Thursday, July 28, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m.
Committee members present were Alderman Lampe and Alderman Kopplin. Also present was Robert Kufrin, Alderman Michael Toman, Jerry Hammernik, and RoseAnn Underberg.
Item 2. Review and consider approval of minutes
The minutes of August 22, 2002 should be amended to show that Alderman Koppli was present. The minutes of May 7, 2002 were amended to specify that a percentage contribution toward health insurance premiums would begin under Item 4c.
Alderman Lampe made a motion to accept the minutes of 2/26/03, 11/13/02, 8/22/02 (as amended), 05/13/02, 05/07/02 (as amended), and 11/29/01. Alderman Kopplin seconded the motion. All aye; motion carried.
Item 3. Review and consider tuition reimbursement requests
The Committee held the requests to the July 30th meeting.
Item 4. Discussion on non-union salary increases for 2003
The committee discussed the impacts of the state budget, and the issue of compression between union and non-union wages. The issue will resurface mid-August.
Item 5. Discussion on Off-Duty Employment Policy for the Fire Department
Chief Hammernik revised the form as requested by the committee at the last meeting. He discussed the policy with the Mayor, who wanted to review the documentation before any changes take place. Tom Rosandich put together a report on availability. There have been 170 calls since the beginning of 2003. If 24 firefighters were needed to come in, it would take 100 phone calls to get them, only when they say they’re available. There are some employees who came in 79% of the time when they were called and they said they were available and some who have come in 2% of the time when they were called and said they were available. There are some at 0%. The mayor’s point is that there’s too much overtime and people are sick of overtime. The mayor, chief and fire department staff are meeting tomorrow to discuss the issue. Last night (Sunday), at 3:00 a.m. there was a code 8 and we weren’t able to get enough people by phone so we had to do an “all call”, which may result in more people showing up than needed, which costs more money.
Jerry’s understanding of the issue what that there was an employee who wanted to take time to go to school. Article 34(D) of the contract states that if an employee is going to a class that qualifies under tuition reimbursement (whether or not funds are available), they can use comp time. The employee was going to a class which wasn’t under the tuition reimbursement program and wanted to use it. Jerry stated that the contract doesn’t allow that, that’s an expansion that he wasn’t prepared to grant. The issue could be brought up during bargaining. He thought that was the issue they were pursuing. It turns out that it’s a different issue with the same employee and the order that he is objecting to was given by one of the commanders who made the decision and Jerry wasn’t contacted about it. The commander denied the request. The union expressed a concern about grieving the issue but wanted to discuss it first. It was agreed upon to hold the timelines open and run it past the Personnel Committee. The issue brought before the committee is not the issue Jerry thought they were bringing forward. The employee in question was working Friday, off Saturday and Sunday and working Monday. He was called for a shift fill-in on Saturday to work 24 hours at time and a half. He agreed to take the shift but also wanted to take comp time to attend the class. The officer confirmed that the class was offered on Saturday and Sunday and that the employee is off both days and therefore should take the class on Sunday. The employee indicated he had other things to do on Sunday and the officer said no and that he could understand it if this was the only day the class was offered, but that wasn’t the case. The comp time that the employee would take for an 8 hour day, he earned 12 hours of comp time; so he earned it at a time and a half rate, now he’s working at time and a half but he’s going to take the hours off and we’re going to have to pay someone else time and a half to come in to work for him.
Alderman Lampe did not agree with the city having to pay more money for the employee to go to school, in addition to their tuition reimbursement, to have to call a second person in to fill in for the first person while they’re gone to class.
Bob directed the committee’s attention Article 41 regarding general alarms: The firefighters who are members have a responsibility under the rule which requires a special effort to report to duty upon receipt of a general alarm unless circumstances which have always been recognized as excuses for not reporting to a general alarm prevent a firefighter from reporting. The Fire Chief will maintain records which show which firefighters do not respond to general alarms, and if an individual firefighter establishes a pattern of failure to report to general alarms, he/she will be required by the Fire Chief to furnish reasons for failing to respond to the general alarm and will be required to do so.
Although the Chief has the ability to inquire as to why an individual did not respond to a general alarm, an acceptable answer is always available (had to provide child care, consumed alcohol, pager didn’t go off). Alderman Lampe suggested that the calls need to continue to be made to ask them why they were unable to respond and hold the employees accountable. One employee who was promoted to management did not make calls off duty. He went for an entire year without making one off duty call. Other employees looked at that and believed that if that person could be promoted and never came in, why should they? Postings for Local 133 employees show how much overtime they have worked. Perhaps an alternative for the Fire Department would be to post a report showing how often people are called vs. how often they come in.
Item 6. Discussion on the use of comp time by Fire union employees to attend school
See discussion under Item 5 above.
Item 7. Discussion on various leave requests
This item was held to the July 30th meeting.
Item 8. Discussion on annual fitness testing for Fire Department
Last year the committee approved the dollar allocation for Fire Department fitness testing. Jerry stated that he feels the department is seeing progress, particularly after fire calls, that employees are less physically drained and recovering faster after hard fire calls. Although the aggregate report from the medical provider will show whether or not employee’s physical fitness levels have improved, what the report will not show is the reduction in the likelihood of heart attacks and other conditions that may have been avoided by improving lifestyles.
Alderman Lampe made a motion to approve the second annual fitness testing for the Fire Department. Alderman Kopplin seconded the motion. All aye; motion carried.
Item 9. The Committee may consider a motion to go into Executive Session at approximately 6:25 p.m. pursuant to Wisconsin State Statutes Section 19.85(1)(C ) and (e) for:
Item 10. The committee reconvened into Open Session at 8:30 p.m. to take action on any or all Executive Session items.
The meeting ended at approximately 8:35 p.m.