NO MANAGEMENT TRAINING/EQUIPMENT REQUESTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL AUGUST 2015
MEA Arbitration Video – player.vimeo.com/video/96925667
San Francisco Court Funding Model – WAFM Fact Sheet
MEA MCCP B&C Program Relaunches for 15-16:
The MCCP B&C program is now set to relaunch for 2015-2016. All MEA represented managers should have received information from their departments about the criteria and timeline for submissions. Among the key changes to the program is the opportunity for managers to submit an MCCP B&C request on their own behalf. The application can be found at www.sfmea.com with additional information available in the MEA MOUs for CCSF and MTA. A comprehensive overview of the program can be found in the May 2015 MEA Newsletter. Recent information provided by DHR to all CCSF departments is reproduced below:
DHR Notification on 2015-2016 MEA MCCP B&C Program:
As a reminder, we are quickly approaching the time period in which individual managers may make submissions on their own behalf by submitting requests directly to their department personnel officers. Requests should be submitted via e-mail on the attached form between Monday, August 3rd and no later than the close of business, Friday, August 14th with a copy provided to MEA as well (email@example.com).
Please note that the form you will use is the same form the department will use as well when they ultimately make their final submissions.
Additionally, later this month, DHR will issue a detailed memorandum on the process with specific funding details.
Department submissions to the MCCP Post-Appointment Adjustment Committee are due by the close of business, Friday, October 9th and responses from the Committee will be provided by Friday, November 20th.
In the interest of equitable distribution among employees, departments will follow these guidelines to the extent feasible:
- submissions should only be made for those that are currently at or above the top of Range A;
- ongoing increases should be favored toward those who have not already received ongoing, wage adjustments;
- to ensure that ongoing, wage adjustments and one-time, lump sum allocations are significant, but also available to a sufficient number of employees, they should be no less than $1,000 and no greater than $7,500;
- allocations should be broadly distributed among all managerial levels (i.e., MCCP and non-MCCP);
- annual allocations should aim to cover between 30% and 50% of the department’s covered employees;
- individual performance varies so the allocation amounts should vary as well to reflect that variance in performance
- submissions based on performance should favor one-time bonuses as this program allows for future lump sum bonuses if there is continued exceptional performance; on-going adjustments are best reserved for structural and retention issues.
As a reminder, the post-appointment process is designed to address the compensation of individual incumbents. To the extent that there are changes in the responsibilities of a position, this program should not be a substitute for reclassification.
Ethics Commission Moves to Expand Online Form 700 Filing
Under state law, elected officials and department heads are required to file their Conflict of Interest Statements (Form 700s) with the Ethics Commission. Recently, electronic filing of those forms has been mandated and fines are now issued for failure to comply. Under the current San Francisco Campaign and Government Code, other “designated” Form 700 filers are also required to file, but they file manually within their departments which then keep the forms on file. Of course all Form 700s filed are public documents and are available for review upon request at the department.
In early June the Department of Human Resources (DHR) invited MEA and other labor organizations to meet with them regarding the “expansion of the electronic filing requirements to all Form 700 filers.” On June 19th MEA met with representatives of DHR, the Ethics Commission and the City Attorney’s Office in an effort to understand the scope and impact of the proposed changes. It quickly became apparent that centralized filing, online posting and fines for failure to comply represented significant changes that required a more robust meet and confer process. MEA, in consultation with legal counsel, objected to the changes being considered by the Ethics Commission prior to this process occurring, and the issue was subsequently handled as a “discussion item” at the Ethics Commission’s June 29th meeting. The Public Employees Committee (PEC) also registered their objection to the changes.
Among the key issues that must be resolved prior to any implementation is who should be required to file. Currently, a list of “designated” filers is submitted by the department. With this change – to publicly file and post all Form 700s – the question of which positions and employees are appropriately subject to the requirement becomes critical. There are currently more than 3200 employees listed as “designated” filers and many of them do not appear to hold positions with enough decision-making authority where potential conflicts revealed in Form 700 filings would arise. We believe that this change represents a significant loss of privacy and expansion of access to sensitive information for employees. MEA will be looking to develop specific criteria for use by departments in identifying appropriate “designated” filers. In addition, we will seek posting guidelines that reflect both our commitment to transparent and ethical government and our duty to protect the privacy rights of our members and their families.
Bargaining Underway for New MEA Agreement Covering Court Managers
Bargaining began in June for a successor agreement to the 2012-2015 Agreement between the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and MEA. Initial proposals were exchanged and discussions are ongoing. Wages, benefits and leave access are the key issues under discussion. One of the major impediments to achieving a contract that reflects the improving economy is the Court’s current funding structure.
In 2013-14, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC aka JCC) instituted a new funding formula for local trial courts. The Workload-Based Allocation Funding Methodology (“WAFM”) formula reallocated funding based solely upon the number of filings each court processed. This unintentionally served to incentivize a revolving door system of justice at the cost of more labor-intensive collaborative approaches. It designated all local trial courts as either “donor” or “recipient” courts, and began the process of shifting resources. That shifting is only partially completed and already the result is steep cuts for “donor courts” like San Francisco.
SF Housing Authority RAD Program Proceeds with Adjusted Schedule
For the past year and a half, MEA has been engaged in on-going meetings with the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) regarding the implementation of the U.S. HUD approved Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program. The SFHA was in desperate need of capital improvements at their properties, which were estimated to cost around $270 million dollars. Although no new funding was authorized for RAD, HUD’s authorization for the SFHA to convert 2/3 of its public housing to a public private partnership, will result in the private partners paying for the much needed capital improvements. The RAD Program also expands the use of Section 8 vouchers for tenants who will occupy the rehabilitated units. The initial schedule called for implementation of a two phase process, with no MEA managers being impacted in Phase I. Phase II was scheduled to begin in June 2015. However due to delays in the conversion process in Phase I, the next phase has been adjusted to begin after the Phase I conversion process is complete, with a new target date of November 15, 2015. Since the current SFHA-MEA MOU expires on September 30, 2015, MEA will be scheduling meetings in the near future to begin bargaining on a successor MOU as well as incorporating language regarding the RAD implementation’s impact to MEA members.