Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/28/1977CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 28, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, March 28, 1977, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, for the purpose of discussing the proposed union contract with the representatives of the South Burlington Police Department. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; John B. Dinklage, Frank Armstrong, Michael Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT Catherine M. Neubert OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Robert A. Hawke, Jr., Dave Smith, Greg Mitchell, Wendell North, Ernie LeMay The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman. The Chairman opened the discussion by referring to the question of coverage when an officer is employed by someone else, and said the City Attorney felt if an officer was making an arrest for a violation of a City ordinance or a State law, he would be covered. On the other hand, if the officer was enforcing a directive of his employer, he would not be covered. There would be no problem in arresting someone for drunkenness or disorderly conduct, for example, but if a person was protesting an order to park in a certain place in an employer's parking lot and causing trouble, the officer would not be covered because no City ordinance would be involved. The Chairman then stated he would have some language put into the contract to cover this question and would give it to the union representatives first. Mr. Mitchell asked if Council would consider asking some other people about the question of sergeants being allowed to join the union, saying the more people who were asked, the more would be found to be in agreement with it. Mr. North said the State Police does have sergeants in their union; some communities do, others do not. The State Police sergeants fall into a supervisory position more than South Burlington's sergeants. Logically, the State Police sergeants should not be in, but South Burlington's should be. The Chairman explained the supervisors can be in the union provided everybody agreed, provided management agreed; whichever position was taken, something could be found to support it. It is something we have to make a decision on. It has to be decided from the point of view of the City what is thought to be the best solution. Mr. Dinklage felt this should be considered in context with the whole situation. There is reluctancy on Council's part to go along with that request: it has to be taken into the entire picture. Mr. Smith said one of the most important points to discuss is Salary. Mr. North said they talked about this with the union members and everybody was in agreement that it is a good proposal; however, they were asking that it be retroactive to this year rather than going into effect next July. This referred to the six-day yearend bonus. Chairman Farrar replied the City's financial resources are not unlimited and he didn't know what the situation would be as far as going into effect now. Mr. North then asked what happened if there was money left over at the end of the year in the budget, what would be done with that money. Mr. Farrar explained if money is appropriated and encumbered for a specific purpose, it has to be retained for that purpose. Any other money which is unencumbered can be transferred to another account to cover a deficit, such as transferring money from the Fire Department to the Police Department or vice versa. If that is not done, then the money just goes back into the City treasury as a surplus and carried forward into the next year. Mr. North said they understood there would be a surplus this year and had thought this overtime payment proposal could perhaps come out of that surplus in the salary budget. The City Manager replied he did not know yet whether or not there would be a surplus. The other part of the budget is revenues coming in and the City is running below in that respect and has to cut expenses. The four cruisers still unsold are an example. Mr. Dinklage said there should be a surplus and he would expect some of that money could be used. Mr. Szymanski said one of the reasons for a surplus in the Salary account is because the department is short one dispatcher. Chairman Farrar then referred to four questions still unresolved: 1) the question of the representation of sergeants; 2) the salary situation, the union's position being as he understood it that they would accept the position taken by Council on this as far as next year's salary schedule, but with the one outstanding item that the union would like the overtime proposal for this year. Mr. Mitchell said the union has not accepted totally the proposal, and Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Mitchell's statement. Mr. Dinklage said there were some discussion about the over-all compensatory time, and asked if that had been accepted by the union. Mr. Smith replied Yes. 3) Mr. Farrar continued with the question of college benefits and credits, which is not completely resolved; and 4) Article XV, which he believed was basically solved. Mr. Dinklage asked about Article XVII on page 11. The Chairman said he thought that they had basically arrived at a position although it had not been put down in language yet. He asked if the four issues he had just noted were the issues still pending now. Mr. Smith replied Yes. Mr. Mitchell asked about Section 4 on page 16, saying the City Manager was to have something on that (coverage for personal property such as glasses or watches). Mr. Szymanski said he learned from the insurance company that glasses are covered under Workman's Compensation but watches are not. For a watch to be covered it would have to be specified and a value put on it. The Chairman said he didn't think there would be any hesitancy on the part of Council to take out an insurance policy to cover these things. Mr. Mitchell felt a watch is an essential piece of equipment. The Chairman asked if the union was asking the City to assume the liability for pieces of personal property such as watches, rings, with the value to be no more than $100 each. Mr. Mitchell suggested a value of $150 or $200. Mr. Dinklage suggested a deductible and said the City should find out the cost of a policy. Mr. Farrar said they hadn't the slightest idea of what the insurance premiums would be. Mr. Szymanski said the glasses coverage is 100%. Mr. Farrar said a policy will be checked out. Regarding college benefits, the Chairman said Council had agreed this would be looked at but there is no proposal down in black and white. Mr. Dinklage said he was under the impression that this was to be approached with the understanding it might not be resolved by July 1st. Mr. Smith said they hoped to have it resolved by the fall semester. The Chairman explained this has to be looked at from the cost point of view. If something is to be done in this area, that means that much less money to do something such as retroactive overtime. He said this was not necessarily an "either/or" solution. Mr. Hawke commented that some of the members get a little shaky when they are looking at a lot of mathematical figures and he still has a problem himself as to how he would end up if half the holidays were to be taken as days off. He asked if this would make any difference. The Chairman explained how the proposal works, with six extra days pay at the end of the year. Mr. Dinklage added that it would be necessary to work 2000 hours of straight time before coming under the overtime proposal. Mr. Hawke asked again if that would affect the person who would rather take comp time than to get paid for that day. When working a holiday he might request that he not be paid for that extra day's pay and he would take a day off later. Mr. Farrar explained that would effect Mr. Hawke because under those circumstances he would not be working, he would be getting a day off, but that was not his impression of how most of the men work. Mr. Smith agreed that what Mr. Hawke had said would be an exception. The union representatives then asked for a five minute recess for discussion in another room. Upon returning, Mr. North stated they felt there were four items unresolved. The primary concerns were sergeants and salary. They would like to table the college benefits item with the stipulation that something would be put in writing saying there would be a committee set up for this by fall. Also the insurance question could be tabled for the time being as their concern had been primarily with glasses. The Chairman responded that the situation seemed to be that there were two things keeping them apart — some movement on Council's part to do something about making the overtime provision retroactive for this year, and sergeants becoming members of the union. Regarding the overtime proposal, he said Council would have to do some looking before it could be reasonably certain of finding $5,000. He thought the issues had been narrowed to the point where next time he would hope they would have this resolved. It is necessary to be realistic in the point of view of this year's budget, what the ramifications are. Mr. Dinklage said certain assumptions have been made that a surplus is to be expected from this year's total budget. The Chairman said they would be glad to see if something could be worked out. Asked again about the education item, the Chairman said he would propose that Council set up a committee to draw up some tentative guidelines and see what the effect would be on the City's operations. It was difficult, he said, to set up programs exactly tailored to just one group. There are certain unique situations that can be dealt with but it is difficult to define that in a program. Mr. Farrar then asked if it was acceptable for the Salary Review Committee to meet next Tuesday rather than Wednesday. There was no objection. He then suggested getting together again on Monday before the regular Council meeting. The union representatives agreed to a 7:00 p.m. meeting on that date. The Chairman called attention to the budget hearing on Thursday, April 7th, at 7:30 p.m. The Chairman also noted that Disbursement orders awaited the signatures of Council members. An addition to the agenda was a discussion of a recent dog problem, with sheep on Swift Street being killed by two dogs. The City Manager read aloud the statement of the passerby who saw what was happening and called police; the statement from the police with the identification of the dogs and their owner; also the various State Statutes dealing with such situations and the actions required to be taken by the town officials. Mr. Mitchell, the officer called to the scene, said he understood the dogs owner and the owner of the sheep had already come to terms regarding damages, and while the dogs were certainly guilty of killing several sheep and severely wounding others, they gave no indication of being vicious dogs and appeared to have had training, coming to him when he called them. Besides the loss of the sheep killed, a veterinary bill would also be involved for treatment of the wounded animals. Mr. Dinklage suggested a statement could be made for the record accepting this report. Considerable discussion followed regarding proper procedures to be followed. It was felt before the dogs were destroyed there should be a hearing and the owner notified. The Chairman suggested postponing any action at this meeting and having it on the agenda for the April 4th meeting. Mr. Dinklage moved that based on Police Report C 13744 of 3/24/77 and upon the investigating officer's testimony that Council determine that they are satisfied that the damage was done and the identification of the dogs causing the damage was established beyond reasonable doubt. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. The Chairman suggested voting on this motion and then another motion be made to allow the Chairman to appoint a committee of disinterested persons to establish the amount of damage. The motion by Mr. Dinklage was voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Council empower the Chairman to appoint one Council member and two disinterested persons the assess the damage to, the sheep. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Mitchell referred to the warrant for the destruction of the dogs, saying he took the liberty of writing up a warrant because there was none in existence to his knowledge, and he would like the City Attorney to look at the warrant. Mr. Szymanski said the City Attorney will rewrite it; the warrant has to be directed to the police officer or the constable. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:40 following a motion by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.