Human Rights Dept Meet and Confer minutes Nov 25, 2019

Publish Date
Committees
Human Rights

MAPE / MDHR MEET AND CONFER MINUTES

November 25, 2019

 

 

For the Union:           Audel Shokohzadeh, Shawn Swinson-Stafford (chair), Elaine Valadez, Jonathan Wong, and Paul Ziezulewicz

 

For Management:      Commissioner Rebecca Lucero and Deputy Commissioner Irina Vaynerman

 

 

1 Meeting Minutes (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics related to meeting minutes:

  • MAPE and Management agreed that in order to ensure the integrity of the minutes, MAPE will share the minutes with Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman prior to future Meet and Confer sessions, and ask if they agree that the minutes are complete and accurate.
  • In the interest of time, Shawn Swinson-Stafford will provide Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman with copies of the most recent minutes several days in advance of each scheduled session.

 

2 Procedural (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following procedural topics:

  • The Committee expressed appreciation for the efforts of Heidi Hovis, Lenora White, and Manuel Zuniga, all of whom left the Committee since the last Meet and Confer.
  • The Committee welcomed new members Elaine Valadez and Paul Ziezulewicz.
  • The Committee noted that for various reasons, Dept. of Admin Staffing Supervisor Cathy Bisser, Committee member Brianne Lucio, and MAPE Business Agent Debbie Prokopf were not present.

 

3 Time Management (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following procedural topics:

  • From now on, Audel Shokohzadeh will watch the clock and ensure that the pace of the meeting enables Management and MAPE to cover all agenda items.
  • Audel Shokohzadeh will give a ten-minute warning and a five-minute warning toward the end of each meeting.

 

4 Use of the term “Management” (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics related to the use of the term “Management,” in the context of Meet and Confer:

 

  • The Committee acknowledged Rebecca Lucero’s and Irina Vaynerman’s preference to be referred to as individuals or as a duo vs. being referred to as “Management.”
  • Audel Shokohzadeh explained the Committee’s position that the Committee wants to use the term “Management” only to the extent that it is appropriate in the context of labor relations.
    • Audel Shokohzadeh specifically noted that “Management” can refer to others in addition to Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman, such individuals from SMART or supervisors within MDHR.
  • Audel Shokohzadeh also explained that to the extent it is possible to refer to Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman by name instead of as “Management,” the Committee will do so, but that it is possible that the Committee might accidentally make a mistake with this nomenclature issue.
  • Rebecca Lucero thanked the Committee for making an effort to refer to Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman by name or by title, rather than as “Management.”

 

5 Role of Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics related to the participation of Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom, in their respective capacities as HR officials:

 

  • The Committee noted that Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom have not participated in MDHR Meet and Confer as much as Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom did under the prior administration.
  • The Committee asked Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman if the Committee can rely on Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman for HR-related guidance, as Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom have stopped attending MDHR’s Meet and Confer sessions.
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman will give HR-guidance to the extent that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman can do so.
    • Irina Vaynerman noted that the Committee can continue inviting Cathy Bisser and Jodie Segelstrom to attend.

 

6 Reallocation / Hay Process / Range Reassignment (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following Reallocation / Hay Process / Range-Reassignment topics:

  • The Committee visited the issue of how MDHR’s current 8L investigators will be reallocated to 10L next month and start a three-month probationary period.  The Committee then asked how production standards and other expectations would be assessed during the probationary period.
    • Rebecca Lucero noted that numerical standards will not be part of the probationary review and that nothing is changing.
    • Elaine Valadez asked if it was correct that the reallocated 8Ls will not be treated as if they were new employees.  Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman replied that this was correct.
    • Rebecca Lucero noted that the reallocated investigators will not be held to a production standard.  Rebecca Lucero further noted that several variables can factor into how many cases an investigator submits in a month, such as how many dismissals the investigator had or any how many hard cases the investigator had.
    • Audel Shokohzadeh asked if it was correct that weekly and biweekly check-ins were for the purpose of making sure that employees succeed.  Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman replied that this was correct.
    • Paul Ziezulewicz noted that Paul Ziezulewicz has heard production concerns from investigators, and that this philosophy is a holdover from the previous administration.
      • Shawn Swinson-Stafford noted that some individuals believe that investigators have an unofficial standard of five cases per month.
      • Irina Vaynerman noted that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman have communicated to investigative supervisors Asuquo Ekpenyong and Christina Schaffer that the focus for employees should be on being efficient, effective, and proactive.  Irina Vaynerman also noted that there are no magic numbers concerning performance.
    • Rebecca Lucero noted that there are no production numbers in the position descriptions.
    • Audel Shokohzadeh noted that turning away from production numbers was such a change from the prior administration.
  • Elaine Valadez noted that MDHR’s Equity & Inclusion officers are held to quotas.
    • Irina Vaynerman replied that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman are still developing standards, but that those standards will not be based on numbers.
  • MAPE asked if there would be a change in investigator seniority as a result of reallocation, or as a result of the upcoming Hay study.
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that this is a question for HR.
    • Irina Vaynerman replied that Irina Vaynerman will look into this matter.
  • MAPE asked about how reallocation or the upcoming Hay study could affect MDHR’s new, probationary investigators.
    • Rebecca Lucero explained that in order to be reallocated, an employee has to perform higher-level duties for nine months.  Rebecca Lucero further explained that these new investigators have the potential to become 10Ls after working at MDHR for nine months, but that hopefully, the upcoming Hay study will resolve questions such as this.
    • Irina Vaynerman replied that Irina Vaynerman will look into this matter.
    • Elaine Valadez asked if it was correct that when new investigators finish probation, those new investigators will be permanent 8L’s.  Rebecca Lucero replied, “Yes” and explained that these new investigators will have to work as 8L’s for nine months before being able to become 10L’s, and that the nine months include time served in probationary status.
    • Rebecca Lucero noted that low-cost implementation will figure into this topic, and into all of MDHR’s reallocation / Hay study topics.
    • Elaine Valadez asked what low-cost implementation meant.  Rebecca Lucero replied by explaining a hypothetical example that if the Department promoted Audel Shokohzadeh to General Counsel, the Department would handle the resulting increase in salary cost by asking the Legislature for more funding, and that the Department would not want to lay off anyone to free up salary dollars to offset the increase.
  • MAPE acknowledged that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman gave a Hay-related update last week, and then asked if Irina Vaynerman had even more Hay-related updates to share.
    • Irina Vaynerman replied that Irina Vaynerman has reviewed the investigator PDs with a supervisor at MMB, that Irina Vaynerman is getting feedback about the PDs of MDHR’s Equity and Inclusion officers, and that the PD for Salima Khakoo’s position of Equity and Inclusion Supervisor is the final PD for Irina Vaynerman to review.
  • MAPE noted that MAPE employees have been frustrated by MMB’s opacity during the Hay process.  MAPE then asked if Rebecca Lucero or Irina Vaynerman had any insight into the details of what MMB has been doing on this issue since the August 2018 MDHR Hay study, which MMB determined was “inconclusive.”
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman have talked about not getting answers from MMB, but that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman are now working with the right people at MMB, and that Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman feel better about MDHR’s current relationship with MMB.
    • Elaine Valadez asked if Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman were now working with different individuals at MMB (i.e., individuals other than the previous MMB personnel with whom MDHR had worked).  Irina Vaynerman replied, “Yes,” that MDHR is working with different people at MMB.
  • MAPE noted that the 8L investigators believe that the 8L investigators are entitled to back pay going back to the inconclusive August 2018 Hay study, as the failure of that Hay study was not MAPE’s fault.  MAPE then asked if Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman were willing to take up this issue with MMB.
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that the upcoming Hay study would take this topic into account.  Irina Vaynerman added that a Hay study can result in affected employees going up or down in pay range, or in a finding of inconclusive.  Irina Vaynerman further added that submitting a request for a new Hay study is an appeal of the prior Hay study.  Rebecca Lucero noted that there are no excess salary dollars for staff members now, and that salary costs constitute 80% of MDHR’s spending.  Rebecca Lucero also noted that the financial implications of having investigators going up to 14L would be different from having investigators going up to 11L.  Rebecca Lucero further noted that there are too many hypotheticals right now to speak definitively about this topic.  Rebecca Lucero went on to note that MDHR controls its own budget and that if MDHR needs additional funding, MDHR will ask the Legislature for additional funding in February.  Elaine Valadez asked if Rebecca Lucero would support an MDHR operational adjustment for 2021.  Rebecca Lucero replied, “Yes.”  Elaine Valadez acknowledged that if MDHR has budget limitations, low-cost implementation will come into play.
  • MAPE noted that MAPE would like to know whether the reallocated investigators will have new anniversary dates, or if instead, their dates of hire will continue to count for purposes of their annual reviews. 
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that letters should go out this week addressing this topic, but that if they do not, Rebecca Lucero will learn the answer.
  • MAPE asked if it would be permissible to have at least one investigator and at least one E & I officer present to the Hay panel. 
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that Irina Vaynerman will present.  Rebecca Lucero added that supervisors Christina Schaffer, Asuquo Ekpenyong, and Salima Khakoo will be there too.
    • Irina Vaynerman noted that the presentation will be shared with MDHR staff, who will hear Management’s demand.  Irina Vaynerman explained that the intent is to shape the demand through a management lens.

 

7 Respectful Workplace Training (Appointing Authority initiated training, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following respectful-workforce-training topics:

  • MAPE noted that MAPE has heard talk that the State is going to eliminate this training, and that if this elimination does occur, MAPE would like MDHR to conduct MDHR’s own respectful-workplace training.
    • Rebecca Lucero asked where MAPE had heard this talk.  Elaine Valadez replied that Elaine Valadez had heard this talk at a MAPE steward summit, and that the specific talk was that an MMB deputy commissioner wants to do away with the training.  Elaine Valadez added that MAPE is considering going to the Governor’s Office about this topic.  Rebecca Lucero replied that Rebecca Lucero would like to know if perhaps the deputy commissioner wanted to eliminate just one aspect of the training.  Rebecca Lucero added that total elimination is not in alignment with Rebecca Lucero’s understanding of MMB’s plans, and that Rebecca Lucero needs more information on the topic.  Irina Vaynerman noted that Irina Vaynerman wondered if MMB is trying to shift the training or redesign the training. 

 

8 Performance Metrics and Reasonable Accommodation (Sick Leave, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics concerning the performance management of MDHR employees who go on medical leave:

  • MAPE noted that MAPE believes that when an employee takes leave (for a fixed term or intermittently), it is implicit that his/her performance metrics will be prorated accordingly (e.g., an investigator who has a monthly production standard of five cases, but is on leave for half a month, will have a production standard of 2.5 cases for that month).  MAPE then asked if Management believes in such proration.
    • Irina Vaynerman replied that the taking of intermittent leave would not disrupt an employee and that as a result, the same performance standards would apply to the employee.  Irina Vaynerman added that this is FMLA law.  Irina Vaynerman continued that taking non-intermittent leave does change an employee’s performance metrics.
    • Audel Shokohzadeh asked what would happen to an employee’s performance standards if, for example, the employee was out with the flu for a day or two.  Irina Vaynerman replied that this example would differ from an employee taking sick leave to care for himself/herself or a sick family member.  Irina Vaynerman added that a being out sick a day or two is different from being out sick for three or more days, as being out sick a third day will trigger the State to send paperwork to the employee.
    • Audel Shokozadeh asked what intermittent leave was.  Irina Vaynerman explained the difference between intermittent leave and continuous leave.
    • Paul Ziezulewicz asked about the example of an employee who takes two days of leave off per week for six months.  Irina Vaynerman replied that there would have to be a separate reasonable-accommodation request for the employee’s “production,” which would not be a hard number.  Paul Ziezulewicz asked if Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman had consulted with MMB on this topic, or if Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman had done their own research on the topic.  Irina Vaynerman replied that these are the rules enterprise wide, and that Irina Vaynerman has talked to MMB about this topic.
    • Paul Ziezulewicz noted that Paul Ziezulewicz has done legal research on this topic, and that the research shows that not changing an employee’s performance metrics in light of the employee’s medical leave would render the employee’s leave “illusory,” as the employee would have to make up for production that he/she missed while out on leave.  Rebecca Lucero replied that this is a good question for HR.
    • Elaine Valadez asked how an employee could maintain the same metrics.  Rebecca Lucero replied that Rebecca Lucero wants to be careful with hypotheticals.  Rebecca Lucero added that a real person would be able to talk to HR.
    • Paul Ziezulewicz noted that Paul Ziezulewicz will continue looking into this legal issue.  Rebecca Lucero replied that a real person affected by this topic could talk to Debbie or Sasha from HR, noting that Debbie and Sasha are on the same team.

 

9 Seniority Roster, SEGIP Presenter, MSRS Presenter (Local Concern / Health Insurance,

CBA Article 32, Section 2)

MAPE thanked Rebecca Lucero for taking action prior to today’s meeting to post the MAPE seniority roster, and to check the availability of presenters to discuss open enrollment and MSRS benefits.

 

10 MAPE Achievement Awards (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following achievement-award topics:

  • MAPE expressed recognition and respect for the fact that Rebecca Lucero has complete discretion over whom to select for MAPE Achievement Awards.  MAPE then asked, just as a point of information, what Rebecca Lucero’s selection process is and to what extent, if any, that selection process would differ from that of Rebecca Lucero’s predecessor.  MAPE went on to specify that MAPE wanted to know, for example, whether Rebecca Lucero will solicit nominations from MAPE employees, as Rebecca Lucero’s predecessor did.
    • Rebecca Lucero replied that Rebecca Lucero met with supervisors about this topic, looked at the budget, and looked at the MAPE contract.
    • Rebecca Lucero noted that Rebecca Lucero had no intention of soliciting nominations, but asked what the value of soliciting nominations was.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford explained that the value was that although a nominee’s peers are not privy to the nominee’s performance review, the nominee’s peer have close, regular contact with the nominee, and that as a result, the nominee’s peers can speak to issues such as the nominee’s punctuality and whether the nominee is a team player.  Rebecca Lucero replied that being a team player is important, and that supervisors know this.  Rebecca Lucero added that these issues are more appropriate for supervisory review.

 

11 Pop-up Trainings (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following pop-up-training topics:

  • MAPE asked what Rebecca Lucero’s and Irina Vaynerman’s expectations, thoughts, and goals are regarding pop-up trainings.  Rebecca Lucero explained that pop-up trainings tie to the vision of getting MDHR more involved in greater Minnesota to explain rights, having investigators present, and meeting the needs of people where they are.  Rebecca Lucero further explained that if folks are nervous about showing up for pop-up trainings, the idea can be tweaked.  Rebeca Lucero then remarked that there are staff members who want to do more outreach.
  • Audel Shokozadeh noted that Audel Shokozadeh has worked closely with MDHR staff members Tom Barnette, Christina Schaffer, and Maria Minvielle on pop-up trainings.  Audel Shokozadeh also noted that when MDHR staff members went to Duluth to do a pop-up training, no one from the public showed up for the training.  Audel Shokozadeh further noted that an advantage of pop-up trainings is letting people know what MDHR does and having a mobile resource unit.

 

12 Training Opportunities for Professional Development (Appointing Authority Training,

CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following professional-development-training topics:

  • MAPE asked if MDHR will have funds for ELI training or similar training next year.  Rebecca Lucero replied that MDHR is paying to provide training to all staff members, and that there is no money for ELI training.  Rebecca Lucero elaborated that the Department is providing training for large groups of staff members, such as pronoun training that Rebecca Lucero provided, and trauma-related training that staff members received through the EEOC’s Minneapolis office.
  • Irina Vaynerman noted that as Lead Investigator Laura Danielson provides trainings, Laura Danielson will try to arrange the provision of CLE credits.  Irina Vaynerman further noted that Management is working to arrange joint training between the E & I Unit and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, and that this training will probably occur “after the new year.”
  • Paul Ziezulewicz mentioned the topic of training dollars.
  • Audel Shokozadeh asked what would happen if individuals wanted training for a particular skill, and what would happen if the Department had no money for such training.  Rebecca Lucero replied that the Department has provided for individual-skill trainings, and that employees who are interested in such trainings should talk to their supervisors.

 

13 Working from Home (Local Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following working-from-home topics:

  • MAPE pointed out that there appears to be inconsistency about employees working from home, insofar as different supervisors appear to have different rules about working from home.  MAPE then asked if employees can work from home only via reasonable accommodation, as opposed to working from home due to, e.g., employee preference or a having a sick child.  Rebecca Lucero replied that the Department would not allow an employee to work from home due to employee preference or due to having a sick child.  Rebecca Lucero then noted the importance of employee presence in the office, as there are meetings that employees have to attend.  Rebecca Lucero further noted that for some employee situations, an employee can talk to the employee’s supervisor.
  • Paul Ziezulewicz asked about the possibility of an employee working from home for two hours.  Rebecca Lucero replied that some positions, such as the position of Associate General Counsel, differ from other positions in the Department, in that they often necessitate doing some work from home.  Paul Ziezulewicz then asked if employees who are interested in working from home should talk to their supervisors.  Irina Vaynerman replied, “Yes,” if an employee is interested, the employee should talk to the employee’s supervisor.

 

14 EO2 Positions Formerly Occupied by Christina Schaffer and Salima Khakoo (Local

Concern, CBA Article 32, Section 2)

Management and MAPE discussed the following EO2-related topics:

  • MAPE asked if EO2 candidates would be promoted from within and whether EO2 openings would be posted.  Rebecca Lucero replied that the Department could promote EO2 candidates through a variety of ways.  Rebecca Lucero then noted that the E & I Unit’s shift to strategic compliance makes a difference. 
  • Elaine Valadez asked if it was the case that the Department was not going to fill the EO2 positions.  Irina Vaynerman replied that after a nine-month period, hopefully, Elaine Valadez [who is a lead E & I Officer] will have a co-lead.  Irina Vaynerman further added that there will be three lead investigators in the Enforcement Unit.
  • Audel Shokozadeh asked if folks in the E & I Unit have been doing higher-level work, due to Salima Khakoo’s transition from EO2 to Supervisor.  Rebecca Lucero replied that there is a variety of reasons why the E & I Unit needs a co-lead.
  • Elaine Valadez mentioned the topic of E & I officers doing administrative work, which is usually associated with people in the SPA [State Program Administrator] position.  Rebecca Lucero replied that the E & I Unit is going through a tremendous transition.

 

15 Miscellaneous

Management and MAPE discussed the following miscellaneous topics:

  • Rebecca Lucero noted that Rebecca Lucero is working closely with the One Minnesota Council, and that Rebecca Lucero signed MDHR up to be one of three agencies participating in the One Minnesota Council.  Rebecca Lucero also noted that Rebecca Lucero will share details concerning the One Minnesota Council meetings scheduled for 12-06-19 and 12-20-19.  Rebecca Lucero further noted that Chris Taylor, the head of the One Minnesota Council, is in charge of leading diversity-equity-inclusion change throughout the State of Minnesota enterprise.  Rebecca Lucero went on to note that MDHR is a very diverse agency.
  • Rebecca Lucero noted that Shawn Swinson-Stafford can work with Tessa Lara on scheduling future Meet-and-Confer sessions.
  • Rebecca Lucero and Irina Vaynerman noted that MDHR will participate in some work observing the upcoming Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.