Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/02/1982CITY COUNCIL MARCH 2, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 2, 1982 at 8:00 pm in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Howard Perkett Members Absent William Burgess, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Thomas Fraga, Charles Balserus, Kevin Hayes, Peter Lavallee, Greg Mitchell Meet with Police Department Association to continue review of contract Mr. Reinholz said he had drafted some possible language on two of the items discussed at the last meeting and he gave copies to the Council. It was agreed to drop Section 7 in Article IX and add Section Id as proposed by Mr. Reinholz. The draft regarding Article III was discussed, and Mr. Farrar said he had no problem with it as long as it was understood that "City Attorney" meant anyone in the City Attorney's office. Mr. Reinholz said that was fine with the union, so there was agreement on both of those proposals. Mr. Reinholz asked whether in Article IX, Section 15 it had been a mistake to include juvenile officers and was told that was correct. Mr. Farrar asked whether the union had felt that the language would be OK if sergeants were not counted and Mr. Reinholz said that was right. Mr. Reinholz said there was some confusion on Article XI, Section 2a. Mr. Szymanski said that now the procedure was to pay everyone for 48 hours for a week with a holiday in it, and at the end of the year to pay them the additional overtime compensation for another 4 hours. This would not change the compensation, just the method of payment. Policemen would be paid during the holiday week. Mr. Reinholz said he understood that and was not hung up on doing that. Article XII - Mr. Reinholz said the union could accept the city's second paragraph, because he felt the aim of the association and of the city was the same. He felt the two sides were in agreement on some of the criteria, but one thing neither proposal takes into consideration is promotional positions below sergeant. He noted that there seemed to be problems wife promotions to corporal and detective. He asked whether the city's proposal included corporals, detectives and juvenile officers and was told it did. Mr. Farrar said it applied to any rank above the rank of the person applying for the job. He said the Council had no position on lateral moves. At this point the union left the room to discuss the contract. When the union returned, they told the Council of problems with past promotions in terms of procedures and of getting the best people for the jobs. The union wanted to know what the criteria in the city's proposal meant and wanted some expansion on the terms. Mr. Farrar asked if there were any items the union did not want used as criteria and was told they did not see anything which should be excluded, if the items were expanded upon. Mr. Reinholz asked whether the 70 points in the city's proposal was 70 out of 100 and was told it was. Mr. Reinholz felt that was part of the framework which could be worked out. He said that, with regard to the city's last sentence, the union would be willing to include a grievance procedure just to the City Council level. They feel that without an avenue of appeal they are no better off than they are now. The Council decision would be final and binding. Mr. Perkett asked whether the Council could decide to un-promote someone who had been promoted and Mr. Farrar felt this issue needed more thought. It might be more reasonable to allow someone to appeal what they feel is an unfair evaluation. Mr. Reinholz asked about someone receiving a score of 87, feeling it was fair, and then finding out that the person promoted had received 71. Mr. Farrar did not think that could happen the way this would work. Mr. Reinholz said that if that were so, he felt this could be ironed out. He said the union would be content if the promotion were one of the top 3, for example. Mr. Farrar felt the Council should talk to the Chief about this item and ask for his input. Mr. Reinholz asked if there was a discrepancy between the first paragraph of the city's, and the appeal process in the last one. Mr. Farrar said the city wanted to preserve its right to control promotions, but they also want to improve the present situation, so he saw no discrepancy. Mr. Perkett felt the language in this article allowed the city to go outside the city to hire someone. Mr. Farrar felt the appeal process language should be worked on, as well as having some wording added to who gets the promotion. He asked that Mr. Minnich and the Chief work on this. He felt the city and union agreed on the philosophy of this article. Mr. Reinholz said the union would like the test scores made available. The Council did not object to candidates knowing their own scores, but they were not sure the scores should be posted for all to see. The union felt that if the contract said one of the top three would be promoted, they wanted to be sure that one of the top three was, in fact, promoted. It was noted that it might be best if the evaluations were done before the written tests. It was decided that one of the union members would poll the others to see how people felt about posting test scores. Mr. Perkett said he was against that philosophically. Article XIII - It was noted that Section 1Cd should read "gloves" in the city's proposal, not "boots". Mr. Farrar noted that the city was trading guns and that they would also be receiving new holsters. Mr. Hayes felt there were potential problems with the holsters which were coming. He did not want the city to waste money on what might turn out to be bad holsters. Mr. Reinholz said that now that the union had brought this to the city's attention, they would drop their proposal on it. Section 1b was discussed. Mr. Hayes asked why the city did not want the wording regarding the revolver. He was told the city did not want to specify the model. At this time the bargaining unit again left the room. Mr. Reinholz noted, when the union returned, that although this is not a big issue, the union would like to hold out on the "357" language for the time being. When the new guns come in, they will be willing to drop the language. Sections 7 and 8 were discussed. Mr. Minnich said protective screens were included in next year's budget. Mr. Hayes said the lights requested in Section 8 were high intensity lights which could be used to light up the interior of the vehicle in front of the police. The policy previously had spotlights, but the bulbs were expensive and the intensity has been changed. The alley lights requested are mounted on the side of the car and would be helpful in accident scenes or going around buildings and through car lots. The union feels these are officer safety issues. Mr. Farrar asked about buying larger bulbs for the existing lights and was told that would alter the situation. Mr. Farrar said the city would look into this more. Article XV - Mr. Reinholz noted that both proposals on Section 4 were the same. Mr. Farrar wondered if the union was pricing itself out of the market, but they did not feel they were. Mr. Reinholz asked about the union's proposal on 4B. Mr. Flaherty felt that was between the union and the people they worked for. He did not want the city to have to pay for the extra hours. Mr. Fraga said the union did not deal with outside people anymore - the administration does that. Mr. Reinholz said the city would not be liable for the extra hours. Article XVII - Mr. Reinholz asked if the city had a problem with the first part of Section 8 and Mr. Farrar did not think so. Mr. Minnich noted that other city unions had guidelines on creating positions in their unions, but Mr. Farrar felt language could be worked out on that. He did not object to the spirit of Section 8. Section XVIII - Mr. Reinholz asked why the city had proposed elimination of the banking feature and was told the city wanted to keep the numbers the same for all areas of the city. Mr. Reinholz suggested making them all have the banking language rather than eliminating it for the police. Section XIX - Mr. Reinholz said the city and union agreed on the first three paragraphs. The union was willing to add the city's language in Step 2, and to change the wording in Step 3 to agree with the city's proposal. Both Sections 5 are the same. Section 6 contains the same deletion, but the union has added wording to replace the other language. Mr. Reinholz said the union has not yet, in the grievance procedure, had a chance to examine the member of management involved in the grievance. Mr. Farrar noted that any evidence presented regarding a grievance was presented at an open, legally warned, public hearing or at a continuation of the first hearing. He said there might be a communication problem and that it had not been the city's intention to exclude the union. Mr. Reinholz asked whether it was unreasonable for the union to request that the Council have present a specific member of the administration, so the union could examine him/her. Mr. Farrar did not think it was unreasonable, but noted that having someone specific present might require the Council to postpone the meeting. Mr. Reinholz said that if that was understood, they would drop the language. Mr. Farrar said it should be understood that if there is a grievance the union should be given a special invitation to any continuation. He felt that if the Council was going to talk to someone, the union should also be able to. He added that the normal procedure would be that if the union wanted information, it would direct its request through the Chairman of the Council. Section 7 was deleted. Section 10 is the same in both proposals. Mr. Farrar said the Council was not sure it could meet with the union next Tuesday, but Mr. Reinholz suggested that a meeting that day at 7:30 pm be tentatively scheduled and if the Council could not make it, they would let the union know. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SBPOA DRAFTS ARTICLE I11 SECTION 5 THE SBPOA AND THE CITY WILL IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE OF FIVE (5) PIEX'IBERS TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF A POLICE OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS. TKE COMMITTEE WILL BE MADE UP OF TWO (2) MEMBERS APPOINTED BY EACH PARTY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY SERVING AS THE CHAIRMAN* THE COMMITTEE WILL ISSUE ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PARTIES NO LATER THAN AUGUST 1, 1982. THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE ASSOCIATION WILL IMMEDIATELY REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ISSUE FOR TJE PURPOSE OF ITS INCLUSION IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT* ARTICLE IX FOR ADD: Section 3dr ANY TRAINING TIME WORKED BEYOND THOSE HOURS DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SECTIONS* (DROP Section 7)