Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-26 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 14 Special Meeting April 26, 2023 The Policy and Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 7:02 P.M. Present In Person: Tanaka (Chair), Lauing, Veenker Present Remotely: Absent: Public Comment None. Agenda Items 1. Office of the City Auditor Presentation of the Remote and Flexible Work Study Report Chair Tanaka suggested the Committee have a discussion and that the City Clerk’s office make a list of the pros and cons of the different items. City Auditor Adriane McCoy mentioned that the two reports had been completed before formatting had been addressed in a previous meeting and that going forward reports would have the entire observation content as well as recommendations and responses on the same page. Council Member Veenker explained why she liked the recommendation and response charts being at the end. Chair Tanaka asked if printouts of the staff reports were available. Bakertilly Representative Allison LeMay provided an overview of the objectives and the scope of the project. The overall objectives were to evaluate the alignment of Remote Work Policy and Procedures and to identify and build a framework to assess position eligibility. She discussed how the project came about in June 2022. From a project approach perspective, they had spoken with Human Resources management staff and reviewed the Remote Work Policy, now titled Hybrid Work Policy, and the Hybrid Work Agreement form. She outlined the findings and recommendations made in the report, which included modification recommendations for the Remote Work Policy and the Remote Work Agreement form, and there was criteria for SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 14 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/26/2023 evaluating position eligibility. She noted that the opportunities section referenced market and industry conditions for remote work. She would be using the terms remote work, telework, and hybrid work interchangeably, although the report was consistent. She noted that finding one touched specifically on the remote work policy, and the key recommendations were to include a three-month trial basis into the policy, and they recommended regular touch bases with the employee and then a formal evaluation to assess continuation of remote work. They also recommended a requirement for satisfactory performance review with disclaimers related to the employee being responsible for tax liability, childcare, and ad hoc work. She commented that the purpose behind the recommendations was to mitigate the City’s risk. For ease of the Committee’s review, she explained how their report was formatted. She provided a slide of Page 17 of the packet, Appendix A, which was the sample policy, and a slide of the Remote Work Policy they had reviewed. Management had provided a response with a partial agreement to the recommended policy changes, and they wanted to exclude the three-month trial basis, but she noted that employees would be eligible for remote work immediately on hire. As for recommendations for tracking employee inventory, they were told IT tracked all hardware and assets issued. Council Member Lauing asked if Finding #1 on Page 11 was an agreed to omission and if there was an intent to pilot full-time and part-time work-at-home. Representative LeMay answered that as part of conversations with the HR team some recommendations included in the June 2021 were omitted after coordination and collaboration with City management. Human Resources Director Sandra Blanch declared they were not piloting fully remote, although there was an exception in the policy for piloting. The policy update stated hybrid work would be two days on site. Council Member Veenker inquired if there had been resolution regarding equipment tracking or if there were continuing concerns and if there was agreement regarding implementing periodic reviews for the Hybrid Work Policy. She requested staff explain Finding #1 on Page 30 related to hybrid work and the provision of excluding employees on probation. Representative LeMay indicated she did not have an issue with excluding equipment tracking from the policy as long as the inventory was being tracked. She confirmed there was agreement concerning periodic reviews for the Hybrid Work Policy. Director Blanch clarified that the intention of the sentence in Finding #1 on Page 11 was not to exclude probationary or new employees from the ability to work a hybrid schedule, which was why they were excluding that section of the recommendation. Chair Tanaka questioned what percentage of the workforce was currently doing this. He liked focusing measurements on performance versus time and attendance and asked how a performance measurement would be done versus an attendance measurement. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 14 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/26/2023 Director Blanch indicated there was approximately 80% to 90% on site, so only 10% to 20% were working remotely Monday through Friday. They did not survey Saturday and Sunday. Representative LeMay noted that Page 17 reemphasized that employees should be evaluated on performance. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose noted that performance reviews were done annually. Chair Tanaka inquired how performance had changed working remotely compared to on site. He implied that it would be appropriate to compare it to before 2021 – pre-COVID. He asked how many people worked remotely. He suggested performance before, during, and after COVID be looked at for remote workers to see how performance had changed and to compare against those working on-site. Director Blanch noted that the performance management process had remained the same. She spoke to the comparison between 2022 and 2021, and there had been an increase in performance exceeding expectations with the remote and hybrid schedule. An evaluation prior to 2021 had not been done. Assistant City Manager Nose stated evaluating performance at an aggregate level was difficult because there was a small remote workforce population. Managers were ensuring remote employees were meeting needs and expectations, and adjustments were being made. She stated that about 100 to 200 people worked remotely. Representative LeMay voiced that Finding #2 was related to making modifications to the Hybrid Work Agreement form. They recommended aligning the Hybrid Work Agreement form with the policy based off their recommended policy changes. The sample was in Appendix B, Packet Page 25. The recommended changes were based off the Society for Human Resources Association Remote Work Agreement form and forms from the International Public Management Association of Human Resources. The primary changes they recommended were related to dependent care arrangements, employees reporting in person, the City having access to the home office, equipment, and clarity on expense reimbursements to comply with the California code. She commented that management partially agreed and that HR felt the merit rules were already detailed in the existing performance requirement policy and that some additions in the agreement form were redundant and that the recommendations to add a tone of disciplinary reference detracted from the City’s performance management process. Council Member Veenker inquired what criteria would be used with respect to the City accessing the telework location. She did not think a distinction had been made in a worker’s interest and the City’s interest. She was confused that the City would need to be concerned with accidents if one chose to work in their own home on City time. If homes were going to be inspected, she felt it should be very thoughtful as to how and when that would be appropriate. Representative LeMay answered that access to the telework location was related to ergonomic assessments, which an employee could invite the City in; a font-end assessment related to legal SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 14 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/26/2023 issues with regard to claims due to an accident or on the back-end if an investigation was needed; and sensitivity of information from a security standpoint. Council Member Lauing suggested there be access to ensure a home-office would be suitable to the job. He indicated it was getting close to invading privacy and seemed contradictory to emphasizing the output from the work, not the process. He agreed there was concern. Representative LeMay clarified that the purpose of it was from a risk mitigation standpoint for the City for assessing safety and security from Workers’ Comp and security standpoints as well as for company assets. She provided an example of a Workers’ Comp claim being filed. She believed the claim prevailed. Council Member Veenker indicated, if the claim prevailed, that it should be investigated why that was the case and if any lessons were learned. Chair Tanaka asked if there could be an assumption of risk waiver. Representative LeMay could not speak to legalities from a liability standpoint. She had not seen such from a best-practice standpoint. Director Blanch commented that the agreement would be between the City and the employee and would make the City responsible for a claim, which would be investigated to determine its validity, so a waiver could not be sought. She confirmed that a claim would have to be in the course of the duties of the job. The City did virtual ergonomic evaluations to ensure safe work practices, etc. City Attorney Molly Stump declared that in general State law did not allow employers to require employees waive workplace programatic rights provided by the Workers’ Comp program, and she explained why the City would not want to. She commented that not being in the Workers’ Comp system would mean a general civil litigation system, which often had been a less good outcome for the City. The Workers’ Comp work for the City was through HR, not her office. She would follow up with HR on the issue to ensure procedures would be in the City’s best interest and to explore the implications of an assumption of risk waiver. Council Member Veenker asked that it be clarified to what degree the City would be responsible for the physical [inaudible] when a worker opted to work from home. Representative LeMay expressed that Finding #3 was that the City did not have a standardized approach to determine position eligibility for remote or hybrid work schedules. She noted that the practice was that individual employees request approval, which presented potential inconsistencies, which she outlined. They recommended standardized criteria be development to first evaluate at the position level to determine potential eligibility for a hybrid work schedule and then make a determination for an individual employee, which would indicate the positions that would be eligible and would make it less at the discretion of a particular department. They had worked with the Human Resources Department to develop preliminary