Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 11
Some of the people that are included in this group had a balance of zero of accumulated unused sick time;
so they are getting with this new legislation they are getting a lot more than what they had earned up until
that point in time. They are getting the benefit of this new, the ability to accumulate another 720 hours and
get that cashed out. So | think that it would be beneficial for us to re-refer this back to the Committee and
these arguments can be made and | want to point out to the people who want to over-ride the veto, you
need 10 votes and there are a few absences here tonight. So you may not get the 10 votes, but if you re-
refer it back to the Committee, you get a chance to fight another day sort to speak and we reconsider all
these arguments.
President Wilshire
| don’t think there are any new arguments in my opinion Alderman Jette. Is there further discussion on the
Motion to Re-Refer.
Alderman Caron
| just want to clarify Alderman Jette’s comments about the sick leave. The amendment was, we brought
the amendment in to the Personnel Committee but we got a letter from the Personnel Advisory Board
saying that amount, those people should have never been denied their continuation of their 720 hours.
But if you could look at an employee’s sick time now, if there is an employee there that has 2,000 hours,
and they agree that they want to go back to what it was prior to 2001, they don’t get any more than 720
hours. They don’t get anything from prior to 2001 whatever they had, they can only get 720 hours.
Anyone who has no sick time, they have nothing; we are not giving them anything that they haven’t
earned. It is those people with the hours that they have accumulated now, but they can’t carry any more
than 720 hours. Now whether they retire with 720 hours, that is a whole other issue because they can’t
keep accumulating, they have to use it or they lose it constantly, it is a constant. So | just want you to
understand that, because if you look at someone’s sick time at this point in time, if they have over 720
hours they are not going to get any more than 720 hours period. And then they have to take some time off
in order to get to that max, that is the max you can hold at any given time. It’s not like vacation where you
can carry X amount before you lose it, but you will lose it if it is not being used because you are ill or what
have you. So just so that we understand that.
I’m sorry, | think we have taken this 3 times, we have taken it back to the boards, we have listened to the
professional group from the Personnel Advisory Board, and | think at this point and | understand we are
short a couple of people Alderman Jette, but we have to make a decision one way or another. We can’t
keep holding this group of people, 11 people, up any longer. So as much as | am disappointed that we
are missing people, we just, we need to move on.
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
| would just, to comment on Alderman Jette’s comment about someone having zero sick hours in 2001. |
don’t think we can say — oh they had zero and now they are going to have this option because they may
have had zero because they had a serious illness or their child was sick or for whatever other health-
related need they had. So | don’t think we can say — well we are giving someone who had nothing the
opportunity to have something because we don’t know the history behind that and | don’t really think that
is for us to deal with. That is their personal information and | don’t think you can just say — oh they abused
their sick time and they were using it to go away 2 days early before Christmas or take a long weekend or
whatever. That individual may have personally or had someone in their family who had a health issue. So
| don’t think we can start looking and making those assumptions based on the numbers that were there.
Thank you.
President Wilshire
The Motion is to re-refer.
