Illinois Civil Service Commission met Sept. 15.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING AT 11:03 A.M. AT 607 E. ADAMS STREET, SUITE 801, SPRINGFIELD, IL
II. ROLL CALL AND CONFIRMATION OF A QUORUM
Timothy D. Sickmeyer, Chairman; David Luechtefeld, Vivian Robinson, and Teresa Smith, Commissioners; Thomas Klein, Executive Director, Andrew Barris, Assistant Executive Director, Sabrina Johnson, Exemption Monitor, and Alexandra Myers, Executive Secretary; Sarah Kerley, Chris Nickols (remote), and Sheila Tapscott (remote), Central Management Services; Jason Barth (remote), Innovation and Technology; Heidi Mueller, Juvenile Justice; Erin Borales, Viktorija Legge (remote), Claire Roche (remote), and Porsha Winters (remote), Office of Executive Inspector General; and Mark Piersall. Commissioner G.A. Finch was an excused absence.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR OPEN MEETING HELD AUGUST 18, 2022
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LUECHTEFELD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING HELD AUGUST 18, 2022.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT
In accordance with the Open Meetings Act and the Rules of the Civil Service Commission, Executive Director Thomas Klein offered an opportunity for any person to address members of the Commission.
Hearing no response, the meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.
V. CLASS SPECIFICATIONS
A. Governing Rule – Section 1.45 Classification Plan
The Commission will review the class specifications requiring Commission approval under the Classification Plan and will approve those that meet the requirements of the Personnel Code and Personnel Rules and conform to the following accepted principles of position classification:
a) The specifications are descriptive of the work being done or that will be done;
b) Identifiable differentials are set forth among classes that are sufficiently significant to permit the assignment of individual positions to the appropriate class;
c) Reasonable career promotional opportunities are provided;
d) The specifications provide a reasonable and valid basis for selection screening by merit examinations;
e) All requirements of the positions are consistent with classes similar in difficulty, complexity and nature of work; and
f) The relation of the class specifications to any applicable collective bargaining agreement.
B. Information Technology Trainee (revise)
Regarding Item B, Assistant Executive Director Andrew Barris reported that the classes were approved at the June 2022 meeting and were intended to improve a recruiting problem. Since the approval, Chris Nickols from CMS Technical Services learned there was a miscommunication between DoIT and CMS regarding what was agreed upon between the agencies as to the desirable requirements of the class. As such, the proposed revision is intended to resolve this issue and was agreed to through collective bargaining. Nickols concurred with this report and stated that the proposed revision was agreed to through collective bargaining.
C. Rehabilitation/Mobility Instructor Trainee (revise)
Rehabilitation/Mobility Instructor (revise)
Regarding Item C, Barris reported that the revision was intended to remove the differentiation between the Rehabilitation Instructor and the Orientation and Mobility Instructor within the proposed classes to address the difficulty of finding qualified candidates for positions within the class. Commissioner Smith inquired if the agency attempted to resolve this issue previously by other means such as different certifications based upon operational needs of the agency. Nickols indicated that management at DHS previously considered other means to improve the recruiting issue prior to requesting a revision. Nickols indicated that the proposed revision was agreed to through collective bargaining.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0 TO APPROVE THE REVISIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASS SPECIFICATIONS TO BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2022:
B. Information Technology Trainee (revise)
C. Rehabilitation/Mobility Instructor Trainee (revise)
Rehabilitation/Mobility Instructor (revise)
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LUECHTEFELD THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0 TO DISAPPROVE ANY CLASS SPECIFICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION STAFF NOT CONTAINED IN THIS AGENDA TO ALLOW ADEQUATE STUDY.
VI. PERSONNEL RULES
A. Civil Service Commission Governing Rule – Section 1.310 Personnel Rules
The Commission has power to disapprove new rules or amendments to existing rules submitted by the Director of Central Management Services. Such proposed new rules or amendments of existing rules submitted to the Commission shall be accompanied by a report of proceedings attending the prior public hearing required by law with respect to them.
If the Commission does not disapprove new rules or any amendment to existing rules within 30 days following the receipt from the Director of Central Management Services, the new rules or amendments have the force and effect of law after filing by the Director with the Secretary of State.
B. None submitted
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0 TO DISAPPROVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO PERSONNEL RULES RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION STAFF BUT NOT CONTAINED IN THIS AGENDA TO ALLOW ADEQUATE STUDY.
VII. MOTION TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THE MEETING
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0 TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THE MEETING PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 2(c)(1), 2(c)(4), AND 2(c)(11) OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
Sickmeyer Yes
Luechtefeld Yes
Robinson Yes
Smith Yes
VIII. PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED DECISION RESULTING FROM APPEAL ]
DA-34-20
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LUECHTEFELD, AND BY ROLL CALL VOTE OF 4-0 THE MOTION ADOPTED TO AFFIRM AND ADOPT THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.
Sickmeyer Yes
Luechtefeld Yes
Robinson Yes
Smith Yes
RV-28-22
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LUECHTEFELD, AND BY ROLL CALL VOTE OF 4-0 THE MOTION ADOPTED TO AFFIRM AND ADOPT THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.
Sickmeyer Yes
Luechtefeld Yes
Robinson Yes
Smith Yes
IX. APPEAL TERMINATED WITHOUT DECISION ON THE MERITS
S-30-22
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, AND BY ROLL CALL VOTE OF 4-0 THE MOTION ADOPTED TO AFFIRM AND ADOPT THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.
Sickmeyer Yes
Luechtefeld Yes
Robinson Yes
Smith Yes
DA-10-23
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, AND BY ROLL CALL VOTE OF 4-0 THE MOTION ADOPTED TO AFFIRM AND ADOPT THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.
Sickmeyer Yes
Luechtefeld Yes
Robinson Yes
Smith Yes
X. EXEMPTIONS UNDER SECTION 4d(3) OF THE PERSONNEL CODE
A. Governing Rule – Section 1.142 Jurisdiction B Exemptions
a) The Civil Service Commission shall exercise its judgment when determining whether a position qualifies for exemption from Jurisdiction B under Section 4d(3) of the Personnel Code. The Commission will consider any or all of the following factors inherent in the position and any other factors deemed relevant to the request for exemption:
1) The amount and scope of principal policy making authority;
2) The amount and scope of principal policy administering authority;
3) The amount of independent authority to represent the agency, board or commission to individuals, legislators, organizations or other agencies relative to programmatic responsibilities;
4) The capability to bind the agency, board or commission to a course of action;
5) The nature of the program for which the position has principal policy responsibility;
6) The placement of the position on the organizational chart of the agency, board or commission;
7) The mission, size and geographical scope of the organizational entity or program within the agency, board or commission to which the position is allocated or detailed.
b) The Commission may, upon its own action after 30 days’ notice to the Director of Central Management Services or upon the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Central Management Services, rescind the exemption of any position that no longer meets the requirements for exemption set forth in subsection (a). However, rescission of an exemption shall be approved after the Commission has determined that an adequate level of managerial control exists in exempt status that will insure responsive and accountable administrative control of the programs of the agency, board or commission.
c) For all positions currently exempt by action of the Commission, the Director of Central Management Services shall inform the Commission promptly in writing of all changes in essential functions, reporting structure, working title, work location, position title, position number or specialized knowledge, skills, abilities, licensure or certification.
d) Prior to granting an exemption from Jurisdiction B under Section 4d(3) of the Personnel Code, the Commission will notify the incumbent of the position, if any, of its proposed action. The incumbent may appear at the Commission meeting at which action is to be taken and present objections to the exemption request.
(Source: Amended at 34 Ill. Reg. 3485, effective March 3, 2010)
B. Requests for 4d(3) Exemption
⮚ Exemption Monitor Sabrina Johnson indicated that Items B1 and B2 were requests from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Item B1 was a request for a Northern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel and Item B2 was a request for a Southern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, both positions report to the Chief Legal Counsel, who reports to the Chief of Staff, who reports to the Director. Items B1 and B2 assist with litigation management, manage and participate in the youth release review hearing process, and review legislation and administrative code rules. These positions provide legal advice on all contracts, procurement issues, and on issues involving Ethics and the Freedom of Information Act.
Staff questioned the duties of both positions, as the duties stated in the position description do not qualify these positions to be 4d(3) exempt, therefore, Staff recommended these exemption requests be denied.
Commissioner Smith inquired what DJJ had to say about these two positions. Ms. Heidi Mueller, Director of DJJ, indicated these positions should be exempt, both positions are involved in setting policies, making policy decisions, and involved in a consent decree. These positions handle consent decree litigation, are responsible for consent decree litigation cases, and act as spokespersons for DJJ. Ms. Mueller added that these positions will represent DJJ in court, be a part of the litigation requirements to develop new policies, draft contracts, draft intergovernmental agreements, and advise the Chief Legal Counsel on legislation and internal policies, along with supervising the Investigations Unit once established.
Commissioner Robinson inquired about specifics, including the concern with new laws and policies, and the need for juvenile justice legal counsel. Ms. Mueller indicated the Assistant Chief Legal Counsel positions and the Chief Legal Counsel are responsible for policy reviews, negotiation and legal issues.
Chairman Sickmeyer questioned the duties within the job description and what Ms. Mueller indicated at the meeting. He stated that the state has all kinds of attorneys that operate in different ways (they maintain confidentiality and draft contracts, e.g.), but those positions are not at the level to be policy makers.
Commissioner Luechtefeld inquired when DJJ was divided from the Department of Corrections (DOC) and if these positions will grow. Ms. Mueller indicated without these positions and the infrastructure audit finding, DJJ will have audit findings every single year. DJJ is trying to separate from DOC by establishing positions, making sure all requirements are met, handling contract policies and handling different funds.
Ms. Sarah Kerley, Chief Administration Officer with Central Management Services (CMS), indicated DJJ was established in 2006. In 2014, DJJ established the Deputy General Counsel position that was a 4d(5) Rutan Exempt position. After clarifying the position, the position was separated into the Northern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel and the Southern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel as new positions. Ms. Kerley indicated both positions are high enough to warrant exemption. Chairman Sickmeyer inquired what duties within the job description would warrant these positions to be 4d(3) exempt. Ms. Kerley indicated these positions will carrying out the mission of DJJ, they will deal with constitutional questions of youth in custody, safety, health, mental wellbeing, education, and custody, for a safe work environment.
Commissioner Luechtefeld inquired why these positions need exemption. Ms. Mueller explained that these positions will speak on behalf of the department, interact with the Governor’s Office Legal team, and are responsible for the mission of the department. These positions will develop policy that will prevent DJJ from entering other consent decrees, they will have to navigate situations that are potentially politically damaging and engaged with sensitive information.
Executive Director Klein stated that making the positions exempt would allow a new administration to replace the employee with someone more in line with the new Governor’s policy goals. Ms. Erin Borales, Chief of HEM at OEIG, indicated OEIG inquired about other exempt job titles and policy making matters and these positions will supervise staff, and will have some discretion.
Commissioner Smith stated DJJ needs these positions to be policy makers to build the structure She suggested that once policies are established then DJJ could revisit the exemption. Chairman Sickmeyer indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Smith, the only issue is the job description does not reflect what was indicated in this meeting. Ms. Kerley and Ms. Mueller indicated these positions have decision making authority, review contracts for clients, make the appropriate redactions to documents, and conduct redaction reviews. Executive Director Klein pointed out that the duties that would justify the exemption do not appear to be contained in the job descriptions. Ms. Mueller explained these positions have the ability to speak on behalf of DJJ on legal decisions. Chairman Sickmeyer indicated the job descriptions do not reflect authority to speak on behalf of the department or to enter into agreements. Ms. Mueller reflected that these positions are part of a consent decree litigation, agreement between both sides on fixing the problem and entering a consent decree. Ms. Mueller added that these positions are required to change policies to meet requirements of the consent decree and assist in engaging that negotiation and these are ongoing procedures, along with representing the department and the Governor’s Office.
Commissioner Smith agrees with Chairman Sickmeyer regarding revising the job description to reflect what was discussed today. Ms. Kerley indicated DJJ is seeking to fill the Southern position and asking for a one month approval to be 4d(3) exempt, therefore giving DJJ time to edit the job descriptions. Executive Director Klein stated that revising the job descriptions would allow the Commission to see the exempt duties spelled out and reconsider the request for exemption.
Ms. Mueller indicated DJJ is needing to get legal work completed, DJJ has motion practices coming up in the consent decree and DJJ will be writing reports regarding expert monitors who came through and visited. DJJ will have to respond and draft DJJ perspective on the reports and work with the Attorney General’s Office to stay out of other litigation and trying to comply with audit findings regarding revising policies. Chairman Sickmeyer indicated what was said and what the job description indicates is not the same. The position as described in the meeting would justify an exemption, but the position as written does not.
Commissioner Smith’s perspective is seeking DJJ to clarify the duties with more detailed explanation about the authority that was indicated today. Ms. Kerley indicated DJJ will commit to doing the clarification on both positions and resubmit for approval.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LUECHTEFELD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROBINSON THE MOTION ADOPTED 4-0 TO GRANT THE 4d(3) EXEMPTION REQUESTS FOR THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2022:
B1: Northern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel (DJJ)
B2: Southern Region Assistant Chief Legal Counsel (DJJ)
B1. Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice
B2. Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice
XI. STAFF REPORT
XII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING
Announcement was made of the next regular open meeting to be held at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2022, in the Springfield office of the Commission.
XIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN
https://icsc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/icsc/documents/2022/9-15-22%20Regular%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up