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.
Friday, November 29, 2019
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)