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ago, unfortunately it got repealed but | guess this contract must fall under that.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
