Laserfiche WebLink
~J <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />POLICE DEPARTMENT <br />JANUARY 31.2007 <br />ACCEPT DONATION TO SOUTH BEND POLICE DEPARTMENT <br />In a letter to the Board, Division Chief Gary Horvath stated that the South Bend Police Department, <br />on behalf of the Community Relations Division, received a donation from Wal-Mart in the amount <br />of $3,500.00. The Police Department requested that the money be used to pay expenses associated <br />with the department's community/youth outreach programs such as the South Bend Police Boxing <br />Club. They requested that the check be accepted and deposited into the South Bend Police Boxing <br />Club account within the South Bend Police Department. Division Chief Bishop stated that Chief <br />Boykin is doing an excellent job with the Boxing Club, mentoring approximately fifty (50) young <br />adults. Division Chief Bishop invited the Board to stop by and observe the center and its programs. <br />There being no further discussion, the donations was accepted. <br />FILING OF QUARTERLY REPORT FOR SPECIALIZED TRAINING -OCTOBER THROUGH <br />DECEMBER 2006 <br />Captain Wanda Shock, Director of Training, South Bend Police Department, submitted to the Board <br />a written Quarterly Report for Specialized Training for the period of October through December <br />2006. The report indicated the specialized training attended, the names of the officers who attended <br />and the costs involved. There being no questions concerning this report, the Quarterly Report for <br />Specialized Training as submitted was accepted and filed. <br />FILING OF MONTHLY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT -DECEMBER 2006 <br />President Rodriguez indicated that unless there were questions or objections by members of the <br />Board, the statistical report for the month of December 2006 as submitted by the Police Department, <br />would be accepted for filing. There being no objections, the following report was accepted for filing: <br /> YEAR TO DATE <br />PART I OFFENSES 2005 2006 CHANGE ~ ~ CHANGE <br />MURDER 1 1 0 12 10 -2 <br />RAPE 10 1 -9 69 67 -2 <br />ROBBERY 51 62 11 348 431 83 <br />AGGRAVATED ASSLT 22 19 -2 356 292 -64 <br />BURGLARY RES 108 93 -15 1085 1351 266 <br />BURGLARY NON RES 35 34 -1 593 579 -14 <br />LARCENY 309 351 42 4366 4895 -529 <br />MOTOR VEH THEFT 59 56 -3 577 563 -14 <br />ARSONS 5 7 2 90 86 -4 <br />GRAND TOTAL 600 624 24 7496 8274 778 <br />GRIEVANCE HEARING -ANTHONY ROSS <br />Corporal Anthony Ross addressed the Board stating that on January 30, 2007, his fiancee gave birth <br />to his child, but he was denied three (3) days off for his child's birth because he was not married. <br />Corporal Ross feels that Article 24 of the Working Agreement is very ambiguous in its wording, <br />stating that a child bom to an Employee only implies a female Employee who gives birth, but does <br />not specifically state that. <br />Mr. Bodnar requested that Corporal Ross address the three (3) factors that were referenced in a <br />memo by Chief Fautz to Corporal Ross. In the memo, Chief Fautz stated that Corporal Ross was <br />notified on January 5, 2007 that he was denied the days off for child birth but Corporal Ross didn't <br />file the grievance form until January 13, 2007. That is one day past the deadline of seven (7) days. <br />Secondly, Article 24 of the current Working Agreement in part states "in the event of a child born to <br />an Employee or to an Employee's spouse, an Employee, as defined herein, shall receive three (3) <br />days leave time without loss of pay to attend the child's/children's birth(s), upon the approval of the <br />Chief of Police or his or her designee, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld." Chief <br />Fautz stated in his memo that since Corporal Ross was not married, he was not entitled to the benefit. <br />Third, is the matter concerning the 2006 vacation being rolled over to 2007. Article 16 of the current <br />Working Agreement in part states "Earned vacations shall not accumulate from year to year, except <br />in the case when an Employee incurs an on-duty injury where said vacation cannot be used in <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />