Board Of Aldermen - Minutes - 2/23/2016 - P10
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.
