pages: CityCouncil/2011-06-21.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2011-06-21 | 5 | represents Council and management respecting the collective bargaining process; that she would support the MOU. Councilmember Johnson stated the May 30th incident [Crown Beach drowning] should be separate from the MOU issue; an outside investigation will be done, facts will be analyzed, and findings will have consequences; the MOU addresses some of the structural financial issues; a new City Manager is on board; the Police and Fire Departments need to be restructured; that she would like to give the new City Manager the opportunity to take a look at the matter; she does not want to delay the MOU unnecessarily; the public feels uncomfortable with not having an opportunity to review the MOU; perhaps the MOU should be put off until the next Council meeting so the public can review provisions and make comments; flattening management has been discussed for years; flattening management does not mean taking away supervisors; reorganization can be done without taking Police Officers and Firefighters off the streets or taking away supervision; overtime would go up with minimum staffing; delaying the MOU by two weeks would not hurt the process. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Manager stated that he is puzzled by the idea of doing the budget first and determining costs later; costs would be locked in by approving the MOU; California law is extremely rigid in terms of labor negotiations regarding what can be public and what can be private; the public needs to be able to weigh in at the beginning of negotiations; weighing in cannot be done now; that he advises approving the MOU; the 48 hour work schedule would not be locked in; the City or Union may walk away at any time; the City can pull out if the 48 hour work schedule results in a lot of overtime; in September, the City will conduct a seminar with a panel of labor law and labor negotiation experts; public commentary will be held for upcoming negotiations; very few Bay Area cities can show a six year time period where public safety personnel has not received pay increases, not even cost of living increases; an arbitrator would look at contracts going back to January 2010 if negotiations break down and the matter goes to arbitration; basing the landscape on January, 2010 would have very different concessions than today; the outcome may be less advantageous and would be retroactive. Mayor Gilmore stated Council wants to work with employees in partnership; the budget has a significant hole not only this year but in coming years; the best way to tackle the situation is through cooperation with employees; everyone has the same goal of keeping Alameda on strong, stable, and sustainable footing. Councilmember Johnson stated public safety has gone without wage increases for six years; inquired whether the same level of service could be maintained over the next two years if the MOU is approved. The City Manager responded that he could only speak to next year's budget, which does not include a reduction in service because the MOU helps offset some of the increases in health care costs; that he cannot guarantee future service levels because no one knows how long revenues will stay flat. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 June 21, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-06-21.pdf |