Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2004-01-01Final Final Final Torn of Ithaca Personnel Committee Meeting October 20, 2004 1:30pm Members Present: supervisor Catherine Valentino; Councilwoman Sandy Gittelman; Rich Ten Kate, Working supervisor; Larry Salmi, Heavy Equipment Operator; sue Ritter, Asst. Dir of Planning; Dani Holford, senior Typist Absent: Councilman Bill Lesser Support Staff: Judith C. Drake, Human Resources Manager Others Attending: Paul Tunison and Larry Parlett, SCLIWC; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Iristie Rice, Asst Dir Building/Zoning; Creig Hebdon, Asst Dir Engineering; Fred Noteboorn, Highway superintendent; Stanley schrier, Laborer; Henry Eighrney, Laborer; Lisa Carrier-Titti, Network/Records Specialist; Tee -Ann Hunter, Town clerk; Debby Kelley, Bookkeeper to the Supervisor; Betty Poole, Court Clerk; Joe Slater, Engineering Tech; John Williams, Mechanic; Den Walker, Dir of Engineering Call to order: 1:30 p.m. Agenda Item #2: Review Minutes of July t '04 meetin Approved with change in wording to Agenda Item # ---- second bullet. Wording changed to: Concern was expressed about using a flat rate system as a long terra policy as compared to % increases. Agenda Item # : Persons to be Heard: None. Agenda ftern ,#4: Review Draft of Personnel Committee Mission: Judy handed out the draft she wrote up. Discussion tabled until a later meeting. Agenda [term_## : Discuss 2005 Health Insurance Plan Cathy explained that since the gage increases have already been gone over and that .there is an understanding ghat, they will be, in addition to having already budgeted an increase of 0% for the health insurance in the 2005 budget no one is looking to impose an employee cost share for Zoo . We can talk about looking at the different options for increasing deductions/co-pays and generic drugs (see attached). We might look at this for Final F'inal Final thlis year,, but Cathy believes this should be looked at for, a long-range discussion and have a more in-depth discussion with t,h,le employee's to find what health beniefilts, they use most to, determitne whiat changes i�in the Plan will have the, least mpact on'them, butwill help the Town save, some money, on the ever increasi , nig health costs., Cal,hy a,nd Judy havie llooked at some of the health cost around the In The Town's has niolt been excessive in terms of what others are paying. Over the pasit 5, years the increases for the Town have, been around 11.7%. This year was, u�nusual — 26.7%. Some year'S the County and City ) s, has been way up, whein the Town's was dilown., Cathy cautil loned about trying to compare ourselvels, to Cornell, the, County or City because those, 3 entities alre self funded with much liarger pools of employees. HM 11011 111 Jell W All Iff .......... . . . . . . . . . . Sue - Reicommendatiions for Personnel Clommittele — Supplorts keeping plan as is, — no! changes, and no cost share. Committee vioted unantmously to send recommendation to Town Board not', to make any chaniges to the, plan or to impose a cost share on mlon1hly prerniums. Betty asked wha,t If Board does, not approve even after considiering Personnel Committee, recommendation,. Cathy explaineld that the Board would have to Idecide what th ley, want to ch d that ifthe Board wiants to make changes, she, would voice that, the employees did not, want an rncrease to, 'thile prescripti,on co -pays. 0 Final Final - Final Judy advised that nominations will be coming in November/December for Town Hall highway will need to make sure their representation is still ok with group. Agenda [tern #7: Others: Judy gave an update on the Dental Plan — increase of about 12%. For 2005 rates increased to $29.50 for individual and $79.71 for family. Rani asked. for Clarification on attending training/conferences in 2005 there is no money budgeted in Zoo . That is correct - the only money budgeted is for mandatory training. If someone wants to pair for the training/conference personally they may or may not have to use their own benefit time. A Conference/Travel Authorization will still need to be completed and approved by the department head and Supervisor Valentino. Adjourned; 2:30 p.m. Next Meeting: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 from 1:30-2:30 at Town Hall K Final Final Final Torn of Ithaca Personnel Committee Meeting June 9, 2004 1:30pry Members Pre ent:F Supervisor CatherineValentino; Councilman Bill Lesser; Don Ten late, Working Supervisor; Larry salmi, Heavy Equipment Operator; Sue Ritter, Asst. Dirof Planning; Rani Holford, Senior Typist Support staff: Judith C. Drake, Human resources Manager Others Attending: Paul Tunison, SOLI C Call to order: 1:35 p.m. Benda Item #2: Review !Minutes of Aril 1, 2004 meetinc Approved as read. Aqenda Item #3f Persons to he Hurd: None. Agenda Item #4: Review Draft Policies for Uniforms & Phvsioais (Hilqhwav): Judy distributed the change in wording for the paid meal period for Torn highway employees who are called into work before :go arm or work at least until :00 pr . lJnif rms -- Change in wording for the Torn of Ithaca Uniform, Policy. Changing (Sorange" t-shirts to "approved safety color'. Also allowing all- Torn of Ithaca staff to purchase up to 5 t--shirts under the o plan. Physicals — Judy had initially proposed to have physicals -for new hires (Town) if the job description specified certain physical abilities that could be "tested" by a physician. In an attempt to compile a list of psitions this would apply to — Judy found that all the job descriptions have "physical condition commensurate with the demands of the position". Since none of the job descriptions are specific i.e. crust be able to lift up to 50 lb , it is being dropped at this time. &qenda Item # : Discuss Benefit surrey from Summer 2003: The committee agreed that the Turn of Ithaca/Bolton Point, when compared to other municipalities, is in line with or above average when it co Mes to employee benefit programs. 1 Final Final Final Arc ends Item ## : Discuss Flexible Spending Program: : There are two programs that employees can put pre -taxed money into to later draw on to pay medical/dental claims or dependent care. Employees designate a set amount of money for the year which will be deducted from their paychecks — for example $1,200/24=$50.00 deducted per pay. Employees submit a claim form along with paid receipts to receive the reimbursement. The plan that Judy has looked at the company works with BCBB. When the doctor's office bills BCBB there is also a claim sent to this company and the employee would not have to send in a claim for reimbursement. Employees need to be cautious when deciding hover much per year to put into this plan — at the end f the year it disappears. There are gg days after the calendar year to submit claims, but the -actual date of service had to have fallen during that calendar year. The amount can be changed only during the open enrollment. period each year. In addition to the obvious tax swings to the employees, the Town also saves since they have to match the Medicare and social Security amounts that the employees pay. ,Judy will check with employees to find hover many people are interested. The Personnel, Committee recommends this to the Torn Board. Agenda Item ## : Others: Bill explained that there was some, discussion at the Torn Board meeting on Monday regarding the process of approving the creation of positions. Some board members feel they are being asked. to male a decision when they don't have any particular information about the need to create a new position. Bill Cathy have discussed that the Personnel Committee could probably review any request for the- creation of positions then the com itt a can make a recommendation to the Town Board along with. some background information on the need for the position -- what are the changes that necessitated the need for this positions. Cathy pointed out that the recommendations would not involve actual individuals for positions, but just the need for the position. Cathy asked the committee members to think about ghat they believe the role of the: Personnel Committee is and collectively they will put something together at the. next meeting to give to the Town Board. Adjourned: 2:35 p.m. Comments from Personnel Committee Meeting July 26, 2004, and other concerns brought to Judy's attention) regarding wage Scale: 0 Staff, generally, seem happy with 2005 proposal and support it. • Staff in the future would .like to look at the flat rate policy as a long-term policy. May have concerns with it over time compared to a % increase each year. • Concern that by using % over time distorts wage scale quickly (gives higher end more take home pay and lower end much less take home pay.) • Lower scaled employees don't think the straight % is fair. Higher end employees don't like the flat amount, because feel they .are being disadvantaged because lower %. Neither system' makes them all happy. • Need to make sure if use a flat amount that the higher end classifications don't become out of whack with comparable places using a % and not a flat rate* Is it unfair to the higher paid employees by using the flat amount, because they get a lower %, but same take home amount?) • If using a flat amount it needs to be established from the top down versus the bottom up, to ensure that all employees are getting a cost of living increase. Borne concern that- the amount would be set by a middle of road classification and not the top classification (which it is not the practice.) • The. flat sum of reflects that employee's contributions are of equal worth to the Town. Ultimately need to make sure our wages stay competitive to make sure we beep a strong workforce. Don't want to fall behind competitively. Committee in the future may also look at a merit system on top of the wage Scale o that ones contribution to the Town could be considered. Need to make sure it is fair for all employees. (Difficult if one Department Head rates higher than others.) • In the past there was a merit system and a bonus pool — all of pool went to Town Hall and none to Highway, therefore leery of this type of system. } o May want a committee that looks at merits, with Department Heads documenting reasons for merit increase. • Could explore other options for the future. 0 Could look at a pool amount and base % for. each employee of the pool amount. • Concern about personal performance should equate to be more than a 20 week raise .10402 weeks.) (Further explained ,to person that biweekly tape home pay would actually be $128.46 ,more in 2005 than 2004. Further explained that this system is NOT a performance -based system.) Final i Final Final Town of Ithaca Personnel Committee Meeting April 14, 2004 1: 3 pry Members Present: supervisor Catherine valentine; Councilwoman sandy Litt loran; Don. Ten late, Working supervisor; Larry salmi, Heavy Equipment Operator; sue Ritter, Asst. Dir of Planning; Darni Holfcrd, senior Typist Support staff: Judith C. Drake, Human Resources Manager Others Attending: Paul Tunison, SCLIWC Call to order: 1:37 p.m. A-qenda Item ##2: Review Minn f February 24, 2004 nE. Approved as read. Benda Item ##3: Persons to be Heard: Arc enda Item ## : F evie r Revisions n for Emollovee.Assistance Program and Shift Differential (Highwa)fh. Judy :Drake explained that as changes/revisions are made to the Personnel'Manual she will bring them to the- Personnel Committee to see therm in written fora, and for their "stamp of approval" before they are: passed on to. the employees. The rain change on 'the Employee Assistance/Ombudsman service is that we added. the Employee Assistance Program with Family and children'. This is ghat was added to the sheet to be passed onto the employees to replace the old sheet in their Personnel Manual. We hadn't contracted with Family child ren's for .the Employee Assistance Program at the time that the manual was put tther and passed by the Town Board-, The Ombudsman part has net changed. The second revision is for the change in shift Differential for Highway. Judy stated that on December 31, 2003 the Town Board passed a resolution changing the shift differential for the Highway from $0.60/hr t 1. o hr. That has been written into the, policy so this is just an update to the Personnel Manual. Final Final Final There will be a memo going out to the employees along with these two sheets explaining that these are new pages to be inserted into the Personnel Manual. Ac Benda Item ## : Discuss Recommended Revisions for uniforms (Highwav): Judy explained- that: our current policy specifically addresses "orange" t- shirts. we do a cost share of obo with the employees. Although the manual specifically says 99orange" t-shirt, there is now "lime green" t-shirts that are available. Judy asked Don Tan }date if the lime green was the color trend and if it was recommended by the DOT. Den wasn't Sure if it is the DOT, but this is the new color. Sue asked if this was a required color. Don believes you can use the orange or the lime green now. Judy asked if there were any suggestions for wording to change the specifically stated orange t-shirt, examples, saf0ty approved color or just leave it as a Town of Ithaca t-shirt. The ones that the Town orders -are the appropriate color with "Town of Ithaca" on there. Cathy recommended, for the revision, instead of stating "Hi hway employees" maybe it should just say Town employees then we don't have to distinguish between anybody. Don said that he doesn't know if we need a limit number in there, but Fred. - loteb om,. Highway Superintendent, limits there to 5 per person. It was agreed that the wording ;`a rna imur- of 5 per person" for the g on t-shirts. All Town employees would be able to -purchase up to 5 t-shirts under the 0 plan. Elected and appointed officials would have to pay 100%. Judy will write the revision and bring -back to the Personnel Committee for final approval. Agenda Item : Discuss Empl vee Ph teal - & Paid Ideal Periods LU I ah wa . Ernplee Phial: Judy said that the Commission was the only place doing physicals when this gent into the manual. she would like to do physicals on the Highway laborers when they are hired because in their job description they are required, to lift a certain amount of pounds and we currently do not test for that. This carve up from our safety evaluation with our Workers' Comp Company — questioning whether we do physicals for Highway employees — no we don't — they recommend that we do. These would be they only employees required to have physicals because of the requirement in their job description. Cathy asked if this Final Final Final W oullid be, for new hires only. Judy said itwould be — tiheire s no sense in in bac,kwards. We send a, job description to Convenient Care and they perform th p hysical exam to ensure, the person can, meet the requirements and they wil sienid a report back, to the Town as, to, whether thie person would be, able to do th work based on the exan'l., I Ju is, It ons that have physical dy wIill prepare a list, of' the current po i i I " requifements that, ician be, assessed through a physlical, exiam. She will also, draft some-thI ng regardingiphysicals to bring back, to the committee. i Pial*dMlliellall'I'l�'ll'"'Pl,"e.lir i,,94,sl (jLiqhw,a,yh., Judy explaineld that some ofthese chianges are kind of'a clean up from briniging out the new Personnel Manual. 'We run into the wIhat if"situation's. We halve always lihad', "'highway employeIes called into work before 16,100a.m. will get p aild an extra hialf an hour overtime"":. What was aidded into, this, most recent mianual is, "or work, until or later than 7p.m.". 'There was, much discussion as 'to, whether the, wording should be worK 44, it $.1 up to, TOO p.m." or a,fter 7:�100 p.m. It was agreed the, wording, would be lit changed to who workat 11eiast until 7-00, p.m. ........ ... AL Alk Alk 400 do IV — I M 0 Final Final Final Agenda Item #8: Discuss Conference/Travel Approval Policv (Town): Judy explained that there was a need' to update the 1999 amounts for Conference/Travel. The recommended amounts are; per diem meal from $50/day t $65/day bre kfar t' = $15, lunch = $20, dinner = $30). Additionally, change the amount from $200. to g for Town Board approval. Judy will send this onto the Town n Board for their approval'. &qenda Item ## : Discuss Benefit Survey From Summer 2 : Tabled. Others None. Adjourned: 2:35 p.m. Final Final Final Town of Ithaca, Personnel Committee Meeting February 24, 2004 1:30pm Members Present: Supervisor Catherine Valentino; Councilman Bill Lesser; Councilman will Burbank; Don Ten Date, Working Supervisor; Larry salmi, Heavy equipment operator; sue Ritter, Asst. Dir of Planning; Dan! Holford, Senior Typist Support Staff: Judith C. Drake, Human Resources a Manager Others Attending: Councilwoman sandy Gittelrnan; Tee -Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Al Carvill , Budget officer! Carrie Whitmore, Dep Town Clerk Dep Rec of Taxes; Jon Kanter, Dir of Planning; Dave Boyes, Motor Equipment operator (Safety Committee);. Kristie Rice, Asst. Dir Building/Zoning. (Safety Committee); Mike Smith, Environmental Planner Call to order: 1:30 p.m. Judy Drake welcomed sue Ritter, new representtive for Town Hall and stated that Dan! Holford was reelected. The highway representatives (Don TenKate and Lam SaImi were informally reelected). Everybody introduced themselves. Agenda Item # 2# Review v Minutes of December 1 , 2003 rneetxn Approved as read. Agenda Item ##3: Persons to be Heard: None. Agenda Item ## : Discussion of Drug Free Work Place Polio : Cathy Valentino opened the meeting to discussion on the Drug Free Work Place Policy. Jon banter stated his main concern is with the mandatory testing for new employees. This would be a bad direction for the Town to go in, to basically require drug testing. We would definitely loose a lot of good intern opportunity. Interns are very short-term jobs. students who are looking for internships, hoping to get some good experience, without jumping through hoops and going though drug testing whetherthey are taking drugs or not really is not the issue. Final Final _ Final The question is will it make it more difficult for us to find good people. There are other issues as well. We are infringing on peoples private lives in a sense. Councilwoman Gittelman points out that although the policy talks about involvement with alcohol and other drugs, the only testing for pre -employment is for drugs. Is that correct? Judy Drake replied that you cannot test people for alcohol. Councilwoman Gittelrnan believes that it is prejudicial to test for one and not the other. when she started. reading the policy she was impressed with the fact that you asked employees not to report to work while their ability to perform duties is impaired, which is the point. If somebody were doing something that is inefficient, harmful or dangerous to themselves or others that would be the point at which one is really obligated to interfere. Tee -Ann Hunter agreed with Jon Canter, she is opposed to the mandatory drug testing. speaking T personally, if she were looking for a job and had a choice to ►cork for someone who required this and someone who did not, she would most certainly work for the people who did not rewire drug testing. When you look at policies of this sort, you need to not only look at ghat you're -gaining, but what you are giving up. How much of an individual's privacy or control over the information about themselves they are being asked to relinquish to an employer. Confidentiality is part of this policy, however, the safe handling of information of yourself you relinquish that as soon as you give that over to other people. The only way you can guarantee the private and personal things remain private and personal is not to relinquish them to others. While the current administration may be totally above board morally .and ethically, ,you don't know who will come after these people and who will there be privy to this information. Tee-Ann's big concern is not so much with regard to the alcohol and drug issues, but the medical information that an employer could ascertain through blood and urine tests. They could find out if someone were pregnant, if they are prone to diabetes, they coup find out all kinds of medical information about someone and not Dire them as a result of that. This is information that an individual is not mandated to disclose at the time of looking for a job and it is rather invasive and potentially damaging. When we have the health fairs she never has the blood test work dome because that's between her and her doctor. 1JIe will have that work done somewhere else. For example, she doesn't want her employer to know if she has high cholesterol. This would rob her of control over the information about herself. Tee -Ann did a little research using a book called Nickel and [limed. This was a woman who attempted to lire making minimum wage and one of the things she 2 Final Final Final was subjected to was mandatory drug testing. The following. is a footnote from the book, "There are many claims for workplace drug testing. Supposedly, it results in reduced rates of accidents and absenteeism, fewer claims on health insurance plans and increased productivity; however, none of these claims have been substantiated. According to a 1999 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, drug tasting is a bad investment. Studies shover that pre -employment testing does not loner absenteeism, accidents or turnover and, at least in the high tech workplaces studied, actually lowered productivity presumably due to its negative effect on employee, moral. Furthermore, the practice is quite costly. In 1990 the Federal government spent '$11.7 million to test 29,000 federal employees. Since only 153 tested positive, the cost of detecting a single drug user was $77,000. Why do employers persist in the practice? Probably, in part, because of advertising by the roughly $2 bilIion drug testing industry, but I suspect that the demeaning effect of testing may also hold some. attraction for employers." Sue Fitter agreed with Jon and Tee -Ann. She feels real strongly that this is a demeaning procedure and, that it suggests a certain kind of atmosphere here at Torn Hail that she would not be proud of. She would be embarrassed to tell a new employee that they have to go get a urine test before they can take the job.. She is unsure ghat good it will do in the long run otherthan suggest a big brother atmosphere. Al Carill agreed with Jon, Tee -Ann and Sue. He is strongly opposed to drug testing......................................he gents to be responsible for himself and not have the employer take the position ............... Kristie lice, speaking from the Safety Committee, this is where the whole issue started. It sounds like most people are against the initial part and not the reasonable suspicion. she reminded everyone that there are others involved, it's not just Town Hall. We can't think about just our group here, we have to think about people at Highway and Bolton Point where their jobs are maybe a little different it they were intoxicated or altered in some way it could really be a life threatening situation. Rani Holford believes the language should be altered some hoer to apply to those jobs, not everyone at Torn Hall. Kristie stated that two things carve out of the Safety Committee. First, unfairness between job positions and is it right to apply it to certain jobs and not others. Secondly, there are positions in all three -buildings where you can have the potential for that. Using her position as an example, climbing a ladder up onto a roof can be potentially dangerous. There was a feeling at the Safety Committee that we do want to be fair and one of the things that was pushed in the Safety Final Final Final Committee was doing random drug testing, like we do for the CDL, in all the positions. we didn't believe that would go over very well and we weren't in favor of it, so it didn't come out in the draft. We thought that was probably going a little to far because to randomly core up with a good pool from a small Town Hall group. .Judy Drake stated that they addressed some of the issues Tee -Ann had brought up — cost vs. means and that got struck pretty fast. currently the CIDUs are mixed in with all the ether municipalities so there's a larger group. if we did it in house the cost would net be reasonable for us and it would be a much smaller group. Carrie Whitmore stated that .for now the random drug testing has been stru t down, but whose to say that three years down the road it might go through then that right is taken away from the employee. Additionally, people choose their jobs. she cheeses net to be a CDL driver, so she should not have to follow the -same requirements as a CDL driver. Life isn't always fair. People are subjected to some rules and some people aren't. That is just the way our society works. You can't expect everybody to be tested for everything. Kristie: speaking through the Safety Committee, explained that one of the things that the committee looked at was the people who run any kind of equipment or drive any Town vehicle or personal vehicle for Town business. That's where they started to exclude the clerk's department, but then remember that the clerk's office is. out driving their own or the Town's vehicle when checking polling/voting places machines during elections. The more they looked at it they were able to either exclude a particular job position or keep it in. The question became, "Where do you draw the line" The Safety Committee feels the- people we currently have in the Town Hall are a pretty good group. Carrie asked shouldn't the new employees be afforded the same opportunity to not have suspicion right off the bat. That's why we have the reasonable suspicion. If somebody feels that way the problem can be dealt with then. Kristie statedthat from the stand point of the safety ComMittee is they want to be proactive. iiany places have drug free work policies were you are required to test for pre -employment. if you are convicted of a drug felony it its an automatic firing. Carrie believes just because somebody else does it doesn't mean everybody else does it. What somebody does in their personal life — if somebody gets arrested for DWI in their personal life and they sit in front of a computer all day what does that have to do with their job. They go and get counseling and they're trying to help themselves, but yet their employer fires there for making a fool of Final Final Final themselves on -ore occasion. She doesn't see this as benefiting the person,, who obviously needs help and is going to try to obtain help. if it's somebody who has a CDL this might be a little hit different because they are on the road driving. Judy Drake provided added information. If you have a CDL and you are pulled over for drunk driving yOu lose your CDL immediately. In this instance the person would lose their job because the thought is that the CDL is required for that job. Jon doesn't believe there has been much evidence that demonstrates that mandatory pre -testing as a condition of employment necessarily reduces the chances that somebody is going to use drugs. You see all these people in the sports world or other places where they have random drug testing and they get caught. It's not stopping them from using it, it's perhaps a way during a particular indoor of time where you can say this person is or isn't using drugs right now. That isn't to say ghat he's going to be doing later on the job. if you really wanted to have a mechanism to send a clear- message that if you do drugs during working hours and you get caught your in big trouble .......................... Supervisor Cathy Valentino added not only doing drugs at work, but corning into work under the influence of drugs. 4 Jon replied we basically already have a policythat covers that situation. To go to the net step to -require mandatory testing isn't really going to change anybody's habits, but it does change people's perception about their employer. To try to equate classes -of jobs, his understanding is that the current requirements, there are lags that require testing for c rtaih positions and not for others. To build a policy that gees beyond those lags is inappropriate. Councilman Bill Lesser asked if they should adept a policy that included along with or without anything else testing on the basis of reasonable suspicion, ghat is reasonable suspicion? Cathy responded that we would find that out in March during training. Bill genders hoer you can say to someone — You really look out of it today, 1 bet you are taking drugs. Whatever we do we need to consider ghat could happen when we make that decision and the consequences of the judgment. Kristie explained that the Safety Committee was looking at what happens when we do have somebody whom we suspect are net just intoxicated or altered due to drug use, but to the point were they are dangerous and we do net have a policy in place to remove that person from their job even temporarily to protect the people they are working with. Can we afford what would happen to us if 5 Final Final Final someone was hurt or killed and ghat that would do to the morale of our employees? It does have to do with the specifics of, yes; the CDL people are already under mandatory testing program, but what if it's a non-CDL person. We have a lot of non-CDL people. Councilman Will Burbank strongly hopes the proposed policy, as written, is not passed. He does not agree with the specific pre -employment, presumption of guilt part of,the policy. He agrees that it is appropriate to have a policy if there is reasonable strong suspicion, but we need some safeguards -in that as well. Cathy gent back to the earlier question of, "What is Reasonable suspicion" Sandy explained the difference between use and abuse of alcohol and drugs. It's really abuse that we are trying to address. She suggests that we could contact the Alcoholism Council or the drug addiction people and they could provide us with a whore list of things to look for. some of these include: apathy, lank of judgment and lack of physical coordination in the instance of alcohol. There are all kinds of substantial symptoms when somebody is abusing either drugs or alcohol. She doesn't believe that piece is so difficult. on the other hand, she really believes that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The real issue in the workplace ought to be incompetence on the job. You can't predict on the basis that somebody had a drink with lunch that hers an alcoholic. That obviously would net be true in a large percentage of the cases. This is the most obvious kind of thing that people see in ether people because you can smell the alcohol on their breath. There are other things that you really can't tell from one interaction. We ought to contact the places that deal with drug abuse. Judy stated Family & Children Service is corning in March 24th to give us a session on reasonable suspicion. Sandy said that when she was working there, she wouldn't work with people who were addicted, but she was certainly able :to tell if the person should go for testing. It usually because they're missing days at work, they are picked up b the police for bad driving — there are all kinds of things. When the people come from Family & Children's they will be able to provide you will all kinds of information. Sandy asked if we planned on doing the drug testing without telling people ahead of time. If you are going to do pre -employment testing would -you tell people you are going to do it. Judy -responded that it would be her responsibility to tell- theca during the interview. C Final Final Final Sandy said if you tell them they won't touch anything for 48 hours and they would core out clean. It would be an exercise in futility. First of all it makes you feel safe because the person came out clean. Second, there is no better liar in the world than. somebody who is addicted. Tee -Ann expressed that in all fairness to [gist"re and the safety Committee she doesn't want to back track !and rake this an over long meeting, but she doesn't know what the problem is that is being addressed. Is the policy addressing an existing problem? Perhaps if.a negative response is being given by the speakers with regard to the solution that has been put forth, if the people can know what the problem -isthat we are trying to solve, we could come up with something that would be more palatable for all of u. Dani Holf rd stated that she has been on many different drugs since her Breast Cancer and -the Town would have a blast running a test on her. would she have .to let the Town know? Judy asked one of the Highway representatives to describe the procedure for random drug testing. Dave Boyes described the procedure: you go up to the hospital or wherever they send you, they give you a bottle, the water is shut off to the bathroom, they put a dye in the toilet and when you're done you bring the sample .out, they turn the water back n so you can gash your hands. Judy asked if there was a questionnaire or anything for people to fill out? No. You have to sign a seal that goes over the bottle so no one can tamper with it. It's a double seal, so you have to sign in tyro places. They send it- off to a laboratory — it's not done locally. They don't even know your name unless it proves positive for something. AI expressed that he does not use a Town vehicle and never will use a Town vehicle and he will net relinquish a copy of his drivers license to the Town' insurance carrier. Not because he has a bad driving record, quite the contrary. However, the Town cannot take- on the responsibility for a third party liability. He also knows that information is transmitted from various organizations to other organizations. If he were to rove from one carrier -to another, in today's world that information can be made available. He is trying not to relinquish any form of identifying information including a social security number. As we are all mare of, simply because of the reason of other information. The Town wants to guarantee us as much confidentiality as their can, but it cannot ensured. He takes his own precautionary 'Measures for his own person. He takes responsibility for hims If. Final Final Final Will asked if there are provisions, during drug testing, so people can't sneak samples in Additionally, what is the problem we are trying to address? Dave responded that this is the reason they shut the water off and the dye is put in the toilet so you can't take a sample out of that. Larry salmi explained that the sample you give therm has a temperature code it .has to meet. For the most part it would be just about impossible to match that temperature. That's why there is no other liquid available in the room. I would think that is somebody had some way of concealing something, it might be possible, but 'if you had it on your body and you waited a certain period of time, it's not going to be the same temperature. As far as the testing goes, it's fairly fast and not terribly embarrassing. Don Teri Date stated that the problem we are addressing has happened. He has seen his life and the lives of the men working with him put in danger on more than one occasion. The "powers" were aware of it, but they didn't know how to handle it. There were no policies to handle it. The problem went on for month after month after month and was not Dandled. This is ghat this policy is addressing. It was blatantly clear this person had a problem; they couldn't even walk across the parking let. Cathy stated that this person was dealt with eventually. if the one he is talking about, which she is pretty sure it is, finally got to her and it was dealtwith pretty swiftly. Don remarked that there have been ethers, over the years, before the CDL thing, that were suspected to be under the influence. Cathy responded that hopefully with the training they are going to receive, these issues would be dealt with -much faster and more efficiently. It's a learning process. when something like this happens for the first time. Jon believes that we had the ability to handle something like this without specifically stating it in the -policy. It's what a supervisors responsibilities are. Having said that, certainly the reasonable suspicion clause, which he thinks has become the focus of the policy now, we'll be able to better define that. once we have had some training in reasonable suspicion the polio itself has to go back and say, here are the general: guidelines of ghat reasonable suspicion is about. Right now it. doesn't say anything about what reasonable suspicion is. Cathy asked Jon if he means we would eventually have to add some guidelines for reasonable suspicion. 0 Final Final Final Absolutely. Tee -Ann added the term "procedure". Swiftly dealing with a potential threat to somebody. Cathy pointed out that it is important to those who are managers and department heads to do the best that they can t make sure that the employees have a safe and good working conditions. That we are looking out for their welfare. With the experiences she has gone through in a couple of instances that the sooner it moves up the ladder, especially to the Supervisor, they can then help the department head and other ,people than know of it. Its good to� have guidelines, but each instance has it's own different anomalies. The person that's involved, their past history and the family to some extent. The way you dealwith them and the way they interact with ,you and how much cooperation you get out of them to move forward, has got to be treated on a case. by ease basis, but the guidelines are important. Sandy stated that people often don't want to tell on somebody who's not behaving properly. It's very important to make that a part of the policy than it must be reported to the Supervisor. It shouldn't be seen as a punishment. It's something than can dealt with in a more positive way. There's positive ways of framing it. Cathy responded that she hopes from the experiences they have had so far, she believes what the staff saw was the Town of Ithaca bending over backwards to try and make sure the person received help and that we will do anything possible to get people -back into their jobs. Hopefully, people don't feel they can't report somebody because the person they report may lose their job. we have to present as the department heads and leaders the understanding than we are go ing to work very hard to get that person bank to being a good, productive employee. We need to have this find of atmosphere in the work place because, otherwise, people do fear- to come forward. Kristie explained, so there would be -no misconceptions, with. the .drug testing a different test would be run for something like diabetes. They are not allowed to just decide to run 50 tests because the have the sample — they cannot discover something, like diabetes or anything else while running a drug test. Them are -HI PPA regulations, which 'are federal regulations; they are extremely, extremely tight with very, very high fines for breach on confidentiality. The driver's license example was separate because that's not a medical form. The confidentiality stuff involved with hospitals and stuff life that's why we use a separate .......... It's so confidential. You really shouldn't be concerned. 1 know that people are, but they really shouldn't be. Final Final Final Jan stated that while the test may not be able to uncover actual physiological problems, he would assume they could pick up other drugs that are being taken for physiological problems. Kristie responded that they would not release that information. Jon agreed they may not release that information, but they still have it. This is part. of the concern that Al had. Kristie does. not believe this is necessarily true, unless, the drug they are taking i a narcotic. If you are oh a narcotic -painkiller and they test for narcotics it will show up, but :if you are taking a medication for -diabetes it's not going to show up n a drug test. Jon pointed out that there are tens of thousands of combinations of drugs. Tee -Ann states that one of the things that are important to her is when you use the word "they", "They won't test for that", "They won't release that". It's the "they" factor that she finds a little frightening. Again, it's maintaining that responsibility and that authority over yourself she fel s is being questioned. It seems maybe .an element here is that we don't have a processing. place for an individual who fears their safety and well-being or the safety and well being of the residents of the Town of Ithaca that we serve as being -compromised by the conduct of an employee. That we do not have a mechanism in place for that person to drag attention to that and to get quick action to deal with that without somehow revealing himself or herself as a tattler. So, to address that, we are going to invite the "they„ into It. Instead of inviting the "they„ into it or going out of house to deal with this, maybe we need to think in house. How can we provide ourselves with an avenue to quickly efficiently without- revealing ourselves? To brine to management that there is a problem .that somebody needs to take cage f. Sandy pointed out that, in the winter, probably everybody would come up positive for drug testing for drugs because when you take cough medicine you are usual taking some form of are opiate. Larry stated that CDL drivers have gene through the testing a let and it's not really that biig ,ef a deal. All. the other towns, county and state CDL drivers go through this. A lot of concerns were raised before we were put into this program, many people were really worried about it — it really has been smooth. From our perspective if we have a temporary employee and we're out on the job site ...... a mower tractor doesn't need to have a CDL license, but they could be around 10 Final Final Final one of the highway workers maybe for only 2 or -month temporary period of time, they are still putting us in jeopardy. Sandy agreed with this, but pre -drug testing or random drug testingwon't necessarily solve this particular problem. Carrie asked for the section regarding notification of convictions to be explained. Judy explained that "convicted" is the rain thing not arrested, not given a ticket, it's convicted. Carrie doesn't understand; if it happens in your personal life why you would be fired for it. Judy statedr that a person would not necessarily fired for it.. Carried continued that it is .one of the disciplinary actions, "up to and including termination". Judy responded that this is one of those things that have to be written into any kind policy, "Up to and including termination". The main thing with convicted — this also goes across to your drivers license — if you are convicted of DWI you might -not be required to have -your drivers license to have your job, but we would grant to know if you were convicted of a DWI. We might not -want to have your drive a Town vehicle because than does extend our liability. That was the main part of convicted. There are positions if somebody -was convicted of 2 D I's it might start impounding their job. If you have somebody who has been convicted of selling, greying or obtaining, illegal drags, cocaine or something like that, .the employer is going. tgrant to'know, it tells you something about that person. They may not be the most honest person. It -might also relate to some of the job issues you have been having. It's also going to impede if somebody has been convicted. of selling or obtaining drugs most likely they are going to be looking at a jail sentence and large fines. This is going to start affecting morale — ernployees are going to read that. What we are asking is to tell us before an employee reads it in the paper and then it comes to us. Carrie asked isn't it up to the person not to have to tell if they don't grant to? Sandy painted out that once you are convicted it's in the paper. it's no longer private information. It's public information. Carrie continued that if she didn't grant to tell she wouldn't grant to have to tell. Dan! asked if -this is saying that you have to notify the Town? 11 Final Final: Final Cathy relied,: yes. It -would be failure to report a conviction. It's not that you did the action that is going to trigger the major infraction; it's your failure to let u know about -it. We' re had this happen with employees in the past, where an employee had. gotten convicted of a DUI and care in, had counseling and talked 1 about it. We ,worked with then. The one she is really familiar with has been a long time employee now without having another problem. We, wart to know because we want to Delp. Carrie believes that it is the person right to keep it to themselves and seek help on their own without the employer stepping in and saying you need to get help. Cathy added. that in her experience with the union the majority of the time people do not seek help until somebody in authority says you have to. That's the hest help that they get. Sandy gent back to the signs of drug abuse. The first sign, not necessarily a diagnosis, but the first sign is somebody who gets convicted, and then not take that seriously enough to say, "l have a problem. with driving". That's the first sign. Will stated what's missing from this is the section where we say we will take appropriate action -within 30 -days of notification. it's not clear what that actionwould be. It :might b, for example, drug testing based on that new information ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . . . ■ . ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ i We right wa r t t V co n s i d r f i h a t the range possibilities would be so that whoever is coring in would knows that if they are convicted of a drug or alcohol, related incident, not only will in impact their personal fife, it will impact their working, place, that things will change, there will now be a presumption that they have a problem.. that it won't necessarily mean that they will lose their job. That's ghat we want to avoid. Core forth and let us know, we'll probably find out from the paper anyway, it's your duty to let us know and then we will take appropriate steps, but not necessarily punitive steps. Dani asked if she went out and purchased an S`alternative" drug, so she could handle cherno better, got arrested and was convicted — she would get into trouble at work Cathy replied, yes. Dani — For Cancer? Judy replied, for buying illegal drugs. No matter what, you are -breaking the -law. Whether we agree with ghat or why you did it, it is not up to us to determine. 12 Final Final Final Bill, going back to will's earlier statement, asked wasn't the issue covered elsewhere in the Personnel Manual — if a person has a problem, whether substance abuse or gambling addiction — isn't that something, that's worked out with the supervisor to find program. Judy explained that the Employee Assistance Program has been established. The main purpose of this policy is — one of the bullets — there are a couple l think are pretty important — the second one, "there is no intention of interfering with private lives of .the employees unless involvement with alcohol or drugs off -the job affects job performance or public safety. This is one of our main goals of this. There is also the part on shared responsibility that we are asking the employees and encouraging the employees to be mindful of their ovum environment and the environment of other employees,, to use the Employee Assistance Program. We keep preaching throughout this entire policy to get help or come to us so we can Delp you get help. We keep discussing many of the negative parts of this policy, but the whole real beginning of this policy is we want the employees to get Delp. If you read some of what it says on page 3 under consequences - the consequences are to encourage employees to voluntarily seek help with alcohol and drug problems. If they violate the policy where we have to step in then they will be subjected to progressive disciplinary actions and we might require rehabilitation. We are not saying if they report it to us or we find out about it they are fired. 'We are saying we want to work with them. some people are suing that we need to outline exactly what is going to- happen. By not saying something like . if somebody gets convicted they are going to get this and this or this, by saying we are going to Delp you, it gives us a little bit more flexibility to look at — this its a 'good employee, they've come up against some pretty bad times, lets work with therm, lets get them some Delp. Let that be up to the powers that be at that time. We try not to make some of the policies not be so rigid that there can't be a little flexibility of lets work with. you. There has been the argument of lets not leave it up to the department heads, Town Supervisor or Town Board to make that determination, lets have the policy pretty strict. This doesn't always work. Sometimes it's nicer if I can dead with -Dani as Dani and not Dani as an employee. We've had enough instances where the Town supervisor and the department heads have been able to work through the problem with the person and hopefully have a good outcome. That is the ultimate goal. Cathy added that the Town Board supports ,the good efforts in the past to seek help and rehabilitation for the employees who have heeded it. Jon asked for a couple of things to be addressed for a clearer definition. Page about accidents and drug testing - Each employee, as a condition of their 13 Final Final Final employment, will be required to participate in pre -employment, post accident testing. It wasn't clear to him what constitutes an accident — if you are sitting in your car stopped at a traffic light and someone smashes into your rear end — that's an accident, but was that your fault F-- would you be subject to the drug testing? Cathy responded, no. Not if you were sitting still on a major lane on a highway. Jon stated it -needs to be clearer— what accidents will. trigger the testing. Without defining accident, it could be many, many things. Like for the slightest accident — if you are using Town equipment — does that mean that you should, be required t take a drug test if you slit you finger on screw sticking out of the ................. does that mean you %have to take a drug test becau a it was an accident? Jon admits going to extremes, but we need better definition.. Judy asked what he would recommend. He doesn't know. We need to define what triggers the reed for a drug test. Tee -Ann asked if these were just work accidents or do they include ones that happen off the job. t work. Juidy said that that one of the definition they talked about in the safety Committee, obviously the CDL's is defined in the C L they have their own, if they get a ticket, they have to go for a drug test within 'hours. Sandy laid that she has worded in places that, they called it a utilization review, required basically any accident at all is up for looking at if it happens in the workplace. A decision is made if it was a real accident or Whether the person was hiding a bottle or syringe in the closet. Most often an accident is just an accident and your just write it off and sign on it as just an accident and you forget it. we don't have to go through all that, but there is clearly a way of saying that this is a workplace accident. Jon rec mmended changing the wording from, "will be required" to "may be required". Jon's second question comes from page 2 of the proposed policy. "Covered Employees" are the Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board covered employees. Reading the policy it doesn't necessarily exclude them. Is it the intent that they be covered? Final Final Final Cathy stated that we couldn't do anything about elected people. Jon pointed out that by this definition they are covered — Page 2 Covered Employees, "Any individual who conducts business for the Town SCLIwc...". Sandy states she would hate to think as a board member, she could be found to be dealing drugs, taking drugs or going out and smashing her car into another old lady's car and that that should not come under question. Elected people cannot be fired. Jon adds if you don't intend to include them then exclude them. Will stated it- is an arbitrary, but legal boundary. Judy stated she has been working on an appointed and. elected officials Personnel Manuel so that the issues that would directly relate to them will be addressed there and these would be addressed to employees. That's why she didn't draft them into here. They will ultimately -have their own policy and procedure manual. It was discussed in safety Committee that if we ultimately take o.ut pre -employment,, the interns, seasonal and temporary staff would still be covered under the reasonable suspicion part. Iristie pointed out that it is her understanding is if we take out the pre- employment drug testing pant we can no longer call this a Drug Free Workplace Policy, you have to give it some other name.. This can also potentially take away the breaks. we get for interns or other federal monies. one of the things you normally see in a Drug Free Work Plane Policy is the pre -employment drug screening. Cathy believes we need to see what the impact of this would be. Sandy stated that except for ,the pre -employment testing, which she does not agree with, the policy is a nice piece of work. -it's clear a lot of work went into it and it's very clear. There's not much room for misinterpretation. Judy agreed that we could keep the 'vain part of the policy. The goal was, this is where the name came from, we want a drug free work place. The, title is due to the federal act, which for any kind of company that receives federal grants or contracts, they have to have a written drug free policy. Some of the drafting its this policy came out of the federal governments act. Carrie asked if reasonable suspicion would be available to all employees or just department. heads. Final Final Final Judy responded that at this point would be for supervisors. The realm of supervisors et -Highway — from Fred down to Don and Rich h Ten late, the working supervisors, all the department heads at Torn Hall and their assistant department heeds. The training is designed. for teaching somebody who has the ability to do something about it. Sandy suggested that the people who receive the training should share it with.the people under them. It's helpful to know w ghat to look for. Tee -Ann added as an example, the support staff should have the tools to assess .a situation if their supervi -or happens to have an alcohol or drug problem. Sandy stated this is the dray you remove the punitive aspect of it — by making ing it equitable. Judy will check with Family -and Children's Services if they have training that might be more informatiVe across the board. Sandy expressed ghat really needs to be passed on is what are. the things you look for. Cathy called for all those members wanting to leave the pre --testing in, as it now stands, to raise their hands: 2 — in favor The Personnel Committee recommendation being sent to the Torn Board will be to eliminate the testing for pre -employment. ent. Along with the fear little clean-ups recommended mended by Jon, i.e. language for post accident testing. Agenda Item : Discuss and establlisLqoalls for 2 4; Tabled. Adjourned: 2: g p.m.