Last month the Administration wrapped up the project that's been their main focus since they got here in 2014 of obtaining CALEA accreditation. There was an earlier post back in July where we went over the high cost of getting accredited and how it's generally useless to the employees and the people of the Town so we wont rehash that here.
What I'd like to discuss is now that we have the accreditation, what's it going to cost us year to year to maintain it, and how it's disrupting the core Police functions of the Department. The finances of the Department aren't really the business of the Union, we don't have any say in what they spend money on. However when we have important training being cut and denied to our members, and our SWAT team struggling to obtain basic equipment they need to do their jobs safely because the Administration claims it doesn't have the funding, it becomes our business.
Shortly after this Administration took Office in 2014 they created a full time position for an Officer to work on Accreditation. Now that we've completed it that Officer has not been pulled from that assignment and continues to work on... I don't know what, while collecting a base salary of $74,209 plus benefits. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that we currently have a staffing shortage Department wide. In fact when I asked why we haven't made any more Detectives off our current active list I was told it was because the Chief was concerned about Patrol staffing and didn't want to promote anyone unnecessarily because then they would become ineligible to work Patrol. So they've effectively sacrificed an investigative position that does actual Police work directly benefiting the citizens in order to maintain an accreditation position that no longer serves any real purpose. This seems counterintuitive considering the stated mission of CALEA is to provide Chiefs with "a blueprint that promotes the efficient use of resources and improves service delivery." Doesn't this seem like the push for CALEA has in fact made us use resources less efficiently and been detrimental to our delivery of core Police services?
Furthermore, a part time consultant was also hired to assist with Accreditation at a rate of $31,861 a year. This consultant also still works here despite the job he was brought in to consult on being completed. I did consulting work myself prior to becoming an Officer, and at every job I had as soon as the work I was hired to do was done, I was let go and moved on to the next one. So why is this guy being kept on staff, is he now a permanent employee? What's he doing now?
After the Accreditation was completed, our Department sent a delegation consisting of seven people to the CALEA Conference in Kentucky for a week. That included the entire command staff and the Mayor. That's flights, hotel rooms, and probably rental cars for seven people coming out of our budget that's apparently so strapped we cant afford basic equipment needed to do our jobs. And why was a part time employee taken on a field trip to Kentucky while our Officers are regularly being denied off site training classes they actually need to do their jobs supposedly due to funding shortages? Seems like the Chief has his priorities backwards.
So where could this money be better spent rather than on Accreditation? Let's dive into some of the ongoing issues the supposed lack of funding has created. First off look at our firearms unit. We're down to training once a year with our duty weapons, and when we do get to shoot we're limited in how much we can actually shoot due to a lack of ammunition because we cant afford it. We don't use our firearms frequently, but when we do, proficiency is critical to ensure the safety of our Officers and those we serve. Any firearms expert will tell you shooting is skill that is heavily reliant on repetition and muscle memory, once a year just isn't enough to build that up.
We also have non lethal beanbag shotguns sitting in our armory that our Firearms Unit has been trying to get out to Officers on the road for over a year. But the Admin refuses to authorize the training for these tools so we have another non lethal option available on hot calls. I can only assume this refusal is cost related because there doesn't seem to be any other logical explanation. Holding up the rollout of these shotguns could have the effect of forcing us to use lethal force when we maybe wouldn't have to if there was another option available.
Additionally we've heard from several members of the SWAT team that all of their ballistic vests and helmets are well past their expiration dates and Deputy Chief Hawkins has refused to authorize the purchase of replacement equipment. Yes this equipment is expensive, but once purchased it's good for ten years. Some of our SWAT Officers are wearing hand me down uniforms that are several sizes too big for them, and some of them weren't given any uniform at all and are instead forced to wear their US military issued uniforms or personally owned clothes to calls. How are we so broke that we cant even afford to buy a couple pairs of pants and shirts, but Accreditation has a blank check book?
You may also remember a while back when our 30+ year old SWAT armored vehicle caught on fire while driving on Route 2 and was totaled. That vehicle was never replaced, instead our SWAT team rides around in what is basically a moving van with no armor plating whatsoever. We had an opportunity to obtain a free used armored car from Brinks, all we had to do was go to a conference near Washington DC, fill out the paperwork and drive it home. Somehow DC Hawkins managed to make it all the way down there on the Town's dime, spend a few days hob knobbing at the conference, and never filled out the paperwork to get the truck, coming home empty handed. His explanation to the SWAT team was that he couldn't find the Brinks booth at the convention center. Now ignoring the fact that he simply could have asked someone for directions at any point during the several days he spent there, I've heard from others who were at that conference that the Brinks booth was literally the first thing you saw when you walked in the door. It was so prominent in fact that several people mistook it for the general information booth. I don't know if this is incompetence or intentional, but either way it's foolish to waste an opportunity to get free equipment that we desperately need.
Interestingly enough, when the CALEA on site evaluators came to EHPD to do their inspection, that very day a brand new armored SWAT vehicle appeared in our parking lot for them to inspect. However as soon as they left, the brand new SWAT truck disappeared, never to be seen again. I hear it was on loan from another Department. Does the Administration think our SWAT team is a joke? Do they have no respect or concern for the safety of any of the Officers who train hard to be on it? I cant think of any explanation other than complete incompetence for their actions here. We have highly skilled Officers who've quit the team because it's been so neglected over the years. This leaves both our Officers on street, and the citizens of the Town in a more dangerous position.
Our fleet is in shambles, training is at bare minimum levels, our guns don't shoot straight, and we don't have enough computers for a whole squad to use at the same time, and God forbid you need a pen or a notepad, they wont buy us those anymore either! We don't even allow employees below the rank of Sergeant have access to color printers because the toner is too expensive. And sadly that's just the tip of the dysfunction iceberg.
We all understand this isn't Glastonbury, money isn't falling off trees in East Hartford. But how can you impose such strict austerity upon your employees while spending lavishly on your pet projects right under our noses and expect us to see it as anything other than disrespectful?
Accreditation has been the greatest fraud perpetrated on this Department and this Town in my tenure here. Chief Sansom told the Journal Inquirer "Achieving Accreditation helps safeguard the integrity of this Department and ensures consistent delivery of high quality public safety services. It's a mark of excellence." In our experience as line Officers it's done just the opposite while burdening us with unnecessary policies and requirements that do nothing to better our performance. We implore Chief Sansom, do the right thing, invest in your Department and your employees before you burn this organization down to a smoking heap. But hey, I guess it'll at least be an Accredited smoking heap, right?
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
HR Director Santiago Malave Out? UPDATED
One of our members noticed today that the job of Human Resources Director had been posted a week ago on the Town's website, you can find the posting at this link. Though we haven't seen any confirmation, we can only assume this means current HR Director Santiago Malave, who's at the center of the current Sergeant test scandal, and previously the Fire Department promotional exam scandal, is on his way out.
The timing of his departure is intriguing since we're less than a week a way from a hearing in Superior Court where we will argue for the forced release of the evaluator notes and score sheets from the Sergeant's exam that he's been fighting tooth and nail to keep hidden. Of course he could be leaving for any number of reasons, perhaps he's jumping ship before the documents come out and reveal something he or his subordinates did, or the Mayor could be forcing him out, or maybe he just found a better job elsewhere that'll pay him more than the $105,622 salary East Hartford gives him.
Either way Mr. Malave's potential departure is a great thing for our Union and every other Town Union. Aside from his botching of multiple promotional exams, he has acted as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Chief's decisions during the grievance process where he's supposed to be a neutral arbiter. During my involvement with the Union since 2014 Mr. Malave has never once sided with our Union in any of his Step 2 grievance decisions, instead agreeing with the Chief every time. We've appealed almost all of his rulings to the Labor Board which has overturned Malave's decisions one hundred percent of the time. That's right, every single decision he's ruled on that we've appealed has been overturned. This includes one ruling where he told me to my face after the hearing that he agreed with the Union's position, but then issued his ruling in favor of the Town because I assume he was afraid to go against the Chief of Police.
Mr. Malave's refusal to grant a fair and impartial hearing has wasted hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars of both taxpayer and Union funds by forcing us to take grievances before the Labor Board that could have easily been resolved at the HR level had he done his job properly. We can only hope that whoever replaces him will do the job correctly and give the Unions a fair hearing when we go before him or her so we're not constantly running over to Wethersfield. It would be a huge plus if they know how to run a promotional exam without getting dragged to Court too.
UPDATE: We're hearing Malave is out mid-January before the decision from Superior Court should come down. The line we're hearing from the Admin/Town Hall is that this departure has been planned for at least a year. Of course this makes no sense at all, if you know a critical Department head is on his way out for a year, why would you wait until one month before his departure to post for his job? Don't you think they'd want ample time for qualified candidates to apply, and be interviewed and vetted before the spot goes vacant rather than doing it at the last minute? File that one under "not buying it."
The timing of his departure is intriguing since we're less than a week a way from a hearing in Superior Court where we will argue for the forced release of the evaluator notes and score sheets from the Sergeant's exam that he's been fighting tooth and nail to keep hidden. Of course he could be leaving for any number of reasons, perhaps he's jumping ship before the documents come out and reveal something he or his subordinates did, or the Mayor could be forcing him out, or maybe he just found a better job elsewhere that'll pay him more than the $105,622 salary East Hartford gives him.
Either way Mr. Malave's potential departure is a great thing for our Union and every other Town Union. Aside from his botching of multiple promotional exams, he has acted as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Chief's decisions during the grievance process where he's supposed to be a neutral arbiter. During my involvement with the Union since 2014 Mr. Malave has never once sided with our Union in any of his Step 2 grievance decisions, instead agreeing with the Chief every time. We've appealed almost all of his rulings to the Labor Board which has overturned Malave's decisions one hundred percent of the time. That's right, every single decision he's ruled on that we've appealed has been overturned. This includes one ruling where he told me to my face after the hearing that he agreed with the Union's position, but then issued his ruling in favor of the Town because I assume he was afraid to go against the Chief of Police.
Mr. Malave's refusal to grant a fair and impartial hearing has wasted hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars of both taxpayer and Union funds by forcing us to take grievances before the Labor Board that could have easily been resolved at the HR level had he done his job properly. We can only hope that whoever replaces him will do the job correctly and give the Unions a fair hearing when we go before him or her so we're not constantly running over to Wethersfield. It would be a huge plus if they know how to run a promotional exam without getting dragged to Court too.
UPDATE: We're hearing Malave is out mid-January before the decision from Superior Court should come down. The line we're hearing from the Admin/Town Hall is that this departure has been planned for at least a year. Of course this makes no sense at all, if you know a critical Department head is on his way out for a year, why would you wait until one month before his departure to post for his job? Don't you think they'd want ample time for qualified candidates to apply, and be interviewed and vetted before the spot goes vacant rather than doing it at the last minute? File that one under "not buying it."
Friday, December 6, 2019
December Meeting
Our December Meeting will be on Thursday the 19th at 1630 at the usual place. We're doing it a bit earlier in the month due to the holidays. I don't think we'll have much new business on the agenda so if you have something you'd like to bring up during Open Floor this would be a good meeting to do that.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
The Dumpster Fire Formerly Known as Internal Affairs
We've done a lot of writing on this blog about the mess the Sergeant's test has become, but unfortunately that's not the only mess EHPD has to offer these days. One of the complaints we hear most these days is about the conduct of Internal Affairs. I know for people outside the Department you're probably thinking it's typical for Cops to complain about IA, after all they're the ones who investigate us for alleged wrongdoing. But that's not what's got our members upset, instead it's about what IA isn't doing. Unfortunately over the last few years under our current Administration, our IA Division has been used to protect certain individuals by burying investigations, or just not doing them at all.
We've seen, and continue to see internal complaints against certain employees for various policy violations not being investigated fully, witnesses not being interviewed, and eventually completely tossed off to the side as "unfounded." Now this isn't because the guys in IA are incompetent or don't know how to investigate, because they do. In fact they demonstrate that when they get a complaint against an employee who isn't one of the "chosen ones" who merits special treatment. In those cases the investigation gets done and if it finds something, discipline gets handed out, just like the system is supposed to work. And if they really don't like the guy, they'll even go do things like pull security camera footage and dispatch recordings, interview witness after witness, pull phone and fax records, omit exculpatory evidence, and anything else they can think of to build a case even if it just results in a written reprimand.
That's the issue, it's not the punishment being handed out, but the extreme and obvious disparity in how investigations are handled for certain individuals compared to the rest of us. Perhaps it's who you know, where you came from, who you go to "Thirsty Thursday" with, or play basketball with on the weekends that decides whether you'll get a free pass or the full monte. Whatever the reason is, I think we can all agree it's wrong, and it needs to stop.
I'm not putting the blame on the Sergeant and Lieutenant assigned to IA, I think they're both respectable guys who want to do their jobs the right way. But they don't get to call the shots, they don't get to decide who gets investigated and who doesn't, and they don't get to decide the discipline handed out. Those decisions get made by the Chief and his Deputies, so they're responsible for the current state of IA. This isn't just "taking care of the good ol' boys," we're getting to the point where it's looking like flat out corruption, and it's not something anyone wearing a badge should stand for.
Our Union can't force the Administration to conduct their IA's properly, that's their responsibility. However the one thing we can do is make sure that everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of who they know upstairs. So every time IA has made an investigation disappear or whitewashed it for one of their chosen ones, we've been quietly making note of it. And now those cases have become the new standard. However they were handled for their buddies, that's how they're going to have to be handled for everyone else. And we'll take those cases to the Labor Board and let the Chief explain to them why two people are being treated differently.
We don't want excessive discipline, and we don't want micromanagement, but we do need to have some basic standards for conduct. That million dollar Accreditation certificate is worth about as much as the used up urinal cakes in the patrol bathroom if we're going to allow allies of the Administration to flout the rules at will with no repercussions.
We've seen, and continue to see internal complaints against certain employees for various policy violations not being investigated fully, witnesses not being interviewed, and eventually completely tossed off to the side as "unfounded." Now this isn't because the guys in IA are incompetent or don't know how to investigate, because they do. In fact they demonstrate that when they get a complaint against an employee who isn't one of the "chosen ones" who merits special treatment. In those cases the investigation gets done and if it finds something, discipline gets handed out, just like the system is supposed to work. And if they really don't like the guy, they'll even go do things like pull security camera footage and dispatch recordings, interview witness after witness, pull phone and fax records, omit exculpatory evidence, and anything else they can think of to build a case even if it just results in a written reprimand.
That's the issue, it's not the punishment being handed out, but the extreme and obvious disparity in how investigations are handled for certain individuals compared to the rest of us. Perhaps it's who you know, where you came from, who you go to "Thirsty Thursday" with, or play basketball with on the weekends that decides whether you'll get a free pass or the full monte. Whatever the reason is, I think we can all agree it's wrong, and it needs to stop.
I'm not putting the blame on the Sergeant and Lieutenant assigned to IA, I think they're both respectable guys who want to do their jobs the right way. But they don't get to call the shots, they don't get to decide who gets investigated and who doesn't, and they don't get to decide the discipline handed out. Those decisions get made by the Chief and his Deputies, so they're responsible for the current state of IA. This isn't just "taking care of the good ol' boys," we're getting to the point where it's looking like flat out corruption, and it's not something anyone wearing a badge should stand for.
Our Union can't force the Administration to conduct their IA's properly, that's their responsibility. However the one thing we can do is make sure that everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of who they know upstairs. So every time IA has made an investigation disappear or whitewashed it for one of their chosen ones, we've been quietly making note of it. And now those cases have become the new standard. However they were handled for their buddies, that's how they're going to have to be handled for everyone else. And we'll take those cases to the Labor Board and let the Chief explain to them why two people are being treated differently.
We don't want excessive discipline, and we don't want micromanagement, but we do need to have some basic standards for conduct. That million dollar Accreditation certificate is worth about as much as the used up urinal cakes in the patrol bathroom if we're going to allow allies of the Administration to flout the rules at will with no repercussions.
Friday, November 29, 2019
Summary of Nov 18th Personnel Appeals Board Hearing
Thanks again to everyone who came and showed their support at the last meeting. This was a preliminary hearing where we were going to try and convince the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) to force Human Resources to release the evaluator notes and score sheets. Obviously our guys who filed appeals need these documents to help make their case for why they think the process should be done over. As you can imagine it's pretty hard to make a case for an appeal when you're not allowed to see what you're appealing, this is why they have discovery in the Court system. Unfortunately that doesn't exist in our appeals process.
Our Union attorney Steve McEleney wrote a lengthy brief for the PAB members before the hearing explaining his argument for why he believes the Board has subpoena power and can force the release of the documents. The PAB members were supposed to get these briefs a few days before the hearing so they would be prepared beforehand. However once the hearing got started we found out the Board members never received the briefs that were supposed to be sent to them by HR Director Santiago Malave, because he never forwarded them along. Shocking I know.
So as a result Attorney McEleney had to make his case from scratch at the hearing. He had several citations including the Town Charter, Town Ordnances, and State Law to support his case that the PAB does have the authority to subpoena documents from the Town. However the Town's Corporation Counsel Scott Chadwick agreed with the Town's other Attorney Meredith Diette that the Town Charter and Ordnances Attorney McEleney cited are actually illegal and advised the PAB that they don't have subpoena power. His decision is binding upon the Board.
I suppose we should'nt be too surprised that the Town's lawyer agreed with the Town's other lawyer that the Town shouldn't release documents that might get the Town sued if they uncover some sort of mal/misfeasance. But it's still pretty shocking that they went so far as to claim their own Town Charter is illegal to make their case.
What this reveals to us is that this appeals process is inherently stacked against the appellants. How can it be considered a fair process when an employee who files an appeal isn't allowed to see any documentation related to what they're appealing and has to make their argument solely from memory? Yet the Town is able to manipulate the evidence by only showing things that benefit their argument, and hiding facts that aren't in their favor? This entire process needs a complete overhaul if it's ever going to be considered fair.
Attorney McEleney called one of our members who took a different promotional exam recently to testify. Our member testified that she had doubts about the score she received on her Oral Board so she contacted Director Malave and asked to see her evaluator's notes to help make sense of her score. In that case Director Malave invited her to his office and showed her all the evaluator notes, and as a result she understood why her score was what it was and ended up not filing an appeal. That's what we've been asking for from the beginning in this case that could've avoided all this mess. So why did it suddenly become such a secret with this particular test?
Attorney Diette claimed the Town has a right to not show the test documents and in the previous case they chose to waive their right and show our member her results, but in this case they chose not to. She didn't offer any explanation as to why they changed their policy. Ms. Diette told the PAB that she plans to bring the panel members to testify and that is all the evidence that they need to see, and absent a Court order she has no intention of showing the documents to the Union or the PAB.
Attorney McEleney rebutted that while he would love to question the evaluators, he can't effectively form questions for them without seeing the documents that he's questioning them about. Therefore he requested the PAB postpone all hearings until he has an opportunity to try and force the release of the documents in Superior Court.
At that point the three members of the PAB spoke. They unanimously agreed that they want to see all of the evidence including the notes, not just the hand selected bits that HR chooses to release, and agreed to hold off on any future hearings until the Superior Court process plays out. Thankfully the PAB members seem to see through the Town's charade and understand what appears to really be going on here, an attempt to conceal something unfavorable to HR.
With that the meeting adjourned. Check our other post with the dates of the future hearings if you're interested in coming. Dates may be cancelled if the Superior Court hasn't ruled yet.
Our Union attorney Steve McEleney wrote a lengthy brief for the PAB members before the hearing explaining his argument for why he believes the Board has subpoena power and can force the release of the documents. The PAB members were supposed to get these briefs a few days before the hearing so they would be prepared beforehand. However once the hearing got started we found out the Board members never received the briefs that were supposed to be sent to them by HR Director Santiago Malave, because he never forwarded them along. Shocking I know.
So as a result Attorney McEleney had to make his case from scratch at the hearing. He had several citations including the Town Charter, Town Ordnances, and State Law to support his case that the PAB does have the authority to subpoena documents from the Town. However the Town's Corporation Counsel Scott Chadwick agreed with the Town's other Attorney Meredith Diette that the Town Charter and Ordnances Attorney McEleney cited are actually illegal and advised the PAB that they don't have subpoena power. His decision is binding upon the Board.
I suppose we should'nt be too surprised that the Town's lawyer agreed with the Town's other lawyer that the Town shouldn't release documents that might get the Town sued if they uncover some sort of mal/misfeasance. But it's still pretty shocking that they went so far as to claim their own Town Charter is illegal to make their case.
What this reveals to us is that this appeals process is inherently stacked against the appellants. How can it be considered a fair process when an employee who files an appeal isn't allowed to see any documentation related to what they're appealing and has to make their argument solely from memory? Yet the Town is able to manipulate the evidence by only showing things that benefit their argument, and hiding facts that aren't in their favor? This entire process needs a complete overhaul if it's ever going to be considered fair.
Attorney McEleney called one of our members who took a different promotional exam recently to testify. Our member testified that she had doubts about the score she received on her Oral Board so she contacted Director Malave and asked to see her evaluator's notes to help make sense of her score. In that case Director Malave invited her to his office and showed her all the evaluator notes, and as a result she understood why her score was what it was and ended up not filing an appeal. That's what we've been asking for from the beginning in this case that could've avoided all this mess. So why did it suddenly become such a secret with this particular test?
Attorney Diette claimed the Town has a right to not show the test documents and in the previous case they chose to waive their right and show our member her results, but in this case they chose not to. She didn't offer any explanation as to why they changed their policy. Ms. Diette told the PAB that she plans to bring the panel members to testify and that is all the evidence that they need to see, and absent a Court order she has no intention of showing the documents to the Union or the PAB.
Attorney McEleney rebutted that while he would love to question the evaluators, he can't effectively form questions for them without seeing the documents that he's questioning them about. Therefore he requested the PAB postpone all hearings until he has an opportunity to try and force the release of the documents in Superior Court.
At that point the three members of the PAB spoke. They unanimously agreed that they want to see all of the evidence including the notes, not just the hand selected bits that HR chooses to release, and agreed to hold off on any future hearings until the Superior Court process plays out. Thankfully the PAB members seem to see through the Town's charade and understand what appears to really be going on here, an attempt to conceal something unfavorable to HR.
With that the meeting adjourned. Check our other post with the dates of the future hearings if you're interested in coming. Dates may be cancelled if the Superior Court hasn't ruled yet.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Arbitrability of Promotional Test Grievance Won
We were notified yesterday of the resolution to the hearing we attended last month to address the Town's challenge of the validity of our grievance over the Sergeant's oral board exam. The panel of three arbitrators unanimously sided with the Union that the case is arbitrable and must be heard. The fact that even the Town's arbitrator sided with the Union demonstrates how ridiculous the challenge was to begin with.
This is not a decision on the merits of the case, it simply means that the case can proceed to a "step 3" hearing where a decision one way or the other will be issued. Concurrently we also have our MPP filing to try and get the associated documents working it's way through a separate process which will need to be resolved before we can have the step 3, we're still waiting for that decision to come down.
This is not a decision on the merits of the case, it simply means that the case can proceed to a "step 3" hearing where a decision one way or the other will be issued. Concurrently we also have our MPP filing to try and get the associated documents working it's way through a separate process which will need to be resolved before we can have the step 3, we're still waiting for that decision to come down.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Personnel Hearing Schedule
Thanks to everyone who showed up at the Personnel Appeals Board hearing Monday night. We'll discuss it at the meeting Tuesday and I'll try to get something posted up here about it as soon after as I can. Here is the schedule for the remainder of the hearings, all PAB hearing are open to the public and anyone can attend to witness. They will be at Town Hall in Town Council Chambers unless another venue is found.
Wednesday Jan 8th at 1700 (This date may be cancelled if a Suprior Court issue is not resolved before then.)
Wednesday Jan 22nd at 1700
Monday Jan 27th at 1700
Monday Feb 10th at 1700
Sunday, November 17, 2019
November Meeting
Our November meeting will be on Tuesday the 26th at 0830 at the usual place. Topics of discussion will consist of the latest on the Sergeant's test, CHRO, passage of the pension deal, and anything else that comes up between now and then. We will also open the floor to anyone who wants it.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
New Pension Contract for EHPOA.
We're excited to announce the new pension agreement we have come to with the Town that has been approved by Town Council and will go into effect January 1st 2020 and is valid until December 31st 2029. Shortly after the current Executive Board took office this past April the Administration approached us about two policies that they needed to enact to complete their CALEA Accreditation process. These policies constituted a significant change in working conditions are were therefore subject to collective bargaining.
We met with the Chiefs and discussed their draft policies, they were very open to the suggestions we had to modify the policies to make them work better and reduce their negative impact on our membership. In exchange for not contesting the implementation of the new policies, we asked for an extension to our pension contract which was due to expire on December 31st 2021. Chief Sansom relayed our request to then Finance Director Mike Walsh who responded that the Town did not want to extend our contract because they were looking to reduce benefits and costs in upcoming negotiations. He did however offer to enter off the record negotiations on a new contract that would offer reduced benefits for new hires while locking in benefits for current employees. We took this offer and began working out the details off the record.
These are the details of the final agreement we came to after negotiations:
All current employee's pension benefits shall remain unchanged and not be opened to renegotiation for the duration of their employment. Neither the Town nor the Union can request to re-open the terms for that group of employees.
The following changes will apply to new hires starting after Jan 1st, 2020. The annual multiplier will be reduced from the current 2.5% per year to 2.33% resulting in a 58.25% payout after 25 years as opposed to the current 62.5%. Additionally lump sum payments for comp time, and sick leave will no longer be calculated into final average salary.
Cost of living adjustment will also be reduced from 2% per year starting 4 years after retirement for current employees, to 1% per year starting 6 years after retirement. Finally, new employees will contribute 9% of their salary annually instead of the 8% current employees will continue to pay.
Other than those four changes everything else will stay the same for the new employees, the term will remain 25 years maxing out at 30 years, vesting is still at 15 years, the DROP plan remains, and overtime except PJs will still be included in final average salary.
All in all, this plan is a win for everyone involved, current employees will still be able to collect the benefits we were promised when we were hired. Our new hires will still have a great pension plan available to them that's better than what many competing Departments are currently offering. Additionally our pension plan should become more sustainable over the long term which is a huge win for all our members past, present and future, and for the Town which should experience significant savings.
We also negotiated some small changes to our time off policies that should make it easier for our employees on minimum staffing to use their time off without causing any extra overtime so there's no penalty to the Town. The MOU for that has been signed and is in effect, we'll incorporate the new language into our next labor contract.
All current employee's pension benefits shall remain unchanged and not be opened to renegotiation for the duration of their employment. Neither the Town nor the Union can request to re-open the terms for that group of employees.
The following changes will apply to new hires starting after Jan 1st, 2020. The annual multiplier will be reduced from the current 2.5% per year to 2.33% resulting in a 58.25% payout after 25 years as opposed to the current 62.5%. Additionally lump sum payments for comp time, and sick leave will no longer be calculated into final average salary.
Cost of living adjustment will also be reduced from 2% per year starting 4 years after retirement for current employees, to 1% per year starting 6 years after retirement. Finally, new employees will contribute 9% of their salary annually instead of the 8% current employees will continue to pay.
Other than those four changes everything else will stay the same for the new employees, the term will remain 25 years maxing out at 30 years, vesting is still at 15 years, the DROP plan remains, and overtime except PJs will still be included in final average salary.
All in all, this plan is a win for everyone involved, current employees will still be able to collect the benefits we were promised when we were hired. Our new hires will still have a great pension plan available to them that's better than what many competing Departments are currently offering. Additionally our pension plan should become more sustainable over the long term which is a huge win for all our members past, present and future, and for the Town which should experience significant savings.
We also negotiated some small changes to our time off policies that should make it easier for our employees on minimum staffing to use their time off without causing any extra overtime so there's no penalty to the Town. The MOU for that has been signed and is in effect, we'll incorporate the new language into our next labor contract.
Thanks to everyone who helped to make this deal a reality including Chief Sansom and his Administrative team, Mayor Leclerc, and Former Finance Director Mike Walsh. I especially want to thank all of the members of our Executive Board. This really was a team effort and the deal we have was shaped by everyone's input and I'm really proud of this board and the contract we put together. Thank you all.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
CHRO Complaint Filed Against EHPOA
As many have heard since it went public, last Friday our Union and the Town of East Hartford were served with a CHRO complaint from one of our members, Investigator Courtney Desilet claiming gender discrimination. We've passed the complaint on to our counsel so I'm not going to get into the nuance, but I will address the main basic issues that came up.
The main allegation is that the Union filed our grievance challenging the results of the Sergeant's oral board simply because the top placed candidate who received a perfect score is a female. Anyone who has read our previous posts here about that matter knows our actual reasons for filing the grievance which we've explained in great detail on this blog, and they have nothing to do with the gender of any of the candidates. She also alleges that we have asserted she engaged in misconduct. Again I would refer you to any of our previous posts, we have never accused anyone other than HR Director Malave of misconduct and/or (severe) incompetence. We have been very careful about this because we still don't know what happened, and wont know until we get the documents related to the test which we are still seeking. We would not throw accusations at our own members without solid evidence that they had done something wrong.
The complaint further alleges that the Union and Town are conspiring to deny this individual a promotion that she feels she is entitled to, because of her gender. I've personally been to every meeting between the Union and Town on this matter and I can tell you we haven't been able to agree on a single thing nevermind coming together to form a conspiracy. Also this individual hasn't been singled out to be denied a promotion. Every single candidate on the list has been denied a promotion, male and female, and they will continue to be denied promotion until the grievance and personnel appeals are completed which is how the process is supposed to play out. The last point I'd like to make on this allegation is that nobody is entitled to a promotion based solely on their test scores, the Chief still reserves the right to pass someone over on the list for promotion if he sees fit, and previous Chiefs have done just that. So there is no guarantee this individual would've been promoted had there been no grievance or personnel appeals filed anyway.
There is also a charge that the Union has refused to show the complainant documents related to our grievance, and that we've kept her in the dark on it's status. This individual has never once approached me or any other Union Officer and asked to see our files. If she had she would've been shown everything as the documents we have are all in the public record, meaning that even if we did refuse, she could have simply FOIed them from the Town. As to not keeping her informed, again I'd point to this blog where I have worked to keep everyone up to date on the latest goings on regarding that issue. Additionally we have discussed the matter multiple times at Union meetings where it was listed on the agenda beforehand, and the minutes posted on the Union bulletin board afterward. These meetings are open to all members including the complainant. I don't think there's anyone in our Department who doesn't know what's going on with this process thanks to our efforts to keep them up to date and be transparent. Therefore these claims are completely false.
Her complaint then delves into numerous alleged personal issues she has had with several members of the Department. She and her attorney somehow are trying to project liability for their alleged actions (the truth of which should also be called into question.) onto the Union as an organization simply because they are members. The Union is not responsible for the actions of each individual member as our bylaws give us no methods or authority to discipline or otherwise Police our membership's behavior. That authority rests solely with the Police Department Administration and the Union is statutorily required to provide a defense.
It should be noted that many of her accusations against members in her complaint were copy and pasted from a complaint she previously filed with Internal Affairs. As far as I know that complaint was investigated and was not sustained because it lacked credibility. Curiously she omitted the parts of her IA complaint from her CHRO where she accused other female employees of harassing her because that didn't fit the new narrative of gender discrimination.
It's my opinion that this complaint lacks any credibility or substantiated evidence of discrimination by the Union, or the Town for that matter. The complaint contains several statements that are clearly and demonstrably false and I am looking forward to having this matter adjudicated in a courtroom setting under oath where I am confident we will prevail.
The main allegation is that the Union filed our grievance challenging the results of the Sergeant's oral board simply because the top placed candidate who received a perfect score is a female. Anyone who has read our previous posts here about that matter knows our actual reasons for filing the grievance which we've explained in great detail on this blog, and they have nothing to do with the gender of any of the candidates. She also alleges that we have asserted she engaged in misconduct. Again I would refer you to any of our previous posts, we have never accused anyone other than HR Director Malave of misconduct and/or (severe) incompetence. We have been very careful about this because we still don't know what happened, and wont know until we get the documents related to the test which we are still seeking. We would not throw accusations at our own members without solid evidence that they had done something wrong.
The complaint further alleges that the Union and Town are conspiring to deny this individual a promotion that she feels she is entitled to, because of her gender. I've personally been to every meeting between the Union and Town on this matter and I can tell you we haven't been able to agree on a single thing nevermind coming together to form a conspiracy. Also this individual hasn't been singled out to be denied a promotion. Every single candidate on the list has been denied a promotion, male and female, and they will continue to be denied promotion until the grievance and personnel appeals are completed which is how the process is supposed to play out. The last point I'd like to make on this allegation is that nobody is entitled to a promotion based solely on their test scores, the Chief still reserves the right to pass someone over on the list for promotion if he sees fit, and previous Chiefs have done just that. So there is no guarantee this individual would've been promoted had there been no grievance or personnel appeals filed anyway.
There is also a charge that the Union has refused to show the complainant documents related to our grievance, and that we've kept her in the dark on it's status. This individual has never once approached me or any other Union Officer and asked to see our files. If she had she would've been shown everything as the documents we have are all in the public record, meaning that even if we did refuse, she could have simply FOIed them from the Town. As to not keeping her informed, again I'd point to this blog where I have worked to keep everyone up to date on the latest goings on regarding that issue. Additionally we have discussed the matter multiple times at Union meetings where it was listed on the agenda beforehand, and the minutes posted on the Union bulletin board afterward. These meetings are open to all members including the complainant. I don't think there's anyone in our Department who doesn't know what's going on with this process thanks to our efforts to keep them up to date and be transparent. Therefore these claims are completely false.
Her complaint then delves into numerous alleged personal issues she has had with several members of the Department. She and her attorney somehow are trying to project liability for their alleged actions (the truth of which should also be called into question.) onto the Union as an organization simply because they are members. The Union is not responsible for the actions of each individual member as our bylaws give us no methods or authority to discipline or otherwise Police our membership's behavior. That authority rests solely with the Police Department Administration and the Union is statutorily required to provide a defense.
It should be noted that many of her accusations against members in her complaint were copy and pasted from a complaint she previously filed with Internal Affairs. As far as I know that complaint was investigated and was not sustained because it lacked credibility. Curiously she omitted the parts of her IA complaint from her CHRO where she accused other female employees of harassing her because that didn't fit the new narrative of gender discrimination.
It's my opinion that this complaint lacks any credibility or substantiated evidence of discrimination by the Union, or the Town for that matter. The complaint contains several statements that are clearly and demonstrably false and I am looking forward to having this matter adjudicated in a courtroom setting under oath where I am confident we will prevail.
Pension Deal Passed
Town Council voted last night to APPROVE our new pension contract. All that's left now is to sign off on the MOU and the contract to put it into effect. I'll put up a longer post here about the details once it's all done.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Show Your Support - Personnel Hearing
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be a Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria from the Sergeant's Oral Board Exam so our members will have a fighting chance in their appeals and we can all finally learn something about what transpired with this test.
I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible and show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is that it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test that were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible and a slap in the face to the credibility or our promotional process, let's show them this affects everyone.
I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible and show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is that it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test that were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible and a slap in the face to the credibility or our promotional process, let's show them this affects everyone.
The Latest on the Sergeant's Test Grievance
Since the last update we posted here we've had a few hearings on this matter but no decisions have been handed down yet. The Town unfortunately hasn't budged on their stance which can be summed up as "we didn't do anything wrong, but we're not going to prove it to you. Please stop asking."
On September 26th we had a hearing at Town Hall regarding the Municipal Prohibited Practice (MPP) complaint we filed regarding the Town's refusal to honor our MERA request for the documents from the test that should be able to easily prove or disprove any claims of wrongdoing. Attorney McEleney presented our case to the State Mediator, I'll try to summarize as best as I can though there are a lot of complex legal issues involved that I'll admit I don't fully understand so I won't get into in great detail.
Our case centers on a provision of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) which states a Union is entitled to any documents from the municipality that it needs to file and argue a grievance. I filed a MERA request with the initial grievance asking for the scores, scoring criteria, and notes of the evaluators so that we could see the reasoning behind the scores and determine if there was in fact any foul play or tampering. Had we been given these documents and they showed the scores were legitimate, we would've been able to drop the grievance and let the promotional process proceed. In response the Town provided us with the raw numeric scores of the candidates, but refused to show us any of the criteria or notes that would explain why the scores are what they are. The purpose of our complaint is to try and force the Town to provide us with these documents so we can make our case.
The Town's counter argument revolves around a provision of the state Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which includes an exception that states test questions and other proprietary information do not have to be disclosed due to an FOI request. Our response to this point is that we're not requesting the documents under the FOI statute, we're asking for them under MERA which has no such exceptions, therefore the language of the FOI statute is irrelevant to our request. The Town seems to be trying to make the argument that an exception that exists under FOI should also apply under MERA, or trump MERA altogether, though they concede there is no prior case law to support this assertion.
Mediation on the issue was attempted and was unsuccessful so the hearing was brought to a close after both sides were done arguing our points. As of this writing we still have not received a decision or response on the outcome of this hearing.
On October 15th we had our first hearing at the Labor Board in Wethersfield. This was supposed to the beginning of the hearing for the actual grievance but the Town requested to change it to a hearing on the arbitrability of the grievance. What this means is the Town is trying to argue that the matter at hand is not subject to collective bargaining or arbitration and therefore the case should not even be heard. There was a lot of legal speak that went over my head and cases cited as to why they believe this that I won't get into because I'd probably get it wrong.
However they also made the argument that the Personnel Appeals Board was the proper avenue to take an issue with a promotional exam and not the Labor Board. I find this assertion comical for a few reasons, first and foremost is that the Town has also refused to show the individuals who filed Personnel appeals their test results, so they're being sent into these appeals with no idea of what they're appealing because the documents are all being hidden by HR Director Santiago Malave. For comparison, imagine going into a court case to fight charges against you and not being allowed discovery, so you have no idea what the evidence against you is until it's presented in the court room. This is what our Town considers a "fair process."
Secondly the Personnel Board is ultimately a part of the Town Government, does it really seem fair that your only avenue to take up an issue you have against the Town, is with the Town!? As Police Officers we constantly hear how there's a need for outside scrutiny of us because an internal investigation can't be impartial. That's the reason why when we have an Officer involved critical incident that results in a death we have to call in an outside agency to investigate it, to ensure impartiality and credibility. So why does the Town think the rest of the Town Government should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny? Now we're fortunate here in East Hartford that our Personnel Appeals Board has ruled against the Town in the past and have shown they can be impartial and I'm grateful to have them as an option, but I don't think it should be your only option.
Attorney McEleney put on a great case on our behalf and was able to show that our labor contract does include provisions that govern how promotional tests will be handled so the issue is clearly arbitrable. He was also able to argue that while the Personnel Board is another venue to deal this matter, it's not the only one. Briefs on this matter were submitted last week and now we wait for a decision, if the case is determined not arbitrable then the grievance will be dismissed, otherwise we'll schedule a new hearing date to begin presenting the actual case before the Board. Though we may have to wait until the MPP matter is settled first as we'd like to have the documents we requested to help us make our case.
On September 24th the members who filed Personnel Board appeals had their first appearance, though it was more of a formality for the Board to officially accept their appeals and set hearing dates. Attorney McEleney is representing the members in their appeals.
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be another Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria so our members will at least have a fighting chance in their appeals. I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible to show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is because it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test who were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible, let's show them this issue affects everyone.
Once we have some more hearings or get any decisions I'll update here again.
On September 26th we had a hearing at Town Hall regarding the Municipal Prohibited Practice (MPP) complaint we filed regarding the Town's refusal to honor our MERA request for the documents from the test that should be able to easily prove or disprove any claims of wrongdoing. Attorney McEleney presented our case to the State Mediator, I'll try to summarize as best as I can though there are a lot of complex legal issues involved that I'll admit I don't fully understand so I won't get into in great detail.
Our case centers on a provision of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) which states a Union is entitled to any documents from the municipality that it needs to file and argue a grievance. I filed a MERA request with the initial grievance asking for the scores, scoring criteria, and notes of the evaluators so that we could see the reasoning behind the scores and determine if there was in fact any foul play or tampering. Had we been given these documents and they showed the scores were legitimate, we would've been able to drop the grievance and let the promotional process proceed. In response the Town provided us with the raw numeric scores of the candidates, but refused to show us any of the criteria or notes that would explain why the scores are what they are. The purpose of our complaint is to try and force the Town to provide us with these documents so we can make our case.
The Town's counter argument revolves around a provision of the state Freedom of Information Act (FOI) which includes an exception that states test questions and other proprietary information do not have to be disclosed due to an FOI request. Our response to this point is that we're not requesting the documents under the FOI statute, we're asking for them under MERA which has no such exceptions, therefore the language of the FOI statute is irrelevant to our request. The Town seems to be trying to make the argument that an exception that exists under FOI should also apply under MERA, or trump MERA altogether, though they concede there is no prior case law to support this assertion.
Mediation on the issue was attempted and was unsuccessful so the hearing was brought to a close after both sides were done arguing our points. As of this writing we still have not received a decision or response on the outcome of this hearing.
On October 15th we had our first hearing at the Labor Board in Wethersfield. This was supposed to the beginning of the hearing for the actual grievance but the Town requested to change it to a hearing on the arbitrability of the grievance. What this means is the Town is trying to argue that the matter at hand is not subject to collective bargaining or arbitration and therefore the case should not even be heard. There was a lot of legal speak that went over my head and cases cited as to why they believe this that I won't get into because I'd probably get it wrong.
However they also made the argument that the Personnel Appeals Board was the proper avenue to take an issue with a promotional exam and not the Labor Board. I find this assertion comical for a few reasons, first and foremost is that the Town has also refused to show the individuals who filed Personnel appeals their test results, so they're being sent into these appeals with no idea of what they're appealing because the documents are all being hidden by HR Director Santiago Malave. For comparison, imagine going into a court case to fight charges against you and not being allowed discovery, so you have no idea what the evidence against you is until it's presented in the court room. This is what our Town considers a "fair process."
Secondly the Personnel Board is ultimately a part of the Town Government, does it really seem fair that your only avenue to take up an issue you have against the Town, is with the Town!? As Police Officers we constantly hear how there's a need for outside scrutiny of us because an internal investigation can't be impartial. That's the reason why when we have an Officer involved critical incident that results in a death we have to call in an outside agency to investigate it, to ensure impartiality and credibility. So why does the Town think the rest of the Town Government should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny? Now we're fortunate here in East Hartford that our Personnel Appeals Board has ruled against the Town in the past and have shown they can be impartial and I'm grateful to have them as an option, but I don't think it should be your only option.
Attorney McEleney put on a great case on our behalf and was able to show that our labor contract does include provisions that govern how promotional tests will be handled so the issue is clearly arbitrable. He was also able to argue that while the Personnel Board is another venue to deal this matter, it's not the only one. Briefs on this matter were submitted last week and now we wait for a decision, if the case is determined not arbitrable then the grievance will be dismissed, otherwise we'll schedule a new hearing date to begin presenting the actual case before the Board. Though we may have to wait until the MPP matter is settled first as we'd like to have the documents we requested to help us make our case.
On September 24th the members who filed Personnel Board appeals had their first appearance, though it was more of a formality for the Board to officially accept their appeals and set hearing dates. Attorney McEleney is representing the members in their appeals.
On November 18th at 1700 hours at Town Hall there will be another Personnel Board hearing where Attorney McEleney will argue for the Board to authorize the release of the evaluator's notes and scoring criteria so our members will at least have a fighting chance in their appeals. I know everyone has busy schedules, but if you can make some time in yours it would be great to have as many members come down to the hearing as possible to show your support. I get asked about this issue daily by members who are outraged over what's been going on, if you're pissed off, please come on down and show it. One of the reasons the Union got involved in this matter is because it wasn't just the handful of people who took the test who were upset about what happened, but because the entire Department found it reprehensible, let's show them this issue affects everyone.
Once we have some more hearings or get any decisions I'll update here again.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
October Meeting
Our October Meeting will be held on Monday October 28th at 0830 in the usual spot. I know the time isn't the most convenient as we normally try to schedule it around common days but due to all the training going on this month nobody really has a normal common day so we're working around it. Unfortunately the Town Council vote on our Pension deal has been postponed to the 10-29 meeting (due to other unrelated matters that came up they needed to deal with first.) so we won't be able to cover that issue, the only new business we'll have is info on the latest meeting we had regarding the Sergeant's exam.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Vote Results
Both measures passed overwhelmingly. Thanks to everyone who participated. We're in the process of getting the implementation done and will post more details once that is complete within the next few weeks.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Upcoming Informational Meeting and Vote
This Friday September 20th at 1800 we'll be hosting an Informational Meeting in the 2nd floor PD training room to discuss the upcoming vote on two proposals the Executive Board has been working on with the Administration for the last few months. All members are encouraged to attend. I will be emailing out a copy of the presentation to everyone after the meeting so anyone unable to attend will have the information.
The vote will be held next Thursday September 26th from 0700 to 1630 in the Patrol break room. Contact Secretary Dan Caruso if you are unable to make it and need an absentee ballot.
The vote will be held next Thursday September 26th from 0700 to 1630 in the Patrol break room. Contact Secretary Dan Caruso if you are unable to make it and need an absentee ballot.
Monday, September 9, 2019
September Meeting
We're back from the summer break, our next regular membership meeting will be Friday the 27th at 0830 in the usual spot.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Brief Statement on the Events on Skyline Drive
In response to multiple media requests, EHPOA has released the following statement on the events that transpired on Skyline Drive last night:
Thanks to the heroic actions of our Officers, at least one and possibly more lives were saved last night. It's a horrible situation for all involved.
Every one of our members involved did a phenomenal job, from the folks on scene to the ones who stepped up and came in to help cover the calls on the street.
-Francesco Iacono, Union President
Thanks to the heroic actions of our Officers, at least one and possibly more lives were saved last night. It's a horrible situation for all involved.
Every one of our members involved did a phenomenal job, from the folks on scene to the ones who stepped up and came in to help cover the calls on the street.
-Francesco Iacono, Union President
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Update on the Sergeant's Exam Scandal
Since our last posting on this issue there has been a lot of back and forth between the Union and the Town, unfortunately with little actual progress. You may have seen the story in the Hartford Courant recently about what's been going on, we'll go into a little more detail here. Human Resources Director Santiago Malave has continued to refuse to release the score sheets and evaluator notes from the oral board interviews, which would answer all the questions anyone has about the process. He won't show them to the Union Officers, or to the individual employees who partook in the interviews, using excuses ranging from secret proprietary information, to protecting employees privacy (Even from themselves apparently.).
The Town made an offer shortly after we filed the grievance to re-do the oral boards on the condition that all 10 candidates consent to the do-over and sign waivers agreeing not to sue. This offer was rejected by several of the candidates for various reasons including a desire to find out what really happened.
On July 23rd we attended the step 2 hearing for our grievance with Director Malave, and on July 31st we received his decision which (shockingly) states he didn't violate the contract or personnel rules. Obviously we expected this outcome going into a hearing where the Director would be ruling on the propriety of his own actions, as nonsensical as that may be. During our hearing we made a proposal asking Malave to agree to withhold from certifying the eligibility list and making promotions until the grievance process concluded without the Union having to file an injunction. In exchange we would agree to go to expedited arbitration instead of utilizing the regular, lengthy process.
During expedited arbitration we would only use one arbitrator and receive a ruling from the bench on the same day, which would drastically cut down on the time it would take to resolve the issue one way or the other. We proposed this as a benefit to the Town since it's in their interest to get this dispute over with so they can get the promotions made and fill their vacancies, potentially saving them tens of thousands of dollars in overtime costs. For our part the Union also has no interest in holding things up any longer than necessary and we'd love to see our members get promoted as soon as possible through a fair and impartial process.
Several days later we received Director Malave's response to our proposal, he agreed to hold up the personnel appeals until after the grievance concluded, which would effectively stay the promotions as we requested. However, he surprised us by declining to utilize the expedited arbitration process in favor of the regular one which could take this from being resolved in a matter of a few months and drag it out for potentially up to nearly two years.
In the time it'll take to resolve this matter, several more Sergeant vacancies will open, resulting in squads and units going without regular full time first line supervisors which could be highly disruptive to their work. Additionally any vacancies created in minimum staffing Patrol positions will have to be filled with supervisors on overtime. While this is great for our members getting an opportunity to make some extra money, it could lead to people being ordered in on their days off and holidays, and stretch our overtime budget that the Administration claims is already maxed out, past it's limits becoming very costly to the Town.
This doesn't make any sense on the Town's part, we have made every effort to help expedite this process and get the problem resolved one way or the other for the good of the Town, the Agency, and the Union, and yet Director Malave keeps seemingly throwing roadblock after roadblock in the way of getting it done. When you look at this unexplainable behavior combined with the hiding of documents and the inconsistent scoring, it all seems to indicate that this promotional process was tampered with, and Director Malave either being involved with the tampering, or trying to cover it up after the fact.
While our Police Department has never experienced controversy like this around a promotional exam, it's not the first time for East Hartford or Director Malave. As you can see here and here our Fire Department recently spent nearly four years fighting a similar battle of a botched oral board exam that resulted in several appeals and retests. The common thread here is Director Malave and his Human Resources Department. How is it possible that one HR Department can mishandle two promotional oral board panels in such a short time? Administering these exams is a basic function of their Department, they should have laid out, consistent, and impartial protocols to carry them out seamlessly. At the very least they should've learned from the Fire Department debacle and done something to ensure it didn't happen again. If this simple job is so hard for them to complete properly and without controversy, then what else is being mishandled by HR that we don't know about? As a result, I have no faith in Director Malave's ability to properly carry out the basic functions of his job and lead his Department, and I feel it is long past time for Mayor Leclerc to replace him with someone more competent and capable of doing this important job.
For the Union's part, we have filed our grievance to step 3 at the Labor Board along with a motion to obtain the scoring documents we requested. For now we have to sit and wait for this process to play out.
The Town made an offer shortly after we filed the grievance to re-do the oral boards on the condition that all 10 candidates consent to the do-over and sign waivers agreeing not to sue. This offer was rejected by several of the candidates for various reasons including a desire to find out what really happened.
On July 23rd we attended the step 2 hearing for our grievance with Director Malave, and on July 31st we received his decision which (shockingly) states he didn't violate the contract or personnel rules. Obviously we expected this outcome going into a hearing where the Director would be ruling on the propriety of his own actions, as nonsensical as that may be. During our hearing we made a proposal asking Malave to agree to withhold from certifying the eligibility list and making promotions until the grievance process concluded without the Union having to file an injunction. In exchange we would agree to go to expedited arbitration instead of utilizing the regular, lengthy process.
During expedited arbitration we would only use one arbitrator and receive a ruling from the bench on the same day, which would drastically cut down on the time it would take to resolve the issue one way or the other. We proposed this as a benefit to the Town since it's in their interest to get this dispute over with so they can get the promotions made and fill their vacancies, potentially saving them tens of thousands of dollars in overtime costs. For our part the Union also has no interest in holding things up any longer than necessary and we'd love to see our members get promoted as soon as possible through a fair and impartial process.
Several days later we received Director Malave's response to our proposal, he agreed to hold up the personnel appeals until after the grievance concluded, which would effectively stay the promotions as we requested. However, he surprised us by declining to utilize the expedited arbitration process in favor of the regular one which could take this from being resolved in a matter of a few months and drag it out for potentially up to nearly two years.
In the time it'll take to resolve this matter, several more Sergeant vacancies will open, resulting in squads and units going without regular full time first line supervisors which could be highly disruptive to their work. Additionally any vacancies created in minimum staffing Patrol positions will have to be filled with supervisors on overtime. While this is great for our members getting an opportunity to make some extra money, it could lead to people being ordered in on their days off and holidays, and stretch our overtime budget that the Administration claims is already maxed out, past it's limits becoming very costly to the Town.
This doesn't make any sense on the Town's part, we have made every effort to help expedite this process and get the problem resolved one way or the other for the good of the Town, the Agency, and the Union, and yet Director Malave keeps seemingly throwing roadblock after roadblock in the way of getting it done. When you look at this unexplainable behavior combined with the hiding of documents and the inconsistent scoring, it all seems to indicate that this promotional process was tampered with, and Director Malave either being involved with the tampering, or trying to cover it up after the fact.
While our Police Department has never experienced controversy like this around a promotional exam, it's not the first time for East Hartford or Director Malave. As you can see here and here our Fire Department recently spent nearly four years fighting a similar battle of a botched oral board exam that resulted in several appeals and retests. The common thread here is Director Malave and his Human Resources Department. How is it possible that one HR Department can mishandle two promotional oral board panels in such a short time? Administering these exams is a basic function of their Department, they should have laid out, consistent, and impartial protocols to carry them out seamlessly. At the very least they should've learned from the Fire Department debacle and done something to ensure it didn't happen again. If this simple job is so hard for them to complete properly and without controversy, then what else is being mishandled by HR that we don't know about? As a result, I have no faith in Director Malave's ability to properly carry out the basic functions of his job and lead his Department, and I feel it is long past time for Mayor Leclerc to replace him with someone more competent and capable of doing this important job.
For the Union's part, we have filed our grievance to step 3 at the Labor Board along with a motion to obtain the scoring documents we requested. For now we have to sit and wait for this process to play out.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Raises to be tied to the logical metrics we've been asking for... just not for us.
Some of our members may have noticed an article in the Courant recently titled "East Hartford Panel Recommends Raise for Mayor." If not, you can find it here.
In short the panel recommended 2.5% raises for Mayor Marcia Leclerc in each of the next 2 years to $100,221, which is a bigger raise than I've seen for the Police Department over a 2 year stretch in a long time. The really interesting part of the article is the panel's reasoning for the raises, which reads;
"The panel based its recent recommendation on increases in the consumer price index of 2.1 and 2.2 percent in 2017 and 2018 and on a Connecticut Conference of Municipalities survey of town with similar populations and nearby communities, according to meeting minutes. “The mayor’s salary is significantly less than the median salary for similarly situated towns,” the minutes say. "The committee determined that the best approach would be to provide a 2.5 percent increase in each of the next two years, which would be slightly higher than the CPI for the preceding two years, but would move the salary range a little bit closer to the overall median salary for chief elected officials in strong mayor forms of government.”"
If this logic sounds familiar to you, it's because this is the same exact reasoning we've used in contract negotiations for years to ask for raises for our Membership; keeping up with inflation and bringing our salaries in line with surrounding Departments. Oddly enough whenever we've made these arguments the Town's representatives have said East Hartford is an economically depressed community and therefore the pay standards set by surrounding Towns shouldn't apply to us.
It's true that East Hartford isn't on the same financial level as Glastonbury or West Hartford, but our Finance Department routinely describes our financial position as stable so things aren't exactly falling apart either. However if we're going to use the logic of considering the pay of surrounding Towns to determine the salary of the Mayor and other Town Hall Officials, why shouldn't it apply to the Police Department as well? After all, the likelihood of our Mayor leaving East Hartford and running in South Windsor or Glastonbury for more pay is relatively low. But the issue of us not being able to attract the best candidates for our Department is very real. Across the State and the Nation the number of applicants for Police jobs is down drastically from past levels, which means more Departments are competing with each other to attract an ever shrinking pool of top qualified candidates. While EHPD does have a few nice benefits, when it comes to attracting new hires and employee retention, nothing speaks quite like cold hard cash in your hand. It wasn't that long ago that EHPD had to cancel an entrance exam due a lack of applicants.
Currently EHPD's top step Officer base pay grade is $74,209. By comparison Vernon and Manchester are paying $84,648, and $84,431 respectively. That's a significant gap that makes a huge difference in employees lives and I'd have to imagine it holds a lot of sway with a top candidate weighing their job opportunities. I don't think anyone would argue that Vernon and Manchester as Towns are particularly more well off than East Hartford. In fact I'd say they're relatively similar and neither one of them boasts a manufacturing giant like Pratt and Whitney or a successful for profit college like Goodwin on their tax rolls like East Hartford does. There doesn't seem to be a good reason why we cant be paid a competitive wage.
We're lucky enough to have a lot of really great cops at EHPD, and if we want it to stay that way, we need to keep our salaries in line with the area Departments that we're competing with for new hires as we've been asking for years. Nobody comes into our line of work looking to get rich, and it'd be pretty bad planning on their part if they did. But I don't think a fair, competitive wage is too much to ask for the value we help bring to the Town.
In short the panel recommended 2.5% raises for Mayor Marcia Leclerc in each of the next 2 years to $100,221, which is a bigger raise than I've seen for the Police Department over a 2 year stretch in a long time. The really interesting part of the article is the panel's reasoning for the raises, which reads;
"The panel based its recent recommendation on increases in the consumer price index of 2.1 and 2.2 percent in 2017 and 2018 and on a Connecticut Conference of Municipalities survey of town with similar populations and nearby communities, according to meeting minutes. “The mayor’s salary is significantly less than the median salary for similarly situated towns,” the minutes say. "The committee determined that the best approach would be to provide a 2.5 percent increase in each of the next two years, which would be slightly higher than the CPI for the preceding two years, but would move the salary range a little bit closer to the overall median salary for chief elected officials in strong mayor forms of government.”"
If this logic sounds familiar to you, it's because this is the same exact reasoning we've used in contract negotiations for years to ask for raises for our Membership; keeping up with inflation and bringing our salaries in line with surrounding Departments. Oddly enough whenever we've made these arguments the Town's representatives have said East Hartford is an economically depressed community and therefore the pay standards set by surrounding Towns shouldn't apply to us.
It's true that East Hartford isn't on the same financial level as Glastonbury or West Hartford, but our Finance Department routinely describes our financial position as stable so things aren't exactly falling apart either. However if we're going to use the logic of considering the pay of surrounding Towns to determine the salary of the Mayor and other Town Hall Officials, why shouldn't it apply to the Police Department as well? After all, the likelihood of our Mayor leaving East Hartford and running in South Windsor or Glastonbury for more pay is relatively low. But the issue of us not being able to attract the best candidates for our Department is very real. Across the State and the Nation the number of applicants for Police jobs is down drastically from past levels, which means more Departments are competing with each other to attract an ever shrinking pool of top qualified candidates. While EHPD does have a few nice benefits, when it comes to attracting new hires and employee retention, nothing speaks quite like cold hard cash in your hand. It wasn't that long ago that EHPD had to cancel an entrance exam due a lack of applicants.
Currently EHPD's top step Officer base pay grade is $74,209. By comparison Vernon and Manchester are paying $84,648, and $84,431 respectively. That's a significant gap that makes a huge difference in employees lives and I'd have to imagine it holds a lot of sway with a top candidate weighing their job opportunities. I don't think anyone would argue that Vernon and Manchester as Towns are particularly more well off than East Hartford. In fact I'd say they're relatively similar and neither one of them boasts a manufacturing giant like Pratt and Whitney or a successful for profit college like Goodwin on their tax rolls like East Hartford does. There doesn't seem to be a good reason why we cant be paid a competitive wage.
We're lucky enough to have a lot of really great cops at EHPD, and if we want it to stay that way, we need to keep our salaries in line with the area Departments that we're competing with for new hires as we've been asking for years. Nobody comes into our line of work looking to get rich, and it'd be pretty bad planning on their part if they did. But I don't think a fair, competitive wage is too much to ask for the value we help bring to the Town.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
CALEA: What's the point, what's it cost, and is it worth it?
For the last 5 years EHPD has been working towards Accreditation from CALEA (Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.), and over the last 12 months or so the Administration has made a massive push to get the effort over the finish line. The issue we have with it is that this effort has at times come at the expense of the actual Law Enforcement function of our Department as funds and personnel have been cut from operational and investigatory purposes to allow Accreditation to have a blank check book. So the questions have to be asked, what is Accreditation, how much has it cost us, and how can it help the average employee do their job? We're going to try and break down the answers to those questions here in this post.
So first off, what is CALEA? It's a privately run organization under the umbrella of the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police.) that's run by a Commission of 21 members, only half of whom actually have Law Enforcement experience. This Commission is supposed to develop policies that are considered "best practices" and then convince Police Departments to adopt their policies and give the Commission money for the right to call themselves "accredited" and put a plaque in their lobby and stickers on their cruisers. According to their website, for an Agency the size of ours, the initial Accreditation fee is currently $11,450, with an annual charge of $4,065 every year thereafter, plus the cost of airfare, lodging, transportation, and stipend for the CALEA certified assessors to do their on site reviews. That may not sound like a ton of money, but it's more than we have budgeted to be spent this year on criminal investigation technology (who needs technology anyway?), and almost as much as we have budgeted for SWAT protective equipment for our team that's wearing ill fitting hand me down uniforms if they have uniforms at all.
While we're on the topic of money, let's look at how much this project has cost the Agency overall. Everyone working at EHPD over the last few years has become familiar with our motto, no not the Serving with Pride and Integrity one, but the real one you hear every time you actually need something to do your job, that's right; "There's no money in the budget." But somehow despite this Admin mantra, money has always been found to keep the Accreditation Department going at full steam.
So let's do some rough math, for about 5 years now, we've had one full time Officer assigned to Accreditation, let's assume an average base salary there of around $71,500 over that time period, that comes out to about $357,500. They've also hired a part time clerk to assist with Accreditation who's been there for at least 4 years I believe, at an average base salary of about $30,000, which comes out to another $120,000. About a year ago they also hired on another full time civilian "Research Analyst" to assist at a base salary of $73,160. There's also a Deputy Chief tasked with overseeing the entire process at $99,915. Additionally there have been several Lieutenants in and out of the process as well through the years at varying degrees of involvement, each one making around $90,000 average base salary over this time period. Now let's not forget that for several months before the on site visit this past June the Administration also pulled an Officer from Patrol and an Investigator from our Narcotics unit to work in Accreditation full time, each one pulling a base salary of $73,474 and $74,146 respectively.
So just looking at these rough figures you can see we are easily in the hole to this process for between $500,000 and 1 million dollars over the last 5 years. And that's without calculating overtime (which has been substantial.) or benefits, or all the other employees who were pulled from their main jobs to help out with Accreditation here and there over the last five years.
Additionally many Departments who obtain Accreditation have to keep someone on staff full time as a compliance Officer, whose sole purpose is to ensure the Agency stays up to date with the latest from the Commission and prepares everything for the triannual re-certifications and walk throughs. I assume we would keep the full time Officer we already have in that role at a base salary of $74,209, which brings the annual cost of maintaining Accreditation with CALEA fees to $78,274 plus benefits. If they choose to also keep the part time clerk on staff at his current base salary of $31,861, that raises the annual cost to $110,135, which coincidentally is $10,135 more than we currently have budgeted for overtime for the Criminal Investigations Division to actually work on cases.
Now the real issue here isn't that the Administration is spending inordinate amounts of money on this pet project, it's that while this money is being spent other parts of the Department are rotting on the vine due to a lack of funding. For example; Patrol Officers are no longer all issued cameras for taking crime scene photos, instead only a handful have them. Our SWAT vehicle caught on fire and burned up due to neglect and disrepair and now years later it still hasn't been replaced. Our Evidence truck leaks and has mold issues and hasn't been fixed. Live fire handgun and rifle training has been cut down to only once a year, and I'm constantly hearing from employees that they are denied access to outside training courses they need to advance their careers and subsequently, the quality of the Agency. The worst of all in my opinion is our Detectives and Investigators being denied overtime they need to follow up on cases and come out to crime scenes to investigate serious crimes that occur in their off hours. Our Detectives want to come out and work these cases, but often times they haven't been allowed, why? Because "there's no money in the budget." These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
These are real issues that not only negatively affect us as employees, but also the people of the Town who are losing out on better quality Police Services. I think having a properly trained and equipped Patrol Division and SWAT team ready to protect you, or an actual trained Detective on scene to investigate when you're a victim of a crime is more important to the average East Hartford resident than being able to say their local Police Department is accredited by a Commission no one outside of Law Enforcement has ever heard of.
This brings us to our final points, how can CALEA Accreditation help us as employees, and what's the purpose? We've seen the constant raft of new policies come down with CALEA citations over the years, sometimes they're minor changes to existing policies, and other times entirely new ones. In some cases we've gotten new and useful training we didn't previously have because CALEA required it, like CPR and Defensive Tactics, other times, it's a complete waste, like having the entire membership sit through an All Hazards training class where the material really only applied to Supervisors. It's been a bit of a mixed bag but overall there hasn't really been anything yet that completely changes the way we do our job, we've pretty much carried on as we have been for decades. So I'd argue Accreditation really hasn't done much at all to improve working conditions, or give new resources to solve cases for the average employee. What it has done however, is sap monetary resources from things that could have improved the Agency more substantially.
Here is where I have a really crazy idea, if CALEA Accreditation is really about bettering the Agency by enacting these new policies, then why not just put the policies in place, but forego the costly Accreditation process completely? There's nothing stopping the Department from doing this, and as an added benefit, they could choose to enact the policies we like and that would actually benefit us, and ignore the ones that don't. And they'd be free to modify any of them as they see fit to make them work better without having to conform to CALEA's strict standards. Under this method, we'd get all of the benefits of Accreditation without any of the cost or other downsides. The Agency would be improved and a substantial amount of money would be saved, which is important for a Department that's always struggling for funding.
Of course this won't happen, because Accreditation was never about bettering the Agency. It's about padding resumes for the handful of people at the top involved with it, and it's about earning clout within the IACP, presumably help set certain individuals up for their next jobs after EHPD. That's why they don't care about how the Department is actually running on the ground floor, so long as they can slap a CALEA sticker on it and say "look what I did" before they walk away, all at the taxpayer's expense.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Commenting issues fixed
I got some feedback that people with iPhones were having problems leaving comments on our posts. I've adjusted the page formatting so the issue should be resolved and everyone should be able to comment. Now you'll just be taken to a separate page to leave your comments instead of having them embedded underneath the post.
And yes if you select Anonymous, the comments really are Anonymous, we can't see any data about who posted it, IP addresses or anything else other than the comment and the timestamp.
Remember to follow our Facebook page, we'll be cross-posting there whenever new blog posts are published here.
And yes if you select Anonymous, the comments really are Anonymous, we can't see any data about who posted it, IP addresses or anything else other than the comment and the timestamp.
Remember to follow our Facebook page, we'll be cross-posting there whenever new blog posts are published here.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Status of the current Sergeant's Promotional Exam Scandal
Over the last few months EHPD has been administering promotional exams to fill vacancies for Sergeants, with at least 3 vacancies now and more expected to be opening up shortly. Unfortunately the Town's Human Resources Department has been hard at work botching the whole process from the beginning. First with the written exam, HR gave the applicants the wrong test, instead of taking a Sergeant's exam they were given a test for Lieutenants. Now some blame does lie with the company who sent the wrong test forms, but how did nobody at Town Hall look over the forms they got and verify that they were the right ones? The number and content of questions was different, yet nobody in HR noticed until the Officers taking the test brought it to their attention.
So a second written test was given, this time with the actual test they were supposed to take, and several people passed and oral board interviews were set up. By most accounts the questions on the oral board weren't very difficult and most candidates walked away confident that they had done very well. So cue the surprise when the results were released a few weeks later and a few people failed to obtain a passing score of 70, and nobody else managed to score above a 72, barely a passing score. Though one candidate did actually manage to surpass the 72 threshold, yes one candidate somehow pulled off a perfect 100% on the oral board panel, an unheard of score, and even more shocking, the 28 point gap to the next closest candidate. This perfect score was able to elevate this candidate to the top of the Sergeant's eligibility list despite the fact that they had one of the lower scores on the written test by a fairly wide margin.
Now this seems a little shady, nothing like this has ever happened before in our Department. I have a lot of faith in the quality of our cops, but I find it hard to believe that someone is really 28% better than such a large number of experienced Officers. I also find it hard to believe that so many great cops could barely pass an interview that they all thought was relatively simple. Obviously eyebrows were raised, complaints were voiced, and explanations were asked for, this is where things went from kind of fishy, to flat out, unbridled dirty.
Cops here have questioned their test results before, recently even. All they ever had to do was contact the HR Director Santiago Malave and ask to see their test and interview results and scoring sheets, and his response was always to come on down to his office and he'd show them to you. That is, until this test. When some of the candidates contacted Mr. Malave's office about examining their results this time they were told that they had to wait 15 days from the posting date to view their results, though Personnel rules only give them 14 days to contest their results. So the question is how can you contest results that you're not allowed to see until the deadline for contesting them has passed!? When these candidates contacted Mr. Malave personally about seeing their results they were met a response telling them they would have to submit an FOI request for them, which seems odd given the past practice of transparency. Nonetheless, they submitted their FOI requests and awaited their results... which they never received.
Mr. Malave refused to release the test results to the candidates under a provision of Connecticut's FOI law that gives an exemption to releasing information that may reveal test questions. This is a ridiculous exemption to claim since the candidates requesting the information ALREADY KNOW THE TEST QUESTIONS! They were there in the interviews, they were asked the questions, claiming an exemption to protect your testing methods and secrets from the people who already know the information is reaching at best.
So what is Director Malave so desperate to hide that he is going to such great lengths to keep these test results secret? The stench from this case is wretched and threatens to destroy any faith in a process that is supposed to be fair and impartial. What's the point of participating in a process that is obviously crooked?
As such the Union has filed a grievance on this matter, we've also submitted requests for the test results, notes, and scoring sheets under FOI and MERA, which Mr. Malave has also denied. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Malave is hiding something dirty, his behavior is completely out of line with the norms one would expect of someone in his position. He's using the Town's attorneys to help him keep the results secret which raises the question, why go through all this trouble and controversy instead of just producing the results and showing that everything was done legitimately? We do intend on getting down to the bottom of this and will let it play out to the end, however far it goes.
For now the list is frozen at least until the candidates work their appeals through the Personnel Board. All the Union is asking for is that the Oral Boards be re-done, with a new panel and new questions to give everyone the fair shot they should've had from the beginning.
We'll do our best to keep everyone up to speed with the latest on this subject.
So a second written test was given, this time with the actual test they were supposed to take, and several people passed and oral board interviews were set up. By most accounts the questions on the oral board weren't very difficult and most candidates walked away confident that they had done very well. So cue the surprise when the results were released a few weeks later and a few people failed to obtain a passing score of 70, and nobody else managed to score above a 72, barely a passing score. Though one candidate did actually manage to surpass the 72 threshold, yes one candidate somehow pulled off a perfect 100% on the oral board panel, an unheard of score, and even more shocking, the 28 point gap to the next closest candidate. This perfect score was able to elevate this candidate to the top of the Sergeant's eligibility list despite the fact that they had one of the lower scores on the written test by a fairly wide margin.
Now this seems a little shady, nothing like this has ever happened before in our Department. I have a lot of faith in the quality of our cops, but I find it hard to believe that someone is really 28% better than such a large number of experienced Officers. I also find it hard to believe that so many great cops could barely pass an interview that they all thought was relatively simple. Obviously eyebrows were raised, complaints were voiced, and explanations were asked for, this is where things went from kind of fishy, to flat out, unbridled dirty.
Cops here have questioned their test results before, recently even. All they ever had to do was contact the HR Director Santiago Malave and ask to see their test and interview results and scoring sheets, and his response was always to come on down to his office and he'd show them to you. That is, until this test. When some of the candidates contacted Mr. Malave's office about examining their results this time they were told that they had to wait 15 days from the posting date to view their results, though Personnel rules only give them 14 days to contest their results. So the question is how can you contest results that you're not allowed to see until the deadline for contesting them has passed!? When these candidates contacted Mr. Malave personally about seeing their results they were met a response telling them they would have to submit an FOI request for them, which seems odd given the past practice of transparency. Nonetheless, they submitted their FOI requests and awaited their results... which they never received.
Mr. Malave refused to release the test results to the candidates under a provision of Connecticut's FOI law that gives an exemption to releasing information that may reveal test questions. This is a ridiculous exemption to claim since the candidates requesting the information ALREADY KNOW THE TEST QUESTIONS! They were there in the interviews, they were asked the questions, claiming an exemption to protect your testing methods and secrets from the people who already know the information is reaching at best.
So what is Director Malave so desperate to hide that he is going to such great lengths to keep these test results secret? The stench from this case is wretched and threatens to destroy any faith in a process that is supposed to be fair and impartial. What's the point of participating in a process that is obviously crooked?
As such the Union has filed a grievance on this matter, we've also submitted requests for the test results, notes, and scoring sheets under FOI and MERA, which Mr. Malave has also denied. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Malave is hiding something dirty, his behavior is completely out of line with the norms one would expect of someone in his position. He's using the Town's attorneys to help him keep the results secret which raises the question, why go through all this trouble and controversy instead of just producing the results and showing that everything was done legitimately? We do intend on getting down to the bottom of this and will let it play out to the end, however far it goes.
For now the list is frozen at least until the candidates work their appeals through the Personnel Board. All the Union is asking for is that the Oral Boards be re-done, with a new panel and new questions to give everyone the fair shot they should've had from the beginning.
We'll do our best to keep everyone up to speed with the latest on this subject.
First post
Welcome to our new blog. We'll be using this space in conjunction with our Facebook page to put out information to the public about the goings on of our Union. Stay tuned for future posts.
Francesco Iacono, President
EHPOA
Francesco Iacono, President
EHPOA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)