09-22-08 Common Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There being on one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember White made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes and one (1) nay. Councilmember Rouse stated that he certainly agrees with the intent of 56-08 as well as 57-08 that will be heard shortly. He stated that they must and agrees with Mr. Ruszkowski and all of the commentary that the City must maintain and find ways to enhance the programs for the public safety sector of the city. Even though right now it is 75% of the operational budget is being spent. They have to find ways to even enlarge that, more money, and better opportunities. But at the same time, he doesn’t think that what this particular proposal is proposing is good for the City and is the right answer. What is being proposed is a comprehensive financial commitment at a time when the City does not have money; it is not known what is available in the life of this contract. The City is facing now, per the administration projections a lay-off of 52 firefighters, 40 police officers and the elimination of crossing guards, closing of parks and recreation centers and today coming up with this proposal of a comprehensive compounded financial obligation. He stated that he would possibly be in support of a bonus for the same amount of monies that is being talked about annually, but to come before this City and to make a proposal of that kind of financial commitment when as has been openly admitted to not having. He finds that something that he cannot personally support. He reiterated again that he does appreciate the work but he is viewing this from a different paradigm. He stated that new ways need to be found to bring that public safety sector back into the City. He stated that if we keep climbing on the back of the residents who support public safety and the public safety is moving out into the county who is going to pay for those wonderful benefits that they want. He stated that ways need to be found to come together collectively to find better answers to the problems. He agrees with the problems but he certainly does not agree with a comprehensive and compounded financial obligation when the budget is stretched and nobody knows was HB 1001 is going to do to the City, so that is the reason for his nay vote. BILL NO. 57-08 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FIXING THE ANNUAL PAY AND MONETARY FRINGE BENEFITS FOR FIREFIGHTERS OF THE SOUTH BEND FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009 Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember LaFountain seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember LaFountain, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee, reported that this committee held a joint committee meeting with the Health and Public Safety Committee and it was the consensus of the committees to send this substitute bill to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Kirsits advised that he is a member of the South Bend Fire Department and has his disclosure form on file in the Office of the City Clerk. He noted that after discussion with Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand it was determined that no conflict of interest exists and he will be able to vote on this bill this evening. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney and Council Agent for bargaining with the Union Representing the South Bend Fire Department. She stated that she would be remiss not to acknowledge the hard work of Police Chief Darryl Boykins and also Chief Walters throughout the Fire Negotiations. They were instrumental to addressing many things that the Council will be seeing at a later date in the collective bargaining 9