FINANCE CONTROL BOARD
MEETING, May 27, 2005
Present: Chairman Alan LeBovidge, Mayor Charles V. Ryan, City Council President Tim Rooke, Thomas Trimarco, Jake Jacobson, Kathy Breck, Esq. (clerk), Executive Director Phil Puccia
Alan LeBovidge: Let’s call the meeting to order. Hopefully, this will be a short public meeting, and then we’re going into executive session to talk about labor negotiations and litigation matters, and we will not be returning from that meeting. I guess the first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes of the May 6th meeting.
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Next....
School Sidewalk
Construction
Phil Puccia: Mr. Chairman, if we could go out of order just for one moment and start with a matter of new business which is the approval, the actual order, to build the sidewalks that the board approved from a funding perspective at our last meeting?
AL: OK.
PP: You have the package in your...you have the information that lays out the specific sidewalks, their direction and material. I won’t bore you with the detail, but the order is that “it being necessary for common convenience and necessity, sidewalks be laid out, established or re-established and constructed or reconstructed as described below...” And I would just ask for an affirmative motion to accept.
AL: Do I have a motion?
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Rescission of City
Council Vote on Binding Arbitration of Teachers’ Contract
AL: OK. We’re moving along. The third item of business is the consideration of the recent city council action to ask for a home rule petition to have mandatory arbitration in the collective bargaining for the school department. And the question has come up as to whether or not we, the finance control board, should rescind that action and continue on the road of voluntary mediation which we’re actively involved with at this point in time. The question is “Do I have a motion to rescind that...the action of the city council?”
Thomas Trimarco:
I’ll second that.
Mayor Charles V. Ryan: I’m going to ask for a roll call vote and also some discussion.
AL: OK. Certainly in the discussion...
CVR: Well, I...this is an extraordinarily important situation that we have. I was heartened about two weeks ago when I learned that the teachers’union had agreed to mediation and, as a matter of fact, accepted as a potential mediator a gentleman who was one of several suggestions from the control board representatives. With that having been achieved, I really saw no need of the then pending home rule legislation which the control board was trying to move forward on. In spite of that fact, it did move forward, and then the city council, as it had a right to do, made an amendment which is what we’re considering right now. I would hope that the...that both sides would understand the gravity of where we are, how vital this is for the city, for the school department, and that there would be an increased effort on both sides to come to a successful conclusion in traditional collective bargaining. I think that, as I understand it, the mediator has met with the representatives of the control board this past week, several days ago. It’s scheduled to meet with the representatives of the teachers’ union on June 7, and then on June 8, all parties with the mediator are supposed to meet together. And, hopefully, as I say, they will be successful.
In the meantime, however, I really feel that, that the worst thing that could happen to us as a community, as a city, is to just go on and on forever and ever and ever, no contract is right up there on a parity with a contract which might be perceived by one side or another as a bad contract. And, so when it comes time to have our vote, I intend to vote on this issue, I intend to vote against the rescission of the city council action, and, be that as it may, let it go forward.
AL: Any other comments?
Tim Rooke: Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the board to adopt the language that was passed by the city council for two reasons. One is the amendment that was made to make the binding arbitration clause leveled the playing field. And, if the ultimate goal is to have, to accomplish a contractual agreement, I think it forces both parties to the table in hopes of resolving any differences through a third party, so I think it is a logical amendment. It’s actually my amendment and would hope that the board would consider that if that’s our ultimate goal.
AL: Any other discussion?
Thomas Trimarco: I’d like to comment as to the reason why I think we should override what I consider a to be a very pernicious amendment that was made to the original proposition. I’m not an expert in collective bargaining matters with public unions, but in my career, I’ve been involved in negotiations. And to put a binding arbitration provision at the very start of a process...whatever chance this city had for its teachers’ union to come to the table and bargain in good faith has basically been lost if, if—and I’m hoping it will not come to pass—a binding arbitration is put in place at the start of a negotiation, and we have—I speak for myself—a tremendous amount of respect for the mayor of this city, and for the president of the city council.
And I think, as discouraged as I get sometimes as I’ve worked in this city for the past nine or ten months at the level of, of misunderstanding of the real problems that this great city faces and the inability to come to grips with them, and to think that solutions of “business as usual” will solve the problems of this city, it, it. it really takes me aback. And it saddens me, because I am going to have to differ with two colleagues here that I have the utmost respect for. And I know they say what they say in good faith, and they earnestly believe it, and I just say that I, from my standpoint, see it quite differently. I think that if binding arbitration was ever tabled now, whatever chance to force parties to think differently about how contracts have to go forward in this city would be lost. And I think it’s very important that this board override that action of the city council, and it pains me that I have to differ with two colleagues that I respect so much.
AL: Any other comments, discussion? OK. I guess we have to move the motion. Do I have a, a....
STA President Tim Collins: (calling out from the audience) I respectfully request that you suspend your rules and allow me to speak.
AL: I’m sorry, I’m not going to do that. I’m sorry, I’m not going to do that. OK? I’m sure you have some good things to say, but if I suspend the rules for one person, I have to suspend the rules for a million people, and we’ll never get anything done, and so we’re not doing that.
TC: With all due respect, there’s 2500 people...
AL: I’m sorry. You’re out of order. I’d appreciate it if you’d just stop and let us go on with our discussion.
CVR: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask for a role call vote?
AL: OK.
**MOTION PASSES 3-2, RYAN AND ROOKE VOTING NO.
AL: Is there any other new business or anything that anybody else wants to raise as an issue before we go into executive session?
Removal of Police
Chief’s Position from Civil Service
CVR: Well, we’ve got to do...I would like to talk about the police situation. Mr. Chairman, we have this report which we received three weeks ago, and my assumption is that my colleagues as well as many people in Springfield have done a pretty good job of digesting this report by now.
This is another difficult issue that confronts the city. I’m troubled because of the fact that for whatever reasons there are people who continue to say that even the hiring of Buracker was a political act, let alone the findings of the Buracker team was a political act. And as recently as this morning’s paper, there is a repeated accusation by one member of the city council that one of the main political acts is on my behalf, that somehow I have a political interest in this. I think that that kind of criticism indicates to me that they just refuse to even read the report in the first place. This is the English language, and it’s a pretty serious indictment of the management of the department.
But I think it’s important, while I have the opportunity in public, to indicate that ten years ago I ran for the office of mayor, and, ten years ago this month, I wrote that book [holds up a copy of My Plan for Springfield]. And, in that campaign, I disseminated 12,000 copies of this book to the people of Springfield. And, in this book, I give my views on the major departments of the city, obviously, including the police department. And, at that time, Chief Meara was a captain; Dan Spellacy was an acting chief. Many of the men who are now senior in the department were there; some of today’s captains were not there at that time. Robert Markel was the mayor; Mr. Albano was on the city council; and Mr. Markel, Mayor Albano and myself all were candidates in that election. But, at the time I wrote this, Chief Meara was a captain, and nobody had any way of knowing that, some eight or nine, ten months later, she would be chosen by the Albano administration to be the chief. And so the remarks I made at that time had nothing to do with Chief Meara whatsoever. If anybody, it would be Acting-Chief Spellacy who was a deputy, the senior deputy, and therefore was acting chief.
And, in this book, I indicate in here that I feel that the position of chief should be in civil service. And I went on, however, to say that it was clear that probably, in spite of that controversy, it was clear that probably it would not be going into civil service, and I spell out that there was a controversy between the mayor and the supervisors’ union about the whole issue of where this....how, exactly, how this should be handled. And I said, my own feeling is (and I’m quoting now)
that it is important that the chief executive officer of Springfield [and that could have been Mayor Markel, it could have been Mayor Albano; it could have been Mayor Ryan ten years ago] that the chief executive officer of the City of Springfield, acting through its police commission, should have the right at some time in the future, if the chief proved to be inadequate to the task, to change the leadership. By the same token, I understand the concerns of the supervisors’ union in not wanting the individual in question to lose his or her civil service protection.
Therefore, I would recommend a compromise be worked out whereby the next chief sign a four-year contract with the city so that there is a clear understanding that if the police commission and the mayor at the end of the contract wish to replace the chief, they will be in a position to do so. On the other hand, that individual should be entitled to retain his or her present civil service protection as either deputy chief or captain. I think that such a solution is fair on both sides of the controversy.
And so, you know, this is something where somebody just kind of damns this [the Buracker report] and damns whatever we’re trying to do with the off-the-wall statement that this is political indicates to me that they really don’t understand that this is a city in crisis, that probably the most important issue, the most important issue to the people of Springfield is the safety of the streets and the safety of their homes, and we’ve got to deal with it. And so, while it isn’t pleasant for anybody to have to go through this travail, I think that’s exactly where we are.
I had hoped that today we would be able to have a motion from this board in which we would take action to move forward in home rule legislation. However, in looking at Section 8, Article 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution, it at least calls into question whether the control board has the power to act under the Massachusetts Constitution. This is a matter, as a matter of fact, that was pointed out to me by Tim Collins several days ago in connection with the teachers’issue, but it applies whether it’s teachers or whether it’s police or anything else.
It says that one way to have home rule legislation is that the voters can do it on a referendum. The second way is that the mayor and city council of a city can send the petition in. (We are not the city council in spite of the fact we have many of the powers of the city council, but we are not the city council, and my understanding of the law is that when you’re dealing with the constitution, it needs a very exact interpretation. You either fit in the box or you don’t fit in the box.) And a third way is that it can be changed by a 2/3 vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation by the governor. And, because of the fact that there is some doubt, some legal doubt, as to whether or not the control board has the power to move forward on its own in lieu of the city council and to present this for action by the General Court, I would like to make a motion that this board go on record as asking the governor to recommend to the General Court under Article 2, Section 8 of the Massachusetts Constitution, that the position of police chief in the City of Springfield be removed from civil service.
AL:
Second? Any discussion?
TT: Well, Mayor Ryan, hearing you read from your report which I had read previously back in 1993 [sic] goes to the point of why I respect you so. You were very astute in those observations. They were valid then, and I think they’re valid now. And I just heard of this constitutional provision, and I think it would be very...very prudent for us to make that request. This is a matter of the utmost importance for the city.
It is...that report, it really, again, not being a citizen here, but following events, reading the account, I sat in this room less than a month ago when Mr. Buracker sat there. I....there was a hushed silence in this room as he told this story. First of all, you had to be tremendously impressed with the background and expertise of the individual and his team, reporting all over the country—San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York—we were lucky enough to obtain his services here in Springfield and this board, although we voted, we did not interview, we were not part of the selection process. And this professional comes to the city, gives his expert opinions, which was a damning report on the state of play in the city’s police department, and then, to have to read reports where people would accuse that report of being political, and the actions of this board being political, it’s that kind of mentality and thinking and rhetoric that is so responsible for the problems here, and I applaud the Mayor for his motion, and I really do think we should make that request of the governor, and hopefully, the legislature would have the wisdom in this case and in this important city to pass such an amendment.
AL: Any other comments?
TR: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some comments on the vote of the city council which was 8 in favor to keep civil service and 1 opposed. Some of my colleagues are here today: City Councilor Kateri Walsh and City Councilor Rose Mazza-Moriarty. The discussion, and I’ll be brief, or the debate that came up: One was that the Buracker report was a political tool which swayed some of the councilors to vote against it, and the other debate was that it wasn’t the proper process to go through to eliminate someone from civil service, that there’s a process to go through, albeit very lengthy and...to remove somebody, and that was, I guess, to encapsulate the discussion of the city council. I thought I should do that, and then, in closing, for the record, out of the 351 communities that make up the state of Massachusetts, I believe only 81 continue to use civil service to fill the chief’s position, and a lot of them are the major cities that we’re familiar with, and some of them are cities and towns, so it seems to be a trend that continues to bring accountability to whoever is going to be the commanding officer of the department to make sure that they’re performing their tasks, and that’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
AL: Just a comment so we can vote and go on with the business: I was personally disappointed that the city council did not... that it was an 8 to 1 vote, and I’ll just leave it at that. And I mean I think is was...they could have taken some really...a step forward, but they chose not to. I’m with the Mayor on this when he pointed out the constitutional provision with the governor. I think that’s a valid approach to it so, let’s...unless anybody else has anything else to say, we’ll have a vote on it.
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Meeting adjourned to go into executive session to discuss labor
negotiation and litigation.