Search

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 5

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-002
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Dowd

This was approved unanimously at the Budget Review Committee meeting the other night. It’s a two-year
contract covering the period of July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2017. It’s a salary increase in year one of 1.5%,
the salary increase in year two is 2% but delayed a half of year producing a 1% only increase in FY 17. The
holiday for Martin Luther King Day was added but not until the end of the two-year contract and the high
deductible medical plan was added to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

Alderman Moriarty

The upcoming spending cap is looking to be 1.3% and this particular contract, the first year bottom line total
cost growth is 1.4% and in the second year it’s 1.3%. | can’t remember seeing a salary contract to come
before me in the past four years that was this low so | am going to support this. It’s within the spending cap
and | like to encourage that sort of behavior.

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, 11
Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Lopez

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-002 declared duly adopted.

R-16-003
Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Tom Lopez
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA TEACHERS’ UNION, LOCAL 1044, AFT, AFL-
CIO, UNIT D, FOOD SERVICE WORKERS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 2015, THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2018
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-003
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Moriarty

For similar reasons | am going to support this contract. There may be some subtleties about how it’s funded,
it's self-funded anyway but regardless of that the costs are reasonable and they are in the low 1%’s so I'll take
it.

MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-003 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 6

R-16-004
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
RELATIVE TO THE APPROPRIATION OF $9,282 FROM ACCOUNT #107-51 “CITY CLERK —
SALARIES & WAGES” INTO NEW ACCOUNT #107-71 “CITY CLERK — EQUIPMENT” FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A COLOR LASER PRINTER
Given its second reading;

President McCarthy

| had made a motion at the Budget Review Committee meeting to change the title from “appropriation” to
“transfer” because it really is a transfer. In a subsequent discussion with the legal department it is also an
appropriation because the line item that the transfer goes into does not exist so we will be requiring a two-
thirds vote and | would ask that the amendment from the committee not be moved forward because the original
legislation was correct.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-004
A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, 13
Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-004 declared duly adopted.

R-16-005
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY “STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
PROGRAM” INTO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT ACTIVITY “2015 HOMELAND SECURITY
GRANT PROGRAM”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-005
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-005 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 7

R-16-006
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $200,000 FROM DEPARTMENT 194 “CONTINGENCY”,
ACCOUNT #70100 “GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO VARIOUS ACCOUNTS FOR RETIREMENT
AND UTILITY COSTS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-006
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-006 declared duly adopted.

R-16-007
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $40,000 FROM THE STATE OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “FY2016 AND FY2017 CLIMATE AND HEALTH
ADAPTATION PLAN (CHAP)”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-007
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

| Know normally we just sort of autopilot these acceptance of funds through, but in this particular case I’m going
to take the unusual step to vote no. The reason is because although this is not directly city funded money, it is
still money from the state. Quite honestly, | don’t get it. It sounds really good but after all is said and done, |
don’t know what we actually produce from this or what the end result of this study or how the world changes.
Nashua spends $40,000. We do a study, and all of a sudden we’re going to prevent cyclonic activity in the
Pacific Ocean. | know it’s probably a futile effort and everybody will vote for it anyway, but all money is not free.
Alderman Schoneman

Perhaps one of the sponsors can explain exactly what the product would be from this.
President McCarthy

Would anyone like to address that?

Alderman Clemons

I'll just say for the record that if it wasn’t Nashua getting this grant, it would be somewhere else. I’m going to
vote in favor of it regardless. That’s just my opinion. Thank you.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 8

Alderman Siegel

All | can say is bing, bing, bing. That's exactly the problem I’m trying to address. | understand that someone
else will get it perhaps, but it’s time for us to adopt an attitude that there’s a limit to resources even though they
appear to be coming from a state or federal tree. Sometimes grants that come our way are actually silly to
have. We should start taking a closer look at them and have, | wouldn’t call it the courage, but perhaps call it a
little bit of the wisdom to say no occasionally if what’s we’re asked to be doing with this actually has no real
positive effect that we can ascertain. Again, others may disagree but it’s time to put a stick in the ground on
this kind of spending.

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, 6
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Siegel, 7
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty

MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO TABLE

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, 6
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Siegel, 7
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty

MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF R-16-007

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Siegel, 7
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,

Alderman Moriarty

Nay: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, 6
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Resolution R-16-007 declared indefinitely postponed.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 9

R-16-009
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE NASHUA POLICE COMMISSION AND THE NASHUA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
FROM JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 AND RELATED TRANSFERS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-009

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

This is a contract | actually don’t like at all, | think it’s excessive. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter and the
problem is that the 3% raise is “evergreen” so while we may not like it, the problem is if we vote against the
contract it doesn’t matter because that raise will be instituted anyway after it goes through arbitration or
whatever process. The net effect will have been to take the contract and not approve it and potentially put it up
for renegotiation in which case some of the givebacks can get back at us such as the named healthcare.
Unfortunately we will have to pay the back wages anyway plus the incurred cost of the litigation should there
be any. The major cost items of this contract are things that we literally have no control over so we can all do a
hero’s vote and say no but it won’t ultimately matter and in fact in our zeal to try to be more fiscally responsible,
as we should be, in this particular case it will actually end up costing us money. Separately, as you can
imagine, it would demoralize the leadership of the police department although absent that “evergreen” clause |
would be willing to take that chance for a better contract but it doesn’t really matter because here we are. The
rest of the cost items in here, for example, the holiday buy-back ends up being a net advantage strangely
enough for the city because we will be purchasing vacation days at a lower rate of pay than they would be later
on. On balance it really makes no sense not to vote against this if you have your fiscal hat on. It’s because of
the constraints that are placed on us because of the “evergreen” clause, absent that | think we could have a
very different discussion.

Alderman Clemons

Thank goodness for “evergreen” clauses. | think that’s one of the good things that the state did a few years
ago, unfortunately it got repealed but | guess this contract must fall under that. That being said | think this is a
good contract and | think that the supervisor’s do excellent work in this city and | think that in order to keep that
talent and get more talent you have to pay your employees well and recognize the work that they do. | think
that this contract does both and | am proud to support it.

Alderman Dowd

| think also there was a major concession on the insurance. This was the last union to make that concession
and it has a potential for a significant savings to the city.

Alderman Moriarty

| am going to disagree with Alderman Siegel. | agree that the contract is unaffordable but | disagree that our
vote will have no impact. How do we know, we don’t know that the clause could hold up in negotiation. We
don’t know which end of the mutually exclusive constraints are going to give and which one is going to take.
We've had times on this Board when we’ve wanted to abdicate our ability to...the Board of Aldermen can still
vote no, the contract can still be rejected resolving this mutually exclusive constraints that have been imposed
on us and we can let somebody else deal with that problem. We can still vote no if we would like. Why would |
encourage you to vote no and keep it simple for anybody who is not following the contorted legalities of various

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 10

inconsistent clauses of various contracts. The bottom line is that the spending cap is 1.3%. The size of the pie
of the budget is 1.3%. Each slice of the pie can grow larger than the 1.3% but you can’t have all of the slices
of the pie grown larger than the pie itself. The spending cap is going to be 1.3% and the cost of this contract is
3.5% and then 4% the next year and then 4.4% and then 3.3%. It’s two to three times the spending cap; it’s
totally out of control. | don’t believe that voting no and rejecting it is not going to have an effect. | refuse to
accept the fact that someone can write a clause in something and bind the Board of Aldermen hands to
prevent us from being able to do our job. | refuse to accept that so | am going to keep it simple and vote no
and let the lawyer’s haggle over it.

Alderman Siegel

While | appreciate my colleagues concern and wish he had attended the Budget Review Committee meeting to
address that where we had a more lengthy discussion, | am pretty confident in my ability to read a contract and
understand the results of the contract negotiation. | also trust the legal departments’ judgement on this and |
also would point out that | spent a considerable amount of time meeting with Chief Lavoie, Deputy Chief
Carignan and also Karen Smith. We went over the details because to be honest with you | walked into their
office fully very upset about the contract and fully willing to explain my reason why there was no way | could
support it. It’s not like somebody sweet talked me into it, the unfortunate reality is what we are facing. Of
course again, it’s absolutely true, my colleague Alderman Moriarty is correct in that we are definitely free to
vote however we want but to say let the chips fall where they may; the chips are going to fall naturally in the
gravity of the legal system which will pull them towards an inevitable cost that we will incur plus and additional
cost. It’s not a good plan, | wish it were otherwise.

Alderman Cookson

I’m just looking for some guidance here. Unfortunately the Mayor isn’t in attendance this evening. | wasn’t
able to attend the Budget Review Committee meeting but | did review the minutes and during the course of
that interaction | believe it was Chief Lavoie who made a statement which referred to the guidance that they
had received which wasn’t within the spending cap but it was | believe 2.5%. My question and if corporation
counsel has some information and would be able to share, | would be interested to know what additional
guidance has the Mayor provided to other city departments with regard to how much budget they have to
allocate? The police being 2.5%, I’m interested in the schools, DPW and other departments within the city.

Attorney Bennett

| have very limited information on that. | can tell you that the information that | saw was that the police would
be asked to maintain their budget within a 2.5% increase; the school district within a 2.0% increase and all
other departments at a 1.3%. While | have the floor for the last time, | just want to correct a couple of
misconceptions. The “evergreen” clause does not really play a part in that; it continues a contract after it has
supposed to expire so that the terms all apply. What you were talking about Alderman Siegel, was what we
refer to as the “me too” clause which says in effect in the wages that if the patrolmen were to receive a higher
percentage in any given year then the supervisor's would be entitled to that same percentage. The logic
behind that and I’m not saying | am for that type of clause because it does limit negotiations quite a bit, is to
prevent compression between the patrolmen and the master patrolmen and the sergeants and lieutenants.
The thought being that there really isn’t that much of a difference between the pay but there surely is in the
responsibilities. You are not going to get people applying to move up the ladder if the pay isn’t consistent with
the added responsibilities.

Alderman Siegel

Thank you, Attorney Bennett; | think | was a little bit clearer at the Budget Review Committee meeting and I’m
sorry to have messed that up but the net effect is the same.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 11

Alderman Cookson

Thank you for that information, Attorney Bennett; so 2.5% is the guidance that was delivered to the police. You
indicated that 2.0% to school and are you certain on that amount?

Attorney Bennett
| am pretty sure those are the amounts and the 1.3% for everybody else.
Alderman Cookson

So we are really close to that spending cap as you protract that across all of the different departments. So
anywhere between 1.3% and 1.9% is the expected spending cap?

Attorney Bennett

My understanding is that it’s closer to 1.3%.

Alderman Cookson

If it's closer to 1.3% we have to be very cautious about that. We have a Mayor who indicated in his campaign
stomping last year that he wouldn’t exceed the spending cap so | am assuming that he’s working with CFO
Griffin to make sure that all of these contracts that are going to be coming in that we will be able to afford and
he’s going to be able to keep his campaign promise. Attorney Bennett, you were the chief negotiator for the
city, can we look at Article 24, Overtime? There seems to be a section that was added into this for time
worked and this was only considered for the purpose of calculating overtime. It goes through a series of

different categories, admin leave with pay; jury duty and personal time. All of these are taken into account
when are considered time worked for the purpose of calculating overtime, is that correct?

Attorney Bennett
Yes.
Alderman Cookson

Admin leave with pay or suspended with pay, those two categories in particular, how would those be used to
calculate overtime?

Attorney Bennett
If you are suspended with pay you are given credit for 8 hours per day.
Alderman Cookson

But you would never have overtime, would you, if you were suspended with pay or you were on admin leave
with pay? How could you have overtime?

Attorney Bennett

| suspect if during the week you were suspended with pay for two days and came back to work that week that
you had the opportunity to get overtime that same week.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 12

Alderman Cookson

That’s a possible explanation, thank you for that.

Attorney Bennett

It’s the best guess | can give you.
Alderman Cookson

It’s creative. Vacation, you can calculate overtime based on vacation? | just wish this would have been
discussed more.

President McCarthy

| think, Alderman Cookson, what those are used for is to calculate the straight time that leads up to the total
time after which vacation is approved overtime is approved. So if I’ve taken 5 days of vacation and |’m to my
40 hours for the week by the vacation and then I’m called into work the next day then that day counts as
overtime because | have 40 hours that is already accounted for. | think that all of those things fall into that
category essentially.

Alderman Cookson

None of these existed prior to this particular contract. How was overtime calculated prior to and why is this a
benefit to this contract.

Attorney Bennett

In fact that’s exactly how overtime has been calculated in the past. That is incorporating the process they used
prior to this and they just put it into the contract this time.

Alderman Cookson
So they are just codifying it?

Attorney Bennett

Correct, they are not new categories, in fact the police UAW contract included the exact same categories
under their overtime.

Alderman Dowd

This contract was approved unanimously at the Budget Review Committee. Also the last time that the
patrolmen’s contract came through the similar raises were approved because we were having trouble retaining
police officers and the cost of replacing them was excessively high because all of the surrounding communities
were paying more, at least the way | remember it. Those raises were presented, the “me too” is to maintain
the separation between the supervisors and the patrolmen. That’s the reason that these are the percentages
that they are at. With all that is going on relative to the crime and the drug traffic here locally | for one would
not prefer to see the supervisor's being concerned about trying to take this to court or arbitration, I’d rather
them be concentrating on what’s going on in the streets and preventing crime.

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 13

Alderman Moriarty

| may be wrong because | often am but I'll suggest a couple of things. The last time | had a conversation with,
it was off the record but it was with one of the managers in the police department, every single one of the
employees who left was due to retirement. Let me rephrase that. There were twenty people that we were
talking about within this bargaining unit that left and not one single one of these policemen left due to a
reduction in pay or that they weren't getting paid enough. Every single one of them left due to retirement. It is
a fair portrayal to say that in a large...most, if not all of the employees within the police department does not
leave because of higher pay they leave because they are retiring. It is also a fair portrayal to characterize our
police department as extremely high quality and one of the best in the country, they are very ethical. People
look forward to working here to the extent such that there are often times 200 people applying for a handful of
positions. Combine the two things, one; people want to move here and work here and policemen want to work
in this department to such an extent that there are 200 to 4 and once they get here they don’t get here until
they retire. We do not have a problem retaining police; that is a fallacy. The second thing, now let’s get back
to the simplicity of the contract, we can vote no and it can be rejected and this “me too” clause that everyone is
referring to is on page 27, it’s Article 28 and it’s a paragraph that says that “however in the event subordinates
receive a higher cost of lean raise then the employees covered by this agreement the same percentage
increase shall also be extended to the bargaining unit.” There is a paragraph in this particular contract that
makes it mutually exclusive, it implies a constraint. If we vote no based on the numbers, we are not allowed to
vote based on the paragraph itself but we are allowed to vote no based on the numbers. If we reject the
contract simply because of business and the affordability of it, it is not our problem for them to figure out how to
solve it. The police commissioners will have to realize that they will not be able to include that paragraph, they
will have to remove that paragraph in order to make the numbers meet our concerns. We have the ability to
vote no and make our decision on the vote be purely cost because we can only vote on cost items. We, the
Board of Aldermen, can retain our authority to vote no and it will indeed end up in a savings contrary to what
other Aldermen might have suggested earlier.

Alderman Schoneman

| want to add that although we did vote unanimously at the Budget Review Committee meeting, it was not a
good feeling vote. | share the view that this contract is not really good, it’s not. | also share the view that it is
inevitable and it sends us into a very difficult position when it comes to budget time. The police department
has been good in the past at hitting the number they have been assigned. In fact, they were very good at it
last year and we bumped them up to reward them for that and | don’t think that was a wise thing to do. We
even paid them more than they were requesting initially. Here we are heading into a season where they are
asking for 2.5% and that’s the guidance that they have been given. We’ve already heard that schools are
going to around 2.0% and everyone else is 1.3%. There’s no way the city overall can meet that 1.3% spending
cap with those kinds of percentages that exceed when everyone else is 1.3% without cutting services
somewhere. It brings me back to the problem or to what Mayor Lozeau pointed out in last years’ budget
meeting where we saw taxes ramping up, we saw salaries ramping up, we saw pensions ramping up and we
saw services flat-lined. That is a picture of decreasing value, costs go up and services stay the same. If value
is defined as you get what for what you spend as the cost of that goes up and the services stay flat-lined the
value is decreasing. We are continuing that trend. To approve this contract continues and heads us deeper
into that direction, nevertheless, it does seem to be inevitable for the reasons that were discussed. | want to
point out that | am in agreement with Alderman Moriarty that there is no turnover to the best of knowledge for
anything other than retirement. The issue was not a potential loss of police employees on the past contracts, it
was the fact that there were fewer applicants than we had in the past and in order to keep the stack as high as
it was and as rich as it was we wanted to make sure that we drew the best applicants but there is no danger of
turnover and to pretend that there is | think is certainly unwise. These contracts are all problematic; every
single one of them with the exception of maybe the para’s that we talked about earlier and the food service.
We are simply spending too much money, we are spending more than taxpayers have allotted and certainly
more than they are getting in their own increases on their own private sector salaries and we are heading
towards a significant problem. It did pass unanimously but sadly | must say because we are heading further

Board of Aldermen
February 23, 2016 Page 14

down the path that Mayor Lozeau pointed out last year of increased costs for flat-lined services and a loss of
value.

Alderman Clemons

’ve heard a lot spoken tonight about the spending cap. | want to address that at least for constituents who
elected me to represent them. | did not run with a pledge of upholding the spending cap. The spending cap
was put into place in 1995 and it’s gone up with inflation so if you think of it in those terms we are spending
1995 dollars in 2016. For a city this size and that has grown in different ways; we have a more diverse
population than we had in 1995, we have different struggles particularly that the police department has to deal
with than they had to in 1995 and yet here we are arguing about whether or not these gentlemen should get
raises that essentially would be the equivalent of raising their pay with 1995 dollars. | don’t think it is fair and |
don’t think it is right. That’s my opinion and the voters at least in Ward 6 didn’t vote for me to come into office
to make sure that everything would fall under the spending cap. They wanted me to use my judgement and
my judgement is that we need to make sure that our police department is taken care of so that people like
Alderman Moriarty said, want to come and work in Nashua and so that people want to stay in Nashua and
retire in Nashua because if we don’t do that then what is going to happen is we are not going to get the top
quality candidates that we have gotten in the past and that’s going to affect our crime rate and everything
thereon down. For those reasons | am going to vote for this contract regardless of the spending cap because |
don’t believe the spending cap should come into discussions because | think it is something that is strangling
the city.

Alderman O’Brien

| would just like to throw out an air of caution. To say that people retire just to retire may not necessarily be
true. There’s a whole host of reasons why an employee choses to retire. It could be health reasons or
something else that is going on in their particular life or maybe we are not paying them enough and they are
seeking employment. To that end we do have a Board of Police Commissioners that did due diligence
negotiating with this particular union. They brought us back a contract for us to approve. | am going to vote in
support of it but if we shoot this down then may | recommend to come join with me and let’s roll up our sleeves
and sharpen our pencils and do the work of the police commission or are we going to trust a duly appointed
Board that brings back negotiations from an organization whether it be the Board of Fire Commissioners or the
Board of Public Works or whoever is up on their contracts. | understand that we do have the right to shoot it
down despite what other people think but again, | would not say as a complete blanket statement that people
retire just to retire, they retire for a whole host of reasons and we have to respect the individuality and maybe
we need to look at what age these people are retiring at. If they are getting out at the first opportunity then
maybe something is wrong and we need to look at it. That has not been brought up by this Board because we
are not sitting here with the negotiations so maybe we need to be a little bit more active and take a look at what
is the particular reason.

Alderman Lopez

| would like to speak in support of the police because we’ve been talking mostly about the spending cap.
Alderman Siegel made some good points about the potential of our vote tonight doing nothing but signaling to
the police that we put a dollar value on their service and then ultimately having to pay them anyway. There is
that concern but | would like to acknowledge more along the line of what Alderman Clemons was pointing out
of not only do we have a heroin epidemic which has received a lot of publicity and public support from my
fellow Aldermen and the Mayor a commitment to do something about it. | don’t think it’s a good time to
necessarily start cutting back on our number one tool to address that. The Public Health Department is very
effective. Numerous community organizations are also stepping up with trying to help with prevention and
recovery but the police department are the ones that are dealing with the emergency calls and issuing the
Narcan and dealing with the emergency situations that arise. They are usually our first line of response so
making sure that they are coordinated and trained and overseen by qualified, competent supervisors | think is
a major priority for our city. | recognize what Alderman Moriarty said about the pieces of the pie and you can’t