The Vanguard has learned and confirmed that the City’s HR Director Melissa Chaney sat at the management table as part of the negotiating team on behalf of the city during the discussion and negotiations with the city management employees group. Not only is Ms. Chaney a member of that bargaining group, but so too is her husband, Rick Guidara who is an information services manager.
The city was clearly aware of this potential conflict of interests. The Vanguard understands that City Finance Director Paul Navazio recused himself from being the city bargaining team when the department heads discussion came up due to the fact that he deemed it to be a potential conflict of interest.
The obvious problem occurs not necessarily in the big picture, but rather on the margins. Not only does she benefit with her own contract but her husband’s contract as well, that’s a double-conflict right there.
One example would be the cafeteria cashout policy. Given the fact that both she and her husband are health insurance recipients, she or her husband would be eligible to receive the cash out benefits.
One of the chief differences between the firefighters contract and the management group’s contract was how the cafeteria cashout plan was handled.
For the firefighters, they took a 20% cut in the benefits they received:
“The new contract would set the cash-out provision at 80% of the current Cafeteria Benefit levels (Kaiser +2) for the duration of the contract.”
However, the management group made no such concession.
“The new contract would cap the cash-out provision for current employees at the 2009 levels for the duration of the contract. New employees hired after the implementation of this contract would receive a maximum cash-out provision of $500 per month.”
Where the firefighters took a meager but actual cut in benefits, all management was required to do was keep the cashout at current levels and new employees would receive a far worse deal. But that last part, the $500 cap for new employees does not impact the HR director or her husband.
Does the HR director or her husband receive the cashout? Did she play a role in that portion of the agreement?
The city will likely contend that they kept the HR Director out of direct discussions relating to policies that would directly benefit her, but how can we be sure. To me, as a non-lawyer I fail to see how this was even legal. This goes beyond simply the appearance of a conflict. To allow the HR director to have any say whatsoever over the offer that management made to her own bargaining unit is a clear conflict of interests.
When I lived in San Luis Obispo, a district teacher ran for and won a seat on the school board. The first thing the board did was sue her and attempt to prevent her from being seated. Eventually she won, but had to recuse herself from sitting over contract negotiations with her own bargaining unit or voting on matters relating to them. The legislature would later pass a law to preclude teachers from serving on the board of education in their own district.
In this case, the city will probably try to slip the conflict by claiming that the ultimate decider is the council not the negotiating team, but that rings hollow. Small subtleties such as differences in cafeteria cashout can potentially directly benefit either the HR Director or her husband.
From the standpoint of the taxpayers, we needed to be fairly represented in these bargaining arrangements. The council majority already took a questionable step by allowing our own management team–Emlen, Navazio, and Chaney to serve as the negotiating team rather than a professional outside negotiator who would have been free of these conflicts and would not be strained by having to work with the individuals in the bargaining units at a later point in time.
The fire contract draws a lot of questions and concerns because the several members of the Davis City Council received large amounts of campaign contributions from the firefighters, who are the only bargaining unit to make substantial payments to council candidates. While certainly ethically challenged, this arrangement is legal.
Again, it is hard to imagine why the HR Director would not have recused herself from this arrangement as Navazio did. By the same measure since Bill Emlen, the city manager, has his contract tied to the department heads contract, there would seem a bit of a conflict of interest there as well.
It is unclear what the council ought to do in light of these revelations, however, it is more evidence from the citizen’s point of view that our interests came second to those of the bargaining units.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for reporting this–one more instance of our Kangaroo Council in action.
Thanks DPD. Am sure this isn’t the first time. What has happened historically?
Will CC be able to pass latest MOU if Ruth is away. 2-2 vote would mean not passes?
I don’t know what has happened historically. Although I have heard that the fire chief refuses to be on the bargaining team for the city because she thinks the firefighters deserve everything they ask for and more.
A 2-2 vote would mean it does not pass. That will be very interesting if indeed the Mayor does not return for next week’s meeting.
If the MOU doesn’t pass, the City could declare impasse, and impose the ‘last best offer’ for a one year period, as I understand it. The last best offer is in the MOU. However, it would only be effective until 12 months after that procedure is complete. In the meantime, the current MOU (which does not include furloughs) would continue to be in force. As I understand it, negotiations would begin immediately for a successor contract following the impasse-imposed agreement. David is right… could be very interesting.
500 BUCKS A MONTH!!!!!!!! Wow, that’s way more than the private sector. In my job working for a private sector, I was offered 150 bucks a month cash out plan.
public employees got it made. they really do have a gravy job. if you work in the private sector, you are really never safe…
According to a notice at the top of the Davis City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 2, 2010, one city will attend via teleconference from an address in the Phillippines. If this unnamed council member is the mayor, then a 2-2 tie seems unlikely.
This corrects a typo. According to a notice at the top of the Davis City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 2, 2010, one city council person will attend via teleconference from an address in the Phillippines. If this unnamed council member is the mayor, then a 2-2 tie seems unlikely.
It wasn’t the best arrangement, but the City Council has to represent us and approve any contract negotiated. That is the check and balance.
I don’t agree that public employees have “got it made.” I think that they are working under stressful conditions these days and it is only going to get worse as people are laid off, or positions are left unfilled as people retire or leave. Public employees are doing more and more for the same or less pay. There is no “safety” in any job in California currently.
What will the teleconference cost the city?
I have an extensive analysis of this MOU which will be published as an op-ed in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday. I hope people will read it.
I point out that management, department heads and public safety are the highest paid groups, so these are the groups that should be accepting reform first. Although the Enterprise headline reported huge savings in this contract, a year and a half from now the management contract will be costing the city more than it does in the baseline year ’08/’09.
The most important reform that we needed to make was to reform the cafeteria cash-out. It cost the city about $4 million a year, which is, by way of comparison, close to our entire general fund reserve. The council majority voted to allow management to continue to take home, as extra cash, up to $17,800 a year if they can be covered by a spouse who has insurance.
If the city lowered this cash-out 70% or 75%, we could probably maximize our savings at between 2 to 3 million dollars a year. This savings could go into a dedicated fund to pay off our unfunded employee health liability, which is will begin to impact our budget in only about eight years.
It is actually in the long-term best interest of our employees as well as of the city do so because, while existing pension benefits are clearly protected by law, the law is not so clear regarding retiree health benefits.
I fought very, very hard through months and months of grueling labor negotiations during the last three contracts to lower this cash-out by 70 to 75%.
That is why I was so upset when Ruth misrepresented my actions in closed session.
P.S. It appears that Ruth will be voting on the PASEA contract by phone, as well important upcoming issue of whether or not to pursue annexation of West Village.
Sue
was there any discussion amongst CC re: HR conflict of interest, the discussion of today’s blog?
Sue, It took me about a minute to slowly read your explanation outloud. It is clear what you are saying and it is an idea that should be discussed.
Then why do you need 15 minutes and much more (sometimes a lot more) to say your comments and opinions at City Council meetings? If you came to the meetings much more prepared to state your ideas, I think it would be better.
[i]”That will be very interesting if indeed the Mayor does not return for next week’s meeting.”[/i]
On the Agenda for next Tuesday’s CC meeting, it says at the top: [quote] “This meeting will include teleconference participation by one Councilmember (Gov. Code Section 11125.4(c)). The teleconference location, in addition to the address above, is: [b]4 Harrison Bend, Maybunga Pasig, Manila, Philippines 1607[/b][/quote] I then Googled that address and found a picture of it:
[img]http://philippinehistory.aboutph.com/files/2009/05/malacanang.jpg[/img]
Re: Melissa Chaney — I completely agree with David that her negotiating on both sides of her contract is a huge conflict of interest.
I should note, though, that some years ago Melissa told me explicitly that she favored the city hiring professional negotiators. She said that was how it was done when she first started working for the City of Davis and the pros did a good job. However, she said the reason the professional negotiators were not continued was a decision of the council. It was not her idea.
P.S. In case you don’t know the Philippines, that is not Ruth’s house pictured above. (I was just kidding.) That is Malacañang Palace. It’s the Philippine equivalent of our White House, where their president resides. It’s on the Pasig River, so I guess it is actually close to where Ruth is staying.
Rich
I am in favor of an outside negotiator but Ms Chaney could have recused herself. Agree?
Agree.
I’m not sure if this link works, but here is where Ruth really is ([url]http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Maybunga+Pasig,+Manila,+Philippines&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=Manila+Railroad,+Metro+Manila,+Philippines&ll=14.576512,121.091319&spn=0.005192,0.010943&t=h&z=17[/url]).
If you can’t see the map, notice the names of the streets in that neighborhood–all U.S. presidents, including roads named for Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover and Andrew Johnson and Ronald Reagan! I doubt there is a U.S. city with all of those presidents honored with a street name. I wonder if other than Placentia, there is another eponymous Nixon street in the U.S.
Rifkin: I was involved with employee negotiations since the early ’80’s… except possibly for Public Safety, there have been no professional negotiators for the city. Either Melissa is mistaken, or…
hp: I’m just repeating what she told me. The specific period she mentioned was “the late 1990s.” I probably still have my notes from that conversation in Melissa’s office.
To be clear: my notebook is not in Melissa’s office. That’s where we spoke and where she mentioned how it had worked in the past. It is possible those pros were only negotiating for the city for the public safety contracts. That much I don’t remember.
Actually it seems to me that the city did hire a professional a few years ago (some guy with a last name like Bell or something like that?)to negotiate with some or most of the groups (not totally sure which groups he negotiated with). I am sure his contract is back in the archives that can be pulled up on-line at the CC site. Dont know what happened to or with him…..
ps- I believe the city council bi-laws allow members to participate and vote by phone. I seem to have vague memories of watching some meetings on tv where Lamar participated via phone and also trying to participate via computer cam? Or was that just some strange dream……