City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Subject: Government Code Section 3505.7 Public Hearing on Impasse with Administrative Team Associates
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt the Factfinding Report dated March 7, 2023, as the official report in the matter of the impasse between Administrative Team Associates (ATA) and the City of Santa Monica (City) (Attachment A); and
3. Adopt and Direct staff to implement the Last, Best and Final Offer authorized by City Council and presented to ATA on February 15, 2022.
Summary
The City and Administrative Team Associates (ATA) conducted negotiations from September 2021 to March 2022 over the City’s proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for three job classifications in the Public Works and Information Services departments. The City proposed to revise the minimum qualifications because the degree requirement presented an inappropriate barrier to the consideration of qualified candidates. Following negotiations, the City presented its Last, Best and Final Offer (LBFO) to ATA concerning the proposed changes. ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.
The City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations. ATA requested that the parties’ impasse be referred to a factfinding panel, in accordance with the MeyersMilias-Brown Act (MMBA). The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before a tripartite panel in August and October 2022. The neutral chairperson of the factfinding 2 of 6
panel issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for settlement, which was joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent.
As required under the MMBA, the City publicly posted the factfinding report along with the City’s dissent.
Discussion
The City and ATA mutually agreed to the selection of the neutral factfinder, who was the chairperson of a tripartite factfinding panel also consisting of a member selected by the City and a member selected by ATA. The neutral factfinder issued a report which made the following findings of fact:
• ATA represents 256 employees, all with some managerial or administrative responsibility, in over 100 job classifications. Historically, all but three of the job classifications have required a bachelor’s degree and work experience. • In 2021, the City’s Information Services and Public Works Departments requested that the Human Resources Department review the minimum qualifications for two job classifications and add an alternative option wherein work experience may be substituted for the bachelor’s degree requirement. • The City reviewed the two job classifications and concluded that the requested modification was appropriate. In addition, a new job classification for the bargaining unit was created.
• In April 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Technology Training Coordinator. As an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two years of experience (beyond the three years’ experience required for all candidates) can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In June 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Software Developer. As an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two years of experience can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In August 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Engineering Support Services Administrator. As 3 of 6
an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that additional qualifying experience can substitute for the bachelor’s degree on a year for year basis with successful completion of 30 units equal to one year of the additional required work experience.
• The purpose of the City’s proposals was based on its view that possession of a bachelor’s degree requirement as a minimum qualification precluded City Departments from considering candidates who may not have a bachelor’s degree but could perform the requisite job duties in each of the classifications. In addition, the City stated that removing such barriers to employment may have the added benefit of improving diversity in its applicant pools. • ATA opposed the City’s proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications for each of the three job classifications.
• During negotiations, which occurred between September 2021 and March 2022, ATA made three proposals for settlement: 1.) ATA would agree to permit the City to change the degree requirement of the classifications in exchange for educational incentive pay in the amount of 8% of base salary for a bachelor’s degree and an additional 4.8% for those with a master’s degree; 2.) ATA would agree to temporarily suspend the bachelor’s degree requirement where the applicant pool was insufficient; and 3.) ATA would agree to the proposed changes by the City in minimum qualifications if work experience credit was commensurate with the number of years to obtain the bachelor’s degree. • On February 15, 2022, the City presented ATA with its Last, Best and Final Offer (LBFO) concerning the proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications to provide a work experience alternative to the educational degree. The proposals in the LBFO are the same as what the City initially presented to ATA in June and August 2021.
• ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.
• In March 2022, the City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations. • In March 2022, ATA requested that the parties’ impasse be referred to a factfinding panel.
4 of 6
• The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before the tripartite panel in August and October 2022.
In March 2023, the factfinder issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for settlement, which was joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent. The City publicly posted the factfinding report along with the City’s dissent.
The factfinder made the following three recommendations to settle the impasse, which are advisory only:
1) The City will modify its class specifications for the three positions to require four years of additional experience instead of two years as an alternative to a bachelor’s degree;
2) ATA will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any position in the bargaining unit; and
3) ATA members who have a four-year college degree will receive an annual bonus of 3% of their base salary.
The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent and addressed each of the three settlement recommendations as follows:
1) The City should not modify its class specifications for the three positions to require four years of additional experience instead of two as the alternative to a college degree.
Instead, the City should implement its LBFO to ATA on this subject; 2) The City does not request that ATA waive its right to participate in the established City process for reviewing and revising classification specifications. The City values ATA’s contributions to this process; and
5 of 6
3) The City should not modify the compensation for ATA employees who have a college degree so that they would receive an annual bonus of 3% of base salary. This would create inequity between comparably situated employees who possess the same or substantially similar capacity to perform the requisite duties for the job. Furthermore, the compensation market changes, and the City must be flexible not only as an employer but as an entity which services the public.
The City also provided clarification that it did not refuse to provide a counterproposal to ATA proposals during negotiations on this matter. This statement in the factfinding report is inaccurate and mischaracterizes the City’s restatement of its initial proposal during the negotiation process. Staff recommends that Council direct City staff to implement the LBFO which the Council previously authorized City staff to present to ATA.
The City Council has three options following the public hearing on the factfinding:
1. Take no action, in which case the status quo would be maintained and the minimum qualifications will remain as they are;
2. Impose the terms of the City’s LBFO, in which case the City will implement the revisions that it proposed; or
3. Direct the City to reopen negotiations with ATA according to the direction that the Council provides, whether that direction aligns with the factfinders’ recommendations or otherwise.
Staff recommends that Council impose the terms of the City’s LBFO.
Environmental Review
The City’s proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the three job classifications are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the 6 of 6
environment. The proposed changes to job qualifications are administrative in nature and would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, are categorically exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The Last, Best and Final Offer as presented to ATA on February 15, 2022, and outlined in Attachment A has no financial impact.
Prepared By: Sasha Sargent, Executive Administrative Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM
B. PowerPoint Presentation