|
|
NEW VIDEO SEMINARS: WHAT TO
SAY AND DO BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS & 18 THINGS
TO DO BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS (click on the Link above)
Police merger defeated;
Peterson takes blame Democrat breaks ranks in
15-14 council vote against proposal. From
the Indianapolis Star, November 15, 2005 A lone Democrat crossed party lines late Monday to defeat a
merger between city and county police forces, leaving Mayor Bart Peterson to
find another way to pay for public safety with dwindling resources. City-County Councilwoman Sherron
Franklin, a police officer, joined 14 Republicans to defeat the proposed
consolidation 15-14, handing Peterson a significant political defeat on one
of his most ambitious initiatives in two terms in office. Peterson had said the Indianapolis Police Department and the
Marion County Sheriff's Department needed to be consolidated to continue
adequate funding for public safety. He declined to say whether he would lay
off 48 IPD officers as he had vowed to do if the
merger failed. He took full responsibility for the failure. "I didn't do enough to sell this proposal," he said.
"We'll have to sit down in the morning and pick up the pieces and find
what's best for public safety and how we can stretch public safety dollars as
far as we can." The merger would have created a single 1,500-officer department
with the sheriff in charge, starting in 2007. Peterson said the merger would
have saved an estimated $9 million. Without the merger, officials say enough
funds will not be available for both departments, and by 2009, there would be
a $40 million budget shortfall. Right up until the vote, council members on both sides said they
did not know how the vote would go. Council President Steve Talley said that
he was "disappointed" in the result but that it was time for the
council to move on to other business. When the vote registered on the Assembly Room board, a crowd
made up largely of police officers from IPD and the
Sheriff's Department broke into applause. Ron Gibson, a Democratic council
member, said he was "shocked" by the outcome because his party has
a majority in the council. After the vote, Franklin said: "They asked me to vote
against my family. I've been a police officer for 15 years and a council
member for two." Franklin said she supported the concept of consolidation but did
not think the sheriff should lead the merged department. Earlier, the
first-term council member had unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to put the
mayor in charge through his chief of police. "We need a metropolitan police department with an
accountability system, where it's not an elected officer in charge,"
Franklin said. "I made the best decision I could for my constituents
based on the information I received." Among the unanswered questions were whether the merger would
truly save any money, what staffing levels would be and how pay and pensions
would be equalized. The largely partisan vote surprised few people because the issue
has been riddled with political intrigue since Peterson announced his plan to
consolidate government to cut costs more than a year ago. Peterson said that
the defeat could hurt his chance of having other portions of his Indianapolis
Works plan implemented. He plans to ask the legislature to allow him to merge
area fire departments and township offices. In April, the Republican-controlled General Assembly defeated
most of the Indy Works plan but authorized the council to merge the city and
county police departments. The council spent the past six months having a
dozen public hearings on the issue, even visiting three other cities to learn
about their police mergers. Phil Borst, the council's Republican
minority leader, said his party members took a stand against the merger
because it left too many unanswered questions. Rather than vote to
consolidate and then figure out a plan, Borst said
the city needs to save money through immediate collaboration efforts and then
work out a more thorough merger plan for the long term. "This whole consolidation process has hurt public safety by
taking the focus off of the spiraling crime increase and protecting the
public," Borst said. Borst has called
the merger a Band-Aid approach that doesn't solve the problem of increasing
costs and stagnant tax revenues in the city core. The business community largely supported the merger to increase
government efficiency, though many in the public worried that it would mean
either higher taxes in the suburbs or fewer police officers in the inner
city. Police officers largely balked at the idea of combining two very
different departments. Sheriff Frank Anderson gave the plan a major boost Friday when
he reversed his earlier opposition and backed the revised merger proposal.
Ironically, it was Peterson's efforts to get Anderson's support of the plan,
by putting Anderson in charge, that led to its
defeat. Instead of leading about 400 officers that patrol the suburban
townships, the elected sheriff would have taken control of the largest police
organization in the state -- more than 1,500 sworn officers. Franklin said
she never liked that structure because it would make police leadership
directly subject to political elections. "Even if people vote for a bad mayor, the police chief is
there as a buffer," she said. "I know for a fact
promotions are more political in the Sheriff's Department." Anderson said he could rest knowing he did what he was elected
to do. "I brought everybody to the table to do what's best for Marion
County," he said. Vince Huber, president of the police union, said he was pleased
by the outcome. In a prepared statement handed out after the vote, he said:
"The proposal was ineffective and lacked answers on how public safety
would be maintained." Council approves police
contract Salary
increases go back to 2004 From
the Connecticut Post, November 11, 2005 BRIDGEPORT
— The City Council has approved a new contract with the city police union. "When
it comes to first responders, you've got to do right by them," said City
Councilman Angel M. DePara Jr., D-136, who seconded
the motion to approve the four-year agreement with Bridgeport Police Union
Local 1159. The pact expires July 1, 2008; the union's previous contract
expired June 30, 2004. A
vote on the contract was added to the council's Monday night agenda during
the meeting. The
new contract gives retroactive salary increases of 2.5 percent for both 2004
and 2005, and 3 percent increases in both 2006 and 2007. A
starting officer is paid a base salary of $37,964. Officer
Frank Cuccaro, the union vice president, said he
had expected the contract to pass the council because Mayor John M. Fabrizi and the union had already agreed on it. But
he appreciated the early vote. "It
wasn't expected until mid-December," he said. "We're glad we could
put this one to bed and concentrate on the next one. "We're
not going to wait until the last minute on this one. We're going to reach out
to the city next year to get the ball rolling." The
union accepted higher health-care premiums and co-payments, but language in
the workers' compensation and sick leave sections was changed from a version
the union had overwhelmingly rejected in September. The
union approved the second contract proposal by more than 2-1. Fabrizi said he asked council member Richard M. Paoletto Jr., D-138, co-chairman of the council's
Contracts Committee, to act on the contract because the city will gain
$25,000 a month in revenues from the increased health insurance payments. "It
was an issue of timing," Fabrizi said.
"If we didn't do it at November's meeting, the earliest we could get it
done is at the last meeting in December. "I
wanted the city to start realizing those revenues right away."
Meanwhile, the city has scheduled two negotiation dates in November with the
Bridgeport Fire Fighters Association Local 834, said Firefighter Robert
Whitbread, union president. The
firefighters' contract also expired in June 2004. Joliet, police patrol
union may enter arbitration From
the Hearld News, November 15, 2005 JOLIET
— The city appears to be headed toward arbitration in February with the union
that represents its patrol officers. But
Councilman Tom Giarrante urged city administrators
to meet once again with the union before arbitration. "Give
them a call. Sit down. Maybe you can hammer it out," Giarrante
told City Manager John Mezera on Monday. The
Fraternal Order of Police, which represents 223 patrol officers, has been
negotiating with the city since its contract expired in December. A separate
union represents the department's sergeants, lieutenants and captains. FOP
President Pat Cardwell said his union wants to close the gap between what
patrol officers make and what paramedic-firefighters earn. "We want
parity with the firemen," he said. "That's been our goal since we
came out." Cardwell
said the FOP's last informal offer narrowed the gap
but didn't close it completely. He
said the FOP's negotiating team declined to take
the city's last offer back to the membership for a vote. He
also said that the union wants to reduce the number of years it takes to
reach top of the scale to 12 from 15. And the union has suggested putting the
city's residency requirement on the table for negotiation. Currently, all
city employees must live in Joliet. Non-binding
mediation talks reached a standstill last month. The arbitrator's ruling
would be binding. Mezera told the council that the last communication
from the union was not to bother scheduling a meeting if the city wasn't
going to put more money on the table. Cardwell, however, denied that was the
union's stance and insisted there was a misunderstanding. OCALA - Police union members - upset
with the way the city manager wants to handle an additional 3 percent
contribution to the pension fund - rejected a new contract this week in a
ratification vote. Taxpayers sue over parity
pay From
the Texarkana Gazette, November 16, 2005 Five
Texarkana, Ark., taxpayers have filed a lawsuit requesting revenue from a
voter-approved sales tax increase be used for its intended purpose—to give
police officers the same pay Texarkana, Texas, police officers earn. “It
is simply asking the ordinance that was passed be given its full effect and
the city board be requested to follow that. They
(city board) are behind on the parity pay right now,” said attorney Nick
Patton, who is representing the five taxpayers who filed the lawsuit last
week in Miller County Circuit Court. “...
This is a matter of getting the tax money that has been collected and is
being collected into the right account ... We have a fine police department
we are going to lose if we don’t keep up with the Texas side,” he said. Patton
said there is no specific dollar amount requested in the lawsuit on behalf of
his clients Donald Duncan, Max Elrod, Joe Gillenwater,
Mike Jones and Dennis Young. A
quarter-cent sales tax increase was approved by Texarkana, Ark., voters
nearly 10 years ago to keep Arkansas-side officers’ salaries on a par with
Texas-side officers, often referred to as parity pay. City
Attorney Ned Stewart believes city officials have abided by the almost
decade-old ballot issue. “I
have read the complaint but it is not very specific ... Our defense will be
the difference about what constitutes parity. It is the same thing the city
has said. We believe we expended the funds in accordance with the way it was
put on the ballot,” he said. But
city officials say the money isn’t there, because of waning sales revenues,
and they haven’t mishandled the money. However,
in recent years police department officials have said the city misused the
parity money that comes from a quarter-cent sales tax and there should be
enough money left to fund parity pay. Also
at heart is the fact that police say the ordinance passed by the city
stipulates the quarter cent tax is to be used only for base pay, while the
city incorporates that as base pay including fringe benefits. Patton
said the possibility of the Texarkana, Ark., Police Officers Association
filing a lawsuit seeking parity pay had not been ruled out. “We
have been in dicussion with the police union for
some time but no final decision has been made about that. I suspect their
final decision might be to wait until we see what happens with these
taxpayers’ illegal exaction lawsuit,” Patton said. He
explained an illegal exaction lawsuit alleges tax money has been used for
purposes it was not intended. “The
lawsuit is filed asking the vote taken several years ago about parity pay be
declared in effect and the city board be required to abide by that,” Patton
said. He
believes the taxpayers lawsuit will be decided
quickly. “I
don’t know why this lawsuit should take any real time at all. It is a matter
of interpretation ... it seems pretty clear to me, the police officers and
the taxpayers, but it doesn’t appear that clear to the city board,” he said. Police
Chief Bob Harrison declined comment about the lawsuit when contacted. Meanwhile,
members of a committee established by city officials to iron out differences
about parity pay are working toward a plan that includes a solid definition
and an accounting formula for parity. That is to be presented at a city board
meeting later this month. Firefighters, Police
Unions Sue Over Negotiations From AP, November 13, 2005 KOKOMO,
Ind. -- Unions
representing Kokomo police officers and firefighters are suing in an effort
to get binding arbitration on stalled contract negotiations. The
lawsuits ask a judge to review their request for binding arbitration, which
was turned down by administration officials who said the firefighters and
police officers waived their rights to arbitration during collective
bargaining this summer. The
lawsuits were filed in Howard Circuit Court by the Fire Fighters Local 396
and the Fraternal Order of Police, the Kokomo Tribune reported. Attorney Leo
Blackwell of Indianapolis, who represents both unions, confirmed Thursday
that he's asking the courts to review the city's denial of arbitration. Contract
negotiations between the city's administration and the unions stalled over
health insurance benefits. By law, police and firefighters cannot go on
strike, so binding arbitration and lawsuits are their only recourse when they
reach an impasse in negotiations. The
unions say early in negotiations they agreed to extend talks so the city
would have more time to negotiate in good faith. City officials say the
unions waived their right to arbitration. The
administration and the unions have been unable to agree on proposed
concessions in the unions' health insurance. Administration officials want a
plan that would increase the amount workers pay toward the premium. City
officials declined further comment on the issue to the newspaper. Rialto Police Department
Still Around (for now) From The Associated Press, November
15, 2005 RIALTO, Calif. - The City Council's decision to
disband the Police Department in favor of less expensive sheriff's protection
was overturned by a judge who ruled the city should have met with the
officers' union before the vote. Monday's ruling by Superior Court Judge Bob N. Krug means the
city must "meet and confer" with the Rialto Police Benefit
Association union and vote again at a public meeting in order to transfer law
enforcement services to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Based on its Memorandum of Understanding, the judge said the
city was required to meet with the police union prior to the council's 4-1
decision Sept. 13 to disband the Police Department. Both sides now have five
days to appoint a mediator to oversee negotiations. "The end result is everything we wanted," officers'
union lawyer Michael Lackie said. "There's no
contract ... what the city has done so far means zip." Councilman Ed Scott said the Police Department's lack of
professionalism, poor response times and the city's rising crime rates that
prompted the vote have not changed. In August, the council approved the sheriff's proposed $17
million contract, saving the city $1.2 million a year. The department has
been plagued with lawsuits, complaints about poor service and an officers'
union vote of no confidence in Chief Michael Meyers and Deputy Chief Arthur
Burgess. "I think (the ruling) just clearly delays what we need to
do once again," Scott said. "I'm still in favor of bringing the
sheriff in and I intend to move in that direction." The department's 100-plus officers serve Rialto's nearly 100,000
residents.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright ã POLICEPAY.NET, Inc.
2005 All Rights Reserved |
||||||||||||||||||||||
The POLICEPAY Journal
Published
by:
POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc.
(405)
234-2235