Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda ItemsReceived After Agenda Printed August 24, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Non -Agenda Item From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, August 23, 20214:11 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Public Comment for Aug 24th City Counsel Meeting From: Keri Bartlett <keribartlett@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 23, 20214:11:03 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Aug 24th City Counsel Meeting [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to add a public comment as it falls under the City's jurisdiction for the August 24th City Counsel Meeting Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it Pertains to the Termination of 4 Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with More Than 1000 Hours cumulatively of Lifeguarding under Their Belt Comment: As a resident and taxpayer of Newport Beach and a parent of a recently terminated Newport Beach City employee and minor, I would like to comment on how disappointed and concerned I am how this was handled by the City of Newport Beach's Lifeguard Management. My son, as well as three other highly capable and hard working lifeguards, ended the summer with a minor conflict with their high school sport schedule, something completely out of their control. The conflict arose when NMUSD closed their home pool at NHHS and their coach was forced to find alternative locations and times for their practices during pre -season hell week. The conflict ended up being over a total of 4 working days. The boys found coverage for all their shifts and additionally agreed to work more hours up through Labor Day manning lifeguard towers. Without due process, good faith, or fair dealing, management refused to work with these city employees and terminated them. These four terminations have resulted in unmanned towers on extremely busy summer days with high surf (days where all four of these lifeguards could be working). Not only was this unreasonable, unsafe, and unjustified on the part of lifeguard management, but it now will cost the city an additional $40,000 to train 4 additional lifeguards this spring, four lifeguards that will be a lot less qualified than the four they just fired. We should as a community and city be supporting these incredible youths and their hard work, along with protecting our beaches and keeping our City safe. None of that has been done here. Please review these cases as to recertification or reinstatement as to these lifeguards as well as how this was handled by management and the City. I Received After Agenda Printed July 27, 2021 Non -Agenda Item From: Judd Bomareve To: City Clerk"s Office Cc: The Boragreve Family Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard unwarranted dismissals Date: Monday, August 23, 20214:56:49 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: I would like to add a public comment as it falls under the City's jurisdiction for the August 24th City Counsel Meeting Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it Pertains to the Termination of 4 Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with More Than 1000 Hours cumulatively of Lifeguarding under Their Belt Comment: As a resident and taxpayer of Newport Beach and a parent of a recently terminated Newport Beach City employee and minor, I would like to comment on how disappointed and concerned I am how this was handled by the City of Newport Beach's Lifeguard Management. My son, as well as three other highly capable and hard working lifeguards, ended the summer with a minor conflict with their high school sport schedule, something completely out of their control. The conflict arose when NMIJSD closed their home pool at NHHS and their coach was forced to find alternative locations and times for their practices during pre -season hell week. The conflict ended up being over a total of 4 working days. The boys found coverage for all their shifts and additionally agreed to work more hours up through Labor Day manning lifeguard towers. Without due process, good faith, or fair dealing, management refused to work with these city employees and terminated them. These four terminations have resulted in unmanned towers on extremely busy summer days with high surf (days where all four of these lifeguards could be working). Not only was this unreasonable, unsafe, and unjustified on the part of lifeguard management, but it now will cost the city an additional $40,000 to train 4 additional lifeguards this spring, four lifeguards that will be a lot less qualified than the four they just fired. We should as a community and city be supporting these incredible youths and their hard work, along with protecting our beaches and keeping our City safe. None of that has been done here. Please review these cases as to recertification or reinstatement as to these lifeguards as well as how this was handled by management and the City. Sincerely Judd Borggreve 949.466.4616 Received After Agenda Printed July 27, 2021 Non -Agenda Item From: Mike Rankin To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: August 24th Meeting Date: Monday, August 23, 20214:58:19 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello there, I'm not sure if this will go on the formal meeting agenda, or if this is a topic for the public comment section. Mike Rankin 949-922-7845 2024 Beryl Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it Pertains to the Unwarranted Termination of 4 Skilled Rookie Lifeguards Comment: As a resident and taxpayer of the City of Newport Beach, as well as a former Lifeguard for the City of Newport Beach ('87 -'91), I am here to voice my great concern over the unwarranted termination of four highly qualified minor student -athletes and Lifeguards for the City of Newport Beach. My son, Billy Rankin, is one of them. However, I think it should be an area of great concern, because Newport Beach City Officials often tout the close relationship between the community, Lifeguards, Junior Lifeguards, and community swim and water polo teams. To us, those promises now ring hollow, if not they're not dead altogether. One of my major concerns is how it was handled. Assistant Chief Halphide and Jacobsen convened a conference call with the two of them and our 17 year old, with no representation from HR. This was repeated with the other boys. The calls followed a pattern, and it was obvious that the outcome was preordained, at least for those boys on the varsity practice squad who had a direct conflict with practice (due to the broken pool at NHHS). On that call: • The boys were not given a specific reason for termination, rather, a smattering of half- truths and comments about a general lack of 'commitment' • Halphide referenced a guard from the same training class with over 600 hours. This has nothing to do with anything. Our son had over 240 hours, much more than is needed to satisfy one summer of work. It is about 20% lower than average, which I estimate to be around 300-320 hours. The 600 hour example has no relation to the situation. In fact, it begs the question - why are they approving so much overtime? • They denied our sons' request to modify his work schedule (due to the NHHS pool being closed, forcing the coach to work out at Estancia during the middle of the day, rather than after hours). However, Billy offered to work Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. This request was denied. ( I am aware that certain towers were left unmanned during this time, rather than make an accommodation.) • They stated that he would not have the experience to take the tower again. How is that possible, if he was given a tower assignment on day one after training? • The questions on the call were leading - "are you going to try and win CIF?" and then "I think you should focus on water polo." Is this fatherly advice from the employer? Yikes. Legally, Halphide was in his rights to do what he did. But it makes no logical sense. We are mystified as to the actual reasoning. We respectfully ask that these cases are reviewed, and these hardworking individuals are reinstated, and allowed to complete their recertification next year, rather than the city spending the money to go through retraining. Forcing them to retrain also potentially reduces the pool for next years' candidates. They all finished Top 10, and would presumably do so again. Thank you, Mike Rankin Received After Agenda Printed August 24, 2021 Non -Agenda Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 20219:42 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it pertains to the Unwarranted Termination of Four Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with more than 1000 cumulative hours of Lifeguarding From: Yahoo! <armstrongwb@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 20219:40:49 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office < CityClerk@ new portbeachca.gov > Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it pertains to the Unwarranted Termination of Four Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with more than 1000 cumulative hours of Lifeguarding [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am an ex US Naval Aviator, Water Safety Instructor, and Lifeguard. I also served as the "Survival Officer" for my squadron while in the Navy. I'm also the Grandfather of one of the four boys who were unjustly terminated and I've lived at 7206 W. Oceanfront, Newport Beach for the last 24 years. I have also paid taxes in Newport for the last 50 years. Four highly trained and skilled Lifeguards were recently fired, over all things, a scheduling conflict, that was completely out of the control of the four boys. The conflict arose when NMUSD chose to close the NHHS pool and alternative pools were needed for the practice of the water polo team. This made it impossible for the boys to meet both schedules. The conflict was over ONLY a 4 day period and the boys found coverage for their shifts, but unbelievably, Management chose to deny their requests. This resulted in Management to Terminate and create unmanned towers for the four days. As a beach resident, I believe this was a terrible and pernicious decision that could have been easily avoided. I have watched these boys train diligently for their Lifeguard status. They each finished in the top 10% of their class. They, as water polo players, are in top physical shape and represent, and, in my opinion, as a person who, in the past has Certified Lifeguards, the epitome of what a Lifeguard should be. Also, as a taxpayer, I know that it costs the City $10,000 to train one Lifeguard. So why would the City, that has already invested $40,000 to train these fine young men, want to spend an additional $40,000 to train their replacements? It defies common sense. I have seen my grandson be totally depressed over the situation. After a year and a half of Covid lockdowns, we, as a community, should be looking for ways to bolster our kids lives. The unbelievable decision by Management is doing the opposite, while putting lives in danger. I'm asking the City Counsel to review these cases and reinstate these deserving young citizens to Lifeguard status. Thank you. William Blair Armstrong 7206 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Received After Agenda Printed August 24, 2021 Non -Agenda Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, August 23, 20214:33 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it Pertains to the Unwarranted Termination of 4 Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with More Than 1000 Hours cumulatively of Lifeguarding under Their Belt From: Kimberly Johnson Genc <kimjgenc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 23, 20214:32:51 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Issues as it Pertains to the Unwarranted Termination of 4 Skilled Rookie Lifeguards with More Than 1000 Hours cumulatively of Lifeguarding under Their Belt [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to add a public comment as it falls under the City's jurisdiction for the August 24th City Counsel Meeting: My name is Kimberly Genc I am here as a resident of Newport Beach, a taxpayer, a business owner and parent of a minor who is a student athlete and was recently terminated as lifeguard for the city of Newport Beach. I am here to respectfully request my son and three other boys have their cases reviewed. I am requesting the council members who are in charge of the lifeguard department, review the departments actions, the lack of HR support, and guidance, and the fact that you were given false information regarding the hours these boys worked. The HR handbook is not up to date and cohesive. These are four hard working, dedicated, watermen and student athletes who worked over the 240 hours required to be a member of ANBOL and over the 95 hours required for a rookie season. As a an employer myself, I would never terminate the employment of my top trainees who, work hard, and who are deserving of a rational minor accommodation to their schedule when needed. These boys were put in a situation beyond their control for the last 2 weeks of the season because of the problems with their district pool. Does it not seems reasonable they took it upon themselves to get coverage for their schedules and give their continued availability to work through labor day? Of course it does. What is not reasonable, is the actions of one person who would not approve this schedule change when it was supported by all of the other lifeguards. This problem needs to be looked into. Our boys should not be collateral damage for this unfortunate situation. One person's opinion and decision stands alone among the lifeguard community, in a culture where the support of athletes and training has been an important part of who they are, and why they are so qualified to do this job.