This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Despite Plea to Postpone, RTM Approves Four Union Contracts

Agreements with police, LIUNA and GMEA include some worker concessions.

Despite a motion to postpone action until September, the Representative Town Meeting voted to approve four collective bargaining agreements with town unions Monday, including pacts with the Silver Shield Association, the local police union; Public Service Employees Local 136 of Laborer International Union of North America AFL-CIO (“LIUNA BOE”), representing support staff at the public schools; the Greenwich Municipal Employees Association; and LIUNA Local 136, both representing town employees.

The four-year contract with the Silver Shield Association is retroactive to July 1, 2010 and runs to July 1, 2014. It includes no increase for the first year and a 2 1/2 percent increase for each of the remaining three years. The contract, which covers, officers, sergeants and lieutenants, includes major changes to the provisions for retirement and pensions. The union has agreed to eliminate the 20-year service requirement with a 25-year minimum service requirement with a minimum age of 50 for eligibility, for officers hired after July 1, 2011. Presently there isn't any minimum age requirement. The police contract, which was approved 156 to 24, with six members abstaining, also provides for increases in employee medical premium contributions.

The three-year contract with Public Service Employees Local 136 of Laborer International Union of North America AFL-CIO (“LIUNA BOE”), which represents the professional assistants and security personnel in the public schools, runs retroactive from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. It calls for a 0 percent increase for the first year and a 2 percent increase for each of the two following years. This contract was approved 130 to 35, with 23 abstentions.

Find out what's happening in Greenwichwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The three-year agreement with the Greenwich Municipal Employees Association, covering more than 400 full- and part-time town employees, also is retroactive to July 1, 2010, and includes a wage increase of 1.9 percent in the first year and an increase of 2.3 percent in each of the subsequent years. This contract was approved 120 to 44, with 13 abstentions.

Finally the three-year agreement with LIUNA Local 136, which covers managers and superintendents in the building, highway and various maintenance departments, among others, also runs retroactive from July 1, 2010, and includes a first year increase of 2 percent followed by two subsequent years at 2.25 percent. This contract was approved 117 to 45, with 20 abstentions.

Find out what's happening in Greenwichwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The RTM’s approval of the town contracts is non-binding. Although it is powerless, under state and federal law, to stop the contracts from going into effect once negotiated (which they already have been), the legislative body could have rejected them on Monday, which would have sent them into binding arbitration. (However most towns try to avoid this, since it increases legal costs and the judgments that are handed down can be less favorable than the originally negotiated contract.)

During the meeting, Gordon Ennis, chairman of the RTM’s Finance Committee, argued that the legislative body should postpone taking action on the contracts because, with exception to the police union contract, a majority of the Finance Committee members felt the agreements could have been better negotiated, particularly in terms of the incremental wage increases.

“Why should the RTM approve these contracts when such approval could be used by other bargaining units as leverage against the town in the future?” Ennis quipped. “Quite frankly, we’re looking at the firefighters and the teachers. That was specifically on the mind of the committee.”

“So the committee came to acknowledge serious questions about the legal order and form of the labor contract resolutions,” he added. “There’s also broad agreement among members that the RTM should take no action that could be construed to approve a set of wage increases when in fact is approving … changes to benefit plans such as healthcare … ”

At its previous meeting on June 6, the Finance Committee voted to recommend postponing the vote on all four contracts until the RTM returns from its summer recess in September.

“We understood the impact of this – but we also know that if we postpone to September they go to contract anyway,” Ennis said.

Evan Delman of the RTM’s Town Services committee said his committee had intended to vote on the contracts, but “was informed that no action was the best action at this time, for reasons I won’t go into.” He then made the motion to postpone the vote on the police contract to September.

That led to outcry from numerous RTM members who felt that the body should proceed with the vote.

Jim Boutelle of District 8, who has been on the RTM for a number of years, said he believes all the parties involved in the contract negotiations “have done their work” carefully on the contracts, and urged his fellow RTM members to follow through with a vote.

“I think for us to postpone this to September, which is basically ducking a vote, is irresponsible on the part of this body,” Boutelle said. “I didn’t get elected to the RTM to dodge votes. I’ve heard RTM members joke during the budget season that the best approach to the budget process should be ‘we need more zeros’ or ‘oh no it’s good the way it is.’ Well, tonight’s your night to vote, one way or the other. If you want to send a message on the budget and you think the contracts are negotiated too high, then have the guts to say so.”

“I feel that when we have a reasonably negotiated contract between our town and our unions, we should vote on it, not duck it,” Boutelle added. “So vote on the four contracts — or in my opinion don’t run for re-election.”

Police Sgt. James Bonney, president of the Silver Shield Association, and also an RTM member from District 4, said the association made many concessions in the negotiations. “We wanted to show you we were willing to help,” he said. “Almost every point the town asked for, we gave on.” At the same time, though, the association wanted the town police department “to stay competitive with the other markets, so we get good officers here,” he said. “We don’t want to have the worst benefits in the area, because then we won’t get good cops. I feel that we gave enough to suit the town, and we gave enough to suit the association. I hope that you will approve this … ”

Joan Caldwell, RTM member District 10, said she was determined to vote, not postpone, because it was the right thing to do on behalf of her constituents.

“I came to the town meeting because I wanted to do something for my town,” she said. “That includes approving and disapproving contracts. I’ve never walked away from one and I’m not going to do that tonight.”

“What does rejecting or postponing this do for us?” she continued. “We have 14 items on the agenda tonight and we already postponed four. And now we’re talking about postponing four more. I don’t think that rejecting or postponing these contracts sends the message that some of us want to send … but for those of you who want to send that message, then let’s send it!”

Caldwell said if the RTM decided to reject the contracts, based on the shaky economy, then at least it would be sending a clear message that the body wants to cut costs, “but postponing, that’s chicken.”

In other actions the RTM approved a request for $155,750 to be appropriated from the Capital Non-Recurring Fund to fund the Cos Cob Retaining Wall project; approved the reappointment of Paul S. Marchese as a regular member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a term expiring March 31, 2014; and approved a money gift of $6,000 for the Greenwich Police Department for the purpose of funding the current 2011 Spring Citizens Police Academy for instructor compensation.

In addition the RTM rejected a Board of Education request for $87,239 to cover the deficit on the North Mianus School parking lot expansion project, after the board and the superintendent of schools failed to follow proper procedure for getting the funding approved through appropriate town bodies once the project deficit was realized. (More on this story later on Patch.)

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?