|
|
POLICEPAY.NET
NEGOTIATION TRAINING OCTOBER 11-12 –
NOVEMBER 9-10 -
LAS VEGAS (click on link for information)
Raises for Editorial
From the The mayor of It's
déja vu 1994, when then-Mayor Susan Savage earned
the undying enmity of the police force by rejecting a request for a 4.5
percent annual pay increase. Mayor
Kathy Taylor has offered a 4.5 percent increase to the police, but balked at
8 percent recommended by an arbitrator. The
issues are the same as when they arose in the fall of 1994, but they are no
easier to decide. Under
a law passed by the 1994 Oklahoma Legislature, The
Fraternal Order of Police, headed by Darin Filak,
contends the police made their case before the arbitrator and that the city
has the money to pay for the raises. The
So
if the police deserve the raise and the city has the money, what's the problem?
City officials say most of about $4 million in surplus money
from the fiscal year that ended June 30 would be needed to grant equal raises
to the city's 1,700 non-union employees. City
Hall budget officials say the city would run short of money the first fiscal
year in which the 8 percent police raise is in place. "The
money just isn't there. Something is going to have to give. The city has to
have a balanced budget," said Budget Director Pat Connelly. Filak counters that city officials are predicting a
record general fund balance this fiscal year and that he and the arbitrator
expect economic growth to continue into the following fiscal year. If
it turns out the city does not have the money for the raises, it can take the
matter to a future arbitrator, Filak contends. These
arguments likely will lead to a full-blown public debate if the process ends
in a vote. The
process calls for the city clerk to acknowledge receipt of the mayor's
notice. The mayor then has 10 days to call an election and the two sides have
20 days in which to submit ballot language to an arbitration panel that would
have another seven days to decide the ballot language. After
these steps, the mayor requests the Election Board to set an election date. When
might that be? Maybe
never. While the road to an election unwinds, the FOP and the city can keep
negotiating. Under the law, they can settle anytime before an election. An
agreement would cancel the election. No
one seems to know how that would work. What if ballots had been printed, poll
workers hired and the election process put in motion only to be settled at
the last minute? Assuming
that Tulsans are asked to vote, what should they do? Public
safety, as represented by the police and fire department budgets, already is
a priority, with about 56 percent of the general fund operating budget
devoted to them. Still,
it can be argued that police protection is the most important function of
city government and one can see a campaign in which police press that point. Let's
say Tulsans are convinced. Would their conviction include an increase in
taxes or would they expect the administration to find money in other areas of
the budget to finance the raise? In
1994, the arbitrator said the city should take money from income on utilities
to finance such raises. Savage said that would be inappropriate. In
1994, Savage reminded citizens that "the police cannot function without
the call takers who perform emergency dispatch, or support personnel to
handle paperwork or without the street crews who maintain and repair the
streets on which they drive." Should
there be a tax earmarked for police use? That
question is certain to arise. Some cities, notably If
approved by voters, what would stop a mayor and council from withholding
money already going to police from the general fund? If voters are to decide
how much to pay police, what about firefighters? Or other groups of city
employees? And
so the questions mount. It becomes clear that voters are being asked to
consider public policy questions that should be decided by elected officials.
The
police make a good argument for raises. But how will they react if they lose
a public vote after a hectic campaign in which officials and citizens
squabble over police pay and the attendant issues? Although
Let's
hope she succeeds. Voters reject
binding arbitration Voters
overwhelmingly struck down a police attempt at binding arbitration, a
position the primary supporter called "painful." Nearly
12,000 - 65 percent - of the 18,293 people who cast valid ballots rejected
the Professional Police Initiative, which would have allowed a third-party
arbiter to make decisions in contract conflicts between the police and the
city. The
measure would have been included in the city's charter, akin to its
constitution. Supporters
and opponents said the city's current budget crisis - City Council is trying
to cut $7.5 million from the 2007 budget - turned voters off to the issue,
which some argued would mean cuts to other city services such as parks and
streets. Chris
Gumble voted against the measure in part because of
what had happened to major automobile manufacturers who have unionized work
forces and recently slashed health-care benefits to contain rising costs. "(Unions)
become public enemy No. 1 during budget crises," Gumble
said. City
Council unanimously opposed the issue, claiming it would hand major budget
decisions to an outsider. The
Northern Colorado Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 3, which collected
enough signatures to put the item on the ballot, said binding arbitration
would have helped police get the pay and benefits they deserve. The
near 2-to-1 "no" vote surprised opponents and supporters; a 2004
measure that gave police collective bargaining passed 51 percent to 49 percent
- a difference of 335 votes. "That's
a painful thing," said Scott Goff, president of the Northern Colorado
FOP and a Goff
said voters would see the issue again, probably in 2008 because of rules that
require the FOP to wait to put the measure on the ballot. But he said he'd
invite the media and public to watch contract negotiations between the city
and police in May. "I
don't see any other method to get out more of the story," Goff said. The
special mail-ballot election, which cost the city $100,000, drew a 28 percent
voter turnout. Mayor
Doug Hutchinson said the council's opposition to the measure was not about
the "value and respect" the city has for its law enforcement
officers. He hoped it would not create a divide between police and their
employer. Under
current rules, police bargain collectively for pay and benefits, though the
city ultimately decides what those levels will be. Goff has called the
process "collective begging," though city officials say elected
officials should determine what city employees make. "The
big concern was, this needs to be a democratic process done by elected
officials," Police
The proposal
called for what the city says is a 5% pay increase,
or about 470-thousand dollars more than they paid out last year in salary. The
city and the police chief also wanted mandatory drug testing for all
officers, but the Yakima Police Patrolmen's Association has some
concerns about testing procedures. "We're
concerned about some of the due process that is written into the policy for
the security of the city of "We
don't have any suspicion here that the department is dirty," says Dick Zais, City Manager of Yakima, "That's not the case
at all here but it is the right thing to do. To protect everyone." The
impasse between the city and the police union means they could be headed for
a lengthy arbitration process. that could cost both
sides lots of money. Fact-finding could help end
police-Cape From
Keepmecurrent.com, September 13, 2006 CAPE
ELIZABETH (Sep 13): Recommendations that could help end the labor impasse
between the town of Cape Elizabeth and the Cape Elizabeth Police Benevolent
Association are expected by the end of the month.
Also
at the session were Linda McGill, the town attorney; William McKinley, the
police union’s attorney; Michael McGovern, town manager; Police Chief Neil Williams;
Cape Elizabeth Police Benevolent Associate President Officer Mark Dorval; and
associate representative Sgt. Andrew Steindl. The
arbitrators will issue a non-binding recommendation to be released the end of
the month, said McGill. The two sides will then meet again. The
association represents eight police officers, three sergeants and four
dispatchers. It has been without a contract since the prior three-year
contract expired on June 30, 2005. “We
are not allowed to speak about the issues,” said McGovern. The
town’s retirement plan mandates that officers cannot retire until they are
59.5 years old, said The
By
POLICEPAY.NET, Inc. Policepay.net is now
offering Negotiation Service for ◊
Our Service is offered on a Flat Fee. (Call for fee’s, fee’s vary based on
size of union, location, and whether other unions in your area are members of
our service.) ◊
It includes a wage survey, financial analysis of your city, costing proposal,
an outlook for negations training class held in our office, ALL negotiations
sessions with Matt Barnard acting as your lead
negotiator. ◊
If we can not reach a deal that your membership approves, we conduct the
Arbitration hearing (as your advocate) at NO additional cost. ◊
Our goal is to help the medium and small departments in Call
Matt Barnard at 405-234-2235 or email him at matt@policepay.net for more information.
Tuesday, January 10th at
POLICEPAY.NET offices – Free for members of the Oklahoma
Police and Fire Negotiation Service –
call for more information. POLICEPAY.NET, Inc. SEMINARS Negotiating
the Police Contract 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright ã POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc. 2006 All Rights Reserved |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The POLICEPAY Journal
Published
by
POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc.
Oklahoma
City, OK 73102
(405)
234-2235