Personnel department gets new name, expanded role

For Providence voters, some of whom waited hours at the polls to make high-stakes choices on the presidency, Congress and gambling, the questions were head scratchers:
“Shall the term ‘personnel department’ be replaced with ‘human resources department’ wherever it appears in the charter?”
“Shall the responsibilities of the human resources department be changed to eliminate examining and approving all payrolls, and monitoring residency requirements?”
They were among nine 2012 referendums on language and nomenclature meant to “clarify” the Providence Home Rule Charter, the city government’s foundational document.
But what was so pressing about these wording changes – of which voters were given no background knowledge – to add them to an already weighty and long-reading ballot?
In at least four cases, the driver was to bring the city’s personnel department up to date with contemporary industry standards, with adopting the phrase “human resources” foremost among them.
In the private sector, the term human resources emerged in the first half of the 20th century to refer to the management of employees, including their recruitment, training, discipline, and compensation, and became popular in the 1980s.
Although public-sector, human resources professionals deal with most of the same issues as businesses, government offices have been slower to abandon the term “personnel,” especially on the local level.
Of Rhode Island’s eight cities, half currently employ a personnel department and half a human resources department, now that Providence has made the switch. In addition to the capital, those preferring human resources are Central Falls, East Providence and Newport.
Rhode Island’s state government has also switched to human resources.
According to those in the industry, personnel is a narrower term implying purely administrative functions and the move toward human resources was intended to broaden the profession to include responsibilities with a greater strategic role in the organization.
“I would have to say the personnel title has not been used with frequency for a considerable period of time,” said Diane Buerger, president of the Human Resources Management Association of Rhode Island. “I never worked in an office that was called personnel. It was probably phased out in the 1980s. “I think the connotation of what the personnel department did back then was more administrative,” Buerger said. “That was the office that ran the United Way collection, planned holiday events and summer picnics – as opposed to the much more meaningful tasks that we do in the career path. Now there is strategic planning. The job has evolved into a much meatier role.”
In Cranston, the term personnel remains in place because that city’s department does not handle health benefits or payroll taxes and doesn’t fit the broader roles implied by human resources, said Cranston Personnel Director Susan Bello.
In Pawtucket, a 1992 referendum to change the title of “director of personnel” to “director of human resources” was rejected by voters 9,907 to 8,376, according to City Clerk Richard Goldstein.
Back in Providence, Director of Human Resources Sybil F. Bailey, who pushed for the change, declined to be interviewed about it, but Mayor Angel Taveras’ office produced this statement:
“The language change to ‘human resources’ reflects the belief that in any organization, and particularly one that provides a diverse array of public services, the people who provide the work are the most valuable resource the organization possesses.”
The name change was only one of four human resources-related ballot questions – all passed overwhelmingly – on the Providence ballot this year.
Another eliminates a reference in the charter to enforcing a city-worker residency requirement, already ended in practice, and a third sets a hiring requirement of a bachelor’s degree or five years of experience for the position of public-property director.
The other ballot question tied to adopting current industry standards requires any suspensions, layoffs, terminations and demotions to be done through the human resources department instead of by department chiefs. •

No posts to display