Summary
Purpose of Structural
Diversity Assessment
§
The purpose of Component 1 is to
assess the Structural Diversity Issues at the City of Tempe. The assessment
identified existing diversity focused initiatives, their implementation, their
effectiveness and the scope of their application in relation to the entire
employee population.
§
Review and analysis of the City of
Tempe’s Rules and Regulations to assess their effectiveness and actual
implementation.
§
Regulation terminology was tested for
consistency or inconsistency with applicable municipal ordinances, Arizona
Revised Statutes, and/or Federal guidelines.
§
Reviewed: (1) City of Tempe Personnel
Manual, (2) all relevant
Administrative Memorandums, (3) all pending grievances initiated by current or
former employees of the City of Tempe and (4) the proposed revisions to City of
Tempe’s Personnel Rules and Regulations as set forth in Tempe City Council
Resolution No. 2002.10.
§
External review of cities matching
Tempe’s demographics.
§
Major factors of selection:
§
1.Population size (plus / minus 5%)
§
2.Population ethnic diversity mix
§
Cities reviewed
§
48 considered.
§
8 selected.
§
3.
Amarillo, TX, Chandler, AZ, Huntington Beach, CA, Reno, NV, Rockford, ILL, Santa Clarita, CA,
Santa Rosa, CA, and Tacoma, WA
§
Research on public and private sector
diversity-focused best practices.
§
Examination of current practices
within the City in specific areas of organizational structure identified as
diversity sensitive.
§
Review and analysis of the City of
Tempe’s Rules and Regulations to determine use of best practices.
A Positive
Foundation Exists for Structural Improvement
§
The City of Tempe’s Policies and
Procedures are thorough, yet standard in their content when compared with other
cities of comparable size.
§
The City of Tempe appears to be ahead
of the curve in its desire for a comprehensive understanding of diversity as
part of a total culture/organization, as compared to other cities of its size.
§
The City does a good job of
communicating information to its employees.
§
Tempe is sensitive to employee
development as exemplified by the establishment of the Tempe Learning Center.
§
The City has more work-life balance
programs than the private industry
average.
§
Current senior management has
captured the trust of employees which provides an excellent opportunity for
strengthening the structural foundation.
§
The City’s personnel system purposes
should provide a general statement citing its commitment to creating a diverse
workplace.
§
The Personnel Policies should
indicate the point when a memorandum will be submitted to employee
organizations for their review and how/to whom employee comments can be
submitted.
§
Post administrative memoranda on the
City website in order to invite employee participation in the review process.
§
Clarify competency skills tested and
skills actually utilized in an employee’s duties for Bilingual Pay.
§
Provide for employees who have
regular interaction with the public in a language other than English but have
not been authorized for Bilingual Pay.
§
The City Manager should monitor Dept.
Head decisions regarding reinstatement, transfers, demotions and probationary
employees.
§
Department Managers should have a
monitoring process for step increase action or inaction involving unclassified
employees.
§
Clarify policies on actions that
arise out of a “personal or social relationship and that are not intended to
have a discriminatory employment effect” to be consistent with state and
federal civil rights laws.
§
Adopt the “dangerous instrument”
definition contained in state law
to encompass those instruments that, when used in an aggressive manner,
constitute a serious danger.
§
Amend policy on sexual harassment in
the workplace policy to impose a
restriction on music and images of an obscene or sexually explicit nature.
§
All employees should be fully
informed regarding action they can take if they are experiencing intolerable
working conditions within the City even if they have limited English writing
skills.
§
Amend employee layoff policy to
include performance, seniority, business necessity, as well as diversity
when determining the layoff process.
§
Amend the provision which allows for
dismissal when “an employee has lied …during an external or internal
investigation” as the policy is so broad it could lead to unintended
consequences.
§
Amend rules to provide for
alternative reporting procedures where the HR Manager or the Dept. Manager is
the person alleged to have engaged in the sexual harassment of an employee.
§
Investigative procedure rules for
sexual harassment should be amended to require that the harassing employee not
engage in retaliation against the complainant.
§
Establish policies for immediate
disciplinary action in the event of retaliatory conduct.
§
Amend Victim’s Rights leave policy to
include family of victims.
§
Ensure that management and employees
compile the list of approved external mediators for inclusion on an Advisory Hearing Committee for grievance
proceedings.
§
The final arbiter of a grievance
proceeding (the City Manager) should
provide a written basis for any determination that deviates from the
recommendation received.
§
Consistently follow time frames for
grievance procedures as set forth in the Rules and Regulations should be
consistently followed.
§
Establish a standard grievance
reporting form that can be easily accessed by City employees.
§
Establish a standard disposition form
that can be inserted in an employee’s file at the conclusion of the grievance
process.
§
The City Family Leave policies should
include an employee and his/her spouse/domestic partner when both are employed
with the City and leave is needed for the birth or adoption of a child or to
care for a sick parent.
§
Require notice of any employees who
are either a plaintiff or defendant in an order of protection if, and only
if, the City is prepared to take precautionary actions based on the
information.
§
Include notification of law
enforcement in city procedures to ensure that professionals with the authority
to take appropriate action investigate workplace violence incidents.
§
Identify a specific individual or
group of individuals who may exercise this authority when carrying out search
and/or inspection of City of Tempe property utilized by employees, to ensure
that all employees are handled in a consistent manner.
§
Such individuals in above role should
receive specific training from experienced law enforcement officers on both the
search seizure law and safety issues.
§
Possibilities for Retaliation are
present under current sexual harassment policies.
§
Develop objective standards for
determining “merit” as it relates to employment and promotion decisions that
apply to all employees across all departments.
§
Further evaluate the MST curriculum
to incorporate additional best
practices of diversity initiative training and career development competencies.
§
Develop initiatives to identify
internal and external high potential women and people of color candidates for employment
and career development.
§
Develop clear performance
expectations for all levels of management that reflect the city’s priority of
diversity and career development competencies at all levels of employment.
§
Develop employee task force groups to
study feasible additions and modifications to work-life balance initiatives
with an emphasis on diversity enhancement.
§
Develop and initiate a method of
evaluating the progress toward the successful implementation of diversity
initiatives and career development competencies.
§
Review the effectiveness of the Tempe
Employee Council
§
Consider establishing a Diversity
Awareness Program within the City.
§
Tie promotion and/or compensation to
their diversity goals in order to strengthen accountability to such goals.
§
The City should clarify its policy on
Individual Development Plans (IDP) for the following reasons:
·
The consequences for an employee’s
lack of participation in the IDP are not clear.
·
Potential deficiencies in best
practices career development competencies.
·
The language is ambiguous regarding
disciplinary action due to lack of progress depending on whether an employee
participates or not.
·
With the elimination of the annual
Performance Evaluation, there does not appear to be a means for evaluating an
employee’s job performance for salary purposes.
§
44% of all grievances filed with the
City were generated by employees in the Public Works Department.
§
20% of all grievances filed were
generated by employees of the Police Department.
§
The City has a serious lack of
uniformity in the documenting employee grievances.
§
There are a wide variety of areas
where the City Manager and Department Managers are granted considerable and
unfettered discretion in addressing employee issues which has resulted in the
inconsistent treatment of employees.
§
Some of the City’s rules and
regulations are not “diversity friendly”.
§
The IDP is woefully inadequate in its
proposed form because of its significant limitations regarding participation
and pay increases.
§
Policies and procedures need further
improvement in order to comply with the City’s stated commitment to creating a diverse workplace.
§
Tempe leads other comparable cities
as it relates to focusing on a diverse workforce, however there are some
specific areas of improvement needed.
§
There are a wide variety of areas
where the City Manager and department managers are granted considerable discretion
in addressing employee issues, which has resulted in the inconsistent treatment
of employees.
§
Some of the city’s rules and
regulations are not “diversity friendly.”
§
The IDP is inadequate in its proposed
form because of significant limitations regarding participation and pay
increases.
Component I: Assessment of Structural
Diversity Issues
The
analysis of the Tempe Rules and Regulations indicates that there are a wide
variety of areas where the City Manager and Department Managers are granted
considerable and unfettered discretion in addressing employee issues. This amount of discretion, without guidance
or parameters, has resulted, and will continue to result, in the inconsistent
treatment of employees. The reason for
such disparate treatment is based on the fact that it is almost entirely
dependent upon the individual who serves in the post of City or Department
Manager. That inconsistency will, often
times, have a disproportionate, adverse impact upon the City’s diverse
employees and can lead to an employee perception of unfairness that can
contribute to poor employee morale.
As
more specifically noted in the body of this report, there were occasions where
the proposed revisions and/or modifications adequately addressed some of the
issues identified during the analysis of the current rules and
regulations. There were, however, other
instances where some of the issues identified in analysis were merely carried
forward in the proposed revisions of the rules and regulations. Finally, there were also instances where the
proposed revisions raised an entirely new set of issues and concerns that may
not have existed under the current rules and regulations. Due to the fact that the City of Tempe’s
revisions have not been fully adopted and continue to be a “work in progress,”
every effort was made to provide a thorough analysis of both sets of rules and
regulations.
It
is apparent that some of the City’s rules and regulations are not “diversity
friendly.” There are numerous rules,
both current and proposed, that appear on their face to be diversity neutral.
However, when considering the manner in which these rules are actually
implemented and the groups of employees most directly impacted, it becomes very
apparent that some of the City’s employee regulations conflict with the general
objective of providing a diverse workplace.
It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the City alter the structure
of the examinations of these, and future, rules and regulations to incorporate
a diversity perspective.
While
the foregoing conclusions are general in nature, there is one section of the
rules and regulation that is worthy of specific attention given its importance
to employees. That area involves the
proposed replacement of the Employee Performance Evaluation Program (EPEP) with
the Individual Development Plan (IDP).
Should the City elect to discard its standard method of evaluating
employees for salary increases on a regular basis, it is critical that the alternative
program include some means for addressing salary considerations. Unfortunately, the IDP is woefully inadequate
in its proposed form because of its significant limitations regarding
participation and pay increases. In the
absence of the City adopting a standard method for evaluating employees and
awarding pay increases, City employees will become extremely disenchanted. The failure to provide such a method invites
arbitrary and capricious conduct that can be fatal to any organization. It is strongly urged that this issue be
addressed immediately.
Component 1: Assessment of Structural
Diversity Issues
Section A. Review of Personnel
Rules and Regulations
Overview
A significant portion of the Component I of the
Tempe Diversity Audit consisted of a thorough review and analysis of the City
of Tempe Personnel Rules and Regulations.
This review and analysis not only focused upon the specific rules and
regulations but also the actual implementation of the rules and
regulations. There were four primary
sources of information that were utilized in the course of this portion of the
audit. These sources included (1) the
City of Tempe Personnel Manual (commonly referred to as the Personnel Rules and
Regulations) last revised on August 12, 1999, (2) all relevant Administrative
Memorandums relating to the interpretation and/or implementation of the City of
Tempe Rules and Regulations, (3) all pending grievances, complaints and/or
claims initiated by current or former employees of the City of Tempe and (4)
the proposed revisions to City of Tempe’s Personnel Rules and Regulations as
set forth in Tempe City Council Resolution No. 2002.10. The assessment was conducted by Gary Husk,
President of Jamieson and Gutierrez.
Inasmuch as the City of Tempe is in the midst of
revising its personnel rules and regulations, it was necessary to review,
compare and contrast both the current and proposed rules and regulations. As more specifically noted in the body of
this report, there were occasions where the proposed revisions and/or
modifications adequately addressed some of the issues identified during the
analysis of the current rules and regulations.
There were, however, other instances where some of the issues identified
in analysis were merely carried forward in the proposed revisions of the rules
and regulations. Finally, there were
also instances where the proposed revisions raised an entirely new set of
issues and concerns that may not have existed under the current rules and
regulations. Due to the fact that the
City of Tempe’s revisions have not been fully adopted and continue to be “work in progress”, every effort was made to
provide a thorough analysis of both sets of rules and regulations. The following is a narrative of all of the
major issues identified in the analysis of the City of Tempe Rules and
Regulations (current and proposed):
Purpose and Legal
Requirements.
In its recitation of the purposes for the personnel
system, the City may want to consider providing a general statement citing its
commitment to creating a diverse workplace for its employees. Such a statement would certainly demonstrate
the importance that the City places on this issue and may provide greater
encouragement for employees to attain this objective.
Although there is no similar provision contained in
the current rules and regulations, the proposed revisions require that all
administrative memoranda must be approved by the City Council and are to be
submitted for review by the Tempe Officers Association, the United Phoenix
Firefighters Association, Local 493, Tempe Chapter and the Tempe Employees’
Council. While the desire to involve
Tempe’s various employee organizations in the review of administrative memoranda
is admirable, further clarification of this process is recommended. For instance, this section should
specifically indicate the point in the process when the memoranda will be
submitted to the employee organizations.
Obviously, the involvement prior to City Council approval is more
appealing to employees rather than subsequent to City Council approval of the
memoranda. In addition, this provision
should be clarified to indicate whether the review includes an opportunity to
provide comment and to whom those comments should be addressed. Finally, the City may want to consider
posting administrative memoranda, particularly if comments are being solicited,
on the City’s website in order to invite participation in the review process
from those employees who may not necessarily be active in the three employee
organizations noted but would welcome the opportunity to review administrative
memoranda.
Unclassified Service.
The various rights of unclassified employees are set
forth in this section of the rules and regulations. The unclassified service includes employees
in which administrative necessity dictates that the positions be responsive and
accountable to City policy or are temporary and provisional in nature. Currently, there is no provision for a step
increase for “regular unclassified employees” within the employment of the City
of Tempe. This is problematic in that it
hinders a manager’s ability to reward productive employees whose status happens
to be “unclassified”. Undoubtedly, this
has the potential for creating serious morale problems among “unclassified”
employees and may pose an undue hardship on the City’s diverse employee
population.
The proposed revision of this section attempts to
address this issue by providing authority for step increase eligibility for
“regular unclassified employees” after six months of employment. The Department Manager is granted the sole
discretion to approve the step increase and there does not appear to be any
recourse for employees who may be denied or not considered for a step
increase. The City is encouraged to
place some limitations on the discretion of Department Managers by establishing
a monitoring process for step increase action or inaction involving
unclassified employees. Through this
process, the City Manager would be in a better position to identify potential
problems and impose further limitations on Department Managers when
appropriate. Alternatively, the City may
choose to provide regular unclassified employees with some form of appellate
review for inaction related to a step increase after six months have elapsed.
The current rules and regulations provide a standard
guarantee of equal employment opportunity regardless of “race, color, religion,
disability, sex, age or national origin”.
Although this language is appropriate, it fails to address the issue of
“sexual orientation” that is present elsewhere in the city’s policies. The proposed revision to this section inserts
the term “sexual orientation” thereby ensuring that employment opportunities
will not be denied based on one’s sexual orientation.
Under the existing rules, the Human Resources
Director is responsible for a variety of personnel functions including
promoting employee safety and the development of employee appellate
rights. These are significant responsibilities
that require substantial expertise and are not usually delegated to the Human
Resources Director. Cleary, issues
relating to appellate and due process rights are more suited to be addressed by
the City Attorney. Thus, the proposed
revisions eliminate these duties for the Human Resources Manager and insert a
general responsibility for employee fringe benefits. This modification appears to be more
appropriate given the skill and expertise of the Human Resources Department.
Rule 2:
Compensation and Classification
Premium Pay.
The issue of premium pay is not addressed in the
existing rules but has been inserted in the proposed revisions. Of particular concern to this review is the
process whereby employees qualify for Bilingual Pay. Although any employee who is fluent in a
language other than English and has regular interaction with the public using a
language other than English may qualify for such compensation, one can assume
that a majority of these employees will be ethnic minorities who are fluent in
their native language. Therefore, there
is a high probability that this provision may have a direct correlation with a
diverse workforce. In reviewing the
Bilingual Pay section, there are two conditions that must be met in advance of
an employee receiving such compensation.
These conditions are (1) receiving authorization from the Department
Manager and (2) successfully completing the “required competency examination
for their position.”
The proposed rule grants the Department Manager
complete discretion to authorize Bilingual Pay and there does not appear to be
a means for monitoring that discretion.
In addition, there is a requirement that eligible employees successfully
complete a competency examination for “their position”. First, the terminology does not adequately
indicate that the competency examination relates to the employee’s skills in a
language other than English. When read
literally, the proposed language would seem to suggest that the competency
examination relates to the employee’s “position” versus the employee’s fluency
in a second language. The manner in
which the examination is developed and implemented is an area of great
concern. It is critical that there be a
correlation between those skills tested and those skill actually utilized in
the performance of an employee’s duties and responsibilities. Finally, there is no provision that addresses
the issue of an employee whose position requires
interaction with the public in a language other than English but whose
Department Manager has not authorized Bilingual Pay or the employee has failed
to pass the competency examination but continues to have interaction with the
public in another language. In this
situation, it is important that the City have some alternative available that
does require the employee to perform tasks without proper compensation.
This section of the rules and regulations
established the procedure for promotional and open competitive lists. Under the current rules, the Department Director
is granted the authority to retire an eligibility list that has one or two
names. This discretion is significant,
appears to be unchecked and may have an adverse impact on diversity in the
event a Department Director chooses to circumvent the City’s diversity
policies. Under the proposed revision of
this section, the Department Manager may retire an eligibility list of “three
or fewer names” with the approval of the City Manager. This modification provides valuable oversight
to the use of promotional and competitive lists and significantly reduces the
possibility of discriminatory practices.
Section 304(C) presently permits only regular
employees who have completed their initial probationary period to apply for
promotional positions. This provision,
however, restricts temporary employees from being involved in any internal
recruitment even in instances where the new position is within the same
department or the temporary employee is currently occupying the position on a
temporary basis. Clearly, this hinders
the City’s ability to attract experienced employees who may already be familiar
with the particular position and its responsibilities but who happen to be
classified as a temporary employee. In
addition, this particular provision can be a source of resentment and negative
morale for temporary employees seeking a more permanent status within the
organization. These issues are, however,
adequately addressed by the proposed revision to this section that permits
temporary employees who have six months continuous full time employment within
the same department to apply for the position they are currently
occupying. The City may wish to consider
a further expansion to “similar positions” in other departments to afford more
opportunities to temporary employees who have become familiar with municipal
government.
The existing rules allow for Department Directors to
make provisional appointments to meet immediate requirements in those cases
where an employment list contains less than three names pursuant to Section
304(E). As currently written, this
provision affords the Department Director the means for circumventing the
employment list procedure. The
discretion granted the Department Director is substantial and virtually
unmonitored. The discretion of the
Department Director is reduced under the proposed modifications to the
rules. In particular, provisional
appointments are entirely eliminated in favor of an external recruiting process
in those instances where an internal recruitment effort resulted in three or
fewer names. This external process,
however, can only be utilized with the approval of the City Manager.
Reinstatement.
Presently, regular employees who resign from their
positions may request to be placed on a reinstatement list through the Human
Resources Director. Once this request
has been received, the Department Director must approve the request before the
employee is actually placed on a reinstatement list only for the position
occupied at the time of employee’s resignation or lower positions with the same
classification series. The proposed
revisions impose additional reinstatement conditions that require the
employee’s resignation did not occur during his/her promotional probationary
and that the employee be of sufficient mental and physical condition to meet
the performance requirements of the position.
As noted, the entire reinstatement process is
contingent upon the approval of the Department Director/Manager. In those instances where the resignation was
directly attributed to problems associated with that same Department
Director/Manager, the likelihood of reinstatement may be significantly
reduced. More importantly, that decision
does not appear to be subject to review by any other individual or entity. This discretion can, thus, be problematic and
may hinder the City’s efforts to maintain a diverse workforce. Therefore, it is suggested that all denials
of reinstatement by Department Directors/Managers be reviewed by the City
Manager.
Under the existing rules, employees reinstated within thirty days of their resignation date are considered to have continuous service for purposes of benefits and salary. This time period is very brief and would severely limit the availability of restored salary and benefits for reinstated employees. The revised rules extend this time period to one year and this will undoubtedly be more appealing to employees seeking reinstatement. More importantly, however, this extension of time will translate to significant support for the City’s diverse employee population.
In addition, the revised rules do not permit sworn
police personnel from having their seniority restored for purposes of shift
selection. Although there may well be a
rational basis for distinguishing police officers from other employees who are
required to work shifts, this provision may give sworn officers the impression
that they have been singled out and entitled to less protection than other
reinstated employees within the City.
Given the various issues surrounding the Police Department, the City may
want to reconsider this particular provision.
At the very least, every effort should be made to explain the City’s
rationale for this disparate treatment through the police officer’s association.
Probation.
The current procedure relating to employee probation
is quite confusing. The revised
provisions address this confusion through new policies that require specific
documentation of the basis for extending an employee’s probationary period and
the term of that extension. Under the
proposed revisions, an employee who successfully completes his/her probationary
period may received a step increase “at the discretion of the Department
Manager.” It is recommended that this
discretion be limited through a monitoring process established by the City
Manager or an appeal process whereby employees can request that the denial of a
step increase be reviewed by the City Manager.
Probationary employees are subjected to a variety of disciplinary actions that are not subject to
administrative review or appeal to the Merit System Board. In the absence of some type of monitoring
system, there is the potential for these actions to circumvent the diversity
policies of the City. It is, therefore,
recommended that detailed information be maintained by Human Resources
regarding the discipline administered to probationary employees.
Both the current and proposed rules and regulations
permit promoted probationary employees to return to their former position upon
the approval of the Department Director/Manager. This provision grants considerable discretion
to the Director/Manager and there does not appear to be any type of
administrative review of these decisions.
Inasmuch as this amount of unfettered discretion is ripe for abuse, it
is recommended that the City Manager be provided the ability to monitor and
review these determinations.
Rule 4:
Employee Status
Transfers.
The voluntary and involuntary transfer of employees
is governed by section 401. Pursuant to
the current rule the hiring Department Director/Manager is afforded sole
discretion to approved employee transfers from one position to another within
the same classification. The proposed
revisions to this particular rule impose the additional requirement that
employees seeking voluntary transfers be “on the appropriate eligibility
list”. The amount of discretion, without
any apparent oversight, afforded to the Department Director/Manager is a potential area of concern for the City. In addition, there is the potential for
exacerbating this discretion through the use of “eligibility lists” that are
not fully defined in the rules and regulations.
Demotions.
Similar concerns from the unfettered discretion of
Department Director/Managers arise from the Voluntary Demotion/Demotion process
outlined in Section 402 of both the current and revised rules. Actions taken by a Department
Director/Manager regarding the demotion process, such as reassignment to
probationary status, are not subject to review by any other entity or
individual. Again, there does not appear
to be any recourse for an employee who may be the victim of an abuse of
discretion in this area.
The unlimited discretion of Department
Directors/Managers combined with the general lack of recourse for employees
wrongly denied such transfers may effectively obstruct the goal of providing a
diverse workplace environment. Thus,
imposing checks and balances for these discretionary acts or, at least, a
reporting requirement to the City Manager will provide some limitations on
Department Directors/Managers discretion.
Layoffs.
Section 403 establishes the Layoff process for the
City of Tempe. While providing a partial
list of conditions that would warrant an employee layoff, that list is greatly
expanded by granting the City Manager the sole authority to have a layoff “for
other appropriate reasons” as he or she deems fit. This affords the City Manager considerable
discretion and the City Council may choose to require an approval of all
conditions that warrant an employee layoff.
The selection process of employees affected by any layoff currently
includes performance, seniority and business
necessity as factors to be determined by the City Manager in implementing the
layoff process. The addition of
“diversity” to this list, while not absolutely essential, would be an effective
means for ensuring that a diverse workforce is preserved even during layoff
conditions.
Finally, Section 403(E) may be problematic in that
it essentially encourages layoffs to be based exclusively upon seniority
through affording appellate rights only to an employee whose layoff was based
upon “any reason other than seniority”.
Although providing this type of immunity to managers who base layoff
decision solely upon seniority may appear to be good public policy, such a
practice may have an adverse effect upon the City’s attempt to retain a diverse
workforce. Assuming, for instance, women
and/or minorities lack the seniority of their Anglo male colleagues within a
certain city department they would presumably be the first employees subjected
to a “layoff”. Further, this same group
of women and/or minority employees would have absolutely no right to appeal
their layoffs since it was based entirely upon a rationale – seniority - which
is fully endorsed by the rules and regulations.
Consequently, this rule creates a significant opportunity for
discrimination to occur in the layoff process under the guise of seniority
retention preferences with absolutely no recourse for those employees selected
for the layoff.
Resignation.
Section 404 in both the current and proposed rules
and regulations grants the Department Director/Manager complete discretion over
an employee’s desire to withdraw his/her resignation and be reinstated and to
interpret an unauthorized leave of absence as a “resignation”. The rules and regulations are void of any
constraints on this discretion in the form of a review of such decisions or a
requirement that the Department Director/Manager provide documentation for such
actions. Unfortunately, such unbridled
discretion may result in disparate treatment among employees within the City
that may lead to a perceived unfairness among employees.
Disciplinary Action/Employee
Performance Improvement.
Section 406 (C) of the current rules provides a list
of grounds for employee dismissal that is outdated and incomplete. This list has been supplemented by the
proposed revisions to include possession of weapons, misrepresentation during
investigations, dishonesty in performance of job, misuse of electronic mail,
false accusation against another employee/official.
While the proposed revisions are an improvement over
the current rules, there are several issues raised in the revisions. First, the reference to Arizona Revised
Statutes contained in 406(C)(27), deadly weapons, is inaccurate. Second, the City may wish to adopt the
“dangerous instrument” definition contained in state law so as to encompass
those instruments that, when used in an aggressive manner, constitute a serious
danger.
Thirdly, the City may want to consider amending the
proposed revision set forth in 406(C)(28) that allows for dismissal when “an
employee has lied about or misrepresented facts or circumstances during an
external or internal investigation”.
Normally, such prohibitions against lies or misrepresentations are
restricted to “material facts or circumstances” so as to ensure that a rational
basis exists between the conduct and the dismissal. For example, there may be instances where an employee, in the course of an
internal investigation, misrepresents or fails to disclose some embarrassing
personal information that is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the
investigation. In those instances, a
termination of the employee may be extremely harsh and yet such action would be
authorized in this proposed rule. Thus,
the overly broad nature of this rule may have unintended consequences.
Section 406(M) provides for the documentation of all
disciplinary actions taken against an employee but the current rule does not
provide an employee a right to review and or object to the contents of his/her
personnel file. The revised rule affords
an employee a right to review the file and submit written objections to the
contents of the file.
Section 406(R) imposes a written reporting requirement
on employees who are experiencing intolerable working conditions within the
City before the filing of a claim. While
this is consistent with Arizona law, it is critical that the City specifically
informs its employees of this requirement and provides an effective means for
reporting intolerable working conditions.
Further, the City may want to consider developing alternative means for
receiving complaints from employees who may not have the fundamental English
writing skills to comply with this section.
As currently drafted, this section has the potential to provide fertile
ground for harassment and discrimination within the City and create an
additional barrier to the diverse population.
Section 408 addresses the issue of sexual harassment
in the workplace. The definition of a
“hostile work environment” contained in the current rule is inadequate given
prevalence of obscene and/or sexually explicit music and virtual images that do
not meet the definition of a “photograph or drawing”. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that
this section be amended to impose a restriction on music and images of an
obscene or sexually explicit nature.
The exclusion of conduct or actions that arise out
of a “personal or social relationship and that are not intended to have a
discriminatory employment effect” is somewhat confusing. This appears to provide a general protection
for an individual to engage in sexual harassment in the event the individuals
involved have a personal or social relationship. Whether such a relationship exists is
inconsistent with the state and federal civil rights laws. In addition, the imposition of a specific
intent requirement is also very problematic in that it creates an additional
hurdle for employees who have been victimized by discrimination.
Conspicuously absent from the complaint procedure
and investigative procedure for claims of sexual harassment are alternatives
for instances where the Human Resources Manager or the Department Manager is
the person alleged to have engaged in the sexual harassment of an
employee. It is suggested that the rules
and regulations be amended to provide for alternative reporting and
investigative procedures when the Human Resources Manager or the Department
Manager may be the alleged offender.
The investigative procedure for charges of sexual
harassment fails to require that the harassing employee not engage in any type
of retaliation against the complainant.
The rules should be amended to reflect this important component of the
process and protect the City from further potential liability. In addition, the provision providing for the
monitoring of the situation for retaliation where reassignment is not practical
should be expanded to allow for immediate disciplinary action in the event of
retaliatory conduct.
Rule 5:
Leave
Leave Without Pay.
The existing rules and regulations allow employees
up to a maximum of seventeen workweeks per calendar year in accordance with the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 for a variety of family reasons. This leave, however, is reduced by fifty
percent in the event that both the employee and
his/her spouse/domestic partner are employed with City and the purpose of the
leave is for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for a sick
parent. While the purpose of this
provision is to reduce the impact of extended absences on municipal government,
an unintended consequence may be to reduce morale among employees who have a
spouse/domestic partner also employed with the City and encourage this group of
employees to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. Depending on the number of employees impacted
by this rule and their particular positions, this could have an adverse effect
on the City and its desire to maintain a diverse workforce.
Victim’s Rights Leave.
Current personnel rules do not allow specifically
provide for leave in those instances where an employee or member of that
employee’s immediate family is a victim of a crime. In such instances, an employee would be required
to attend certain investigative and criminal proceedings that may take the
employee away from his/her job for extended periods of time. Inasmuch as employees do not choose to be
victims of crime, the leave for this type of purpose is generally
involuntary. Unfortunately, women and
minorities tend to be victimized by crime more than their Anglo male
counterparts. The inclusion of Victim’s
Rights Leave in the proposed revisions to the rules and regulations is
commendable. As currently drafted,
however, there are several issues worthy of discussion.
The proposed language limits this unpaid leave to
employees who are themselves victims of a crime and employees who have an
immediate family member of a person who was “killed or incapacitated by a
crime.” While this latter restriction
recognizes that employees may have a greater interest in the most serious
crimes, it fails to recognize the value of family support for crime victims who
may have actually survived their victimization.
It is important to note that the victim who survives a serious crime is generally subjected to the trauma of testifying in
court and family support may be critical to that action. It is, therefore, recommended that the
immediate family member exception be extended to immediate family members who
have been the victim of an attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual
assault, child sexual abuse and child abuse. Such an expansion will ensure that
employees have the ability to be available to their immediate family members
who have survived serious criminal offenses.
Catastrophic Leave.
The current rules and regulation do not provide for
any form of catastrophic leave for employees who have experienced a non-job
related incapacitating illness or injury that has caused an employee to be
absent from employment for an extended period of time. The proposed revisions to the rules and
regulations provide for this leave as a last resort to employees and appear to
be entirely appropriate.
Rule 6:
Employee Rights, Responsibilities and
Limitations
Individual Development
Plan.
Although not currently contained in the rules and
regulations, the proposed revisions establish a voluntary Individual
Development Plan (IDP) in lieu of the Performance Evaluation Program. In reviewing the IDP provisions, the actual purpose
of the plan is not particularly well articulated. Although the IDP essentially replaces the
annual Performance Evaluation which was used to determine salary consideration,
the IDP process is “not related to any pay increase”. In addition, an employee’s lack of progress
towards completion of his/her personal development goal(s) “is not in itself
grounds for any type of disciplinary action”.
The foregoing section raises several concerns. First, the rules indicate that the program is
voluntary and yet it replaces the annual Performance Evaluation that was not
voluntary. In the event an employee
elects not to participate in this program, the consequences for lack of
participation are not clear. While the
language states that an employee’s lack of progress cannot be grounds for
disciplinary action, the rule does not afford the same protection for an
employee who chooses not to participate in the program. It is suggested that this issue be clarified.
Second, while the proposed rule prohibits an employee’s
lack of IDP progress to be used as the sole basis for disciplinary action,
there is no restriction using the lack of progress, in conjunction with other
activity, as a basis for disciplinary action.
This appears to be somewhat of a technical loophole that should be
corrected or addressed.
Third, as a result of the elimination of the annual
Performance Evaluation, there does not appear to be a means for evaluating an
employee’s job performance for salary purposes.
In the absence of such a procedure, supervisors would presumably have
authority to arbitrarily conduct evaluations that would undoubtedly be
inconsistent with their counterparts throughout city government. This broad discretion has the potential of raising
a variety of issues not the least of which would be the perpetuation of the
perceived “good old’ boys system” referenced by many employees.
Grievance Procedure.
The current personnel rules allow the City Manager,
prior to making a final determination on a grievance, to convene an Advisory
Hearing Committee. This committee is
composed of four members and a chairperson.
The complainant chooses two members and the City Manager chooses two
members and the chairperson. These
provisions grant City Manager considerable discretion on the issue of whether
or not to convene an Advisory Committee and the City Council may want to limit
that discretion through the development of guidelines. In addition, the City Manager has the ability
to exercise considerable influence over the Advisory Committee through the
personal appointment of two members and the chairperson.
The proposed revisions provided for the same
methodology for the selection of Advisory Committee members but allows the four
members to choose the chairperson from an approved list of external
mediators. While this may appear to
reduce the City Manager’s influence of the process, it will be important to
examine the process for compiling the list of approved mediators. In the event that the list is compiled
exclusively by the City Manager, the ability to influence the committee
continues to exist. Therefore, it is
recommended that a panel composed of management and employees compile the list
of approved external mediators.
Under both the existing and proposed rules, a
majority vote determines the “advisory” opinion of the committee to be
submitted to the City Manager.
Unfortunately, the rules fail to explain the effect of the committee’s
opinion. Although the references to
“recommendation” and “advisory” would suggest that the City Manager is not
bound by the committee’s determination, this should be clarified. Most administrative procedures require the
final arbiter to accept, reject or modify the decision of the individual or
body who heard the matter. In addition,
some administrative procedures require the arbiter to provide a written basis
for any determination that deviates from the recommendation received.
As part of this analysis, a thorough review was
conducted of all grievances filed by City of Tempe employees within the last
four years. As a preliminary matter, it
is important to note that there were not an abundance of employees who had
initiated the formal grievance process.
During the time period noted, a total of twenty-five employees filed a
total of thirty-three grievances/complaints.
Given the total number of employees within the City, the foregoing
number is not disproportionate. The
City, however, is cautioned not to attach too much meaning to the relatively
small number of grievances filed. This
number can just as easily reflect a lack of confidence in the grievance process
as it can reflect a satisfied employee pool.
A basic statistical analysis of the foregoing
grievances indicated that forty-four percent (44%) of all grievances filed were
generated by employees in the Public Works Department. In addition, another twenty percent (20%) of
all grievances filed were generated by employees of the Police Department. In an effort to protect the privacy concerns
of the individual complainants, specific details regarding the grievances will
not be disclosed. In general, however,
the nature of the grievances included (1) Race/ National Origin Discrimination,
(2) Gender Discrimination, (3) Sexual Harassment, (4) Violations of the
American with Disabilities Act and (5) Age Discrimination.
The review of the grievance process was seriously
hindered by the lack of uniformity in the documenting. There is a lack of consistency and clarity in
the identification of the allegations.
In addition, there is a lack of consistency and clarity in the
identification of the appropriate personnel rules and regulations that were
alleged to have been violated. Finally,
the current status of the grievances and the final resolution of the same were
not always uniformly documented.
It is recommended that the time frames set forth in
the Rules and Regulations be consistently followed. Also, the City is encouraged to develop a
standard grievance reporting form that can be easily accessed by City
employees. Finally, the City should develop,
implement and utilize a standard disposition form that can be inserted in an
employee’s file at the conclusion of the grievance process.
Tempe Employees’
Council.
In reviewing that section of the current rules and
regulation that relates to the creation, function and authority of the Tempe
Employees’ Council there is one obvious issue.
The City’s desire to protect employees from threats or intimidation
should be tempered by a “reasonable standard”.
In other words, would a reasonable person consider the actions to
constitute a threat or intimidation? In
the absence of such a standard, this provision can be interpreted so literally
that the result may border on absurdity.
Although the proposed rules address the issue of
actual threatening conduct, the issue of intimidating conduct is not
addressed. It is well established that
an individual may use intimidation tactics every bit as effectively as an
actual threat which is precisely why the criminal code contains such
terminology. The City is encouraged to
address this issue in a similar manner.
The City may also want to have notice of any
employees who are either a plaintiff or defendant in an order of
protection. Unfortunately, may domestic
disputes are spilling over into the workplace and city officials’ knowledge of
these court orders may assist the City in its efforts to provide a safer
workplace. As a caveat, the City should
not request such information unless they are prepared to act on that information. To merely compile this information without
taking precautionary actions may subject the City to significant legal
liability in the event of an incident in the workplace.
The proposed rules also address the issue of “deadly
weapons” in the workplace. In Section
609(B)(8) there is a reference to the Arizona Revised Statutes definition of
deadly weapons. Unfortunately, the
statutory cite to Section 13-1301 is inaccurate and must be corrected prior to
the adoption of the rules by the City Council.
The
City may want to consider expanding this particular section to cover conduct
involving the use of a “dangerous instrument” that may not meet the definition
of a “deadly weapon”. Again, the
criminal code is the source of information on this subject.
Finally, all incidents of workplace violence must be
reported to either a Department Manager or by calling 911. In turn the Department Managers are required
to immediately notify Human Resources.
Unfortunately, these Reporting Procedures do not impose a requirement
that these incidents be immediately reported to law enforcement officials. It is strongly suggested that such a
requirement be imposed so as to ensure that these incidents are investigated by
professionals with the authority to take appropriate action. The current language seems to imply that the
City will be responsible for any investigation and while such a personnel
investigation may be important, it must take a backseat to any criminal
investigation conducted by the police.
Employee Privacy Rights and
Searches.
The proposed revisions to the rules and regulations
include a section relating to the inspection and search of a variety of City of
Tempe property utilized by employees.
The search and/or inspection may be conducted either in the presence or
outside the presence of the employee and may include electronic files,
communications and computer tapes, disks and drives. A pat down of the outside clothing of an
employee is authorized and no strip-searched are to be conducted with a validly
executed search warrant. In instances
where the City has reasonable cause to believe that workplace safety is
threatened the City reserves the right conduct a search of an employee’s
personal property located in the workplace.
This proposed rule is consistent with those adopted
by other municipalities. However, the
rule only makes reference to the City of Tempe versus specific individuals
within the City who are responsible for conducting these inspection/searches. The City is encouraged to identify a specific
individual or group of individuals who may exercise this authority in order to
ensure that all employees are handled in a consistent manner. These individuals should also receive
specific training from experienced law enforcement officers on both the search
seizure law and safety issues.
Rule 1:
Purpose and Legal
Requirement
The City of Tempe personnel system purposes should
provide a general statement citing its commitment to creating a diverse
workplace, demonstrating the importance the City places on this issue and
providing greater encouragement for employees to attain this objective.
The Personnel Policies should specifically indicate
the point when a memorandum will be submitted to the employee organizations for
their review, preferably prior to Council approval.
The Personnel Policies should indicate whether
employee memoranda review includes an opportunity to provide comment and to
whom those comments should be addressed.
The City should consider posting administrative
memoranda, particularly if comments are being solicited, on the City’s website
in order to invite participation in the review process from those employees who
may not necessarily be active in employee organizations.
Unclassified Service.
The City should place some limitations on the
discretion of Department Managers by establishing a monitoring process for step
increase action or inaction involving unclassified employees.
Rule 2:
Compensation and Classification
Premium Pay.
There should be a correlation between competency
skills tested and skills actually utilized in the performance of an employee’s
duties and responsibilities in relationship to Bilingual Pay.
The terminology relating to competency examination
for Bilingual Pay should relate to an employee’s skills in a language other
than English.
There should be a provision that addresses the issue
of an employee whose positions require interaction with the public in a
language other than English but whose Department Manager has not authorized
Bilingual Pay or the employee has failed to pass the competency examination but
continues to have interaction with the public in another language.
Rule 3:
Employment.
The City may wish to consider a further expansion of
the proposed revision to this section to “similar positions” in other
departments to afford more opportunities to temporary employees who have become
familiar with municipal government.
Reinstatement.
All denials of reinstatement by Department
Directors/Managers should be reviewed by the City Manager.
In order to avoid the perception of disparate
treatment on the City's part, the City should explain through the police
officer’s association their rationale for not permitting sworn police personnel
from having their seniority restored for purposes of shift selection.
Probation.
It is recommended that the step increase for
probationary employees, which is at discretion of the Department Manager, be
limited through a monitoring process established by the City Manager or an
appeal process whereby employees can request that the denial of a step increase
be reviewed by the City Manager.
The Human Resources Department should maintain
detailed information regarding the discipline administered to probationary
employees.
It is recommended that the City Manager be provided
the ability to monitor and review determinations by Department Managers which
allow promoted probationary employees to return to their former position.
Rule 4:
Transfers and
Demotions.
Impose checks and balances for Department
Directors/Managers' discretionary acts regarding transfers and demotions or, at
least, a reporting requirement to the City Manager.
Layoffs.
The City Council should require an approval of all
conditions that warrant an employee layoff.
The selection process of employees affected by any layoff should include performance, seniority, diversity, as well as
business necessity as factors to be determined by the City Manager in
implementing the layoff process.
Women and/or minority employees have no right to
appeal their layoffs since the policy is based entirely upon a rational of
seniority. The City should revise this
policy to ensure that it does not contribute to a nondiverse workforce.
Resignation.
The City should implement a process whereby Department
Director/Managers provide documentation for such decisions they make relative
to an employee’s desire to withdraw his/her resignation and be reinstated and
to interpret an unauthorized leave of absence as a “resignation”.
Disciplinary Action/Employee
Performance Improvement.
Amend the policy revisions [406(C)(27)] by
correcting the inaccuracies regarding deadly weapons. The City should adopt the “dangerous
instrument” definition contained in state law so as to encompass those
instruments that, when used in an aggressive manner, constitute a serious
danger.
The City should amend the proposed revision set
forth in 406(C)(28) that allows for dismissal when “an employee has lied about
or misrepresented facts or circumstances during an external or internal
investigation”. The overly broad nature
of this rule may have unintended consequences.
The City should specifically inform its employees of
the written reporting requirement for employees who are experiencing
intolerable working conditions within the City before the filing of a
claim.
The City should consider developing alternative
means for receiving complaints from employees who may not have the fundamental
English writing skills to comply with this section in order to avoid creating
additional barriers to the diverse workforce population.
The City should provide more adequate definition of
a “hostile work environment” in Section 408 (sexual harassment in the
workplace). It is strongly recommended
that this section be amended to impose a restriction on music and images of an
obscene or sexually explicit nature.
The City should clarify their policies on exclusion
of conduct or actions that arise out of a “personal or social relationship and
that are not intended to have a discriminatory employment effect” to be
consistent with the state and federal civil rights laws.
The City’s rules and regulations should be amended
to provide for alternative reporting and investigative procedures where the
Human Resources Manager or the Department Manager is the person alleged to have
engaged in the sexual harassment of an employee.
The investigative procedure rules for sexual
harassment should be amended to require that the harassing employee not engage
in any type of retaliation against the complainant. In addition, the provision providing for the
monitoring of the situation for retaliation where reassignment is not practical
should be expanded to allow for immediate disciplinary action in the event of
retaliatory conduct.
Leave Without Pay.
The City should revise its policies on Family Leave
when both the employee and his/her spouse/domestic partner are employed with
City and the purpose of the leave is for the birth or adoption of a child or to
care for a sick parent.
Victim’s Rights Leave.
As women and minorities tend to be victimized by
crime more than their Anglo male counterparts, the City should revise its
policies regarding leave in those instances where an employee or member of that
employee’s immediate family is a victim of a crime to allow for certain
investigative and criminal proceedings that may take the employee away from
his/her job for extended periods of time.
It is recommended that the immediate family member
exception be extended to immediate family members who have been the victim of
an attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, child sexual abuse and
child abuse. Such an expansion will ensure that employees have the ability to
be available to their immediate family members who have survived serious criminal
offenses.
Individual Development
Plan.
The City should clarify its policy on Individual
Development Plans for the following reasons:
ü In the event an employee
elects not to participate in the IDP, the consequences for lack of
participation are not clear.
ü While the language states
that an employee’s lack of progress cannot be grounds for disciplinary action,
the rule does not afford the same protection for an employee who chooses not to
participate in the program.
ü There is no restriction
using the lack of progress, in conjunction with other activity, as a basis for
disciplinary action.
ü With the elimination of the
annual Performance Evaluation, there does not appear to be a means for evaluating
an employee’s job performance for salary purposes.
Grievance Procedure.
In developing the makeup of an Advisory Hearing
Committee, the City should ensure that management and employees compile the
list of approved external mediators for inclusion on the panel.
The City should clarify the role of the Advisory Hearing Committee as to whether their opinions are “advisory” or “recommendations” in nature. It is further recommended that the final arbiter (in this case, the City Manager) provide a written basis for any determination that deviates from the recommendation received.
44% of all grievances
filed with the City were generated by employees in the Public Works
Department.20% of all grievances filed were generated by employees of
the Police Department. The City has a serious lack of uniformity in the
documenting employee grievances. It is
therefore recommended:
ü That the time frames for
grievance procedures as set forth in the Rules and Regulations be consistently
followed.
ü That the City be encouraged to develop a standard grievance reporting form that can be easily accessed by City employees.
ü That the City develop,
implement and utilize a standard disposition form that can be inserted in an
employee’s file at the conclusion of the grievance process.
Tempe Employees’
Council.
The City should consider revising its statement on
“reasonable standard”.
The City should consider addressing the issue of
intimidating conduct.
The City should consider requiring notice of any
employees who are either a plaintiff or defendant in an order of protection if,
and only if, the City is prepared to take precautionary actions based on the
information.
The City may want to consider expanding Section
13-1301 to cover conduct involving the use of a “dangerous instrument” that may
not meet the definition of a “deadly weapon”.
In the area of workplace violence, it is strongly
suggested that notification of law enforcement be included in the City
procedures to ensure that professionals with the authority to take appropriate
action investigate such incidents.
Employee Privacy Rights and
Searches.
As it relates to search and/or inspection of City of
Tempe property utilized by employees, the City is encouraged to identify a
specific individual or group of individuals who may exercise this authority in
order to ensure that all employees are handled in a consistent manner. These individuals should also receive
specific training from experienced law enforcement officers on both the search
seizure law and safety issues.
Conclusions
The analysis of the Tempe Rules and Regulations indicates that there are a wide variety of areas where the City Manager and Department Managers are granted considerable and unfettered discretion in addressing employee issues. This amount of discretion, without guidance or parameters, has resulted, and will continue to result, in the inconsistent treatment of employees. The reason for such disparate treatment is simple in that it is almost entirely dependent upon the individual who serves in the post of City or Department Manager. That inconsistency will, often times, have a disproportionate adverse impact upon the City’s diverse employees and can lead to an employee perception of unfairness that can contribute to poor employee morale.
It is apparent that some of the City’s rules and
regulations are not “diversity friendly”.
There are numerous rules, both current and proposed, that appear on
their face to be diversity neutral. However, when considering the manner in
which these rules are actually implemented and the groups of employees most
directly impacted, it becomes very apparent that some of the City’s employee
regulations conflict with the general objective of providing a diverse
workplace. It is, therefore, absolutely
essential that the City alter its examination of these, and future, rules and
regulations to ensure that such examinations are viewed from a diversity
perspective.
While the foregoing conclusions are general in
nature, there is one section of the rules and regulation that is worthy of
specific attention given its importance to employees. That area involves the proposed replacement
of the Employee Performance Evaluation Program (EPEP) with the Individual
Development Plan (IDP). Should the City
elect to discard its standard method of evaluating employees for salary
increases on a regular basis, it is critical that the alternative program
include some means for addressing salary considerations. Unfortunately, the IDP is woefully inadequate
in its proposed form because of its significant limitations regarding
participation and pay increases. In the
absence of the City adopting a standard method for evaluating employees and
awarding pay increases, City employees will become extremely disenchanted. The failure to provide such a method, invites
arbitrary and capricious conduct that can be fatal to any organization. It is strongly urged that this issue be
addressed immediately.
Component I: Assessment of Structural Diversity Issues
B. Summary of
Comparable Communities
The results of the Comparable Communities
survey shows that the City of Tempe is in the lead with its peer cities when it
comes to progressive diversity practices.
Forty-eight (48) cities were selected using purposive research
techniques. The cities surveyed had
total populations of between 131,760 and 193,556. Further, eight (8) cities of comparable
population were chosen from the 48 to frame the research in a meaningful way
for Tempe, based on ethnic minority population.
Based on the research, we find that Tempe fares very well in
comparison to the eight other cities. A
few of the eight cities are engaged in workforce diversity activities, but none
of the activities are as extensive as in Tempe.
Nonetheless, there are areas Tempe could improve upon, based on current
Best Practices.
Best Practices were identified for use in surveying the eight
cities to determine where Tempe ranked in comparison. We used factors such as recruitment,
retention, employee training, and career development.
First, cities generally report that their
workforce is not necessarily reflecting the changing demographics of their
community. In response, some have taken
proactive steps in the areas of recruitment, retention and development of
minorities and women so that the City employee population doesn’t trail behind
the community population. They see this
as good customer service and being a responsive government.
Nearly all cities contacted reported that they
have put more efforts into recruiting than they have in the past in order to
attain a diverse pool of candidates.
Many cities report particular difficulty recruiting women into public
safety positions. However, once they are
successful in such recruitment, their retention rates are very good. In fact, municipality retention rates appear
to be good, as those surveyed reported that opportunities in the private sector
and other industries tend to be less stable.
Most cities do not necessarily involve the
community outside of their workforce in developing any type of comprehensive
approach to diversity (if they have one).
Of all the cities surveyed, Reno and Tempe are the only cities which
have established Human Relations-type Commissions specifically addressing diversity
issues.
Finally,
this survey found in discussions with Human Resource directors the importance
of ensuring that any diversity program is integrated into the entire workforce
culture, not simply conducted in a couple of days with expectations that a
“diversity” training will solve all problems.
Changing diversity environment and policies is a long-term investment
and process.
Tempe
is on the right track and is looking hard and close at its practices and
policies. This is an important
step. Some of the cities surveyed did
not appear to be very concerned about their lack of participation in certain
diversity best practices. There appeared
to be no motivation from leadership as we have seen in Tempe. Tempe has taken the first step: leadership, self-inventory and a request for
next steps.
Section B. Comparable Communities
Background
In order for the City of Tempe to determine where it might stand
in relationship to other cities of their size and makeup, we have conducted a
survey comparing Tempe to other municipalities in the United States. The purpose of this process is to create best
practice benchmarks for Tempe to use in the future.
Best
Practice Benchmarking is the process of seeking out and studying best internal
practices that produce superior performance.
Benchmarking can help educate management in order to determine strategic
areas of opportunity. In general, it is
the application of what is learned in benchmarking that can deliver marked
results in an organization. The
determination of benchmarks allows for direct comparison between one's own
organization and those which are similar.
Any identified gaps are improvement areas.
Process:
An external search process was conducted using data collected from
the 2000 U. S. Census of cities similar to Tempe, Arizona throughout all
regions of the United States. The 48[1]
cities were selected using purposive research techniques. Purposive research is a sampling methodology
where respondents are selected for inclusion through the judgment of the
researcher. One of the key values inherent
to a purposive sample is as an exploratory means of research, that is, to
explore the parameters and research areas in a general sense. Interviews were conducted with the City of
Tempe Human Resources Director, assistant Human Resources Director and the ADA
Commission Chairman.
The
cities surveyed had total populations of between 131,760 and 193,556. Of the 48 cities, we found eight (8) to be
comparable to Tempe, based on percentage of ethnic minority population (+ or
– 5%). As of the 2000 census,
multiple ethnicity reports are now allowed, which results in percentages higher
than 100. Given our interest is in ethnicity categories, not White, we are
using the actual raw numbers and percentages for those categories and assigning
the balance of 100% to White.
Eight Comparable Cities
City % of Minority Pop Tot Pop Median Age Per
Capita Income
Tacoma,
WA 25.2 193,556 33.9 $19,130
Huntington
Beach, CA 25.4 189,594 36 31,964
Santa
Rosa, CA 26.6 147,595 36.2 24,495
Reno,
NV 28.4 180,480 34.5 22,520
Santa
Clarita, CA 28.4 151,088 33.4 26,841
Chandler,
AZ 29.9 176,581 31.2 23,904
Rockford,
ILL 30.1 150,115 34.4 19,781
Amarillo,
Texas 30.8 173,627 33.5 $18,621
Other
pertinent information compiled included:
ü Per capita income in the
eight comparable cities range from $18,621-$31,964
ü Total population of the
eight comparable cities range from 147,595 – 193,556
ü Median age of the eight
comparable cities range from 28.8 (Tempe) – 36 years old
A
complete list of the comparable cities contacted as a part of this search
follows in Figure 1. Included in
Appendix E are the departments in city government that house or most closely
relates to diversity functions, the identified program(s), diversity program
characteristics, and the name and number of a contact person, where
available. The cities were contacted
through the means of telephone conversations and electronic memo. Human Resource departments were the main
contacts in delivering any type of "formal" to "informal"
opportunities aligned with the focus of diversity training.
Information was also obtained through city web pages, Chambers of
Commerce, and city government offices. This information will
provide some insight into what types of diversity activities are going on in
comparable communities, and provide a standard of comparison for the City of
Tempe.
Best
Practices are documented strategies and practices employed by highly effective
entities. These entities are not
necessarily best in every area. However,
due to the nature of competition and a drive for excellence, the profiled
practices have been implemented and honed to help place these entities as the
most admired, the most profitable, and the keenest competitors in business.
Some Best Practices Identified in this study include:
ü Policy and
Procedure Assessment in Human Resources and Legal areas
ü Clear Sexual
Harassment Policies
ü Appropriately
managed Grievance Process and conflict resolution system
ü Performance
Evaluation which promotes diversity in the workplace
ü 360-Degree
Performance Appraisals
ü Team Development
and accompanying policies
ü Reward and recognition for
all employees
ü Promotions tied to diversity
goals
ü New Employee Orientation in
which diversity training is mandatory
ü Mandatory diversity training
for managers and supervisors
ü Special Recruiting teams
focusing on diversity
ü Utilizing nontraditional
vehicles for job postings.
ü Mentoring
programs for women and minorities
ü Targeted career
tracks for women and minorities
ü Support groups
for women and minorities
ü Advanced
training for public safety department employees
ü Formal methods
to measure goals and strategies
A more complete explanation of Best Practice methods follows in
Section C.
Findings
In
relationship to the other eight cities, Tempe
falls in the middle of the pack in terms of overall ethnic minority population,
with 28.37%. This figure constitutes all
non-white ethnic minority persons in the community. Amarillo,
Texas has the highest minority population and by contrast (See Figure 1),
has no programs for diverse workforce populations. In speaking with the Human Resources Director
in Amarillo, he stated that their approach is to treat all employees with
respect and dignity, equally.
In
contrast, the City of Reno, Nevada (very
close to Tempe in terms of minority population and per capita income) has
extensive diversity programs and further, established a citywide Diversity Plan
in 2000. This plan, approved and
supported by the Reno City Council, is a five-year strategy. Reno reports, “The City is focused on
diversity due to the changing demographics of the community it serves. The City’s goal is to develop a workplace
that reflects the diversity of the community it serves, that values and
respects individual differences. The
purpose of the Diversity Action Plan is to articulate a comprehensive and
systematic approach by which the City will, over time, bring personnel
policies, practices, and procedures into alignment with the City’s business
plan to create a city government that is proactive, responsive, efficient and
accountable”.
Associated
with the Reno Diversity Action Plan, is the Diversity Action Plan Committee
which meets bi-monthly to review the progress of the Plan. The City is beginning the process of
assessing the project, which is in its 3rd year. When asked if the City Council changes and
decides they don’t back this initiative anymore, what would happen, the city
representative responded that “there would be community insistence to keep the
program in place; we have very strong community leaders involved in the
process.”
Of
all the cities surveyed, Reno and Tempe are the only cities which have
established Human Relations-type Commissions specifically addressing diversity
issues. The City of Tempe has a Human
Relations Commission, established in 1996 and made up of thirteen (13)
community leaders. It was this
Commission which originally recommended to the Tempe City Council that a study
of the City’s diversity practices be conducted.
They have been apprised of the progress of this study throughout the
past year.
Also
of note is the Human Rights Division of Tacoma,
Washington. The Division is
described as “a conduit for change by eliminating barriers to equality,
bridging our division, and helping our citizens respect each other’s
diversity.” It is responsible for the
enforcement and monitoring of anti-discrimination ordinances and resolutions. The Division, through its Investigative and
Women’s Rights Sections, implements programs geared to provide compliance with
the City’s policy of nondiscrimination and affirmative action.
In
addition to the Human Relations Commission, Tempe has established a Mayor’s
Commission on Disability Concerns. The
City of Tempe also has a Work Force Diversity Progress Report (July 2000) which
incorporates a Work Force Diversity Plan.
The wording reflects the City’s desire to comply with Affirmative Action
guidelines established by Federal EEOC standards.
Nearly
all cities contacted reported one similar trend. They have difficulty recruiting women into
public safety positions. However, once
they are successful in such recruitment, their retention rates are very
good. In other words, once women and
minorities get on the job, receive the training and are integrated into the
workforce, they tend to be very satisfied.
For example, the City of Tacoma’s female firefighters have formed a
speakers’ bureau which makes presentations at local college campuses.
Another
trend found in surveying the cities was that for the most part, their retention
rates are good since opportunities in the private sector and other industries
are less stable. Most all reported that
employees stay for the benefits even if the pay isn't what it should be
(Amarillo reports their wages being 20% below market rate).
A
broad comprehensive recruitment process is a critical component of a city's
success now and into the future. Many
City of Tempe departments are expanding their advertising to broaden the
recruiting net and looking for additional ways to get more minority candidates
into the system. For example, today
non-profit minority organizations are notified of City job postings and
internal opportunities are actively publicized to attract qualified minority
candidates. Tempe does an excellent job
of outreach and is seriously dedicated to bringing in and promoting minority
candidates. The challenge remains to
find and attract minority candidates.
City
of Tempe employees say they are focused upon improving their minority
recruitment process because they see their organizations 'behind the power
curve' on increasing the diversity. In
their view, Tempe has made good progress focusing on outreach; however, most
are very interested in learning about new or more effective recruitment
strategies. Managers, in particular, say
that more can be done, but that they need support in this area.
This
is a very similar outlook as that of the City of Santa Rosa, California, which has an overall ethnic population of
26%. They too have found that their
workforce was not reflecting the changing demographics of their community. They have taken proactive steps in the areas
of recruitment, retention and development of minorities and women. Santa Rosa states that not having programs
in place had caused the City employee population to trail behind the community
population. “The City staff doesn’t
necessarily reflect the community. This
affects customer service and communication with citizens in the community.”
Based
on the research, we find that Tempe fares very well in comparison to the eight
other cities. A few of the eight cities
are engaged in workforce diversity activities, but none of the activities are
as extensive as in Tempe. Nonetheless,
there are areas Tempe could improve upon, based on current Best Practices. In the survey conducted of the eight
comparable cities, questions were posed regarding specific categories of
diversity best practices. The following
serves as a sampling of the responses:
Assessment:
The
City of Tempe has had several employee surveys conducted over the past several
years, including the one for this audit.
The City seems to be particularly interested that their employees’
morale and work environment is positive.
As
evidenced by this report, the City of Tempe is having their policies and
procedures audited. They are one of very
few cities, if any, which have opened themselves up to such scrutiny.
Systems
Change:
The
City of Tempe conducted an internal review of their policies and procedures in
2001 and has proposed changes based on that review. Those changes are addressed in Section A and
Section C of Component 1 in this report.
The
City of Tempe has a written grievance process in their policies, as do some of
the other cities surveyed. The Tempe
policy is referred to in Section A of this report as needing some improvements.
Tempe utilizes performance evaluations but is in the process of changing their procedures in this area. The Individualized Development Plan (IDP) has replaced the performance review process for regular employees. The IDP is for supervisors and managers who are offered the opportunity to participate in a development process that tailors training opportunities to their unique needs and goals. The IDP allows supervisors to receive job-related feedback from their boss, coworkers, and peers. According to the City of Tempe's Human Resources Director, regular employees are given equal consideration for annual pay increases whether they choose to participate in the IDP or not. Jamieson and Gutierrez urges the City to exercise caution as they initiate these changes so as to not adversely affect job promotions and potential salary increases. This particular category is discussed in more length in Section A and C of Component 1.
Tempe
rewards city employees with special recognitions through the Tempe Learning
Center. In addition, Tempe has several
programs which offer premium pay for special skills (Bilingual Pay Program,
Callback Pay Program). The cities of
Santa Rosa and Tacoma also employ a Bilingual Pay Program similar to Tempe’s
program. Further, the City of Tacoma
offers vacation incentives for their Continuous Improvement Teams.
Tempe
considers the most qualified applicants for promotion, but also takes into account
as much as possible the diversity balance of the workforce. Some cities report they have union contracts
and that affirmative action supersedes collective bargaining. Policies tend to be that promotions are based
on the most qualified person, not based on race, gender or other variables.
The
City of Tacoma reports that they have changed their promotion process as of
January 2002 in order to acquire a larger pool of candidates. Those candidates with the top ten (10)
rankings are considered versus the prior program which only considered the top
three (3) candidates. This change has
allowed for more diversity in the candidate pool.
Recruitment
Strategies:
Tempe
regularly posts job openings with local community based organizations that work
with minority populations. This is seen
as a positive step toward recruiting a diverse workforce.
Similarly,
Reno makes extensive community outreach efforts to promote availability of job
opportunities through, schools and school districts, particularly those in
at-risk areas of the city. They focus on
recruitment of fire and police particularly so youth know they have other
options besides going straight onto college.
Reno also targets job fairs, career fairs, conference presentations, and
coordinates diversity conferences with public and private sector organizations.
The
City of Rockford, Illinois reports
that they also reach out to community based organizations in their recruiting
stage, including the disability community, however they do not feel it has been
as effective as they would like. They
have difficulty recruiting women for fire and police but find that once they
can get women on the force, they become long-term employees.
The
City of Huntington Beach, California
reports that since their state passed Proposition 209, they cannot target
minority populations for recruitment.
They include minority publications in their job postings, but only along
with other publications and organizations.
On the other hand, the City of Santa Rosa reports that they reach out to
Spanish media, community groups, professional organizations, and post jobs on
their website.
Although
the City of Huntington Beach did not respond to the second survey in which this
question was posed, they did report verbally that they are considering
implementing signing bonuses and bonuses for employees who refer potential
employees who are ultimately hired.
Santa
Rosa has special interview panels made-up of diverse members of the employee
workforce. Already noted is Tacoma’s
female firefighters’ speakers’ bureau.
Tacoma also has a special HR team which goes out to local neighborhoods
and speaks about job opportunities in the City.
Career
Development:
The
City of Tacoma’s female firefighters have developed a training program specific
to women so possible applicants can be better prepared for the physical and
written tests. This has resulted in more
successful female applicants.
The City of Tempe utilizes
the Individualized Development Plan and Mandatory Supervisory Training programs
for supervisors and managers. Each
offers career development opportunities as a goal for the individual
participant and by consequence potential career development opportunities for
the employees supervised by the participating
manager. In addition, all employees can pursue career
development through tuition reimbursed outside educational opportunities.
Employee
Involvement:
Tempe
has several employee support groups: the
Tempe Employee Council (TEC), the Fire union and the Tempe Officers Association
(TOA). (See Component 2, page 24 of Executive Interviews.) Although some non-safety employees give the
TEC mixed reviews, on the positive side many see it as a good forum where
issues can be raised and addressed.
However, most employees question whether the TEC has any real
power. Some employees are optimistic
that the TEC will have more power and influence under the current city
administration.
The
Tempe Officers Association is seen as new and there is hope it will become more
effective over time; however, most are not optimistic about TOA becoming a
positive force for change. Civilians in
the police department feel completely unrepresented by TOA.
In
contrast, the Fire union is seen as providing effective employee
representation.
Training
& Education:
The City of Tempe provides training opportunities for the professional development of all employees. The Training and Organizational Development Specialist is responsible for employee training opportunities including general education, employee development, job training, and other programs. Regular employees are reimbursed for educational expenses according to regulations established by the City Manager.
The Mandatory Supervisory Training (MST), while not available to all employees, is designed to provide supervisors with enhanced skills that will teach them how to implement a performance management plan with employees and establish a work climate that is conducive to productive performance appraisals and on-going career development.
Mandatory
Supervisory Training is required for supervisors, and optional for others. Five (5) slots are held open per class for
regular employees who want to attend.
The
City of Reno established a Diversity Awareness Program in 2000 which is offered
annually and is very well attended. Reno
also offers in-house training in Conversational Spanish to all employees. They typically have a waiting list to get
into the class. Employees say they
welcome the expanded knowledge so they can help provide better customer service
to Reno citizens.
Amarillo reports that they
have conducted Diversity Seminars in the past but the effects were short
term. They feel that a sound management
philosophy of teaching employees to work together in actual work situations has
resulted in long term gain. “We’re not
big on fad programs. The West Texas
attitude is to treat all people right.
We have a holistic approach to training and development, not a single
department or separate programs.” (HR
Director Jim Parrish).
Huntington Beach reports
that they have used an outside trainer for diversity but they never receive
feedback as to whether employees feel the training is effective.
Santa
Rosa conducts a ½ day orientation for all new employees which includes
information on discrimination and anti-harassment policies. They also require all new employees to
participate in a 20 hour Leadership Training which includes areas of working
relationships, problem solving and other human relations skills. However, they do not have any type of ongoing
diversity programs for their employees.
The
City of Tacoma has a mandatory cultural diversity workshop for all new
employees. It is a 3-day workshop which
reviews the City’s diversity policies and is conducted by a consortium of
employees.
Rockford
has implemented a Masters in Public Administration program through their local
university which the City pays for. A
comment of note for this report is from Rockford’s HR Director, John Becker,
regarding diversity training for their employees. They have had 1-2 day diversity trainings
conducted by outside consultants in the past.
However, he is not convinced they are that effective: “You
can’t turn bigots into non-bigots in two days.”
This
points up the importance of ensuring that any diversity program is integrated
into the entire workforce culture, not simply conducted in a couple of days
with expectations that such a training will solve all problems. Changing diversity environment and policies
is a long-term investment and process.
Accountability:
None
of the cities surveyed, including the City of Tempe tie promotion or
compensation to their diversity goals (if they have them). There is an across the board lack of
accountability in terms of assuring that diversity goals are fully implemented
into a city employee’s day to day responsibilities.
The
City of Reno, is the only city with a Diversity Plan in place in which they are
auditing their Plan to determine its effectiveness against stated goals.
Figure
1
|
Comparable Cities Survey
II Results |
|||||||||
|
Action: |
City: |
||||||||
|
|
Tempe |
Santa Rosa |
Chandler |
Amarillo |
Huntington Beach |
Reno |
Rockford |
Santa Clarita |
Tacoma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
response |
|
|
No
response |
|
|
Manager
Training |
P |
P |
P |
P |
|
P |
P |
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee
Training |
P |
P |
P |
P |
|
P |
P |
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grievance
Policies |
P |
P |
P |
P |
|
P |
P |
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policies
& Procedures Change |
P |
P |
P |
P |
|
P |
P |
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Succession
Planning |
|
P |
P |
|
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Career
Coaching for Managers |
|
P |
P |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruiting
Team |
|
P |
|
P |
|
P |
|
|
|