The POLICEPAY Journal

POLICEPAY Journal Mailing List (Receive new issues by e-mail)

Thursday December 2, 2004

Matt Barnard, Editor                                                                                    (405) 234-2235 

matt@policepay.net                                                                                        www.policepay.net                             

 

Click on a Headline to skip to the Article.

 

L.A. Police commissioner seeks voter approval for half-cent increase to hire more officers.

The City of Orlando's Mayor Tries A Smoke Screen

New Port,  RI Police will receive nice Christmas present

F.O.P. #3 elected as the sole bargaining agent for the FT. Collins Police Department.

Cincinnati FOP walks on negotiations              

Look At The Last Issue (11/25/04)

FOUR QUESTIONS TO ANSWER BEFORE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS

 

POLICEPAY.NET Announces Plans for a

CALIFORNIA POLICEPAY.NET INDEX

 

POLICEPAY.NET will be launching a new website that is dedicated to California.  The new site will include city police departments, county sheriff departments, and the state police department.  All of the cities and counties currently on the POLICEPAY and DEPUTYPAY sites will be included.  In addition, we will be adding other California cities that have a population of 50,000 or more.  Currently, our largest 200 cities database includes city of about 100,000 and above.

 

We will also publish a California POLICEPAY Index that includes all of the California law enforcement agencies on the California site.  If you department is not one of the 200 largest cities on the POLICEPAY website and your city has a population greater than 50,000, you can be included by providing us the minimum information to qualify for an Index score.  To see what is required, go to this link www.policepay.net/zcalifornia/required.htm

 

After the California site is online, we will begin a Texas POLICEPAY site.

 

 

 

Police will receive nice Christmas present

The back pay for active officers totals $594,195. Another $30,000 in retroactive pay will go to municipal employees.

 

From the Journal, Wednesday, December 1, 2004

 

NEWPORT(RI) -- Yes, officer, there is a Santa Claus.

 

Police officers, who have not had a raise in more than two years, will receive retroactive pay and a 5-percent salary hike in their Thursday paycheck, the result of an arbitrator's award two months ago. It's no coincidence the back pay, ranging from about $3,000 to $4,000 for a rookie to $7,000 to $8,000 for a veteran, has excellent Yuletide timing.

 

"We tried to make it so they could get their checks before Christmas," said city Finance Director Laura Sitrin.

 

Detective Christopher Hayes, president of Lodge 8, Fraternal Order of Police, said the union had asked for the back pay by the holidays. He said a letter from City Manager James C. Smith indicated that the city would honor the request.

 

"They made the commitment. They are making good on it," said Hayes. "I'm sure people will be happy. It's been a long time coming. We haven't seen any kind of raise in the last 28 months."

 

The last negotiated contract expired on June 30, 2002. Unable to reach agreement after that, the two sides went to arbitration, which resulted in a 5 percent boost in officers' base salary and retroactive pay. The city won higher co-payments on doctor's office visits and the removal of a cap on what officers pay for prescription drugs.

 

Sitrin said the back pay for active officers totals $594,195. It will cost approximately another $133,000 to cover the officers raise for the remaining seven months in this fiscal year, she said. Sitrin said the city set aside $1.1 million over the last three years in anticipation of the settlement of the disputed contract years.

There are still two years, however, that remain unresolved. The first of those, fiscal 2004, is now before the arbitrator who settled fiscal 2003.

 

Furthermore, the city must still compute the retroactive pay it owes police retirees. That is likely to come to about $300,000, Sitrin said. That money will come out of the city's pension fund.

 

Hayes said this week's checks won't include any back pay for police details, which was computed on the old salary scale.

 

"The city is telling us they are not going to give us any back pay on the details," he said.

Hayes said the union will "have to trudge on" with the arbitration, although it would prefer to settle the dispute through negotiation of a multiyear contract.

 

"I would hope we could wrap something up on a more long-term basis," he said. Referring to the four new members joining the City Council in January, he said, "Who knows? Maybe after the first of the year we can find some common ground with them."

 

Sitrin said that checks containing retroactive pay totaling about $30,000 will also be going out on Thursday to the approximately two dozen members of the Newport Municipal Employees Association. The union representing supervisory personnel at City Hall won 3-percent raises through a one-year extension of its contract.

 

 

Caruso Offers to Finance Drive for Sales-Tax Hike

Police commissioner seeks voter approval for half-cent increase to hire more LAPD officers.

From L.A. Times, Wednesday, December 1, 2004 

 

Rick Caruso, the shopping-center mogul and member of the Los Angeles Police Commission, said Tuesday he would personally finance a drive to place a half-cent sales tax on the May ballot if the City Council refuses to put it there.

Caruso's threat raises the stake in the debate between Mayor James K. Hahn and some members of the City Council over whether to ask voters to increase taxes to pay for more police officers.

 

Last month, Los Angeles County voters narrowly rejected a similar tax measure. But Caruso, who owns the Grove in Los Angeles and is developing shopping centers in Glendale and Arcadia, said he was prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of his own money to hire signature gatherers to get another citywide measure on the May ballot.

He also vowed to help finance the campaign.

"This would be the best investment I could make," Caruso said. "Being a Republican, I don't like taxes but sometimes you have to do it."

Earlier this month, council members roundly rejected a proposal from Hahn to put the measure before voters in March. The mayor and Police Chief William J. Bratton backed the measure, which would have added 1,200 officers to the Los Angeles Police Department, bringing the force to about 10,500.

But council members said March was too soon, and some expressed concern that boosting the sales tax in Los Angeles could send shoppers fleeing to outlying cities such as Glendale and Pasadena.

Caruso apparently did not consult Hahn before making his announcement Tuesday, but the mayor and several council members nevertheless praised the move.

Mayoral spokeswoman Elizabeth Kaltman said Hahn was "thrilled" at the surprise move from his police commissioner, a powerful developer who is courted by the city's political elite.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski also praised Caruso, but said that officials "need to do a post-mortem" of the losing Measure A campaign to avoid making the same mistakes.

"I think the measure can be better shaped," she said. "If we try and fail again, it will be a long time before we can ever think of revisiting it."

Caruso's stance marks the latest example in California of a wealthy person attempting to take an issue directly to voters, said Elizabeth Garrett, director of the USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.

She cited several examples of the trend, including the Orange County businessman who spent millions toward passage of a state measure in November requiring the DNA testing of many prisoners. Also in the November election, another businessman largely bankrolled the proposition to modify California's "three strikes" law.

Garrett predicted that Caruso could easily get a tax measure on the ballot if he were willing to pay.

"If you pay well enough, you'll get professional signature gatherers to get an issue on the ballot," said Garrett, who added that signatures typically cost from $1.50 to $3 during a packed season of campaigns.

"Those who've got money get to decide what questions the voters are asked. But to succeed with voters, their issue must resonate with the public," she said.

Indeed, such a tax hike requires a two-third majority, a difficult hurdle. Countywide, 60% of voters supported the November half-cent tax; in Los Angeles, 64% supported it. Measure A needed 66.7% to win.

Caruso, 45, owns Caruso Affiliated Holdings, a development company with $1 billion worth of projects and controlling franchise rights to many California Pizza Kitchen restaurants. His father, Hank, built the Dollar Rent A Car business.

Caruso, who was appointed to the Police Commission by Hahn in 2001, is considered a supporter of the mayor's. He was commission president when the panel decided to replace then-Chief Bernard C. Parks with Bratton. Parks, now a councilman, is challenging Hahn in next year's mayoral election.

"All we are doing is asking the council to let the voters decide. Let's get it back on the ballot," Caruso said.

If the City Council does put the half-cent tax hike on the May ballot, Caruso said, he would donate the first $500,000 toward the cause.

Some business groups have questioned the wisdom of pursuing a city-only tax that could prompt consumers to stop shopping for big-ticket items in Los Angeles and go to neighboring cities with lower sales taxes.

Caruso said he does not believe shoppers would go elsewhere if sales tax rises from 8.25% to 8.75%. Moreover, he said, Los Angeles' business climate would improve with more police officers.

Caruso made the announcement at a Police Commission meeting. The panel has urged the City Council to place the tax on the May ballot, and several commission members applauded Caruso's offer to finance the signature-gathering.

"I will be out there gathering signatures with him if the council doesn't put it on the ballot," said Police Commission President David S. Cunningham III.

The mayor's sister, Councilwoman Janice Hahn, said council members "ought to save him the trouble," and vote to put it on the ballot themselves. Council members have until mid-January to make such a move.

 

 

The City of Orlando's Mayor Tries A Smoke Screen

From Wire.com, November 25, 2004

 

Orlando, FL -- The Mayor and his staff continue to try to confuse the public and the media on the Orlando Police Officers Longevity Pay dispute by taking the position that they believed the payment amount was a subject of the negotiations for a new police contract. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the beginning and without exception, the Fraternal Order of Police has demanded the City make the Longevity Payment due to the officers for fiscal year 2003/2004 in the amount set forth in Article 44 of the 2001-2004 police contract which was finalized in 2001 and cannot be renegotiated.

The Fraternal Order of Police views the City's concocted confusion over Article 44 as an effort to justify the Mayor's withholding of the Longevity Payment in retaliation for the October 5, 2004 highly publicized demonstration by approximately 50 Police Officers outside City Hall. After the demonstration, the City declared impasse and informed the Fraternal Order of Police the Longevity Payments were not going to be paid.

The Fraternal Order of Police grieved the City's refusal to pay the Longevity Pay to Police Chief Michael McCoy whose decision was due last Thursday. In a meeting with The Fraternal Order of Police on Thursday, Chief McCoy indicated Mayor Dyer would meet with FOP officials in an effort to resolve the dispute and get the parties back to the table. Accordingly, the FOP agreed to two requests by Chief McCoy for additional time to render his decision in the hope the longevity pay dispute could be resolved. However, on Monday, Chief McCoy informed the Fraternal Order of Police that the Mayor would not meet with FOP representatives.

Every attempt has been made by the Fraternal Order of Police to amicably resolve the Longevity Payment issue and the FOP will now seek binding arbitration to force the City of Orlando to pay the contractually obligated payments to its officers.

The Longevity Payment issue in no way affects the current 2004 Contract Negotiations, which are now at impasse, and we will gladly meet with the City of Orlando to re-open the 2004 Contract Negotiations if the City so desires.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 25 President Jeff Williams or Labor Committee Chairman Sam Hoffman will be available for comment and can be reached at the following cellular phone numbers; Sam Hoffman (407) 832-1975, Jeff Williams (407) 832-1973.

 

 

FOP walks on negotiations
Police union claims 3% wage cut suggested; Cincinnati officials deny

From The Enquirer, Saturday, November 20, 2004

 

Contract negotiations between Cincinnati and its police union ended Friday, with officers saying the city wanted officers to take a 3 percent wage reduction, but city officials insisting no pay cut was proposed.

The last of seven negotiating sessions ended Friday with the union "walking away from the table in disgust," said FOP Vice President Keith Fangman. Union members will meet Monday night to talk about what actions they might take before the previously-agreed-upon mediation Dec. 13.

 

The union proposed a 6 percent pay increase each year for 2005 and 2006. Cincinnati officers got 3 percent raises in base salary in the last negotiations two years ago, plus a 2 percent increase in training pay.

 

A new officer's base pay, after graduating from the police academy, is $42,192. An officer's pay increases by 8 percent with each increase in rank.

 

"For the last three and a half years, since the (April 2001) riots, our officers have been criticized, stabbed in the back and not supported," union President Sgt. Harry Roberts said. "I want the citizens of Cincinnati to know what's going on. It's their money."

 

Assistant City Manager Rashad Young declined to disclose details of the city's wage proposal, but he insisted it was not a wage cut.

 

He said the city repeatedly clarified with the union's bargaining team that a pay cut was not being proposed. Anything union leaders say to the contrary is a mischaracterization and misinterpretation, he said.

 

"We have not made any offer whatsoever to reduce salaries for police officers,'' Young said. "I can be 100 percent clear that the city of Cincinnati's policy is not to ask for a reduction in base pay."

 

But Roberts and Fangman said the city also proposed reducing officers' overtime pay and amount officers earn when they go to court to testify against people they arrest.

 

Young stressed that the city faces a $16 million deficit next year. The $2 billion city budget, delivered to City Council Nov. 10, would eliminate 161 positions in 2005, 76 of which could be terminations.

"They clearly know (a pay cut) wasn't the intent,'' Young said of FOP leadership.

 

In most recent talks between the city and other unions, members of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees approved a contract that gives them a 2 percent raise in each of the next three years. That union represents about 40 percent of the city's workforce, including employees responsible for trash pickup and street cleaning.

 

Ohio's collective-bargaining law prohibits police from striking.

 

Even before police talks started Oct. 27, officers and city officials said it was possible negotiations should go straight to fact-finding.

 

Young insisted the city had no spare money, but Roberts said the union's research found plenty.

The contract expires next month. Fact-finding, should it be needed, is to start Jan. 14.

 

 

F.O.P. #3 elected as the sole bargaining agent for the FT. Collins Police Department.

 

The American Arbitration Association has certified that the Fraternal

Order of Police Lodge #3 (F.O.P.) has been elected as the sole bargaining

agent for the FT. Collins Police Department.

 

The American Arbitration Association conducted an election at the

direction of the City of FT. Collins to determine if the F.O.P. should be

bargaining agent. The Director of Human Resources Rick De La Castro and

members of F.O.P. Lodge #3, monitored the results of the election. The

City provided the mailing list for members of the bargaining unit to the

American Arbitration Association for them to conduct the election.

 

One hundred and twenty five (125) valid ballots were returned, with one

hundred and nine (109) ballots voting for the F.O.P. to be the Bargaining

Agent.

 

The F.O.P. looks forward to a productive working relationship with the

City of FT. Collins.

 

Questions to Lodge #3

970-204-0256

fop3@frii.com

P.O. box 56 , FT. Collins, Co 80522-0056

 

 

Thank You

 

Scott E. Goff

President Lodge #3

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOUR QUESTIONS TO ANSWER BEFORE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS

From Policepay.net September 30, 2000.

 

An examination of the four most important questions that must be answered before beginning negotiations with a city or county government.  The presentation advocates an explicit approach, rather than a comparison of opposing theories.

  

 

 

One axiom that applies to almost all endeavors is that "there is no substitute for preparation."  To be unprepared is to take the first step toward defeat.  Often this lesson is lost on committee members in charge of negotiations.  If your standard of living is on the line, it is unwise to be "flying by the seat of your pants."  Sadly, this is the course of choice for most.  Preparation gives you the ability to overcome the obstacles presented during your encounter with your counter-parts at the negotiating table. 

 

Before you begin the negotiation process, even before you begin developing your proposals, there are four questions that must be asked, answered and documented:

 

          [1] What is it that you want?

          [2] Why should it be given to you?

          [3] What will it cost?

          [4] How will it be funded?

 

These are relatively simple questions, especially number one.  You were probably anticipating something more profound.  Actually, these are four very profound questions.  Because the answers to these questions appear to be obvious, most bargaining units have not seriously pondered or answered any of these, not even number one.  I know, you think you have done this.  But, do your answers look like these:

 

          [1] We want a 25% increase in base pay, step differentials increased from 3% to 5%, an extra week of paid leave, and a laundry list of silly items.

 

          [2] We are underpaid and overworked.  We have this "home baked" survey that shows us to be the lowest paid major city, west of the Mississippi.

 

          [3] Base pay times 25%, plus step pay times 67% and nothing for the extra leave time.  The cost of our laundry list is de minimus.

 

          [4] Everyone knows the city is loaded.  Just spend some of those millions in the bank.

 

Few bargaining units will admit to this indictment.  But, everywhere I go, I ask these same four questions.  Almost without exception, I get the same answers that I listed above.  By the end of this writing you should know how to properly answer these questions.

 

What Is It You Want?

 

Several years ago there was a movie named The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything. Most proposals submitted for consideration by police and fire bargaining units could be titled like that movie.  You never really expect to get the watch and everything.  What you really want is the girl.  This brings us to the topic of "The Throwaway Proposals".  Throwaways are proposals that you have no intention of securing, but you submit them for the purpose of using them as "sacrificial lambs" at some key juncture of negotiations.  Everybody knows about "Win Win".  If your pad your proposal with throwaways items, you can "APPEAR" to be engaging in Win Win negotiations.  You get everything you want, and the city gets your throwaways.  The only problem with this tactic is that you have to get the city's negotiators to swallow "stupidity pills" before each negotiation session.  Do you really believe they are that stupid.  Your throwaways stand out at the first reading of your proposal - almost as some form of retributive justice. I have seen bargaining units that secured their throwaways and not one of their real proposals.

 

First of all, throwaways do not work, unless you are dealing with complete idiots.  Not only do they not work, they destroy your credibility and insult the other side, not exactly the things you should do.  Get rid of throwaways.  Stick to serious proposals.

 

Okay, you are wondering what you should propose.  First, your proposals must be serious and reasonable.  The chances of you securing a 50% pay increase in one year are virtually zero, unless there are some really unusual circumstances.  It does not matter that a 50% increase is needed to bring you up to the lowest paid city of all comparable cities.  If there is no chance of getting 50%, do not ask for it.  Forget the "Hail Mary Pass".  Most of these result in interceptions.  Your proposal should be the highest of the following three:

 

          (1) The best you think you could possibly obtain.

          (2) What you really expect to obtain.

          (3) The lowest that you would agree to.

 

Your initial proposal should be the highest amount that you think is obtainable.  This amount should be determined in non-emotional setting.  A lodge or local meeting is not the place.  If both sides put the required effort into their computations, each side will have about the same numbers, only in reverse order.  Normally, neither side will use this approach, but will be pushing ridiculous proposals.  Even if you wise up to this waste of time, there is no reason to think that the city will change also.  Most cities will begin with "low ball" proposals.  This can actually work to your benefit.   If you focus on the other side's proposal and that proposal in not reasonable, the other side is in a position of weakness.  Never advance an unreasonable proposal.

 

In addition to being reasonable, your proposal must be understandable and easy to implement.  If it requires an attorney to translate or a team of accountants to implement, you might as well toss it into the ash can.  Your proposal must be concise, clear, simple and understandable by the average person.  Keep it simple.

 

The number of proposals should be few, maybe 4 or 5.  Most bargaining units will have 25 proposals, 5 serious ones, 5 throwaways, 10 outright goofy ones and 5 "sock it to the chief" proposals.  We have already discussed throwaways.  Goofy proposals include small inconsequential items, items that are not germane to collective bargaining (more police cars) and items that should be negotiated within the department.  As for the "sock it to the chief" proposals, you must decide if your purpose is to obtain benefits for your membership or lobe salvos at the chief.  Forget about the chief.  If he did everything your membership thought he should, he would be the ex-chief.  Do not include every item proposed by your membership.  Submit only the 5 most important proposals.

 

Why Should It Be Given To You?

 

The answer to this question is not necessarily what you will say to the city, but it is the raw truth.  You first need to be honest with yourself.  Your appeal to the city may not be based on factual data, but on subjective data.  However, once you have the city ready to agree to an agreement, you had better be in the position to provide the factual data to validate that agreement. If you do not have that data, you are going to be hard pressed to give cover to the city officials that have agreed to the proposal.  This data usually manifests itself in the form of a wage survey.  The two points that I want to make now is that the survey must be prepared with due diligence and it must be credible.  If you are not willing to commit the required time resources to prepare the survey properly, you should hire the work done.  A poorly prepared survey is worse than no survey at all.  Do not cook the numbers in your survey or select only cities that advance your case.  Credibility is worth more than the data itself.  I would rather have weak numbers with perceived high credibility, than strong numbers and low credibility.  A Gomer Pyle with high credibility is more effective, than an Einstein with low credibility.  Commit the required resources needed to have a credible wage survey.

 

What Will It Cost?

 

This is the one step that most bargaining units skip.  Many will leave this to the city's director of finance - a dumb move.  The computation of the cost of your proposals is a complicated process.  As with the wage survey, if you do not have the expertise or the commitment to do this correctly, you should hire it done.  Most bargaining units lose a lot on this very point.  Accepting the city's numbers is foolish.  Making a half-hearted effort is even worse.  At least when you use the city's computations, you do not lose credibility.  The next question, how will it be funded, cannot be answered without knowing what the proposal will cost.  You should cost all three numbers - best possible, expected, and lowest acceptable.  Do not skip this question.  Know what your proposals will cost.

 

How Will It Be Funded?

 

No matter how meritorious your proposal, it will require money to fund it.  This procedure involves analyzing the annual audits and budgets of the city.  Few bargaining units have the in-house expertise to perform this function.  Hiring and outside expert is normally the only option.  Eventually, this answer to this question will be the go or no go of your proposals.  Many people think that if the money can be found, they can get the pay increase.  Actually, it is the reverse.  If the money cannot be found, the pay increase cannot be obtained.  Just the city having the ability to pay for an increase is not a reason for giving a pay increase.  The money is just one of those necessary evils.  If you do not know the answer to this question, the city will, almost without exception, claim that funds are not available.  Know how your proposals can be fund before you submit them.

 

How To Properly Answer The Four Questions

 

The first question, What Is It That You Want?, should also be number one and number five.  Because once you have answered the other three questions, you may realize that your proposals are not appropriate.  This is the reason for doing all of the work for all four questions before the start of negotiations.  You do not want to divulge all of the information up front, but you certainly need to know "who's on first".

 

The one thing that keeps most bargaining units from properly answering these four questions is the perceived cost.  This is an example of false economies.  Assume that a bargaining unit has 200 members with an average salary of $40,000 per year.  If the cost of doing all of this preliminary work is $20,000, the cost per man is $100.  This translates into .0025 of salary for one year.  Over the life of a three-year contract, it is .00083, less than one-tenth of one-percent.  The net bargaining gain per man needed to cover the cost of the work on a three-year contract is $33.33.  Do you buy your work shoes at Wal-Martâ?  You could save money if you did.

 

If you expect to succeed at negotiations, you must be willing to put substantial efforts and money into the preparation.  Normally, I become involved with bargaining units late in the negotiation process - just before arbitration and fact-finding.  Nome of the four questions have been properly answered, even at this late hour.  The plan at that point is to go arbitration or fact-finding with minimal preparation and with little cash outlay.  This is a recipe for failure.  Arbitration and fact-fining are time consuming and expensive.  The best solution is to avoid arbitration. This is done by doing a better job of negotiating.  Better negotiating is accomplished by better preparation.  Better preparation is properly answering these four basic questions before entering into negotiations.  

_____________________________________________________

BACK ISSUES OF THE JOURNAL

 

 

Copyright ã POLICEPAY.NET, Inc. 2004 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