The POLICEPAY Journal®

Thursday October 13, 2005

POLICEPAY Journal Mailing List (Receive new issues by e-mail)   www.policepay.net  

Matt Barnard, Editor   matt@policepay.net    (405) 234-2235    

                                                                                                                                       BACK ISSUES OF THE JOURNAL

POLICEPAY.NET SEMINAR’S click here for more info

Seminar on October 20-21, Only 1 week until the Seminar, SIGN UP TODAY

Ten Important Questions That Will Be Answered

Why pre-negotiation activities are more important than negotiations        Why presenting proposals at the start usually means failure

Why you probably have the wrong people on the negotiating team           Why presenting repots and surveys does not work

Why exposing the city's less than honest claims does not work                  Why coming on strong does not work

Why appealing to the brain with logic does not work                                Why pride and ego are your worst enemies

Why the chief is your best advocate                                                         Why the mayor really wants to give you the raise

This Seminar only has a few spots left,  SIGN UP TODAY

LONGMONT, CO

LPOA Strips Down Union Plan

SAN DIEGO, CA

Thinning Blue Line

HAVRE, MT

City, Police Union Back To Square One On Contract

LAKEWOOD, NJ

New Deal For Cops In Lakewood

SURFSIDE, FL

Surfside Florida Get New Deal

LARGO, FL

Police union gets raise

MARLBOROUGH, MA

Police union upset at contract

MONROE, CT

Monroe Police agree to three-percent-wage increase

Look At The Last Issue (10/6/05)

LPOA strips down union plan
Council creates advisory panel to hear employee concerns

From The Daily Times-Call, October 12, 2005

 

LONGMONT — Pro-union police officers and firefighters have offered a stripped-down version of their collective bargaining plan to city leaders, but reiterate they still intend to unionize.

 

Voters last November rejected a unionization plan that would have covered about 200 police officers, dispatchers, firefighters and records clerks working for the two departments. The proposal said that, because police officers and firefighters cannot strike, they deserve the opportunity to bargain with city leaders for pay, benefits, working conditions and even whether they should be subject to drug and physical fitness testing.

 

The Longmont City Council opposed the plan, saying it would strip important management rights from the police and fire chiefs, create a system where public safety workers would never see their wages cut without their approval, and give too much power to an unelected arbitrator when talks stall.

 

“This rewrite is not a final version of anything,” said Mike Violette, a Longmont police officer and spokesman for the pro-union groups.

 

“It is what we offered in the spirit of compromise and to get meaningful negotiations started. Compare it to last year’s proposed amendment and you will see most of the opposition’s arguments have been addressed.”

 

The new proposal acknowledges that the police and fire chiefs should have ultimate authority over staffing decisions, makes pay cuts negotiable and lowers the rank at which police officers would be covered by the agreement. It also backs off many of the specific “must bargain” requirements, such as drug testing, shift schedules and emergency staffing procedures.

 

But, like union contracts in general, it gives an unelected arbitrator the final authority to settle disputes when negotiations reach impasse. Pro-union police officers and firefighters are trying to get the City Council to acknowledge they are compromising.

 

Violette added: “This rewrite is the foundation for a new ballot question if we are forced back to an election. But, remember, it certainly is not a final version — just a glimpse into the future.”

 

The unionization proposal rejected by voters created a rift between a number of police officers. Many of the department’s sergeants and supervisors publicly opposed the plan, while rank-and-file officers supported it. And many firefighters remain upset, feeling their pensions are not generous enough. The unionization drive surfaced in earnest after the city in 2003 froze pay increases in all city departments for a year to cope with the economic downturn.

 

Unionization would dramatically change the relationship between and among police officers, firefighters, their superiors and city leaders, and between the public safety workers and the rest of the city’s employees, who would not enjoy the same ability to negotiate their salaries, benefits and working conditions.

 

Said Violette in 2004 in introducing the proposal to the Longmont Police Officers’ Association: “We cannot trust the current city manager and City Council, nor future city managers and city councils, to protect what we have or what we may attain. They have shown they have no aversion to reducing benefits or freezing wages. We currently have no protection against these things and are at the mercy of decisions made by a city manager and City Council with each year’s budget.”

 

In Colorado, relatively few public or private-sector workers are represented by unions. But nationally, many large and small police and fire departments enjoy the protection of collective bargaining, which gives them more power to fight for higher wages and benefits. In Longmont, police officers and firefighters can chose to either get paid what the city offers or get another job.

 

The LPOA and the Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association have withdrawn from ongoing talks with city manager Gordon Pedrow because they feel he is unwilling to listen to their concerns. Their newest proposal was sent directly to the council. Pedrow said he was not empowered to negotiate directly with the public safety workers.

 

Not every police officer supports the unionization drive; many of the department’s sergeants oppose the plan and instead back an elected employee advisory panel that was created by the council unanimously Tuesday night.

 

“We oppose the LPOA’s efforts toward unionization of the police department and also collective bargaining,” said Sgt. Paul Campbell in a short statement to the council before the vote. Among those joining Campbell at the lectern were fellow sergeants Bruce Wittich, Doug Ross, Gary Schmidt and Mike Bell, and officer Arpad Bality.

 

The creation of the employee advisory group is intended to show that the council is trying to listen to employee concerns, and in part is an effort to persuade voters to again reject a unionization plan. The new advisory group will meet Nov. 17, after city workers select representatives from within their departments.

 

Ross, who served on a steering committee to develop the advisory group, said he believes a small group of Longmont officers will never give up trying to unionize. He urged the public to continue rejecting the proposal. Ross said he continues to work closely with pro-union officers despite their difference of opinion on this one topic.

 

“I hope the message gets out to the community that what they’re trying to accomplish is not necessary,” Ross said.

 

 

Thinning blue line

As pay, benefits drop, S.D. officers leaving; some find jobs nearby

From the UNION-TRIBUNE, October 9, 2005

 

Officer Shannon Martin decided to look for another job when San Diego's money troubles started cutting into his paycheck.

It didn't take him long to find what he was looking for.

 

A San Diego patrol officer for five years, Martin applied to three departments in July. He started with the Escondido Police Department last month.

 

"I don't know how long it will take for the financial crisis to sort itself out, but I couldn't afford to wait," said Martin, 28, of San Marcos, whose wife is pregnant with their first child.

 

On average, the city has reduced the monthly take-home pay of San Diego police officers by about $450 as it attempts to pay off a pension deficit of at least $1.4 billion. Some of the money goes toward retirement accounts, some helps pay for medical coverage.

 

The salary and benefit rollbacks spurred 15 officers, including Martin, out the door this year, on top of 18 who left for other departments last year, according to the department. Five years ago, when the city's financial future was brighter, eight officers left.

 

While the losses are hardly catastrophic in a 2,016-person department, the resignations have just begun, Police Chief William Lansdowne said.

 

"We have to fix this problem," he said. "We can't continue to lose the most valuable members of our police department."

 

Some of the recently departed, who already were living outside the county because they couldn't afford San Diego's pricey real estate, found jobs closer to home. They're working for departments that offer fully funded pensions, less-expensive health plans and other perks, including a signing bonus.

 

Inside San Diego's department, Detective Brett Macfarlane wants out, even if it means a drop in rank. A 19-year department veteran who investigates auto thefts, Macfarlane said he's applied for a patrol position with a neighboring police agency.

 

"Now that this situation with the city is the way it is, I'm getting out of here if I can," said Macfarlane, 41. "I was in for the long haul until this whole thing went down with the city. It's ridiculous what they're doing to us.

 

"The department is getting depleted. . . . The morale of the whole department is way down. The City Council should be seeing this and taking care of it, and they're not."

 

At least two council members, Toni Atkins and Jim Madaffer, want to increase officer salaries and benefits. That might be a tough sell in a city struggling to pay its bills.

 

"We do have a huge (financial) challenge in front of us, but at the same time, if we continue to lose officers we're going to see more crime," Atkins said. "We do need to see this as an emergency situation."

 

Selling points

 

There's no shortage of opportunities for San Diego's finest.

 

In Riverside County, the sheriff's department hired three officers from San Diego this year. The growing department of 1,700 sworn officers has about 500 vacancies because of resignations, retirements and expansion plans.

 

Riverside expects to hire several more San Diego officers, said Sgt. Earl Quinata, the department's spokesman.

 

"We've got a ton more in the application process," Quinata said. "Our biggest selling point is everybody lives up here."

 

San Diego police officers are working without a contract and were denied a raise this year. In July, they began paying a larger share of their retirement. In November, an additional 3˝ percent of their pay will begin going to fund their pensions.

 

All that makes recruiting and retention challenging for a department with nearly 100 openings.

 

"Other cities are fairly soluble compared to the city right now," said Lt. Ernesto Salgado, who runs the department's backgrounds/recruiting unit.

 

A dozen San Diego officers have applications on file with the Chula Vista Police Department, which might start allowing new members to roll over the sick leave and seniority they earned with previous employers.

 

"We want to give them something, so when they make that decision they can feel more comfortable," said Chula Vista Capt. Gary Wedge, who is in charge of recruiting.

 

Twenty San Diego officers have applied for jobs with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, which plans to hire at least 300 deputies by the end of next year.

 

"The problem is, it's such an unstable situation over there. Their future is in jeopardy," said Capt. Lisa Miller, who is in charge of recruiting.

 

The sheriff's department is giving experienced officers, referred to as "laterals," a $5,000 signing bonus spread evenly over five years.

There is one benefit for San Diego police that isn't offered in any other police agency in the county: the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, or DROP.

 

Officers 50 and older are eligible, but they must retire within five years of enrolling. New hires can't participate.

 

DROP members earn their full salary and their retirement accounts earn 8 percent interest, Salgado said. In the past, these officers no longer had to contribute to retirement. That changed this year when the city begin taking an additional 3.2 percent from officers' paychecks.

 

'Easy decision'

 

When the city's pension crisis pinched Phillip Rice's check, he started going to job fairs and searching police departments' Web sites for openings.

 

Rice started working for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department last month, after spending seven years as an officer with the San Diego Police Department. He lives with his wife and their three young children in a home he bought four years ago in Temecula. His commute shrank from 90 minutes to 15.

 

"I was looking at my travel time, the money I would save on gasoline and spending time with my family. And then the pension crisis hit," said Rice, 34. "It became an easy decision."

 

Rice landed with a department that pays for his pension, and his contribution for health insurance dropped from $522 a month to $300.

"I'm happier. I took a pay cut, but if you crunch the numbers I'm making more," said Rice, who is earning $30 an hour, down from $33 in San Diego.

 

Rice had worked his way up from a patrol officer, a beat he was on for five years, to a team of officers who investigated vehicle thefts, violent crime and prostitution in Mid City.

 

After completing his training next month, Rice will be back on patrol. He doesn't mind having to prove himself again.

 

"I just decided, 'What am I doing down here? Traveling two hours to work every day and the city is taking away my pay instead of giving me a raise.' "

 

Council members Atkins and Madaffer each said San Diego police officers should be the highest paid in the county – officers in Escondido and El Cajon earn more – and their retirement benefits should be fully funded.

 

"We could be jeopardizing our public safety if we aren't careful," Madaffer said.

 

Councilwoman Donna Frye and former Police Chief Jerry Sanders, candidates in next month's mayoral election, have proposed cuts to city employee benefits, including police, in their plans to repair city finances.

 

Tax increase

 

Judges, not politicians, might decide how much officers are paid. The officers union is seeking millions of dollars from the city in damages in a federal lawsuit over wages that also attempts to block some of the officers' retirement payments.

 

The suit also seeks the removal of City Attorney Michael Aguirre, who filed his own lawsuits against the city. A judge has ruled against one of the suits Aguirre filed to eliminate pension benefits for police and other city employees, benefits he says are illegal. Aguirre said he will appeal the ruling.

 

He also said San Diego isn't in a position to open its checkbook, but he would like to offer law enforcement personnel more money.

 

"Our police officers are not sufficiently compensated," Aguirre said. "I'm willing to go to the voters and ask for a tax increase, but to pretend you're going to find the money someplace else – you're not. The city budget has been gutted."

 

The union, the San Diego Police Officers' Association, and the city are expected to head back to the negotiating table in January.

Chief Lansdowne said he's already met with negotiators for the city, telling them they must consider pay and benefit increases.

 

"It's a matter of setting strong priorities," Lansdowne said, noting the department has 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents, compared with 2.4 in Los Angeles and 2.8 in San Francisco.

 

Among major U.S. cities, only New York and San Jose have a lower crime rate than San Diego, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

"I'm proud of that. I want to keep it that way," said San Carlos resident Keith Turnham, 81, who said he would support a tax increase to improve police compensation.

 

Chris Olmsted of Rancho Bernardo said the city should find a way to improve police pay, but he doesn't want to give any more money to city officials he doesn't trust anymore.

 

Olmsted, a business litigation attorney, also noted that most private businesses have replaced pensions with 401(k) plans, a pattern that he suspects cities and counties will follow.

 

Sgt. Bill Nemec, union president, is trying to reassure his members. He's telling them he's fighting for better pay and benefits, but most are worried about maintaining what they have.

 

"This is San Diego's dirty little secret, because as long as things are running smoothly and there's no serious problems it's not going to be a priority," he said. "Unfortunately, public safety is not yet a priority in this community."

 

City, police union back to square one on contract

From the Havre Daily News, October 12, 2005

 

City negotiators and police union representatives are planning to start contract negotiations from scratch after the union's membership rejected a tentative agreement.

 

Havre City Council member Terry Schend said Monday he had hoped to finish negotiations by the beginning of this month.

 

”We've got to go back to square one,“ said Schend, who chairs the city Labor Relations Committee.

 

He said no date has been set for the next meeting between the committee and union representatives.

Montana Public Employees Association representative Tom Bivins said Monday the union had several problems with the package:

 

The proposed two-year contract would have been reopened after a year to deal with insurance.

 

It offered a 3 percent raise for each of the next two years, while the Havre Fire Department received an extra half percent the second year.

 

The changes to the Police Department's holiday pay package were unsatisfactory to the union.

Bivins said he and union members didn't like the idea of opening the contract in 2006.

 

”Opening contracts is not a good idea,“ Bivins said. ”If they can offer a wage package for two years, they can take care of the insurance.“

 

Bivins said the union was told up front that all city employees receive the same pay increase.

 

”We found out that wasn't true, “he said, referring to the 3% percent raise in the second year of the firefighters' contract.” In fact, everybody wasn't getting the same thing.

 

He noted that police officers didn't get a pay increase last fiscal year. Last year's city budget contained no money for pay increases for any city employee.

 

”I think there's still some heartburn that (the police) didn't get the raise this year, and I think there was the expectation that they would get more than 3 percent,“  Bivins added. He said the raise ”barely“ keeps up with inflation.

 

Schend said the Fire Department received the extra raise because firefighters do not receive some of the supplemental income - such as clothing allowances - that police officers and public works employees get under their contracts.

 

”That was the only monetary increase they got over anybody else,“ Schend said.

In its contract, the Police Department received many opportunities to increase workers' base pay, he said.

 

”They were going to get some additional cash incentives,“ Schend said.

 

The proposed contract included a $25 clothing allowance increase for new officers. Officers receive $875 for clothing each year, while new officers receive $850. Bivins said he believes the change for new officers fixed a typo in the contract.

 

The city also was going to purchase some of the items needed by police officers to begin work, Schend said. If the officers left Havre, those items would stay with the city, he added. Officers would have received an additional day of comp time for firearms training, he said.

 

A change that would have allowed officers to cash in the compensatory time they receive for working holidays would also have increased their take-home pay, Schend said.

 

Police officers are given 100 hours of comp time at the beginning of each year as compensation for working on holidays. The new contract would have allowed them to cash out their comp time and receive pay instead of the days off, while the old contract set a deadline date each year. If the officers hadn't used up the time, they lost it, Bivins said.

 

The new contract would have also given officers an additional half day's pay for the holidays they actually worked.

Bivins said the changes to the holiday pay package were not enough to bring the department in line with other city departments' holiday compensation.

 

Bivins said other city employees receive double time and a half when they work holidays. He said the additional half day's pay wasn't enough of an increase.

 

”Now that we're back at the table, we're going to bring it back again,“ Bivins said. ”It needs to be recognized by the city.“

Schend said the additional half day of pay for holiday work brings the department in line with how other city workers are compensated for holidays. Police officers are salaried employees, he said, and when they do not work a holiday, they still receive the same amount of pay as they normally would. Schend said the officers, with the extra half-day pay, would be making double time and a half for holidays they worked.

 

Bivins said the police officers are hourly employees.

 

”They are not salaried employees,“ he said. ”Any employees who are not supervisors and are nonexempt employees are hourly employees“ regardless of when they are paid, he said.

 

”If they were salaried employees, how would they be getting overtime pay?“ Bivins added.

 

 

New deal for cops in Lakewood

From the Asbury Park Press, October 8, 2005

 

LAKEWOOD — The Township Committee and the police union have agreed on a four-year contract that will change how the rank-and-file work.

 

The most notable part of the deal — which calls for four-percent raises each year — is that uniformed officers and detectives will switch over to four-day work weeks, instead of the traditional five-day week.

 

The contract with Lakewood Policemen's Benevolent Association also means a boost in the starting annual salary for a police academy recruit to $32,517.

 

The new salaries start with new hires from Jan. 1 — the day after the last contract expired — and runs through Jan. 1, 2008, according to the contract which was introduced at this week's committee meeting.

 

A public hearing on the deal will be held Oct. 27.

 

 

Letter From John Davis, President of Surfside F.O.P. in Surfside, FL

 

I would like to forward to your publication the recent approved contract between the Town of Surfside, Fl. and the FOP Lodge #135 effective October 1, 2005 with a retroactive effect of October 1, 2004.

 

Overall Surfside Police officers have just received a 13% pay increase from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2007; the contract also includes a pension modification to a 90% retirement after 25.7 years of service with a 3.5% multiplier per year of service. This modification also includes a six year buy back of prior service for each current member and includes a five year D.R.O.P. The contract also includes several other new benefits with a new binding arbitration clause for termination, loss of time or demotion; all other matters will be referred to the Town’s Personnel Board for final approval.

 

The contract took the Local and State Lodge 15 months of negotiation with the Town before any agreement could be reached for final ratification, several other matters will be addressed in 2007. At this point, Surfside Police Officers now have one of the top five pay scales in South Florida, as well as one of the top shared pension systems in all of Florida and meet or exceed neighboring Miami Beach and Bal Harbour Police Departments in benefits and pay. Thank you.  

 

John S. Davis

President

Surfside Fraternal Order of Police

Lodge 135

 

 

Police union gets raise

The three-year contract gives the rank-and-file a 4 percent raise this year

From the Largo Leader, October 7, 2005

 

LARGO – The City Commission Tuesday night ratified a new contract with the city’s largest police union giving officers a 13 percent raise over the next three years.

The three-year contract, which took effect Oct. 1, also calls for members of the Police Benevolent Association to increase their contributions to pay for medical insurance over the next three years.

The contract was approved by the sergeants and patrol officers last week. City Manager Steve Stanton said there are about 120 members of the union.

A new contract is still under negotiation with the Fraternal Order of Police which represents five higher-ranking officers in the police department, Stanton said.

The manager said he expects that contract would be finalized in the next two or three weeks. He said there are no serious differences between the city and union.

About half of the city’s 600 employees are represented by unions, Stanton said. Firefighters’ and city staff three-year contracts were ratified last year.

The new PBA contract gives officers an immediate raise of 4 percent; then 4.5 percent in 2007 and in 2008.

Single officers will begin paying 5 percent of their medical insurance premiums beginning in 2007 and that will go up to 10 percent in 2008. Those with family coverage will continue paying 25 percent of their premium throughout the term of the contract.

In other action Tuesday night, the commission approved a $7,500 contract for a study of affordable housing in the city and impediments to low-income families finding affordable homes.

Similar studies were completed in 1996 and in 2000. They are required by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development and cities that receive federal money to provide affordable housing.

Commissioner Harriet Crozier noted that the 2000 study raised a controversy after it led to accusations that Largo was the most difficult city in Pinellas County to find affordable housing.

This was found to be unfounded, said Matthew Anderson, community development housing manager, after it was discovered many of the apartment complex where racism was allegedly found only had Largo mailing addresses but were actually outside of city limits.

But, since some rental practices were still considered to be discriminatory, the city had “educational forums” for rental agents.

 

 

Police union upset at contract
From the Daily News, October 7, 2005

MARLBOROUGH -- After years of haggling, the Police Patrol Officers Association has a new three-year contract with the city courtesy of state negotiators.

 

The only drawback to the deal is that it expires in June, which will trigger a new round of negotiations.

 

Union President Patrick Hogan said he is unhappy with the binding pact reached by the state Joint Labor Management Committee. The contract, retroactive to 2003, calls for no pay hike in the first year and 3 percent raises in years two and three. The union has been working under the terms of the old contract.

 

Union and city officials yesterday confirmed the existence of the deal.

 

"If you can't afford a 3 percent raise, you can't afford a quality Police Department," Hogan said.

 

City Solicitor James Agoritsas said he is content with the decision and is happy the state saw the city's stance. "The decision was very much in favor of the city, and we're pleased with that," he said.

 

Hogan said the union membership is outraged at the state's decision.

 

"(The Joint Labor Management Committee) just followed the pattern," Hogan said, referring to settlements reached between the city and other unions. Those other city contracts were all settled with the same terms -- no increase in year one and 3 percent annual raises for the next two years.

 

Hogan said the state balked under pressure and acted as a follower -- not a leader.

 

"We did a comprehensive study," Hogan said. "We hired a consultant. We compared our salaries to salaries in other cities that were comparable. We were able to prove that the city had enough money to pay us (what we requested). We're very disappointed that we didn't get what we asked for."

 

"We finally finish all this and now we have to start over again," he said, "We're glad this is over and we look forward to negotiating our next contract with a new administration.

 

"The contract is retroactive so we just don't want them to drag their feet with retroactive pay. It's over, they should honor the decision and make good on the retroactive pay as soon as possible."

 

The contract for Department of Public Works employees is still being negotiated.

 

 

Monroe Police agree to three-percent-wage increase

From the Monroe Courier (CT), October 6, 2005

 

Monroe's police officers' union recently agreed to a new three-year-contract that includes a 3-percent annual salary increase. The Town Council approved the pact.

 

According to First Selectman Andrew Nunn, the wage increase is on par with annual salary increases for all municipal employees.

 

Monroe's contract also contains similar items found in contracts negotiated by police unions located in neighboring communities, Nunn said.

"I feel the overall contract is fair for both the police department and the community," Nunn said. "We're fortunate to have such dedicated individuals working in our police department."

The new contract covers Monroe's 37 officers. Chief John Salvatore and Capt. Michael Flick have separate contracts.

Since negotiations lasted longer than anticipated, Monroe police have been working for more than a year without a contract. The officers will receive retroactive raises from when their last contract expired July 1, 2004.

Patrol officers at the lowest end of the pay scale will receive annual pay of $42,706, retroactive to July 1, 2004. A patrol officer at step 1 will receive $45,307 beginning in 2006.

A sergeant will receive $57,248 retroactively, and in 2006 will be paid $60,734.

A step 1 lieutenant will receive $63,718 retroactively and will be paid $67,597 in 2006.

Detective Keith White, one of the union representatives, said the police officers were "satisfied" with the agreement.

"My only regret is that I would have liked it to have been negotiated a little faster," White said.

Police Chief John Salvatore said that a change in unions caused some of the negotiation's delay. The officers left the Connecticut Independent Police Union and joined Council 15 American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME.)

The union members spent time looking at items contained in the previous contract to determine what they wanted to include in the new agreement.

"A resolution means that we can now concentrate on our regular job duties," Salvatore said. "Although we would have all have liked to see the negotiations move faster along, the time delay doesn't imply that we were adversarial. At no time were the negotiations extremely confrontational."

The new contract includes increased employee contributions to the officers' insurance and pension funds.

Tuition reimbursement has increased for those seeking higher education. The town will pay up to $2,000 each year for courses offered at a recognized educational institution. This is an increase from the $1,000 offered in the previous contract.

"Our experience showed that some officers were blocked in their pursuit of college degrees by the rising costs for college courses," Salvatore said.

There also are incentives for officers to obtain higher degrees by offering those with associates degrees a $200 stipend and those with bachelors' degrees a $500 stipend each January.

Salvatore said it's difficult for police personnel to complete college courses because of the rotating schedules and change in days off.

"This is reward for those officers who persevere to get the degree," he said.

The town also awards a $750 stipend to employees with a Master's degree in Public Administration, Business Administration Law Enforcement or other area approved by the chief of police.

"We encourage the officers to get their degrees because obviously it helps the overall professionalism of the police department," Nunn said.

An outline describing how shift preferences are determined was written into the new contract. These provisions confirm what department practices for several decades.

"An agreement was made in the 1980s between the police commissioner and the rank and file," Salvatore said. "Now there are specific parameters written in the contract."

The new contract also provides more funds for uniform cleaning allowances.

 

 

 

 

 

BACK ISSUES OF THE JOURNAL

 

 

Copyright ă POLICEPAY.NET, Inc. 2005 All Rights Reserved

 

 

The POLICEPAY Journal

Published by:

POLICEPAY.NET, Inc.

211 North Robinson Ave, Suite 350

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

(405) 234-2235

www.policepay.net