I call the order of the special board meeting of the Perkeries Park District, Thursday June 26th.
All right. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I've moved to amend the full time and personal policy manuals under Appendix G, and I've
out of all drug use policy or some conviction in police as presented.
This is the policy change we've been talking about and we've brought to light
a little bit of legal trouble on where to place it before.
It amends the and all the this and other amendments to the policy manual changes
is our policies so that employees are required to notify us
of the condition during the course of their employee.
The pass would be to the background check
at the beginning of their employment.
But realize there was a little hole in that policy,
so we are augmenting those policies.
Have I got it all right?
Yeah, we're augmenting two policies,
and then we're creating a third.
OK.
So we're just tightening up two system policies.
One is for the employees, the other is for applicants who are applying for work here who is taking it out.
And then we are putting in new policy for existing employees, whereby if they are convicted of a crime,
then it's for who did other law under the Section 78 of a choice that they refer to it,
prohibit certain employment for certain criminal offenses related to drugs and other charges.
It spells it out for the employees.
And it gives us the right to assess their criminal background.
So I've read the line on the first page just to show you the minor tweaks.
The first policy is G, and it's for a current employee to notify us about convictions under a drug statute.
The second policy is redlining to tighten up a little bit,
clarify that these are applicants who are coming into our organization, as it relates to the
statute 823, which is very specifically prohibits the employment of an individual who has certain
crimes.
And most of that policy spells out, a portion of the policy spells out, the types of
crimes that are covered in the statute that prohibit employment. So it's a little bit of an English
for a place of understanding.
So we're tightening up two policies,
and that's what my name is going to be.
Because our food that we put out
amend the administrative policy manual.
According to it.
Okay.
All right.
Policy, yes.
Sorry for the last one.
Shut the line.
So, I know I'm being meant to be here,
but did the previous,
I'm on page 12.
Page two.
The one with the red line.
All background and checks is in red.
Does that mean the word checks wasn't there before?
It's just that all background shall be cross-referenced with the state of Illinois.
Are you paying attention?
State of the current policy with proposed changes in red lines
full-time, part-time, personnel, and policy should have to be three to two and one.
The last sentence of the first paragraph.
Correct.
Check's missing.
It said all background.
She'll be cross-referenced.
You have to speak properly.
Yes, it was no mission.
Is there any grammar issues or something?
Yeah, while we're picking it, it looks like the S on checks was then deleted from the edition.
So we're going to be checking.
We'll correct that one.
Thank you very much.
Now from a legal perspective, just so you know,
and I appreciate the, you know, the grammatical errors and whatnot.
So please, if you see something, let me know.
I appreciate it.
But a legal perspective, these policy amendments and new policies were drafted in review by
Chuck Hoffman, C. Kleiman over at Irma, as well as Chris Jolly from a labor perspective
for the union.
Have you been there?
No.
Been working with Diane for the past couple of months on this.
It's a good approach, I think it's probably at the cutting edge in terms of what partnerships
are doing and for seeing that it makes sense that certain kind of convictions occur among
applicants to the workforce in Park District Arena and with disqualified employment, why
wouldn't it be consistent if they're later committed of such a nature when we're around
kids and we're in the industry of graduation, that maybe that ought to be a policy and
I think we're on the cutting edge of the line.
Yeah. There's several military licenses that require revealing to the animals that have been brought up.
Before you said that, you know, there are some now that's covered up and accepted.
Yes.
We can ask about the last one, the administrative policy manual.
So this is all where it says current policy and red and amended policy, mostly red.
So are we saying that current policy, we've struck the entire, all of the language in the current policy
and we're going to replace it with, there's no red line.
That's correct. I should, yeah, I should report that.
Sorry, Jeanette, but yes it is correct.
We're going to completely replace the current with the biosection, pretty much.
The top one is the end.
The end is showing in the bottom, the final is up.
You got it.
You ready to vote?
This motion is for the next meeting.
Right.
Oh, this is my plan. I'm sorry.
We discussed all of that.
We discussed all of it.
They're relating to each other, but we're voting.
We're voting.
Yes.
Does it be asking?
Yes.
Does it brand?
Yes.
Does it buy-in?
Does it pull us?
Does it brand?
Yes.
Does it love us?
Yes.
Now I'm sorry, next.
I move to a met with the full time and part time personnel policy manuals under chapter
3, conditions of employment, federal commission background check, applicant offered book and
as presented.
So that's vague, we've discussed them all already, you know, if there's anything
I'll stay ahead.
I'll vote.
Mr. Biagi?
Yes.
Mr. Grant?
Yes.
Mr. Bryan?
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Bryan?
Yes.
Mr. Benke?
Yes.
Mr. Phillips?
Yes.
I move to approve the new policy under chapter 3, conditions with employment convictions
employees as presented.
Second question now.
Okay.
So that's the question for now.
So, hypothetically, if the Park District does this,
either this one or the other two that we just covered,
that's an ego I spoke with in the Park District,
in a hypothetical situation where the Park District
had a current information, and for some reason
did not have their file in that person's letter
to try 10, 20 years ago,
I believe that our fully entitled to re-assert and ascertaining justice of the head of drive
So I think as far as this is curative as to missing records in a way, this is the most
in the possible to do that is put it to the description of the sculpture.
Yep, well done.
Mr. Graham?
Yes.
Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Ryan?
Yes.
Mr. Mendy?
Yes.
Mr. Giacchi?
Yes.
Mr. O'Brien?
Yes.
Now I move to amend the Administrative Policy Manual on a Criminal Background Check.
Section 3.066 as presented.
All
right, this is at the fifth page of the packet, the one that we replaced the whole
All right, anybody have anything to add?
Call the question.
Yes.
I move the Board adjourned the closed meeting to discuss collective fiduciating matters to the C2 who will reconvene to the special board meeting to take action, if any, on the matter of approval of an elected bargaining agreement in the Park Bridge Park District and Service Employees International Union Local 73.
have the terms been, I've had a briefing a little bit, but I'm going to go ahead and
Can you tell me if there's still negotiating that you believe will need to go on after this meeting?
Well, the employees have not seen this yet.
Okay.
And so until the board reviews us, they won't choose to approve.
Only then will they see this.
And these terms have not been shared in place.
So the employees can still reject this?
Yes, but the employees are not going to see it.
I know that the employees will not see this, so I'll have to review it.
What co-group with me, the procedure of a Brad fight, one of these agreements.
So, you've negotiated with the SCIU, the leaders of the local 73 SCIU,
and you've come to terms that both parties find reasonably green.
Okay, we do have three stewards who are present throughout the negotiations that are set in place, so they also are part of this, part of this, and that represents a focus on the start.
Okay.
Is it common for leaders, should I know it's only on the 3rd this month before, and how
people would grow?
But the top, you might be able to chime in on this a little bit.
Is it common for the leaders of the union and the practice group to come to terms
and the employees to check the public's terms?
Do you see it happen?
Does that happen very often?
What I'm trying to get at here is that we have a conversation in open session, and we reveal some of the negotiating things we may or may not be willing to accept.
Will it be possible that the deal will change in a negative manner for the purpose we're going forward?
It's possible that presumably the syllabus that we had a discussion with was available
to the human-like people so they could confirm on it.
Just to know what they hear right now and what they want.
Number two, given what I'm hearing from Diane and Terry,
I'm out of the fact that the storage store involved in this,
and apparently I'm bored with it.
I'm presumably very touched with the ownership.
So, um, I don't discuss that as a discussion.
Should we discuss this in open session?
It's a privilege.
The United Republic is a privilege.
Can I just add that we would not be able to discuss it in the next session?
Well,
that, to your point, um, that is an important aspect of utilizing the privilege
If the discussion is related to strategy and tactics, taking it as an open and an unfinished
negotiation with the contractor is not yet in place, it could be a shoot yourself in the
field.
Because if you're going to strategy and tactics and you lay that out, it's much harder to
achieve your goals going through the table than the other side has advanced knowledge
That is what you have inside of your stadium.
I don't know how that enters into any of the issues involved here or the way, so that's an important consideration.
Well, the issue is, what's more important, transparency or getting the best care for the part of the
taxpayers or whatever that is, it's difficult.
I understand transparency aspect of this, and I know what I can say, not that this is important in any way,
But I would be hard-pressed by a client who has discussed
collective promotion of the matters
in terms of contract in the end of the session,
or whatever that's worth.
I think that what it is, it's a safeguard against any
emergency as it may be said, as it
might be with the ability to deal with strategies that
might be revealed, captives that might be revealed.
And in counter to that, you know, people can make a good argument.
This is the people's business.
It's the public who can control the economy.
The real question is, you have a third party here
beyond the public.
You have a special group here called the employees
who are affected by these negotiations.
And probably fairly much you're respected
by the public.
The public would learn about that.
It's typically the public doesn't get it out
when they put it in place.
You speak for the public here.
So the title to speak for the following five years will be the dish.
And I think the strategy that attaches Mike, Bryce, and Ian to the interview,
we can get into that. With all due respect to Mr. Yajie,
I think at the same time, what is certainly the goal of this first session?
Can we begin the discussion and it can get towards strategy,
which we think we're feeling in open session would be to the detriment of the project
How do we do that procedure?
There's a motion.
We have a motion right now.
Is it going to close section?
Which has been voted on.
No.
Seconded.
Now we're in discussion.
Seconded.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Well you can, you can table the motion.
If we vote no, do we have the opportunity to go to a close session later in this meeting?
Yes.
I had a call about this.
Mr. Phillips.
Question.
Let's go over the polls.
Whether or not we're going into closed sessions.
Yes or no?
Yes or no.
To discuss the..
Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Ryan.
No.
Mr. Bajie.
Yes.
Mr. Bajie.
No.
Mr. Brandt.
No.
Mr. O'Brien.
And Mr. Phillips.
No.
All right.
Well, let's keep the conversation going.
Alright. Who wants to lead it? So I will lead it. First, let me say that I'm happy to
present summary of the agreed, tentatively agreed, the tentative agreement, sorry, Diane and I worked
very hard and long at this negotiations and we're both comfortable and happy with where we ended up
and what we're presenting tonight. We realize that we're presenting this to you tonight and there's
the possibility that the board may choose to approve this tonight.
If the board does choose to approve it tonight,
the unit would attend to the schedule that they would
like to ratify this upcoming Monday, next week between 30th.
If the board does not, then we will just
re-discuss this for July, even, if they want more time.
Or if there's some terms here that we need to go back
and discuss, then we will do that.
So, this is just being presented, and we were with the meeting being scheduled tonight already for the other issues we decided to bring this tonight so that there could be an opportunity to get this accomplished in the next week, but it's not a requirement.
So, I'll just kind of walk through some of these quickly.
In general, there were 23 tentative agreements that were reached between the part district and SCIU.
We highlighted the first 11 of them, I believe, but we're prepared and ready to discuss any of them whatsoever if you have any questions.
The first 11, we thought was more sensitive or had to do with money in some respect.
So we had to do those.
The last haven't generated the idea of either just cleaning up some language, elimination
of language, just kind of organizing things a little bit and mostly operational things.
First statement, we wanted to finalize a memo of understanding, and we did bring that up.
We started with that at our mediation.
I know it's based on the conversation that last week's board meeting,
so that we all had a clear understanding of the fact that both the board has to approve this
and the meeting has to ratify it for this contract to become a full-force impact.
And so we wanted to make sure that it was clear to everyone
so that if the union chooses to ratify prior to board approval,
that they're aware of the understanding that does not make the contract final.
The board still has the right to not approve that and ask for some changes.
We'll put that out for you.
The letter of agreement for the re-open or wage increase to Katerina?
Yes.
Sorry.
I'm being nitpicky right now.
Sure. Your point, Karen, and I'm wondering if the language is different from what actually happens.
Additionally, Nick Grown, the business agent, has agreed to wait to hear the outcome of the board meeting
before presenting the terms of the contract to the numbers for consideration.
That doesn't mean that this board, I mean, the board could say no tonight,
and then he still goes through with the ramification vote on June 30.
He could do that, but it would be of no consequence.
It would be a new point because the board didn't approve it.
So I hope that what happened five years ago, I don't understand because as I recall, that was what happened five years ago.
And that point was like a novelty.
Exactly.
That's really a recollection. It's an easy recollection, but I didn't recall that yet.
So I can't resolve that for you.
Yeah, that's right.
So my concern against, I'll reiterate that, if we don't take action or if we take negative action on this tonight,
and they follow through with their June 30th revocation vote and they ratify,
as I recall it going down five years ago, it was dust. We have no more say on that.
I know you've talked to Chris, Molly, and that Chris tells us that's not the case.
Would you have the time of agreement here that says quite the opposite?
That it's only becomes effective upon approval of the practice report commission and ratification of membership?
I'm going to assign that.
I'm going to assign that?
And that's your second sentence of the summary on the first page.
Here, yeah.
If you had to read the memo of notifications, I remember a lot of understanding.
It said the parties further agreed that kind of agreements will become effective upon approval
by the partners reported to the commissioners and ratification by the committee.
It was with the board's concerns of last week that we drafted that with the help of
actually Diane and Chris went through that so.
Yeah.
It's just the summary that's a little empty here, the actual memorandum is pretty
clear.
I don't recall the specifics of why that gratification went down the way it did, from a legal perspective.
I just remember that, as I recall, it went down that way.
And I don't recall there being a specific statute that said that.
No, it was a mystery. It was mysterious.
Exactly. I don't know what all happened.
So my only question is, from a legal perspective, who the parties have the ability to contract
away whatever it was that caused that mysterious reputation to occur last time.
You're not knowing what that was?
I think, oh, you don't know.
Well, we talked through it with Press, and he did not, you know, he said, doesn't he?
He, yeah, he, I'm, I'm basically, I'm putting a record on, I'm trying to remember right now,
because in the event Chris is wrong, or his recollection is wrong, and mine and John's recollection is correct,
I want there to be a record for that.
And I think it's good to lay that premise and the expectation of what we see in here,
specifically stating in a couple of places that such divine approval followed by that,
taken by the members.
That's this board's understanding.
We will be acting with that understanding, consistent with it.
And this apparently is also, there's an awareness of this statement here by the union
And if it turns out to be incorrect, we've got a mutual mistake of fact and we have a decision as a remedy.
Not that you want to go there, but.
Interesting.
And I shouldn't say that. I don't believe this was a, in place, this memo last time.
Oh, no, no, no.
Yeah, nothing was in place.
It's all of them.
Right.
All right.
Sorry, sorry.
No, that's fine.
So, moving on the letter of agreement, the re-opener wage increase, this replaces the
existing letter of agreement and it goes through and identifies the matrix that we've used
for all staff the last few years as the method for determining wages in the future.
And it reflects basically that things will be done on a performance base and also where
they are within the salary, which wasn't necessarily reflected in the previous contract.
It also adds in the percentage of increases that will be used for the 2014 increases,
and that, again, is consistent with what Paul and I need to stack in 2014 as well.
I think it's important to point out that for future years on Page, once you rate,
they would, they're agreeing to this, the same system, but not the amounts, the amounts
are adapted from there.
On that first one, and then the second one, that shows the amounts, they're coming from
here.
Which one?
We're not agreeing to dollar amounts for the future years, we'll have a way to go
there.
Right.
But what they are agreeing to is the concept of the matrix that you want.
The performance-based matrix is the same as used for other, yes, correct.
Yes, correct.
It wasn't in the previous contract, but it was something they agreed upon during the contract.
Number three is Article 13, Section 1A, Wages and Health Insurance. It's just the title of the section.
What it does is there's a section there and you can see on page five of the other stack.
it establishes the ranges. These ranges were approved by the board back during the budget
and so they've increased and so we're just reflecting that increase. And that also just
sets that these ranges may move from year to year based on CDI I don't think so.
And once again this is the same scale as between union and non union please.
If we just plug from grade one to grade five, we'll be only in comments and we'll also write to them.
Do we have similar grades like that from that year?
Oh, here we go.
The next one is article 13 again, kind of section one.
Wages, this pretty much establishes the right to have a reopen or to negotiate wages on a hearing basis.
This is something that was, in fact, previously just was an update of the calendar dates.
Article 13, Section 4b, we added a text for health dental EMP and vision insurance,
basically that in the event that the employer changes his insurance plan to the providers,
that we would notify. The super
load-to-date is not even their ability to quantify that.
Cloving allowance. This establishes the set amount for Cloving allowance.
We can play the previous contract that started at a certain point and had an annual increase of 10%.
and was not necessarily clear on whether that was 10% of the original and that phone sum went or if it went out by 10% every year,
and it had been escalating at 10% a year, so it was getting to be a sizable amount.
We negotiated a dollar a month that we thought was fair and equitable for everybody.
and then dialing out calls.
Without, uh, an increase in escalation.
Is that the same dollar amount that we think now, or higher bill?
Um, in 2013, it was $366.03.
Moving forward, it'll be $400 a year for full-time employees.
Uh, there are a few, I believe there are one, there's one employee, one part-time employee, that receives their closing loans.
And that one employee was getting $219.62 in 2013, and they'll get $225 in 2014.
Any other board member you could employ?
I'm not aware of that.
I'm basically employed.
And as you see, I've laid out what the district increased costs is over 2013.
$183.
Are any of you informed?
They are shirts that are part of the logo name, but quite honestly,
last year we gave the employees a clothing check so they could put it towards whatever,
but they required to have their work clothes on.
The purpose of the clothing allowance, and I can speak to this because I used to get
a clothing house in a previous life, but the purpose of this is to offset the cost
of the place in the court because the nature of the job spoils the rec's clothes in a different fashion and we require them to look
presented in this one.
Yes?
Yes.
How do we treat other non-union people with voting allowance?
Because I know there's other staff who wear them.
What district things?
Surround.
Basically, by a supervisor they pledge it a certain amount.
So the district does pay for it?
Yes.
Sure.
It's literally a fire that needs to wear it.
Yes.
All right.
So they're getting effectively the same deal as the other staff is getting.
It's not exactly the same monetary value.
They have to make these two shirts once or twice a year.
This is defined and the folks that are under this contract also have to have the embroidered logo.
So it is a little bit different than that dollar-for-dollar.
We're giving them the shirts, we're not saying here's 50 bucks, we're saying here's your
shirts.
Service awards.
This benefit currently was under the policy manual, the personal policy, but the union
We had a two additional levels on the current policy for service awards and where we established
an award set for people that have worked for the district for 25 to 29 years or 30 plus
years.
And as you can see, it only sits employees over the entire both union and non-union employees.
So I think again these are long-serving employees and they'll be recognized in additional $100 or
additional $200 on top of their service order.
They will have already been entitled to it in policy.
So I'm just taking that effect of $1,000 taken across the entire market strategy.
And that's if we choose to have the personnel policy reflect in mirror what we did with the using contract, which would be our recommendation.
But the $800 cost in this contract.
For the contract?
For the contract.
In the $1,000.
Oh, $1,000.
Oh, or $1,000.
It's $1,000 in total, I think.
Yeah. So that was. So it's 800 or if we if we put that for the non-employees, 200, 200, 200.
So the total was a thousand. Yes. It's 802. And that is something that is several times.
And I believe these amounts have been in here have not been touched for years.
Number
eight, recognition. Three payroll and finance positions were removed from the bargaining groups, so reflective bargaining groups now would be lost.
What's the reaction that we had that day? It was actually a request that came from individual employees.
Oh, request from individual employees, as opposed to the union.
I'll take that as an answer.
In that regard, I have a question.
Is the D-SERF still pending?
And if so, are they signatory too?
Or is that all history now?
I'm not aware of that.
From our perspective, we believe it's history.
because the employees were notified of their rights and we posted it so all employees knew their rights.
They had the right to re-file a petition if they still chose.
They haven't done that and they only are permitted to do that when they are not under contract.
So as soon as this contract goes into effect, they will not be permitted to do so under the Labor Relations Board
until the expiration or at least until a close window to the expiration of the next contract.
But they had plenty of time. It's been posted for a very long period of time.
And we're at the point where we, you know, have been bargaining good faith
and we're writing it forward and once the contract is executed,
no one will have to reduce it.
Hopefully, if they have heard any problems, what's the line?
The contract becomes executed when the employee is ratified.
The employee is ratified.
Only if also the board includes.
Yeah, the board includes.
So we've got a couple of, well the board rule may or may not have it tonight, right?
And then after that, the union goes to the employees, the employees have a vote.
All the employees that are in the union today?
It's a vote.
Every employee who was currently in the union is a vote.
But to go back to the question, there has not been any activity that we know of.
Nothing has been brought to our attention as far as agency recognition.
I think what's common is asking, that's what I need to do is interpret for you, right?
Is what happens to those three potential voters?
They are currently members of the union.
So they are invited, of course, but they are members.
They go to the gratification bill, right?
And they cast their vote.
And then if the vote, if the vote goes forward to grasp by this contract,
then they will be removed from the labor union,
and they will no longer be represented by the collective party in the real.
But hypothetically, if before they ratified this agreement, one of those three employees
were to file for any certification, it might change the dynamic of what we're doing here.
Or it may go through, it may not.
The timing of it is very unlikely.
There's 20 now, it's 9 now, and actually those three jobs, only two are in combat, so I'm going to take it.
We're just still significant.
So right now it's going to go out of 27.
So it's at like many users?
No.
It's very unusual. I don't want to go into too much of it, but it's very unusual that this happens, okay?
In my experience.
Especially unusual that the labor union would recommend it.
Yes, but there's a strategy for that. They have their own strategy.
To the three who are withdrawing from payroll, finance, and medical positions, you represent everybody in that kind of position?
We, what's reflected in the tentative agreement is that all the jobs in the county finance payroll would be removed.
And therefore, yes, all incumbents will be removed.
All employees, I'm not answering your question.
Some work type jobs.
Yes, they would be removed. There's only two incumbents today.
There could be a possible three. All of you.
So it's a type of job that's leaving.
The Union wants them out.
The Union has made this recommendation as far as I can tell.
Correct. They came to us with the recommendation.
We're doing a community dance right now.
Well,
from what I understand, for whatever reason, very unusually, the Union has decided
that this certification of employee is no longer to be covered by their Union.
That's correct. That's what they came to us with.
And the reason we believe it's so unusual is not just because we've never seen it before.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I've heard that the mediator I've never heard of that before.
It's unusual for the mediator to say the same. It's very unusual for the union to make a recommendation of such.
They typically do not want to get rid of union members. They want to attract more.
Except one is the one to vote to be certified.
So removing that classification of a party wouldn't avail them anything, because they
still could be present for...
Once this is ratified, it wouldn't...
This is a positive thing for the industry.
I agree.
You're the one that wanted to open the business.
I'm glad this is being talked about.
This is the first time we've talked about a de-certification in the public.
Publicly yours.
All right.
So moving on.
Yeah, right.
Verifiable grievance.
This requires that all grievances be filed in a verifiable manner.
Such that if the grievance is presented to the Park District,
It needs to be either emailed, sent by certified mail, accepted, and signed off on, timestamped,
something of that nature, so that the unit could just simply stay fully dropped into the mail.
They're time sensitive.
Under the contract, they have to file a reading just in seven days, so they are time sensitive.
Got it.
They have to agree that they've got something, that they say, or they've sent something.
Both parties have to be that.
Number 10, grievances on performance evaluations.
This establishes that the overall performance evaluation scores can only be grieved if the scores below expectations or unsatisfactory.
We currently have a five tier system, three being satisfactory.
So if an employee is viewed as unsatisfactory, they can grieve.
But the grievance proceeding is only taken through step three, which gets them to the executive director.
at that point is resolved with whatever final decision the executive director gives.
As if their dean is unsatisfied, I'm sorry, below expectations.
If they are unsatisfactory, which is a much lower gradation and overall grade,
they can go through all the way through arbitration in the gradings process.
However, the arbitrary and only rule is to be arbitrary and capricious,
which is a standard which Chris Jolly suggested would be very important to have here.
And in fact, my understanding is we're generally never going to be an issue for us,
because certainly if an employee was seeing an evaluation at that level,
a manager should be doing that job and have documentation that would lead them to those qualifications.
So what
would it be for, Terry?
I'm sorry.
Previously, there was an language in two separate sections that were conflicting.
And one of them said that it could be green and the other said that it could not.
Any type of performance evaluation on phrase evaluations?
Correct.
The practice had been that there could not be grievances filed on evaluations.
That was the practice that was being followed.
that was in a side letter, that was expiring of this contract, and the union did not wish to extend that letter to its kind of a middle ground, this is kind of a middle ground.
And it's one, by the way, that Diana and I spoke to were really comfortable with.
Since the collective bargaining agreement was signed previously, have you had grievances over performance reviews?
No, we have not because the union had accepted the practice that was not agreeable.
And was that from day one that they accepted that framework?
You know, I can always speak, since my experience, this has come up.
There was one time that it came up when employee wanted to agree or couldn't.
It came quite honestly, the one time as I recall that the employee wanted to agree,
They actually had a score of satisfactory anyway.
So even under this, they would not have been able to.
There has been one or two occasions where employees have gotten an unsatisfactory score.
I'm sorry, they had a low expectation score.
But what it was never brought to my attention that they would have agreed otherwise.
And I don't know if that was merely because they couldn't or not.
But it's only been once or twice since then.
Come on, I think it's also...
I think it's important to note that what they were asking for is that each individual rating could be created.
Right, so this is a middle round. They wanted all, it used to be nothing that was somewhere in the middle.
This is really more than a middle round. The favor of the district.
Because it happens so rarely that somebody ends up in one of those lines.
Well, it still protects the employees from capricious behavior.
Absolutely.
Yes, yes, yes.
You mean to get hired and move to see moving management and move to some college?
Yeah, right.
It's just enough so that it will keep management on us
without burdening management with 9-11.
Yeah, and they can prove it.
You know, so it's fine.
Right.
It would sort of require anyway,
because it's good management.
Exactly.
We would never allow an employee to be rated unsatisfactory
without some backup, you know, to protect the district
and protecting employees so we would get along with it.
put in writing and agreed to do what we would do that way.
11 is the contract duration.
And this agreement is set to expire on December 15, 2016.
It
will be effected from January 1 of 2014
through December 15, 2016.
Let me just ask a threshold question about all this.
So these 23 things, because I see
There's a list of 12 through 23 after this.
These are all of the changes to the existing collective bargaining agreement.
Anything that's not listed in these 23 sections is remaining the same.
Exactly. We're getting it to a little content, right?
It wasn't there. Right.
I mean, house keep appearance wise.
So the reason I'm asking that question is there's one person here tonight who wasn't here the last time.
No, you two people weren't here the last time who didn't vote on the full collective bargaining agreement.
And we don't have that before us tonight. We have a document, a memorandum of understanding that talks about the changes, which is fine.
And I saw, I voted on it five years ago, and Mary, you did too, and Richard, you did as well. But Joan and I would not.
It sounds like, how did that work out? Was it an audience?
No, actually, we didn't go on it.
All you were just saying was that it was an outside time.
Yeah, I don't even think we did go on it, I recall.
Because it was, to say the complete, that point should have done it.
So, my only point is simply that we don't have that document before us,
and we would effectively, whatever we're going to, if we're going to vote tonight,
or ratified to whatever we're going to do, we're not just ratifying the changes, we're
ratifying the entire agreements, which we don't have before us right now. And if some commissioners
want the opportunity to look at that whole thing,
it's not here.
We have the whole contract for you, but we gave you the changes.
I'm not saying that was bad, I'm just saying.
No, I don't care. I don't care for you, the existing contract was all the red line.
And there's no way everybody could read it tonight at a board meeting.
I just want to lay that out for everybody.
I'm comfortable, but some people here may not be comfortable,
and Commissioner O'Brien still looks aren't here.
Management, from our perspective, it's a great contract.
From what we can. It's a great contract.
And I respect your right and need to reach a whole contract
and want to see the whole thing in red line,
and that'd be absolutely best what you want.
We will give it to you without, you know, I'll put it together for you Monday, Tuesday.
It just went through like a process, but you need what you need, and I would be glad to do that.
But it is, it's a, the cost to the district from what it was is 1,700 dollars.
So, I mean, I have never seen that before.
You know, the mayor increases salaries, of course, and the biggest expense that the district
you've already moved out, you know, back in the budget set
session for next year.
Those are the big downloads.
Those were already verbal pools.
So that's where your big money is.
That's our main pool.
But the rest of the terms of this, it's fabulous.
There's no health care increase.
No health insurance increases.
We'll see you there.
The,
Terry, we've said repeatedly throughout the course
when we've been a commissioner that in practice,
as the contract that we had in place before in reality operate
with union employees and
non-union employees in pretty much a similar manner, and I mean they have some, there's
some moves to jump in for the union employees, but in terms of the general cost, it's about
the same.
And these changes would add $1,700, some of which go to non-union employees, right?
But that said, some of those things,
you know, the one about the service awards that would
apply to any non-union employees down the road, so you could see a shift at some point
that was more in favor of non-union.
Depending on what you said, what is that?
We have any idea how much in dues our employees pay to the SCIU on annual basis?
I have those figures, but not with me. They're significant, but I don't have them with me. I'm sorry.
I
guess it's more than $700?
$40 a month for a full-time person in the union.
It's less than that in the party, but we're there mostly at full-time.
So it's $40 a month that the employees are paying per month.
Regardless of whether or not there...
Some employees can choose not to be in the union,
but under the rules they have to pay their fair share,
so they still pay the same amount.
So to answer your question, it's $40 a month for a person.
Well, there's no motion on the table right now.
That's right. There is not a table motion to go to closed session and strap yourself in, but I'd like to have that.
We have an HD table that we decline to go into closed session.
Oh, that's right. We go there now. You're right. Never mind.
I move that we go into closed session.
You want to take the roll call vote without telling anybody why?
Okay.
Roll call vote.
It's called translucency.
Mr. Bryan, thank you.
Yeah, yes.
What did that mean?
Yes.
Mr. Biagi?
Yes.
Mr. Bryan?
Yeah, why not?
Mr. Bryan?
Mr. Phillips?
Yes.
No, you don't get about that.
Sorry.
Thank you very much.