Collective Bargaining Agreement - Dmea Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. I don't think we're waiting for anybody else, so I'll call this ad hoc to order. THIS AD HOC IS CONVENIENT ON AUGUST 26TH AT 530 PM TO GO OVER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR THE DAMBURY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION CONTRACT THAT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. AND IT IS OUR JOB TO APPROVE THE FINANCES. WITH THAT SAID, I'M FRANK SALVATORE IN THE CHAIR. I have Diane Lapine and Candace Fay, councilwomen, as my co-committee chair members. We have ex-officio in the room, Presidente Peter Bazade. And I only do that because he hates when I do that. And from the mayor's office, we have T. O'Brien. We have corporation council. We have Tracy Norris, Jessica, and Caitlin. From the finance department, we have Dan, Joanne, And we have Tom Brown from the community here. With that said, I'm going to just open up to Corporation Council to make sure I understand, and let's get it out on the table, what our role as the City Council

IT'S A VERY LIMITED ROLE. THE SOLE ROLE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS IS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST FOR FUNDS. AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, THE TIMELINE FOR APPROVING OR DENYING HAS PASSED. SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED APPROVED. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS. THERE'S A 14-DAY PERIOD FROM THE TIME THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS REACHED There's a 14-day period you must submit it to the legislative body. In this case, the collective bargaining agreement was approved by the union on July 10th. It was ratified. You had 14 days from that date to submit it to the legislative body. On July 14th, the request for funds was submitted to Elisa, the legislative assistant. And on July 24th, that was the deadline to submit it. So we submitted it on July 14th. The deadline was July 24th. From July 24th, you have 30 days to vote on it. In this case, that would have been August 23rd. So as of August 23rd, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 7-474B, it's deemed automatically approved.

AND SO TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS, BECAUSE AN AD HOC WAS CALLED FOR, WE ARE STILL MEETING TODAY, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THE FINANCIAL PACKAGE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD ASKED DAN TO DO WAS TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE so that we could have a little bit more information. He agreed to bring that with him for us today, so we'll ask that he hand that out, and this is for our edification. And with that said, Before I open it up for the three of us to ask questions, Dan, is there anything you wanted to add about the financial part of the package?

Well, the general wage increases, the majority of the increase, about 95% of the total increases is strictly from that. And then you'll see the other areas that are increasing. LIKE OUT OF THE 26, 27, 229,000 TOTAL INCREASE FOR THE YEAR, 210 OF THAT IS FROM GENERAL WAGE INCREASE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS FOR US. I APPRECIATE THAT. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE JUST, I DIDN'T GET TO PASS IT OUT BEFORE THIS, SO I'M GLAD YOU HAD IT HERE FOR US TO LOOK AT. ALL RIGHT. TAYLOR, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE?

I WAS AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE. I'LL BE MINDFUL IN NOT BEING ABLE TO SHARE SPECIFICS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE ALL THE EMPLOYEES THAT DMEA MAKE UP, MANY EMPLOYEES IN THIS BUILDING AND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, SO JUST THEIR WORTH AND WORTHINESS OF THESE WAGE INCREASES THAT I HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL PROVE.

AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE WAGE INCREASES, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE AGAIN? Yeah, so 285, that's pretty close to what we're giving in the hospital, so that seems fair. Is there any other dollars and cents on here that haven't been able to be calculated, medical, anything like that?

There was medical and dental. There were a couple things on medical and dental that we're waiting for to hear back from our employee benefits consultant. They did, in the interim, get back to me. It's really a wash between what the changes are in the co-pays, the employee share of the premium, and then there's this increase in the dental coverage. So it all washed itself out within like $2,000 or $3,000.

I ASK MY TWO QUESTIONS, SO I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW MEMBERS.

SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE MISSED THE STATUTORY TIMELINE. I THINK WE WERE ALL AWARE THAT THERE WAS A STATUTORY DEADLINE. ATTORNEY CASAGRANDE SAID THERE'S A STATUTORY DEADLINE. WE WERE ALL AWARE OF THAT. HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE?

WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE ON IT WHEN IT'S CALLED TO COUNCIL. I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING. IT'S ABSOLUTELY STATUTORY.

WE CAN'T... OH, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT, I MEAN, WE HAD A WHOLE MONTH ALMOST OF SPECIAL MEETINGS LAST MONTH, RIGHT? WE COULD HAVE HAD THIS AD HOC EARLIER. WE COULD HAVE HAD A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. THAT WASN'T DONE. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT NOW IT'S REALLY, REALLY PRO FORMA SORT OF OVERSTAMPING, RIGHT? THAT'S MY CONCERN. IT'S JUST LIKE, HOW DO WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? because I feel that we could have done better. You know, our charge on the city council is to make sure that the administration's being responsible and negotiating a fair wage and a whole package. It's hard to know that when we're given fairly limited information and we just had an increase in the administration of 20% salary and now we're giving union workers only 2.85. So it's really hard. to sit here and say that's a really fair negotiation without knowing what happened, you know, the history of negotiations, like anything that would give us more information on the council to make an educated decision and an educated vote. I've heard from constituents that are, you know, they have questions and they've expressed the same concerns. I guess, you know, it's not clear to me who's affected by this union, the DMEA. how many employees, and is there a list somewhere that exists as to who is a union member, what positions are affected?

That's a good answer. I know HR is not here. We do have a list of titles, so that is on our file. The union would probably be the one to ask to share a list of their members, like who are active members in the union. They have a president. Obviously, they're all at the negotiating table as well. So my understanding being on all the negotiations is what happens in that room can never be shared because we agree on that right at the beginning. So the council usually is never, I mean, so far we've done police fire teamsters. We've never given that sort of information. It's always been on the council just to prove financial. So once it's ratified by the union, that should signal to the council that like their membership has voted on it, accepted it as is. And now, now it's coming to you. So that's my understanding of when it's given to the council on your timeline. I think you're, you're right. Obviously this is something that, If you do have an opportunity, you're going to want to vote on it. I would suggest at the council meeting when it is presented to use that opportunity to ask questions, too, because we do have everyone in the room as well, like with Corporation Council HR, who could probably answer those and finance at that time as well if we aren't able to get everyone's calendars. Obviously, that is what happens, right? We have three people to merge around and then all of us. So when we bring it there. But other than that, I mean, other than the financial specials, my understanding is this is all the city council is really to see in general. And if we didn't approve that policy at the beginning of every single negotiation, we may not have fair negotiations because we'd be opening it up to other.

So I'm not asking, you know, for confidential information to be shared, but what I am like, what I'm curious about and what I wanted to see was like, I see a change. I don't know where we're coming from. Right. So, so something now we get five weeks. What was it before? Now I get bereavement for someone's aunt or a grandparent. What if it's your parent? Is that already included? What if it's your son? So that information was lacking, and those were the questions that I wanted to have answers to so I could make an educated decision. I understand the union members had approved it, and that's worth something. But if we're taking our role seriously, then I think we should get some of that information presented to us. AND IN TERMS OF THE, YOU KNOW, POSITIONS, I GUESS THE CONSTITUENT IS ASKING SPECIFICALLY WHO'S AFFECTED BY THE FOUR-DAY WORK WEEK, RIGHT? WHO'S THAT'S IN THIS CONTRACT?

COUNCILWOMAN, WHETHER THEY'RE AFFECTED BY THE FOUR-DAY WORK WEEK OR NOT, not what's in front of us. In front of us is paying for the wage increases, paying for the money for whatever shoes and stuff like that. That's all that's in front of us. I disagree.

I disagree because the specific number of hours that they're working is in here, right? Whether it's 32-hour workweek, a 30-hour workweek, or a 37.5-hour workweek. So any combination of those gives you whether you're working five days a week or four days a week. So it doesn't seem, you know, that onerous to produce a list of these are the positions that are, you know, I don't know that I need to know the person that's a union member, but these are the positions that are union, and this is who's affected by that. That's all I'm asking for.

There's always, well, the tentative agreement was filed with the LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, SO ANYBODY AT THAT POINT COULD HAVE. I'VE SEEN IT. HOW DO WE GET THAT?

IT'S NOT GIVEN TO US. HOW DID YOU GET IT?

YOU GO TO ELISA.

RIGHT, SO I DON'T KNOW IT'S FILED THERE. I DON'T KNOW ON JULY 14TH IT WAS FILED THERE. RIGHT, ELISA DOESN'T SEND AN EMAIL SAYING, HEY, FYI, COUNCIL, IT WAS FILED TODAY. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. I GOT THIS WITH NOTHING ELSE. SO I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION AND MORE IT IS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, TO ACCEPT OR REJECT, NOT JUST ACCEPT, WHICH IS THE WAY THE RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN, WAS JUST TO ACCEPT. IT IS TO ACCEPT OR REJECT. AND THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE INFORMED VOTES, AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION THAT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO KNOW PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 4th COUNCIL MEETING.

I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE NIGHT TO ASK ALL THOSE QUESTIONS WAS THE NIGHT OF THE COUNCIL MEETING, AND WE COULD HAVE, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT WAS READ AND VOTE, WAS TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE PACKET WHEN THEY GOT IT THE THURSDAY BEFORE, TO COME UP WITH QUESTIONS. WE HAD DAN, WE HAD TRACY, WE HAD ALL THE FINANCE AND THE OTHER CORPORATION COUNCIL, AND WE HAD HR IN THE ROOM. AND I THINK BECAUSE IT IS APPROVED OR REJECTED BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO IT, RATHER THAN SEND IT TO THREE PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL IN A SPECIAL MEETING. MY OPINION, I THINK THE BEST TIME TO HAVE DONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT NIGHT.

CANDIDLY, I REACHED OUT TO MR. GERRICK. I ASKED HIM SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. HE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THE ANSWERS. He said he would speak to Ginny and get back to me. The council meeting occurred, and I never heard from Ginny. I never heard from you again. I never heard from Ginny.

I did not say I would get back to you. I said you could reach out to Ginny.

Okay. So there's a misunderstanding. I never heard anything further. I didn't get the answers I was looking for. I'm not then going to call Mr. Carrick on the carpet and say, hey, I called you. You didn't have these answers. Give them to me now. I mean, that's not my job is to sit there and mortify people. I'm trying to have a dialogue. you know, without, like, just to get answers, not to be anybody's thorn. No, what you did was appropriate. Just to get answers.

What you did was appropriate, and then if he had to go back and get something, he would have been prepared for your questions that night. And that's all I'm trying to say is, and we try to do that with other people from our caucus. You got questions, ask them. If they can't answer you then, then... YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TIME BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING TO BE ASKED THE QUESTION. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY.

SO I WAS EXPECTING A RETURN CALL FROM EITHER HR OR MR. GARRETT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. I WAS EXPECTING A RETURN CALL. I DIDN'T GET ONE. SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE OTHER ITERATIONS OF THE CONTRACT LOOK LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE. THAT'S ALL I WAS LOOKING FOR. And I don't even think you had them when we spoke, like the actual contracts.

No, I did not.

Yeah. So I think that's. All right.

Any more questions?

No. No, I don't.

Council? Just my question is that the cumulative effect of the contract is $2,274,000. Right. Oh, does that happen every four years?

No. So what that is, is if you look at what we're paying now, and then each year is going up by about $220,000. You see on that expanded one. Well, you can see on both of them. So that's $920,000. So $229,000 more for this coming year. It's another $218,000 increase next year. But between the two years between what we were paying before this And where we are in 2728 is up to 448,000. Then we had another 223,000. Now we're 671 from where we were three years ago. So it looks like an over-exaggerated number, but if you say, well, from square, you know, starting at zero, this is where we've, what we've added on over the years. So it's about 220,000 per year. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna go around the room to exit.

So I have a question. Our role is defined in statute, is it not? It's defined in 7-474, in subdivision B in particular. So if I look at that, our only say in this as a council is whether or not to grant or not grant the request for funding. Period.

Period.

We don't get to look and second guess and comment on any of the collective bargaining agreement. No. Other than funding it.

Yeah, other than funding it.

So that's all that's appropriate.

That's all that's appropriate.

And it's directed that the council do this, not a subcommittee of the council. Council. So an argument can be made that this should never be referred to an ad hoc.

Could be, yes. Okay.

CHAIR, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. I KNOW I SAID THIS IN THE PAST, REGARDING FINANCE DIRECTORS, THE WAY HE DISCLOSES INCREASES EVERY YEAR. IT GETS KIND OF CONFUSING WHEN YOU SEE THE INCREASES OVER EVERY YEAR, AND THEN IT WONDS UP BEING $3 MILLION. I DO UNDERSTAND IT. IT'S $200,000 IN ONE YEAR. It's $200,000 the second year, but it's a $400,000 increase over. It keeps adding on. It's one plus one equals two for year two. Then you take the two, add the one, and it's three. It keeps adding, gets bigger and bigger every year. At the end of the contract, we'd be at $2.4 million. $2.2 million at the end of four years when this contract expires. That would be the total increase over four years. So starting from that, the new base going forward. But over time, it's my concern in this contract. I know in the past when the council has gotten union contracts in the past, there were previous councils who did bring it through an ad hoc to discuss it, whether it's the police contract, which I know we had in front of us before, the fire contract we had under Mayor Fountain's administration. We have argued it in the past. It wasn't just dollars. It was the whole package. Well, the council does not necessarily negotiate each provision within the council contract itself. We can just reject the whole thing and have it go back and renegotiate it. So the four-day work read has been an issue with me since it was first implemented back in 2008, I believe, or 10, going back there. And that was brought in front of the city council to approve. And we approved it. I BELIEVE, BASED ON FAULT PRETENSES. WE APPROVED IT, AND YOU WERE HERE, DAN, BASED ON THE SAVE THE CITY MONEY BECAUSE THE OIL PRICES WERE SO HIGH THAT IT WAS BENEFICIAL THAT WE CLOSE ON FRIDAYS TO SAVE MONEY. THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THE FOUR-DAY WORK WEEK BEGAN. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NEVER GOTTEN ANY DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE THAT. AND AT THE TIME, IT WAS NEGOTIATED IN HERE, AND IT WAS ONLY TEMPORARY. and then it got negotiated into the contract as basically a negotiated item. There's always been an add-on. You had your contract, then you had the addendum. Two separate contracts. I had it where it was the original contract, and I had the addendum. It was a separate agreement outside of the original agreement. This is 10 years ago, because it's every four years. The new contract is now built in. to the contract as an actual provision within the contract. And it does say the city of Danborough can get rid of this at any time. So my, through the chair, is I would like to see the city renegotiate that provision again and see it to where it could be implemented to where we could still maintain a four-day work week, but does that be all in one day? It doesn't have to be on Friday. Some could be Monday, some could be Friday, some could be Wednesday, some could be Tuesday, but City Hall does operate on a five-day work week. But it's staggered.

IT'S NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED. AND THE OTHER THING IS, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE TIME FRAME, WE CAN'T EVEN REJECT IT TO PUSH SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS CONTRACT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY DEFAULT. AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THIS SITUATION.

BUT WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, FROM MY POINT OF PERSPECTIVE, IS TO PROVE THE CONTRACT AS SUBMITTED, BECAUSE WE ALREADY PASSED THE DEADLINE.

No, we're not approving the contract. We're approving the funding for the contract.

But it's already happened. But we can put a little bit on it that we would like to see a renegotiation of that clause. In four years. Again, it's in the clause that we can change this at any time.

I THINK THERE'S A SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION.

I THINK THERE'S A SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S A SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION.

I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION.

I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S SIX-MONTH NOTIFICATION PROVISION. I THINK THERE'S

BECAUSE IS THIS THE ONLY UNION THAT IS AFFECTED BY THE FOUR DAYS?

WITHOUT KNOWING THE POSITIONS, LIKE SITTING HERE TODAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE UNION?

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE CBA HAS THAT.

Would it be possible between now and our next council meeting to get some of this information? I understand our limitations by statute, but it would just be good form to get more information.

So the question would be, excuse me if I may speak, the question would be is how many people are covered by this agreement?

Yeah, and the positions. BUT I DIDN'T MEAN TO SKILL THE WINDOW OUT OF TENSION.

NO, THIS WINDOW IS STILL GOING. DON'T WORRY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GET THAT. WE'LL ADD THAT IN NOW. COUNCILMAN, COUNCILWOMAN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU GUYS ALL SHOWED UP, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. DID I MISS ANYBODY? SO MY, WE'RE AT THE NATURAL STOPPING POINT OF THE AD HOC, BUT WITH IT ALREADY BEING APPROVED, THE MOTION TYPICALLY WOULD BE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FUNDING OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. WITH THAT NOT HERE, THERE'S NO MOTION TO THE COUNCIL. MINUTES, THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, WE GET AN ANSWER FOR THAT, AND THAT WAS HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.

AND WHICH POSITIONS?

THE POSITIONS.

RIGHT?

THAT'S WHAT I SAID. MAYBE WE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL? LIKE A PRO FORMA VOTE? NO? OR IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA AT ALL? NO.

It's going to be on the agenda because we have to close it out. So it's got to get back to you. And that's my whole thing. I'm trying to think what the motion is for next Tuesday.

May I make an inquiry?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

I'm going to go back to you again. So my understanding is at this point, it's a binding agreement. It's enforceable by the collective bargaining unit against the city. Yes. But we still have to approve it. We have to approve the funding of it. We, the council.

But it's deemed approved. The contract's deemed approved, right? The funding's deemed approved.

The funding's deemed approved. Yes. So the actual appropriation is made?

Yes. There's nothing.

By state statute, that's your interpretation.

What if we still did an approval, like non-protect? Don't you think that would be good form? I...

SO WE RECOMMEND.

IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK WE SHOULD SHOW THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION THAT WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE PASSED THIS ANYWAYS. WE CAN DO A PRO FORMA RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ALREADY APPROVED FUNDING, HOWEVER WE WANT TO PUT THAT MOTION.

NUNC PRO TUNC.

WHAT IS THAT?

NUNC PRO TUNC.

DID YOU SEE MY HAIR GO LIKE THIS? SHE'S SPEAKING LAWYER. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT MOTION.

I'LL MOVE TO SEND THE DMEA CONTRACT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL NUNC PRO TUC. JUST MEANS AFTER THE FACT.

YOU GOT A SECOND. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED, SOME ORDER. CAN I HAVE YOUR MOST FAVORITE MOTION? OKAY. SO MOVED. OKAY. THANK YOU.