Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/04/1982CITY COUNCIL MAY 4, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, May 4, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Hugh Marvin, Howard Perkett, William Burgess Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Richard Carter, Police Chief; Lansing Reinholz, Charles Balserus, Kevin Hayes, Thomas Fraga Meet with Police Officers Association to continue discussion on contract Mr. Farrar stated that he had spoken with the School Superintendent and that use of the gym for the officers could be arranged. Mr. Minnich added that there would be some financial considerations, and that it would only be available during the time of year the school is open. Mr. Szymanski said he had checked on the use of the 8 hours of personal time and that almost everyone takes the full 8 hours. Some take it in hours here and there, but almost everyone takes the entire amount. Mr. Reinholz said the union would settle for 12 hours instead of the 16 they originally requested in Article XVII, Section 7. Mr. Reinholz said there had been a number of sections which were to be rewritten and he had done so. In Article XVII, Section 8, he noted that the union had agreed to having a disability policy not in the contract, as long as it could not be abolished without the union having some say about it. He read proposed wording to go in the contract on this. He stated that the language made it clear that the city would decide who was qualified for a position and that the city's obligation to other unions was covered. He noted that the Council had only wanted to give a disabled employee one refusal of a job, but said that could be part of the policy - the union agrees it should be that way. Mr. Perkett asked what would happen if the city wrote the policy after the contract was signed, and then the union did not like it - would that reopen the contract? Mr. Reinholz did not think so. Article XXI, Sections 2A and 2C - Mr. Reinholz said that if the city paid the deductible, the union would drop its proposal on 2A 1, 2, and 3. This was agreed. In Section 7 of that article the union is requesting 1.5% on the retirement and the city's position is that it is 1.3. Mr. Szymanski said this year the city would be paying $120,000 into the retirement system, and Mr. Minnich noted that next year they were looking at an additional $40,000 just to get the unfunded balance up. Mr. Farrar noted that he personally felt that it would be better to give people more money and let them decide if they wanted to put it towards retirement, since everyone can now have an IRA. Mr. Reinholz had a question on Article XXII, Section 6. He noted that the section on promotions and transfers indicated that the city would give credit to a person for having a college degree, but the union has never been able to obtain any money for such a degree and he wondered if that was an inconsistency. Mr. Reinholz said Section 18 of Article XXII would be settled when the city's Article 23 Section 3 a and b were settled. He noted that Article XXIII Section 2 was the same as the city's wording, except a sentence was moved around. Mr. Reinholz said the union had given the city a draft wording dated 3/23/82 in regard to Article XIII, Section 1Bb and Section d. He went over the proposed wording for Article 1, Section 4 and Article X, Section 1, as well as Article XII, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. At this time the union left the room so the Council could discuss the proposals. When the union returned, Mr. Farrar said he understood the concern in Article I, Section 4 to be that the city not do away with detectives or corporals. He felt Mr. Reinholz' proposal was reasonable if the following was added to it: "unless there is a reduction in force in the department.", and that was agreed. Mr. Farrar said that in the proposal for Article X, Section 1, the city proposed to put a period after the word "developed" and remove the rest of the sentence. The last sentence will remain. In the proposal for Article XVII, Section 8, the word "immediately" was replaced by "by July 1". In the proposal for Article XII, Section 4, Mr. Farrar said the city had a problem with that since it contravenes what was discussed in Article I, Section 4. This would force the city to carry positions forever. Mr. Reinholz said the union's concern was that some one would be appointed as an acting something indefinitely. Mr. Farrar understood the concern. Mr. Farrar said the city had no problem with Sections 5 and 6 of Article XII, but wanted to eliminate the last sentence of Section 7. It was felt it was up to the individual officers to give their scores to the union president if they wanted to. It was decided to add "and receive a copy" to the first sentence and remove the second sentence. There were no problems with Sections 8, 9, and 10. In Section 11, the city wanted to add "or equivalent" after the first three degrees, and that was agreed. As far as the draft dated 3/23, Mr. Farrar said the addition proposed for Article XIII, Section 1Bb was fine, but the city would like to remove the first sentence proposed for Article XIII, Section d. They would also like to combine 1 and 2 to say "The employee will receive a clothing allowance of $100 every 3 months from the time they are assigned temporarily." Thus, if they were assigned for less than 3 months, they would not receive an allowance. This was agreed. Mr. Reinholz said that in Section d the problem had been what "newly appointed" and "permanently assigned" meant in the contract - did it refer to the first day of assignment, or the end of the probation period? Mr. Burgess pointed out that the city agreed to pay the money the first day for a permanent assignment. Mr. Reinholz said that if everyone understood that permanently assigned meant from the first day a person filled the job, and that the assumption was that the person would succeed, they were all right on that point. In Article XIII, Section 1Be, Mr. Farrar said the policy now was that detectives were normally assigned a car if they were on call or on stand-by duty and that practice will continue. Mr. Reinholz said that was the union's intent and that they would take out the language if the practice continued. Mr. Burgess noted that it might not continue - he felt the city needed to have the option. He felt it was a policy or management matter. Mr. Reinholz noted that an officer, once called back to work, would not take his/her personal car to a scene. He said they would drop the language and will take action if the practice changes. Mr. Reinholz said they would drop Article I, Section 5, since Section 4 has been modified. In Article XXI, Section 9, Mr. Farrar asked if the union was concerned about an officer dying as a result of doing his duty. Mr. Reinholz said that was right - they don't feel this applies if the officer is sitting at home and dies. Death from a heart attack was discussed. It was decided to add the words "accidentally or as a direct result of an accident which occurred" after the word "dies" in the first sentence of that section. The word "retires" was also replaced with "reaches the age of eligibility for Medicare" in the last sentence of the section. Article XVII, Section 7 - Mr. Farrar said the city had the same position on this as before, feeling that it was just another vacation day. He asked for an example of business which could not be handled any time other than at work. Mr. Fraga noted that it was hard to schedule appointments in advance because of the rotating schedule worked and Mr. Reinholz mentioned having to go to court for a civil law case. Chief Carter noted that the department had nothing to do with civil law and that people called in on cases like that received travel money. Mr. Farrar said they would think about that one. He noted that the police feel their situation is different from other employees because they get called to go to civil court more often than the average citizen, by virtue of being sent to a scene in the line of their work. Mr. Reinholz asked why the city did not want to leave the sick bank (Article XVIII, Section 1) in the contract. He said that on July 1 an employee was credited with 18 sick days. Each month after that, he earned 1 1/2 of those days, so by June 30, he had earned his 18 days. Mr. Szymanski asked about an employee taking his sick time ahead and then quitting, owing the city money. It was noted that employees were paid behind 4 days and that the city would also have accrued vacation time. It was decided to leave this section as it was. Mr. Farrar said the city's position on Article XXII had not changed. Binding arbitration was discussed. Mr. Farrar noted that the union wanted to include language to say that if the two sides could not agree on economic issues, they could be arbitrated. He said the city's intent at the time the last contract was negotiated was that it would be the same way it was last year - that last year the openers would be subject to binding arbitration, but that would only apply to that year, the second one of the 2-year contract. The Council does not want to tie future Councils to binding arbitration forever. Mr. Reinholz said it could be negotiated out. He said the Council only wanted binding arbitration in the second year of a contract on openers. Mr. Farrar felt that what the city had agreed to last time was 1 year's binding arbitration for the next year, although the language may not say that. The Council is willing to consider language like that in this contract. He did not want language to say that economic issues were forever arbitrable. Mr. Reinholz said the clause could be bargained out at a session like this. Mr. Farrar noted that if the union did not agree to take it out, the current contract would remain in force until it was changed, so every year the union could submit salary demands to arbitration. Mr. Reinholz said that in that case the only thing ever to change in the contract would be economic issues, and he did not think any union would ever only want to change those. He said he was not opposed to bringing this issue to the table each time. Mr. Burgess noted that it had gotten into the contract by mistake. Mr. Reinholz said the following items were still open: Article X, Section 7, Article XVII, Section 7, Article XXII, Section 6, Article XXII, Section 18, and Article XXIII, Sections 3 a and b. The union left the room so the Council could discuss some of those items. When the union returned, Mr. Farrar said the Council felt the police department was different from other departments in that they may be sent to civil court more often, due to the nature of their job, which sends them to the scene frequently. The Council proposes to pay an officer the difference between his salary for the time lost and the witness fee for the time he is in court, starting when he gets to the court door and ending when he leaves. If an officer is paid travel time plus $50, for example, the city will pay the difference between that pay and his straight time pay for the time. Mr. Szymanski added that it would only apply to a case in South Burlington where the officer was called to the scene because he was on duty. Mr. Burgess said this would go with keeping only the 8 hours of personal time. As far as hazardous duty, Mr. Farrar felt the city had increased the protection given the officers by other changes to the contract. Regarding binding arbitration, Mr. Farrar said the Council would agree to it for next year and to having it be a discussion item at that point, where it could be mutually agreed to extend it another year. Mr. Reinholz felt that without a binding arbitration item, the city could refuse to sign a contract, and the union would never receive a raise. They could end up with money promised, but no signed contract. Mr. Minnich suggested that this item be run past the City Attorney. Mr. Reinholz felt perhaps changing the last sentence of the contract would solve the problem. It was decided to meet again on the contract next Tuesday, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. w TXCU I SSTI;ON $ The City agrees not to eliminate current positionrj. that would affeot . ? Ahl'XCU X S&TIOJl 1 IDA TO SUPOA kib~P(.9s&iL TU yearly Lneramnta paid on the ernp1oxwhi anniversary date wU be automatic until such time as a merit pay plan deemed reasonable, rational, workable and acce2table to both the City and the sBPOA is developeb laaa+- New eaployees will be afr'wted by tho above provision oaly after one year of service, URTZCU XVU S&TION 8 The City will evelop and institute a policy on the re-employment of City employees disabled and not able to return to their former positions(1n this case, police officers), The policy must be acceptable to the bBTU and will include a provision affording a disabled police officer with tha opportunity , to return to the police department as a civUaa employeo at She first opportunity in a position for which ha/she is qualified. a AhTLCIJE XI1 SECTION 4- The city agrees to fill all vacancies for which SBPU members are \ 1 eligible or for wU:h the Association bargains as aoon as reasonably sRer rho date that a vacancy commences but in rmpae ( later than ninety (90) days from that date. Tha City and the iiBrCO \my mutually agee to an exteasion of the tine period. SATION 5 The promotion and transfer proviaions of this oonract oover ody thoee positiom to which a lnember of the Pssociotion nay be promated or - transfered and shall include Latenil tFeaefslirs within a ~iuulw grade. The City's prime responsibility and objrwtive is to place -ha person in the position who, in the Cityla juwt, is mat qualified, not only for filling the duties, of tbat po~ition, but is capable of moving to a higher classification. The City a&row with the concepts of seniority and promoting from within the Department and to that end vU1 do so whenever feasible. Written tests, interviews, pt performances experience ax3 fiktre potential shall be cronsidereu in determining qualifications. The ' following criteria and weighing shell be weds Total time as Law enforcament oflice 10 Total tine as law enforcement ofi'ioer 10 within City police Dept. iht with Board composing a ninhm of 25 three (3) Police supervisiors.All oandidaters muet be htm~~ed Points awarded for accomplishPents within 10 the areas of law enforcement, orimiaal justice or areas directly related such a8 management, sociology, psychology Chief '8 Discret~onary Assigned by Chief based on his judgment 20 Points of candidate potential, past written evaluations ana persoaal obe~~ of the officer on the Job S&G!l'ION 6 P nxbfmm combined acore of 70 points and at least a more of '?a on the writtan wan is necessary in order to receive further consideration. Writ- exams will be kept on file for no longer than one (1) year for the purpose of use as the test score for promotional/transfer purposes. SSTIOW 7 All, individuals shall have tha rib& to review all of their own ratlase by \ I Y /\u c- 3 t catak;ory. %e--Assocjbt n pr_-sident ahall upon zwquest receive the wt;taC;s I baf-akl didate8 ad theTanKllIg~ or-thg-oandidatss- by- -~MoFw, I b SdCTION 8. P list of promotional, tranfers, vacancies and bthe axam date will be poe.ted I at least thirty days prior to the date of the exam. ! i 1 i I S~I~ 9 A list of reading materials cover& by the exam vill be postad at tb tirm of the notice of auamjnntbn 4 I 3 ! I SSTIW 10 Promotions/transfara nuat be mdd from among the throe (3) emdidatea • xeceivlng the highest conbinad scores. SGTION 11 ~mmotionaL/transfer appointments will be subject to the grievance procedw Article XIX, but uill not ba subject -to arbitration under that artiole . SSTXQN 12 Points are bas& on rankings with the most experience, seniority, highwt score receiving the maxiwun points proportional to the maxhum score. In addition points for education/traW.ug are based as follouur J, I Asters degree (Spoints) a Bachelorts degree ( 4 0 // kssooiate's degree (3 pints) 0 '/ Specialized training (1 point for mob training experience) . DRAFT - SBPOA ARTICLE XIII Section 1. B.b. (Addition): Payment of the clothing allowance ohall be made on the first pay date after the aaoi~nment to non-uniformed status. ARTICLE XIII Section dm (New): "Newly appointedW and *Permanently assignedw an uned in Section 1 Bob. above shall mean appointed 8n the result of examination and from the first day so assigned including any probationary period- If an employee is temporarily assigned by administrative I directive helshe shall receive the clothing allowance a8 followsr 1 I 1.0 If the assigned period is to be of an unknown duration, 1 payment will be made on the first pay date after the anniversary of the sixth m~nth. 2. If the assigned period in known in advance to be for 1 more than six months, payment will be made in the same re manner as described for permanent appointeeo. . I i ARTICLE XI11 Section 1.B.e. (new): 1 Any employee permanently or temporarily assigned to Detective ! ~tatua will have the use of an unmarked cruiser including its 3 uns to and from home on all scheduled duty days. 9- 'I