Search

Daniel M. Weeks (New Appointment)
7 Shattuck Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Ethics Review Committee
Sindiso Mnisi Weeks (New Appointment)

7 Shattuck Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Term to Expire: January 31, 2020

Term to Expire: January 31, 2020

| respectfully request that these appointments be confirmed.

Jim Donchess
Mayor

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Wednesday, December 26, 2018, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

President Lori Wilshire presided; City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch recorded.

Prayer was offered by City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch; Alderman Tom Lopez led in the Pledge to the Flag.
President Wilshire

Before | ask the Clerk to take the roll, Alderwoman Kelly is participating by telephone, and under the terms
of the State law that allows her to do that, she needs to explain why she can’t attend, if she can hear us,

and who she is with, if anyone.

Alderwoman Kelly stated the reason she could not attend, confirmed that she could hear the proceedings,
and stated who was present with her.

President Wilshire

Acknowledged that those present could hear Alderwoman Kelly as well.

The roll call was taken with 11 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Gidge, Alderman
Harriott-Gathright and Alderman Klee were recorded absent. Alderwoman-at-Large Kelly was not in
attendance but participated via teleconference.

Mayor James W. Donchess and Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton were also in attendance.

REMARKS BY THE MAYOR

Mayor Donchess

Well first of all it is the Holiday Season, Happy New Year to everyone, | did wear my red tie in the hopes of
getting even close to Alderman O’Brien the tie he wore last time but he now held out, so | guess | am now in
the front of the parade.

But to get down to more serious matters; before you is my veto of R-18-066. | am going to bring some new
information to your attention, tell you that this is actually a serious matter which can have implications across
City Government and | am going to ask you to consider either sustaining the veto or at least tabling it so you
can consider and think about what | am about to bring to your attention.

What this is part of is an effort that goes back almost 20 years across all the civilian parts of Nashua’s work
force to reduce very significant costs in terms of sick leave buy outs that occur at the time of retirement. This
effort has been applied with respect to City Hall employees, teachers, civilians in the Fire Department and in
the Police Force. It has never been applied to the uniformed officers, often they are treated differently, they
have a different pension system, they have a different set of risks in their jobs and different really employment
criteria. But what this Ordinance addresses, and | will get into the broader picture in a moment is that 17, going
on 18 years ago now, in order to reduce payout costs for sick time, the City instituted a new policy which said
that instead of being paid 100% on 720 hours, or 90 days of unused sick time upon departure from City
employment, that would be changed to 20% of your entire accrual.

If you accrued 1,000 hours, it would now become 200 hours not 720. That was done to reduce costs. The
same thing has happened in the teaching force. Although City Government moves slowly and some of this
takes years to accomplish, but around the time of 2010, 2011. 2012, there was great public outcry about the
pay outs which were occurring and being paid to members of our teaching force, our teachers, upon retirement
for unused sick time. At that time, what the teachers’ contract said was that you could be paid for 100 days.
Now a teacher is paid on 184 day teaching year so 100 days was approximately 55% of a teacher’s annual
salary. So for a teacher making $60,000.00 this 180 days, and we are just talking ballpark figures, would have
been about $33,000.00.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 2

There was such a significant outcry that number was changed in the first step to a maximum of 40% in the
2013 contract. For a teacher was making $60,000.00 the payout went from approximately $33,000.00 to
approximately $24,000.00. Now this was applied with complete retroactivity, no one was grandfathered,
teachers that were 30, 40 years were subject to the new rule and that’s the way it was.

Then in the next step in the contract of 2016, payouts were reduced further. In that contract there was some
level of grandfathering, but it went retroactive for 20 years. So any teacher who had worked for less than 20
years now was taken for 40% of payroll to 30%., and that went back not 6 years, but 20 years. Now fora
teacher that makes $60,000.00 that payout was reduced first from 33%, then to 24%, now to about 18%. For
teachers that had only been working for 10 years it was not reduced to 30%, it was reduced to 20% of payroll,
so going back 10 years, retroactively teachers that were again with 10 years or less seniority, they now were
down to 20%. So for that portion of the teaching force we have been going from 33%, to 24%, to 18% to
$12,000.00 maximum payout for unused sick time. That is 900 employees and it is done because the School
Department was straining under the effort for paying for all this and at least initially before the initial contract
the 2013 contract, there was a big public outcry about the expense of all this.

The move was consistent with what was done back in City Hall in the case we are looking at back in 2001. But
it wasn’t just the teachers and it wasn’t just City Hall it was also in the Police Department. For the civilian
workforce in the 2003 contract, the payout was reduced from the 720 hours to the same system that was
enacted in City Hall which was 20% of the entire accrual. Now there was grandfathering in that case; in the
teachers there was none. In this case, anybody that started working after 2003 was limited to 20% and that is
what they are limited to now.

All of this was done to reduce cost because if we are thinking about the entire work force, we are talking about
hundreds of thousands of dollars across 900 teachers, civilians, and all these different places, we are talking a
lot of money over time. The effort was it that it was just too much to being out all this unused sick time. Now
for the 11 employees that we are considering, even under the new system, they will be entitled to an estimated
$190,000.00. Now that is small change. Just for unused sick time. If you pass the Ordinance as amended
that number will go to $366,000.00.

| am suggesting to you that we are not just talking about $175,000.00 which | think and | have been saying for
months is an unwise expenditure. But what | am bringing to your attention now is that this is across the entire
workforce and you will be opening the door to the unwinding of an effort that existed for about 18 years to try to
reduce costs; because other requests are going to come to you. Other groups are going to come and say —
Hey look you did it for them, now what about for us? And you are probably sitting there thinking — well come
on he is blowing smoke, he is exaggerating it is not going to happen, except it is already on your doorstep, right
here. On your Agenda is a new contract for the civilian employees in the Police Department. Guess what is in
that contract; a roll back of the change that was made in 2003.

In 2003 the contract said — going forward it is 20%; the new contract, as proposed, goes back to 720 hours. So
if you think that by approving for one group you are done, you are not. It is going to come, and if you think like
tonight if you approve this, it is all over, it is not. Because it is going to come back to you in another contract
and the argument will undoubtedly be made that we did it for one group, it is unfair not to do it for another
group. And once that happens how have you not opened the barn door, how about the 900 teachers who said
— we did it retroactively for 40 years, you are now giving it to other people? Why shouldn’t we get it back too?

So | think you are taking a step or you are threatening to or you might if you over-ride this veto that has much
broader and much larger financial implications that you have realized to this point. | think, in my opinion, it
would be financially irresponsible to roll back this almost 20 year effort to reduce City costs for the payout of
unused sick time. | am asking you now to either sustain the veto or at least table this because if you doubt
anything that I’ve said, if you doubt anything about what these contracts say, if you doubt what the teachers
have done, if you doubt what is in this contract that is on your Agenda right now, take the time to consider all
this.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 3

You have heard that because one employee in the Fire Department who is a uniformed officer, and this has not
really been applied to uniformed officers except in that limited case, this one in the command staff of the fire
department, this one employee got what the other uniformed sworn officers get, that we should open to this 11
and then you are get an argument that because we opened it to this 11 we should do it to the other civilians.
You are ultimately going to face the argument, because we did it all for all the civilians, we should do it for the
teachers. Ultimately this literally could cost millions of dollars.

| think you should take some time to think about all of this and at least table it. Now | know that is pretty heavy
for the Holidays so let me give you a couple of lighter issues here. There is the Mayor’s Winter Reading
Challenge, which | wanted to inform you about. What we have done is we have asked children in grades 1 to
5 to do reading over the Winter, there is a web site, it is conjunction with the Library, the Community Center,
MBK and others are encouraging young kids to go on and they record what they read and they get prizes for
reading a lot. They can write book reports and somebody will judge what the best book reports are so they can
get some prizes, over 125 kids have already signed up, the idea being that if we can encourage more kids to
read they will do better in school. | think that is a good thing that is going on. There is an event tomorrow
stories and snacks at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center, | think it is being put on by the Library so that is a
good thing that is going on.

On a sadder note, |’d like to mention that John Stansfield passed away. John is the husband of Trish. Trish is
a retired teacher who has been very involved with tutoring over at the Community Center, doing an extremely
good job over there. He is also the father of Jill Stansfield who works here in City Hall. He was a really good
guy, he died an early death; his wake and funeral is tomorrow. | give my condolences to the entire Stansfield
family. With that | conclude and just wish you all a Happy 2019.

RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR

Alderman Lopez

| just wanted to ask the Mayor for clarification; was he referring when he said the other civilian employees
to R-18-102 the collective bargaining agreement?

Mayor Donchess
Yes.

RECOGNITION PERIOD - None

READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the minutes of the Board of Aldermen
meeting of December 11, 2018, accepted, placed on file, and the reading suspended.

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRING ONLY PROCEDURAL ACTIONS AND WRITTEN REPORTS
FROM LIAISONS

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Veto of R-18-066

There being no objection, President Wilshire accepted the communication and placed it on file.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 4

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS
EVENING

Nick Dahl Good evening everyone, Nick Dahl, 6 Indian Rock Road. | came in with some comments
based on what | just heard from the Mayor | guess | am going to make some changes on the fly. | am here
to speak on R-18-066. | guess | will echo the Mayor and ask that you at least table this before deciding
whether this veto should be overridden. | think the narrative we just heard really points out in my mind the
problems with making benefit changes retroactively. Now we are in a situation where throughout the City
we have a bunch of employees being treated differently, different classes of employees.

| believe this has been fixed for more than just 1 fire fighter in the past in other union contracts over the
last few years. | know this very Board did make that change for an employee, | would ask that you at least
strongly consider tabling this and gathering more information if you are inclined to sustain this veto
because to me it is just showing this group of employees that they are being treated differently than
others. Thank you.

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRING FINAL APPROVAL — None

PETITIONS - None

NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS - None

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

Human Affairs Committee... 00.00... cce cee cce cee ceeceeeeeveuencaetneness 12/10/2018

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 10, 2018, Human Affairs
Committee accepted and placed on file.

CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS — None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-18-073, Amended
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER RELATIVE TO FILLING VACANCIES
ON ELECTED BOARDS BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THAT
BOARD
e Amended and Tabled pending scheduling Public Hrg — 12/11/2018

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 5

R-18-090
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
Alderman Jan Schmidt
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $58,000 FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTO POLICE GRANT ACTIVITY “2019
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA) GRANT PROGRAM” AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-18-090
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, , Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez,
Ald. Caron Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Tenceza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 11

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-18-090 declared duly adopted.

R-18-091
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Ken Gidge
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
Alderman Jan Schmidt
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $275,000 FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTO TRANSIT GRANT ACTIVITY
“TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-18-091

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 6
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez,
Ald. Caron Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Tenceza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 11

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-18-091 declared duly adopted.

R-18-095
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $119,100 FROM THE KRESGE
FOUNDATION INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY
“CREATING A CULTURE OF PREVENTION”

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-18-095
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez,
Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Tenceza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 11

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-18-095 declared duly adopted.

R-18-066, Amended
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
RELATIVE TO ADDRESSING POSSIBLE INEQUITIES IN SICK LEAVE POLICY FOR
CERTAIN UNAFFILIATED EMPLOYEES
Given its fourth reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO RECONSIDER R-18-066
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Jette

A point of inquiry how many votes does it take to reconsider this and what is the procedure now
considering the veto?

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 7
President Wilshire

We need a simple majority to reconsider and we need 10 for an over-ride.

Alderman Jette

Thank you.

President Wilshire

You're welcome.

Alderman Lopez

I’d just like to comment that | understand why the Board might want to reconsider it but personally |
haven't actually heard anything new or enlightening with respect to reconsideration. All we have is
another reaction of another rollback with unionized employees being the example, and if my
understanding is correct of what is on our Agenda, another union, and this one is specific to unaffiliated
employees. So | think the speaker was correct that we are treating employees differently; we are treating
the unaffiliated employees as though anything can be done to them and they don’t really have any say.
Whereas now we are going to consider a unionized group because they are coming forward and they are
represented. | don’t like that message personally, | think we vetted this resolution pretty thoroughly and we
are doing it for the reasons we should.

| understand that it may be considered an unwise expenditure and | am glad that we are fiscally
responsible, but | also have several other examples this year alone where we have been much more risky
with investment or with tax payer money and haven’t really flinched away from that. Whereas in this kind
of situation we are not investing in unknown quantity, we are acknowledging existing employees who have
given time and deserve the recognition in my opinion. So | am going to vote against re-considering.

Attorney Bolton

Let me try and make it clear what you are doing. If there is any desire for this Board to further consider
this measure, following the fact that it has been vetoed by the Mayor, you must vote to reconsider. If the
motion to reconsider fails, it is finished and it does not become law. Of the Motion to Reconsider prevails,
then the matter is before the Board, at that point you can doing anything you want, you can amend it, you
can pass it with 10 votes over the Mayor’s veto, you can send it to Committee, you can table it, either of
the last two would allow further study but it appears that there is some confusion about what the Motion
before you is and what its effect is.

Alderman Lopez

There is and thank you for that clarification.

Attorney Bolton

So if you want to be able to further consider whether this measure or some amended version of it will
become part of the law of this City, you should vote to reconsider. If you are satisfied with the Mayor's
veto, you should vote against reconsideration.

Alderman Lopez

| understand, thank you.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 8
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez,
Ald. Caron Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Tenceza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 11

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO OF R-18-066
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Jette

Yes | would move to, | don’t know if this in order, but in order to get re-referred back to the Committee so
the Committee can consider what the Mayor has said or input from other sources to reconsider this. Is a
Motion to table or is it a motion to refer?

Attorney Bolton

A Motion to re-refer is in order.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN JETTE TO RE-REFER R-18-066 TO PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Dowd

| think the City overall has dug itself into a hole because we have different groups getting different benefits
and | think the only solution is to come up with a policy that says that this is the way it is going to be across
the board. Because right now we have different people with different benefits and we are afraid that some
of the people that have the different benefits in a contract are going to come back on us and say — what
about us? Well at least in my opinion and perhaps the City Attorney can chime in, if they have a contract,
say a 4 year contract, they can’t do anything during that 4 year contract. It is what it is. So any of the
contracts that are in place are in place until the end of the contract. If we are going to refer it back to
Committee, we should establish a policy that says all contracts that come before us every one is going to
be treated the same. Because to treat different bargaining groups and different and especially non-
affiliated with unionized contracts differently is what is causing the problems. So | think we need a solution
that will resolve everything going forward.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

| would just agree with Alderman Dowd as it relates to union contracts and unaffiliated. Union contracts
don’t get to us unless a majority of the membership approves that and | think that is very different then
what happens with unaffiliated. And with us setting up what we think the steps are and setting up grades
and all of that for unaffiliated employees; that to me is a major difference. The teachers or members of the
Police Union or Fire Local, they make their decisions on — ok we are going to accept this or we are not
going to accept this and that is then what comes to us. But they, as a majority, approve whatever is in
there. So if they approve taking a cut in their return on sick time at retirement, that is what they agree to
as a majority and that is what we come into a mutual agreement about and move forward.

Any of the bargaining units could come to us and say — we want to change it now. But this group is
unaffiliated and to me that is very different and | look at that different. Because whoever is bargaining with

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 9

the unions they can just say — no we are not going to do that. And | think a number of us here have sat
and done bargaining with unions around contracts and you have to talk about the reality of what the City
can and cannot afford. With the unaffiliated | just see that as a very different piece in terms of deciding
what goes on. So! am with Alderman Dowd on that, thank you.

Alderman Lopez

| think a lot of ways with the amendment that we’ve added we do allow some Self-determination to be
returned to the employees that are unaffiliated. Because with the amendment we allow them to opt out of
the changes that were initially supported by the Mayor if they have a different configuration which they feel
is of benefit. And that is a configuration that may actually cost us less. So we’ve been talking about the
most extreme possible expense model while that is not necessarily the one that we are going to see.

| also, as you know from my previous comments, | consider the Board of Aldermen to have made the
decision. | understand that the Mayor is standing his ground and that he believes very much in this. | kind
of hoped this wouldn’t have come to a head, maybe 3 ghosts would have visited him on Monday but that
obviously didn’t happen. Maybe he got wore out got tired in Washington but here we are. And as much as
the new information in terms of history has come forward, it is the same argument that we have been
discussing in committee that if we do anything to help amend this, we are opening the door to everything
going wrong from that point onwards.

| think there are two parts of what the Mayor was presenting, part of it is the concern that this may go
further and that is our responsibility as a Board. It was brought up last year and the year before with
regards to the spending cap, we are Aldermen, we were elected to represent people and we can’t just let
things pass right through. So when we have contracts coming forward or we start to see trends, we need
to vet it, we need to do our jobs. | think we did our job with this, | think we did discuss it in Committee
pretty deeply we reached an agreement and we voted on it. Like | said, personally | haven’t heard
anything new or paradigm shaking.

Alderman Caron

Thank you. When this started this was to, what | considered, to set the record straight concerning a group
of people that never should have been left out of the change. They should have been grandfathered along
with everyone else that was non-affiliated. And | understand Alderman Dowd’s comments, but we as a
Board have no control over contracts, other than money. So those governing bodies, the Police
Commission, Fire and School Board, they are in charge of the contracts, they make the decision whether
they are going to make those changes, we don’t. And then we wonder why we have so many unions,
because some of these things are done arbitrarily across the board and they have no recourse.

We didn’t have unions for secretaries and things like that before, but those came about because they were
always getting what they considered the short end of the stick. | have to agree with Alderman Lopez, we
passed this 12 to 2 a couple of weeks ago and | thought that we were going to move forward. And as
Alderman Lopez said, not everyone is going to take that, they are going to look at what they have for sick
leave and think maybe their 20% is better than the maximum of 720, if you took the time to look at some of
those employees, some had very little accumulated sick leave. So either they are very sick or they take
their time and that’s fine too so you are not looking at $300,000.00. You are looking a long-time, 10 to 15
year time.

When | think about some of the expenses we’ve had and one in particular that is moving forward, | think it
is going to end up costing up more money than we thought. But that is something we have to look at
moving forward. So we can beat this to death or we can move forward and vote one way or the other and
put this to rest. Thank you.

President Wilshire

This is on the Motion to re-refer.