CC PACKET 12041984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Agenda Item: Reports-4c Status: [nformationa.l DATE November 21 ,' 1984 • TO: All Managers, Administrators , Elected Officials FROM: Wi 11 i am J oynes Chairman, MAMA General Labor Relations Committee RE: MAMA Joint Comparable Worth Study As many of you are aware, three months ago the Metropolitan Area Management Association undertook a project to determine whether or not suburban cities could jointly produce a study that would comply with comparable worth legisla- tion enacted in the 1984 session. At that time, we asked cities to indicate whether or not they would be willing to fund on an equal basis, our investiga- tion into that possibility. Some 57 communities agreed to do so at a cost of approximately $200 per city. We estimated that- amount would be required to develop our request for proposals and to screen various consulting organizations who might wish to bid on such a joint venture. Our desire to approach the study jointly was based on two reasons: First, the historical effort that MAMA has made in comparing wages and fringe benefits, and the success we have had in keeping their levels consistent in the metro area. Secondly, we felt that it was preferable for all MAMA cities to have used a com- mon approach in the event that-future litigation occurs. We are now at a point where a committee of managers made up of myself, Bob • Thistle from Coon Rapids, Jim Miller from Minnetonka, Jim Brimeyer from St. Louis Park , and Jim Lacina from Woodbury, with support from Labor Relations Associates, is recommending to the 57 cities the selection of Control Data Corporation Business Advisors as the vendor to accomplish the job evaluation study mandated by State law. A summary of the proposal is attached for your information. At a December 4, 1984 meeting of MAMA managers and administrators each of the 57 cities will be asked to indicate if they prefer to continue jointly or proceed on their own with a separate study. To help cities make that decision, I have attempted to provide more detailed background information on the screening pro- cess, the rationale for the selection of CDC and the anticipated costs for the joint approach. SCREENING PROCESS We began in August of this year by sending out a generally worded RFP to 18 firms locally and nationally who had done job evaluation work in the private and public sector. We received ten responses from the initial request. After a considerable amount of evaluation, six firms were .selected to be interviewed further. They included Haye Associates, Towers-Perrin-Forster and Crosby, Control Data Corporation, Arthur Young and Associates, Hewitt and Associates, Hallcrest-Craver Associates. Those interviews were conducted in October at the League offices by the RFP com- mittee and members of the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities. At the conclusion of that process, three firms were felt to merit further scrutiny. They were Haye Associates, Towers-Perrin-Forster and Crosby, and Control Data Corporation. It was felt that Arthur Young and Associates and Hewitt and