Below
is a essay by Middletown Republican Town Committee chair, resident, and
veteran Ken McClellan. All opinions expressed are that of the author
and not necessarily that of the Insider staff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mayor’s Task Force on Efficiency in Government.
Thursday,
May 2, at a hastily called Common Council meeting, the Common Council
voted 10-2 to merge the Personnel and City Attorney departments, with
the HR Director reporting to the city attorney. There was not much
publicity for the meeting, and attendance was sparse. The meeting was
called in order to allow a second vote on the ordinance change, as
required by the city charter, within 90 days of the first vote. The
initial vote was taken on Feb 4. The issue was removed from the April
meeting agenda without explanation.
This was the first, and so far, the only recommendation implemented, out of 15 recommendations submitted by the task force.
In
defending and justifying this recommendation, the Mayor and the city
attorney, Mr. Brig Smith, in various meetings, gave a number of
justifications for eliminating the personnel department, and placing
that responsibility with the City Attorney. Taken at face value these
justifications make sense. However, when examined, the justifications
are not valid.
Reason 1: Numerous municipalities and companies operate under this model.
Mr. Smith and the Mayor stated during the Finance and Government committee that
Lansing Michigan, and ‘numerous municipalities in Wisconsin’, and a
number or ‘major corporations’ that operate under this model. Mr.
Smith repeated this assertion at the special meeting on May 2. Since Mr
Smith is from Lansing, I would presume that he would have accurate
information about that city.
Here’s
what I found. In Lansing, MI, HR and Legal are separate departments.
When questioned about the discrepancy between his statement at the
Finance and government committee, and my finding, Mr Smith caveated his
earlier statement, saying that the city attorney was also the personnel
director of another agency. I guess he misspoke at the Finance and
Government commission.
Regarding Wisconsin, I checked the larger towns and cities, where there should be a Personnel staff.
Eau Claire has separate HR and Attorney offices under Administration.
Racine, Wausau, Green Bay, Milwaukee, La Crosse, Madison, Wautoma, Onalaska, Fon du Lac all have separate offices.
Portage,
Marion: looks like the city clerk handles job applications, and Marion
doesn’t have a city attorney. In Grand Rapids, there is an
Administrative Department with both HR and Legal as separate offices.
That’s 2 cities with an Administrative Department, with HR and Legal as
separate offices. I’ll get back to that later.
As
a further check I looked at Michigan. Detroit and a number of other
cities and towns of various sizes that I checked, all have separate
Personnel/HR and Legal departments.
I
checked a number of cities and towns in Connecticut, starting with
cities with a population of around 40,000, like Middletown. Among them:
East Hartford, Milford, Stratford, Wallingford, Southington, Shelton,
Groton and Norwich. I checked Meriden, Glastonbury, Rocky Hill,
Waterbury, Torrington, West Hartford, Greenwich, Bristol. All of those
cities and towns have separate HR and Legal.
I
also checked a number of businesses, major corporations and small
business in Connecticut and other states. I could not find any that
have the Personnel Manager reporting to the corporation counsel. If
this is as wide-spread a practice, I should have found one. There may be
companies where the Director of Personnel is an attorney, but that
would not be the same as merging the HR and Legal Departments.
Another
example cited where the Personnel Department was supervised by the
Legal Counsel was Southern Connecticut State University. I wrote to the
Personnel Director, Jaye Bailey. Here’s her response: “..I
serve as the VP for Human Resources and Labor Relations. I don’t serve
as the GC because only the Office of the Attorney General can act as
the University’s counsel. I report to the President. ”.
So,
what was the point of all this research? At first, I did not believe
that anyone operated with this model, but I wanted to try to find
examples where it was used. I found one. In the interest of accuracy, I
did locate one city that has the Personnel Manager reporting to the
City Attorney: Stamford. Funny, that’s where Governor Dannell Malloy
is from. I found none in business. If anyone can give me the name of a
business that uses this model, I would welcome the information. I will
confirm that information with that business. The conclusion is that
the Mayor and Mr. Smith provided inaccurate, misleading information to
the study committee and the Common Council when they stated that in
‘numerous companies and municipalities’ the City Attorney manages
Personnel. If Mr. Smith and Mayor Drew could provide specific, named
examples where the Personnel/HR Department report to and is managed by
the Legal Department, other than Stamford, I would like to see the list,
and I will happily and publicly acknowledge any correction. But, one
city, out of the several dozen that I randomly checked, and not one
business out of several dozen checked, does not make this a widespread
practice. Again: Is Mayor Drew misinformed, or lying?
Reason 2: Reduce the number of directors reporting to the Mayor
This reduces the total of 21 to 20. I won’t comment on that, here, but I’ll get back to it later.
Reason 3: Efficiency gained by co-locating the City Attorney and HR.
This could be done by a simple relocation of one office or the other.
Reason 4: Personnel is governed by laws and requires supervision by an attorney.
Legal
concerns are not the extent of the Personnel department. They do
screening, hiring, training, promotions, performance evaluations. Water
and Sewer, Public Works, the Fire and Police Departments, the Common
Council and Mayor are all governed by laws, so by the same logic, the
Police Department, Fire Department, Council and Mayor should also be
reporting to the Legal Department. Sounds a little ridiculous, doesn’t
it.
Those
were the stated justifications for this merger. If all of them are
inaccurate, specious or ridiculous, what is the real reason for the
merger? Is there another reason that is not being made public?
Reason not to merge
There
is, however, one very good reason not to place the Personnel Department
under the City Attorney. The City Attorney needs to be an advisor to
and resource for all city departments. The city attorney represents the
city in legal matters. He or she should not be directly involved or
managing routine operations of any department. Department directors
should certainly seek his advice as needed.
HR
is responsible for recruiting, vetting, hiring, training and developing
employees. The Director of HR must at times hear work grievances,
which could result in legal action against the city. Would the Director
of HR be a neutral hearing officer if reporting to the city attorney? I
don’t believe that is possible.
There are 15 recommendations in the task force report.
Here are a few, in the order they were presented in the report:
Establish a Technology Advisory Committee
Institute performance appraisals with specific, measurable goals
Supervisory and Management Skills Training
Review City Personnel Rules
Enforce Internal Controls and Checks and Balances
Merge Information Systems and Tax Assessor into the Finance Department
Reorganize the Finance Department and add a Grant Writer
Merge Legal, Personnel and Human Resources
Merge Arts and Culture Office and Building Division into Planning, Conservation
Merge Senior Services into the Recreation Department
This
is the order in which the recommendations were presented by the task
force. Merging the HR and Legal departments was Number 12 of 15 on the
list. Why did the mayor start with eliminating the personnel
department?
What is the status of the other 14 recommendations? Will any be implemented?
During
the meeting on May 2, Council members hinted that my opposition to this
merger was political. It is not. I agree with a number of
recommendations of the task force, and look forward to the mayor and
council implementing those recommendations, including the Management
Training, Performance Standards and Evaluations and enforcing Internal
Controls. And I look forward to the improved service that will be
provided to the citizens of Middletown by a more efficient,
well-trained, well-led staff.
As
a final comment. The Mayor’s task force was directed to reduce the
number of directors reporting to the Mayor. They went from 21 to 13. I
have a recommendation reduce that number to 4 Directors reporting to
the Mayor, each with 4 – 7 Assistant Directors reporting to each
Director. The model I propose has been used by the US Military quite
successfully, and is used in the majority of businesses across the
country. Group city departments and offices by functions.
Establish
4 Departments: Administration, Safety, Public Works, and Services.
Take the current 21 Directors and group them as follows:
Administration:
Human Relations, Information Systems, Legal Department, Personnel
Department, Tax Assessor Office, Town Clerk Office. Include Finance and
the City Treasurer in this department.
Safety: Emergency Management, Fire Department, Health Department, Police Department. Include Communications.
Public Works:
Planning, Conservation and Development, Public Works Department, Water
and Sewer Department, Parking Department. Include vehicle, building and
grounds maintenance and custodial services in this department. Include
such portions of Parks and Recreation that do maintenance and
landscaping.
Services:
Russell Library, Senior Services Department. Include such portions of
Parks and Recreation as Youth and Sports programs and Arts & Culture
programs.
This organization:
1. Reduces the number of directors from 21 to 4, saving money on salary, and reducing the number of direct reports to the mayor.
2. Balances the number of direct reports to each director.
3. Improves communication and coordination by grouping like functions.
4. Places
all vehicle maintenance under one supervisor, and consolidates
purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance management and supervision
of repairs.
5. Places
all building maintenance and custodial services under one supervisor,
and consolidates purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance
management and supervision of repairs.. This could be expanded to
include building currently managed by the board of education.
6. Places all grounds-keeping/landscaping work under one supervisor, which should improve also resource usage and scheduling.
The
proposal above is just that, a proposal, not a plan. But I do have
examples of this model being used successfully, and think that it is
worth looking into.
Thank you for your attention,
Ken McClellan
Chairman, Middletown Republican Town Committee
