Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/01/1980CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 1, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, December 1, 1980 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, John Towne, Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lisa Guerriero, Carol Sokolowski, James Goddette, Dave Abrams, Ken Jarvis, Pat Brennan, Lansing Reinholz, Stephen Burke, Kevin Hayes, Wayne Parizo, Paul Meade, Peter Lavallee Agenda additions Mr. Ken Jarvis was interested in appointment to the Airport Master Plan Review Committee and his name was added to the list of applicants. Mr. Farrar had some items he wanted to discuss on the next agenda, so an item was added headed - New Business for the Next Meeting. Item #6 was also moved to the end of the agenda. Minutes of November 17, 1960 Mr. Burgess moved to accept the November 17, 1980 minutes and Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Interview applicants Natural Resources Committee David Abrams - Mr. Abrams said he had grown up in the city. He wants to be involved in the city and is an outdoorsman. He liked what the Committee had done and felt he could provide some good input and ideas. He said one thing he would like to do is to help keep motorized vehicles off the pedestrian trails in the city. He stated that he had the time for the meetings and that, if not appointed to this board, he might be interested in another position. D. Phillips Wells - Mr. Wells was not present. Airport Master Plan Review Committee John (Pat) Brennan - Mr. Brennan said he had an interest in aviation and that he was a neighbor of the airport, as he lived in Country Club Estates. He has seen the airport's Master Plan and is interested in its effect on the city. He wanted to have actions taken which would be in the best interests of both the city and the airport and he wanted to be sure there was a good long range plan for the airport so that everyone would know what was going to happen. Mr. Farrar assumed that the committee would be an active participant in the process of updating the Master Plan, but that it would be an advisory panel which would work with the airport staff to work on the Plan. Mr. Brennan said he had lived in the city since 1967 and that he had the time to serve on the committee. Ken Jarvis - Mr. Jarvis said that he had served on this committee in 1974 when the original Plan was being drafted. He noted that it was an advisory position only. Mr. Jarvis said he also was a neighbor of the airport and was involved in flying as a hobby. He also has been a member of the Vermont Aeronautics Board in the past, which board no longer exists. Mr. Jarvis also reported that security at the airport had not yet been discussed with South Burlington officials. Public hearing on amendments to City Sign Ordinance Mr. Paulsen moved to dispense with the formal reading of the ordinance and Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Mr. Farrar noted that the amendments replaced the present Sign Review Board with the Code Officer, which is what, in effect, is done today. It was also noted that the portion of the Ordinance dealing with trucks used as signs was not in front of the Council for consideration at this time. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the second reading of the amendments to the City Sign Ordinance as printed. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted aye. Review Planning and Zoning agendas There were no comments. Review draft dated November 25, 1980 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations Mr. Farrar said a request had been made that these be reviewed by a representative of the police department and that will be done. It was noted that the City Attorney had felt that a policy regarding doctors' slips being required after a certain length of illness be set down. Mr. Flaherty felt that what an extended illness was needed to be defined. It was noted that the rules had said that it was 5 days, but that was changed to 3. Mr. Paulsen favored 3 consecutive days with a slip every week after that. Mr. Flaherty noted that that would be at the city's expense. He also noted that a flu could keep a person out for 3 days. Mr. Burgess moved to change the following in the second full paragraph on page 16 - in the fifth line, change "three" to "five", in the seventh line, change "may" to "shall", and remove the words "at the discretion of the City Manager". Mr. Towns seconded the motion. The question of the fire department personnel was raised and Mr. Farrar said it would be different for them because of the way their work schedule is. After some discussion it was decided to leave the wording as it is and if there is a problem later, it can be changed. The motion carried unanimously. The question of how many sick days had to be carried on the books before some could be exchanged for vacation days was raised. It was noted that the intent of the Council had been that 100 should be on the books at all times. Mr. Szymanski said, however, that the way it is worded in the rules is how it is worded in the police contract. Mr. Paulsen moved that on page 16 the words "of those in excess of 100" be added to the last line of the third full paragraph between "year" and "for". Mr. Burgess agreed with Mr. Paulsen in principal, but noted that the former wording was how it was with the police and he felt that should be universally applied. Mr. Flaherty agreed with Mr. Paulsen also but felt that it should not be changed for the sake of consistency. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Szymanski said there was still a problem with vacation time (pg 14). When 1 year is completed, a person has 2 weeks vacation, he also has two weeks when the second, third and fourth years are completed. When the fifth year is completed, he gets 3 weeks vacation. It was suggested that the wording be "1 year but less than 6 years, two weeks vacation," etc. The practice is that the vacation is not taken until the time has been completed and Mr. Szymanski said that now all vacation time was counted against the anniversary year. Mr. Burgess raised another possible problem - he noted that this might be interpreted to read that at the end of the fifth year an employee could take 2 weeks vacation and that the day after their sixth anniversary they might want to take 3 weeks vacation, giving them 7 weeks vacation in one year. He felt the rules should specify that the earned vacation has to be earned between given anniversary dates. Mr. Szymanski was asked to work out some wording for this section and send it to the police. Business for Next Meeting Mr. Farrar asked that someone from the Air National Guard be asked to attend the next meeting to explain what was happening with the F4's. Mr. Brennan asked to be informed of that meeting and was told it would probably be 2 weeks from tonight. Regarding sewer charges, Mr. Farrar felt the city would break even this year on operating expenses vs. income, but he noted that in the past there has been a surplus which has been applied to debt service. He felt the Council should think about whether, if that is to be a policy, the sewer charges should be adjusted. Police Grievance Hearing Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Reinholz whether the police wished the meeting to be in public or executive session and was told that they wanted it to be public. Mr. Farrar said he understood that the grievance was over the rate of pay for an employee who was working scheduled overtime as a patrolman. The employee involved is a detective and was paid time and a half at a patrolman's rate, not a detective's rate. Mr. Steve Burke is the employee in question and he said that Lieutenant Searles had contacted him to work scheduled overtime from 3 am to 8 am to augment the uniformed shift. He was called because his was the name up next on the overtime list. The next Wednesday he received 2 paychecks. One was a holiday check and one was his normal paycheck, but it seemed low, so he checked with his supervisor and Mr. Searles. He was told that the two checks were the result of the computer not being programmed to pay overtime and holiday pay together. Mr. Burke said his regular paycheck contained overtime for 5 hours at time and a half a patrolman's rate, not a detective's rate. He then checked with the chief of police, the city bookkeeper, the City Manager's secretary, and then with the City Manager, who noted that the work done was that of a patrolman, not a detective. Mr. Burke told the Council that at that point he had decided to pursue the grievance through regular channels. He felt this was not a personal problem with the Manager, just a dispute over the rate of pay. Mr. Burke noted that this was not the first dispute in which he had been involved. In the same pay period he had had a dispute over the separate check for holiday pay and about deductions from that check. Mr. Burke spoke with Mr. Reinholz, who talked to the City Attorney, who directed City Hall to make deductions from overtime and holiday pay. Mr. Reinholz said that one issue of the grievance was whether Mr. Burke had been discriminated against because of his union activities and he said that in this case they felt that he had been, in that this was one in a series of events where he was given treatment not given to others. He said other people had been paid their regular rate of pay for work done in a lower classification, that Mr. Burke was the only one to receive a holiday check without deductions and that he was the only one to receive a separate holiday check. Mr. Farrar felt there was probably a technical reason that this had happened, since it occurred at the time of the other incident. Mr. Reinholz felt there had been a series of events with regard to Mr. Burke - the separate check, no deductions from the holiday pay check, and the lower rate of pay for the overtime. The lack of deductions is a problem as far as taxes are concerned. Mr. Kevin Hayes is a patrolman for the city. He said that on November 16 he and Corporal Parizo had split a shift. They performed the same work but the corporal received corporal's pay and Mr. Hayes received patrolman's pay. Mr. Hayes also noted that when he had done dispatching work, which is a lower grade than his, he was paid his normal rate of pay. This was not overtime work, though. Mr. Reinholz then went through a list of points in regard to contract violations (see attached copy). He said that no one had ever been paid at a lower rate of pay for overtime work than his regular rate. Mr. Flaherty asked about working at a higher grade and was told that the contract called for payment at the higher rate in that case. It was noted that detectives do not receive overtime, but rather are given a $30 per week stipend to cover that. Article IX, section 15, Mr. Reinholz contended, was worded as it is to allow detectives to receive overtime pay. He also noted that no member could recall a time when an employee received anything other than his regular rate of pay times 1 and 1/2 for overtime work. He felt this had been established as a past practice which could not be violated without violating the contract. Mr. Reinholz said the remedy would be to pay the extra $9 involved and to adhere to the contract in future. Mr. Burgess asked about the holiday check being separate and was told by the City Manager that he thought that had happened to others in the city before. Mr. Reinholz said he felt the City Bookkeeper had discriminated against Detective Burke, but that that would be stricken from the grievance if the union could be shown that such was not the case. Mr. Farrar felt there were two issues here - the one of the compensation and the one of discrimination because of union activities. He felt these could be handled as separate issues. Mr. Reinholz agreed there were two issues here. Mr. Farrar felt that he needed more information on one issue and asked that the Bookkeeper be present at the next meeting to discuss why two checks were issued. He added, however, that he was aware of times that that had happened to other people in the city and he felt there might be another explanation for it. In regards to the compensation, Mr. Farrar did not feel he had need of more information and the Council agreed. On the issue of the two checks and the possible discrimination, Mr. Farrar suggested that that be discussed at the next regular meeting and Mr. Reinholz agreed to that. Mr. Burgess felt that legally the Council could agree with the Manager, but that he personally felt that when people worked at a lower grade, they should receive their regular rate of pay. Mr. Flaherty agreed. Mr. Paulsen asked whether the time sheets indicated what job was done in regard to overtime and was told they did not. It was noted that in that case the person making out paychecks would have no way to tell what job was performed when a person put in for overtime normally. Detectives are treated differently when it comes to overtime, however, so that is the only time when the person making out checks would be aware that the work performed was at a lower grade. If the time sheet in this case had not identified Mr. Burke as working overtime as a patrolman, he would not have received any overtime pay at all because as a detective he is not paid overtime. The time cards do not show how much overtime detectives work as part of their normal duties. Mr. Burgess moved that with respect to grievance 807 the City Council finds for the plaintiff in regard to the first part of this grievance in respect to the rate of pay of Detective Burke while serving as a patrolman working overtime on October 14. The City Council finds that he should be compensated at the rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for the time in question. It is also the intent of the Council that in future instances where an employee other than a supervisory employee works temporarily at a job of a lesser code level that he be compensated at his normal rate of pay. Mr. Towne seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Mr. Towne then moved to continue the hearing on the second part of the grievance for two weeks, at which time the City Manager will ask the City Bookkeeper to explain the computer program. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Farrar felt there was an area for reasonable doubt in the interpretation of these issues and that this action was in no way to say that the Manager's interpretation had not been reasonable. Mr. Reinholz asked about negotiating the next contract and was told the Council would be in touch with the union after the first of the year. Old business The budget item of $40,000 for computer expenses was discussed. Make appointments to Natural Resources Committee and Airport Master Plan Review Committee Mr. Flaherty moved to appoint David Abrams to fill a three year term, to expire in June of 1983, on the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all were in favor. Mr. Flaherty then moved to appoint Ken Jarvis and Pat Brennan as co-representatives to the Airport Master Plan Review Committee. Mr. Burgess seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.