City business, which is taxpayer business, should not be conducted in secret.
Last night, the City Council met in secret session to discuss a proposed settlement in an unfair labor practices claim with the local firefighters union.
It's a great deal, as we know it so far, for the firefighters, and probably well deserved and maybe even inevitable. It's possible that the best thing for City Hall is to settle this matter and move on.
But if not for a leak to The Batavian, residents of the City of Batavia would have scant knowledge that a proposed settlement was in place, nor the details of the settlement (we're confident the details provided to The Batavian are correct, but grant that we haven't seen an official document nor received confirmation from an on-the-record source).
We can only presume, then, that the city would charge ahead with a public meeting on Monday where the council could presumably vote on the settlement.
In such a rush to vote, where is the opportunity for public input? In the minutes before the vote? That hardly provides residents a chance to fully digest the agreement, let alone provide meaningful feedback.
If the vote is going to be Monday, the details should have been released to the public last night if not today.
City Council President Charlie Mallow says releasing the details jeopardizes the city's business and that the matter is still in negotiations.
Bunk.
It's clear the negotiations were wrapped up Tuesday.
And, what jeopardizes city business -- taxpayer business -- is withholding information from citizens. In environments of secrecy, it is when mistakes are made and elected officials wind up looking foolish for voting on things without giving constituents a proper chance to provide input.
In comments on the story breaking the details of the settlement, John Roach raises a number of important questions that should be answered before a vote.
This is a big issue. Eliminating the ambulance service was supposed to save the city money, but by putting off negotiations for two more years on overtime pay, by keeping four firefighters and guaranteeing no layoffs, and promising a 5 percent pay increase, by giving away $36,000 in bonuses, we have to wonder how much of the cost savings has just been given away?
Even if the settlement must be accepted, the public has a right to get answers to these questions.
City officials will argue that the closed session was necessary because it involved litigation and contract negotiations.
But there is nothing in New York's Open Meetings Law requiring elected officials to go into closed session on such matters. It's an option, but not a requirement. Nor are elected officials, as matter of law, prevented from discussing what happens in closed session.
City Manager Jason Molino and the City Council could handle this issue in a much more transparent manner if they so choose. But apparently, they want to get this matter put in the past with as little public input and possible.
(NOTE: Friday at 1:10 p.m. and so far no public notice of Monday's meeting. We assume that's still the plan, but the clock is ticking according to New York's laws on public notice for meetings.)
UPDATE 5:04 p.m.: The city released this announcement at 3:23 p.m.
Please be advised that Batavia City Council will hold a special business meeting on Monday, August 31, 2009 to discuss contract and collective bargaining issues. The meeting will begin at 6:00 pm in the Council Board Room at Batavia City Centre.
In my opinion, this Tit for
In my opinion, this Tit for Tat thing needs to stop. I believe the Ambulance service being nixed in Batavia, was shady, to say the least, and wrong. I think the firefighters Union should just maintain there rate of pay, simply for the fact, we are in a financial crisis. I think raises, and bonuses{ that the city already gave themselves}, of any kind, to any City, and County Officials, Firefighters, ect, is like throwing salt in the Batavia taxpayers wounds. It sending the message that it is indeed all about the $$$$$
We are supposed to be striving for lowering taxes, not raising them. In my opinion this is a fine example of Dirty Politics, and I have always seen right through it. Fine mess you've gotten yourself into boys..... And not at the expence of yourselves, but the innocent taxpayers.
{ In My Opinion} Enough of the SECRETS City Officials!!
IT IS OUR BUSINESS!!
How are we suppose to trust you???
Council always looks out for
Council always looks out for the best interests of the city and it's taxpayers. We disclose information when it is necessary and at the proper time.
The president of the union
The president of the union made a statement on WBTA, why not anyone on City Council? It's clear, that except maybe for some legal fine tuning, this is a done deal. And to have a vote on Monday, without Council telling what is in it just is not right.
The City probably got a good deal, but what is the total savings now with the ambulance service closed down with this new deal worked in?
But Charlie awhile back you
But Charlie awhile back you said the FD was bleeding the city dry. Now the city is proposing to dish out bonuses, a 5% raise, and the same overtime agreement that allowed extreme and outrageous abuses.
Since when has Batavia joined
Since when has Batavia joined the 24 hour news cycle?
I have called a meeting, Monday at 6PM.
I tryed bringing my thoughts
I tryed bringing my thoughts to the table about this months ago. A womans intuition is undenyable, and I still want answers. I hate to say it but.. I told You So. Let the public see the paper trail{ money trail} from last year, till today. Run an unbiast AUDIT on all the books, so we know once and for all whats up. I still think someone was payed off, out of the general fund. Something is suspicious. There are also laws against holding secret meetings. Charlie when you reference Council doing whats best for the "City", do you mean city officials or residents?? Who determines when the "Proper time to release information" is, Jayson? What is he afraid of? He is suppose to be our city's leader, yet he runs from the public, and hides in his office.
Lets put this, running for the hills, Horse, to rest. Sorry, but this is just my opinion.
Charlie, I think you're being
Charlie, I think you're being disingenuous. Saying the city releases information at the proper time is saying nothing at all. Who says when it is necessary and the proper time? After the decision is already made?
A typical City Council meeting has "public comments" and then you go into agenda items with no chance for public input during those items. So what's the plan here, to release the details and then give the public a chance to chew on it, or just go straight to vote?
What's the big deal with providing information and answering questions today? The more time for public dissemination and discussion, the better. It has nothing to do with a "24 news cycle" (which is more obfuscation), but full disclosure and complete transparency.
John, just as a matter of
John, just as a matter of clarity. I interviewed Ireland and provided the audio to WBTA.
I twice asked Charlie and Jason for comment and they declined (kindly, but still said no comment).
Howard, That brings up,
Howard,
That brings up, again, why no comment and detail from the City? The union feels that there is no risk in talking and they seem to feel this a done deal (and it is), so what is the big deal?
I just want to know if we now break even with the ambulance service being gone, or do we still save money?
The union won't lose any
The union won't lose any power by telling anyone what they negotiated. The council members are at risk of being ousted at election time if we see details of this that hurt the city.
John, again for clarity, Greg
John, again for clarity, Greg Ireland would not discuss details of the settlement. He obviously confirmed there was a settlement (something we haven't gotten from the city side), and told us about the negotiation session with Jason, but he would neither confirm nor deny the details of the settlement. Those details come from two sources whom I trust to have accurate information. Nobody officials has said anything regarding details on the record. And I'll even concede these details can be wrong, but I'm confident the details -- at least at time of writing -- are not wrong. It's telling that nobody who knows has even hinted that the details are wrong.
Why reopen a contract..Let
Why reopen a contract..Let them take the city to court...I'm sure the city looked into all the Ramifications of ending the city ambulance service..They were given legal advice from the city lawyer..Hard to believe that when they deceided to do away this service they thought they would have to give all the firemen 1000 dollars ,5% raise,plus keep 4 people who are not needed..Call your councilperson and let them now what you think..
This is what happens when we only hear one side..Let Malino
speak up..explain the situation to us..tell us why he didn't for see this happening back in Janurary when they did away with the service...Someone should be held accountable for this...Looks like maybe we should of kept what we had...
He should have read my post
He should have read my post months ago. I told ya so...
Howard, you are being
Howard, you are being disingenuous now. You’re trying to beat the other media outlets for news and you printed something before you had the full story.
By the comments it looks like you have managed to mislead several people. You should report the news, not create it.
Just to add something else to
Just to add something else to this..But if the 5% raise part is right..Then don't you think the DPW and Police will want 5% raise next time around,and lets not forget City Management ,got to give them the same or it won't be fair..Thats what City Council just did giving out raises to all Dept heads...
That 5% raise represents 2000 dollars on a 40,000 dollar wage...plus 1000 dollars for just the heck of it...makes overtime cost more...Charlie tell us this isn't true....
Posted by C. M. Barons on May
Posted by C. M. Barons on May 23, 2009 - 12:20pm
In New York State, contracted civil service cannot be privatized or otherwise reassigned without negotiating impact. A service can be eliminated, but not reassigned without first bargaining with the union of record. Public employees (unlike the private sector) have a right to maintain a contract- despite its expiration. This is the essense of the Taylor Law and the Triborough Decision; a law that perpetuates contracts in lieu of prohibition on striking. Any governing body that is unaware of this should find a new lawyer to advise on matters of civil service law. It's pretty darn elementary.
Charlie, When will the "full
Charlie,
When will the "full story" be read for us, if you know?
Union negotiations as with
Union negotiations as with personnel matters are confidential. By law.
Ditto..Union negotiations as
Ditto..Union negotiations as with personnel matters are confidential.
I can't believe Charlie
I can't believe Charlie doesn't have time to comment on this, yet has all kinds of time to write on this blog/site while at work. What is it you do at Paychex, Charlie. The same BS you do for the city?
Dennis, do you have a
Dennis, do you have a personal problem with me? Because ,your attack on me is now personal. My life and what I do, is none of your business.
Dennis, when Charlie comments
Dennis, when Charlie comments or not, is his own business. If you don't want to hear from your elected officials, keep telling them they can't communicate with the public. That attitude seems to run counter to the principles of a free democracy.
Charlie, I'm not creating news. That's bull and you know it.
As always, we print what we know when we know it. Yes, that's sometimes incomplete information, but it doesn't serve the public purpose to withhold information when what is known is apparently accurate and true. That's always been the standard here. And if the Daily had gotten the same information first, even if they were the only game in town, they would have gone with it, too, and you know it. The information I believe is solid and you haven't given any indication (at least up until your last comment) that it wasn't. If it's wrong, educate us. Be open and honest.
Further, if The Batavian was the only game in town, I would have handled this story the same way. People have a right to know what their elected officials are doing. You should know me well enough by now to know how strongly I feel about that principle.
C.M., show me where in the New York Open Meetings Law it REQUIRES closed session on those matters.
Answer this Charlie: Should the public only be informed after everything is all agreed to?
Charlie, Negotiations appear
Charlie,
Negotiations appear to be over, or are the City and the Union meeting over the weekend?
If they are still meeting, then how much time will Council members have to read this new deal?
However, Council members were given a good idea of the details on Monday night. If they rush this vote, without the public having at least a day or two to just be told what is in it, then in November, vote against incumbents. Just vote them out and send a message.
Council followed the Special
Council followed the Special Meeting provisions in the Charter under section 3-8 in that 12 hours notice was given to each Council member. In addition, we opened the meeting, went into executive session, and then adjourned the meeting. In terms of Open Meetings Law we followed the procedures set forth by the law to discuss pending and current litigation and collective negotiations pursuant to civil service law.
"A lot of people forget how a
"A lot of people forget how a representative government is supposed to work.
You don't vote for the person who will take opinion polls to find out how he should vote. You elect a person whom you believe has courage and backbone, shares your values and aspirations and will vote according to his character and beliefs. He or she won't switch a vote just because it might be unpopular with constituents."
Howard, these were your words 2 weeks ago, so why weren't the city officials simply carrying out their representative duties in a way they felt best for the city regardless of what their constituents think.
I think Howard forgot...
I think Howard forgot...
Nice cherry pick, Jeff, but
Nice cherry pick, Jeff, but it ignores what I said to Sean a few comments later -- read the whole thing for context, but, "... There are numerous details that need to be addressed, and that's where the public hearings and other forums come into play. The process should not be designed, nor expected, to sway a principled man to stray from his firmly held beliefs, but to help him arrive at a more nuanced and considered conclusion."
My position in this matter has been completely consistent with what I wrote in that Massa thread.
Charlie wrote, "In terms of Open Meetings Law we followed the procedures set forth by the law to discuss pending and current litigation and collective negotiations pursuant to civil service law."
Charlie, please point me to the exact language in the Open Meeting Law where it says that you are REQUIRED to go into closed session to discuss litigation and collective negotiations? Also point to me the exact section in the Civil Service Law that makes that same requirement? I looked in the Civil Service Law (which I admit, I'm not as familiar with as First Amendment/Open Government law) and maybe I'm missing it, but I can't find it. I'm aware of no such law that REQUIRES a closed session. I'm not saying you can't go into closed session on those matters. Clearly, the open meeting law ALLOWS closed session, but it doesn't REQUIRE it.
As far as I know, the only time it would be REQUIRED is to discuss a specific individual in a personnel (or health) matter, because of the rights of privacy for individual employees. That right to privacy doesn't include public contracts with public employee unions. I believe that to be true unless you can find specific language in the law that demonstrates otherwise. As I said, I can't find it.
BTW: here's the relevant
BTW: here's the relevant sections of the OML:
§103. Open meetings and executive sessions.
(a) Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with section one hundred five of this article.
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
I'll pull out this specific phrase and emphasize the word "may": a public body <b>may</b> conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes ..."
Notice, it's MAY, not MUST and not SHALL, but MAY.
Howard, review my post. I
Howard, review my post. I did not mention open meetings. I specifically noted "union negotiations" and "personnel matters." Contract negotiations would never take place during an open meeting. Personnel matters are handled in closed session. Having been a union president for 15 years, negotiating contracts as part of a public employee bargaining unit, I can speak with some authority on these issues. Members of both bargaining units, employee and management, are restricted from making public any discussions generated during the bargaining session, caucus or mediation procedures. Personnel matters, those dealing with employees in specific are likewise protected by laws of privacy and confidentiality. The resulting agreement or contract would be part of the public record. The process in general could be made public. However, the minutae of negotiations are neither recorded nor are they part of the public record. Both parties of the accord as well as any union representatives, public mediators or lawyers are prohibited from commenting on specifics of the sessions. All of the participants are subject to rules of conduct and enforcement of the Public Employee Relations Board PERB.
Howard I just want to say
Howard I just want to say thanks for getting this information out to us...The City officials think that we shouldn't be allowed to question any of this..You do stick you neck out for freedom of speech and i appericate that..This is one main issue come election time that will cause me to vote for out anyone one who votes for this...the city manager should go also,he set up the deal to get rid of the service,never told us the price we would have to pay..Sounds like a big screw up down at city hall..We should of kept the service...
And while we are on the
And while we are on the subject of PERB. I would suggest with great confidence that the employee's union filed a grievance with PERB for the very reasons I stated back in May and won a ruling that forced the City to re-open the contract and come to this settlement.
Regardless of how you view
Regardless of how you view the law, when it comes right down to it, this is shady at best.
...and, yes, the City DID
...and, yes, the City DID screw up. They yanked a contracted service away from the Fire Department without negotiating impact. Now they have to pay the piper. Is there an echo in here?
Somebody left the door open.
Somebody left the door open. That fly is back in the room.
Some place, somebody should
Some place, somebody should tell us what took place. We were told the city did everything by the book when it ended the ambulance service, then we end up paying $1,000 per firefighter. Why pay if we did everything right?
Or was there other issues covered we have not heard about?
The fact that this has gone on all day should make clear the City should let us know what is going on.
Its because the people of
Its because the people of Batavia care about their city, and in my opinion, city officals dont. Give the citizens of Batavia what they want. People they can trust, and answers.
Mr. Barons, run for some kind of
city position this year. I think
you would be a fresh new canidate,
with a great work Ethic.
Just my opinion
C.M thanks for your
C.M thanks for your insight...Seems like The city manager made a huge mistake getting rid of this service at this time.,,Where is the city lawyer we pay money for in all this..Was it his opinion that the city could do what they did legally..Someone dropped the ball on this ,And they need to loose their job..We..The public were never told or informed
of what would happen if we violated the contract..I'm sure alot of people would of had different opinions on keeping the ambulance service.. Another mess Council got us into...
Let watch how they spin this..
Karen, I may have the ethic;
Karen, I may have the ethic; I lack the residency.
C.M., here's New York's
C.M., here's <a href="http://www.perb.state.ny.us/stat.asp">New York's PERB's regulations</a>.
Show me where it REQUIRES, "Members of both bargaining units, employee and management, are restricted from making public any discussions generated during the bargaining session, caucus or mediation procedures." (what you wrote).
I don't see it. Maybe I'm missing it.
Any such requirement would seem to fly in the face of a little thing in the bill of rights that begins with "Congress shall make no law ... "
In your comment, you reference personnel matters, but I already acknowledged individual personnel matters as being covered by statute.
(and lest anyone thing I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth regarding the First Amendment, as I've discussed before in other threads, the Fourth Amendment provides some expectation of a right to privacy, so individual employees would be protected against an unreasonable action by the government to reveal purely private matters)
What I'm looking for is a specific statute that says neither party can discuss negotiations in collective bargaining.
I concede that it is impractical and potentially detrimental to one party or the other to negotiate in public, and I'm not asking, per se, for public negotiations.
But we're talking about a situation where negotiations were concluded and the council was called into executive session to hear the results of those negotiations. I'm not arguing that under terms of the OML the council doesn't have that right -- they certainly do -- but that it is not in the public interest once negotiations have been completed to withhold the details of the results of those negotiations from the public until just before, if not after, the vote.
I know of no LEGAL reason the council can't, individually or collectively, discuss the results of the negotiations. With the finer point that even if you believe negotiations are on going, there is no statute that prevents a person from discussing those negotiations.
If I'm wrong on that, I'll gladly be corrected, but show it to me in writing. Name the statue, section and subsection that codifies that requirement.
I'm sorry if my questioning of this comes across as disrespecting your greater expertise in these matters; I just think it's important that we see the actual law, because I've never seen it, can't find it, and believe such a law would fly in the face of both the Constitution and the principles of open government.
Mr. Barons, just ask for a
Mr. Barons, just ask for a waver, and get an extra 10 grand for traveling expences. LOL
Howard, I haven't been a
Howard, I haven't been a public employee since 2005. I did not retain the handbooks that went with my office. I am not able to cite references. You'll have to contact someone at PERB for the citations. During the course of 15 years as association president and contract negotiator, it was understood that negotiations were conducted in confidence. Even my negotiating team was instructed not to repeat discussions verbatim to membership.
But, C.M., where those
But, C.M., where those instructions given as a matter of law, or as a matter of good negotiation practice?
Think about it, Howard. Just
Think about it, Howard. Just from a practical standpoint... The discussions conducted during negotiations would include the very information deemed privileged under private personnel matters. Secondly, during the process of negotiation, nothing is formalized until the contract modifications are agreed to by both parties. The course of negotiations may involve infinite proposals that bear no resemblance to the final agreement. If such discussions are not recorded, they are not a record, hence, they do not exist.
And the real issue would seem to be, did the union file a grievance with PERB and was there a finding that resulted in the settlement that you have reported? The grievance and finding by PERB should be part of the record and available to the public. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree!
Monday, I can follow up with
Monday, I can follow up with PERB for any records.
And we're kind of going around and around, but I'm not debating as a PRACTICAL matter the need for private negotiations. I'm just saying it's not REQUIRED.
And I would contend that collective bargaining agreements are not personnel/personal matters, but very public matters. That's why the contracts, and the individual salaries that go with them are, by statue, public record.
I should note, based on
I should note, based on personal experience with FOIL requests and state agencies, we won't get an answer from PERB for a month or more.
You don't have to wait for a
You don't have to wait for a FOIL. The city didn't lose a PERB or anything else.
The city made a decision that it had to make and it was the right one. These people work for the city and are not the enemy and we are not going to treat them like they are.
Cool down, in the absence of real information you are making it up as you go along. We will talk about this Monday night. Lets have a little patience please.
In other nations, freedom of
In other nations, freedom of information laws have improved the policy-making process and provided a check against government abuses. The laws, most of which have been adopted in the past quarter-century, emphasize that government information belongs to the people. They accompany other transparency laws, which require Web-site publication of government data or publication of proposed laws in documents such as the Federal Register or Congressional Record. Together these laws have nourished democracy by restricting government powers to withhold important information.
City Council only holds
City Council only holds executive meetings to discuss personnel and legal issues. There is nothing out of the ordinary or different from any other municipality. We have representative democracy in the city, lead by a non-partisan City Manager. No one is getting away with anything. The idea that we are is just silly, although it might make good content for a website.
Charlie, it's a
Charlie, it's a misscharacterization to say that anybody is accusing the city of getting away with anything. The point is and always has been, it's better to be open and transparent rather than closed and secretive. There is no reason the details of the settlement can't be out well in advance of Monday's meeting. That's all.
I've even said the city has every right under the law to withhold the information and meet behind closed doors on the topic.
But having the right doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Charlie your talking out uh
Charlie your talking out uh .... both sides of your mouth.
"The City of Batavia should seriously consider replacing the Batavia Fire Department with either an all volunteer, or partial volunteer force," Council President Charlie Mallow suggested during tonight's City Council meeting.
UPDATE: http://thebatavian.com/sites/thebatavian.com/files/Mallow5-26.mp3
How do you go from bleeding us dry and replacing the FD to these people work for the city and are not our enemy in a couple months.
So Richard, besides me who
So Richard, besides me who else supports the idea?? I have no magic wand to wave, vote people into office who agree if you want a change.
Democracy works, I floated an idea and the Council and public didn't support it.
Your statements clearly
Your statements clearly indicated that the battle lines had been drawn between the city and the FD. Now the city appears to support handing out bonuses, and a raise - so what happened did ya get more blood from somewhere?
Richard, I stand by my
Richard, I stand by my statement. But, things don't happen because I will them. I also spoke for myself. If we are looking to control taxes and become competitive with the town for business we need to shrink the size of government and services that are offered.
I did my part for the last four years, it's someone elses turn to be a whooping post.
I'll agree with Charlie on
I'll agree with Charlie on this one. There isn't a contradiction to saying that the city isn't the enemy of employees and Charlie supports going all volunteer on the FD.
The City is an entity that is made up of many people, some elected and some appointed.
Charlie is just one voice with his own opinion. He ran an idea up the flag pole and very few people saluted it.
I know a couple of Council
I know a couple of Council members that said they wanted a volunteer Fire Department. They said this when it was just a few people talking. When Charlie made that remark during a meeting no one backed him up. Just another example of elected members protecting their current and/or future elections. If you stand up and say our City can no longer afford these things, you're automatically against public safety and the hits start coming. The fact is our Police and Fire departments cost us $7 million a year. It will be $10 million in the near future. Our City only collects $5.3 million in property taxes. We already have to come up with another $1.7 million just to pay for these two departments, every other City department gets their budgets from other taxes and fees. We have to face the fact that we can no longer afford these services. Now we only need City Council members to grow some balls and face the facts. One guy said it out loud and all the others sat there and clammed up. I said it two years ago during my campaign. No one on Council has any balls. It's true, some things never change. It's funny that one of our current Council persons said we need to get rid of the Fire dept. right before that meeting. It was one of the reasons Charlie said it that night. As soon as he said it publicly, that particular person sat there in silence. Just plain and simple, no guts!
I need to make a comment
I need to make a comment about city council meetings which I and others have become apathetic towards. When we the taxpayers were faced with a property tax we went to the meeting and many voiced sensible opinions but to no avail. Simply out, it doesnt matter what our opinion is city council is gonna vote against the majority. I mean first they dont listen when we beg not too take more money from us then they want our opinion on how to spend an extra 100,000? they found.
Why bother.
I spoke with Anthony Zumbolo,
I spoke with Anthony Zumbolo, executive director of PERB today. He said there is no regulation, but there is case law.
There are cases that basically stipulate that for either party to discuss collective bargaining, both parties must agree before hand.
But I think the point still stands because it's clear that negotiations had been completed at the time of the Council's executive session.
Mary, They don't listen
Mary,
They don't listen because they are not worried about being voted out.