By Dian Woodhouse
In its handling of the negotiations with the police and fire departments, Ogden City committed several monumental blunders. Those negotiations' unsatisfactory conclusions were further exacerbated by comments from members of both the administration and the council that agreements are only good for one year. It is not only wise, but necessary that the Ogden City Council revisit both the procedure and the outcome of these negotiations, and attempt to rectify mistakes made therein.
In 1995, Ogden City signed Joint Resolution 95-9, a: "JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR OF OGDEN CITY AND THE OGDEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A STRUCTURED PROCESS FOR THE DISCUSSION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO WAGES AND BENEFITS TO BE PROVIDED TO OGDEN CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL OGDEN CITY BUDGET." Adopted on July 20th, 1995 by the city and signed by former Mayor Glen Mecham, 95-9 has been in effect for eleven years, and has worked reasonably well up until this year, when it seems that the procedure was simply not followed at all. In fact, one new council member professed to have been unaware of its existence.
95-9 begins by stating that the initial meeting between either the mayor or his designee and the employee representatives shall take place in January. After this, the mayor or designee meets with the City Council to "jointly develop wage and benefit parameters." Point 3 is the mayor or designee going back to the employee representative to try to reach a consensus.
Point 4 then allows for "meetings as needed" between the administration and the city council to jointly review the wage and benefit parameters.
Since the mayor/council form of government is set up to have a balance of power, and since many times both sides have differing opinions as to budget allocations,, allowing the mayor or his designee to be the only point of contact with both the employee representatives and the council throughout the negotiating process seems slightly prejudicial toward the administrative viewpoint. However, 95-9 also allows for many meetings between the administration and the council, and one would hope that during these the administration would make the position of the employee organizations known to the council.
It has been alleged, however, that this year, meetings between the administration and the council to "jointly develop" these wage and benefit parameters did not take place. Nor did the negotiations open in January--it was more like March. The council first received the tentative budget sometime in May, and the whole thing, not just the police and fire part, had to be adopted by June 22nd.. Not much time to go through things.
Point 5 deserves to be quoted in full. It states: "Any negotiated wages and/or benefits that are exchanged for different benefits will be memorialized in writing for future reference in wage and benefit discussions. In the event there are proposed modifications in future years, those modifications can be reviewed in historical context."
A clearer mandate that agreements are ongoing and not good only for the year in which they were negotiated one cannot imagine. Unless it be the concluding paragraph, which states: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any change to the process established in the joint resolution shall be made only after meeting and conferring with employee representatives in substantively the same manner as described above."
It will be remembered that at the meeting where the rec center was approved, many watched the council vote to repeal a resolution made by a previous council stating that a percentage of lease revenue from BDO would be dedicated to capital improvement projects. This resolution had to be repealed in order to divert that BDO money from capital improvement projects to the rec center, and it was repealed, in an official action. Not only is 95-9 also a resolution, but it is a joint resolution involving other entities, and states that all parties must agree to changes in it, and then and only then may it be repealed by a similar vote. Since this has not happened, 95-9 is still in full effect. And should have been followed.
95-9 has seven points. Point 6 states that the object of the process is to obtain an agreement satisfactory to both parties by May 30th or before, and point 7 states that, in the case of impasse being reached, the employee representatives shall present their position to the council. Far from being out of line, impasse is part of the process, and is actually the only time the employee representatives are able to speak directly to the council. As all negotiations are conducted in a closed executive meeting, one would assume that the council would meet with the organizations who have gone to impasse in a like meeting, and not an open council meeting where an exchange of ideas between the council and the grieving organizations is awkward, if not prohibitive, but the latter is what happened this year.
During this whole bungled process, the police and fire representatives showed themselves very willing to work with the city. However,, after both organizations had reached impasse and presented their position to the council as per 95-9,, the council was presented with several options that were allegedly confusing to some. This occurred on the same evening that they were to adopt the budget. Perhaps as a result, the option that penalized the police and firefighters with a new merit rating system that both organizations describe as" punitive" was adopted. For the police and fire departments, the botched process and denial of their requests, coupled with placement under the new "punitive" system became too much. And that is very understandable.
Placement under the new merit system seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Employees elsewhere in local government only have to obtain a score of 3 in their merit systems in order to achieve a merit raise of 5%. Under this new merit system, police and fire must achieve a score of 4.5 in order to get a 5% merit increase.
Simply repealing the ordinance that placed both organizations under the new, "punitive" merit system would be a good start toward rectifying the unjust treatment our police and fire departments have received. Past agreements and promises made should also be reviewed, as per point 6, and steps taken to honor those agreements, or, if that is not possible, offer something of similar value.
This would go a long way toward reestablishing a modicum of trust between all parties. Both the police and fire have now indicated that they are unwilling to negotiate next year under the" process" that was used this past negotiating season by the administration and council. Although it is impossible to work with an entity which does not honor agreements, and although this is what seems to have happened, it is fixable. It is perfectly possible to rebuild a damaged bridge, and that is what needs to be done.
© 2006 Dian Woodhouse
---------
Dian has kindly granted us permission to re-publish this article here. The article was originally published on the Standard-Examiner website.
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
37 comments:
Dian,
Wonderful work. The suggestions you have made do appear to be the workable solution.
Thank you for making this so understandable.
I'm anxious to read what the police and firefighters have to say.
It is apparent that the Council was totally flummoxed on this.
By design?
What I just read in a nut shell is that when ever the city wants to ignore the rules, then when the rules are pointed out they blow it off like it no big deal.
This is the theme that most employees feel. They have a word for this type of negotiations, it is call “collective begging”. They know they have the upper edge because this is what is termed a “right to work state”.
Some have given it a more realistic nick name, Which is “ the right to be treated like a slave state”. So with this in mind. It is no wonder that things have turned out the way they did. After all they are only living up to the reputation that many have given then by means of these two nick names.
Dian,
Thank you for putting into words what I have felt for a long time. This is not about more money; we just want to be treated like we have some value as employees. If we were able to be evaluated on the same scale as the other city employees this would help instill the trust we once had in the meet and confer process. Our only hope to achieve this lies with the City Council. I hope that they come to the same conclusion as you have. I want to thank you for your support and your obvious understanding of this issue. I also want to thank all of those on this site who have support us with their emails and phone calls to council members
The other day I was Talking to Rep. Neil Hansen and He told me how the whole resulution came about. He was on the negotiation team to put this resulution together and how it took years of bringing all parties together. then for a mayor like godfrey to just throw caution to the wind as if it did not excised is beyond me. I wished that hansen had won the mayors race in 03 and the police and fire personel would be so much better off now. I would hope that they would support him if he tries to run again in 07.
I know that I will be supporting him. he has a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the history of this city. after all he has lived here all his life and is not a trans-plant from harrisville.
Here come the severance packages!!!
Pay attention to the Weber County Commissioners.
Their headed down the same path as Ogden City.
All three Commissioners just voted to add more administration, thanks to Nate Pierce. According to the Standard Examiner Pierce will have someone help do his job at $50,000 to $65,000 a year? Pierce receives $85,000 a year.
June 13, 2006 Nate Pierce, County Operations Director, stated that at the last budget hearings he had raised the issue of possibly exempting members of the management team in the Operations Department. The Director and the Solid Waste Manager positions are already exempt. He said that today’s action would allow more flexibility in dealing with individuals, both to discipline and reward, and that it in no way reflected negativity toward any employee.
Commissioner Cain stated that this issue had been discussed for some time. These employees represented a tremendous amount of intellectual capital to county government and the people of Weber County and this was in no way negative toward any employee. The purpose of this was to provide an opportunity for management to actually increase productivity and to complement the work being done in those divisions. She thanked all the managers in the Operations Department for the time and energy they contribute to the county.
This is the same hook, line, and sucker rationale that Mayor Godfrey bought into. Look at the severance packages Nate Pierce, and Stuart Reid received! Now these directors will be demanding severance packages when they want to get out.
The Commissioners keep shelling out tax money to all these venders for the county fair, lobbyists, and other special interests. Then when Law Enforcement begs for a raise: are they going to say the same thing as Ogden City? "There just isn’t enough money in the budget."
Watch out taxpayers.
All three County Commissioners bought into it!!!!!!
About the Utah Right to Work Law--here is the first part of it:
34-34-2. Public policy.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Utah that the right of persons to work, whether in private employment or for the state, its counties, cities, school districts, or other political subdivisions, shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union, labor organization or any other type of association; and further, that the right to live includes the right to work. The exercise of the right to work must be protected and maintained free from undue restraints and coercion.
I wanted to put it here because it is so often misinterpreted. It very clearly states that, under Utah Law, one has a right to engage in collective bargaining and that nobody should penalize one for engaging in it, and that, if they do, they are in violation of the law.
34-34-16. Right to bargain collectively not denied.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny the right of employees to bargain collectively with their employer by and through labor unions, labor organizations or any other type of associations.
And it also states that if one does not wish to take part in collective bargaining, one doesn't have to.
In preparing to write that article, I spoke with police and fire employees, and also a council member. I was very impressed with the fact that, although the first two have, in my opinion, very legitimate grievances, there was no sullenness or resentment apparent. Instead, there was a wish to simply fix the situation, and this was the case of the council member also.
As I said, I think this fixable, and I don't think it would take that much effort. Repealing the new ordinance that instituted the new merit system would go a long way.
Labor unions, as we all know, have been known to overstep their boundaries. However, as we all are currently witnessing, so have employers. I think that in situations involving groups of people under an employer, the collective bargaining process provides a step by step method of ensuring that things are fair. If, that is, the process is honored by both sides.
Will continue to do whatever I can to help in this situation, in spite of family member's two tickets in the past two weeks.
For the first time in memory for lifetime residents of the 21st-22nd Street-Reeves area condemned by Ogden City to take for the Wal-mart idea a little traffic ticket vehicle (Man-powered) has been down handing out all kinds of tickets for the residents on Reeves and adjacent areas.....
Is the City Administration still refusing to accept the fact that they lost the fight on eminent domain to seize those private homes and businesses to turn over to Wal-mart?
The City still refuses to give a business permit to one resident who has the land and the resources to build a building to put in a lucrative tax generating business for Ogden City on his property the family has owned for many many years.
I thought Ogden was looking for revenue any way they could get it.
Could it be that taxes generated in that area aren't hoity-toity enough for the Mayor?????
I know! It is more lucrative to write tickets to collect fines than to go the tax route which has been the accepted policy for generations but wwhich is much fairer and slower.....
Well here we go again,
The commissioners are saying that we need to combine the recorder and the surveyor office to save some money. when in reality all the did was remove a check and balance as well as accountiblity for the tax payer. now with that saving, they are going to spend the money for some one to do Nate Peirce's job. because he is enept to do it him self or is because he didn't win the commission race so lets make him a honerary commissioner anyway, so he can show up and just collect a pay check on the taxer dime. he is already pulling a pension from the military and now form ogden city, with a fat 100.000 dallor severance pay, and now 85,000 from the county, boy these republicans really know how to take care of themselves. and they don't call this corruption. does any one out there see all the crap that is taking place here. I think it is time to get rid of the repulican right wing crooks, all of them, that goes for crook croft too.
Crooks, egotists, stupidity, smallness, vengefulness, retaliation, bullying, intimidation, threats, and a whole host of evil works cross party lines.
10-3-826. Official neglect and misconduct class A misdemeanor -- Removal from office.
In case any municipal officer shall at any time wilfully omit to perform any duty, or wilfully and corruptly be guilty of oppression, malconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office, the person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor, shall be removed from office, and is not eligible for any municipal office thereafter.
Amended by Chapter 178, 1986 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 10_03078.ZIP 1,748 Bytes
Does anyone know if it is possible to have a recall election for the Mayor's position? If it is possible,what needs to be done?
Interesting Statute,
Excellent find! This is a question many of us have been asking for some time.
It would appear that the mayor's conduct fits a few categories in what you have quoted.
Rudi....'you are the law'...what say you??
I think that this great find needs to get in front of a prosicuting attorney, maybe some not assositated with ogden or weber county, maybe to the AG's office. any one care to check on this????? please for all of us.
[Curmudgeon note's Mercy's post, and quitly chuckles as he realizes that Utah Republicans have finally reached their last bedraggled line of defense: "Hey, the Democrats are just as bad as we are!" He he he.]
If the Council were confused, it is no wonder. This is what the agenda said the night the new merit system was put into effect for the police and fire departments:
i. Motion to reconsider Ordinance 2006-36 adopting new FY 2007 salary schedules for all employees of the City; and Ordinance 2006-37 adopting FY 2007 pay standards for classified employees. (Reconsider/not reconsider ordinance -- roll call vote)
ii. Consideration of proposed Ordinance 2006-39 repealing Ordinance 2006-37 adopting new pay standards for classified employees. (Adopt/not adopt ordinance--roll call vote)
iii. Consideration of proposed Ordinance 2006-40 repealing Ordinance 2006-36 and adopting new salary schedules for all employees of the City; and providing that it will be effective July 1, 2006. (Adopt/not adopt ordinance --roll call vote)
Somehow, during processes related to the above, the police and fire departments were given the merit raise program they describe as punitive. Whereas other city employees were not put on such a punitive one. This is what it is looking like.
Am trying to work my way through this and see what procedure would be necessary to get the merit system back the way it was before this started, without impinging on other city employees.
Perhaps it would be best to create an entirely new ordinance specifically geared to these two entities that states they can have their old merit system back.
Or perhaps someone better versed in parlimentary procedure than I can work through the above. But the more I look at that, the more I wouldn't even want to deal with it, especially since it keeps saying "all city employees," and UAGE is satisfied with their current system.
Hmm.
I have a question maybe someone can answer. On the night that the City Council voted to enact the evaluation system for both police and firefighters, they broke for a closed executive meeting. In the below listed statute, it lists the only reasons that this type of closed meeting could take place. In section 1(b) it states that a closed meeting could take place to have "strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining". Since none of the city employee groups have collective bargaining, how does that closed meeting meet the requirements of this statute? If the City Council is in violation of this statute, would not the record of that hour and a half meeting be accessed by the public?
Anyone?
52-4-205.
Purposes of closed meetings.
(1) A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-204 may only be held for:
(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual;
(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property if public discussion of the transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real proper ty if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale;
(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems;
(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct; and
(h) discussion by a county legislative body of commercial information as defined in Section 59-1-404.
(2) A public body may not interview a person applying to fill an elected position in a closed meeting.
Curmie,
NO no no....it's some rEPUBLICANS (note the small r?) are as bad as all democrats...
else we are doomed, doomed, doomed!
To Curm - Well, they ARE as bad.....
Dian,
Boy, I'm confused!
In reading the agenda you posted...pls look at
1. Motion to reconsider Ordinance 2006-36 adopting new FY 2007 salary schedules......
iii. Consideration of proposed Ordinance 2006-40 REPEALING ORDINANCE 2006-36 and adopting new salary schedules for all employees......
Didn't they adopt or not adopt one, only to adopt/not adopt to repeal what they just did??
No wonder the Council were flummoxed, in my opinion.
Anyone enlighten??
SO FAR - We have Curm and Dian to run either for MAYOR or COUNCIL - PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE
I declare, ArmySarge, I dated a sarge or two in another lifetime, but I never thought one was a, gulp, DEMOCRAT!!!
I knew a guy once that had two brothers. One was a Demoncrat the other a Repubican. Poor guy had a double whammy going.
Fortunately he had a sister in a whore house who salvaged the family name and reputation.
Another Anon and Cadd...
sent you a love letter on the other thread.
kisses,
Dear Lovely,
Saw your Information....
So are you looking for a date, marriage, AND a job?
Why don't you send your resume in...care of Nate Pierce???
No date, just curious.
The answer(s) to the question might be:
52-4-304.
Action challenging closed meeting.
(1) Notwithstanding the procedure established under Subsection 63-2-202(7), in any action brought under the authority of this chapter to challenge the legality of a closed meeting held by a public body, the court shall:
(a) review the recording or written minutes of the closed meeting in camera; and
(b) decide the legality of the closed meeting.
(2) (a) If the judge determines that the public body did not violate Section 52-4-204, 52-4-205, or 52-4-206 regarding closed meetings, the judge shall dismiss the case without disclosing or revealing any information from the recording or minutes of the closed meeting.
(b) If the judge determines that the public body violated Section 52-4-204, 52-4-205, or 52-4-206 regarding closed meetings, the judge shall publicly disclose or reveal from the recording or minutes of the closed meeting all information about the portion of the meeting that was illegally closed.
And
52-4-303. Enforcement of chapter -- Suit to compel compliance.
(1) The attorney general and county attorneys of the state shall enforce this chapter.
(2) The attorney general shall, on at least a yearly basis, provide notice to all public bodies that are subject to this chapter of any material changes to the requirements for the conduct of meetings under this chapter.
(3) A person denied any right under this chapter may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to:
(a) compel compliance with or enjoin violations of this chapter; or
(b) determine the chapter's applicability to discussions or decisions of a public body.
(4) The court may award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a successful plaintiff.
I am not a lawyer, but it might be worth looking into.
mercy said - Armysarge a Dem?? never never N E V E R!!! But I AM a VERY dis-illusioned FORMER Republican. I am now one of those INDEPENDANTS.......
I LIKE Independents....some, at least, are still thinking.
And that's a good thing.
Wonder if I ever dated such an astute sarge?
mercy said.... ;)
Oh, wow. Oh, a question. Great find!!!!
I don't think anyone could successfully challenge the closed work session to discuss the labor agreement.
Seems to me the simple salient facts now are these two:
(a) The Council has the power, any time it wants to, to do away with the punitive merit pay scales for police and firemen.
(b) the Council manifestly has chosen not to do that.
Absent a change of heart/mind/will on the part of sufficient council members to make a majority for changing the merit pay plan for those two unions, I don't think anything can be done. We elect the Council to make decisions like this on behalf of the public. They've made their decision. We may not like the decision they made, we may have grave doubts about both its wisdom and fairness, but I don't think there is any way to challenge their authority to have made it.
Curmudgeon,
No one is challenging the authority of the City Council to make this decision. However, if false or misleading information was given to the Council during a 1 1/2 hour, possibly unlawful closed meeting, and they based there decision on that false information, this is exactly what we should be challenging. If the record of said illegal closed meeting is furnished to the public and there is no evidence that the City Administration (Mark Johnson) misled the Council, then the worst thing that happened is that the Council was enlightened on what they can and cannot have closed door meetings about. My suspicion, having dealt with Mr. Johnson throughout the negotiation process, is that there was less than the truth given to the Council on that night. The Council deserves to have factual information in order to make the decisions that best represent their constituents and in this case, we are relying on the Mayor’s administration to deliver them. I would asked this question; who is providing the legal opinion and guidance to the Council in determining when a closed door meeting can occur?
I suspect that the truth will set us all free.
What's interesting about this is that the negotiating process is referred to as a "meet and confer process," presumably because the city is unwilling to enter into a real collective bargaining agreement. I found this unusual when made aware of it, and said that 95-9 looked like part of a collective bargaining agreement to me, but I was told no, it is Not a collective bargaining agreement, it is a "meet and confer process."
It doesn't seem that the Council can go into closed exec session to discuss a "meet and confer process," That is not on the approved list.
So what they're doing now is either collective bargaining or it isn't. Maybe in order to make that closed session legitimate, they would have to acknowledge that the "meet and confer process" is actually a collective bargaining agreement, and that they are engaging in collective bargaining, which by definition entails a collective bargaining agreement.
Or maybe they would have to admit that that particular closed session was not right to do.
One or the other.
I mean, they can't have this both ways.
Can they?
Sharon,
There's a response for you on the other thread. Your love letter was a little condescending, but thank you for the effort.
Humble Public Servent:
Possibly. To find out, someone with standing would have to act. I still have doubts about how successful it would be. Precedent, customary practices, etc. all play a role in challenges like this. If the Ogden Council has customarily gone into closed door session to discuss contracts, pay scales, etc. I think you'd have a very hard time establishing that this particular meeting was not kosher. But hey, if you can find someone with standing to shoulder the cost of going to court over it, have at it. It would certainly be interesting to hear it argued and to see which way it went.
As to weather the Council was receiving accurate information: well that is largely the Council's responsibility, to gather the information it needs to conduct public business, and to take whatever actions are necessary to make sure it gets truthful information.
I suspect you would first have to convince the Council that it had received bad information, and then the Council could, if it wished, take action against whoever had provided that false information. Not easy to do. But, that's why we have a judicial system. If you can find someone willing to pony up the costs of making the challenge.
So this process that's such a joke is called "meet and confer?" Why wasn't the Council then afforded that opportunity to "meet and confer" with the police and fire associations instead of the public hearing where there absolutely was no dialogue between the two groups and the Council? I read that Resolution 95-9 that is the guide they use to conduct their negotiations, and it says that if a group of employees go to impasse, they will have a hearing with the Council. Since all other negotiation procedures are conducted in closed executive sessions, why isn't the same process and consideration given to the groups who go to impasse? There sure seems to be huge inequities in the City's negotiation process. Maybe this could be one of the points in the Police vs Ogden City lawsuit.
As for the recalling, impeaching and removing from office the mayor or any of the city council, State law protects them and the only way they can be removed from office is if they are convicted of a crime. Disgusting, isn't it?
I'm keeping my gnarled fingers crossed for you, Lovely.
Some real conspiracy theories here about Closed meetings, truthful reports to the council by the administration, etc. I wonder, could it be possible that during these so-called "possibly illegal" closed meetings that more than one subject was covered? Could it be that the City Attorney, Gary Williams, gives both the council and the adminsitration the guidance necessary to carry on in the intent of the original framing? Could it be that the budget salary process actually did work as prescribed under 95-5 and the result is how the cards were dealt?
This bunch, in its "sounds like a conspiracy to me" is sounding more like Lift Ogden every day.
Fascinating.
New comments are not allowed.