Absent:

Task Force on Trial Court Employees

Meeting Minutes

September 21-22, 1999

Mission Inn Hotel

Riverside, California

TASK FORCE MEMBERS:

PRESENT:

Hon. James A. Ardaiz, Chair

Ms. Barbara J. Bare

Hon. Aviva K. Bobb

Mr. Gary Cramer

Hon. Charles D. Field

Ms. Karleen A. George

Ms. Diane Givens

Mr. Ronald G. Overholt

Ms. Christine E. Patton

Mr. Steve Perez

Mr. John Sansone

Mr. Larry Spikes

Mr. Robert Straight

Mr. Mike Vargas

Mr. Robert D. Walton

ABSENT:

Ms. Pamela Aguilar

Ms. Mary Louise Lee (represented by Ms. Beth Winters)

Sheriff Charles Plummer

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS STAFF:

Ms. Judith A. Myers, Director, Human Resources Bureau

Ms. Deborah Brown, Attorney, Council and Legal Services Division

Ms. Jacqueline Murphy, Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Bureau

Ms. Noema Olivas, Secretary, Human Resources Bureau

Ms. Cynthia Passon, Acting Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Bureau

Ms. Hazel Ann Reimche, Supervising Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Bureau

OTHER STAFF:

Mr. Nathan Bitting, Administrative Coordinator, Career Group, Inc.

FACILITATOR:

Ms. Liz Schiff, Organizational Development Specialist, Human Resources Bureau, Administrative Office of the Courts

Tuesday, September 21, 1999
I. OPENING REMARKS

Justice James A. Ardaiz, chair, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in Riverside and welcomed everyone to the 17th meeting of the task force.

Ms. Liz Schiff reviewed the ground rules for the meeting.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

There were no public speakers.

III. REVIEW OF AUGUST 30-SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 TASK FORCE MEETING AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR TODAY’S MEETINGS

Justice Ardaiz summarized the following actions of the task force during the

August 30–September 1, 1999, meeting in San Francisco.

Adopted a process for drafting legislation;
Agreed to a process for drafting the second interim report;
Received an update on the survey;
Agreed to adopt and post:

Benefits Model;
Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Model;
Federally Regulated Benefits Definition Model;
Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Definition Model;
Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Model;
Advisory Vote and Public Entity Poll Method;

Reviewed all models in relation to each employee status option and identified issues for purposes of the second interim report;
Received an update on documentation requirements and plans for compliance;
Received an update on legal issues related to Social Security;
Identified outstanding issues in relation to transition; reached general agreement on components of the transition model;

Agreed to reference language in the rules of court on the meet and confer model.

Justice Ardaiz discussed the following objectives for the meeting:

Provide an opportunity for communication through public comment period;
Review final assumptions, objectives, and models for:

Defined-Benefit Retirement;
Deferred Compensation;
Benefits;
Accrued Leave;
Meet and Confer;
Employment Protection;

Finalize transition assumptions, objectives, and model;
Agree to modifications needed on the draft second interim report;
Provide update on the trial court employee survey;
Agree on dates for the task force to meet to review draft legislation.

Justice Ardaiz asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 30–September 1, 1999, meeting minutes. Judge Charles D. Field moved that the minutes be adopted. Mr. Ronald G. Overholt seconded the motion. The August 30–September 1, 1999, minutes were adopted without any additions or corrections and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

IV. CALENDAR FUTURE MEETINGS

Ms. Judith A. Myers asked the task force to identify the dates that member are not available for future meetings next year during January through March. The staff will review these dates and identify the best dates available to schedule future meetings to review draft legislation.

V. SURVEY UPDATE

Ms. Hazel Ann Reimche gave a brief update on the survey and distributed copies of the survey reports on diskettes.

VI. REVIEW FINAL MODELS

Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Defined-Benefit Retirement Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Personnel System. Mr. Gary Cramer moved to adopt the model as revised. Ms. Diane Givens seconded the motion. The Working Defined-Benefit Retirement Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Mr. Cramer moved to adopt the model as revised. Judge Aviva K. Bobb seconded the motion. The Working Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site

Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Ms. Karleen A. George moved to adopt the model as revised. Judge Field seconded the motion. The Working Benefits Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site

Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Accrued Leave Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Judge Bobb moved to adopt the model as revised. Mr. Robert D. Walton seconded the motion. The Accrued Leave model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers reviewed the Recommended Meet and Confer Model. Mr. Walton moved to adopt the model as revised. Ms. Givens seconded the motion. The Meet and Confer Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers reviewed the Recommended Employment Protection System Model. Judge Field moved to adopt the model as revised. Ms. Givens seconded the motion. The Employment Protection System Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

VII. TRANSITION MODEL

Ms. Deborah Brown reviewed the Working Transition Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for the Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. The task force discussed the Transition model and agreed that it is appropriate to include the Transition model as is in the second interim report. The remaining transition issues yet to be resolved will be discussed in the narrative portion of the second interim report.

IX. SECOND INTERIM REPORTS: PARTS I-VIII

Staff members provided a brief overview to the task force of each of the topic sections in the second interim report that has been revised as a result of comments that were made to these sections in the first interim report. The task force members were given a draft copy of the second interim report to review before the task force meeting the next day. Ms. Myers discussed the timeline for the second interim report and reminded the task force of the short turnaround time before the final distribution of the report.

X. CLOSING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.

Tuesday, September 22, 1999

I. OPENING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.

II. DATES FOR REVIEWING DRAFT LEGISLATION

Justice Ardaiz announced the calendars turned in yesterday would be reviewed by staff and the meeting dates to review draft legislation will be announced at the October meeting in Oakland.

III. SECOND INTERIM REPORT: REVISED PARTS FROM FIRST INTERIM REPORT

Ms. Myers reviewed the comments received from the task force members on the second interim report. Ms. Schiff facilitated the discussion by the task force on the key concerns raised and recommendations for changes and modifications to the interim report. Staff will make changes and modifications to the interim report as discussed during the meeting.

IV. NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS

The task force agreed to turn in comments on the first draft of the second interim report by 5:00 p.m., Friday, September 24, 1999, and turn in final comments on the final draft by 5:00 p.m., Monday, October 4, 1999.

V. CLOSING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.