HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-20-2002PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDLANA, MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002
The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session at 7:30 p.m., Monday, May
20, 2002, in the Council Chambers in said City. President Bruce Wissel presided with the following
Councilmembers present: Howard "Jack" Elstro, Etta J. Lundy, Karl Sharp, Bing Welch, Larry Parker, Paul
Combs and Sarah "Sally" Hutton. Phil Dickman was absent. The following business was conducted:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRAYER BY THE REV. MARTIN GEHRING
ROLL CALL
Eight present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the May 6, 2002 meeting were approved on a motion by Councilmember Welch, second by
Councilmember Combs, and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
PRESENTATION OF REMONSTRANCES, PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, INTRODUCTIONS,
MOTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR
Mayor Shelley Miller stated that in light of the number of ordinances before Council tonight, she would not
make any comments but welcomed any questions that Councilmembers might have.
FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
President Wissel said the minutes of the meetings of April 25 and May 2, 2002 were in their packets.
REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinances No. 33, 44, 45 and 47 - 2002 by
title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 33 - 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 33 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING OF SE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WOODSIDE DR. & HAYES ARBORETUM
RD.
President Wissel explained that this ordinance deals with a zoning request for the property at the
intersections of Woodside Drive and Hayes Arboretum Road from an R-2 district to a C-2 district to allow
the use of the site for the construction of a building to expand the services of the Health Connection. He
stated that the request would be sent to the Planning Commission and return to Council.
ORDINANCE NO.44 — 2002
The D eputy C lerk r ead Ordinance N o. 4 4 — 2 002 — A S PECIAL O RDINANCE AUTHORIZING T HE
APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR
DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1
Councilmember Sharp explained that this ordinance is a request by Carlos Casket Shell Inc. of 1501 South
8`s Street for a tax abatement for a 1400 ton hydraulic press and asked that President Wissel, as a member
of the Tax Abatement Committee, follow up on the request and report to Council at its next meeting.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.45 — 2002
The D eputy C lerk r ead Ordinance N o. 4 5 — 2 002 — A S PECIAL O RDINANCE AUTHORIZING T HE
APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR
DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1
Councilmember Sharp explained that this ordinance deals with a request by Benchmark Graphics for
additional equipment, adding that he would follow up on the request and report to Council at its next
meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.47 — 2002
The D eputy C lerk r ead Ordinance N o. 4 7 — 2 002 — A S PECIAL O RDINANCE AUTHORIZING T HE
APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR
DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1
Councilmember Sharp explained that this ordinance deals with a request by SYNKA, INC. for a tax
abatement on a new building to be built, adding that he had asked Councilmember Welch to follow up on
the request and report to Council at its next meeting.
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND ENGROSSMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 24 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 24 — 2002 — A SPECIAL ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC
WAY
President Wissel reported on a public hearing of this ordinance held by the Richmond Advisory
Commission on April 25. He said the ordinance was heard as well as Vacation Petition No. 4 — 2002. He
said this was a request to vacate 25 feet of the right of way on the north side of Woodside Drive, but the
petitioner amended his petition at that meeting requesting only 20 feet and agreeing to install a curb and
gutter along the new frontage to control storm runoff and water from the paved road surface. -
He s aid t he C ommission voted 10-0, with 1 member a bsent, f o r ecommend t he vacation o f t he 2 0 feet
requested subject to the installation of the curb and gutter and subject to any necessary easement for
utilities.
President Wissel announced that Ordinance No. 24 — 2002 was on public hearing. Speaking in favor of the
ordinance was Jeff Hanna, the agent for the petitioners and invited questions from Council.
Councilmember Lundy moved to amend the ordinance to change the reading from 25 feet to 20 feet,
second by Councilmember Elstro and the motion was carried on a. voice vote. There being no further
comments for or against the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by
Councihnember Hutton and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
Councilmember Elstro moved to suspend the rules and advance Amended Ordinance No. 24 — 2002 to third
and final reading and read by title only, second by Councihnember Parker and the motion was carried on a
voice vote.
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 24 — 2002 on third reading.
Amended Ordinance No. 24 — 2002 was adopted on a unanimous roll call vote.
ORDINANCE NO.32 — 2002
The D eputy C lerk r ead Ordinance N o. 3 2 — 2 002 — A S PECIAL O RDINANCE AUTHORIZING T HE
APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR
DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1
Councilmember Welch reported that he had met with two representatives of Smith D airy and discussed
their request, saying that their intentions are to purchase the Fresh America building to the west of their
building and by adding additional refrigeration and cooling equipment to use that as a finished product
warehouse before distributing their product into the retail market. He said they are asking for a 10-year
abatement, adding that the purchase of the land would occur this month and the cost of the building is
$1,950,000. He said they also anticipate that they would be adding close to $1 million in auxiliary
equipment. He said they anticipate adding 4 new jobs and to retain 148.
Since there was a question concerning previous tax abatements for the building, Ordinance No. 32 — 2002
was held over until those answers could be found.
C
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 34 — 2002
The D eputy C lerk r ead Ordinance N o. 3 2 — 2 002 — A S PECIAL O RDINANCE AUTHORIZING T HE
APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER APPLYING FOR
DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.C. 6-1.1-12.1
Councilmember Elstro explained that this ordinance deals with a tax abatement request by Stevens Wire
and he had met with Ray Stevens who said his intention is to put in added equipment to start some new
products. Councilmember Elstro said the total cost would be about $618,000 and recommended approval.
President Wissel declared the ordinance on public hearing. There being no comments either for or against
the ordinance, Councilmember Elstro moved for engrossment, second by Councilmember Hutton and the
motion was carried on a voice vote.
Councilmember Welch moved to suspend the rules and advance Ordinance No. 34 — 2002 to third and final
reading and read by title only, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice
vote.
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 34 — 2002 on third reading.
Ordinance No. 34 — 2002 was approved on a unanimous roll call vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 35 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
President Wissel explained that this ordinance is the first of nine concerning the fact finding of the
collective bargaining and the goal tonight is to give everyone an opportunity to speak and still get home at a
reasonable hour. He said he had discussed a procedure with David Warrick, the associate director of
AFSCME C ouncil N o. 6 2, a nd C ity Attorney B ob B ever a nd b oth have a greed t o t he f ollowing terms:
Bever would be allowed unlimited time to present the legal issues and the administration's position on each
of the ordinances and to counter that, Warrick would also have unlimited time to give the union's position
on each of the ordinances. During the time of public comment which will follow, President Wissel said,
each person will be allowed three minutes to discuss the merits of each of the ordinances.
Bever stated that there would be motions to amend Ordinances 35, 37, 39, 40 and 41. He said this would be
a joint motion made both by AFSCME and the administration to more specifically identify the exact
language coming from the fact fmding panel. He said he wished to make three comments before talking
about each of the ordinances and the specific merits of each. First, he said, he is troubled with the
comments that the City is still attempting to keep a union from being recognized, adding that that issue is
done. He said Mayor Shelley Miller had that choice and that determination to make and acted upon it so
that issue has already been addressed.
Secondly, Bever said, he is troubled with the comments that the City is attempting to prevent a contract
from being done. He added that no one is attempting to do that because it is a given thing — there will be a
contract. And finally, he said, he had heard some negative comments that the City administration is not
accepting all recommendations from the fact finding panel. He said he hoped that nobody takes that
personally, adding that that is part of the process and is not out of the ordinary for this Council to have the
final say. He went on to explain fully how the fact finding panel was put in place.
Bever suggested that this ordinance be amended by Council. President Wissel asked Mr. Warrick if he had
received a copy of that amended ordinance and asked him if that met with his approval. The answer was
that it did. Councilmember Elstro moved to accept the amended language, second by Councilmember
Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
President Wissel then declared Amended Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 on public hearing.
Bever explained that the subject matter of this ordinance is "Recognition" on what job positions would be
able to be recognized to become part of the union. He said the City differs with the recommendation of the
fact finding panel on A and D, regarding supervisors and the division clerk on the street department, that
they should be included in the bargaining unit. Explaining the reasoning behind that, Bever said, is that the
City believes that this issue had been decided at the early stage prior to the vote even being taken for
collective bargaining. As a reminder, Bever cited the fact that there was a three -member oversight panel
which determined, among other things, what employees were to be represented or included in the union and
the p ositions that are now b eing r ecommended t o b e in i t were not o n that 1 ist o f e ligible p eople t o be
included. He gave an example of what problems adding those people would create. He added that the City
believes that when that oversight panel deemed these supervisors and division clerk not to be included they
were following appropriate language coming right from the ordinance. In conclusion, Bever said, the City
asks for rejection of this ordinance.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 4
In his opening statement, Warrick said he also wished to clear the air as Bever had. He said he agreed that
the purpose of this meeting is not to debate as to whether or not the union should be here in Richmond
because that issue has already been decided. He said one reason some people are not so fond of unions is
that they have a tendency to be forthright and say exactly how they feel and how things are perceived. He
said the union is here to help the employees who asked them to represent them and they want a contract and
until the employees tell him that this is a fair and decent contract he cannot agree to it.
He said that as they go through these ordinances tonight to remember that the recommendations are from
the fact finding panel, not the union or the City. He pointed out that these recommendations are not what
the union had asked for, and with only one exception, they, are different than what the union had asked for
and don't even come close. He said the union and the employees are willing to accept all of these
recommendations as a whole and are ready to get this thing done, adding that it has been three years and
four months trying to get recognition and a contract.
Talking about the City's packet, Warrick said that through the 11 months of negotiations the union had met
with the City numerous times and after the negotiations came to an impasse there were three meetings with
the fact finding panel and the information he is looking at in the City's packet is 90 percent new material
that the union has never seen. He said the union doesn't see that the City is following the proper
procedures. Alluding to Bever's comments in his summary, Warrick said he points out that the
administration had agreed to 30 articles that would be part of the contract. Then, he added, that the union
had also agreed to 30. However, he said, what Council doesn't see in front of them is that nobody is
debating the management rights clause, no strike clause, work stoppage or slow down clause, along with
other issues such as the fact that they can change policies when they need to, require employees to work
overtime and the ability to lay off employees. The point is, he said, that these issues are fundamental to a
collective bargaining agreement even though the union might not like them they need to be in there as is
true of some of the issues in front of Council tonight.
Warrick said that in most of the nine items in front of Council, most are comparable or less than what other
employees already receive in benefits. They have been agreed to in other collective bargaining agreements
and they have been approved by this Council but this administration does not want you to agree to them.
He said that if these are sent back to the fact finding panel the union will again be forced to argue the same
points that were argued before and ask for the same things they asked for before that they did not receive in
those recommendations. He said it is perceived that it they go back before the fact finding panel they will
end up back in front of the Council.
Alluding to the green packet distributed to Councilmembers prior to the meeting, Warrick said it contains a
summary comparable to the one presented to them by Bever a week ago and each of the ordinances are
broken down with tabs and in front of the ordinances is the exact language that the fact finding panel made
recommendations on. Then, he said, there are the ordinances and after them are the documents that were
presented to the fact finding panel by the union and these are the documents he said that he would refer to
as he goes along tonight.
In Ordinance No. 35 — 2002, Warrick said, dealing with recognition, Bever was right, stating that there was
a vote taken by the oversight panel and the vote said the supervisors were included. In the collective
bargaining ordinance which was submitted as a part of the City's packet, Bever correctly pointed out that it
is recognized that no supervisor or manager shall be eligible for representation. However, he said, he failed
to point out that after that, in parenthesis, it says for purposes of this subsection and a definition of
supervisory or managerial employee the City shall adopt those definitions set forth in the National Labor
Act and federal law. Warrick said that what this is saying is that just because you call it a supervisor
doesn't mean that it is a supervisor. He continued, pointing out to Councilmembers printed matter referring
to supervisors. He asked that the first vote stand and that Council accept the recommendations of the panel
on this ordinance.
Those speaking regarding the ordinance included Danny Sexton, president of the AFSCME, Local 1791;
Jeff M illsap, crew leader of the Sanitation D epartment; Carol Ferguson of the Sanitary District; Gilbert
Close, a member of the oversight panel; Dan Harris retired employee of the Street Department; Diane
Lawson, member of the fact finding panel; Robin Henry, Human Resources Director and T.L. Bozell, street
tree supervisor for the Street Department.
Warrick c ommented on the st atement made by H enry, s aying that the u nion's proposal all along in the
negotiations was to make these supervisors crew leaders like the rest of them and they would have the
ability to create actual supervisory positions. He said there are seven supervisors and about 20 to 22
employees which is a very top heavy supervisory structure and they aren't even being used as supervisors
so the union's proposal all along has been on the table to take care of the structure problem pointed out by
Henry.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 5
Bever commented on the reading of his letter by Ferguson as she did earlier, saying that after reading the
letter he believes that she gradually went in to making comments of her own and he wanted to clarify that
her last comments were not in his letter. Secondly, he said, he wanted to respond to comments made by
Lawson about where in the ordinance does it say that what the oversight panel does would have the final
effect. He pointed out that this is clearly spelled out in Section III, page 2, of the ordinance, and in the code
it's 33.04, (b) 3 in the last sentence.
After much discussion within the Council and comments from Bever, it was decided that this ordinance,
along with all the others to follow on second reading, would be held there tonight.
ORDINANCE NO.36 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL .
President Wissel announced that Ordinance No. 36 — 2002 was on public hearing.
Bever explained that the City is only disputing Section d on "Compensatory Time" and that is because it
mentions whether or not a supervisor or someone outside the union can perform work in an emergency or
an immediate situation in lieu of calling in an employee for overtime. He pointed out that the City has
already agreed that it is not attempting to try to do pre -scheduled overtime work with supervisors or
department heads to the exclusion of a bargaining unit member who wants to work that overtime. He said
the City simply needs to have a supervisor or department head available to do that unscheduled work and
that language would come in because of the belief that the supervisors would not be in the bargaining unit
and therefore the City cannot let it stand now as stated in Section d.
In response, Warrick said his position on this is simple, stating that if the supervisors are included in the
bargaining unit it is not an issue, but if the supervisors are not included in the bargaining unit then they
don't do bargaining unit work. He said the City wants to exclude them from the bargaining unit and use
them for bargaining unit work and his response to that was no, it's one way or the other.
Bever then responded with an example to show what the City is looking at on this issue by saying that if the
terrible conditions, such as having the limbs down where everybody was attempting to pitch in would
happen, the City doesn't have to feel like it has to get the union's permission to have that department head
get out of his truck to pull a limb out because it was "part of a job description in the bargaining unit."
ORDINANCE NO.37 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
Directing his comments to Bever, President Wissel stated that he believed that all that was added was the
term "to exhaust all possibilities before arbitration is utilized," and Bever agreed as did Warrick.
Councilmember Combs moved to amend the ordinance with that wording, second by Councilmember
Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
President Wissel declared Amended Ordinance No. 37 — 2002 on public hearing.
Bever stated that this is one of the major issues to the administration as well as to AFSCME. He said this
involves how a grievous complaint filed by a city employee is ultimately resolved. He said the City gave a
choice of either that procedure which is used by the Fire Department which utilizes the Board of Works, or
the Mayor who has the final say on a grievance filed by someone who is not part of collective bargaining.
He said the union feels that the final stage should be with an outside arbitrator, third party approved by both
parties, but the City does not agree with that because there is a significant cost connected with that outside
process.
Bever also said the union has picked out language directly from the RP & L contract which, he said, the
City feels that this w ould likely be conducted out of town which would take more time away from the
affected city employees and city officials and that is not necessary because time is money and there are
better uses of the City's limited resources. Finally, he said, the City feels that there are some factors of
management that should be left with management and it is not necessary to get a third party.
Warrick s tated t hat t he a rbitration c lause i s t he heart o f a ny b inding a greement a nd i t k eeps e verybody
honest. He said if he is a member of the union he is not going to take a grievance to arbitration that he
knows is a grievance without merit. He said the grievance procedure causes the parties to come together to
settle the grievance if one party or the other knows they're going to lose if it goes to arbitration, adding that
few grievances ever end up in arbitration.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 6
Warrick said an arbitrator does not have the authority to violate the contract but their decisions are based
solely on the contract language and what was agreed to by the parties. He said they must stick with the
contract. Reading from the contract, he quoted the language submitted to the fact finding panel by the
union, stating "the arbitrator is limited to interpretation of the specific provisions of this agreement and
shall have no authority to add to, subtract from, modify, change or alter any of its provisions or their
meaning including the steps and time limits herein."
Alluding to the language in the RP & L contract, he said it does call for a binding arbitration using the
American Arbitration Association and further into the sections Council will see that there are two parties,
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which is what the union had proposed to use and there is a
list of arbitrators, as well as the American Arbitration Association and either one of them works and the
union could use both. He added that it does call for binding arbitration and that is what the union is seeking.
He read from a list o f the cities and groups in which there are A FSCME contracts that have a b inding
arbitration contracts, adding that it is the norm in the industry to have arbitration. He said it is something
that is a friend to both parties, adding that in the locals he pointed out he doubted if any of them had 10
arbitrations in the last 10 years.
Commenting on the three points Bever brought up, Warrick addressed the cost of arbitration saying that
arbitration can cost anywhere from $750 to $2,500 and they did tell the City that the union would pay for
any one it loses and the City still did not want to do that. He also stated that every arbitration the union does
is at the place of employment and there is not travel involved except for the arbitrator. And, the third one he
said, gives the City the total right to interpret and change the collective bargaining agreement at their whim
if they so choose. He said he could not advise the membership to agree to that.
Others speaking about the ordinance included Fred Davis, member of the Wayne/Randolph UAW CAP unit
and a union official at Union City Body Co.; Bruce Wages, an employee of the Sanitary Department; Tim
Hartman, a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers; Ron Cross, one of the negotiators for the
City; Diane Lawson, a member of Local 721 for 16 years; Steve Marlow of the Street Department; Mike
Toschlog of the Carpenter's Union; Danny Sexton of the Street Department; and Gilbert Close, a member
of the oversight panel.
Responding to the above comments, Bever stated that he was not as optimistic about the grievance
procedure as those who have spoken for it. As an example, he said, during the year 2000, these departments
had two grievances, then in 2001 as the City got into the union representation and the union assistance of
some sort there were 19 grievances and in 2002, to date, there have been 10. He said that ultimately, the
City's police officers and firefighters have lived very satisfactorily with the current situation without that
binding third party arbitration and if it has worked for them and worked for their unions it can work for
sanitation and the street departments.
ORDINANCE NO.38 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 38 — 2002 on public hearing.
Bever stated that there is only one item of subsection (a) that the City has difficulty with and that is simply
the additional personal day that the bargaining agent wants to add. He said as they look at what the City
employees now have, the City feels it is a liberal policy that they have, with 13 holidays, 6 sick days and a
vacation s chedule that exceeds one w eek the first y ear, goes to two w eeks the second y ear and quickly
advances to ultimately five weeks. He said that looking at what that total is, for a person's first year of
employment with the City he or she would have a minimum of 26 paid days off per year, which is over five
weeks, and after 20 years that would increase to 45 days or 9 weeks of paid weeks off out of 52 and the
City feels that is sufficient.
He said he had provided in the packet the most recent Wayne County wage and benefits survey showing
where the City would rank near the top 10 percent of employers on holidays and 20 percent on vacations.
He pointed out that to add another personal day would not only be an additional cost but also have an added
effect on scheduling time and could become a major problem possibly causing overtime pay.
Warrick said that originally in front of the fact finding panel, with sick days and personal days combined
into PTO, which stands for Personal Time Off, the union had asked for a total of 12. However, comparing
Class II cities, 16 counting Muncie, the average personal time was 3.06 days and average sick time was
10.31 days which is a total of 13.27, so what this union was proposing was even less than what the average
was. He said the fact finding panel came back and all they added was one personal day but the union was
willing to accept the recommendations of the panel so they could move forward. In addition to this, he said,
Bever earlier alluded to what the police and fire have and it should work, but under their collective
bargaining ordinance they have four personal days and the people the union represents only have one. He
said the fact finding panel sought to go with one, starting the process.
Speaking about the ordinance was Carol Ferguson of the Sanitary Department.
I
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 7
ORDINANCE NO. 39 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 39 — 2002 on public hearing. He stated that this ordinance is also
one where there was a requested amendment. Councilmember Welch moved to amend the ordinance as
proposed, second by Councilmember Parker and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
Bever explained that this is also a very important issue with the administration and deals with contracting
work out and involves when the City may hire outside parties to perform work that is similar to that
preformed by the employees in the bargaining unit. He said there are those times when that is necessary and
given the limited financial resources of any governmental entity, the City must be granted the most
flexibility possible to provide the City services and that could include contracting certain work to outside
labor if that is the most efficient for that specific, immediate need.
In response, Warrick said that all the union wants is language that states "don't contract out the jobs that we
do and throw us out in the street," and all the union wants is an agreement that says that. He added that he
feels it is fair and reasonable and RP & L has it and he feels these employees should be treated the same as
other employees in the City and get that kind of agreement.
Speaking about this ordinance was Danny Sexton and Ron Cross.
Warrick commented that the reason this issue did not get a lot of time at the bargaining table was because
the union was told "No." He added that this is another one of the major issues with the union and a
fundamental interest and one of the top two that they care about that is in front of Council.
Councihnember Welch pointed out that although Council is not capable of amending the ordinance, since
Cross stated that the wording in the RP & L contract was incorrect, he asked if the two negotiators would
agree to amend that so it would be correct. Warrick and Bever agreed that Council could do that.
Councilmember Welch moved that Amended Ordinance No. 39 — 2002 be amended to read "Article No. 3,
Section 2," second by Councilmember Sharp and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
Bever stated that there are phrases in that Section 2 that the City simply cannot accept because there may be
times when that work would require the instances to take effect as set forth in Section 2. He said that as a
prime example, if there is a problem with contracting work out that there has to be faith that the City would
recognize that and correct it. He cited such a happening with EA 2 in the Sanitation District where there
was work contracted out which created a problem, and the City solved it.
AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 40 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
President Wissel declared Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 on public hearing.
Bever asked Council to look at the second amendment, and it was his oversight, on Section a regarding
longevity he missed a second page on the fact finding panel's recommendations that actually went out and
went ahead to include what their specific monetary recommendations were for 2003. He said that had been
added in Council's second amended Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 to show that under Subsection C. He said
that had been pointed out by Warrick.
Councilmember Parker moved to accept the second amended Ordinance No. 40 — 2002, second by
Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
Bever explained that this involves four different subsections and addressed Subsection A which addresses
the clothing allowance. He said the City has a problem with this because the City currently furnishes the
clothing for both the street and sanitation department employees. He said the cost for the clothing for the
street department in 2001 was a total of $8,470 and in 2002 the total was $9,148, and for the sanitation
department in 2002, the total was $40,086. He said it is his understanding that the union wants $250 per
employee and that would come at a cost of $6,500 per year and he said he had a hard time understanding
the need for that when the clothing is furnished.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 8
Moving on to Subsection B, he said this is simply an issue of timing when an employee is temporarily
assigned to work in a higher pay classification whether or not they would be paid the wage of that higher
classification. He said the City believes that the wording on that'section should have at least a minimum of
two weeks before the higher wage increase goes into effect, otherwise a higher wage could be required for
each hour that an employee is asked to fill in for someone which would be too restrictive and it would
create havoc in payroll and accounting. He said the City believes it needs fine tuned.
He said Subsection C deals with one of the major issues for the City on longevity. He said there is no
question about this one, adding that this would have a dramatic impact on the finances of the City both for
this year and all the future years. He said the City believes there is even a procedural problem on this in that
the fact finding panel also said nothing would be in 2002 but made the recommendation that this would be
added in 2003. Bever said that although this is a 2-year contract, any wage or monetary issues were to be
limited to one year and to be re -opened at the end of one year for the second year consideration. Therefore,
he said, the City feels it was beyond the scope of the fact finders to make the recommendation on a
monetary amount or issue for the year 2003 so it is not even proper to come back into the
recommendations.
Bever said that he provided in the information he had submitted to Council that these specific costs would
exceed $90,000 per year for these two departments and to be made applicable to other City departments
that cost would exceed $163,000 per year. He said the City could not afford the luxury of addressing this
issue of pure longevity pay at this time. Because of the financial impact that this would have the City
strongly asks that this be rejected on this portion and believes that it can't be funded at this time. He said
even in the larger Class II cities the majority does not provide longevity pay to these employees.
Speaking to Subsection D, Bever said this would be an issue in that it states that "supervisor's classification
and pay are not an issue since they are in the Bargaining Unit," and the City believes that the supervisors
should not be in the Bargaining Unit, the language would have to be addressed. He said that for all the
reasons he had mentioned, asked that Ordinance No. 40 — 2002 be rejected.
Warrick asked Council to refer to the green book that he had supplied to Council addressing the language
in other collective bargaining unit concerning clothing allowances. He commented on one which stated that
employees would get a cleaning uniform clothing allowance of $375 and he said $450 was the union's
original proposal and the panel recommended $250 and the union is willing to accept that as a starting
point. He said the sanitation department does have a uniform service and the employees want to keep that
so no money was on the table requesting any money for them. He said the request here is only for street
department employees in order for them to care for, maintain and buy additional clothing that they might
wish to have.
Addressing the second part of the ordinance which is Subsection B, Warrick said that once the union has
this contract, the contract says that if you are a laborer you make this much money but if you are an
equipment operator, for example, you make an additional amount of money. He said if the City wishes to
utilize somebody in a higher capacity it should follow what is in the collective bargaining agreement and
pay them what that job pays. If the City doesn't want to pay that employee what the job pays then it
shouldn't use them. He pointed out that the City of Kokomo has this included in its collective bargaining
agreement.
Speaking to the issue of longevity pay, Warrick said that under the union's proposal if you take a 20-year
employee the proposal is that they receive a $2,000 longevity pay, pointing out that that is a way of
honoring its long term employees. He said the union's proposal starts at $500 for 5 years and goes up to 20
years. He said in looking at fire and police contracts, they receive $500 in the first year and after the first
year it progresses so that a 10-year employee would receive $2,000. He said the police, in addition, once
they reach 16 years get more, so a 20-year employee in the police department would receive $4,706.92.
Warrick said these employees in this union want to be treated equally among other employees but they are
not proposing the same as what those mentioned are receiving, but it is a beginning and they think it is a
fair start and the fact finding panel agreed.
Warrick talked about the last issue concerning supervisors, saying that the union feels that supervisors
should make the same pay as the crew leaders. He said what the fact finding panel proposed was that
supervisor classification pay was not an issue here since they are included in the bargaining unit and the
union can accept that recommendation and move on.
Those speaking about the ordinance were David Duning III of the Street Department; Diane Lawson of the
fact finding panel; Ron Cross representing the City in negotiations; Robert Van Pelt of the fact finding
panel and Carol Ferguson of the Sanitary Department.
Warrick had further comments on the longevity pay saying that they did an analysis of the City's financial
status based upon the 1999 or 2000 budget and found that this City was much healthier than most and there
was the ability to pay at that point in time. He also commented on the clothing allowance issue, saying that
he felt that there was an agreement on the $250 clothing allowance and he was personally surprised that it
was still an issue.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 9
Bever commented on the statements made in comparing with other departments. He said when talking
about police and fire, there are some uniforms they have to provide on their own as compared to street and
sanitation, and with longevity pay on fire and police, going back in history there were years where the City
could not afford cost of living increases so that was given in lieu of those increases. He said each
department has different backgrounds and reasons for their agreements.
He said he feels there is a disagreement on what has been provided to the other side. He said they had asked
and were provided fiscal year 2000 budgets with expenditures and receipts, year 2001expenditures and
receipts to date and items of finances. He said contrary to the comments made by Warrick earlier,that 90
percent of the attachments included in Council's packets had not been provided to fact finding. He said the
RP & L contract was provided by AFSCME, the ordinance itself was provided and other things provided
were public records.
Bever stated that he believed all of us will remember the many quotes about two years ago when the issue
of recognition came up and how many City employees said that this is not about money, this is not about
benefits but simply respect and security that comes with a contract. He said how times change. The City
has provided the contract and are in the process of that and want to provide the security but can't do it at
the risk of losing the financial integrity of the City.
ORDINANCE NO. 41— 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
President Wissel said Ordinance No. 41 — 2002 is another amended version. Councilmember Sharp moved
to accept the amendment, second by Councilmember Welch and the motion was carried on a voice vote.
Bever said the City recommends that the ordinance be adopted and the findings be adopted and accepted.
He s aid this r egards p arity, which i s si mply whether the City's c ontract with AFSCME must i nclude a
provision that states that no other City employee can receive benefits greater than those established in this
contract, He said the fact finding panel was under the impression that this request for parity had been
withdrawn and therefore that's what prompted their finding. He said because the City has brought this to
Council, he understands that AFSCME would then also want to challenge this finding and therefore we
must address parity.
He said if it is to be pursued by AFSCME it is a very major issue for the City administration because they
think this binds hands on other collective bargaining. He said this is what it's all about, you take whatever
specific union you're dealing with at the time and weighing what can be worked out with that group. He
said to put in one contract that you can never give a benefit to anyone else or if you do we get that equal,
you've taken away that bargaining process on this one and made it just a simple job of "hope we get what
everybody else gets."
He said there are instances in the personnel policy that the City has assured would be given to them but it
can't be a "given" in any way shape or form. He said he would recommend that this -would not be a part of
the contract and asked for a vote for this ordinance.
Warrick stated that the union is willing to accept the recommendations of the fact finding panel as a whole
and if the City decides to go with the recommendations of the fact finding panel as a whole they have no
problem with them going with this one. However, he said, they are forced to bring this here because they
feel that it is important that the fact finding panel or the administration understands what this means. He
said the real issue is that the union does not want to see an increase of inequities that are going on in the
areas that have been talked about tonight. He said when the fact finding panel's recommendations said that
it is no longer an issue and can be removed they obviously didn't understand where the union was coming
from because it is an issue with the union. He said he feels the union should at least have the leeway to go
back to the fact finding panel and clarify its position so they can understand what the issue is and be able to
make a clearer determination and recommendation.
Speaking about this ordinance was David During III of the Street Department.
ORDINANCE NO.42 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 42— 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
Bever explained that both this ordinance and the next are ones that the City and the union are still in the
process of trying to resolve and will hopefully resolve before Council's next meeting. What makes this a
little bit different is that it doesn't answer everything and doesn't allow them to create a contract. He said
the City simply wants them to be able to recognize that there would be incidents beyond those involving
safety that could be of a serious nature that could take discipline apart from the normal discipline process.
Common Council Minutes Cont'd
May 20, 2002
Page 10
Warrick said he concurred with Beaver and said that where it is now is that it includes all of these points
and it is just an issue of getting the wording right.
ORDINANCE NO.43 — 2002
The Deputy Clerk read Ordinance No. 35 — 2002 — A GENERAL ORDINANCE APPROVING AND/OR
REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FACT FINDING PANEL
Bever again said they are hoping to reach an agreement on this one. He said what appeared to be the first
concern was what they meant with "it's okay to use two strikes," and that is in Subsection C. He added that
at least AFSCME and the City agree that what that means is that the first strike is allowed and that's your
warning and the second strike is when you can be out. He said he believes it is now just a matter of the final
tweaks to wording on the drug testing and what regulations would have to be used that the City continues to
use that which would be required by_D.O.T. He said it is his understanding that AFSCME says that since
that could change they actually want to put in the contract what that current procedure is and the City is
wanting to be able to say that whatever the D.O.T. is using at that time should be used.
Warrick responded by agreeing with Bever that both sides are close on this. He said the stumbling block is
that there is a current policy the City has with some provisions in it that they want to continue with and it
surprises them that the administration doesn't want to do that. Again, he said, it is just a matter of wording.
ORDINANCES ON TED" READING
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
President Wissel announced that Councilmembers received an invitation from Warrick to conduct an
information session. He said this would be a time to discuss this and decide what they wanted to do.
Councilmember Welch commented having the open meeting tonight, giving everyone an opportunity to
speak, and the meeting in two weeks which will give Councilmembers the opportunity to ask questions and
discuss these issues among themselves is good. He said he feels this would suffice and Councilmember
Combs agreed.
CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:39 P.M.
ATTEST:
Myra Miller, Deputy Clerk
Bruce Wissel, President