Laserfiche WebLink
SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he wanted to be very clear that he is not voting <br />against giving the non-bargaining employees a raise. He stated that he is against the <br />Mayor being able to give and take away. <br /> <br />Mr. Zientara stated that voting this bill down would effect those positions that were <br />above the 1.5%. He stated that because of downsizing, taking on more responsibility, <br />doing more with less, these positions would not be allowed to receive the increase. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rouse asked if this bill could be amended to allow those positions that <br />were going to receive more than a 1.5% increase to a phase in process. <br /> <br />Mr. Zientara stated that the administration would welcome those discussions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Puzzello stated that she decided to support this bill under certain <br />circumstances. She stated that she would like to see the lowest paid positions to receive <br />those percentage raises and bring them up to the level they deserve. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter called for a recess. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the <br />motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. <br /> <br />The meeting resumed at 7:34 p.m. <br /> <br />Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney, thanked the Council for time to research <br />and has consulted with City Attorney Chuck Leone on this, that there are two provisions <br />in Title 36 which set forth the rules and regulations regarding city employees as it relates <br />th <br />to compensation. First, it sets forth that today September 30 is the deadline as the last <br />day to establish the maximums. The second one talks about any employee connected to a <br />municipal operation of a utility which does not have a deadline. She stated that after the <br />st <br />deadline passes this evening the City if prohibited from going forward until January 1 of <br />next year to create new positions for next year. She gave an example that Police Chief <br />Boykins brought to the Council attention. She stated that a sworn member of the Police <br />Department who was injured on duty who has been trained and because of all of the <br />training be able to create a civilian position within the police department. The City <br />Administration could come in late December and file an ordinance creating that position <br />as well as some of the positions that Mr. Gilot has brought to the Council’s attention <br />during the budgetary process for the CSO project, the multi-million dollar storm water <br />separate project that is going on. The City Administration could give the Council all the <br />detail with regard to the duties, responsibilities and the compensation for those new <br />positions so that the Council could act upon that at the beginning of next year. That <br />would address some of the concerns that the administration has with regard to adjusting <br />some of the salaries with regard to new responsibilities, and also those of Chief Boykins <br />with regard to the needed services that he needs in his department. She stated that she <br />was aware of this, but did not know if the Controller was aware of this and wanted to <br />make sure that the statute was still on the books. She stated that maybe City Attorney <br />Chuck Leone could address this. <br /> <br />Chuck Leone stated that he consulted with the Council Attorney and that they came to the <br />same conclusion that if the ordinance as presented this evening does not pass there is no <br />opportunity between now and the end of the year to pass any increase in salaries for non- <br />bargaining employees. However, after the first of the year the Council does have the <br />right to entertain an ordinance that deals with specific positions that deal with new or <br />additional responsibilities and those are the one that we have talked about in the Police <br />Department and several positions in Public Works as they have described no more than <br />10 total and all of them involving additional and changes in job duties and <br />responsibilities. So if it is the Council pleasure to vote no on this bill this evening, he <br />would suggest and this is subject to appropriations because it is important that the budget <br />reflect the ability to first of all deal administratively with non-bargaining salaries and to <br />deal with the specific positions that they suggested. The Council would have the <br />opportunity then in January and then they would hope to do is to file a bill in December <br />for first reading and second reading at the first meeting in January to address those <br />specific positions that they think are important in terms of overall operations of the city. <br /> 9 <br /> <br />