Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 19
know if doing it for 13 or 14 would make a huge difference to you but | think that is the nature of the
exposure.
Alderman Caron
So | understand what Alderman Jette was talking about; people could leave if they didn’t like the
change in benefits. The problem was when that first came about, they were going to include
everybody. That included people who had been working there not just 5 years, but 10 years, 15, 20
and for me it was almost 40 years. We fought that with HR we felt that it was not right because these
employees were hired with these certain benefits. Yes benefits can change, usually they are changed
at a date certain it doesn’t grab everybody that is already hired and on work time.
We got that from the Personnel Advisory Board which is an independent group. Someone from the
Police Commission made a presentation and they asked them about this. They felt that this was not
fair to those employees. Maybe at the time with those people who have retired maybe it was 20 people
| don’t know, but it’s only about 11. So we talked about that and we felt like we were trying to do the
right. Yes, we tried to do a compromise. The President of the Board and myself sat down and we tried
to figure out how we could do this to make it right, the best way we could.
So when we got that information the Committee felt like ok let’s go back and give them all of this and go
from there and then the amendment was added to give those employees a chance to say yes or no.
Because there are some employees that probably have about 2,000 hours. If they revert back to the no
more than 720 they are going to lose all of that, they have to start at 720, they can’t get any more than
that. I’m sorry but there is an employee in another department that was given this benefit back 5
months ago. So we give it to one and don’t give it to the rest? And that $180,000.00 is over a 20-year
period. It is not like we are giving that to them today. Most people retire and do not collect 720 hours,
because as they get older, they get ill, they have issues.
It is just that this group of people were put in a basket and just given this, you have no choice because
they are unaffiliated and that’s why a lot of these unions came about because they had no choice, they
had to accept whatever they were given and they had no chance to fight. This came up, we are trying
to make it right and as Alderman Klee, sometimes we make a mistake and we have to rectify it. | don’t
think, to send this back to Committee to do what | don’t know. All we wanted to do is accept the
amendment that gives those 11 people a chance to choose, do you want to continue with the way it has
been since 2001 or do you want to go back to what you were given as a benefit prior to 2001. That's it.
It doesn’t change anything else. It doesn’t give them anything more or less and it is a long time span.
But you can’t give it to one department and not say everyone needs to be recognized and given that
offer.
Alderman Lopez
| just want to add because it just occurred to me what the next item on the agenda is, if we shoot this
down or send it back to committee over $185,000.00 right before making a decision about $1 million
dollars to invest in a Performing Arts Center that needs to reach its next stage of completion, are we
going to be sending the message to our employees that the way we pay for these projects is through
them, cost saving on their expenses and their compensation. Because this really was done in an
awkward manner and that’s the only word | can come up when it was originally done. We have the
opportunity to make this right and reaffirm that commitment that when we hire somebody under certain
circumstances that we are acknowledging that. | think we need to take it.
Alderman Dowd
Just a procedural question on the amendment or on the whole motion actually, did we specify how long
they have to make the decision, and can they only make the decision once and not revert.
