Vote Postponed to Curb City Commissions

Civil Service Commissioner Michael Whitaker is hopeful that the fiercely independent city commissions won't be reduced to a hearing body after the City Council recently postponed voting that would have narrowed their role dramatically.  

As it stands now, the role of the Civil Service Commission is composed of a broad laundry list of duties:  formulating job classifications, regulating exams, employment progression, and providing a neutral process for addressing grievances and disciplines.  The Civil Service Commission currently acts as the decision-making body with respect to disciplines and grievances within the city.

Without prior notice, the staff report released last Wednesday suggested that role be dramatically changed, and was addressed at Monday night's council meeting.  

The staff report --which was based upon a charter drafted in 2004 and approved by voters in 2006--proposed the commission become an advisory board to the city manager.  

Whitaker explained the potential role shift:

"In a case we had last year, when we were deciding on a three-day suspension of an employee, we recommended that the three-day suspension be upheld–that was a final decision.  The next stop for the employee would be to taking a writ of mandate to court to challenge that. 

"What would happen now, under the proposal, is that we would advice the city manager that he should uphold the suspension, and the city manager would then say he agrees or disagrees with the majority of the commission. 

"The city manager would have the final say."

In a speech before the council on Monday night, Whitaker said the concept of a Civil Service Commission is vital to the health of the city: "It was created to avoid corruption, cronyism, and patronist jobs…we cannot be certain that [future city managers], with no disrespect to the current and upcoming manager, will always be neutral and will always look in the best interest of employees or the city."

Emotions nipped the air among the standing-room-only crowd at City Hall on Monday night, as council members debated the proposed reassessment of the city commission's role. The council decided at last to postpone voting until a more accurate definition of responsibilities could be obtained, particularly for the civil service commission.     

"It's too bad things spun the wrong way," said Councilman Andy Weissman at the meeting.  "I don't think anybody intended, other than in jest, to relegate the civil service commission to nothing more than a hearing body."

This new city manager-form of government takes away the necessary checks and balances provided by a much-needed independent, and impartial body, said Rich Ochoa, vice president of the civil service commission, who cited the city of Bell as an unfortunate example to the contrary.   

"We want a system that is better than everyone else's," he said.  "One that has structural integrity, and from the start, looks as though there are independent people hearing these cases.  That's why there has been public outcry and support from the unions."    

The Culver City Police Officer Association opposed the notion of dismantling of the civil service commission as an independent body with binding authority.  Nearly 30 CCPOA men and women packed the right section of the hall, wearing blue shirts in support of the commission. 

"We have no faith in any city manager to be an impartial arbitrator," said Brian Fitzpatrick, vice president of the Culver City Police Officer Association.  

"Traditionally, city managers tend to be a rubber stamp for decisions made by police chiefs," said Fitzpatrick of issues within the police department. "We are also concerned that if this goes into effect, there will be a burdensome expense on the city to defend writ of mandate motions in Superior Court, because that will be the only redress for officers that were disciplined or terminated."       

Wendell Phillips, an attorney for Culver City Employee Association, said the reassessment is a bad idea whose time has not yet come.  

"Discipline should not be subject to political whim," Phillips said. "There is a very important legal precedent here--he or she who hears the evidence and sees the facts should decide the case.  If that happens, the system is believed in."  

Although the staff report and Monday night's agenda caught representatives unaware, the process of curbing the commissions to conform to the new governmental process was approved by voters four years ago in a charter, Weissman said.  

In 2008, Councilman Steve Ross and Councilwoman Carol Gross attempted to define the roles of the city commissions in a very similar report to the one presented Monday night.  

However, at the time, representatives of the commissions weren't informed of the council's process, and the issue was tabled due to lack of communication and information.  According to Weissman, nobody, including the council, was informed of the current staff report or the agenda until last Wednesday.  

"We wound up having the exact same criticism tonight as we did in 2008," Weissman said. "There is a lot we are proposing to do, and it's hard to do that in 72 hours. I thought the best approach would be to get some general consensus of 'this is where we want to go,' refine the language, revise the ordinances to be consistent with what we talked about tonight and bring it back for everyone to get a second bite at the apple."

John Nachbar, the new city manager, will have to take that second bit when he comes to office August 16.

But Dan Gallagher, chair of the Civil Service Commission, has a glum outlook for the long-term consequences of the power shift.

"The Council has recently appointed a new CM.  Even if the new guy walks on water, and the current personnel director is the most competent, dedicated, and honest Culver City could ever hope to have, do you have the confidence that future part-time councils will have the wisdom–and luck—to appoint similarly saintly and competent people?"