Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/20/1979CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 20, 1979 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, December 20, 1979 at 8:15 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Kenneth Jarvis, Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty Member Absent William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholtz, Steve Burke, Greg Mitchell, Douglas Bouvier, Kevin Hayes, Peter Lavallee Meet with Police Department Association Mr. Farrar informed the Association that the Council had spent several hours going over the proposal and that they had positions on some items and not on others. Mr. Farrar asked if the agreement covered all the changes the union proposed to the contract and was told it did. They feel these are all their proposals and they will not raise any new ones. Mr. Farrar said the city was not ready tonight to make new proposals in detail. Mr. Farrar then raised the issue of TAing sections. He wanted to be sure that, if a dollar issue were discussed late in the negotiations and the issue could not resolved, if either side wanted to go back and look at a section already TAed as a possible trade-off, that could be done. Mr. Reinholtz said that his understanding was that once a section was TAed, it could not be re-opened without mutual consent, but there could be a discussion on re-opening the section as a possible trade- off for something later on. Whether the sessions would be open or closed was discussed. The Council had no strong feelings either way, but Mr. Farrar suggested that at the end of each session both sides could agree as to whether there were topics to be discussed in closed session at the next one. Mr. Reinholtz was happy to have the sessions open if some of them could be closed, because he felt there might be times when personalities were discussed and that should be done in closed session. It was also agreed that meetings would try to be every other week for at least two hours. The Council had no objections to page 1. On page 2, Mr. Farrar said it was the Council's position that sergeants were a legitimate part of management in this case and should not be part of the same collective bargaining unit as labor. Mr. Reinholtz did not dispute that they had supervisory duties, but he said that in the industrial as well as in the public sector, first line supervisors are in the first line bargaining unit. He also said that several of the sergenats wanted to be part of the unit. It was decided that this item would be dropped for the time being and discussed further later. Mr. Farrar said the Council would have some changes to propose for Article II at the next meeting. On page 4, section 3, Mr. Farrar said they would like some clarifying language he noted that permission from the Chief has to be granted and said they would like to add a section that "permission will not be withheld unreasonably". The Council will work on the appropriate wording. There were no problems with pages 5, 6 or 7. On page 8, Mr. Farrar noted that the Association had asked for deductions to be remitted on a fixed schedule. Generally the Council feels that is reasonable, although the city currently has some data processing problems. They would like language in that section to show the intent, but not to bind the city to do something it is not going to be able to do, at least for some time. On page 9, Mr. Farrar asked what a 4 and 2 schedule was. Mr. Hayes said it meant that an officer would work 4 consecutive days and have 2 days off, so his days off would change from week to week. It would give an officer from 12-18 more days off per year. Mr. Hayes said he could make copies of a sample schedule and give them to the Council before the next meeting. Section 4 on that page was not a problem, but Mr. Farrar spoke to section 2. He felt that having the schedule posted two weeks ahead of time would be OK if no one came in after it was posted and asked for comp time, vacation time, or days off. If the police want the freedom to ask for time off on short notification, it would make the schedule very hard to work out, Mr. Reinholtz said they could give some thought to that but he felt it was not always a question of lack of time or manpower that lead to shifts not being posted two weeks in advance and the members wanted an opportunity to know when they would be working a reasonable period ahead of time. They do not mind an arbitrary change in schedule, but they want to know why the change occurred. This will be discussed further. Back on the 4 and 2 schedule, Mr. Reinholtz said they would consider another type of schedule. They want a reasonable one, and are not looking for 18 extra days off. The extra time off could be made up a number of ways during the year so the average work week is 40 hours. On page 10, the unlimited accumulation of comp time was discussed. Mr. Farrar wanted to work out a link between vacation and comp time because the city did not want to get in the position where an employee with a great deal of accumulated time could ruin the budget. Mr. Reinholtz noted that the last sentence in section 6 was not intended to mean that an employee could decide to take all his time and just leave the next day. On page 11, section 9 the Council asked about on-call status. Mr. Reinholtz said that being on call meant an officer had to be close to his phone so he could call back immediately and it was their position that if an officer had to be close to his phone, he was working. This applies to detectives, of which there are two on the force. One is on call every other week. Mr. Burke said they were on call an extra 40 hours a week. If they work the 4 pm to 12 midnight shift, for example, they might be on call from 12 to 8, including Saturdays and Mondays. They cannot go to movies or go very far from the city because they have low watt portable pages. He felt it might be different if they could go 25-30 miles away while on call. He noted they could not drink while on call. Some weeks they are not called at all and some weeks they may be called in 3 or 4 times. For being on call, they are paid $15 per week and Mr. Reinholtz said it cost them $865 per year compared to call- back time at time and 1/2 pay. The question of extra duty work was discussed. The Council has no position on that issue yet. Mr. Reinholtz stated that it was not the intent to take any powers from management. The officers just want equity, clarity, some control and physical protection. Mr. Farrar said one alternative was for the men to stay out of the off- duty business totally, but he did not think that would serve the interests of the police or the community. Another possibility is to disassociate the city from the process and have the bargaining unit called whenever anyone wanted a policeman. He did not think that was a good alternative either, since the city is still legally responsible for the men. The third alternative is to say that the city will provide police service and pay the men at the overtime rate. The person requesting such service will then be billed by the city. Mr. Reinholtz said they would like to discuss the alternatives. The salary schedule format was discussed. Mr. Reinholtz said the problem now was that no one could get to the maximum allowed in the present schedule. No one is even close, he said. Mr. Farrar took issue with that, saying that the top could be reached if people came in reasonably young and stayed until retirement. Mr. Reinholtz also said the salary raises had been outstripped by inflation by 26% since 1972. He also noted that the police were not opposed to merit increases but they also felt that longevity was worthy of consideration. They feel that merit is above and beyond and they now feel that the method of computing salaries is not doing the job and that there should be some longevity step movement. He also noted that last year the agreed increase had been 7%, but that not many of the officers had actually received 7%. Some had gotten 6.9%, etc. There is room for discussion on how many steps there should be, the percentage increase between them, and on how merit fits into the schedule. The police sometimes get merit raises but feel there is no explanation or justification as to who gets what. They feel the increases are arbitrary and they do not know what they must do to get the largest raises. Page 13, section 6 was then discussed. Mr. Farrar said the city had been unable to find a correlation between the degree of education a policeman had and his successful performance of his duty. He did not feel it was the city's obligation or part of the compensation to pay for people's desires to obtain education and said that management should take care of any specific training courses the employees required. It is also the position of the city that they would like to arrange schedules so people could take courses, but they do not feel that compensation for their jobs should be tied to their educational levels or that the city should pay them to obtain education. Mr. Reinholtz said that 25 years ago policemen with degrees were virtually unheard of, but law enforcement has changed, and educated people make better officers. In a growing city like South Burlington, the patrolman with a high school education finds it virtually impossible to be promoted and remain with the force for 30 years. He also felt that training courses were not adequate for a city like South Burlington. He said education was essential to give the Council and the city the kind of force it wanted. Mr. Farrar felt that if a college degree was necessary for the work, it should be required when hiring policemen now, and that is not the case. The city feels it has many officers who did not go to college who do adequate jobs. They find it difficult to say that an officer who did go to college should be treated differently than one who did not. Mr. Farrar thought the Council would rather reward the man who did his job well than pay him to go to college. Mr. Flaherty added that the program the contract called for was very open-ended. Mr. Reinholtz said courses would have to be job-related and they were willing to make the controls tight on the program. Regarding Article XI, Mr. Farrar felt this addition of two holidays was a way to increase the hourly wage and was part of the total salary increase. On page 16, Mr. Farrar asked how much of a problem section 7 caused in scheduling. He was told there is a special holiday season schedule. The Council had no problem with sections 1 and 3 on page 17. Mr. Farrar asked if it would create a problem as far as vacations and holidays if they were scheduled on the basis of seniority alone. He pointed out that younger officers might be more limited as to when they could take vacations, and that might mean they could not vacation with their children in the summer. Mr. Reinholtz wanted to give senior officers a choice with vacations, but did not want to shut out others. They will work on some language for the next meeting. On page 18 the Council did not object to the change but did not want it to be effective as of the signing of the contract. Money will have to be put in the budget for the guns. The Council had no position on page 19 now. They feel an adjustment to section f. is reasonable but would like to look it over a little more and then propose something. The detectives are also asking for a complete summer and winter outfit (1 shirt, 1 pair of pants), for the times they need to be in uniform. These outfits should last a long time because they will rarely be used. On page 20, section 3, there is a change in the amount paid for the cleaning of uniforms. The present allowance has covered the legitimate cleaning requirements unless there has been unforseen action. In the past the system has worked well, but cleaning costs are going up. Mr. Farrar suggested that uniforms be cleaned once a week and the bills sent to the city, without a dollar amount being in the contract for it. The Council felt section 5 should have new language and section 6 should have "adequate" defined. The Council is thinking about section 4. They feel the section has merit but are not sure the contract should spell out what should be carried. Mr. Reinholtz said the shotgun requested was standard in the nation. On page 22 the Council agreed with the concept of having overtime distributed equitably among those who wished it, but they are not sure seniority is the best way to handle it. If the city's concept were to be put in the contract, section 7 would not apply, because it would be a police function. On page 23, there was no problem with section 3. Mr. Hayes said there had been a problem with section 4 and they wanted clarification of that. The burden is on the employee to ask for his check early. Mr. Farrar felt there should be a time period within which the employee had to ask and said the bookkeeper should be consulted on that point. Section 5 allows an employee to carry over only 15 days vacation time each year. If he has more, it is lost. On section 6, Mr. Paulsen felt perhaps employees should have to take 5 consecutive days and then the balance could be taken by days. Page 24 will be discussed further later. There are no problems with sections 5 and 6 on page 25. Mr. Farrar said the comments on holidays and vacations applied to page 26 also. It also has a bearing on the scheduling requests. The Council has not yet discussed page 27. Page 28 is no problem. The Council needed more time on page 29. They feel the objective is good but want to be sure where they are. The same comment applies to Article XX. On page 35, Mr. Flaherty wanted to be sure about A. He was told that would cost $55 per year for the bargaining unit. Mr. Farrar felt the city was already covered for what section 4 asked, page 36. The City Attorney is looking into the insurance situation regarding policemen acting in a police capacity in a private situation, because the city wants to be sure it is covered. In Article XXII, the Council say no problem with items 14, 15, and 16. They would like to discuss section 18 with the City Attorney. On page 40, Mr. Farrar said they might like to have a time period on the duration of this contract of longer or shorter than a year and he said it might be reasonable to limit the number of items either side could bring up every year. Messrs. Reinholtz and Farrar TAed the items agreed on and dated them. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.