Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/28/1981CITY COUNCIL MAY 28, 1981 CLARIFICATION At the end of these minutes, there is a statement which indicates that Mr. Towne would favor using funding for the Southern Connector for Dorset Street. He noted that he did not oppose the Connector but he felt this project might hurt the city's financial ability to deal with other roads in use presently in the city. The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, May 28, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen Member Absent John Towne Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Charles Balserus, Peter Lavallee, Kevin Hayes, Robert Hawke Executive session - police department The Council met briefly in executive session before they met with the police union. Regular session with police union The Council came out of executive session to meet with the police union in regular session. Mr. Farrar asked whether the union felt they would have a complete agreement on all provisions of the extension of the contract, provided that the base offered by the Council was increased by 1% additional, and that is only the base, not the increments. Mr. Reinholz said that was correct, and noted that the Council had said the detective's stipend could be made retroactive. Mr. Farrar said that was correct and that it sounded like the two parties had an agreement. Mr. Reinholz said he would like to talk with the union members and they left the room briefly. When they returned, Mr. Reinholz noted that some language should be changed in Article 17, section 5. The language after and including "and then be eligible" should be removed. Mr. Farrar said a clean copy of the agreement would be made and sent to the union. Grievance #809 was discussed. Mr. Reinholz said they had a number of problems. He noted that the employees did not feel they had the right to determine staffing, but their concern is that once assignments are made, the provisions of the contract are filled. He felt Article 9, sections 3, 10, 13 and 14 prevailed. Mr. Reinholz said Mr. Lavallee was present on the night in question. Mr. Lavallee said that on April 1, Lt. Graham, the shift commander, came in and asked Mr. Balserus if he was working overtime. Mr. Balserus said he did not know he had to and Lt. Graham checked the overtime board and stated that no one was scheduled to work. Thus, there were only 3 working that night. Mr. Reinholz noted that the administration knew the person who was not present would not be in because he had been given the night off. Mr. Farrar asked whether it was the union's opinion that there was an unplanned change in staffing which came about because of something other than a plan that would therefore require someone to come in and fill the job. Mr. Reinholz said that was correct - Lt. Graham knew before hand that the officer would not work that night. Mr. Farrar asked whether things were done differently than normal and Mr. Reinholz said the union felt there were things done which had never, to the knowledge of Messrs. Lavallee and Hayes, been done before, in that the third shift commander had worked patrol. He added that this was bargaining unit work and that he had done the work for 8 hours. Mr. Reinholz said the lieutenant had taken one section of the city and patrolled for an entire shift. Mr. Reinholz referred to a letter from City Manager William Szymanski dated August 13, 1980 in regard to grievance #805, item #8 in that letter. Mr. Reinholz said this was scheduled overtime and if a substitution were going to be made, it should be made by the overtime list. The union does not contend that the person has to be replaced, but they contend that if he is, it has to be done by the overtime list. He added that in both the new and old Personnel Rules and Regulations the function of a lieutenant does not include patrol work. Mr. Farrar said he would like to discuss language with the city attorney and be sure they had all the facts, and then they would get back to the union. Discuss Southern Connector Mr. Flaherty said the highway department representatives had made a few minor changes to the road, such as putting the single lane over the double lane at the southern end of the project. This will save about $3 million. Mr. Farrar asked about only building a 2 lane road to begin with and Mr. Szymanski said the highway department did not feel they could do that because of the traffic volumes involved. There will be traffic signals and an at-grade crossing at Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Burgess moved that the Council accept the recommendation of the State Highway Department for configuration 5C, although the Council would obviously have preferred grade separation at Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted for it. Mr. Szymanski said Mr. Towne had said he would favor using funds from this project for repairing Dorset St. Mr. Szymanski will send a letter to the highway department informing them of this action, which was taken reluctantly by the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.