At tonight’s Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting (City Hall, 7:00 p.m.), the City Council will be asked to approve the new collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Int’l Union of Operating Engineers covering the City’s public works department employees.
As any reader of this blog knows, we’ve been critical of the almost automatic way the City (and each of our local school districts, for that matter) has increased wages and benefits for City employees without requiring any commensurate increase in performance. We’ve been even more critical of the secretive way all those negotiations have been conducted (e.g., Fire Chief Mike Zywanski’s “Ground Rules” which effectively imposed a gag order on the mayor and the Council preventing them from giving the taxpayers progress reports on the negotiations).
As best as we can tell, this new agreement continues that economically-irresponsible automatic wage increase practice.
But we can’t say for sure because the Cover Memorandum provided by H.R. Director Michael Suppan contains nothing in the way of an “executive summary” or other analysis that would assist us, or the Council, in fully understanding the deal that the City’s negotiating team (whose members also remain unidentified) appears to have cut with the union – other than that it’s a 3-year deal that’s been delayed almost a year. Consequently, the City will effectively owe the covered employees a year of retroactive raises.
What will those raises total? The memo doesn’t say, other than for a check in the box that states that Council action on the agreement “will Require an Expenditure of Funds” – without any of the additional required information about that expenditure, such as its “Total Cost,” whether it’s a “Budgeted Item” and, if so, what budget section it will affect.
And although the agreement itself refers, on Page 2, Section A of Article V, to a “Wage Schedule” attached as “Tab A,” guess what? No “Tab A” is attached. Instead, Suppan writes that “[t]he details of the changes in the agreement will be presented to the Council in closed session.”
Brilliant!
Should the Council go along with Suppan’s folly and the aldermen hightail themselves into closed session to discuss the results of these secret negotiations, the taxpayers who will be asked to pay for this deal over the next 3 years will remain in their current “mushroom” state (kept in the dark and covered with fertilizer) for at least another week.
What’s so darned secret about all this stuff, Mr. Suppan? Or, voiced another way, what exactly are you trying to hide? And why isn’t Acting City Mgr. Shawn Hamilton doing anything to enhance the transparency of this process?
Discussions of wages and benefits for City employees should be open to the public so that taxpayers can see and hear how their elected and appointed public officials are responding to the demands from City employees and their unions; and so the employees and their unions also get to hear the Council’s discussion and have a better understanding of the City’s position, free from suspicions of bluffing or bad faith.
That way, if the taxpayers think their representatives are being unfair to City employees, or are not treating them with enough “respect,” they can tell their officials in time to do something about it. Or not.
Heck, maybe such an open process would even lure mayoral challenge Larry Ryles out of hiding to address the Council on his ideas for how the Council should deal with the ever-escalating demands of its employees, or with this contract in particular – although we’re not going to hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. Ryles hasn’t addressed the Council on any of the issues it has faced since he declared his candidacy last Fall, so there’s no reason to think he’ll risk publicly displaying his views (0r lack thereof) on these kinds of controversial matters.
But whether Ryles shows or not, the one-sided way labor negotiations have gone for as long as we can remember has demonstrated, time and again, that secrecy has ill-served the taxpayers – whether at the City, at the Park District, and especially at the school district levels.
Since secrecy hasn’t worked, it’s time it ended. Starting tonight.
UPDATED 03.12.13. By the time last night’s COW meeting was convened, “Tab A” had finally been posted on the City’s website. Unfortunately, whoever prepared it must didn’t think to include the previous year’s “Wage Schedule” for comparison purposes. Or else he/she was actually trying to conceal those numbers to prevent such a comparison.
Either way, the COW discussion that begins at approximately 01:20:55 of the meeting video demonstrates the problems this Council – and City staff – still have with being honest and forthright with City taxpayers about the details of unionized employee contract negotiations, even if they can’t seem to come up with good reasons for that particular malady.
Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st) and Acting City Mgr. Shawn Hamilton clearly don’t “get it,” as their arguments for closed-session secrecy about those negotiations and the Council’s discussion of the tentative contract indicated.
If we understood Sweeney, contract terms should remain secret until the Council reaches a closed-session consensus to approve them. Hamilton, on the other hand, worried about “releasing to the other side” the Council’s views and strategies about contract terms – as if there’s some big honkin’ secret about how much money the City can afford, and wants to spend, for raises and benefits for any particular group of employees.
Not surprisingly, Mayor Dave Schmidt was right on target in noting the public’s “right to know” all those details. Whether he’ll be able to convince the “I’ve Got A Secret” contingent remains to be seen, because they sure don’t seem to want convincing.
As we’ve said many times before, there’s no reason to be coy or secretive about labor and employment negotiations. The Council (and all other public governing bodies) should discuss and calculate – openly and publicly – what terms and amounts are fair and affordable by the City, so that such information is known and understood not only by the “other side” but also by the taxpayers and the rest of the civilized world. That way, whether a raise is a meager 1% or a whopping 10%, its amount and the reasons for it will become public knowledge in real time, with no secrets and no opportunities for mistrust. And the same goes for all demands made by those employees and their unions.
Both “sides” hold a public trust, and owe us taxpayers duties and obligations commensurate with that trust. There’s no place for secrecy in that kind of relationship.
To read or post comments, click on title.
15 comments so far
Mr. Ryles spent most of his working life as a government employee, albeit in an essential and dangerous field; and has already gone on record repeatedly opining that the City needs to be nicer to employees, which certainly would not include being the first to question their auto-raises.
EDITOR’S NOTE:“Respect” of City employees is Ryles/Frimark/Sheehan/Barton code for: give the employees whatever money they want.
Ryles? Address the Council on this (or anything consequential, for that matter)? Good one.
If not Ryles, at least I look forward to hearing the Mayor’s position on this new proposed agreement.
On 3-6-13, you responded to my post about the Mayors selection of Hamiliton by asking the following…”Other than Hamilton’s apparent failure to catch and deal with Chief Z’s blatant disregard of the City Code’s bidding requirement, what else has Hamilton done or not done in the past 7 months that makes him a bad pick, or Schmidt an incompetent for recommending him for hiring”?
Add the following to the list. “And why isn’t Acting City Mgr. Shawn Hamilton doing anything to enhance the transparency of this process?”
That makes 3:
1. Your TOPR accusation.
2. Cheif Z and the city code.
3. Closed meeting for a contract.
Hock was an easy whipping boy becuase that was not Schmidts choice. This one is different. Hamilton was interviewed, selected and brought before the council by Schmidt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hock was an easy whipping boy because he was so incompetent that, even after being given several months to get his act together, he ended up being sacked by a 6-0 vote of the Council – the same Council which approved Hamilton’s hiring and recently praised his performance.
They should change Hamilton’s title because he sure isn’t acting like a competent city manager.
City council and mayor typical strategy in action. Blame the city manager! How about the mayor speak up tonight?
EDITOR’S NOTE: The City Mgr. is the City’s CEO and makes six figures for what is supposed to be a full-time job and a full-time effort. Schmidt makes $12K, the aldermen make $1,200, both for what is supposed to be only a part-time job.
So your point is?
Point is that the mayor and the council should watch out for taxpayers. Blaming the city manager is cowardly. He’s going to make mistakes or miss things which is why the mayor and council sit up there to provide transparency, guidance and oversight. How can you ask ryles to speak up while the current elected officials won’t?
Are you endorsing ryles? He did say he will be full time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The City Mgr., by law, is the City’s CEO. If you don’t like it, then start a petition drive to change our form of government. The Council did look out for the taxpayers – by firing an incompetent City mgr, even though the prior Council gave him a sweetheart severance package.
As for Ryles’ promise to be a “full-time mayor,” a full-time empty suit is still an empty suit.
True, dat. After hearing Ryles at the Republic Women debate, it appears it is indeed possible that somebody is less competent and less eloquent than Frimark. I’d be happy to let Ryles take the reviewing stand at the Memorial Day parade; Lord knows he’s earned it. But providing a State of the City address? Schlepping off to Vegas to represent Park Ridge for economic development? Talking to legislators on our behalf? And yeah, dealing with the hard minutae of budgets and telling the police and other employee groups no? It beggers the imagination. Not to mention the City. Not to mention his consistent use of “support our Seniors” (capital letter his)which can only mean Frimark (“Cut the Council to enjoy smaller government”) is at it again, leading his sheep to the polls and off the cliff.
You spend a HUGE amount of time on this blog questioning the competence of the city council, often calling them out by name. Now your defense for Schmidt selecting and bringing Hamilton in front of that same council that you lambast is essentially that they approved his hiring.
You also reference that this group you beat on praised his performance. So essentailly you think they suck but are happy to use them as a reference when it serves your purpose.
They praised his performance?? Well you priased his performance and then you questioned it and then you questioned me for questioning it and then you questioned it again, all the while bending over backward to make sure schmidt has not blame it the choice.
By the way, anon 3:40, you are correct about the blame game but this time the Mayor picked him.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Zippy, we basically spend time questioning the Council’s judgment on certain specific issues, not the overall competence of most aldermen. In fact, we have often praised this Council for its economic decisions which have produced balanced budgets, operating surpluses, Whole Foods, etc.
While Schmidt recommended Hamilton’s hiring, he could not hire Hamilton without Council approval. And because only the Council can fire Hamilton, whether he stays or goes is up to the Council, not Schmidt.
Now what about that seems to escape you?
I heard that Ryles got a $1,000 campaign contribution from the union that represents the public works employees whose contract is on the agenda for Council approval tonight. True/false?
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Illinois State Board of Elections, true – contributed 02/27/13.
That’s one way to avoid a mayoral veto on your contract.
I don’t know if you have ever managed union employees, but aside from professional sports, every and all businesses (both for profit and non-for-profit) have strategy sessions on what the negotiations will encompass, what the position of management is, how the process is proceeding, etc.
Also in negotiations many times greivances come out, fundamental changes to the terms of employment are proposed, non monetary issues are discussed.
I don’t know if these closed door sessions are for the purposes that I stated above; however, certain items should be transparent and others should not be.
Union employees are not at will employees. They have different rights that have been negotiated (presumably in good faith) that have to be honored.
On the other side of the equation, if I am representing the City’s position as a negotiator, I sure as heck don’t want the negotiations being done in a public forum. That would be a disservice to everyone!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re tempted to dismiss your comments out of hand as a crock of tripe, but we’re intrigued enough to engage a bit.
1. So what if “in negotiations many times greivances come out, fundamental changes to the terms of employment are proposed, non monetary issues are discussed”? How are the taxpayers harmed by that?
2. “[C]ertain items should be transparent and others should not be.” Which ones and why?
3. We have never suggested dishonoring union contracts, so what’s your point about contract rights?
4. “I sure as heck don’t want the negotiations being done in a public forum. That would be a disservice to everyone!!!” How would transparent negotiations open to the public be “a disservice” to the taxpayers who will be paying for the outcome of that process?
So Ryles is now accepting donations from the Unions that work for the City?
Unbelievable for the man who is running as the moral choice.
Big heart, my a$$. Frimark is teaching him well.
Ryles is a phony.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve generally found found that the people who spout and tout their own “morality” – especially politicians – tend to be phonies.
Since you are engaging in my crock of tripe, I will give you some examples from prior experiences.
1> A scheduling grievance was instituted by an employee against a manager because the employee had more tenure and was supposed to have first selection of vacation time; however, another employee was granted their vacation time first because of factors that the first employee didn’t know about. The manager had informed the union steward about the potential scheduling conflict ahead of time. The union steward brought it to the attention of the union attorney. Their attorney reviewed the contract and decided that the issue was not an employee problem ‘tenured’ but a management problem. After the time passed where the less tenured employee received the time off, the case went to arbitration and resulted in favor of the tenured employee. The company had to pay tenured employee for timeshare costs, airline change, etc.. The reason that the less tenured employee wanted time off that management agreed to had to do with spouse going into drug rehab. Does the taxpayer get any benefit out of knowing this situation if it were to happen in Park Ridge with a union employee?
2> Which ones should be transparent and which ones should not be disclosed in a public forum? Information that would hurt an employee reputation are items that should not be disclosed in public forum. Information about compensation and benefits are fine with one caveat; it should be after the negotiations are completed not during the midst of them. The union representatives have to sell the deal to their side as well. Negotiating in the newspaper would cost the taxpayer more legal fees if the attorneys have to respond to every thing written about the process / proposals and accusations.
3> Contract rights are a complex issue. Sometimes rights are negotiated into a contract by the union without management understanding the implications of them. Public Safety can’t be harmed by a contracted right is my point.
4> My opinion is that if the City of Park Ridge is well represented to present their position, let the negotiations take place with the union reps. so that a deal can get hammered out timely and not expensively. Being transparent all of the time with negotiations is not effective or efficient from my perspective.
Perhaps, the unions and the City (here in Park Ridge) do not have those type of headaches to deal with and I am overreacting. My opinion is based on my union experiences.
EDITOR’S NOTE Our point was about open-to-the-public contract negotiations. Your only concrete example is an anecdote about grievance arbitration.
We realize that you might be confused because “arbitration” and “negotiation” both end in “tion,” but grievance arbitration is NOT contract negotiation. Never was, never will be. Trust us on that.
I guess I was not clear on my point. Every serious grievance was discussed during negotiations. It was a union ploy to depict manager’s not following the contract; therefore, if manager’s can’t follow the contract to the letter, pay union employees more for the hardship. A negotiation tactic. I provided the anecdote so you can see what topics can be discussed during contract negotiation.
Again, this was during a different time and different place; hopefully there are no serious grievance issues here with the various unions.
I do understand the difference between arbitration and negotiation. That was a silly retort.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you had been clearer, we would not have been “silly.”
So what if the existence and outcomes of grievances are discussed during open-to-the-public negotiations? Heck, the taxpayers are better served if they hear about how City managers are botching their jobs and causing problems with the operation of their departments.
So far we still have been shown nothing that would suggest, much less prove, that the City or its taxpayers (or the school districts, Park District, and their taxpayers) would be harmed by open negotiations.
Open to the public negotiations do not exist. That is why you hire your City Manager, Management Labor Attornys and the City Council votes on what is being negotiated. The City isn’t ‘giving away the house’ and the Union is CERTAINLY not ‘having their way with the City’… The City has a budget they have to stick to, and almost always budget for a raise to it’s workers. The end result should end with City Council voting yes/no to a collective bargaining agreement. What the public should see is an end product. Negotiating a CBA is a lot of back and fourth, give and take, and can take hours for one session. I do agree that the Mayor should be informed, as well as the membership. Some ground rules mutually agreed by both sides bar any kind of information leaking to Trustees, Union Members, the press, etc… So, if the taxpayers see the end product, what is the point of ‘open negotiations’? Worry about what comes out the other end, slappy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Open to the public negotiations do not exist” yet because the unions don’t want them – and, up until now, the Council has rolled over for the unions. The way to “bar any kind of information leaking” is to eliminate any reaso for “leaking” by opening up the process, because there’s no need to “leak” common knowledge.
What’s the point of “open negotiations”? Exposing union demands – and the what’s-in-it-for-us mentality behind them – to the folks who will end up paying for them. And showing the public whether or not their elected officials and bureaucrats are, at the very least, as vigorous and competent in their defense of the taxpayers as the union folks are in advancing their members’ interests.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>