HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1989-09-12� ; MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 1 . 1
IN THE WEBB ROOM OF THE SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER
12, 1989 AT 6:00 PM.
Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Representing the City of San Rafael: Jeff Sloan, Attorney;
Assistant to the City Manager, Suzanne Golt
Representing the Police Association: John Gladstein, Attorney;
Harold Hutchinson, President
1. POLICE IMPASSE - File 9-3-30
Mayor Mulryan called the special meeting to order and stated the purpose for the public
meeting is to discuss the impasse with the Police Department's representatives. Mayor
Mulryan pointed out that the Police representative asked for a Closed Session after this
meeting in order to have a discussion on a fluid basis. He stated Council did not realize
this would be asked, noting this cannot legally be done, because it would require having
a separate closed session notice advertised which was not done. Mayor Mulryan stated
it was agreed that each side would be given half hour to present their case.
John Gladstein, Attorney, stated when he reviewed Resolution No. 4827, as much as
he looked forward to the opportunity to converse with the Council, in an open, private
environment, he recognized that Section of the Brown Act and called City Attorney Gary
Ragghianti and asked him to communicate the fact that he was not at all opposed to meet
with the Council and in fact thought it would be a good intermediary step in that
resolution between the declaration of impasse and the institution of a fact finding liti-
gation. He believed in the spirit of Section 13a, but was aware that this particular format
is in violation of the Brown Act, and City Attorney Ragghianti and Assistant City Attorney
Belue verified those Sections. In his discussions with Ms. Belue of the interaction of
Government Code Section 54957, 54957.7 and 54954.2 taken together lead to the conclusion
that the context of this special called meeting, a Closed Session could very well be under
the Government Code Section, that they are not publicly noticed, and that is why they
find themselves on the table tonight. He stated in the event Council found the necessity
of a window Closed Session they could have proceeded with the format, and he hoped Council
would be receptive to this.
Mayor Mulryan stated after discussion and presentation, a Closed Session will be set.
Mr. Gladstein responded he appreciated this, stating he was going to ask, after a brief
presentation, that Council hold that intermediary step where a Closed Session can exist
to meet with the bargaining team and the Association members in another room whereby they
could go back and forth to representatives from the City and the Police and accomplish
what they are seeking to accomplish.
Mr. Gladstein stated tonight he planned to inject another perspective into the figures
Council received from Administrative Personnel, and to briefly review certain aspects
of the packet Council received pertaining to this impasse procedure. He stated the document
in the packet is a Memorandum to the Mayor, City Council and the Assistant to the City
Manager.
Mr. Gladstein referred to the first paragraph, last sentence of the staff report..."The
purpose of the Executive Session is to allow both sides to present their positions to
the Council in an effort to resolve the differences". Mr. Gladstein noted the reality
is that Council represents the highest authority of one side in collective bargaining.
He said although Council is not directly involved in it, they have to deal with the final
analysis in their decision, noting they are vested with the powers to run the City and
Council represents the side with which they are bargaining.
Mr. Gladstein referred to the staff report, No. 1. Issues Summary Report, ..."The Police
Association has indicated that these issues will be resolved 'when the time is right.'"
Mr. Gladstein stated he was sure it was not meant to characterize the Association's position
as a threat. In fact, he noted both parties have agreed tentatively to certain items,
stating, historically a "T.A.", a tentative agreement, envisions that in the event an
agreement is reached on the whole packet, each side can count on those items that have
been T.A.'d being resolved as opposed to having to be gone into again; however, the position
and time is right, and involves the bargaining perogative that is tentatively agreed to
on a particular item and is understood by both sides that in the event an agreement is
reached on the rest of the items you do not have to go back and renegotiate those.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 1
RCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 age 2
Mr. Gladstein stated he wanted to make a couple of points regarding the compilation of
facts, and referred to Personnel Analyst Chandler, who prepared the facts, who has done
so in good faith, but noted there are certain calculations that he incorporates into this
that he takes issue with. He pointed out that there is a difference on some of these
items.
Paqe 1
Mr. Gladstein began with "Police Issues" with the City's positions set forth on the left
and the Association's positions set forth on the right. He corrected initials P.O.A.,
indicating it should be San Rafael P.A. "Police Association" which encompasses the members
who are not, in fact, officers.
On the bottom left, "Retirement", Mr. Gladstein drew attention to the language, stating
although there are ancillary proceedings that have been instituted and are presently taking
place regarding the contribution issue, he pointed out because retirement is an issue
on the table, that the MOU presently being reviewed, and in fact past MOU's going back
to 1979, contain what he believed to be both clear and ambiguous language that the City
will pay for these contributions on the retirement system up to a certain percentage.
He stated it is true, that even after the 1979 MOU was signed that the Resolution adopted
by Council implementing the MOU, had altered that MOU language; he referred to Resolution
No. 5714, which is the 1979 Resolution that implements the MOU agreed upon between the
City and the Police Association. He said you will see that the language in the Resolution
varies from the language in the MOU regarding this issue. He stated the MOU states unequi-
vocably that the City will pay the employee's contribution at a maximum of 4% and in the
Resolution the MOU states the City will pay up to a maximum of 4% or 50% of the amount,
whichever is less. The MOU's consistently state that the higher amount will be paid up
to a certain percentage, and then the Resolutions that enact the MOU's controvert that
language and of course the Resolutions do not contain signatures of the Police Association;
he noted those are Resolutions adopted by the Council. He noted it is important to under-
stand that the City's perception of what is historically the fact, can differ from the
Association's perception of what is historically the fact, and that is one of the reasons
why the Association has been looking to its contract and the City has apparently been
looking to its Resolutions implementing the contract and during the time between the signing
of the contracts and implementing the Resolutions, the line has been changed. He noted
this is an important fact of which they should be aware.
Paqe 2
"Retiree's Medical" - Mr. Gladstein stated their response was substantially more than
an unwillingness to accept the City's position. He noted their response was and is that
the PERS plan rules require all retirees receive the same amount as the active employees
and members receive; that is in fact what they are claiming, the entitlement of their
retired members. He noted the issue is what do the active members get and that is an
issue he believed is properly resolved in the collective bargaining process.
Page 4
Mr. Gladstein explained the reason he is skipping this is because he believes those matters
he was not covering are adequately stated both in terms of the City's position as it was
stated to the Police Association, and in terms of the Police Association's position, as
it was stated to the City.
Mr. Gladstein continued by referring to the bottom of page 4, "Accrual, Sick Leave Time".
He stated their position is no maximum on sick leave accrual and a maximum of 1200 hours
for buy-back, and that he understood, is what the Fire Association has received and this
is what they have been proposing. He noted they have provided considerable support for
removing the "cap" on accrual, indicating there are good facts and arguments that he would
not go into at this point, but he believed, especially after the Mayor's initial comment,
that they will have another opportunity to meet with the Council in Closed Session and
the City's representatives and Mr. Gladstein going back to his principal and with the
City's representatives going to Council so they can try to provide an accommodation and
put this negotiation to bed. He noted it is important that he point out that apparently
Fire has received exactly what it is that they are seeking.
Page 5
Mr. Gladstein referred to "Work Issue and Grievance Procedures", and stated the 1979 Person-
nel Rules referenced in the bottom paragraph stating the City's position, don't allow
non -disciplinary grievances to go to a Board of Review. He noted Council has substantial
experience with that issue, and believed that an out-of-court settlement was arrived at
in August with the Fire Association who pursued this matter in court, and rather than
litigate it, the City determined it would, in fact, abide by the Fire Department's analysis
that it is bound by, he believed, the '56 Personnel Rules rather than '79 and those rules
allowed non -disciplinary items to proceed beyond the administrative level to a Board of
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 2
Sk,, MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Pa,_ 3
Review. Mr. Gladstein said they are interested in having the same form of checks and
balances, and are also interested in establishing some form of arbitration proceedings,
to inject a mutual third party objective perspective into disciplinary and interest process,
that is non -disciplinary.
Page 6
"Department's Performance Standards" - Mr. Gladstein stated these standards were not devel-
oped with the Police Association's assistance but, in fact, were developed without its
assistance and only after their completion and substantial lobbying on the part of certain
Association members was a meeting effected. The issue stated simply is that, "The perfor-
mance standards were certainly clear or military in their intent and practical in their
implementation, and in the event that such strict standards are, in fact, going to be
implemented, people are going to be assessed against such standards". He stated it would
be realistic to provide a certain amount of time for the employees to adhere to those
kinds of standards. Basically, Mr. Gladstein said the Association is interested in stand-
ards, appreciates the need to have standards against which performance is assessed, and
wants them to be realistic.
"Uniform Allowance" - Mr. Gladstein referred to #3 on the City's side, Parking Enforcement
and PSA II are presently at $450.00/year, and stated the City's position has to do with
removing Parking Enforcement and PSA II from that category of uniform sworn employees
that receives the maximum amount of money for uniform allowance. The Association's position
is based not on the status of the position but rather along the practical reality that
Parking Enforcement people or PSA II people have as much need for uniform allowance as
the sworn officers, suffering as much wear and tear and exposure to the elements and weather.
The Association's position is to leave the categories as they are presently comprised
and provide the increases set forth.
Police Officer Total Compensation Update
Mr. Gladstein stated this page contained certain inaccuracies and positionally contains
a formula of recalculations that the Association takes issue with. He referred to the
City of Petaluma, stating the total comp figure does not recognize the signing of the
agreement in Petaluma. He stated the present total comp figure for the City of Petaluma
is $3,680; the figure reflected on the Council's sheet is $3,322. Additionally, Council
should be aware that at the bottom of the page where it sets forth figures for San Rafael,
he noted these figures are not current figures, indicating the current figures are $2,907
and $3,024 representing the City's offer of 2%. He said it is important in the City's
assessment that Council be aware of the top step for San Rafael is now $2,907 which was
reduced, (over on the right under Column 1) $3,758 reduced to $3,603. The 5% under Shift
Differential in Column 1 is penciled in parenthetically, the word "maximum", and he noted
someone mistakenly put in that figure, because the original Shift Differential represented
was based on Mr. Gladstein's calculations for Column 1, but rather Column 2 represents
5% Shift Differential for "graveyard" and Column 3 the 3% differential is for "swing".
Mayor Mulryan stated he thought this is the way it was presented to them in the cover
memo, that the 2 and 3 were with differential and they all include the 2% which is on
the table.
Mr. Gladstein stated it is important that Council have at their fingertips the present
figure when they assess, noting that the base figure upon which the increase will be figured
will not be $3,024. He wanted to point out several items in the calculations of the total
comp package, and to explain to Council why it is that the Association and historically,
the labor side of the table, review the salary as substantially more significant in terms
of a measurement of relative value than the total comp picture. He noted there are several
matters Mr. Chandler used in generating these figures that they take issue with. One,
he has figured into the San Rafael Total Comp picture, the percentage of retirement contri-
bution that they believe is owed but has not been paid. He stated Mr. Chandler's reasoning
for the 7% figure, and that they believe that up to 7% is the amount the City is required
to pay on behalf of all representative members. He said Mr. Chandler has in fact figured
that at 7% in his generation of the total comp figure for San Rafael, but the fact is
that the City pays half of the employees' contribution, up to 7%. He said Mr. Chandler
figured it at 7% because his reasoning was if the employee's portion lies at 14%, then
the City will be paying the 7%, which is one-half of the employee's contribution. Based
on what Mr. Chandler might consider to be outside exposure, he has figured the Association's
total package, the maximum amount, which in fact has never been paid. With respect to
the younger members, those members who came into the system at a young age, that is an
entirely unreasonable and erroneous figure. The younger the age when you come into the
system, the less the percentage is, and when you take into consideration that some 90%
of your patrol people are at top step, meaning they have been around for a substantial
length of time, and they translate that into the lesser figure, the employee contribution
into retirement is dependent upon coming into the system at an early age, then you can
see how that particular logic skews the figures all the more. He went on with certain
figures that are off the MCSO (Marin County Sheriff's Office), the Sheriff's Office figure
is off. He noted when he recalculates it, the figure provided is less than the MCSO Total
Comp picture. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 3
SP-" MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Pr � 4
Shift Differential is figured in, and Mr. Gladstein stated this was not agreed upon at
the time the Association agreed to those items that would be included in the Total Comp
picture, noting that was for good reason. He said the Shift Differential applies only
to those hours worked, and there is a substantial difference between adding 5% to the
dates based upon which other items are figured and 5% Shift Differential which you get
only for those hours worked, and it does not increase the base and it does not affect
those who are not working those particular shifts. They do not believe it is fair nor
appropriate that it be included.
With Petaluma brought up to date, the average salary is substantially higher; the average
salary of benchmarked cities is substantially higher, some 12 to 2% higher. If San Rafael
got its 10% demand, it would still be 12 to 2% below of the average salary of the benchmark
cities. The CPI is ever increasing, never fluctuating, but at the time negotiations began,
the annual figure was 5.9. That figure was significant in terms of salary demands made.
Anything less than the CPI creates, among other things, a lesser buying ability on the
part of those people who are receiving an increase that is less than the Consumer Price
Index, which indicates inflation has risen. That provides them with less buying power
and constitutes in actuality, a decrease in pay. For those employees who are obtaining
step increases, the step increase combined with the percentage, may in fact, maintain
their present buying power or provide them with somewhat more. But again, when you have
90% of your patrol people at top step, you have a substantial number, close to 50%, of
the bargaining unit. Fifty percent will be receiving less in terms of their ability to
buy food, clothing and the necessities of life than they were receiving last year. He
stated this is an important point they have to make; it is one which labor makes and manage-
ment traditionally has points that tend to circumvent the significance of that, but you
should be aware that it is a significant point from their perspective.
Why does he say that salary is important? Mr. Gladstein said he is not denying the advocacy
of total comp and collective bargaining, but merely stressing that salary is important
to labor and the Association members. He stated that San Rafael is very different from
any of the benchmark cities, as much as we do not like to admit it. He continued by stating
San Rafael has substantial problems that many of the benchmark cities do not have. What
we have, and it has been verified, is gang members from north and south of the Mexican
Border. We have a partial risk generated by OSHA, some 9 citations reflecting unsafe
and hazardous conditions of the work place the Association members work in. We have a
substantial prostitution and dope problem in San Rafael which does not exist in many bench-
mark cities. There is a lack of staffing that reflects not only on the work demands placed
upon the Association members, but strongly and seriously reflects upon the officer's safety
issue. He said presently in existence, authored by the department supervisors, are unwrit-
ten procedures not to go east of San Rafael High School unless there is a specific call.
Unless there is a call for service there is no routine patrol. He believed when Terra
Linda was annexed two officers were promised, and he is certain during nighttime hours
there is only one officer patrolling all of Terra Linda. He said the City has other pro-
blems of which they are aware and are in the process of dealing with, such as radio problems
that affect officer's safety substantially, or the horror stories Council may be unaware
of, and should talk to some of the Association members or the supervisors in the department
where people are in need of backup and in life-threatening situations and cannot get through
on the radio.
Mayor Mulryan commented that Council is presently working on improving the radio situation.
Mr. Gladstein stated it is one thing to sit here in the safety of this room and show appre-
ciation of Council working on the radio problem, but it is another thing for the Association
member out on the street in a life threatening situation, unable to make contact for backup.
Mr. Gladstein reminded Council that San Rafael Association members account for 40% of
all the criminal filings in this County and make more arrests than other Agency in this
County. He noted he has seen in the recent past, commendations, in areas speaking of
the Association, for the high level of professionalism in their work; he noted he has
spoken with Deputy District Attorneys who have every confidence in San Rafael, whereas
they do not extend the same generous comments to some of the other Cities in this County,
and he wanted Council to be aware finally, that salary is a constant. Salary is what
compensates employees for the risks they take because of their understaffing. Salary is
what keeps all your top step people in the City of San Rafael. The Comp Package cost
to the City is not what is of primary concern to your employees; what is a primary concern
to your employees is the salary. Mr. Gladstein stated his interest is not to bargain,
explaining he did not want to put the Council or its representatives or the Association
in a compromising position, indicating bargaining is a give and take situation that does
not rend itself to bright lights and heavy scrutiny. He wanted to inject into Council
certain Association's perceptions of what is going on and ask that the Mayor schedule
a closed session in the very near furture, noting he would welcome the opportunity to
engage in that intermediary step, and suggested starting early in the day to give themselves
as much time as possible. He stated the Association is willing to make accommodations
in the hopes that Council will be anxious to make accommodations as well.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 PAGE 4
SF MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Pa 5
JeffreSloan, Attorney with law firm of Liebert, Cassidy & Friersen, stated he had three
areas o cover.
1) The Impasse Resolution procedures dealing with past Resolutions that are part of the
City's Employee Relations Ordinance.
2) Negotiations process and problems that relate.
3) Specific rebuttal to some of the points raised.
Mr. Sloan stated the City's procedures for resolution of impasses are contained in Reso-
lution No. 4027, and as part of the ground rules the parties promulgated for these nego-
tiations, agreed that they would be following Employee Relations Ordinance procedures
that relate to past resolutions; he noted it is very important, because Council understands
the procedures. Since impasse has been declared, Mr. Sloan stated they have gone into
the first step of the two-step process, which is Executive Session. Because of the issues
raised earlier by Mr. Gladstein, rather than being Executive Session this is an Open Ses-
sion.
Mr. Sloan stated the second part of the impasse resolution process calls for mediation
or fact finding. What it proves is that the parties meet with a neutral third party to
resolve their dispute, therefore, once this step is over, it is clear, under the impasse
process of the City's Ordinance that the next step would be the issue. He noted the Council
is free to schedule Closed Sessions when it wishes to do so, and noted he did not see
the back and forth process described by Mr. Gladstein as being consistent necessarily
with the process of the resolution.
Mr. Sloan noted he wished to discuss what was covered in the course of negotiations, indi-
cating the Council is aware of many of the details. He stated he has been negotiating
with the Police Association for approximately 42 months, with about 13 negotiating meetings.
The Union's proposal at the beginning of negotiations called for a 10% wage increase.
They have still not received proposals from the Association on two issues that could carry
high cost; those being the subject of alternative work scheduling and another being the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The City has moved the negotiations from the beginning when
the question of salary was first broached, from no initial proposal in salary to a proposal
that a 2% increase be preferred to our current position that an increase of 2 and 2 be
preferred; that would be 2% effective July 1, 1989 and an additional 2% effective January
1, 1990, so that for purposes of a base it would effectively be a 4% increase for Police
negotiations. He stated it was made clear to the Association that that was not the final
proposal on money, but that there was some room for movement. He noted they cannot arrive
at the final position on wages or any other specific matters until they know exactly what
the Union is proposing in all different areas. The Union still has on the table a vast
array of issues, and he indicated there has been very little movement since June.
Mr. Sloan referred to comments made by Mr. Gladstein.
Retirement - Mr. Gladstein raised issue of PERS rules and the idea that the Association's
position is consistent with the PERS rules, noting although they are happy to hear that,
they would like Council to know that is the first time they have heard that point.
Grievance Procedures - Mr. Sloan stated the issue of the grievance procedure is one that
the Union has raised and indicated they would like to have a grievance procedure that
is comprehensive in scope; they have not yet seen a proposal from the Union that clearly
defines the contours.
Retirement - Mr. Gladstein indicated that the 7% retirement figure contained in the City's
breakdown, is an "unreasonable" and "erroneous" figure. Mr. Sloan stated it is important
that everyone present in the meeting be advised that the figures reflected on the paper
are the results of an agreement that the City's negotiators and the Association's negoti-
ators reached at the beginning of negotiations. He stated as has occurred in the past,
the parties agreed about the contours of the survey conducted; and agreed about the dif-
ferent elements that would be part of that survey, therefore the parties jointly agreed
with the survey.
Mr. Sloan stated the 7% figure is the maximum, and Mr. Gladstein accurately described
where this figure came from. What they have done throughout has been to state the maximum
possible figure for every jurisdiction, including their own. So the maximum possible
figure for retirement is 7%. He noted it is not unreasonable nor erroneous.
Shift Differential - Mr. Sloan stated Mr. Gladstein indicated a dissatisfaction with the
City's inclusion of the Shift Differential components of the survey, shown at bottom of
page of Total Compensation Update, at 1, 2 & 3. He stated the first breakdown does not
include Shift Differential. The second is a breakdown which contemplates the officer
who would be working night shift, and third would be the officer working swing shift.
He stated in comparing the City's differential with differentials in other jurisdictions
the parties agreed to survey, that except for one jurisdiction (Novato) we are the only
jurisdiction that pays any Shift Differential whatsoever.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 5
S ; MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 P - 6
Mr. Sloan stated Mr. Gladstein spent a significant amount of time on salary being the
most important thing that employees are looking at, and his dissatisfaction with the Total
Compensation package typifies the approach that was taken for this particular survey.
He pointed out that it is difficult for the City to accept the idea that salary is really
where the Association has been placing its emphasis. He referred to the list on Compensa-
tion, and stated in every single area, the Association is holding on to a proposal that
calls for a very significant improvement in the subject. He referred to insurance, and
stated the Association made a proposal that would require the City to come up with a signi-
ficant amount of money above and beyond what the existing practice is in health insurance.
He stated Retirement, Uniform Allowance, and Shift Differential all are the same thing,
and indicated if you looked at what they are actually proposing, they themselves are focus-
ing on the total compensation package rather than simply, salaries. He also noted Mr.
Gladstein indicated that by his calculations, if the 10% proposal were granted by the
City, the City would still be significantly below the average salaries of benchmark cities.
Mr. Sloan's calculations indicate they would be somewhat above average.
Mayor Mulryan asked if Mr. Sloan had a chance to figure this, assuming Petaluma is at
$3,680, and Mr. Sloan responded it is about .7 above average, indicating this gives rise
to another point, which is very important. He stated when the parties sat down at the
beginning of negotiations and agreed about how they would be conducting the survey, they
essentially agreed that the survey data would be based on a specific time period. He
referred to the ground rules as an example, and stated on .14 that CPI information will
be for February, 1989. In other words, Mr. Sloan stated the parties agreed on a discreet
point in time when they would do the survey and will recognize that no matter what, some-
thing is going to change up or down, normally up. He stated in order to proceed without
constantly revisiting the figures, one would be basing the survey on a discreet point
in time, and Mr. Gladstein has augmented the figures by any new data that has come in
as favorable data. He noted although this does provide some standards for evaluation,
it is not the standards the parties agreed to apply. He said they should be capturing
the data based on the deadline agreed upon, and the following year, one would be looking
at the data that was generated from the deadline on forward.
Councilmember Breiner referred to what Mr. Sloan said, that San Rafael is the only community
other than Novato with the Shift Differential, and asked if the City has any figures of
what the difference would be if the City eliminated the Shift Differential, and how it
would increase the total compensation. Mr. Sloan referred to the bottom of page of Total
Compensation, showing Difference 1, 2 and 3 and stated Difference 1 is the figure that
would apply in the absence of the differential. Councilmember Breiner asked for explanation
of the $3,758 figure. Assistant to the City Manager Golt stated the 5% shown for Number
1 is not included or calculated in the $3,758. The $116.50 is the dollar difference which
is 3.1% below the average. In other words, the $3,758 is $116.50 less than $3,874, which
is the average.
Councilmember Boro stated that at the next meeting, it would be helpful if on the sheet
in front of them, comments made by Mr. Sloan are broken out. He noted the negotiator
said he is only interested in salary and that most of the other demands have to do with
money, and the City has to look at the total package as total liability; the salary and
the benefits. He stated he would like to see if they took all of the demands of the Police
Department and portrayed them without PERS, because they cannot have it both ways. He
stated you cannot say you are only interested in money and the total salary then come
back and have demands in the "fringe area" and not think of them as money.
Ms. Golt commented on this and stated it is difficult to cost out some of the package
because of incomplete information from the Association, and therefore she would not be
able to come up with the complete figure. She stated the Alternate Work Schedule may
have a dollar impact, but they do not know, and noted the Alternate Work Schedule has
been suggested as a proposal that will eliminate certain things such as a 15 minute briefing
time which is subject as a grievance at this point. However, she noted they do not have
the final recommendation on the Alternate Work Schedule. Mr. Boro asked if she could
cost out and show what she can.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to a comment made by Mr. Gladstein regarding no patrol
east of San Rafael High School, stating this is wrong and uncalled for. He stated patrol
is happening in that area. Another area is the understaffing, and he agreed they would
like to have more people, approving three more positions this year. He mentioned San
Rafael has a population of 44,000; Novato has a population of 46,000 with less than 50
police officers. San Rafael has close to 85, noting this was a misunderstanding.
Mr. Gladstein responded he would not make a comment in this context if he did not feel
it was justified based on the facts, noting Mr. Frugoli may be unaware of the facts.
He explained his facts came from discussions with the people engaged in that patrol, the
officers and Association.
Harold Hutchison, President of the San Rafael Police Association stated there are times,
specifically in the evening hours and during graveyard time from 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM where
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 6
S; MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Pi 7
officers are directed by their supervisors not to go beyond San Rafael High School unless
they are called for service. He stated this is done primarily because the activity level
in the Downtown area precludes them from being so far away that it could eliminate the
response time back to the Downtown area, noting it is an accurate statement. He stated
last year a Deputy was shot in the Peacock Gap area and because their officers were re-
stricted to the Downtown area, they had a very extended response time to that call.
President Hutchison referred to Council granting three additional officers to the Police
Department this year and stated it is not three additional officers but three officers
given back to the department that were taken away. He recalled that the Chief of Police
requested they receive 11 officers in addition to the three officers taken away last year,
but was turned down.
President Hutchison related his own experience, noting any officer in the room could also
tell what the activity level is; that it is increasing, becoming more serious;,the propen-
sity for officer's safety and probability of an officer getting hurt is very real. He
stated he sees this every day in his job as a Detective because the gravity of crime is
increasing. He noted they have a problem and if not addressed and the officers are not
compensated by giving either additional officers or compensating them for not having the
officers, then they have a serious problem.
Councilmember Breiner asked when will the new radio system be in place, and Police Chief
Ingwersen responded within the next six to nine months, January 1990 being the earliest
date, but more likely April or May 1990. Councilmember Breiner asked to have this issue
brought back to Council at their regular meeting. She also referred to "Educational Incen-
tive" and asked if this was something everyone takes advantage of or if the $155 is only
for people who are using it to attend classes, asking how many officers are involved.
Captain Krolack responded some of the officers have applied, however, there may be some
who have not applied for it.
Councilmember Thayer directed her comment to Mr. Gladstein on salary, stating it was sug-
gested that other items were there for leverage. Mr. Gladstein replied negatively, stating
if they were able to negotiate a multi-year contract, it would be his objective to make
gains each year and not go for everything all at once, targeting particular areas for
gains in that year. His understanding is that the City wants a one year contract, indicat-
ing if this is the case they are not going to be able to make all the gains they now have
on the table, therefore, they would need to be prepared to make accommodations. He stated
an important aspect of his answer is that the Association, when it first drafted its de-
mands, was told by City's Administration that it wanted to come to a quick resolution
on or before July 1, 1989. He stated those demands were drafted by people who pared down
the salaries in an effort to not engage in a typical posturing that goes on around the
collective bargaining table where you demand up here, and the City's offer is down here,
and everyone knows in the course of time you end up somewhere in the middle. He stated
they were led to believe that it could be resolved if they would come in with their realis-
tic demands. He indicated he explained that to the City's negotiators, stating it is
a matter of what they believe they are legitimately entitled to. He referred to bringing
the comp cities up to date and stated there was no agreement to take it at a certain time,
noting surely there was none with Mr. Sloan, explaining he only recently entered the scene.
He stated if the comp cities increase their salary and compensation packet, he would be
severely remiss to continue assessing that against figures that were no longer in use,
and stated Ms. Golt would verify that. He noted they have discussed on a number of occasions
the need to update, and once the figures are in, it would be current with various city
figures.
Councilmember Thayer stated the reason for the question was not to negotiate here as to
what is on the table and engage in a give and take. She explained as a Councilmember,
she is extremely interested, given the City's budgetary restraints, where the real emphasis
is, noting she is aware the figures that will come back to Council on these various and
other sundry items may cause them to focus on things that are not of interest to the member-
ship. She noted they may come back with something that is less than satisfactory in the
area of compensation and salary.
Mr. Gladstein stated his hope is that by pursuing the Mayor's suggestion on the next special
called meeting, that they can do some serious accommodations.
Councilmember Thayer directed her comment to Mr. Sloan on the 7 percent retirement contri-
bution, and understood his rebuttal at the very beginning that the contours of the survey
were agreed upon by the parties. Mr. Sloan responded that Councilmember Thayer was correct,
and stated the figure on retirement for San Rafael reflects the maximum that could be
paid under the City's system, noting this is the same approach they have taken under every
other retirement figure for the survey cities. He stated all the retirement figures reflect
the maximum payable. He replied to some points raised, first on "Term". He stated they
are interested in a multi-year MOU, noting he was told that the Union has indicated its
preference for an MOU lasting only one year. Regarding the question on "Updates", Mr.
Sloan stated Mr. Gladstein indicated that doing updates inject some realities in some
situations and therefore should not be frowned upon. He stated if this is the case, it
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 7
SRGP MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Pane 8
is not fair for Mr. Gladstei,. to indicate that on the San Rai. I figures, they should
be going based on the $2,907, which is the figure Mr. Gladstein gave the Council, rather
than $3,824. He referred to $2,907, stating this is what is currently paid, but noted
$3,824 is what the ranks would be getting on January 1, 1990 based on the 2% and 2% propo-
sals.
Councilmember Boro referred to budget and stated he is very concerned about where the
City and its budget is going, and concerned about the projected shortfall he sees when
they hit the 1991/92 timeframe based on what they have already done with the Fire Associa-
tion, which he feels will be a precedent for the rest of the City. He formally requested
that before they meet again that the 1989/90 budget currently adopted, reflect what they
have given the Fire Department, that they also assume for the other units they have not
yet bargained with that are up this year, a similar increase to see what that is worth;
that for the 1990/91 budget that they project for the other bargaining units what they
have projected for the Fire Department; for the 1991/92 budget that they take the 13%
across the board for the rest of the City and lay on top of that, the CPI and do the same
thing for two more years, 1992/93 and 1993/94; in other words, do a five year projection
on salaries based on what started as precedent with the Fire Department; then come back
and do a similar projection of our revenues based on what we know and based on the hotel
and the center opening up, and start to see where the shortfalls are and also apply the
CPI. He noted they also should apply the CPI to all of the City's expenses and salaries
based on five years. Councilmember Boro stated what he is trying to do, is for Council
to have the opportunity to see where they are, what they are committing to and where they
are going; so in looking at total compensation, they would have some feel for what the
future liabilities are. He noted somehow they have to see where they intersect, where
the shortfalls are going to be, and what they give here will have an impact in the future,
and they have to start to think about that.
Mayor Mulryan agreed that Councilmember Boro's intent is good, noting they have to balance
what they can pay in their resources, but stated he felt that projecting revenues beyond
a year or so is difficult, particularly when looking at revenues from new hotels and sales
taxes, etc., and maybe could apply just a flat assumption of some kind could be applied,
but not really try to come up with what they think it is going to be.
City Manager Nicolai responded by stating they would have to make a lot of assumptions,
indicating they could do alternative assumptions.
Councilmember Boro stated he was not trying to cast this in concrete but instead getting
a scope of the overall picture.
Councilmember Boro asked what the turnover rate is in the Police Department and how it
compares to the rest of the City; why with the population in San Rafael we have x -level,
in Novato y -level and where the differences are so Council and the public can understand
them, noting he felt this to be an issue. He stated they are looking at comparables on
pay, noting he would like to see comparables on staffing and understand why there are
differences.
Mayor Mulryan referred to his comments on Closed Session, noting they have been in negoti-
ations for four months and said he personally did not think it reasonable to expect that
the negotiation process that has been going on for four months, can be completed in a
matter of 2 or 3 hours of back and forth. He commented that the Council should have the
opportunity to discuss this in Executive Session and give whatever directions and authority
it feels appropriate to give to the City's representatives and told the audience they
are welcome to listen, and within a relatively brief period of time they will have available
to convey back any ME-ssages, noting they will be happy to receive them. He did not feel
they have the capability of a long give and take, noting the process has gone on for some
time, and that basically, at the next meeting, they have to determine whether there is
any way to settle or go to mediation and fact-finding.
Mr. Gladstein referred to the legality of the City's law in meeting in Closed Session
with representatives and engaging in the back and forth in an effort to break the impedence
in negotiation. Although Mr. Gladstein stated it is the perogative of the Council to
declare willingness or unwillingness to do anything, he believed that they could narrow,
if not resolve, the outstanding issue if they gave the process a chance, noting it would
be in the best interest of his client and the City.
Mayor Mulryan stated Council has given considerable time and attention to this matter,
but noted they need an Executive Session and will listen fully to their representative,
explaining that is how they see it and noted it is the most organized way, noting they
do want to settle this.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM.
JEA L�P4. LEONCINI, it_v C erk MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 19
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/12/89 Page 8