Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/05/1979CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5, 1979 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting, on Wednesday, December 5, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman, Kenneth Jarvis, Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen Member Absent William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Gregory Mitchell, Robert Hawke Jr., Ronald Demer, Thomas Kane, Greg S. Mitchell, Thomas Fraga, Beth Logan, Mary Jane Kuada, Doug Bouvier, Kevin Hayes, Steve Burke, Peter Lavallee, Lansing Reinholtz Addition to agenda The following item was added: Discuss the form of the auditors report. Meet with Police Department Association Mr. Lansing Reinholtz represented the Association. He gave the Council a proposed set of groundrules for negotiations and a copy of the proposed agreement between the City and the Association (copy on file with City Manager). Mr. Farrar felt that the item calling for private sessions was illegal and he did not object to having the sessions public. Mr. Paulsen did not like the item calling for agreed-to portions of the contract to be signed off. He felt the agreement was a total package and should be considered that way. Mr. Reinholtz felt that if sections were not signed-off, a contract might never be worked out. Mr. Jarvis did not want to set a time limit of at least 3 hours every week to work on the contract, but Mr. Reinholtz said that schedule could be modified. Mr. Paulsen felt the Council should take the ground rules under advisement. It was tentatively agreed that with a modification of the time schedule (to a couple of hours every other week, perhaps) that these rules were a reasonable place to start and if there are serious objections to them, they can be voiced at the next meeting, and the rules formally adopted or not. Mr. Reinholtz explained that the underlined portions of the contract are to be eliminated and replaced by the portions which are capitalized. On page 13, under years of service, the categories of 5-8 years and 9-11 years should be eliminated and the next line should be 11-13 years. After that line, it should read 14-16 years and after that line, 17-19 years. The Council read through the contract, and then went through the changes to it with Mr. Reinholtz. They would like the rank of sergent included and to have dues paid weekly. They also want to collect an agency fee. The Association would determine the cost of the collective bargaining process and verify it through the Council. In Article 8, the union wants a 4 and 2 schedule, feeling it will be more equitable. Mr. Farrar felt that 1b in that article was in conflict with the request for scheduling for courses for individuals. Mr. Reinholtz said they wanted both sections - they want discretion on an equitable basis. Section 4 of the article means an employee will not be penallized if the city cannot afford the ammunition required for training. Article 9, section 6 - with a five week limit, the city might be forced to pay On page 11, the union felt that there should be an overtime seniority list because overtime was not being equitably distributed now. The most senior person would be offered overtime first, and if he/she refused, it would be offered to the next senior person. If overtime is refused, that person's name drops to the bottom of the list. In article 10, a shift differential is proposed. On an equal rotation each person would work the same amount of any given shift. Article 11 adds two more holidays and increases compensation for working on those days. On article 12, Mr. Farrar felt that if there were to be an equal distribution of people on the shifts, seniority could not be considered as a factor. Mr. Reinholtz felt it could be, because if more than two weeks are scheduled at one time, it will make a difference as to how holidays and vacations are handled. They want the principal of seniority to be given consideration. On page 19, Mr. Reinholtz noted that on occasion non-uniformed personnel worked in uniform and they should have a complete outfit for such duty. Body armor has been added as item zz . On page 20, Section 4 was deleted because it is repeated elsewhere in the contract. Sections 5, 6, and 7 were renumbered as 4, 5, and 6. The new section 5 provides that if clothes are ruined and the clothing allowance has been used up, the city will repair or replace the damaged clothing. The Council agreed to the change in Article 14. In article 15, section 2's addition is the practice now. Mr. Reinholtz also stated that to deny an officer the off-duty use of equipment is to deny him off-duty work. Mr. Farrar asked how section 6 worked. Mr. Reinholtz said the union wanted offers for off-duty work to be handled through the department. If they are not, not all officers have an equal chance for that kind of work. They want to handle it on a seniority basis. The way it is now, some officers do a lot more off-duty work than others. Mr. Reinholtz said there had been a problem which section 7 would correct. He also felt that if an officer was doing too much off-duty work and his performance was impaired, there would be administrative recourse. In article 16, section 3 is the practice now. Mr. Farrar asked how section 5 corresponded with unlimited comp time and Mr. Reinholtz said that how much overtime an employee worked was directly controlled by the administration. Article 17, section 6 is the law. In article 18, the amount of leave is not changed, but when it is credited is. Sick leave is designed to protect income and it cannot do that if it is not credited until a lot of time has been worked. The employee would have his sick days at the beginning of the year and if he did not use them, he would have them at the end. If an employee terminated, he would owe the city money and Mr. Reinholtz said that the employee or the bargaining unit would be responsible for paying it. Article 20 is totally new to the contract and discusses discipline and discharge. Mr. Reinholtz said this was not an attempt to prevent discipline or dismissal, but was an attempt to make if fair and equitable. On page 37, Mr. Flaherty asked how many semesters the union felt UVM had, and was told they had two. On page 39, the union wants impasses to be submitted to binding arbitration. Appendix A reflects the 20% increase asked for. Messrs. Reinholtz and Farrar TA'd the sections agreed to (deletion and renumbering on page 20 and change on page 21). The next meeting was set for December 19. Mr. Farrar said the Council would read the proposed contract and discuss it. Form of the Audit Report Mr. Farrar noted that the report was on an accrual basis. He was not sure that was legal for the city and he wanted to go back to a cash basis. He or the City Manager will talk to the auditors about it. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.