Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-02-2000 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,INDIANA,THURSDAY,MARCH 2,2000 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond,Indiana,met at 5 p.m.Thursday,March 2, 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 The minutes of the February 17 and 24,2000 meetings were approved on a motion by Metzger,second by Henry and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Claims for payment submitted by the City Controller's office were read by Henry who reported they totaled $2,121,453.93 and moved to approve,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. REQUESTS A. Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe explained that the Board of Aviation Commissioners had requested that this Board and the City's administration be kept informed of the plans and events scheduled to occur during the Grand Prix,including the concerts scheduled for at least two of the evenings at this point.He said there is a request from the Police Department that officers be allowed to be hired for this event to provide security.He said they would be hired directly by Heartland Promotions and paid by that company directly to provide security. Generally,Rabe said,the Police Chief does allow officers to work and be hired by outside firms such as Dillard's,Richmond High School and at gasoline stations.He said the reason this has been brought before this Board is because of the request made by the Board of Aviation Commissioners for this Board's involvement.Rabe asked the Board to ratify the Police Chief's decision to allow the officers to be hired by Heartland Promotions,stating that it would not be a cost taken out of the budgets of either the Police Department or City. Metzger moved to approve,second by Henry and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Goodwin,addressing Joe Plankenhorn,representing Midstates Racing,said he believed that would resolve everything from the Aviation Commissioners,adding that he understood,also,that City Engineer Wiwi's concerns had been met.Plankenhorn asked for a copy of the letter from the Police Department so he could present it to the Aviation Commissioners at their March 9 meeting. B. Captain Don Ponder of the Traffic Safety Division explained in a letter to the Board that he had received about the"Take Back the Night"rally planned for April 9.He said he had reviewed the letter,written by Sara Elizabeth Thorp of Earlham College,and had no objections to the request.There will be two routes,he said,a women's march which will begin at the City Building going south on South 5th street to the G Street Bridge,west to the Earlham campus,then returning to the City Building via National Road.The men's march would also begin at the City Building,traveling east on Main to 13th Street,south to South E Street,then west on South E Street to South 6`h Street,ending back at the City Building. About 50 walkers,he said,are expected for the event,the intent of which is to draw attention to issues of sexual assault and domestic violence. Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 2 Chairperson Goodwin said this letter is a change from the first one in that the time now is from 6 to 9 p.m.on the same date.He also added that they intend to expand the event with a request for art display done by Townsend Center students and from other groups of kids in the community.He said that request would be coming to this Board later.Henry moved to approve this request,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. C. Chairperson Goodwin read a letter of recommendation from Police Chief Bill Shake for the hiring of Ronald G.Pennington II as a probationary police officer.He said it had been approved by the Police Merit Commission effective Monday,February 28.Henry moved to approve,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. D. Fire Chief Mike Allen said he had been contacted by Claudia Vornauf,voter registration Deputy in the office of the Wayne County Clerk,to use Fire Station No.4 as a polling site for the elections to be held May 2nd and November 7th,2000.He said they had always been willing to cooperate in the past and felt the station could accommodate the request this time. He asked the Board's approval.Metzger so moved,second by Henry and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. E. Two requests were received for reserved handicapped parking spaces and Captain Ponder said they had been reviewed by the Traffic Safety Division, which recommended they be denied. He said both of the residences,one at 719 South 14th Street and the other at 720 South 12th Street,have off-street parking which means that neither meets the requirement as set out in the ordinance.Henry moved to deny both requests as recommended,second by Metzger and the motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. BID OPENING A. Two bids were received for the HVAC system at Fire Station No.4 located on South 8th and 1 Streets which,Fire Chief Allen said,would replace a 1962 system.Metzger read the bid made by Meyers Mechanical for$77,547 with the per foot charge for pipe replacement at$20.22. Henry read the bid made by Willman Metal Shop for$60,938 with an addition of$12,514, making the total bid$73,452.Chairperson Goodwin said the bids would be taken under advisement. B. A bid received from Millar Elevator Service of Indianapolis for the elevator maintenance contract for the parking garage,city building and sanitary district,was read by Henry who said the total monthly base price was$695. Chairperson Goodwin said it would be taken under advisement and possibly be awarded at a later date. GRIEVANCE HEARING FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS Assistant City Attorney Steve Rabe said the grievances would be handled separately,with Christopher Sticco speaking on behalf of the aggrieved Lt.Mike Foust,Lt.Gerald Rigsby representing himself and Rabe representing Fire Chief Mike Allen. Sticco stated that he was representing Foust who had written a statement on an infraction for which he felt he was aggrieved on January 4,2000.He said Foust had filed the grievance against Training Chief Kevin Nicholson as a violation of Article I of the contract which he read as follows: Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 3 "The union and the city agree to cooperate fully for harmonious relations,good working conditions,fair and impartial discipline and efficient firefighting service for the citizens of the City of Richmond,Indiana." Sticco said he was also going to reference the preface of the book of rules,which would be the 3rd paragraph in which it talks about the fair and impartial treatment of members of the Richmond Fire Department.He said he was going to show,with facts only,that there was a"blatant violation of Article I." Sticco read from the grievance,filed by Foust,that all companies were assigned the task of completing maps by Nicholson.He said A Shift,Engine 1,received a map 11 calendar days or 5 working days later than the other companies on the shift.He said Lt.Foust was supposed to share his map with two other companies and feeling that this was not possible,Foust made arrangements to get his own map. Sticco said companies on A Shift had 11 working days to complete their maps whereas Engine 1,A Shift had only 7 days.He said Foust was there 5 of those working days before going on vacation December 10, 1999.Sticco said it is his understanding that Engine 5,B Shift did not receive a map in its district to complete,adding that Lt.Joe Pierce did not turn his map into the training officer(Nicholson)on the due date but did not receive a reprimand. Sticco stated that the Lieutenant on B Shift,Engine 5 did not receive a map in his district,according to his own statements in which he said he went back to Nicholson on more than one occasion and was never given a map to complete.Therefore,Sticco said,he never did a map at all.Sticco said all of the information listed above is not consistent with Article I.He said Foust returned to work on Sunday,January 2 and received a reprimand for failing to turn in his map on January 4 at 4:15 p.m.,dated December 17, 1999. Sticco said Foust explained that when Nicholson asked him for his map,he explained to Nicholson that his map was complete,but was at home.Foust said he told him that he would bring his map in n the next working day,which was January 6.Sticco said it was at this time that Nicholson told Foust he would have to give him a reprimand because he(Nicholson)was going to give reprimands to anybody who failed to comply with the time. Sticco said on January 13,Foust,the Union president and the Union Steward Van Meter sat in a meeting with Nicholson to try to resolve the situation to resolve Step.No. 1 of the grievance procedure but failed to do so. Sticco said in that meeting,Nicholson stated that the due date on the maps was on or before December 17 and it was common knowledge that this was not complied with by every company officer and punishment was inconsistent.He said the suggested correction by Foust is to remove all copies of his reprimand from the files and in the Richmond Fire Department records.Sticco said he also wished to adhere to Article I of professional negotiation agreement between the City and Local 1408 as well as the preface of the Book of Rules of the department with the rules applied fairly. Sticco said he had represented Foust in a meeting with Fire Chief Mike Allen about this issue and Chief Allen had given Local 1408 a written resolve which, with the permission of the Board,he read,explaining it was dated January 24,2000,and written to Lt.Foust: "This letter is the fire administrative response in accordance with Article 10 of professional negotiation agreement in regard to the alleged grievances you filed.Training Chief Nicholson issued a training schedule for late October and all of November. On that schedule, which was issued to and reviewed with all three shifts included beginning on the 16`11 day of November through the 19th day of November the map assignments were issued.At that time the information was communicated to you that the maps were to be turned in by the 17th day of December and noted on the board as well.The due date was again noted on the training schedule for December which indicated the due date as December 17." Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 4 Sticco interrupted the reading of the Chief's letter,then passed around a copy of that training schedule in which,he said,the due date of December 17 was clearly marked.He said that this is a revised training schedule,adding that there was a December training schedule that came out before this one and this was released as a revised one.He continued with the reading of Chief Allen's letter: "You also allege that you were not aware of the due date of the map assignment. Our records show you were on duty every day you were scheduled to work except for the 27th day of November when you called in ill.Therefore,you were responsible to have reviewed the November training schedule to make sure of compliance of that schedule.You met the requirements of all that was required from you on that schedule in November.Therefore,you must have had knowledge of the mapping assignment due date."Sticco interjected that he was kind of lost there because the Chief was talking about November and the mapping assignment due date was on a December calendar. Reading from the letter again Sticco proceeded: "Now,in December the training schedule was issued and the mapping assignment was posted on it for the 17th day of December.There was a revised schedule for December which did not change the due date of the map assignment that was on the original schedule.The revised schedule only changed the dates of the live burn.The training schedule called for the mapping assignments to be worked on and referred to the street maps due on the 17th day of December.Again,your responsibility as a lieutenant was to review and know what your assignment was for your company "You also said to me directly that you had the mapping completed on the 10th day of December before your vacation began,yet you did not make any attempt to give it to your Battalion Chief or to someone on your truck to turn in or give it to the training chief or the on-duty Battalion Chief prior to going on vacation. There is nothing that should have kept you from turning your assignment in earlier than the 17t.The other reference you made to support your position was that Lt.Joe Pierce did not turn his mapping assignment in on time and did not receive a reprimand.Lt.Joe Pierce was told inadvertently,along with the rest of his shift,from training chief Nicholson,that the maps were due in on the 18th of December.Lt.Pierce tried to turn his maps in on the 18th to his Battalion Chief and was told that he should hold them until the next day the training chief was on duty.The training chief admits that he wrongly told C shift the 18th and some of them understood it that way.Even at that most all of them turned their assignments in before the 17t.This reference is not relevant to your situation.Lt.Pierce made an attempt to turn in the maps on the day he believed they were due by the training chiefs verbal instructions. "You,on the other hand,made no attempt to turn the maps in or to inquire about where to leave them or get them to the training chief on or before the due date.Your last argument to support your position was that it is common knowledge that this was not complied with by every company officer and the punishment was inconsistent.Also,that you were on vacation when the assignment was due.There were nine Lieutenants on vacation when those assignments were due and six Lieutenants complied,three didn't.Two of the three Lieutenants who were reprimanded filed grievances and the third admitted that he was wrong in not complying: Our department,as you know,has 24 Lieutenants who were affected by the deadline and 21 of them met their responsibility." Sticco interjected that that fact is wrong,saying 21 lieutenants did not comply.He said 21 did not turn a map in.That is a false statement. He continued reading Chief Allen's letter: "Your responsibility as a Lieutenant is an important one and includes,but is not limited to,communicating, asking questions,clearing up misunderstandings,setting a positive example for personnel,taking initiative, cooperating and working with your personnel and your supervisors to meet the requirements of the job." Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 5 Sticco again stopped reading and commented that he would like to highlight"the clearing up misunderstandings"part. He started reading again from Chief Allen's letter: "The grievance you wrote is without merit,substance or justification.To use the information that you submitted as fact to support you allegedly having a grievance is not relevant to receiving a reprimand.I support the reprimand issued by Training Chief Nicholson.Your grievance is denied."The letter was signed,"Professionally,Michael J.Allen,Fire Chief." Sticco's response to the Chief's letter was: He pointed out that this is a violation of Article 1,because there was inconsistent disciplining,and the article states there shall be fair and impartial disciplining.He pointed out two inconsistencies.Two other references to two other lieutenants being reprimanded,Gerald Rigsy and David Stout.He said Rigsby is a lieutenant on Engine 5 on C Shift and Stout is a lieutenant on Engine 1 on C Shift.He said those reprimands were written on December 17.However,he said,that contradicts what the Chief had written because C Shift's were not due until December 18.He asked how a reprimand could be issued the day before the map was due.He said the second point he wanted to make was that Lt.Pierce turned his map in on the 18th which was a Saturday and the training chief does not work on Saturday and he was told to hold them and turn them in on the next duty day. He read a letter from Lt.Joe Pierce making a statement concerning the grievance filed by Lt.Foust on January 13.He(Pierce)said in that grievance he is listed as not receiving a reprimand for not turning in his street maps by the assigned due date.He stated that on Saturday,December 18,he turned in the maps to Battalion Chief Ed Haller and was told to turn them in on Monday,December 20.Pierce said it was on November 16,during the training session that they were given the maps and on November 23,the training schedule came out which had the December 17 due date on it.He said he was not aware of the due date being changed since he was not on duty(it was not a duty day for him) and he didn't check the training schedules for the days he doesn't work.He said if he is in violation it is because of conflicting dates given for the due date. In closing,Sticco said that there was an inaccuracy in the Chief's facts he listed for denying the grievance such as listing the 21 fire officers as complying with this assignment,which was not the case.He said Lt. Bobby O'Neil did not turn in a map and Lt.Billy Reece never turned in a map because he wasn't there. Sticco said he can show it was a lack of organization on implementing the training map,yet the lieutenants are held responsible for the lack of organization from the fire administration staff for which there were no consequences for them for not being organized,conflicting due dates and making the due date on the 17th when there are three shifts,not giving the people the same amount of time. He said it looks like it is the responsibility of the lieutenants to look at the due date and complete the cross reference but not the staff's responsibility to implement organized training programs.He continued,saying Local 1408 demands Article I be adhered to and thinks the grievance must be resolved by the removal of the reprimand as well as to ask the Board to stress to the Fire Chief that it is not okay to violate the contract and to deny the grievances with little or no investigation of the facts. Rabe called Nicholson to the microphone,noting that he has,since the filing of the grievances been appointed the Assistant Fire Chief while still performing the duties of the Training Chief.In explaining the background for the mapping assignments,Nicholson said the City and County are currently working on a G.I.S.mapping program in which they are going to have several layers of information for different departments. Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 6 Nicholson said he was asked to assist in the program by going out with the companies within the department to investigate address ranges for the streets in the City,making sure one-way streets are identified and making sure any aliases given such as East Main or 40 and any streets aren't indicated on the maps were given. During that time,Nicholson said,he decided that would be a real good company-level type of training so he divided the maps up among the companies,handing them the assignments to go out and investigate. Rabe asked what the deadline was that he set.Nicholson answered that the due date was set on or before December 17.Rabe then asked if it was true that in one meeting he(Nicholson)had inadvertently said the maps were due on the 18t?Nicholson said he was unaware of it at the time,but several people had,at a later date after the reprimands were given,state to him that during the meeting where the maps were handed out for C Shift that he had inadvertently given December 18 as the due date. Rabe then asked whether or not one shift had received the assignment and Nicholson answered that one company did not receive a map assignment.He said that came about because he(Nicholson)had been given a duplicate map so it was B Shift,Engine 5,at the time the map assignments were given out.He said later,he called and asked for a copy of that section of map and they said they would get it to him as soon as possible.Rabe asked how many turned in late assignments?Nicholson answered that there were four. Then,Rabe asked him how many were disciplined.Nicholson said three had been disciplined. Kevin said he understood that he had told Lt.Pierce,inadvertently during the training session,that the due date was on the 181. He was prepared to give him a reprimand,he said,then found out that information from several people that he had told him and the entire shift it was the 18t.At that time,Nicholson said,he had investigated the story and learned that he(Pierce)had said he tried to turn it into Haller,so he called Haller to ask if that was accurate and Haller told him that he had told Pierce to wait until the next duty date and turn it in. Rabe asked Nicholson what had happened after giving the other three reprimands and Nicholson said as soon as Lt.Foust returned from vacation he met with him and gave him his reprimand,stating that he was giving the reprimands to the lieutenants who failed to turn in the assignments on time.Rabe asked about the other two and Nicholson said that the next day he called Rigsby into his office and gave him the reprimand stating the same reasons for failure to turn it in on the due date.Rabe asked if any lieutenants had requested any extension of time to complete the assignment and Nicholson answered that they had not.He explained that during the first process meeting that issue had come up and he said then that if anyone had come to him stating any reason they needed an extension,he would have granted it,but no one did. Rabe said he had contemplated not giving a closing argument because it was very clear that the fact seems to be very consistent that this grievance and the next one,with the same fact pattern,are without merit.He said he felt it was a shame that these grievances had come this far,with this type of forum.He said he realized that sounded harsh,but added that throughout life,people have deadlines in their professional and personal lives.He gave several examples,also noting that the Richmond Fire Department is no different. This assignment,Rabe said,had an established deadline by which it was to be completed and this Board had heard Nicholson state that no one requested an extension.He said four missed the deadline,three were disciplined,but originally he said Nicholson said he had prepared reprimands for all four.However,Rabe said,he later learned that one had turned in the maps the day he thought it was due because of an error that Nicholson had admitted he made.One of the three who were disciplined accepted the reprimand and the other two filed grievances.Rabe said that management has to have discretion to properly run a department, adding that this was a reasonable decision made by the Training Officer who is now also the Assistant Fire Chief. Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 7 Rabe said what is being discussed here is a written reprimand,a letter in somebody's file that said he had a deadline he was supposed to make that he didn't.He said this is discipline,which is fair,and appropriate, adding that in order to function effectively the Fire Department administration must be able to make reasonably based disciplinary decisions.He said it is very clear that that is exactly what occurred and requested this Board to uphold the written reprimand that was issued for this grievance which is grievance No. 1. Sticco said he wanted to state that he has respect for everyone here today,adding that Rabe is hiding from what the grievance is and that is unfair discipline.He said it is not whether or not a map was turned in on the 17th or the 18t,however,that was the vehicle that led up to the violation of the contract,but the contract was most definitely violated.He restated Article I which used the words"fair and impartial."Sticco said it was the lieutenant's responsibility to review his training schedule,adding that if Lt.Pierce had reviewed it he would have see the due date was the 17th,yet he was not disciplined.Therefore,he said,there is no other argument. He said it is a lieutenant's responsibility to clear up misunderstandings and that did not happen.The grievance is not on map due date,it is on unfair disciplining of Fire Department personnel.He said Nicholson was disorganized in this implementation of the maps,inadvertent dates and wrong maps given. He said when a lieutenant has to come and request the map that is definitely not organized and implementation is definitely not consistent.He said four people committed an infraction -three people were disciplined and one was not. Metzger said there was an allegation that two lieutenants did not turn in any maps and he hadn't heard that addressed.Nicholson explained that there was one company,Engine 5,B Trick,which did not receive the assignment because a duplicate map was sent inadvertently and he did not receive a copy of that until later in January.Then,he said,it was too late because he had other training evolutions scheduled for January so he decided not to give that company a map assignment because of the problem of not receiving it. Metzger said he heard that two lieutenants did not turn in the maps and Kevin said one was Lt.Coble who was gone that day and Engineer Risk turned in a map for him.He said the lieutenant was not on duty that day and either had left word with their engineer or somebody else working in a supervisory capacity to turn that map in for them.Rabe said he had met the responsibility of turning the map in. Sticco responded that he knew of two lieutenants who did not turn in their maps,adding that the lieutenant on B Shift didn't even have a map assignment and another lieutenant was gone and that map was turned in but he,personally,did not turn it in.Sticco said in Chief Allen's letter,he claimed that 21 lieutenants had turned in their maps,adding that there are only 24 lieutenants on the entire Fire Department.He said according to Chief Allen in denying this grievance,he claimed that 21 had turned in their maps and three did not and that clearly is a misrepresentation of the facts.Rabe then interjected,saying that Chief Allen stated that 21 had met their responsibility.Sticco answered that that is misrepresenting the fact.Rabe responded by asking Sticco the following question: "If you have an assignment due and it is turned in,is that not meeting your responsibility?"Sticco did not answer. Speaking on his behalf,Lt.Foust said if he hadn't gone to Nicholson to begin with,he wouldn't have had a map either because he was supposed to share a map with two other companies and he felt it wasn't feasible for all three companies to share a map.He said he made an attempt to do what he was supposed to do.He said it was neglect on Nicholson's part for not giving him a map to begin with.He said if he had not taken the initiative to ask for a map he would never have had one.Rabe then asked him if he got a map and Foust said he did,adding that he was unaware of any date because he never did see a date. Board of Works Minutes Cont'd March 2,2000 Page 8 Foust said that Nicholson would substantiate that,because when he was going to give him(Foust) a reprimand,he asked him if there were any due dates because he was unaware of any dates because he went on vacation. Rabe asked if the Grievance Committee denied this grievance.Sticco said the committee right now has 11 members,6 members showed up after the hearing with the chief,four voted not to send it to this Board and two voted to send it.He said the union went through other avenues written into its constitutional bylaws and the union body is behind these grievances coming here to this Board.He said they have spoken,adding that Local 1408 is definitely backing these grievances.Rabe asked whether or not 15 members and 13 members voted to send this,out of 81 union members.Sticco said he's not sure whether or not those numbers are correct,but added that they are close.He said the meeting was posted for everyone to attend and 15 to 7 was the actual vote,adding that is about the average number attending any union meeting on any topic.Chairperson Goodwin said the Board would take this grievance under advisement,then moved on to the second grievance hearing. Lt. Gerald Rigsby of C Trick,Engine Co.5,stated that he would keep his remarks short and to the point. He said three officers were reprimanded,one was not,under almost identical circumstances.He said his reprimand was dated December 14, 1999,at 4:30 p.m. Any time after that,he said,the maps were late.He said discipline should have been issued in a fair and impartial manner and it was not.In a conversation with Lt.Pierce,he said,when he(Pierce)turned in his map three days late he was told by Nicholson that he had been giving reprimands to the guys turning these in late,but he failed to issue one to Lt.Pierce. Responding,Rabe said had someone come to him and said they missed a deadline because they relied on a verbal assertion of a deadline that they had been told by a supervisor,his advise to them would be maybe a reprimand should not be given in that instance.He said only one was in that circumstance,he said,adding that that is the difference.He said the fact this is even here is a shame. Speaking to the issue at hand,Chief Allen said that Lt.Foust,by his own admission,had the map completed prior to going on vacation December 10,but made no initiative to make sure the assignment was turned in.He said Lt.Rigsby made no effort to leave his information with anyone,adding that he didn't know whether he had completed it or not,but the bottom line wa that there were no efforts made to complete the assignments.He said the third lieutenant accepted his discipline and admitted his guilt and failure to turn in the assignment. In a final statement,Lt.Rigsby said: "You can deal with the supposition all you want.The facts are that one lieutenant was not reprimanded for the same infraction that three others were." Chairperson Goodwin said this grievance also would be taken under advisement and this Board,hopefully, would have a determination on both grievances at the same time. 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: Norma Schroeder,Clerk