Monday, March 8, was another one of those nights at City Hall. The good news is that City Council won't have to go through another union contract session this year. Well, maybe not. With this administration and the realignment of City Council, anything can happen.
The contract for city employees, the clerical workers, came to what appears to be its final stage last night when Council voted not to accept it. It wasn't the vote which was so disturbing, but how that vote came about. (To get part one of this story, take a look at the Blog "Wage Increases Strain City Budget", published March 2, 2010.) After failing to get a decision on resolutions to accept or reject the Clerical contract a week ago, the resolutions came up on the floor again last night for a final vote.
There were two resolutions. The first to accept the Clerical Contract, was defeated by a four to three vote, those voting against acceptance being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Ms. Walker, and Mr. Lautenschleger, those voting to accept it being Mr. Locker, Mr. Maurer, and Mr. Zucal. The second resolution, to reject the Clerical Contract, was passed by a five to two vote. Those voting to reject the contract being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Mr. Lautenschleger, Mr. Locker, and Ms. Walker, while those voting to accept the contract being Mr. Maurer and Mr. Zucal
Whoa. Wait a minute. It happened again. Councilman Locker voted both ways, to accept the contract on the first resolution, but to reject the contract on the second resolution. What's going on?
Messrs Maurer and Zucal voted for acceptance of the Clerical Contract because of the cost of a fee, quoted by both, of $5,000, which would be paid if the contract went to fact finding. They expressed their concern that the money would, for all intents and purposes, be wasted as past experience indicated that a Fact Finder would rule in favor of the union and $5,000 would have been spent for nothing
So what happens now? Mayor Taylor requested a special meeting of Council, Tuesday, March 16, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss changes it would recommend if another negotiating meeting can be arranged with Clerical Union representatives.
The Mayor should by this time recognize that neither he, nor any member of his administration is capable of negotiating union contracts. He has failed completely in three cases, Fire, Police, Maintenance, to protect the city from wage and benefit increases which are unique in municipal budgets during this period of economic disaster, and is only moments away from a fourth. He does not understand that it is not City Council's responsibility to negotiate these contracts, their responsibility is limited to advice and consent.
Advice and consent. The advice part he doesn't understand. If he did why is he requesting another meeting with Council so they can advise him "of what changes they would like to see." What went on in the executive session of last week? It lasted over an hour and was called to discuss the Clerical Union contract before a vote on the council floor. Can it be that council members did not express their concerns at that time? And if they did, should not the Mayor know what changes they thought necessary?
Trying to involve City Council in the negotiation of any contact is no more than an attempt to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, the Administration. In trying to shift responsibility which belongs solely to the Mayor brings back memories of when Mr. Taylor was running for his present office in 2007. He spoke before a group of downtown merchants and blamed the lack of planning for downtown New Philadelphia on City Council. He evidently didn't understand the system then and he surely doesn't understand it now.
The administration, and some council members, are unable to understand the fallacy, and stupidity, of making financial commitments which the city may not be able to meet in future years. The path they have set us on is based on the political credo that "it's not my money, so who cares?" They fail to recognize that unemployment is up and statements from the federal government that last month's job losses were "only 36,000" is not a good omen to New Philadelphia's economic health.
How long can we afford to spend money we cannot guarantee will become available over the coming years? How long could you, as a citizen, exist following the current fiscal policies of New Philadelphia government?
The contract for city employees, the clerical workers, came to what appears to be its final stage last night when Council voted not to accept it. It wasn't the vote which was so disturbing, but how that vote came about. (To get part one of this story, take a look at the Blog "Wage Increases Strain City Budget", published March 2, 2010.) After failing to get a decision on resolutions to accept or reject the Clerical contract a week ago, the resolutions came up on the floor again last night for a final vote.
There were two resolutions. The first to accept the Clerical Contract, was defeated by a four to three vote, those voting against acceptance being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Ms. Walker, and Mr. Lautenschleger, those voting to accept it being Mr. Locker, Mr. Maurer, and Mr. Zucal. The second resolution, to reject the Clerical Contract, was passed by a five to two vote. Those voting to reject the contract being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Mr. Lautenschleger, Mr. Locker, and Ms. Walker, while those voting to accept the contract being Mr. Maurer and Mr. Zucal
Whoa. Wait a minute. It happened again. Councilman Locker voted both ways, to accept the contract on the first resolution, but to reject the contract on the second resolution. What's going on?
Messrs Maurer and Zucal voted for acceptance of the Clerical Contract because of the cost of a fee, quoted by both, of $5,000, which would be paid if the contract went to fact finding. They expressed their concern that the money would, for all intents and purposes, be wasted as past experience indicated that a Fact Finder would rule in favor of the union and $5,000 would have been spent for nothing
So what happens now? Mayor Taylor requested a special meeting of Council, Tuesday, March 16, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss changes it would recommend if another negotiating meeting can be arranged with Clerical Union representatives.
The Mayor should by this time recognize that neither he, nor any member of his administration is capable of negotiating union contracts. He has failed completely in three cases, Fire, Police, Maintenance, to protect the city from wage and benefit increases which are unique in municipal budgets during this period of economic disaster, and is only moments away from a fourth. He does not understand that it is not City Council's responsibility to negotiate these contracts, their responsibility is limited to advice and consent.
Advice and consent. The advice part he doesn't understand. If he did why is he requesting another meeting with Council so they can advise him "of what changes they would like to see." What went on in the executive session of last week? It lasted over an hour and was called to discuss the Clerical Union contract before a vote on the council floor. Can it be that council members did not express their concerns at that time? And if they did, should not the Mayor know what changes they thought necessary?
Trying to involve City Council in the negotiation of any contact is no more than an attempt to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, the Administration. In trying to shift responsibility which belongs solely to the Mayor brings back memories of when Mr. Taylor was running for his present office in 2007. He spoke before a group of downtown merchants and blamed the lack of planning for downtown New Philadelphia on City Council. He evidently didn't understand the system then and he surely doesn't understand it now.
The administration, and some council members, are unable to understand the fallacy, and stupidity, of making financial commitments which the city may not be able to meet in future years. The path they have set us on is based on the political credo that "it's not my money, so who cares?" They fail to recognize that unemployment is up and statements from the federal government that last month's job losses were "only 36,000" is not a good omen to New Philadelphia's economic health.
How long can we afford to spend money we cannot guarantee will become available over the coming years? How long could you, as a citizen, exist following the current fiscal policies of New Philadelphia government?
No comments:
Post a Comment