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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)