Last night, Monday, March 1, 2010, many New Philadelphia City Council members displayed a lack of understanding of financial affairs when they considered contracts for the clerical and maintenance workers of the city. Not only did their action on those contracts increase the probability of the city falling into default, but also set the stage for layoffs of city employees, decreased city services, and lower levels of protection from both the Fire and Police Departments.
The Council failed in its responsibility to protect the residents of New Philadelphia when it refused to reject contracts for the clerical workers and the service, maintenance, and technical employees unions of the city. Even worse, their deliberations on those contracts were done in an unnecessary Executive Session, whose only purpose seemed to be hiding the true costs and dangers of accepting the proposed contracts. What transpired in that Executive Session should remain unknown except to those who participated in it, but the results were evident when Council resumed its public deliberations.
The two Union contracts were brought to the floor for a vote. Each contract had two resolutions assigned to it, one to accept the contract, one to reject it. Each contract resolution was brought to the floor as an emergency, which requires the council rules to be waived before any action can be taken. Six council members must agree to any action brought to the floor requiring a waiving of the rules. There were only six members of Council present, Ms. Espenscheid, Ward One Councilman, was absent.
The final result to all four Resolutions concerning the union contracts was a pass. Without the required votes, of which five were required, Council took no action. The agreement between the City of New Philadelphia and the Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees Union will go into effect the end of this week by default. The contract with the Clerical Union will be brought up in Council at its regular meeting on March 8, but will more than likely become effective by default because of inaction on the part of council Members.
A number of concerns were expressed on both contracts. Mr. Lautenschleger stated his concern about the City being able to keep the General Fund within budget because of pay increases contained in both contracts. He felt that if the contracts were rejected and referred to a Fact Finder, the next step, with proper and adequate representation by the City, the Fact Finder would understand the gravity of the City's financial situation and reduce the wage increases to a more realistic level. Ms. Cox expressed her concern as the future financial condition of the country being uncertain at this time, there was no certainty that the City would be able to meet its General Fund obligations in the future.
Two questions were asked from the floor by Bob Conner, who requested the total additional cost of salaries and benefits paid to workers covered by the contracts. He also asked if the four clerks, who were specifically denied a nine cent per hour bonus paid to clerical personnel in the last contract, were included in the nine cent per hour bonus being paid by this contract.
City Auditor Gundy replied that increased cost for the Service and Maintenance contract was $46,631, for the Clerical the increase was $10,585, both beginning on January 1, 2010. Conner asked Gundy if base wages for employees went up, did not the cost of city paid benefits based on salary, such as retirement, medicare, and similar benefits, also increase. Gundy replied that she only worked up base wage increases, that other costs related to wage increases were not considered. Conner asked the Council President if it would not be possible that Gundy provide the entire cost of the increased costs to the city.
The Auditor offered no further response to either question.
The concern about these contracts is the ability of the City of New Philadelphia to pay the wages they mandate. The Administration's statement that the Clerical contract is limited to a 1.5 % wage increase is inaccurate. Article 28 of that contract reports a base wage rate of 1.5% but fails to consider "a $.09 per hour allowance in addition to the base rates". This "allowance" increases wages in the Clerical contract to a high of 2.41%, with an average wage increase for this contract alone being 2.15%.
Mr. Maurer, Councilman of Ward Four stated he was against rejection of the contracts, as, if rejected they would be sent to a Fact Finder. The expense of paying a Fact Finder, $5,000 by his estimate, would be an unnecessary expense to the City as past experience has shown that fact finding rulings would probably favor the Unions in any event.
In the end, City Council failed to approve or reject either of the contracts last Monday. The Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees' contract will become effective by week's end. The Ohio Revised Code allows Council 30 days in which to approve or reject a union contract before it becomes effective by default. Those days expire Thursday. The Clerical contract will be be considered on the floor next Monday, March 8, as a No vote was cast by Ward One Councilman John Zucal to suspend the rules on a resolution to reject the Clerical Contract preventing further action by Council.
The debacle last Monday evening must be shared by the Administration. For its part, the Administration did not learn from the disaster of the Police and Fire Departments contract negotiations last fall. The lesson which should have been learned, that negotiations should not be left in the hands of amateurs, seems to have been lost. Hiring of a competent lawyer, one with proper training, knowledge, and experience dealing with union negotiators is essential to protect the interests of the City.
Mayor Taylor stated that he thought the agreements with the Unions were as good as the City could achieve and expressed optimism that the economy would improve so the wage increases would not create a problem. Taylor commented that if the economy did not improve and financing became a problem, the solution would be to cut back on city personnel and services. Another option may be what he promised when he was campaigning for election three years ago, when he said he would raise taxes should the city experience financial difficulties.
It was an interesting evening.
(Editor's Note: For the record, the following statistics:
Voted Yes to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voting No to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 3; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted Yes to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4
Voted Yes to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voted No to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted Yes to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2
Absent from the council Meeting: Colleen Espenschied, Ward 1)
The Council failed in its responsibility to protect the residents of New Philadelphia when it refused to reject contracts for the clerical workers and the service, maintenance, and technical employees unions of the city. Even worse, their deliberations on those contracts were done in an unnecessary Executive Session, whose only purpose seemed to be hiding the true costs and dangers of accepting the proposed contracts. What transpired in that Executive Session should remain unknown except to those who participated in it, but the results were evident when Council resumed its public deliberations.
The two Union contracts were brought to the floor for a vote. Each contract had two resolutions assigned to it, one to accept the contract, one to reject it. Each contract resolution was brought to the floor as an emergency, which requires the council rules to be waived before any action can be taken. Six council members must agree to any action brought to the floor requiring a waiving of the rules. There were only six members of Council present, Ms. Espenscheid, Ward One Councilman, was absent.
The final result to all four Resolutions concerning the union contracts was a pass. Without the required votes, of which five were required, Council took no action. The agreement between the City of New Philadelphia and the Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees Union will go into effect the end of this week by default. The contract with the Clerical Union will be brought up in Council at its regular meeting on March 8, but will more than likely become effective by default because of inaction on the part of council Members.
A number of concerns were expressed on both contracts. Mr. Lautenschleger stated his concern about the City being able to keep the General Fund within budget because of pay increases contained in both contracts. He felt that if the contracts were rejected and referred to a Fact Finder, the next step, with proper and adequate representation by the City, the Fact Finder would understand the gravity of the City's financial situation and reduce the wage increases to a more realistic level. Ms. Cox expressed her concern as the future financial condition of the country being uncertain at this time, there was no certainty that the City would be able to meet its General Fund obligations in the future.
Two questions were asked from the floor by Bob Conner, who requested the total additional cost of salaries and benefits paid to workers covered by the contracts. He also asked if the four clerks, who were specifically denied a nine cent per hour bonus paid to clerical personnel in the last contract, were included in the nine cent per hour bonus being paid by this contract.
City Auditor Gundy replied that increased cost for the Service and Maintenance contract was $46,631, for the Clerical the increase was $10,585, both beginning on January 1, 2010. Conner asked Gundy if base wages for employees went up, did not the cost of city paid benefits based on salary, such as retirement, medicare, and similar benefits, also increase. Gundy replied that she only worked up base wage increases, that other costs related to wage increases were not considered. Conner asked the Council President if it would not be possible that Gundy provide the entire cost of the increased costs to the city.
The Auditor offered no further response to either question.
The concern about these contracts is the ability of the City of New Philadelphia to pay the wages they mandate. The Administration's statement that the Clerical contract is limited to a 1.5 % wage increase is inaccurate. Article 28 of that contract reports a base wage rate of 1.5% but fails to consider "a $.09 per hour allowance in addition to the base rates". This "allowance" increases wages in the Clerical contract to a high of 2.41%, with an average wage increase for this contract alone being 2.15%.
Mr. Maurer, Councilman of Ward Four stated he was against rejection of the contracts, as, if rejected they would be sent to a Fact Finder. The expense of paying a Fact Finder, $5,000 by his estimate, would be an unnecessary expense to the City as past experience has shown that fact finding rulings would probably favor the Unions in any event.
In the end, City Council failed to approve or reject either of the contracts last Monday. The Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees' contract will become effective by week's end. The Ohio Revised Code allows Council 30 days in which to approve or reject a union contract before it becomes effective by default. Those days expire Thursday. The Clerical contract will be be considered on the floor next Monday, March 8, as a No vote was cast by Ward One Councilman John Zucal to suspend the rules on a resolution to reject the Clerical Contract preventing further action by Council.
The debacle last Monday evening must be shared by the Administration. For its part, the Administration did not learn from the disaster of the Police and Fire Departments contract negotiations last fall. The lesson which should have been learned, that negotiations should not be left in the hands of amateurs, seems to have been lost. Hiring of a competent lawyer, one with proper training, knowledge, and experience dealing with union negotiators is essential to protect the interests of the City.
Mayor Taylor stated that he thought the agreements with the Unions were as good as the City could achieve and expressed optimism that the economy would improve so the wage increases would not create a problem. Taylor commented that if the economy did not improve and financing became a problem, the solution would be to cut back on city personnel and services. Another option may be what he promised when he was campaigning for election three years ago, when he said he would raise taxes should the city experience financial difficulties.
It was an interesting evening.
(Editor's Note: For the record, the following statistics:
Voted Yes to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voting No to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 3; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted Yes to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4
Voted Yes to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voted No to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted Yes to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2
Absent from the council Meeting: Colleen Espenschied, Ward 1)
Bob, am I reading this correct??? Jim Locker voted 'yes' to accept the M&T contract AND voted 'yes' to reject the M&T contract?
ReplyDeleteYep.
ReplyDeleteWhats up with that?
ReplyDeleteI THOUGHT THE HEALTH BENEFITS WENT UP A BOAT LOAD TOO BUT NO ONE CARED!!
ReplyDeleteRe: March 8th NP Council meeting.
ReplyDeleteWhat is going on with these votes? Does Locker not understand the motion on the floor, or is he purposely voting both sides of the issue?
And is he the councilman who had a habit of not even showing up for contract votes in the past?