📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Lake County Grand Jury • 2020-2021

County of Lake Labor Developments 2020-2021 The Grand Jury investigated the state of Lake County’s labor relations. In

Published: June 25, 2021 24 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11

Findings 2 findings

F3 Page 136
- In October 2020, the Board of Supervisors insisted on timely passage of the proposed pay increases for staff. F. 4 - In October 2020, County administrators presented their own and managers’ proposed salary increases but not ones for staff; this upset staff and exacerbated mistrust among them. F. 5 - Many County employees have long-standing mistrust of County administration. F. 6 - Ordering preparation of the Class and Compensation Study (hereinafter ‘the study’) was a good first step toward repairing the County’s relationships with its employees. F. 7 - Lake County is insufficiently flexible in designing and offering recruitment incentives for professionals and executives. F. 8 - For some employees, the deductions for benefits are too expensive. F. 9 - The County offers a large array of benefits to its employees. This variety actually increases the overall cost to employees. F. 10 - The County did not adopt the study’s recommendation to modify its step system (from 12 step to 5 step) for employee advancement. F. 11- Recommendations from the study for some Y ratings were not adhered to, and the ‘selected application’ of others was viewed as unfair. F 12 - The County does not conduct exit interviews with all employees who leave its employ. F. 13 - County administrators interfered with some directors’ succession planning. F. 14 - The County has made questionably legal offers to unions during collective bargaining. F.-15 - Some employee worksites are not properly designed or well maintained. F.-16. – Not Every County department head has a succession plan. RECOMMENDATIONS
F12 Page 137
- The County does not conduct exit interviews with all employees who leave its employ. F. 13 - County administrators interfered with some directors’ succession planning. F. 14 - The County has made questionably legal offers to unions during collective bargaining. F.-15 - Some employee worksites are not properly designed or well maintained. F.-16. – Not Every County department head has a succession plan. RECOMMENDATIONS R-1. The County should regularly, at least every three years, review its employees salaries and benefits levels to ensure they are competitive and reasonable for employees and within the County’s labor market. (F-1, F-8, F-9) R-2. The Board of Supervisors and County administrators should take care not to suggest by any action or statement lack of appreciation for the concerns of staff employees. (F-2, F-4, F-5, F-6) R-3. Every County employee’s contract/work agreement should include an annual COLA. (F-1) R-4. The Board of Supervisors and County administrators must remain cognizant of and avoid the appearance of self-dealing, unfairness or disregard of their employees in all their activities, especially when setting their own remuneration. (F-2, F-4, F-5) R-5. The County must be more flexible and open to alternatives for salaries and benefits when recruiting managers and professionals. (F-7) R-6. Every department should have its own employee retention plan. (F-13, F- 16) R-7. The County should conduct an exit interview with every employee who leaves. (F-12) R-8. The County should provide an array of benefit plans that allow employees to select ones that are within their means and which permit them to maintain a reasonable income. (F-8, F -9) 138 R-9. The Board of Supervisors should have more in-person contact with County employees, preferably in the employees’ workplaces. (F-2) R-10. The County should pay attention to the state of employee work sites and break areas to make sure they are comfortable, well-lit, clean and conducive to the employees’ duties. (F-15) R-11. Every department head should have a succession plan. (F 16) R-12. County administrators should defer to a department head’s succession plan and avoid interrupting training of a successor. (F -16) R-13. The County should review and, if necessary, revise its decision to Y-rate mission critical employees (i.e., Nurses, Heavy-Equipment Operators.) (F-13) R-14. The County should ensure that all employees who were Y-rated are currently paid at Level 5 or above. (F-11) R-15. The County should reconsider whether it should alter its 12-steps for employee advancement as recommended by the study. (F-10) R-16. The County should always negotiate in good faith with its unions. (F-14) R-17. The County should not make offers in collective bargaining that it knows the union will reject. (F-14) 139 INVITATIONS TO RESPOND PER PENAL CODE 933: Required Responses: Lake County Board of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10, R-11, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-15, R-16, R-17) (90 days) 140 141 142

Recommendations 17