

lists of employees for hire and promotion. This involves administering the rules which it has created.

In matters covered under the union contract, employees may utili7.e the grievance procedure route outlined by the contract with the ultimate step of arbitration.

Finally, it ha~ quasi-judicial powers to act as fact finder, judge, and jury at hearings, using its rules but without the safeguards against lobbying and po~itical influence built into judicial systems. Lobbying is permissible with regard to executive and legislative ~unctions but is prohibited by law for judicial functions. A number of resource persons expressed a belief that there have been attempts to influence the outcome of Civil Service Board hearings. Whether this is a widespread practice or valid concern was not documented for the committee.

In matters relating to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age or national origin, the grievance or appeal route for all employees is via the Affirmative Action Office and the Community Relations Commission. On other matters employees may choose between the contractual route or hearings ~efore the Civil Service Board. The employee may engage his own attorney. If a union member, he may utilize the services of a union attorney, if in the judgment of the union the case merits this action.

The Civil Service Board, as demontrated, has executive, legislative and judicial functions, yet no penalties are provided for attempts to influence the judicial or quasi-judicial hearings of the Board.

In both the police and fire departments an internal disciplinary hearing board is provided as the first mechanism through ~hich an employee may appeal a disciplinary action. l~is board includes peers of the employee as well as representatives from management. In both departments the employee may appeal t~e decision of this diciplinary hearing board to the Civil Service Board, thereby generating another full investigation and another full hearing. Thus, for these two departments, another layer of grievance procedure is available to the employee.

ELECTED CIVIL

SERVICE

BOARD -

UNIQUE IN THE NATION The Civil Service Board in Jacksonville is the only remaining elected civil service board in the United States, according to the National Civil Service League. Different opinions were expressed to the committee regarding the pros and cons of elected versus appointed boards. Union representatives and Civil Service Board members who spoke to the committee prefer an elected board. They believe that election by the voters is the fairest and best way to select board members. In their view a board which is appointed (presumably by the Mayor with City Council confirmation) might le~n heavily toward the management orientation of the Mayor. However, it was pointed out by others that appointments could be made partially by the Mayor and partially by the employees in order to achieve a balance. Two city managers, several administrative personnel of the City of Jacksonville, a representative of the National Civil Service League, and a previous Jacksonville mayor stated to the committee that the elected board leads to an unbalanced situation in which the employee side is favored. City employees and their families make up a sizeable voting bloc in Civil Service Board elections. These are the people who stand to benefit directly from the results. The average citizen, on the other hand, is not familiar with the powers and responsibilities of the Civil Service Board. In addition, personnel administration in the last 20 years has grown to a highly technical and professional field. An appointed board might result in members with qualifications of a professional nature which would better equip them to make sound administrative personnel decisions.

Some employees whose salaries are paid by federal grants do not come under civil service. They have still another grievance procedure based on federal statutes. It parallels the civil service procedure. Their exclusion from civil service is based on the fact that their positions are funded by the federal government on a year-to-year basis. The City, therefore, chose not to give them tenure under civil serv~ce. It should be noted that some of these programs, such as public housing, have been ongoing for many years and will probably continue. The existence of this category of employee results in further fragmentation of personnel responsibility.

MULTI-FUNCTION ASPECTS OF THE

CIVIL SERVICE BOARD The Civil Service Board as now constituted is a multi-function body. The Board has authority to make rules which are essentially the personnel policies for the City of Jacksonville. This is, in effect, a legislative function. Yet it operates without the usual mandated legislative safeguards such as public hearings when rules are changed. The Board also has authority to approve the job classificatiou system and approve eligible

~ MOTIVATIONAL TOOLS TO MANAGEMENT

AVAILABLE

;.;

Management has few tools available to reward and motivate productive hard working employees and to discipline promp tly employees who violate the rules and precepts of the work world. Dealing with employees who abide by the rules but are incompetent or relatively unproductive is extremely difficult after the probationary period of six months.

After meeting experience and education requl.rements, the primary method of determining qualifications for employment is by the use of written tests. Performance tests are given much less frequently. Procedures for testing and the administration and scoring of tests are reportedly fair. While managerial judgment is not a factor in promotion decisions, the selection process for entry level positions has provided for increasing use of managerial judgment. Since 1978, in order to comply with the Affirmative Action Ordinance, mana~ers have been presented with a random listing of candidates who have passed the test. The manager has no knowledge of test scores or ranking. Choices are made on the basis of qualifications as determined by interviewing.

Managers do not ordinarily have the ability to reward employees for superior performance. There are exceptions to this statement. The unions contracts covering supervisors and contracts covering managers and confidential personnel provide for a double step increase as an option for outstanding performance. The great majority of union contracts in the City provide for periodic pay increases for satisfactQry performance. If performance is unsatisfactory these 'automatic' increases may be withheld. This rarely occurs. Promotion to a higher position is based on length of employment with the City and the ability to pass written promotional tests, rather than on evaluation and recommendations by accountable supervisors. The written tests have not been clearly proven to be reliable predictors of success on the job. Such validation of tests is extremely costly and never perfect.

Disciplining an employee who is late or frequently absent or whc is accused of even more serious charges such as larceny requires a great deal of managerial effort, time, documentation and consequent expense. The employee may appeal any disciplinary action to the Civil Service Board and will be granted a hearing. At hearings the appointing authority must document the charges brought against the employee and prepare a case. Witnesses are called. The employee may utilize the union's attorney if a union member or provide his own. The city provides an attorney to advise the Civil Service Board and an attorney to rep~esent management.

Promotions are still governed by the Civil Service Board's 'rule of one.' This means that the appointing authority must select the top person on the list of those who passed the examination, based on the highestuumber of points. Points are awarded via the test score itself, on the basis of seniority and according to state veterans' preference regulations (as implemented by local Civil Service Board rules).

Data submitted by the Civil Service Board for 1977 and 1978 revealed that approximately one third of the disciplinary actions reported were initially appealed by thÂŁ employees. Two hundred eighty four disciplinary actions were reported; 97 were ~ppealed. Of the 97 cases appealed, 61 hearings were actually held.

One half-point for each year of continuous service in the department or agency up to a maximum of ten points is added to the test scores. Another half point for each year in the rank or position immediately below that being tested, up to a maximum of five points, is allowed. On their first promotional exam after returning from military leave, veterans may be awarded an additional five points. Those veterans who have a service connected disability as defined by law are eligible for 10 veterans preference points. The implementation of veterans' preference legislation is currently under review by the General Counsel's office.

The committee received different opinions and facts about the record of the Civil Service Board in upholding management rather than the employee. Although members of the Board contend that their decisions uphold management 90% of the time. this is based on the interpretation that upholding management means agreeing with management's findings or conclusions although sometimes differing in the penalty recommended. Data provided by the Civil Service Board for 1977-1978 show that management was upheld completely (both in its decision and penalty) 20% of the time. Data provided by the General Counsel's Office from 1973-1977 show that Board upheld management (where dismissal was recommended) 35% of the time. The Sheriff's Department reported 24 cases referred to the Civil Service Board since consolidation with the Board upholding management 33% of the time. Other departments gave higher estimates of being upheld. At

Managerial judgment is not a f,lctor in promotion decisions. This is contrary to the principles of sound personnel management as revealed by resource persons from the public and private sectors and published resource material.

{!c

In the police and fire departments the probationary period is one year. Several resource persons were of the opinion that this one year probationary period, or an even longer period, provides a better opportunity to evaluate an employee.

any rate, a high rate of denying management's recommendations for penalties has l~d to the general belief by management that they cannot win. As a result, some departments avoid disciplinary action which might lead to an appeal to the Civil Service Board except in the most dire circumstances. Other managers request a stiffer penalty than they actually feel is appropriate, believing that the Board will reduce it in any case.

USE OF AVAILABLE BY MANAGEMENT

LACK OF MANAGEMENTTRAINING Local government provides no regular training program for management. There is no formalized training for management in the Civil Service Board procedures, rules and definitions of terms. No funds are budgeted for such training.

TOOLS

Management, according to the resource persons who appeared before the committee, d~es not make full use of the available tools to discipline unsatisfactory employees. Because of conflicts with the Civil Service Board and possibly inadequate training, many in management have failed to try or have tried and given up. They feel it takes too much time from other duties to prepare adequate documentation for cases. Therefore, they avoid most disciplinary action which is likely to result in a hearing before the Civil Service Board. Resource persons in city management stated that they rarely utilize disciplinary measures for nonproductivity or inefficiency.

CLOSED

SYSTEM

For all but entry level positions and the appointed positions of top management, the civil service system is essentially a closed system. Few opportunities exist for lateral entry into the system. When a vacant position exists above the entry level, those in the Same department who hold a job just below the vacancy are extended the first opportunity to compete for the job. If none so qualify then the opportunity may be extended to employees in all parts of local government, and lastly. to the public.

For most employees there is a six months probationary period during which management can dismiss an employee for unsatisfactory work performance. In such a case the employee is not entitled to a Civil Service Board hearing. However, if the employee is able to convince the Civil Service Board thgt the dismissal was not based on unsatisfactory work performance, a hearing may be held.

This policy of giving preference (for jobs above entry level) to current city employees also has the effect of retarding progress in affirmative action.

CONCLUSIONS Conclusions represent the value judgments based on the findings.

Personnel is the major cost factor in government. Therefore, productivity and effective use of personnel should be primary concerns of the city administration and taxpayers alike.

of committee members.

Exemptions of those in important policy making and senior management positions from the Civil Service system is compatible with the principles of a merit system. The responsibility for the merit system and employee protection was originally assigned to the Civil Service Board. However. dispersal and duplication of powers and procedures have occurred as the result of collective bargaining. state legislation and provisions for equal employmentopportunitie~ This division of authority has caused jurisdictional disputes, increased cost and ineffective management.

Personnel administration today is a highly complicated and developed professional field. Therefore. the development of personnel policies belongs in the hands of these professionals as much as possible.

The existence of an independently elected Civil Service Board with administrative and policy-making responsioilities is in conflict with the tenets of the strong Mayor system of Jacksonville's government. The ~~yor's office is not fully accountable for the effective use of personnel. The necessary authority to achieve high levels of productivity, which citizens expect from any service organizatior., is not vested in any single office.

Existing grievance and appeals procedures are adequate for providing employee protection. However, the fact that multiple avenues and layers of appeal are open to some employees can cause delays in resolving grievances. This may deter managers from initiating action against employees. The present system of compensation is insufficient to distinguish betWeen satisfactory and clearly superior employees. Employees do not have monetary incentives to do outstanding work.

Legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial functions should not be a5signed to one governmental body. The Civil Service Board as now constituted has these functions. Those who enact the rules should not be charged with administering the rules and with interpreting those rules and judging alleged violations of the same rules.

The probationary period is a part of the employee selection process. Much of this period must be utilized for orientation and for training in job skills. Six months is not a long enough time for managers to evaluate some new employees.

The present Civil Service system does not provide adequate safeguards to protect the integrity of the quasi-judicial process as it applies to the merit system. Without such safeguards suspicions of judicial lobbying, justified or not, are likely to occur.

After the probationary p~riod, management has virtually DO tools for dealing with employees who conform to most of the rules but are nonproductive. The presence of even a few unproductive employees is demoralizing to the far greater numbers of hard working conscientious employees.

Training for managers in personnel management, the administration of union contracts and Civil Service procedures is inadequate. If managers are to make sound personnel decisions, appropriate training must be provided. A smoothly functioning Civil Service system requires enlightened managers with a firm knowledge of the rules and practices governing personnel action and, in particular. the merit system.

A closed civil service system which restricts .~ hiring from outside of government except at the entry level does not always ensure that the best qualified person is selected for the position. Although promotions from within should be encouraged by employee development and training programs, outsiders should be allowed to compete for jobs on the basis of qualification. True competition :~

can result in improved services for taxpayers at less cost.

The present process for selection of the Civil Service Board has resulted in a membership (perceived, if not in fact) partial to employee viewpoints in the appeals process. This perceived bias discourages city administrators from taking necessary disciplinary action. Many managers work around unproductive employees to avoid the Civil Service hearing process and others hide behind this as an excuse for poor management.

There is little flexibility and no room for managerial judgment in promotion decisions. From the qualified applicants, the manager should be able to choose those most capable of professional growth. Civil Service Board rule making procedures are not governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, full public notice, of proposed policy changes is sometimes lacking.~

The election of Civil Service Board members presents a problem since these races are not of general interest to the electorate. Due to inadequate media coverage of these races, citizens do not have readily available information regarding the powers and responsibilities of the Civil Service Board and the qualifications of the candidate$. This permits disproportion~te influence in these elections by special interest

A randomized listing of entry level candidates without test scores gives managers insufficient information to make sound selection decisions. Furthermore, some managers do not take advantage of the full range of options which do now exist.

groups .

8 -:1

RECOMMENDATIONS ~

The JCeI Study Committee charged with reviewing the Jacksonville Civil Service system recommends that:

should be elected for two year terms only. In 1983 the new nonsalaried Board should be appointed, as describea above,

1. Adequate employee protection against partisan political influence on employee selection, promotion, and discipline must be maintained.

or (2) Al1 elected Civil Service Board members should complete their terms of office in 1981. In 1981 the new non-salaried Board should be appointed as described above.

2. The functions, structure, and selection process of the Civil Service Board should be modified by action of the Florida Legislature. A newly created Civil Service Board should be empowered to: advise the Mayor on all aspects of personnel management select a qualified hearing officer to make reviews of employee appeals to disciplinary actions and grievances,

and decide employee appeals to disciplinaryaction and grievances

Since the Civil Service Board would continue to function in a quasi-judicial capacity, any attempts to influence or lobby the Board members should be designated as felonies, punishable under the law. The Civil Service Board should select a professional hearing officer from a list of qualified persons submitted by the American Association of Arbitration or the Division of Administrative Hearings in the state of Florida. The hearing officer should represent the public interest by initiating a timely review of appeals resulting from alleged adverse employer action.

a. The new non-salaried Board should be appointed for three year overlapping terma. This Board should be composed of seven members. Three members should be appointed by the Mayor, three members elected by city employees covered by civil service, and the seventh member should be chosen by the other six, with all appointments being confirmed by the City Council.

During such review both the appealing employee and the appointing authority should have the right to be heard publicly, to be represented by a person of his choice and to present evidentiary facts. Technical rules of evidence should not apply at such a hearing. In conducting the administrative hearing, the hearing officer should have the power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel the production of books, papers and other documents and receive evidence. Administrative procedures should follow those as set by Florida statutes. The hearing officer should present his order of findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Civil Service Board.

With the exception of the members selected by employees, no members of the Civil Service Board should be employed by the City of Jacksonville or connected with the city administration. Each ye.ar members of the Board should select a chairman from their group. The City Council should be empowered to remove members of the Board for cause under due process of law. Selection of a replacement should be made in the same manner as the original appointment for the remainder of the term. d.

To bring about these changes in an orderly manner, one of two routes could be followed: (1) The newly elected m=mbers of the Civil Service Board (seats I, 3 5, and 7) should hold office until the expiration of their terms 1~ 1983. In 1981, seats 2, 4, and 6

The Civil Service Board may alter the conclusions reached by the hearing officer but may not reject or modify the findings of fact or reopen the hearing. The Board should have the responsibility of issuing a penalty consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board should transmit the order on each case to the Mayor.

f ~!

A strengthenedPersonnel Department, directly

4. The Mayor should be giv~n sufficient authority over personnel to achieve high levels of productivity from employees.

accountable to the Mayor, should be responsible for the develQpment and implementation of personnel policies, including the executive and legislative functions currently assigned to the Civil Service Board. The department should be staffed by professionals in personnel management. a.

The Personnel Department should assume the duties of job classification and test certification as now performed by the Civil Service Board.

Full notice of proposed rule changes should be published with a public hearing held prior to adoption by the Personnel Department.

The Personnel Department should be mandated by the Mayor to provide a systematic plan of training for managers in personnel management, the administration of union contracts, and civil service procedures.. The training program should be designed to make managers aware of the full range of options available to them in employee relations.

The Personnel Department in cooperation with individual departments should establish productivity quality standards for all jobs. By this means an individual's performance can be obje~tively evaluated annually and appropriately rewarded. A study should be made by an outside management consulting firm to determine methods of evaluating the performance of appropriate groups of employees (i.e., divisions, sections) and of rewarding meritorious performance by these groups to provide incentives for outstanding efficiency, quality, and overall productivity. Such rewards might include one time bonuses, extra vacation time or similar grants.

A review of personnel should be underta~en to determine if there are specific additional positions which should be removed frOQ the Civil Service system.

Management should be given greater discretion in the selection and reward of employees in order to assure a high productive work force.

The City Council should provide adequate funding of the Personnel Department to allow for its expanded responsibilities in personnel management and for the additional managerial training.

Policy making and senior management positions should continue to be exempt from the Civil Service system and under the direct control of the Mayor.

The system of employee selection should be modified to supply managers with more informa.tion about the candidates' abilities as demonstrated by test scores. The random listing of-applicants should be replaced by groupings of well qualified, qualified and minimally qualified applicants. Greater flexibility should be given managers in promotion decisions. The 'rule of one' should be abolished. Management should be able to choose from those who have successfully passed the test for promotion.

The probationarY period fer entry level employees and promotions should be extended to one year and managers should be encouraged to make full use of this time for employee evaluation.

Vacancies in positions above the entry level should be open to all candidates both inside and outside of local government. Consideration of candidates from within the department, other sections of local government, and those outside government should occur simultaneously.

The use of a fixed number of seniority points and service points in promotion decisions should be abolished. However, managers should consider length of service as a factor in promotion decisions.

10 --....---

j !

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

THE HISTORY OF CIVIL SERVICE IN JACKSONVILLE

Regular open board meetings are held twice a month on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. Classification Committee meetings are held every other Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Hearings are held two or three nights each week. The Rules Committee meets as required.

Prior to consolidation there were two civil service boards in Jacksnville: a county board and a city board. The Jacksonville Civil Service Board was established in 1935. It consisted of three appointed members. The Duval County Civil Service Board was established in 1943 and consisted of five elected members. In 1965 the F1Qrida Legislature. amended these statutes and made the Jacksonville Civil Service Board a five person elec~ed body. Both the city and county boards had duties which included the development of personnel policies, the administration of personnel policies and the adjudication of appeals resulting from disciplinary action or grievances.

The City charter charges the Civil Service Board with the responsibility for developing and fostering the personnel policy of the consolidated government. The Board approves and adopt3 a job classification plan and it provides a promotional career system by competitive examinations. It adopts its own rules and regulations and hears appeals on dis~iplinary actions and grievances by employees.

PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Pr~or to consolidation the proposed charter f~r Jack50nvi1le's new govetTIment included considerable changes in the personnel and civil service functions. The Personnel Department wa.c;to be placed as a direct operating department under the elected Mayor with full responsibility for administering the personnel and civil service system. Policies were to be developed by a civil service law to be passed by the. City Council. The Civil Service Board, an appointed board, was to function as an appeals board only, holding hearings on employee dismissals and infringement of employee rights. The Board was to be appointed by the City Council who would receive nominations from citizen jrganizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Civic Roundtable, the Duval Medical Society, the Central Labor Organization and elected officials.

The Florida Legislature changed some of these provisions before the consolidation legislation was passed. It made the Civil Service Board an elected board and gave it power to administer and determine personnel policies as well as the appeals function.

THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AS IT CURRENTLYEXISTS IN JACKSONVILLE

IN JACKSONVILLE'S

Personnel functions in Jacksonville's local government are assigned to a number of different offices, departments, and agencies. Their roles are described below in general terms: The Mayor: Under the Consolidated charter, the Mayor is the chief executive and adIrinistrative officer, responsible for the conduct of the executive and administrative branch of consolidated government. He has the power to appoint all department directors including the director of personnel. He is responsible for the personnel function of government. Since consolidation, two additional offices under the Mayor have been created to deal with certain aspects of personnel functioning. The Affirmative Action Office - Was established to monitor affirmative action progress in the City of Jacksonville in accordance with the City's affirmative action ordinance and guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It hears and deals with employee complaints related to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age or ethnic background.

The Employee Relations Office - Was "established in 1971 subsequent to the passage of the collective bargaining referendum of Jacksonville. It has two major functions: to negotiate collective bargaining agreements directly with five unions and indirectly with two JEA units

The Civil Service Board is currently made up of seven members, elected at large in partisan elections for four year terms. Members receive a salary of $7,200 per year. The budget of the Civil Service Board is $171,000. It is funded entirely by the City including the salaries of board members and the salaries of the staff (five secretaries).

and secondly, to administer these agreements. This office is involved in overall pay increases as provided in union contracts. (Prior to the advent of collective bargaining for public employees, the Civil Service Board was responsible for employee compensation issues).

Department Heads are responsible for administering personnel policies and regulations set forth by the Civil Service Board regarding recruitment of personnel, promotion and discip Unary action. The Personnel Department itself is responsible for personnel administration including hiring, employee safety programs, employee development and training, implementing the personnel policy prescribed by the Civil Service Board, conducting and preparing job specifications and examinations.

The Community Relations Commission: This established advisory body concerned with fair treatment of all citizens has recently been empowered to conduct appeals relating to cases of discrimination in employment. The Jacksonville City Council: The elected legislative body for Jacksonville retains final power over compensation of city employees. The Coancil may pass ordinances such as the affirmative action ordinance which directly impact on personnel policy. It shares with the legislature the control of city retirement policies.

The General Counsel's Office contributes to personnel functioning by providing an attorney to advise the Civil Service Board itself and by providing attorneys to represent management in appeals to disciplinary action. In some cases, independent agencies, such as the Hospital Authority, the Jacksonville Electric Authority and the School Board handle selected personnel functions in place of the personnel department.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND WORK The- JCCI Committee reviewing the civil service ~ystem met weekly from November 1978 through May 1979. Data were derived from the resource persons who appeared before the committee and from selected readings in professional literature. Officials in local government were extremely helpful in providing policies. rules and current practices. The staff of the Civil Service Board and the Personnel Department responded promptly and with thoroughness to all committee requests for data.

Members of the JCCI Study Civil Service:

COI8d.ttee on

*Max Morris. Chairman *0. B. Cosby. Management Team *Frank Reneke. Management Team *Suzanne Schnabel. Management Team Audrey Baker. Management Team *Robert P. T. Young. Management Team Bernice Butler *William Caldwell *Dan Castle *Joan Carver Dan Donaldson *Honey Danziger *Dottie Dorion *George Frank *Marvin Ganson *B. A. Grubbs

This was a study by citizens representing different points of view and different backgrounds. From the beginning the Management Team. which served as a steering and planning group for the study. took care to ensure that the committee itself was balanced. and that responsible resource persons represented all major sides of the issues.

*Indicates

*Hattie

Jackson

*Madelyn Levin *William Mathias Ginger McCaskill Don Miner Linda Padgett Steve Romeo Isabella Sharpe *Mari Terbruggen Darlene Tye

current members

of JCCI.

Marian Chambers served as JCCI staff associate for the committee. with supporting services from Annette Van Sickle and Essie Simpson.

REFERENCES

Beaumont, Enid. A Pivotal Point for the Merit A Model Public Personnel Administration Law. Concept. Public Administration Review, National Civil Service League, 1970. September/October1974. Peirce, Neal R. State-Local Report/Civil Service Blueprint for Improvement. Local Government Systems Experience Quiet Revolution. National Study Commission of Duval County. 1966, Journal, December 1975. pp. 56-61. Rules and Regulations, Civil Service Board. The Committee for Economic Development..ImprovCity of Jacksonville, Florida ~~ Mana~ement of the Public Work Force, the Savas, E. S. and Ginsburg. The Civil Service: Challenge to State and Local Government. A Meritless System. The Public Interest, November, 1978. no. 32, Summer 1974. The JacksonvilleCity Charter. Section 19. Stanley, David T. Merit: The Now and Future Kranz, Harry. Are Merit and Equity Compatible? Thing. Public Administration Review, Public AdministrationReview, September/October September/October1974. 1974. Wurf, Jerry. Merit: Union View. Public Administ~ationReview, September/October 1974.

RESOURCE PERSONS TO THE COMMITTEE

Gary Keys, President~Lnternational

Association of Firefighters t !.oca 1 122, City of Jacksonville John Netson, Undersheriff, City of Jacksonville Lincoln Onfray, Union Representative, AFSCME, University Hospital John Pialorsi> P~esident, Fraternal Order of ~f Police, Lodge 530 Frank Reneke, Division Chief, Division of Data Processing, City of Jacksonville Andy Sabol, Chief, Division of Employee Relations, Jacksonville Electric Authority

DoyLe Boree, member Civil Service Board, City of Jacksonville Bob Brown, Office of the General Counsel, City of Jacksonville Rose Boyd, Executive Director, National Civil Service League phiL Cope, Office of the General Counsel, City of Jacksonville Chartie Cr~s, Ad~inistrative Assistant, Department of Health and Bio-environmental Services, City of Jacksonville Bitt Davis, City Manager, Atlantic Beach, Florida. (Former Director of Employee Relations. ) Joe C. Dekte, member, Civil Service Board, City of Jacksonville Raymond Duncan, Office of Employee Relations, City of Jacksonville Picot F'loyd, former City Manager, Clearwater, Florida

Normcm

James Fortenberry, former Director of Administration, Jacksonville Electric Authority HaroLd Gibson, member Civil Service Board, City of Jacksonville Jim Harris, Administrative Assistant, DepaTtment of Central Services, City of Jacksonville

Sh.a:rpless,

Director, Department of

Personnel, City of Jacksonville Jim SterJa:l't, AdGlinistrativeAssistant, DepaJ:tment of Health and Bio-environmental Services, City of Jacksonville Hans Tanzler, Sr., former Mayor of Jacksonville James Taylor, Vice-President, Marketing Division, Barnett Bank of Jacksonville Thomas Todd, Director of Personnel, University Hospital, Jacksonville Herb Undel"vJood, former aide to Mayor Tanzler, City of Jacksonville John Van Ness, Director, Department of Housing and Urban Developmeut, City of Jacksonville Captain John Waters, Director, Department of Public Safety, City of Jacksonville

ABOUT THE JACKSONVILLE

COMMUNITY

The Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. is a non-profit broad based citizen organizatiop chartered in 1975. JCCI represent~ a merger (If three former community groups:

goals

A Program Committee from the JCCI membership recommends issues of community interest. The JCCI Board of Managers approves issues of study for the year.

are:

Study Committee participants are recruited from JCCI membership and the community. The Study Co~aittee obtains a data base by means of regular meetings with responsible, knowledgeable resource persons, and staff research.

To strengthen and improve the capability of community institutions to serve citizens ~f the community.

When the fact finding phase is completed, the committee reaches conclusions and makes recommendations as part of the final report.

To forecast emerging trends and opportunities that will impact the quality of community life. To act as a catalyst decision-makers.

Jccr

the

Study committee ch:lirpersons and management team are selected.

To build citizen competence and awareness in effectively participating in community affairs.

JCGI functions primarily through the volunteer citizen study committee process:

The Community Planning Council The Commission on Goals and Priorities for Human Services Delegates to the Jacksonville Community Planning Conference at Amelia Island Its

COUNCIL, INC.

for bringing together

The report of the Study Committee is released to the public after consideration and approval by the Board of Managers.

is funded by:

JCCI members work to implement the recommendations of the report by communicating their findings to appropriate public officials and the community at large..

The United Way of Jacksonville The City of Jacksonville Gifts from private corporations Grants for specific research and evaluation projects

BOARD OF MANAGERS

Yank D. Coble.Jr. .........

Robert D. Davis ............ Joan Carver ................ GeorgeCorrick ............. Eleanor Ashby Jacquelyn Bates John Bryan

J. J. Daniel VeraDavis

Albert Ernest HowardGreenstein David Hicks Ken Johnson Daniel L. Lauray

President President-Elect Secretary Treasurer Flo rJel1 Ozell Robert Schellenberg Suzanne Schnabel Robert T. Shircliff Eddie Mae Steward

JCCI MEMBERSHIP ::

James H. Abernathy Henry Adams Robert H. Adams cary Adler Fred Aldridge jo Alexander Bob Alligood Eleanor Ashby James Atkins Barbara Bald Ronald J. Bannister W. Ray Barbee John Barbour Gerald Bartels Judy

Batchelder

Jacquelyn Ba tes C. Ronald Belton Luann Bennett James V. E. Bent Stephen Berry W. O. Birchfield }1argaret Black Susan H. Black James R. Boddie, Jr. Arthur H. Bolte Forrest F. Boone James L. Borland John Bowden Bruce Bower Hayne Bowers Frederick W. Bowman ~~ry-Louise Boyer Lew Brantley Alexander Brest Clanzel Brown John C. Bryan J. Shepard Bryan, Jr. Cecilia A. Bryant Ezekiel Bryant J. D. Buchanan, Jr. John Bunker James W. Burke J. W. Burnette Johnnie Lee Byrd John F. Byrne William H. Caldwell Betty Carley Joe Carlucci Deloris R. Carn Tom Carpenter Dale Carson Ulys~es B. Carter William Carter Joan Carver Robert Carver R. Daniel Castle Gene Center Frank Cerveny

Yank Coble Corine W. Cole Eddie Collins, Jr. Cecil W. Cone Daniel Cook William Cook Genie Cooke George Corrick O. B. Cosby Richard Covey Nancie Crabb L. E. Crittenden William J. Crossen Joseph Cullen Gerald Dake

Howard

Dale

J. J. Daniel Lee Daniel, Jr. James E. Davis Kevin L. Davis Robert Davis Vera Davis Walter Dickinson Honey Donziger Dottie Dorion Walter Dorman Paul C. Doyle Varina M. Druce Ruby R. DuBose Lawrence J. DuBow Connie Edgar Ken Eilermann Albert Ernest Shirley Etheridge Roosevelt Evans Jimmie Fant Drema Farmer James S. Farr Richard G. Fenn Emmett Ferguson Ronnie Ferguson George R. Fisher Susan Fisher Robert Flowers Joe Forshee Tillie Fowler Ginger Frailey Ellen Frank George A. Frank Moses Freeman, Jr. Juanita L. Fre're Frank Friedman, Jr. George Gable, Jr. John F. Gaillard Marvin Ganson Sallie Garlington Judy Gefter Courtney L. George

Margaret Gibbs Harold Gibson Jim Gilmore A. E. Girardeau James A. Gloster Jake M. Godbold Herbert Gold Gerald Goldsmith Lois Graessle AJ.ice Grant Cynthia Carey-Grant Monty O. Greene Howard Greenstein Anne Grimes Richard G. Groff B. A. Grubbs Ginger Guye tte AJ.ice R. Hadwin Mattox Hair Pat Hannan Major Harding George Harmon David Harrell William Harrell Rosanne Hartwell Preston Haskell Tom Healy James Henry David

Hicks

Marvin Hill, Jr. Helen Hoekenga R. B. Holmes Wendell Holmes Betty Holzendorf Ella Hornsby Homer Humphries J. Earl Huntley Rodney L~ Hurs t Kitty Inman Alberta Jackson

David B. Jackson Hattie R. Jackson Jesse A. Jackson William Jackson Marilyn Jacobs Judy Jacobson Isaiah James Kenneth L. Johnson William L. Johnson Charlene Jones Silas E. Jones Morton Kesler Charles E. King Ira Koger Daniel Kossoff Julie H. Kuntz Helen Lane Daniel Lauray

William G. Lee, Jr. Melinda J. Leighty Madelyn Leviu Earl Lewis John Lewis Max Long George Longworth Jean Ludlow Royce Lyles Wilford C. Lyon, Jr. Lacy Mahon Bruce Manning Richard C. Martin Hugh Maston, Jr. William Mathias, Jr. Meltonia May Donald McClure Jane McCullagh James T. McGihony Anne G. McIntosh Rudolph McKissick William C. Merwin Joseph F. Mikulas Bobbie-Sue Miller Gene Miller

Doug

Milne

Teala Milton John P. Minahan John Monsky Hax K. Morris Linda Moseley Michael J. Moy E. Ronal Mudd Rod M. Nicol Maria 0 'Hearn Michael S. 0' Leary

James M. Olsen Prime Osborn Flo Nell Ozell Steve Pajcic Ted Pappas

Gene Parks Espie Patrinely Pam Paul Trinita L. Petersen Mary Alice Phelan Brenda Priestly Jack Quaritius Caroline Rademacher Ann Radwan Christine Rasche Harry Reagan Bobby G. Reid Melvin P. Reid Mac Reigger Franklin Reinstine Del Revels Robert L. Richard

James C. Rinaman Lynwood Roberts Andrew Robinson Anne Ross Johnny Sanders Herbert Sang Frank R. Satchel Bob Schellenberg Gert Schmidt Harry Schnabel Suzanne Schnabel Fred Schultz Isabelle Sears Fred Seely Bettye Sessions Barbara Sharp Sandra Sheppard R. T. Shircliff Mary Lou Short Frances Simmons KennethM. Smith

Bette J. Soldwedel Leonard Spearman Mary SpuhleI" John Stafford, Jr. Martin Stein

Robert A. Stern Eddie Mae Steward Ka thryn Strayer

John J. Sulik I. M. Sulzbacher William Sulzbachec Marcus Tamplin Hans G. Tanzlet'

C. Chadwick Taylor Mari Terbrueggen Robert H. Threlkel James H. Tobin Arnold Tritt Barbara Twine Ashley Verlander B. J. Walker

Larr짜 J. Weas Thomas E. Weaver Al Wells Jim Wells Dick Weston-Jones Coby R. White Margaret Wiegand Isaiah Williams Walter Williams, Jr. Courtenay l-1ilso[\ Hugh Wilson Stephen R. Wis~ Betty Wood Wayne Wood Julie WoodruH Benjamin Wygal Claude Yates

R. P. T. Young A. P. Zechella Barbara Zimmerman