Minutes for May 19, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Workshop Meeting
Friday, May 19, 2006
1:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein requested a moment of silence for our troops all over the world. Amen.
Ms. Weglein led the pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Mr. Torpy commented, in essence, Barefoot Bay Recreation District is using the employee handbook the City of Palm Bay used. Palm Bay, being a very large city, has policies and procedures that shouldn’t be used and applied in Barefoot Bay. The employee handbook project stalled about two years ago, and was picked up again just this week. At the time this document was created, there were several issues of concern to the Board, and the rest of it was left up to the lawyers and District administration. However, since there is a new board, that may have changed. Mr. Torpy commented he hoped to highlight the areas of concern that the Board has. With the document at hand, Chris Sutch can note the Board’s desires, and quickly get it back to the Board.
Mr. Torpy said, “Many of you come from Northern states and have union backgrounds. Many of you come from areas where employees have a right to their job. Once they become employed, it’s actually a property right, and the employer must have cause, some reason to discipline or terminate.” In the State of Florida, that is generally not the case. One of the things [we] have to be very focused on in creating an employee handbook for Barefoot Bay is that [we] don’t accidentally cross a line that gives property rights to jobs unless [you] understand you’re doing it, and you want to do it. Mr. Torpy pointed out the Board is dealing with public funds, not private money. A public employer must be competitive in the market. That is a legitimate desire that must be balanced by the fact that public employment is a limiting factor.
One key item is an employee’s right to appeal the “chain of command”. The handbook needs to spell out when an employee may approach the Board directly. Mr. Torpy commented the issue that concerns him the most is the ability of District employees to actually come to the Board. The Board has established as the method of management a strong manager form of government. That delegates all of the daily administrative policies to Mr. Hunt, the Community Manager. In other cities, employees do not have elected officials as their last right of appeal. There might be a review board of their peers with the next step being litigation if no relief was obtained. Elected officials have an interest in pleasing their constituents. In Barefoot Bay the employees usually are the constituents, which makes it difficult for Board members to remain objectively neutral.
Referencing page 17 of the handbook, Mr. Torpy described the “chain of command” as the employee’s immediate supervisor, the manager above the supervisor, and then the Community Manager. Interviewing the employee to reassess what occurred, by this policy, stops at the Community Manager. If the employee still wants review after the Manager looks at it, the package is submitted to each Board member. The Board decides if it wants to consider the matter. Five members have to agree to make a recommendation before the matter is reviewed.
Mr. Bolon commented that at some point, the process makes the jump from management to politics. Mr. Torpy replied he has tried to protect the Board by keeping the employee grievance process as apolitical as possible. There are two options if the Board decides to mediate an employee dispute: A. the Board affirms the Community Manager; or B. the Board sends it back to the Community Manager with some comments. The Board does not have the authority to overturn the Community Manager. At the time the document was drafted, the Board felt the employees should have the option of petitioning the Board of Trustees. The attorneys do not think this is a good “jump”. One reason is that Board meetings are public. The dispute would have to be hashed out publicly, which might violate certain privacy issues. Another reason is the attorneys cannot anticipate what a Board member might say. Barefoot Bay is such a tight knit community; employee disputes carry a risk of inflammatory comments. Thirdly, is the concern about “chain of command”. If the Board starts looking at the Manager’s decision and telling him publicly “we don’t like what you decided”, suddenly there’s an option to bring matters to the Board level instead of to the Manager. The employee will then be lobbying at least “some of you”.
Ms. Weglein commented in this document there is a grievance procedure created April 5, 2004. Ms. Weglein says she has not seen it. Mr. Hunt commented that was not one of the issues brought forth in the comments memorandum. Mr. Torpy commented a formal grievance procedure doesn’t involve the Board. If the employee is disciplined, there is a time period in which to ask for review by the supervisor, and then to the levels above that. Mr. Torpy commented there are several good grievance procedures the Bay can use to take care of employee concerns. As an at-will employer, the Bay can terminate an employee for no reason. A grievance procedure can create a “right to a job”, a “for cause” standard. Mr. Bailey asked about the possibility of neutral arbitration. Mr. Torpy responded there are ways to offer a neutral arbitrator. The philosophy embraced by most communities is that if the Board doesn’t like how the Manager handles employees, they fire the Manager and hire someone who holds more closely with their views. Mr. Carillion suggested using the first sentence of paragraph 2 and the last sentence of paragraph 3 (page 17) to wit: “If your Department Manager cannot or does not adequately address your concerns, you may then contact the Community Manager to discuss the matter. The decision of the Community Manager shall be final.”
Mr. Bolon commented an employee should have a strong intermediary advocate in the form of a Human Resources manager. Mr. Bailey is of the opinion a dispute would still wind up at the Board level. Mr. Torpy commented a human resources person serves functions other than intermediary and disciplinary actions. A keynote issue is sexual harassment. One of the keynote principles of sexual harassment is providing a neutral avenue to make a complaint. In Barefoot Bay, it provides one person to train on particularly complex employment related matters. The human resources person does not have authority to appeal a decision the Community Manager made. Mr. Torpy cautioned against just saying “you’re it” when appointing the human resources manager. The person must have the ability, the experience, and the training to be that person. Ms. Sutch commented that in the first handbook it did say “contact the human resources department”. By the time the revisions were being drafted, there was no formal human resources department, so the procedure went to the Community Manager.
Ms. Weglein asked Mr. Hunt if the District had a human resources person currently. Mr. Hunt responded that Shari Horne is the payroll assistant. Ms. Weglein commented that in the original an Administrative Services department is mentioned. Ms. Sutch replied the original handbook was a “work in progress” at that time and many of the departments mentioned do not exist in the District. Palm Bay probably did have an administrative department and a human resources person. Ms. McCahan asked if the District’s attorneys could be intermediaries in personnel matters. Mr. Torpy responded the attorney’s job is to protect the Bay, accessible to management and the Board of Trustees. Ms. McCahan surmised a human resources person would entail hiring an additional employee. Mr. Torpy commented if the Board determined it is appropriate to have a human resources individual on board, then it must be determined exactly what they are going to do. Then it can be decided whether a new position needs to be created or whether a qualified employee can take it on as part of their function.
Ms. McCahan asked, since the discussion of the human resources function is in the future, could something be put in this draft of the handbook to cover that eventuality. Mr. Torpy replied that consistent with what the discussions have been for the last two or three months, the District should not leave an issue unanswered right now. He advised that if another meeting was necessary to meet this issue, then schedule it and incorporate the results as part of this policy now. Mr. Keegan asked where Mr. Carillion’s suggestion was going to go. Mr. Torpy responded the attorneys are making notes on the workshop. The notes will be rewritten and brought back to the Board in a new version to be reviewed. Ms. Donahue commented that “the record’ and the human resources person are mentioned together. She said this indicates that perhaps a supervisor wrote up the employee. If in disagreement, that employee should have the human resources avenue available to defend themselves. Mr. Torpy responded the policy for reviewing actions with employees needs to cover something as simple as someone hasn’t shown up for work for three weeks and needs to be fired to something as complex as engaging in wrongful acts and intimidating employees in a way that’s subtle and hard to pin down. When speaking of a record, we first have to assume that all levels of management are properly trained in matters of discipline, interviewing skills, and investigation of disciplinary matters. The truth of the matters is, many times the field supervisor isn’t trained in those issues or is uncomfortable. The record should entail anything that has been put in writing. If an employee wants to make a complaint, or a supervisor is going to take disciplinary action, it needs to be in writing. The human resources person is the exception to the rule. If an issue is important, but too explosive or embarrassing for an employee to put in writing, the human resources person becomes a very important resource.
Ms. McCahan asked if it was the Board’s consensus that paragraphs 2 and 3 should not be in the handbook. Mr. Bailey suggested Mr. Hunt and Chris Sutch should write up a proposal for the Board to consider first. Mr. Torpy commented it’s beginning to sound as if the Board wants an intermediary human resources person. Mr. Bailey clarified that the Community Manager is still the last word. Mr. Bolon commented with a human resources person employees would stop coming to Board members. Ms. Sutch outlined what functions the human resources person might perform including employee mediation. Ms. Weglein suggested employee records should be brought up to date.
Mr. Torpy commented an additional workshop was necessary to formulate policy, but would not require an attorney presence. Mr. Torpy urged the Board to make sure the current employee handbook reflects what the District is actually doing. Ms. Weglein commented the Board members should write memos to Mr. Hunt outlining desired changes. Mr. Torpy commented Board input is essential because “history tells us it’ll be another 7 years before it’s amended.” Mr. Torpy suggested the Board members take two weeks to submit information to Mr. Hunt, then set up a workshop to finalize the document.
Mr. Bolon commented the Board officially requested that staff write a provision for severance pay. Ms. McCahan claimed authorship of the request, and commented the entire Board had not reached consensus on the issue yet. Mr. Torpy urged the Board to remember [the minutes] are records that people read down the line. If an individual Board member has made a request for something to occur, it needs to be reflected [in the minutes] the individual Board member made the request. A general reference to “the Board” implies there has been a vote, and that the majority requested it. The only time the Board does anything is when the Board takes a vote. Mr. Torpy commented that in lieu of a vote, the language is “by consensus the Board requested”.
The severance pay issue requires adoption of an official policy. This is public funding. If the Board adopts an official policy, it must apply to all employees with no exceptions.
Mr. Torpy commented on the highlighted portions of the handbook saying these were questions two years ago. The Board should review those portions and decide if the issues then are still relevant. Mr. Bailey commented on the portion concerning holidays down to the portion on sick leave. Mr. Bailey requested statistics from Mr. Hunt regarding actual time given to holidays and sick time policy. Mr. Hunt commented he could take an average payroll and make estimations of fiscal impact.
Ms. McCahan made the point that if the Board was not formulating policy in [this] meeting, what was the purpose of it? Mr. Torpy responded the Board as a whole hasn’t had an opportunity to review the entire document and come to conclusions about it. In his experience, this leads to fragmented opinions and no conclusions, which in turn leads to additional workshops and little resolution. The Board is dealing with a two-year-old document, a lot of history has happened in the intervening two years, there are new Board members, and the handbook needs to be current with the present Board’s concerns.
Mr. Torpy suggested that citizen input and employee input be submitted in writing to Mr. Hunt within the two-week period. [By June 2nd.] Mr. Torpy requested two weeks after that for his office to formulate a new document, and schedule a workshop as soon after as possible. (Approximately June 16th.) Ms. McCahan requested Mr. Hunt write a memo to employees informing them if they want to make a comment [concerning the employee handbook] to get it to Mr. Hunt in writing by June 2nd. Mr. Hunt commented the input could be anonymous.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bailey made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms. Donohue. The meeting adjourned at 2.20 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928