HomeMy WebLinkAboutPension General_Documentation_Tab 04_02/04/2008Laur, Betty
rom: Reid, Merlene
~nt: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:46 AM
McWilliams, Lori
Cc: Couzzo, Michael; Harding, Catherine; Laur, Betty; Archive
Subject: RE: Negotiations
Lori,
This also affects the motion which was passed on 8/6/07 by the General Pension Board requesting the Village to present
the discussions in respect of the increase in the multiplier (from 2% to 2.2%) to the employees and to get their
feed€~aci<:. " will not contact the employees until the CWA confirms whether or not they will waive their rights to
negoa_i~~-~e -i:his issue.
VieE"ienP_
From: McWilliams, Lori
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:34 AM
To: Laur, Betty
Cc: Harding, Catherine; Reid, Merlene; Archive; Debbie Telfrin (E-mail); Michael Couzzo (E-mail); Calvin Turnquest;
damero@tequesta.org; Dan Amero; jhumpage@tequesta.org; JRH33469@aol.com; Pat Watkins; pwatkins@tequesta.org;
Tom Paterno; tpaterno@tequesta.org; turnquest@adelphia.net
Subject: FW: Negotiations
Betty,
~ase -eorv~rard this information to both pension board members and Bonni.
f~ui"ing the x./10/08 Council meeting, Council reconsidered the General Employee Pension Board request to pay interest
on ernpioyec contributions. During this meeting, at the recommendation of the Village Attorney, Council agreed to
ec;n-i:Gc~: the Village's Labor Attorney to determine if the Village could agree to provide this benefit or if it would be
requi~ ed i:o go through the negotiation process. ids you can see from the below response of the Labor Attorney, it is
required that the unions have the "opportunity" to negotiate this benefit; however can choose to waive their rights to
negotiate the issue.
At this point, the issue is now with Human Resources and the Village Manager to bring before the Unions involved.
Lori McWilliams, CHIC
Village Clerk
Pension Board Coordinator
From: Reid, Merlene
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Couzzo, Michael
Cc: McWilliams, Lori; Archive
Subject: F11V: Negotiations
~e,
fee response from Leon~rci an the Pension PEans being ineiucle~ in ~EegotiztiQns. in ~d~ition io farvvarding to ~o~ncil, t
-chink this should Glso be sent to members of the 2 Pension C3oards.
~~-lene
From: Leonard A. Carson [mailto:LACarson@Carson,AdkinsLaw.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Reid, Merlene
Subject: Negotiations
Merlene
Please note my new a-mail address.
This will confirm the information I provided on Friday. Retirement is a required subject of bargaining. This
means that the Village must give the unions the "opportunity" to negotiate over the subject. This is accomplished by
notifying the unions prior to effecting changes. The unions can choose to waive their right to negotiate over the
proposed changes. It is common for retirement to cross two or more bargaining units. This clearly complicates matters.
When confronted with that situation, several of our clients have chosen to conduct pre-negotiations workshops, inviting
all affected unions. This gives the unions the opportunity to hear about the Village issues, and discuss among
themselves what would be in the best interest of all employees. Negotiations are then conducted separately with each
bargaining unit. However, the result is more uniformity of response to the issues.
Call me if you require further information. I am back in Tallahassee today.
LAC
•
•
EXCERPT FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2008:
15. Council Reconsideration of General Employee Pension Board request
regarding paying interest on employee contributions per Gabriel, Roeder ~ Smith
Company calculations proposal
Mayor Jim Humpage advised he had requested this be placed on the agenda, and
commented when the Council had previously discussed this they really didn't do
anything. The Council had received a second letter from the General Employees'
Pension Board, and after that he had given the matter more thought; this was a
mandatory contribution - not a large sum of money -and in reading all the information
about this matter, the word fairness kept jumping out at him. The Village was telling the
employees they were required to place money into the fund, and if they left before being
fully vested in six years, they did not receive any interest on their money. The pension
board was asking the Council to give the employees interest on their money when they
left. They could be forced to leave due to family issues, etc. Mayor Hum[age explained
he was uncomfortable with his previous comments and he was in favor of giving the
employees 3% interest on their own money. This would cost $100-$200 per year, and
• he really thought since they were required to make this contribution, and someone
might work here 4-1/2 years and then have a family issue that required them to leave,
he thought they were entitled to receive the interest. The word fairness kept bothering
him, so he wanted to bring this back to see how the rest of the Council felt and if they
had changed their minds.
Council Member Amero stated the Mayor had changed his mind.
Council Member Paterno stated he was not saying he was against it but didn't know if
Council could do this, and asked the attorney if a benefit could be changed without
doing it through the union negotiations. Attorney White responded that it had been her
understanding this was just for General Employees Pension fund, and asked if there
were union people in that plan. When informed there were, she stated that generally
you didn't change a benefit if they were mixed. Council Member Paterno expressed
concern it could be used against the Village on another item. Attorney White asked if
bargaining was currently going on; the response was yes.
Mayor Humpage asked for a consensus and then to leave this matter to the labor
attorney to handle. Village Manager Couzzo recommended taking a motion contingent
•
• upon a legal review by the labor attorney and the labor attorney agreeing it would not be
an unfair legal practice in negotiations.
Council Member Paterno stated he was not saying he was against it; he just wanted to
do it the right way. Council Member Amero asked if it would be better to wait 30 days
to vote. Attorney White stated she would be more comfortable consulting the labor
attorney to make this part of the bargaining and then bring it back in February.
Archie Magnum, a member of the Pension Board, commented he agreed 100% that
fairness demanded it be done. Mr. Mangum advised the Council was taking today's
dollars away from the employees mandatorily, and keeping it six years, which was six
years of inflation. When they left-if someone's mother were dying of cancer; if
somebody's husband were transferred-they had to go. It was not a retention thing.
He felt it was only fair, and almost illegally taking something if they did not do it. Mr.
Mangum stated he felt very strongly about this, and he felt it should not be used as a
bargaining tool.
Vice Mayor Watkins commented she was in favor of this the first time it was discussed
because she agreed it was the employees' money and they were not given an option
whether or not to contribute. She felt it was the fair thing to do. Vice Mayor Watkins
• reported in the backup for this item, in the Village Council minutes of 8/9/07 under
Communications from Council on page 6, paragraph 5, line 5, it stated her letter had
been copied to the Village Attorney and Department Heads so that costs were not
incurred; she had actually said, so that it could not be misinterpreted, and requested the
minutes be changed to reflect what she had actually said.
Attorney White recommended a motion to continue this item to the next meeting and
then checking with the labor attorney to make certain this was not a problem, then the
actual ordinance could be on the agenda.
MOTION:
Council Member Amero made a motion to continue to the February Village
Council meeting Council reconsideration of General Employee Pension Board
request regarding paying interest on employee contributions per Gabriel, Roeder
8~ Smith Company calculations proposal, pending the outcome of discussion with
the labor attorney. Vice Mayor Watkins seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous 5-0 vote.
END OF EXCERPT
•