My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-27-01 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2001
>
08-27-01 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2013 10:38:44 AM
Creation date
4/18/2013 10:17:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
8/27/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING <br />AUGUST 27, 2001 <br />two per cent (82 %) approved the second rebuttal. Mr. Dieter noted that it is not going to be good <br />for the Council, the Police or the Mayor and the citizens of South Bend to have this riff between the <br />administration and the Police Department. Mr. Dieter stated that some questions have arisen in <br />regards to what exactly the dollar amount is for a pensioner. It was mentioned that for every one <br />dollar ($1.00) of a raise it is one hundred eighty -four dollars ($184.00) per pensioner. It was then <br />indicated that the amount was one dollar and thirty -two cents ($1.32). Mr. Dieter advised that they <br />would like to know how that amount is reached. <br />Mr. Tom Dixon, Attorney representing the FOP, no address given, read Article 36, Sections 2 and <br />3 of the current Working Agreement. Mr. Dixon stated that the reason he is reading these <br />provisions is because the FOP intends to go back to the negotiating table next year based on those <br />provisions. Mr. Dixon additionally read Article A, Section 1 which is the no strike out, no walk -out <br />provision. He noted that there was significant discussion in negotiations about the meaning of some <br />of those terms. With that said, the realty is that if the parties do not go back to the negotiating table <br />next year, then there will be no agreement in the following year which is 2003. With no agreement <br />in the following year, Section 1 will have no force so the City will be facing the possibility of <br />having a Police Department which will be legally entitled to engage in an interruption of work short <br />of what is legally prohibited by statute which is a strike. He pointed out that the FOP has agreed to <br />the City last best and final offer in all respects except First Class Patrolman and that a Working <br />Agreement will be in place if the Council will accept the FOP's last best and final offer on 1st Class <br />Patrolman. The FOP also is offering to work with the Council to find money through City budgets <br />or looking into the administration of the 1925 pension fund because they understand from the City's <br />perspective that the 1925 plan and the retirees thereunder is an economic hardship for the City. <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />There being no further business to come before the Council, President Pfeifer adjourned the meeting <br />at 8:47 p.m. <br />ATTEST: ATTEST: <br />Loretta J , Ci Clerr' <br />Charlotte Pfeifer, President <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.