Hey, there! Log in / Register
City council could rebel against fire pay ruling
By adamg on Tue, 04/20/2010 - 1:37pm
This just in from at-large Councilor Ayanna Pressley:
My City Council colleagues and I will certainly take a hard look at this ruling and its impact on the city's finances. I echo what Council President Ross has said - the fire department needs to be partners in the effort to maintain the city's financial stability, both in the short term and in the years to come. As a City Councilor, I have a different responsibility than the arbitrator in this case and must make a decision based on what's in the best interests of our city.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Write your City Counsilor
I have already written my counsilor asking him to vote against approval of the contract to force the union and the mayor back to the negotiating table. We should all do the same. Its time to reign in the BFD.
I'd love to know the cost of the following things:
1. How much the city has already paid to arbitrate this matter.
2. How much it would cost the city if they wanted to go further or appealed the decision.
3. How much it would cost for Pressley to not do what the arbitrator says, if she can even do that.
4. How much it would cost the city to fight the first appeal when they fire the first 50 firefighters who fail these drug tests! Because I bet it's going to be a big number. Hell, the police know the exact date of the drug test and a lot of them still fail.
How much the city has already
How much the city has already paid to arbitrate this matter.
How much will the 20% raise cost the city in increased pensions over the next 70 years? Hmmmmm?
Because I bet it's going to be a big number. Hell, the police know the exact date of the drug test and a lot of them still fail.
And how many of them are fired? A:None...
Another clueless anon
Plenty of Boston cops have been fired for drug use over the years. Just because clowns like you don't get to read about it in the paper doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
We can't get back 3 years of drug testing...
so why no discount on the raise? Or was 19% a discount to the arbitrator??? This is going to be incredibly expensive, and part of it is because the Mayor didn't add drug testing to the initial terms for bargaining. Stinks for us taxpayers.
Ask Kelly for his opinion
The budget is now essentially a zero sum game, the FD's gain is someone else's loss.
The city council should hand Ed Kelly the budget and ask him for a public comment on where the hell he is going to find this money with no appropriation until he does so. Be specific as to which services should be cut and which people need to be let go etc. etc.
In the end we may have to give this to them - but put Kelly on the spot for a NON-BINDING recommendation of where it should come from - schools? Police? Libraries? DPW? or perhaps reserves or new taxes so that when the ax comes down or the taxman cometh if we take his suggestion - the fingers point directly at him. I'd be very curious what his answer would be.
Legal Department, the BRA, and Labor Relations?
Does that get us anywhere close to the number?
about 10%
Legal is about 5.5 million and labor relations about 1.5 million. If you cut that by 1/3 you still need another $25 million - just to pay for the current $27 million shortfall (forget about next year). The BRA is not part of the operating budget - independent agency. They make most of their money renting properties they take by eminent domain and extorting money from developers with things like eternal transfer fees that may be illegal - but like many other things they've figured out it's not worth it for people to sue them so they get away with it.
The thing that amazes me about Ross is that we have literally had meetings for 10 years where I've been telling him this was coming and only now he's all smoke and bluster (right after he voted to give Lib Mu their $24 million tax discount).
$1.5M for "labor relations?!"
What the hell are we spending 1.5M on? That's 20+ people at $65k/year with no benefits. Let's be generous and call it 10 people.
Also, what do the
bus people who will vote for Menino to the polls"senior services shuttles" cost us? We have a public transit system last I checked.Same reason I'd like to see all the people driving around in "neighborhood services" vehicles...take the T. In fact, unless you need to haul cargo, the city shouldn't give you a vehicle. Ride the goddamn T like everyone else, and maybe the system will get some improvements when people in government have to use it, too.
10 people
That's the budgeted headcount and their pay makes up about 50% of the budget (technically 1.4 million - I was rounding). This doesn't include benefits - heath, dental, life insurance and pensions etc. are under a different part of the budget (except for the school dept budget which includes I think all bennies except pensions). They have a line item of about $600k for contract services - who knows what the hell that is. The other $100k spread across lots of other stuff. Keep in mind there are budgets all over the city that have vacant jobs and other money that gets spent - but not necessarily on the stuff that's in the budget (common practice even in the private sector).
Sounds like 10 people need to be fired?
Or at least have their performences looked at.
Bargain
If anyone thinks that $5.5million is alot for an entire legal staff (particularly a good one) you have no idea what you are talking about. If the City had to retain outside counsel to defend it against any plaintiff's attorney looking for a deep pocket, the City would be broke (or more broke than it is). The law department is, if anything, under-funded.
BTW - the BRA does not make most of its money (or any?) "renting out" properties it takes by eminent domain. It makes most of its money from parking garages and land transfer fees from the sale to developers of what is essentially publicly taken land (these are admittedly a controvercial legal issue, as anyone who sells their house/unit in these developments has to pay the BRA a land transfer fee even if they weren't the one who originally purchased it from the developer).
Correction
I suppose if it were true that the BRA somehow "took" the marine industrial wharf or Charlestown Navy Yard by eminent domain (which I don't believe to be the case) then my prior comment would be wrong. From the Winter issue of Commonwealth Magazine's (attempted) "expose" on the BRA:
"In general, however, the BRA is economically self-sufficient. It relies in large part on income from property it leases at the Marine Industrial Park in South Boston and the Charlestown Navy Yard, parking revenues from a lot at Sargents Wharf and a garage in the Marine Industrial Park, one-time development deals, and the ongoing resale payments. It also owns nearly $1 billion of property in Boston, including City Hall Plaza and Christopher Columbus Park.
The agency’s annual report says the BRA took in $58.7 million in fiscal 2009 and spent $65 million, for a loss of about $6 million. It was the second straight year the agency incurred a $6 million loss. The BRA covered the losses by tapping reserves. The annual report said the agency had assets of $35.7 million at the start of this fiscal year.
To return the agency to profitability, Palmieri says he is paring back spending this year to $50 million and eliminating 35 staff positions, a reduction of 12 percent, bringing the total to 258. The annual report says payroll spending will drop to $24 million this year, but that still works out to an average salary per employee of $93,000."
I can't fathom what a revised
I can't fathom what a revised budget would look like following this indulgence. In a climate where people are lucky to have a job let alone a cost of living increase, it's pretty dang insulting to look at a number like that which will come at the expense of who knows what else. City council needs to hear this: 635-3040.
Kelly's opinion isn't the one that matters here.
Menino knew, or should have known that going into arbitration, with the firefighters, was at best a crap shoot. When you roll the dice you don't get to take back your bet when you lose. Menino had amble opportunity to negotiate this deal over the last 4 years and failed to do so. The city filed for arbitration back in early Aug of 07, so their willingness, or unwillingness to negotiate was apparent to anyone who chose to take more than a cursory look at this mess. Ed Kelly along with the bargaining team of local 718 and their counsel did a much better job, was far more prepared and was obviously much more convincing than the city's people. If you really want to blame someone for this travesty take a closer look at the people who blew it. Why not call out Menino and ask him what actually happened during arbitration, that caused the arbitrator to render this award. People are angry and rightfully so, but I wouldn't be so quick to blame Ed Kelly, he and his people simply did their job. What did the city do?
Ross is a laugh...
Ross does not have the cahones (sp?) to say no to the Police. I have never seen a more calculated pol.
Does the city have any right of appeal?
It seems that the arbitration panel's split decision is pretty arbitrary and unreasonable. Is there no way to contest this in court?
It usually depends on what is in the contract.
Usually no. Under contract, both sides usually agree that they are bound to the decision of the arbitrator.
What some cities and towns do is threaten a prop 2.5 and/or threaten to cut high school athletics. That usually gets the juices flowing. I don't think Boston has ever tried one of those. Probably because they know it wouldn't have a chance?
I'd love to see Stevil's rath if a Prop 2.5 was proposed and passed in Boston.
The City Council
The decision has to be sent to the City Council for approval. If they don't approve it the negotiations start again. Call/write your City councilor.
Apparently correct
according to Lehigh's column in the globe today:
"The solution? It’s as simple as this sentence from the state law governing arbitration: “If the municipal legislative body votes not to approve the request for appropriation, the decision or determination shall cease to be binding on the parties and the matter shall be returned to the parties for further bargaining.’"