Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/15/1977CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 15, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting with the representatives of the Police Department Union on Tuesday. March 15, 1977, in the Assessor's Office, Municipal Building, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT Frank Armstrong POLICE DEPARTMENT UNION MEMBERS PRESENT David Smith, Gregory E. Mitchell, Robert A. Hawke, Wendell North OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Peter Gadue, Joseph H. E. Lomay The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:35 p.m. David Smith called attention to the union's proposal for Higher Education, for Article 10, Section 3, of the proposed contract, saying they felt it should apply to any course which would broaden a person's general knowledge. Chairman Farrar said Council felt the offer made to the union under the proposed contract is adequate, just, and reasonable compensation, considering all the facts at Council's disposal, but Council and the union seemed to be quite a ways apart on what the union is asking and the Council is offering. Mr. Dinklage called attention to the changes made in the budget such as money being included for the cost of the helmets, also the possibility of getting CETA employees as dispatchers for the Police Department. Additional funds have been added in the salary category to handle some overtime situations which may arise during the year. Three marked cruisers are to be purchased plus the unmarked cars. Mr. Smith replied the City seemed to be moving in the right direction. He asked if Council wanted to specifically discuss the salary proposal. Mr. Flaherty said the things Council had added would cost the City about $6,500. Mr. Farrar said having more people out on patrol is going to take more equipment with which to patrol, and this is Council's way of responding to the department's wish to have more people out on patrol, as a positive result in improving the operation of the department. The Chairman noted that any patrolman serving as a detective would be paid as a detective for that period of time. Asked by Mr. Smith about sergeants joining the union, the Chairman said he had been unable to discuss this with the City Attorney who is out of town. He will also discuss the liability question with the attorney. Mr. Farrar said personally, as long as a man is acting in a police capacity in South Burlington whether paid by South Burlington or someone else, there might be no distinction. However, this might be legally incorrect, and Council wants to understand the legal situation. Mr. Smith submitted a copy for the record of T.21 1502, Section (13) containing a definition of "Supervisor." He noted that having sergeants join the union would really not cost the City anything. Returning to the union's proposal on education, Mr. Flaherty said he would like a broader work relationship. An educated man is a better man but he wouldn't want to open it up for abuses. Mr. Smith said he would hate to tie this into strictly a law enforcement degree type of thing. Mr. Flaherty said he thought most industries have some constraints on their education program. A man could be furthering his education while working as a policeman and then would leave for some other job. Mrs. Neubert said Council would have no way of knowing how close the people are to a degree; it is really none of our business what they do; we shouldn't be subsidizing people who would leave. This program would attract people who would come in for a time and then leave. She said she was in favor of only work-related things and her definition of this would be rather narrow. Mr. Smith said he couldn't think of anybody who had been going to college taking anything that will not be of aid in his job. Mr. Mitchell asked about having a separate committee to decide this. The Chairman felt this was an interesting area to try to explore; it would be difficult to include guidelines in this year's contract, but it is something which could be in place either as an amendment to the contract this year or to be included in next year's contract. The cost should be known and what kind of guidelines. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to have the opportunity to investigate how other police departments handle this, what approaches work well. Mr. North said Burlington has sponsored a program for years. Mr. Smith said law enforcement programs have been available and still ard. The Chairman felt this to be a movement in the positive direction of encouraging people to become better able to do their jobs, that he would be in favor of the City investing some money in. Mr. Smith said he would like to get something into this year's contract. Mr. Farrar said if this could done, he had no objections, but he felt it was going to take time. Mrs. Neubert said other employees have taken courses which were work related, and in some instances it is justifiable, but for someone starting in as a freshman, the City would be paying on that for years. Mr. Smith said Champlain College is the only one giving a program in law enforcement, a two-year program. Mr. Flaherty felt money budgeted for this might be spent in the first six months, and there are a number of different possibilities involved such as having the parson pay part of the cost themselves. Mr. Dinklage noted that some universities do require one semester of full time residency, but maybe that isn't a problem here. The City Manager asked if they were talking about paying for courses, or paying compensation for courses taken. Mr. Dinklage said he would want to be sure about other fees, books, etc. Mr. Szymanski asked how many people — five, six, ten. Mr. Smith replied if he had the money he would go back again. There are four people now who are carrying two or three courses. Mr. Flaherty suggested a total amount of dollars to be spent each year. Mr. Farrar said he would rather work it in a way that, would not get us into that situation, would rather figure out the costs to be incurred. Mr. Flaherty suggested starting with one course per person per semester. Mr. Szymanski said the Fire Department does have a training fund, but this program would run considerably more than that. Mr. Dinklage felt the union had gotten a pretty positive response to the general concept. He suggested forming a committee and leave this to be worked out if possible by the beginning of the new contract, but not to hold the City to that for this year. The committee would operate until a policy satisfactory to everyone is set. Mr. Farrar said the union has found a favorable response to the concept; there is some reasonable willingness on Council's part to explore. Mr. Smith said they would approach the colleges and universities to find out what funds are available such as funds from Federal sources. Mr. Dinklage suggested leaving it to the Chairman to appoint members of the Council to work with the union group, and asked if the union would be willing to set aside section 3 at this time. Mr. Smith said he believed so. The City Manager said he didn't see where there was any money to put into anything this year; every penny has been squeezed out this year. Mr. Smith then said they wished to go on record as still being very much in favor of being upgraded, but they would concede that they could do away with the 4½% Council is offering and consider everyone being upgraded. Asked if that was really any different, Mr. Smith replied it is a bit different. Mrs. Neubert felt there should be some cost figures on that. Mr. Farrar said this would be a difference of $79 per year. He would like to have some other way to accomplish the same thing. Mr. Dinklage said last time this was talked about, he thought the union's desire to change the pay level was based to some degree on their perception of the other employees who are in this level. Although he was not a party to the development of that pay scale, it is his understanding, he said, the Council was developing guidelines for different categories of employees being placed in the scale depending on how the salary the City wanted to pay compared to other salaries in the community. The level that a patrolman is placed in represents to Council's way of thinking a slightly superior pay position compared to what a patrolman earns in surrounding communities. This has no bearing on any other group of employees in the City of South Burlington. It is strictly in relation to the other patrolmen in the immediate area. This does not reflect any judgments about other City employees. Each was compared to the equivalent pay scale which exists in the community and is a favorable comparison in each job category from South Burlington's point of view. Chairman Farrar said Council was talking about $75 to $100 per man, in addition to what they are being offered. Mr. Smith said it is not an issue of money; they had given Council last time the reasons why they feel they should be upgraded. Mr. Dinklage said his perception of the situation was that some of the arguments which were raised didn't have any bearing on it. The union representatives then asked to be excused for a short discussion in another room. On their return, Mr. Smith said this was still where they stood. Mr. Farrar said if that was the only issue there was, there are ways to accomplish that reasonably well, but there are a lot of other issues that have not been discussed. One of the points brought up is the point of overtime. There is a different way of approaching the overtime thing which would accomplish something; he thought a solution for that could probably be figured out. The union has asked for some changes in the way overtime is compensated for. Mr. Dinklage referred to Article XI, Section 2, overtime for holidays. Chairman Farrar said he was suggesting overtime for all the hours the men work in a year in excess of 40 x 52 weeks, minus the vacation days they are entitled to. This would put them in a position at the end of the year of being compensated for their overtime for approximately 50 of those hours which he believed would add up to the amount of money they were talking about. In excess of 1950 hours they would get paid for overtime; in addition to that at the end of the year they would get paid overtime for all straight time they worked in excess of 1900. This would take care of the situation, he said, which he believed is justifiable to correct. They would be getting paid overtime for something on the order of 100 hours, between 50 and 100 hours. Mr. North said that proposal wouldn't provide for being upgraded. Mr. Farrar explained they would get paid on their longevity and on their merit base for every year. This would accomplish the same thing and perhaps slightly more. Mr. Smith asked why not just give the man a bonus on his anniversary. Mr. Farrar explained this is something which fits in the consistency of all other areas and doesn't create a situation for the City that is going to create situations in other cases. The union representatives made the point very eloquently last time about the hardship. This is the way the City can compensate for this without creating the situation of establishing a precedent. Council wants to handle a unique situation created by the job in a way which does not create precedence in other areas. This is unique for the Police Department. This could be worked out in detail and presented to the union. Mr. North said they would carry this back to the rest of the people. Mr. Mitchell said the membership is unanimous in feeling that a grade 9 is much more satisfactory to them. Mr. North said he could see Chairman Farrar's point about setting a precedent. If we could accomplish the same thing going another route rather than by upgrading, it might be receptive to the majority. They had hated being lumped in with truck drivers; they feel their work is a little more important. They are after compensation for the type of work they do. Mr. Farrar said that point Council could appreciate, but the union must look at Council's point. Mr. Dinklage said as they looked into the situation they all became aware of some unique requirements on the policemen and some unique results from that. Council is trying to formulate a response to accomplish that which will also allow more flexibility in the administration of the Police Department. Because of some people choosing to take time off, the overtime burden may not fall equally just because of circumstances and the availability of people. What Council is trying to work out would provide a mechanism where most would be compensated for overtime work and the annual pay would be greater. Chairman Farrar said this was something that obviously could be extended to everybody but wouldn't benefit anybody else. There is no difficulty; there is no way it could be difficult. Each man would get the increase except that the man who had been here five or seven years would get more than the man who would be here only one year. Mr. Smith felt that from the layman's standpoint, it would be an "end of year" bonus. Mr. Farrar said it would be compensation for the overtime. The situation is this — what a man does is to work every week 40 hours, working this way all year long except when on vacation. Mr. Smith added with the exception of the Christmas and New Years holidays. Mr. Farrar replied you still work the same number of hours those two weeks. Everybody still works 40 hours each week for the two weeks. You only get compensation if you work more than eight hours a day. What Council would be doing is giving compensation to you for the additional 50 hours you work. Mr. Smith asked if this was giving compensation more than they are receiving now. Mr. Farrar said that is the amount of money that will get us to a solution; Council is more than willing to approach it that way. The men get paid for the holiday they don't work; they will be compensated for the day they do work at time and a half plus that holiday pay. It won't be spelled out that way because other people read the contract and would want the same thing. This is a unique situation. Mr, Dinklage explained that what Council is attempting to say already applies to everybody else, but because of the policemen's unique schedule it has an advantage to them of approximately $100. Chairman Farrar said Council will try to work out something regarding education, but with no guarantee it could be worked out this year. Mr. Smith asked if this could be put in writing so they could show it to their people. The Chairman said let us say we have an understanding. We realize your situation and you understand ours. Mr. Smith said Council was asking to keep the holidays the way it was last year, and the union is going to have to hold this until they can go back to their group. Mr. Farrar said he didn't want to hold this up. They can't implement much of the college program this year; the budget is really straitened even with the City Manager's wizardy. Mr. Dinklage said this proposal will be made on the assumption there will be 12 holidays as opposed to the 13 the union has proposed. The Chairman said he was willing to go through the proposed contract for discussion. Article IX, Section 6. The Chairman said he would like to treat that tomorrow night at the Salary Review Committee meeting. Compensatory time and sick leave time are things that will be discussed at that meeting and he would prefer to treat these things on a City-wide basis if possible. Mr. Smith asked about in-service training being compensated as compensatory time. Mr. Dinklage said he wanted to talk with the Chief about department meetings. Mr. Farrar said he felt there was a basic agreement; they had a question on how these things are scheduled but he didn't think there was any basic problem. Mr. Smith said he was talking about firearms training mainly, because they have to have the training. Department meetings come only once or twice a year. Mr. Smith said they also had a problem in damage to equipment in off-duty work. Chairman Farrar said there has to be some discretion used on both sides. Using police equipment in police duty in off-duty time, the law might allow that to be considered a police function. But borrowing a piece of equipment and having it damaged through some accident on the borrower's part, is a different situation. Those are the distinctions he would like to be able to find a way to draw. Article XVII, Section 3. Mr. Szymanski said there is a legal definition on this and he was almost sure it does not include sons-in-law or daughters-in-law. Mr. Farrar said this could be an area of compromise. Mr. Smith asked about mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law, and Mr. Farrar suggested it might be possible to take off the day of the funeral. He felt it was best to get the standard definition for this. Mrs. Neubert suggested there could be Federal guidelines. Mr. North said the policy at GE included in-laws. Mr. Farrar said his suggestion would be spouses, children, parents, and wife's parents and obviously brothers and sisters. Others, one day. Mr. Mitchell said it would be fair to say five days at least for a spouse. Mr. Flaherty said it was tough to put something in writing. Mr. Farrar said he would hope that Mr. Szymanski could use some discretion, to use his prerogative to do what is right. Mrs. Neubert said one problem is travel time. Mr. Farrar said all that can be done is to try to get a framework and then reasonable men can make reasonable decisions. Asked about sick time, the Chairman said this should be looked at from the total point of view of the City; should look at a more equitable or variable policy. Council can't do everything it wants to do but it has made some significant improvements in some of the areas which are going to help all the employees. Mr. Smith said the union would go on record as deleting Section 3 on page 16 regarding Disability Income. Section 4 on page 16. Mr. Farrar said the loss part of it is the most difficult, making sure that only where there is some actual cause for the loss when on duty should the City be liable. Mr. Smith asked about something in the way of notification, describing the way the loss occurred. Mr. Flaherty said this depends on the definition of performance of duty. Mr. Dinklage felt the individual would have to take some obligation to put this in writing. Mr. Farrar said he would ask the City Attorney to write up some suitable wording. Mr. Szymanski suggested checking with the insurance company because the City may be covered on this. Mr. Smith then referred to the suggestion last week of having a committee to be sure the right equipment is purchased. Chairman Farrar said this is something which could be handled in an administrative capacity. Mr. Smith felt it was reasonable to want what the man feels is best for the job. Mr. Szymanski suggested using the Safety Committee to recommend to the City Manager and to the Chief what they feel meets the safety requirements. Mr. Mitchell said he thought they could show in every case where the City can save money. The Chairman told Mr. Smith the proposal on overtime would be available for them by the end of this week. It would be just a change in the overtime policy. Mr. Smith asked if in July everyone who is now in a certain level would go back to the minimum. Mr. Farrar replied No. On the anniversary date he gets one more year of longevity. Since the base has been raised, the longevity goes up as well. You figure out the rating scale and multiply it by the number of years of longevity they have as of July 1, Assuming their merit rate is unchanged, they would get this. The final meeting with the Police Department is to be Monday, March 28, at 7:30 p.m. This meeting was declared adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.