HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-09-2000 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF
THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,MARCH 9,2000
The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond,Indiana,met at 5 p.m.Thursday, March
9,2000,in the Community Room in the Municipal Building. Chairperson Bob Goodwin presided with
Robin Henry,Bruce Metzger and Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe present.The following business was
conducted:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes available.
CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT
Claims for payment submitted by the City Controller's office were read by Henry who said they totaled
$115,747.12 and moved to approve,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice
vote.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Firefighter Grievance No. 1 for Lt.Mike Foust
1. Chairperson Goodwin asked for additional comments or questions from Board members.
He asked if there were any points they needed to discuss among themselves.Metzger said
he felt he had made up his mind,then commented that he is not inclined to grant either
grievance or uphold them.
Basically,he said,he feels that the fact that someone else may have done wrong and got
away with it does not excuse anybody else from getting away with it.He continued,
saying that the one firefighter who did,supposedly,get away with it,there was at least
some justification for that and he feels that in those circumstances it was a judgment call.
Therefore,he said,he feels he has to defer to the judgment of the Fire Chief and his staff
on that.
Henry said she agreed,adding that it is appropriate that work should be submitted in a
timely manner and it is appropriate for deadlines,and if those are missed then written
reprimands are appropriate.She said she felt that Training Office Nicholson did act in a
fair and just manner by dealing with the lieutenant in the case where Nicholson gave him
incorrect information and appropriate arrangements were made in turning in that
assignment after trying to correct Nicholson's mistake.She said she would also be
included to decline both of the grievances.
Metzger moved that the grievance of Lt.Mike Foust be denied and that the decision of
Fire Chief Mike Allen be upheld,second by Henry and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
B. Firefighter Grievance No.2 for Lt. Gerald Rigsby
1. Metzger moved that the grievance of Lt. Gerald Rigsby be denied and that the decision of
Fire Chief Mike Allen be upheld,second by Henry and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 2
REQUESTS
A. Chairperson Goodwin brought before the Board a curb cut request for 500 North A Street,
stating that this is a new building which is to be occupied by the Social Security office.He
displayed a drawing showing the location of the curb cut,pointing out that it is to be placed
close to the intersection of the Y and Fort Wayne Avenue.He said there are no requests for a
curb cut on North A Street.
After a brief discussion on the direction of traffic,Chairperson Goodwin said that ultimately,
if there is a problem,the Traffic Safety Division could revisit the area. As of right now,he
said the departments have looked at it and made stipulations although recommending
approval.Metzger moved to approve the request subject to the conditions of the Traffic Safety
Division and Public Works and Engineering, second by Henry and the motion was carried on
a unanimous voice vote.
B. Lt.Paul Phillips of the Traffic Safety Division reported on a request by Richmond Symphony
Orchestra for special parking in front of the Civic Hall Performing Arts Center on Hub
Etchison Parkway.He said the following times and dates were requested:March 17 at 12:45
p.m. (10 vehicles);March 20 at 9 a.m. (10 vehicles)and at 12:45 p.m. (10 vehicles);and
March 31 from 7:30 a.m.to noon(30 vehicles).He said all vehicles would have parking
passes displayed at these times.Lt.Phillips said Captain Don Ponder had examined the site
and written a letter recommending approval.Henry moved to approve,second by Metzger and
the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
C. Henry brought before the Board an insurance agreement,explaining that the City is self
insured and has,for a number of years,had a service agreement with Benefit Systems to be
the third party administrator.She said the contract is from January 1,2000 through December
31,2000.She asked that the agreement be made retroactive to January 1.Rabe said the Law
Department had some contact with Benefit Systems this afternoon and there were some last
minute changes made to this contract.He said these included adding some required state anti-
discrimination language as well as adding some changes in the signature line.
He said the copy that the Board members have at this time is the final one,although it is a
facsimile copy and the signature line has been changed.He said Benefit Systems is going to
forward an original for signature at a later time.He requested that if this Board approves
entering into this contract it would also authorize Goodwin as Chairperson of this Board to
sign in that capacity when the City receives the original.Metzger moved to approve the
agreement subject to the modifications,with the understanding that Chairperson Goodwin be
authorized to execute this agreement without further action by this Board when it is received,
second by Henry and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
D. Fire Chief Mike Allen brought before the Board an agreement between the Richmond Fire
Department and Rural Metro Ambulance Service which provides the emergency medical
services to this community.He said the purpose is to have an understanding between the two
agencies,which would also enable the Fire Department to apply through the state for
certification to become basic life support providers.He said this ultimately means that the
department would be able to use equipment that it has,that it cannot presently use,adding that
it would enhance the department's ability to service the community in this area in case of
Rural Metro's inability to respond to calls that they have.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 3
He said this is a practice that has been done for a number of years and his department is
looking forward to this to be able to be state certified to be able to use the equipment they
already have.Henry moved to approve,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a
unanimous voice vote.
BID AWARD
A. Fire Chief Mike Allen said both bids received last week for the HVAC at Fire Station No.4
had been reviewed and found to exceed the initial amount budgeted.He recommended that
the heating and air conditioning system be re-bid with a new concept in mind to perhaps to
reduce the cost and end up with the same results.Metzger moved to reject both bids,second
by Henry and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.
QUIT CLAIM DEED
Assistant City Attorney Rabe explained that this Quit Claim Deed which,when executed,would transfer
ownership of the former Workforce Development Building located at 15 South 11`s Street from the City of
Richmond to the YWCA.He said this Board on December 16, 1999 executed a contract for the sale of that
property in the amount of$1.He said that property was owned by the state and Common Council approved
on December 20, 1999 an ordinance authorizing the City to receive that building as a donation from the
state and also acknowledge in that acceptance that the building would be re-conveyed to the YWCA for$1.
He said the last thing that needs to be done is execute this Quit Claim Deed and turn the building over to
the Y which was the original intent.He said the normal guidelines set forth by state statute for disposing of
City property do not have to be followed since the YWCA is a 501-C3 organization.
Rabe explained the restrictions covered in the Quit Claim Deed,stating that the property should be used
primarily for social service,charitable or benevolent work,and that if the property is abandoned or it ceases
to be used for those purposes it would then revert to the state of Indiana.Metzger moved to approve the
Quit Claim Deed and to authorize Chairperson Goodwin to execute it,second by Henry and the motion was
carried on a unanimous voice vote.
GRIEVANCE HEARING
A. Rabe said it had been mutually agreed to hold this as one hearing,although it involves two
Police Officers,adding that the reasoning for that is that the facts are all the same in both.
Dean Snapp,President of the Fraternal Order of Police,said this is a grievance where officers
were told in November of 1999 that they had so many contract and vacation days left to take.
The officers then submitted communiqués requesting days off and it is a case where the days
are taken off by the end of the year or they are lost.
He said the officers were given the communiqués by their supervisor who is the initial person
to start the chain to keep track of how many days the officers take off,whether they are at
work,or if it is their normal day off,special assignment or contract day.
In February 2000,after being told they had the days coming to them and taking them off,they
were advised they had taken off one day too many,and this was after receiving the
information in November that they had the days coming.Now,he said,the City is wanting to
make them pay back in overtime hours for that day and he feels it was an administrative error
and all the City needs to do is to advise the State Board of Accounts that it was an
administrative error and that would take care of the problem.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 4
He said there is nothing in any of the standard operating procedures,or contract,or merit rules
that state the officer is the one who is supposed to keep track of his days off.He said the
supervisors,starting with the sergeant,$3,000 more per year,then it progresses with each
supervisor,to do these administrative things.He said in this instance where three supervisors
are over one shift,or one platoon of 12 to 15 people,it shouldn't be that difficult to keep
track,especially in this computer age of today.
He said what he is after is to have this written off as an administrative error with the State
Board of Accounts,not to penalize the officers because no where in writing does it say that it
is their job to maintain records of their days off.He said he believes you should be able to
trust your supervision that they are doing their job in monitoring this the way it should be
done.
Officer Don Benedict said that he had spoken,this afternoon,with Bill Vincent out of the
Muncie area office in regards to this issue and asked him what penalties the City would be
looking at,and he concluded that even if this error would be caught,there would be none.He
said they would just review the fact to make sure it was consistent with the standing policies
on this,to make sure the officers were treated fairly.
However,he said,Vincent said the State Board of Accounts does not mandate that this time
be paid back but allows for the process for administrative error and all that has to be done is to
be documented as such.
Benedict said Major(Chuck)Klein's position on this is that it is his(Benedict's)
responsibility to maintain his own records on this.In doing so,he said,if,for the sake of
argument,his(Benedict's)records indicate eight days and Klein's records indicate seven,
whose records rule.He answered that Klein said his(Klein's)do.He pointed out that there are
three large books that govern the police department plus a labor agreement and not one place
in any of those does it charge the officers with the responsibility of maintaining those records.
He said,in the materials provided to the Board,it does state that it is the responsibility of the
administration,in that it included under administrative reports,which contain"attendance,
training,overtime and mileage."Another issue,he said,is how they want to resolve this,
noting that at the end of 1999,he had an overtime balance(it carries over from year to year).
He said it was explained to him by Major Klein that he would simply go back and alter those
records in 1999 and deduct 51/2 hours overtime so that when it carries over to the next year it
would reflect paying back 51/2 hours to the City for an extra day taken off.His question,he
said,much rather than going back to alter those records and make those changes,is to simply
put a note with the attendance record,highlighting those discrepancies and writing
"administrative error"on it and leave it go.
And,finally,he said,he would like to point out the fact that they are looking at 51/2 hours
overtime and there are three of them sitting in this Board meeting right now,drawing
overtime,to fight this grievance.That is plus the time spent prior to this to see if it was going
to be passed on to the Board of Works,he said.The match doesn't add up,he said,adding that
they are spending more money to get back less.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 5
According to State Board of Accounts,he said this is something that is not that uncommon.
He said he has taken classes at IU East and is currently enrolled in a labor/management class
in which this was discussed and there wasn't one manager in the class who thought this
should have been a battle that should not have been fought.He said he and Officer Jon
Chilcoate are not the only two officers that this has happened to but they are the only two who
chose to fight it.
Snapp added a few comments,saying that the officers receive a communiqué telling them
they had the days coming to them and in their general orders it says"any communiqué that is
disseminated should be made as a direct order."He said the issue is that who has to be
accountable and responsible and it has become more of a burden on patrol officers to be more
accountable than the supervisors.
He added that he feels it's time that the supervisors and administration accept their
responsibilities.Benedict interjected that their supervisors on day shift at the time fully
accepted responsibility for this error,adding that they admitted to the officers and the
administrative office,that it was not their(the officers' error).Again,he said,the officers are
going to be the ones penalized for this error by deducting 51/2 hours overtime off of last
year's records.
Police Chief Bill Shake read an excerpt of his letter written February 12,2000 to the
Bargaining Unit Representatives and the two officers:
"I received the grievance from Sgt.Barry Ritter on Wednesday,February 9,2000.I reviewed
the grievance as presented,and the contract between the City of Richmond and the John
Hennigar Lodge No. 63 of the F.O.P.,particularly Article 15,GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE,
and the paragraph entitled AGREEMENT,and Article 3,RECOGNITION.
"I have spoken with Major Klein,who advised there were other officers of the department
who had taken additional days off,and/or turned in overtime for pay without having the
necessary numbers of hours in their overtime account for the year 1999.For your information,
when an officer turns in a request for overtime,which is then paid,and subsequently an error
is noted,the correction is made by deducting the required number of overtime hours from the
officer's account as they are earned.
"For example,I turn in 10 hours of overtime for pay on January 1.After the monthly reports
are turned in at the first of February,an error is noted.Instead of 10 hours of overtime,I had
only 4,so I owe the City 6 hours of overtime.Beginning in February any overtime I accrue up
to six-hour hours is deducted from my account,for the correction.
"When an officer had taken an extra day,that officer has been required to correct the error,by
turning in 5.5 hours of overtime,which is equivalent to one day's pay.In each instance,the
correction of this error is the responsibility of the officer who received the benefit,either in
extra time off or in additional pay,for which there was not the required number of overtime
hours in the account.This has been the practice of the Department,and was practiced at the
beginning of 1999,and 2000 where other officers affected in the same manner corrected the
error.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 6
"I support this practice based on the language in the paragraph entitled AGREEMENT,and in
Article 3,RECOGNITION.To paraphrase the language of the AGREEMENT paragraph,the
language of the contract,including contract days and vacation days is binding on ALL
MEMBERS of the department.In addition,Article 3 has language,which states the contract
covers all members of the department,including those who are not members of the F.O.P.
"Each member of the Department is responsible for complying with the contract.Each
member should track their use of vacation,personal,contract and birthdays,as well as the
number of overtime hours earned and spent.It is the extra responsibility of supervision to
maintain accurate records.This is accomplished by all members of the shifts and/or divisions
comparing their respective records for accuracy."
Chairperson Goodwin asked a question,he said,which could be answered by either Officer
Chilcoate or Benedict.He asked: "At the time you were told the number of days you had
coming did you agree with the total at that time?"
Benedict answered that he did.He added that he didn't really keep track of his days off,but,
he said if he had been shorted a day he probably would not have known the difference either.
He said if they had come up and said you have five more days than what I thought I should
have had,it would have made sense to him to look back.He added that he did double check,
because on his vacation in December he was off for an extended period of time,explaining
that he was actually going to leave the department December 6 and not return until December
31, 1999,because that's how many vacation days he had left to use.
Therefore,he said,he told his supervisor'to make sure it was right because he didn't want a
phone call on December 28 telling him that he had to come back to work,and they went over
it and everything was fine.He said,again,before he left on December 5,he went over it again
with Lt.Hobson and everything was okay.He said he double checked and re-checked,then
asked what more was he supposed to do.
Metzger asked Benedict if he would receive too much change at the store did he feel like he
should give it back?Bendedict then asked Metzger if he counted his change everytime he got
it back.Metzger then stated that his question is if somebody gives you too much change,then
you subsequently discover that,do you feel an obligation to give it back?
Benedict answered that"In most instances,yes?"Metzger than asked what the difference was
in that and this issue.Benedict answered that the difference is the responsibility of the
supervisor who gave the officers a communiqué stating the number of days they needed to
take.Metzger then asked why he didn't think it was his responsibility.
Chilcoate answered that it is mutual responsibility,and he thinks in this discussion they have
touched on that,but when there is a question as to whose records are the more accurate,the
Major has indicated that his records are the ones that they would go by.So,he added,if the
officer makes an error,they would go by the Major's records.Metzger then asked if the
officer felt he had another day coming and the Major said you don't,what would happen.
Chilcoate answered that a few of the officers would be here,but some would not.
Chief Shake,in an effort to offer some clarification,said this error did not come about until
the December report was turned in,in January.So,he said,the extra days were taken in
December and at the end of the month the reports are turned in and that is when Major Klein
reviews all the numbers and compares them so the actual days weren't noted until January.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 7
He said whether or not Major Klein's figures lined up with first shift figures probably did not
and that's why this took place.He added that Major Klein's records are the final records and
are the ones that are maintained and from which the determinations are made.
Chilcoate stated that he felt that one of the things that might help alleviate this in the future is
that it appears the new payroll system on the checks has an accounting system already in
place,or at least has the days on in place.So,if they were aware on a Friday what they had
coming,where an error had occurred it would be much easier to correct that error or have the
officer and the supervisor agree to the error in March rather than nine months later.
He said they have a very poor filing system when an officer submits a communique
requesting a day off,some supervisors return it with permission being granted or denied while
other supervisors say to go ahead and take it off.He said the officer accepts that supervisor's
accountability and responsibility that it would be taken care of properly.He said they are
finding that because of the retirement of more supervisors and the turnaround there are more
individuals who are the keepers of the records so the confusion is getting greater not less,
adding that they need some kind of a system that can be tracked.Henry asked if the officers
sign off on time cards on a weekly basis. Chilcoate answered that they do not.
Going back to the question Metzger asked about counting change at the store,Benedict said
this issue is about days off,not money, adding that the only money that is involved is that he
is going to be deducted 51/2 hours of overtime.He said they are talking about a day off that
was granted and approved by supervisors and it is not an intentional deceitful act.He said
what they are saying is that there may be a mutual responsibility here,but the fact is that the
officers do not have to be penalized for this error that was not theirs.
Another fact is,he said,the State Board of Accounts said it is not mandated that the City
deducts the 51/2 hours from the officers.He said all that has to be done is that the City notes
that it is an administrative error and then try to correct the problem.He said the only thing that
would concern someone doing an audit would have been if this would have happened 15
times and how it was dealt with,or,a continuous problem.
Benedict commented that a grievance was filed last year on this very same issue but because
of time constraints it got dropped,due to a technicality,so this would have been heard last
year if that had not happened.
Metzger said that if the officers accept this as a mutual responsibility,then when an error is
made,it isn't just a supervisor's error.He said they have received a benefit they were not
entitled to,adding that if the situation were reversed,and they got shorted,he said he would
think it would be only fair if the City paid them back.He said he failed to see the difference.
Benedict said his overtime rate has increased starting right now,so he is paying more than
what the benefit would have been.He said they weren't talking about money,they were
talking about days.Rabe said he had checked and he didn't find anything that was definitely
applicable to this issue.Benedict said he wondered how much of the responsibility is his
when a supervisor hands him a communiqué and states that he has x number of days to take
and to take them or lose them.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 8
Henry asked them if they write down overtime?The answer was in the affirmative.Then she
asked if they write down the days the officers are here.Benedict said the supervisors maintain
those records on a daily attendance sheet and those are entered into the computer patrol
division and at the end of the month submitted to the Chiefs office for a monthly report.
Henry asked if they get copies of those,and Chilcoate answered that they do not and if an
officer wants to know what it is he has to go to his supervisor and request what's on his
record.Benedict pointed out that he did what his responsibility was,checking three times
before he went on vacation.
Benedict stated that this can be written off as an administrative error and they can take a
harder look at the way they keep records and be more accountable from this point forward.
Chairperson Goodwin stated that he doesn't see a penalty here,adding that he sees the officer
got an extra day,which translates to money and as far as he is concerned,it is money.From
the standpoint of shared responsibility,if the officer had been shorted,he would have come to
the City and expect that to be corrected.He said in this instance,this is an effort to correct a
common error.
Henry then said she felt the question is about who made the mistake.Benedict said Major
Klein has told the officer and the Chief that his records are"supreme,"so no matter what the
officer brings in to show that he needs an extra day back,that record rules.Metzger said he
disagreed with that,it is up to this Board to decide what record rules if there is a dispute.
Chief Shake stated that every month when the reports are submitted,Major Klein tallies them
and if there are errors,he sends them back.Now,he said,this error wasn't noted because the
days weren't used until December,so the only time you can catch that error is in the next
month.Benedict stated that the supervisors are aware of these types of problems that have
happened before,during the past years,so therefore there was an attempt by the supervisors to
alleviate those types of errors this time around by submitting a request for the number of days
off to compare the records of our shift to Major Klein's records.
He said it is his understanding that there was never a response back,so the supervisors took it
upon themselves to make these changes,to give the officers the adequate number days off.He
said they do this every November,and with the past problems they have had,the supervisor
made an attempt to try to get an audit done in November,to compare the records,so they
could dispute the fact in November but it was never done. Granted,he said,the officers got an
extra day off,but the fact is that the officers are asking for accountability and the officers are
the only ones being held accountable.He said if the shoe was on the other foot,he probably
wouldn't be here because he wouldn't know if he got shorted a day and the only reason he
knew he took an extra day was because somebody else caught it.
Chilcoate said they trust their supervisors to keep accurate records.Chairperson Goodwin said
he hopes it's not a matter of trust,and he hopes they continue to trust the administration,but
mistakes can be made and if responsibilities are shared then those mistakes need to be
addressed openly,evenly and as fairly as possible.Benedict said they have no way of tracking
those days off.He said a couple of supervisors are starting to do that,possibly on third shift,
to show the officer how many days they took off during a month.
•
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 9
Henry agreed that it is a mutual responsibility,but said she is caught up in the process to track
this. Benedict said there is no ongoing audit between the supervisor and the officer on the
number of days taken or the number of days left,until you get to November,then there is a
mad rush to check it out.Benedict said the officers wanted to see some accountability here.
Chief Shake said he disagreed with that,stating that it is right in the contract,how many days
each officer has each year,and it's not that insignificant to ask the officer to write that down.
He said he takes it upon himself to write that down so he knows how many days of vacation
he has,etc.Benjamin said the contract is between the City and the bargaining unit and it is the
administrator's responsibility to see that the contract is carried out.
Snapp said,in this day and age of computer,any officer should be able to go to his supervisor
and find out how many days he has used.Chief Shake said errors are going to be made,but
they(administration)is human and they are going to make mistakes.Now,he asked,who
benefits from those errors and should there be some compensation in return for those benefits.
Giving an example,Chief Shake said he had submitted money for repayment,thinking he had
lost the check,but had actually cashed it,so when the City issued another one he had to pay
that money back.He added that that was his responsibility.Benedict responded,saying they
were dealing with two different things,talking about days,vacation and money.Chief Shake
said that is a contract issue.
Snapp said third shift supervisor is now printing out a monthly statement for officers on that
shift which would hopefully alleviate this problem—on third shift.Apparently,he said,it is
on first shift that they've had this problem two years in a row.Henry said she agreed that a
system needs to be in place to try to correct those human errors where the supervisor writes
those down and either the officer signs off on those or verifies it in another form.She said
some of the City employees have time cards and they sign them at the bottom,making it a
mutual responsibility.
Benedict said if there is to be a correction made,it should be a day for a day.He asked if he
would cash in his overtime now at what rate would it be?Chief Shake said it would be at the
2000 rate.However,he added,some of this overtime had to be earned in 1999.Snapp then
said what they would be taking away from him would have to be based on the 2000 rate so
that is what it would have to be based on.Benedict then said that is not equitable.Chairperson
Goodwin asked the Chief if that was a possibility—that the overtime could be adjusted.Chief
Shake said he supposed it could be if Barry Ritter could figure up the actual cost.He said that
is a 2000 contractual issue,not a 1999 one.
Chairperson Goodwin asked for questions or statements.Metzger said he felt he had made
himself clear on this.He said he agreed with Chairperson Goodwin that a mistake was made
and needs to be corrected and move on.He said he agreed with Henry that it looks like a
better system needs to be developed to keep track of this on a much more frequent basis.
Henry said she believed that an administrative error occurred and the officers should not be
penalized.
Metzger moved the grievances be denied,second by Chairperson Goodwin and on a vote of
two to one,they were denied,with Henry voting against the denial.
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd
March 9,2000
Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,on a motion duly made,seconded and passed,and carried on a unanimous
voice vote,the meeting was adjourned.
Robert Goodwin,Chairperson
ATTEST:
Myra Miller,Deputy Clerk