Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/23/1982CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 23, 1982 at 8:00 pm in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess, Howard Perkett Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Thomas Fraga, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus Meet with Police Department Association to continue review of contract Police negotiator Reinholz said the union was still unsure of what the percentage was in the retirement system in the city. The union feels the percentage was approved at 1.4 in April of 1979. Mr. Farrar said the city believed the percentage to be 1.3. In 1978 it is clear that there was an increase from 1 - 1.2 and in March of 1979, $8000 was set aside for the system, which would equal another increase of .1, for a total of 1.3. Mr. Flaherty said the percentage was listed at 1.2 and the Council will have that corrected. Mr. Reinholz said Mr. Lavallee has notes of a negotiating session at which retirement was discussed and his notes indicate that 1.4 was agreed on. He will see that those notes are given to the Council. Article I - Mr. Reinholz noted that both sides had proposed changes to Section 1. He said the union's change was an explanation that the definition could be changed if the agreement is changed. He felt the city's proposal was a zipper clause and said the union could not accept it. He felt the law was clear on what could be bargained for, so he did not know why the city wanted this clause. If the union agreed to accept the city's phrase, Mr. Reinholz said, then nothing outside the contract could be discussed, grieved or negotiated, and that would include past practices. The union has added its wording in Section 1 because it expects to have some questions on who is in or out of the unit. Mr. Farrar wanted to narrow down the points on which there is disagreement and he felt one way to do it would be to define all the things to argue about in writing, so both sides will know the ground rules for next year. Mr. Reinholz said the union did not want to change the certification order on the makeup of the bargaining unit, but as they get into negotiations, they are going to want to discuss job descriptions. For example, under the current descriptions one responsibility of a patrolman is to serve as a dispatcher, but dispatchers are excluded from being members of the bargaining unit because they are civilians. The union wants to include dispatchers in the unit or eliminate that responsibility from the patrolman's job description, except in emergencies. He felt the proposed language did not commit the city to including or excluding anyone - that it was just a clerical change because there may be changes to the bargaining unit as time goes on. Mr. Reinholz noted that the minimum staffing requested in Section 4 was because the union did not want the police department to bear the brunt of any budget cuts. He said the issue addressed in Section 5 was raised in an arbitration case. He felt the arbitration order did not solve the problem and he felt it left the door open to the union to pursue a second grievance over whether sergeants can drive patrol. Mr. Szymanski said that section would force the city to hire 3 more men and Mr. Minnich said the cost to the city would be close to $60,000. The union felt that cost was high, and said they would check their figures. Article II - Mr. Reinholz noted that there was no disagreement on the first three paragraphs. With regard to the list of management rights, however, he said a number of those items the city had already bargained away. He noted that equipment and uniforms had been bargained for in 1979, for example. He felt the city wanted to roll back things which had been agreed to and none of which have presented any problems for the city. Mr. Farrar asked him to specify which things have been provided before in the contract and are now being taken away. Mr. Reinholz said the city was trying to eliminate the union's right to bargain for some of the things they have already bargained for, such as equipment and uniforms. He felt the law was clear on what was bargainable and what was not, and with language, like this, the union would not be able to question things not in the contract. He felt the law gave management the protection it felt it needed and he said there had been no problems with the present language in the contract. Article III - Mr. Reinholz said the union would accept the city's proposal on Section 4B as written. In the city's proposal for Section 5, Mr. Farrar said the city felt considerable study would be needed from both sides before the Police Officials Bill of Rights was understood fully. He did not think the request was unreasonable, but was not sure the form of the answer to it. Mr. Minnich added that there was a bill before the Legislature which would deal with this issue. Mr. Farrar was asked what "study" meant and he suggested that a member of the bargaining unit be appointed Chairman of a committee to insure that the committee met. Mr. Reinholz asked whether the recommendation of the committee would be accepted as contract language and was told it would not. Mr. Burgess asked if this was a problem now and was told that it was a serious concern. An officer being investigated now is not told of the complaint against him. Putting a time frame on the study was mentioned. It was decided to set up a committee of no more than 5 people with the City Attorney to Chair. The union will appoint two people and the city will appoint two. The committee will study this and report back by August 1, at which time the recommendation will be taken into consideration for inclusion in the agreement. Article V - Mr. Reinholz said the present language did not do what the contract said it would do. The city has not provided the 1981-82 contract or amendments and the 1979-80 budget was not received until February. Mr. Marvin felt the city should decide what size to have the contract printed and he felt 60 days would be more reasonable than 30. Mr. Reinholz did not want a stapled copy - he wanted a sturdy contract. Mr. Minnich said there would be a loose-leaf book of all operations manuals, etc. from the police department and he asked whether the contract should be part of that. Mr. Reinholz did not want that. He wanted a bound contract. Mr. Marvin said the contract would be handed out in better form this time. Article VII - Mr. Hayes said there had been a problem with weekly deposits into checking accounts not being made weekly and that costs them money. Mr. Minnich said it was the intent to do it weekly, but there were times of the year when so many things were going on that it was hard to do. He felt things were getting better and he asked that the city be told promptly when there were problems. Mr. Reinholz agreed to drop the last sentence and leave the rest in. It was noted that the contract stated that credit union deposits be made weekly and Mr. Farrar, said that should be done. Article VIII - Mr. Reinholz said the union would accept the city's proposal, with the word "officer" instead of "patrolman". Article IX - Section 7 was discussed. Mr. Reinholz said that one problem with comp time was that so much accumulated that people never had a chance to take it. Mr. Burgess asked how many hours the average patrolman had and was told it was 36 hours as of February 14. He felt the city would be paying about 80 hours of time-and-a-half per person per year if they take the overtime. Mr. Farrar mentioned treating all comp time the same way. Mr. Minnich said the cost would be just over $1200 per year. Mr. Farrar did not object to changing the language to say that all comp time could be turned in for overtime. Mr. Reinholz said that if Section 7 were changed, Section 6 would have to be also. He and Mr. Farrar agreed to both try to come up with some wording on this. Mr. Farrar said the reason for the city's proposal on Section 1 was that the police would be paid immediately, not at the end of the year. Mr. Reinholz said the union would look at it. Section 15 was discussed. Mr. Reinholz noted that the city had proposed the language last year and the union had agreed. He did not know that it had been any problem, but he noted that the new language changed the rate. Mr. Farrar said it had not been the city's intent to include the juvenile officer. Mr. Reinholz did not want non-bargaining unit members included. Mr. Farrar felt the type of activity was such that people in that category provided the same general type of service and if another one is promoted during the year, the city would still have the same detective service. It was decided to meet next week at 7:30 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.