City Manager Seeks more Power over Hiring, Firing

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

June 13 -- After weeks of speculation, City Manager Lamont Ewell on Tuesday will push a plan to eliminate civil service protections for some top City workers and ask the City Council to help him place the proposed charter changes before local voters in November.

Ewell will seek five proposed changes to the City Charter that would grant the City manager more power to hire and fire the department heads who oversee nearly 2,000 municipal employees.

“These are significant changes,” Ewell wrote in an information item. “I recommend them solely for the purpose of enhancing accountability and productivity within City government.”

Along with some simple updates to the Charter, Ewell’s plan calls for stripping current or future department heads of a classification that offers civil service-like job protections, as well as revoking oversight by some boards and commissions in hiring department heads.

Other changes would make it easier for him to fill key positions with outside hires, restructure and delete some out-dated posts without putting the issue before city voters and eliminate a 90-day limit on temporary appointments to permanent positions.

Following the lead of cities such as Beverly Hills, Culver City, Burbank, Long Beach and Pasadena, the “most significant” change would redefine department heads’ jobs from the City’s Classified Service to what is known as “at will” workers, Ewell said.

The change would give the city manager more leeway in firing and hiring, more closely reflecting practices in the business world, bypassing civil service protections for those positions.

“I am very sensitive to the reality that such a change in classification status could be unsettling for each of the impacted individuals,” Ewell said. “However, given modern day management practices, there are ways to address potential concerns.”

Ewell noted he spoke with department heads about this possible reclassification.

Characterizing how the meetings went, Ewell wrote that “some have indicated they understand the reason for such a change; others have stated that they would not object.”

It is unknown how this change may sit with City workers, but City officials have already consulted with at least one law firm about legal advice. So far, the city manager’s office contends that voters can reshape government by reclassifying department heads’ jobs, even if it alters the rights of those employees.

In his statement, Ewell called those current protections “inconsistent with department heads’ current status as executives within the City’s organizational structure.”

“When a City employee is performing poorly, current Civil Service procedures mandate a cumbersome disciplinary process,” Ewell wrote. “Often times when applying these mandated procedures, it can take as long as two years to remove a person from a position. In the case of department heads, this delay is not acceptable given their broad authority.”

The change to an “at will” designation “is preferable because it ensures excellent service by maximizing our accountabilty,” wrote Ewell. “Additionally, it promotes public confidence.”

At present, all City department heads, except the Police Chief, are Classified Service employees.

Calling the current civil service protections for department heads “antiquated”, Ewell noted that in the years since the Charter designation was established, “the department heads’ roles have changed tremendously.”

The City’s work force and budget were smaller and department heads had fewer responsibilities, wrote Ewell.

As their duties have grown, department heads now “oversee large numbers of employees, ensure that services are properly delivered to the public, and have responsibility for substantial public expenditures,” he said.

“In short,” Ewell wrote, “they serve as the City’s ‘executives’ and have authority and receive compensation and benefits which reflect that status.”

A recent survey found that nearly eighth out of ten cities decided that the “at will” is a better designation for department heads, although it is unclear what survey the City cited.

With “at will” workers, if a department head’s performance is “deemed” substandard, an elongated process of removal is simply not acceptable in the public interest,” Ewell wrote.

All council members have remained silent on the issue so far, except council member Bobby Shriver.

Last week, he endorsed Ewell’s plan, adding changes he would like to see – such as paid staff for council members -- in a speech before the local league of Women voters. (see story)

In addition to a change in the classification of department heads, Ewell said he will be seeking other important changes to the charter.

If passed, a second amendment would strip the Personnel Board, Library Board, Recreation and Parks Commission and Airport Commission of their right to approve the City Manager’s choice for various department heads.

“The Board and Commission members are extremely valuable to our community,” said Ewell. “However, under the City Charter, the City Manager is held accountable by the Mayor and council and should therefore have appointing authority for all Department Head positions.”

Under Ewell’s plan instead of the power to revoke the manger’s pick for top City posts, the city manager would simply receive recommendations from board members and commissioners on a proposed department head’s “qualifications” and “experience.”

The council will vote on the proposed amendment on Tuesday.