Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends administrative-code changes on job classifications to full board
Summary
The committee reviewed an ordinance amending Administrative Code section 16.21 to update job classifications and bargaining-unit assignments, sought clarifications on several classifications (recreation facility assistant, physician, planner 5) and removed one line before forwarding the package to the full board with recommendation.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee reviewed an ordinance to amend Administrative Code section 16.21, the code section that establishes city bargaining units and classifications. Suzanne Mason, the city’s employee relations director, described the package as a routine periodic update that moves several previously unrepresented classifications into bargaining units and adds new apprenticeship-related roles.
Mason said the package moves roughly 344 employees (snapshot figure provided in committee discussion) from unrepresented to represented classifications, adding apprenticeship and trade classifications and converting temporary assignments into permanent roles in some cases. Supervisors pressed for background on specific entries: a new recreation facility assistant classification (page 30), a special examiner classification (page 15), elimination of a physician classification (page 20) and a planner 5 series noted on page 11. Mason said she would provide detail and historical context and confirmed some classes were being moved to representation with SEIU (bargaining unit 21 and others).
The committee struck line 24 on page 7 (a program‑manager business and economic development classification) after agreeing it should remain unrepresented or be formally eliminated, and a supervisor moved to send the amended ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation. The committee took no public testimony on this item at the time the ordinance was considered.
Questions from supervisors focused on whether moving classifications would change exempt/nonexempt status and how many incumbents currently occupy the affected classifications; Mason said the moves are primarily representational and do not necessarily change exempt status, and she committed to returning with specific counts and explanations.
The committee approved forwarding the item to the Board of Supervisors with recommendation.
