Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Layoffs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Personnel department cautions committee: administering mass layoffs will strain staff and timelines
Summary
The Personnel Department told the Budget Committee that processing the mayor’s proposed layoffs will likely require extensive staff time and that many of the department’s own positions are on the elimination list; officials urged delaying personnel cuts where possible and requested guidance and resources for transfers and seniority calculations.
Personnel Department leaders warned the Budget Committee that conducting the seniority calculations and administration required for large‑scale layoffs is a complex, staff‑intensive legal task, and that the department itself faces proposed position eliminations that could undercut its ability to carry out the work.
General Manager Malaika Billups said the department initially identified 72 filled positions proposed for elimination and later learned six additional filled positions had been added, bringing the total to 78 filled positions on the elimination list. Billups said the department has built training and a project structure for layoffs, but that accurate seniority and job‑history calculations require robust tools and staff resources. Without a ready software solution the department said it could need “no fewer than 200 personnel department personnel” to run the process and still retain essential citywide services.
Billups said personnel will work to facilitate voluntary transfers and to partner with proprietary departments to place affected employees where feasible, but cautioned that moving staff before seniority calculations are complete risks subsequent displacement if seniority results differ. Committee members asked for a range of follow‑up items, including: options to phase layoffs over a longer period rather than within four months; analysis of the hard costs of retraining and lost productivity that follow mass workforce disruption; lists of which eliminated positions were placed via city programs such as TLH/bridge hires; and proposals for using vacancies and in‑lieu swaps to mitigate layoffs.
Personnel staff said the department had expected to use revenues from a dependent‑verification audit as an offset but learned those revenues had already been assumed in central city revenue projections and therefore cannot be used as a personnel restore. The department also identified new responsibilities — such as SART accounting for sexual‑assault kit reimbursement — that it wants to retain and asked the committee for targeted offsets to preserve critical functions.
Committee members asked for detailed memos from Personnel and the CAO on phased layoff costs, restoration options, impacts on recruitment and background investigations, and the number and classification of affected positions.
