By Tony Cantú
Contributing Writer

A proposed move in Alamo Heights to a four-day work week for city staff – a growing trend in light of escalating fuel costs – ran out of gas recently, before the idea even revved up for discussion.

The possibility of an altered workweek had been inserted in the June 23 City Council agenda for discussion before City Manager Rebecca Waldman pulled the item. Previously, on June 18, the city’s Infrastructure and Services Council Committee had favorably reviewed the item, according to an accompanying memorandum to Council from Waldman and Public Works Director Shawn Eddy.

That memo touted modified hours as a move that “…could allow for the implementation of an alternative work schedule in an effort to achieve stated goals in customer service, sustainable community, productivity, employee benefits and recruitment and retention.”

Eddy confirmed the idea’s abandonment in a reply to a question on the matter: “We had kicked around the idea for a four-day work week, but we are not implementing that. We have more work to do on that.”

Alamo Heights City Council member Bill Kiel – a member of the Infrastructure and Services Committee with fellow Council member Susan Harwell – said the idea was floated as a way to relieve travel costs to city staffers – all of whom, except for Community Development Director Ann McGlone, live outside of Alamo Heights. But the idea may have been dead on arrival because the way it was framed on the council agenda may have proved too intimidating given its drastic-sounding verbiage: “Presentation of proposal for modified hours of operation for city offices.”

“Unfortunately it was listed wrong on the agenda,” Kiel said, noting his preference would have been for softer language alluding to flex work schedules as another option. “It got out of hand, so we decided this was not a way to start this.”

Because state law bars City Council members from discussing items as a quorum outside of Council meetings, Kiel and Harwell were prevented from discussing the idea at length prior to their official gathering. Consequently, other Council members – seeing the item presented for the first time – may have bee taken aback at the measure on first sight, Kiel said.

“The other members like Jill (Souter) and Stan (McCormick) and even the mayor said ‘What is this?’” Kiel said. “Susan and I couldn’t really talk about it beforehand. Those are the lengths we go to in order not to break the law.”

Kiel said his own preference was to allow for flex schedules to cut city staffers’ travel time. While a good idea in theory, implementing a four-day work week would have given rise to other issues such as the availability of extended daycare for parents having to put in a 10-hour day rather than the customary eight hours.

Additionally, a compressed workload could have ended costing the city more money for overtime if tasks could not be accomplished in time – particularly in days when staff prepares paperwork for upcoming Council meetings.

“If they were not working Friday, they would have to have everything done by Thursday and possibly have to work overtime,” Kiel said. “Any money you would save, would then be lost with that overtime. I was never keen on the four-day workweek.”

In revisiting the issue in the future, he said he would push for flexible schedules, which would offer the added benefit of cross-training employees to be able to fill in for their at-home colleagues.

“A flex schedule might make sense, because there would be a lot of cross training,” Kiel said. “Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has really made an impact, but a four-day work week was very problematic. For every good mark, there were two or three marks against it.”

Whatever the city decides as potential relief to its staff, the issue isn’t likely to be accelerated again this summer, Kiel said: “The issue is not dead, but I’m not sure when this will come back. I don’t think it will come up for another two months.”