Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/19/1982CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 19, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Mini-conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Members Absent Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Richard Carter, Police Chief; Brian Searles, Lansing Reinholz, Charles Balserus, Kevin Hayes, Thomas Fraga, Paul Meade Agenda addition The following item was added to the agenda: Meet in Executive Session to discuss the Council response to the proposals and to then adjourn without taking action. Meet with Police Association to review contract Mr. Reinholz passed out copies of proposed groundrules for negotiations. The union proposes to meet every week. Mr. Farrar felt that the two sides should meet two weeks from tonight and that after that it could be every week. Mr. Burgess felt it might be hard to meet every week because of scheduling conflicts on the part of the Council but Mr. Reinholz said the union was flexible on it. Mr. Farrar did not want to sign off any portions of the contract until the City Attorney had a chance to review it. Mr. Minnich questioned the rule regarding press releases and was told that last year neither party went to the press. Mr. Marvin questioned the rule about speaking through the chief spokesman and was told that that was just to insure that 10 people were not speaking at once. Mr. Reinholz passed out copies of the proposals at this point. He noted that the handout contained only those sections of the contract to which a change was proposed by the union. Anything not proposed for a change would remain in the contract. He stated that anything underlined was proposed to be deleted and anything in capital letters the union wanted added. Mr. Reinholz then went over the changes. He noted that the language in Article V was there because this has not been done by the city. Either the union has done it, or it has not been done at all. The wording in Article VII is no longer appropriate, he said. Mr. Reinholz said, with regard to Article VIII, that in-service training, if it is done, is with a weapon other than the officer's own weapon, which makes no sense in terms of practicing. He also noted that some officers carried the same ammunition with them for 2 years and that ammunition did deteriorate over time. Training each quarter would help turn the ammunition over and insure it is fresh. Mr. Reinholz said the wording in Article IX was a response to the present provisions which do not allow an officer to accumulate comp time over a certain number of hours. Mr. Reinholz noted that there was an appendix attached to the proposal which dealt with pay. The new plan would eliminate levels of pay within a grade. Now there are 4 levels based on evaluations, but everyone in the union is a level 3, so the union is proposing that salaries be based on level 3. The pay increase proposed by the union is 12% increase on the base. Mr. Reinholz noted that Article X, section 3 proposed that elevation to the next pay grade be automatic after 5 years, then 10, and then 15 years. The union sees this as a way for a long-term employee to be jumped a salary category. Mr. Reinholz said section 2 was so there was at least minimum compensation for serving as a shift commander. Section 7 in this article was an important item to the union, Mr. Reinholz said. Usually, if an officer is assigned to duty outside the city it is for hazardous duty and the police feel they should be compensated for that. This is not meant to apply when they chase someone across the city line or when there is an accident and they are asked to help. Neither is it meant to apply to court duty. Mr. Szymanski asked about officers assigned to help other communities on a specific case, such as happened last year in Essex Junction. Mr. Reinholz said he would have to discuss it with the membership and get back to the Council. Article XII proposed a promotional plan. The union is very concerned with regard to the way promotions are handled. There is a lot of confusion on the matter and this is an attempt to define the procedure so it is understandable. The union just wants the procedure clarified and it is open to suggestions on it. In Article XIII, Mr. Reinholz noted that the officers had new weapons but old holsters and the holsters were inadequate. The union wants protective screens between the front and back of the police cars and they also feel that "take down lights" and "alley lights" are important. An increase in the court duty rate is proposed in Article XIV and in Article XV, section 4 B, there have been problems with an officer being scheduled to work and being told he is not needed when he reports for work. Mr. Reinholz felt the officer should be paid something and the city should bill the agency which requested the service. Mr. Farrar asked for more information on that item. Article XIX concerns the grievance procedure. Mr. Reinholz said they had tried to make the number of days between filing and answering in the procedure uniform. He noted that the administration seemed to need time with regard to the grievance procedure. The union also proposes to eliminate one step which they feel is superfluous and expensive. Mr. Reinholz noted that there had been times that grievances went to the Council level and the Council heard witnesses that the union did not have a chance to cross-examine. He said the witnesses had not been present at the first hearing, but at the continuation, when the union was not present. It was pointed out that all Council meetings are warned and are open to the public and that when a meeting is continued, it is usually continued to a specific date and time. Mr. Farrar felt this might be a problem of notification. In Article XX, Mr. Reinholz said that if an unjust action such as discipline or discharge were taken against an employee and he/she were found innocent, all material relating to the charge should be removed from the files. Mr. Farrar noted that if the grievance got to the Council level, there would be a record of it in the minutes. Mr. Reinholz said those would not be changed, just the files. Mr. Minnich felt this issue could be addressed by defining what a personnel file was, and then any other files would be immaterial. Mr. Reinholz felt that was a good idea. The Police officers bill of rights was discussed. Mr. Reinholz said this was only to apply to internal affairs. The union feels this gives them the same rights civilians have. In Article XXI, Mr. Reinholz said the union wanted the retirement benefits spelled out. They are asking for additional insurance coverage, and Mr. Reinholz said they were grateful for the additional dental benefits given by the city last year, but everyone who took advantage of the plan this year found it cost more than it would have under the old plan, so they are requesting a return to the old plan, or a continuation of this with employees paying no deductible. The union is requesting a supplemental retirement plan, a disability plan and some coverage for the family of an officer killed in the line of duty. In Article XXII, the union is requesting one book in which all orders and memos can be found. They are also requesting college credit reimbursement. Mr. Reinholz also noted that one of the most sensitive items in the department now was evaluations. The contract states clearly that there shall be evaluation conferences held, but in two years not a single conference has been held with the Chief of Police, which is a violation of the contract. Nothing has been done to improve the evaluation procedure, he said. He noted that the union wanted to retain the evaluation procedure, even though pay will not be based on it under their proposal, because promotions are still influenced by it. Mr. Reinholz said the union was proposing a 2 year contract with openers in the second year. Going back to Article XVII, section 8, Mr. Reinholz explained that this had been discussed in the 1980 negotiations. Disability retirement was discussed and the option of another job within the city was mentioned. The union is interested in having a job available in the city if an employee is disabled. It was decided to meet again on Tuesday, February 2, at 7:30 pm to discuss the contract. Meet in executive session to discuss the Council response to the proposals Mr. Burgess moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the Council response to the proposals and to adjourn after the executive session without taking action. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and all voted for it. At 9:30 pm the Council came out of executive session and adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.