02-28-1990 - Special
..,.
.....
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 1990
MINUTES
Mayor Mitchum called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community
Center. He stated the purpose for the meeting was to hear and take action on
the respective positions of the Police Benevolent Association and the City
administration with respect to the rejected recommendations of the Special
Master.
ROLL CALL
Mayor David Mitchum
Councilman Dan Hatfield
Councilmember Gigi Bennington
Councilman Russell Gold
Councilman Thomas Fish
City Attorney Josel Alvarez
City Manager Elly Johnson
City Clerk Susan Wadsworth
Chief Lawrence Schumaker
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Also present were Mr. Tom Johnson, the City's negotiator, and Attorney Charles
Tindell, representing the PBA.
Mr. Tom Johnson noted the PEA and SPEA contracts were agreed upon and final
effective October 1, 1989, but the PBA contract covering the Police officers
wasn't agreed upon by the effective expiration date and is still in the process.
He said the current contract was to expire September 30, 1989, but after numerous
negotiation sessions, on November 16th certain issues were still on the table
and the parties were unable to agree on a solution and impasse was declared.
He stated Public Employees Relations Commission appointed James Sherman as
Special Master and the hearing was held January 3, 1990, findings were issued
January 9th and the negotiators met January 31 to discuss and determine if they
agree to or reject the Special Master's recommendations. He added that PERC was
notified January 31 that the City did reject certain parts and on February 1st
the City Council was delivered a copy of the Special Master's findings and a memo
from the City Manager on what was rejected and the agreed upon issues were
outlined.
Mr. T. Johnson stated there were four issues the City has agreed to: Insurance,
Article 10, the City agrees to the recommendation that the procedure of payment
of insurance with the City paying 100% of the employee and 50% for dependent
remain as is; Hours of Work and Overtime, Article 7, there's an issue on
compensation for those employees that carry beepers and the Special Master rules
they were not entitled to special compensation since they were not required to
be on standby; Compensation, Article 35, the portion that relates to 5% COLA and
retroactive to October 1, 1989; Length of Agreement, Article 38, the City had
proposed three years but the law is specific and if either party doesn't want
the three year contract, the question remains moot so there's no argument.
Mr. T. Johnson then reviewed the six issues which were not acceptable to the
City: Hours of Work and Overtime, Article 7, as it relates to 12 hour shifts;
Article 13, Sick Leave, as it relates to whether to go to 8 or 12 hour shifts;
Article 14, Vacations, relates to 8 or 12 hour shifts; Article 15, Holidays,
directly relates to Article 7 and is dependent on shifts they decide are
appropriate; Article 31, Equipment, the City has asked it be taken out and the
Association wants it retained; and Article 35, Compensation, as it relates to
the merit pay plan.
Mr. T. Johnson then explained the reasons for the rejection of those six issues:
Article 7, Hours of work and overtime, the City has the right to establish hours
of its employees and Chapter 447.203 of the Florida Statutes says this City
Council is the public employer and Chapter 447.209 provides it's the right of
the public employer to determine unilaterally the purpose of each of its
constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and
exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations. He stated
the current contract that expired September 30, 1989, had negotiated 12 hours
..
....."
shifts but that doesn't take away their right to change. He said the Special
Master had stated that it's only an opinion that employees are less efficient
after 8 hours but the City presented evidence that productive time would increase
with 8 hour shifts over the entire year because of the amount of down time.
He pointed out they did a survey of 14 cities in the area and 7 worked 8 hours
and the union had argued 12 hours were worked with most cities, but it's an even
toss up.
Mr. T. Johnson stated the overtime in the Police Department was running about
12% and those departments on 8 hours run 2.2 to 6.5% but the Special Master said
that was not persuasive evidence. He pointed out the total overtime paid to all
employees in 1989 was $102,771 and $62,390 of that was for the Police Department,
or 60.7% of the total.
Mr. T. Johnson stated the union presented a document that Edgewater ranked 7th
in the State on crime suppression and they surveyed those other cities and showed
4 worked 8 hours, 2 worked 10, and 1 worked 12 hours.
Mr. T. Johnson stated the Special Master gave no weight to the fact that the
City offered to pay for the 2 hours of straight time pay the officers would lose
by going to 8 hour shifts and each patrol officer would receive the same pay for
40 hours that he now receives for 42 hours, which amounts to a 5% wage increase
and added to the 5% COLA, it amounts to 10.2% wage increase as opposed to 5%
given to the rest of the City employees, and it impacts to 15% on overtime hours.
He pointed out their arguments were always economical and never emotional. He
referred to the Special Master's comments regarding moonlighting with the 14 days
off and observation of Police officers being a deterrent to civil disorder.
Mr. T. Johnson stated the City Manager recommends the City Council settle this
issue by imposing the 8 hour work shift on the Police Department.
Mr. T. Johnson stated the Sick Leave issue had the language agreed to but it
comes down to how much is paid for sick leave depending on the number of hours
the employee works. He noted sick leave days now are paid for 12 hours or 8
hours depending on what they work and this would be consistent with the final
settlement of the shift hours. He said some employees have accumulated more than
the maximum and the City has agreed to buy back that amount. He stated the City
Manager's recommendation to settle this issue by imposing 8 hour shifts and
buying back excess hours in a lump sum at the rate of the employee when it was
accumulated.
Mr. T. Johnson stated with Vacation, the same rationale applies and it's the City
Manager's recommendation to settle this issue by imposing 8 hour shifts and
buying back under the same conditions the hours in excess of those provided for
8 hour shifts.
Mr. T. Johnson stated with Holidays, the same rationale applies as with Article
13 and 14, and it's the City Manager's recommendation this issue be settled by
imposing 8 hour shifts as all other areas of this article have been agreed upon.
Mr. T. Johnson stated on Article 31, Equipment, the union wants it to remain the
same and the City wants to delete it and the Special Master didn't give a firm
recommendation. He said the City Manager's recommendation to settle this issue
is to delete the language because the current Management Rights clause determines
it's the City's right to determine the number and type of equipment and it was
previously agreed to by negotiations. He pointed out Article 33, Employee-
Management Committee, allows the employee the right to input with any problem
or issue that arises and Article 26, Grievance and Arbitration Procedures, allows
the employee the right to file the grievance on safety and the union argues this
list of equipment that should be in the vehicle is a safety measure but nothing
will preclude their right to file a grievance or meet in an Employee-Management
Committee.
Mr. T. Johnson stated on Article 35, Compensation, regarding the merit pay plan,
the plan is currently written for merit pay based on an evaluation performance
and nothing written in the plan states that an award will be for a minimum per-
formance of job requirements but does set a merit pay of 4% maximum each year
may be granted on evaluation and it does not preclude less than 4%. He added
that some employees got nothing and some got 4% but they could have got something
2 Council Special Meeting Minutes
February 28, 1990
'-"
.."""
between 0 and 4% because the plan doesn1t prohibit that procedure. He pointed
out that 4% is not guaranteed if the employee meets minimum standards because
if an employee didn't receive a 4% evaluation, he should be terminated for poor
performance. He said the Special Master interpreted this as automatic because
it's an assumed practice. He said the language in Article 35 is ambiguous and
the City agrees to maintain the existing pay plan and does not intend to abolish
the merit pay plan or exchange it but wants to eliminate the misleading language
in Article 35 and maintain the existing pay plan as it's written. He added the
plan is set by the Merit Board and the budget and made law by the City Council,
and the benefit is guaranteed employees in Article 30, Savings Clause. He stated
the City Manager recommends this issue be settled by deleting the language in
Article 35 and administering the merit plan as it is written to award merit pay
from nothing to 4% per year, based on an employee's evaluation.
Attorney Charles Tindell represented the Police Department. He reviewed the
Special Master's previous experience and stated this was a compromise between
the two parties that's equitable and fair. He commended the Police Department
for cities this size for having a consistently reducing crime rate and increasing
arrest rate since 1985 since Ch i ef Schumaker came wi th th i s Department. He
stated that despite the size and competing for professional officers with
agencies larger and with more salaries and benefits, they've been able to attract
a group of people who are dedicated and devote themselves to working for this
City. He expressed gratitude and inspiration of the Police Department for the
community support they've received since this issue left the Special Master and
for the support of organizations such as United Taxpayers of Edgewater and
businesses in the community. He asked Council to keep in context the employees
they're dealing with tonight as they have a lot of good employees and there was
some comparison to other employees in the City. He pointed out these employees
have responsibilities 24 hours a day 7 days a week. He referred to an article
written by Paul Harvey. He noted they don't have normal hours and other
employees don't work stressful situations as the Police do.
Mr. Tindell stated that Tom Johnson presented his side for the City in a
competent and professional manner.
Mr. Tindell stated management has imposed the taking away of something that was
bargained for and discussed for a long period of time and it was taken without
offering anything in return. He pointed out they've had 12 hours since 1980
except for a short interval, and during the course of the contract year, they
asked the union if the members would reinstate the 12 hour shifts. He pointed
out the instances of attacks on officers because they didn't have the number of
people there for back up. He stated being in synch with cities to the north
and the County is important. He added that morale can have an effect on product-
ivity and there's little doubt morale would be affected if the 8 hour shifts were
imposed and the officers would have a feeling of loss on their part. He stated
that since 1985 this department has increased its efficiency by crime rate
reduction and only about 3 others showed a decrease and the number of arrests
per incident, which is extremely important, have increased 34.9% .
Mr. Tindell stated the question of cost from 8 to 12 hours was interrelated with
the question of overtime and the City asserted its overtime cost was high but
did not show any evidence that the total labor cost would decrease if they change
from 12 to 8 hours and the increased manpower required to change the shifts
around is going to offset any savings to the City in many and any savings would
be very insignificant compared to what they'd be giving up.
Mr. Tindell stated when an employee looks at their job they don't compartment-
alize it such as a certain benefit and it1s a total approach to a job and if you
can't make the same amount of money as a person somewhere else but can work a
shift that enables you to do the job better, you're going to take less benefits
or money. He added the mer i t increase has been a part of the compensat i on
package for a number of years and the City has bargained it into the contract
and there's a difference between the appearance of a merit increase and reality
of a merit increase as pointed out by the Special Master. lie said a merit
increase would be awarded for extraordinary performance but that hasn't been what
has been historical in the City and the City has always interpreted the merit
increase as a step increase and no person ever received less than 4% and it's
always been treated that way. He noted these people have every right to believe
their 4% would be there if they had a positive evaluation. He said if the City
3 Council Special Meeting Minutes
February 28, 1990
~
""-'
wants to go back to a pure merit plan, they have the right to do it and they can
bring it to the bargaining table next year in the negotiations of the contract.
He added there was a start on the new merit pay and some employees were given
less than 4% and they immediately brought a sense of concern because of the
history of how it's been done. He stated it1s not fair to unilaterally change
that at this time and simply delete that has unfairly taken away the basis on
which these people bargained the rest of the pay package.
Mr. Tindell stated the Special Master did not side with the employees all the
time or even the majority of the time but they feel he used his experience to
clearly address these issues and both sides had ample time and opportunity to
give him all the information they wanted to give him and then he made his
proposed recommended findings. He added there's not a clear winner or loser.
Mr. Tindell stated they have to look at this in more than a formula kind of
analysis and look at the impact in the future and the employees and their
relationship to the City and community at large and decide if the basis of their
performance for you can warrant changing these things. He asked them to support
the Special Master recommendations and they'll abide by those they lost and those
he found in their favor and they'll do what's in the best interest of the City
and the employees.
City Manager Elly Johnson stated Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tindell presented both sides
very well and it1s now up to Council.
Mayor Mitchum requested input from the City Attorney on procedures for handling
the six items. City Attorney Alvarez explained their role is clearly defined
by State Statutes 447.403 and the City Council is to take action it deems to be
in the public interest including the interest of the public employees involved
to resolve all disputed impasse issues. He added they heard the issues and they
can be resolved all at one time or one at a time. He read the applicable Statute
regarding the role of the public employer. He added they're sitting totally
separated from what's transpired in the past and they must resolve all disputed
issues giving equal treatment to both parties in the best public interest.
Councilman Hatfield requested a 5-minute recess. Mayor Mitchum called a recess
at 7:57 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 8:04 p.m.
Mayor Mitchum thanked Tom Johnson and Attorney Tindell for their hard work on
these issues and expressed his appreciation.
Mayor Mitchum suggested they handle the articles separately with a yes or no vote
to accept or reject the Special Master's recommendation.
Councilman Gold asked about Sick Leave, Article 13, on page 7 with the balance
of 480, should it be 8 or 12 hours. Mr. Tindell stated their proposal is 12
hours.
Councilman Hatfield asked about Equipment, Article 31, which was a non-decisive
recommendation to leave it or take it out. Councilman Gold suggested they handle
it separately. Mayor Mitchum said they could clear up the language and it was
just to delete.
Councilman Hatfield asked Council's input on sick leave and vacation. Mayor
Mitchum stated they'd handle them individually and question on the motion would
give him the opportunity.
1: Article 7, Hours of work and overtime, Councilman Fish moved to accept the
Special Master1s recommendation on #7. Councilman Gold seconded. Motion CARRIED
5-0.
2: Article 13, Sick Leave. Councilman Fish moved they accept the Special
Master's recommendation on Article 13. Councilmember Bennington seconded the
motion. Councilman Hatfield expressed concern with the number of hours accrued
for an 8 hour or 12 hour shift as the 8 hours get 96 hours and patrol officers
get 144 hours and he wants to have equality for all employees and this seems one
sided to patrolmen. He pointed out the patrol gets 12 hours sick leave and the
detectives get 8 hours and the patrol works 5% more per week but gets 50% more
in these benefits. He explained that1s why held vote no on this. Motion CARRIED
4-1. Councilman Hatfield voted NO.
4 Council Special Meeting Minutes
February 28, 1990
'"
....,.
...,
3: Article 14, Vacation. Councilman Gold moved they accept the Special Master's
recommendation. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Councilman Hatfield
reiterated what he just said about vacations is the same thing. Motion CARRIED
4-1. Councilman Hatfield voted NO.
4: Article 15, Holidays. Councilman Fish moved they accept the Special Master's
recommendation on article 15. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion.
Motion CARRIED 5-0.
5: Article 31, Equipment. Councilman Gold stated he feels this article should
be deleted because it's up to the Chief to make recommendations as to how any
Police car should be equipped, and he so moved. Councilmember Bennington
seconded for discussion. Councilmember Bennington stated she doesn't think it
should be part of the union contract and the Special Master didn't really give
them a definite response and it's up to the City Manager and Chief to determine
what's necessary and what they can afford in that area. Mayor Mitchum agreed.
Councilman Hatfield stated that in the past they haven't had some of the most
eloquent Councils or best Police Chiefs and he can understand PBA wanting this
article there and they don't know from year to year who will be there. He added
they gave this Police Department basically everything they requested because they
wanted a qua li ty Po 1 ice Department and they want to keep a qua 1 i ty Po 1 ice
Department as they've indicated tonight. He said they have the right to say they
want to require it but Council doesn't have to accept it in future contracts and
he'll vote against the proposal for that reason. Mayor Mitchum agreed with
Councilmember Bennington and Councilman Gold, adding they trust the Chief enough
and have confidence in him and he's shown he's a capable leader who won't send
them out in a car that's ill equipped so it should be deleted. Councilman Fish
stated he sees both sides and there may be times when people aren't equipped
properly. Motion CARRIED 3-2. Councilmen Fish and Hatfield voted NO.
6: Article 35, Compensation, merit pay plan. Councilman Hatfield moved they
want to go to the 0 to 4% merit as all the other employees in the City are.
Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Councilman Fish stated he feels
the 4% merit scale is a better system than an all or nothing and the person who
does less shouldn't get the same as someone who does more and this is the way
the merit plan should be. Councilmember Bennington agreed with Councilman Fish
and always had a question about how they can have a union and a merit system at
the same time because they're not supposed to work together and somehow the City
instituted the merit system and union at the same time and it wasn't as equitable
in some instances in the past as it should be and 0 to 4% is the fairest way to
give incentive pay which is what the merit system is. Mayor Mitchum stated the
merit system is something you earn and it's like respect. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Fish so moved.
Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. , eeting was ad' p.m.
bL/~~.
MAYOR
~
Minutes submitted by:
Lura Sue Koser
~TT ST:
LjU--.~ -
CITY CLE
Approved this 19 day of
2hLL~~
MAYOR
~
5 Council Special Meeting Minutes
February 28, 1990