For whatever reason, the union reps wanted to talk about “what the problem is.” Well, what is the problem? After watching this a few times, I’m not quite sure. The Hour reported it was about proposal to privatize garbage collection. The Mayor seems to think it is about union grievances. Then there’s all the confusion about how things get onto the council agenda.
Norwalk Common Council Meeting 5/11/2010 from jackie lightfield on Vimeo.
The tape, or the speakers, repeat. It is clear the Mayor and his party did not want this guy to speak. It is not clear how he was kept off the agenda as the request was made well ahead of time. It sounds like Ellen Wink took the call and turned them down, not because the request was not in writing, but because somebody told her to turn them down.
There is a secondary issue, if it is appropriate for the council to hear from a union rep, on the record, before a contract has been settled. There is nothing to prevent either side from going public with their position. It may not be smart, but it is certainly not illegal or unethical. The Mayor has attracted more public arttention to their position on privatization by refusing to let the guy speak. What is he reaching for in his right side jacket pocket ?
Here we go with the union BS again! And get that gun toting fake off the council before he shoots someone. NOW!
Bring back Geake!!!!
While I have kept from posting on here of late, I feel its necessary to correct some of the above postings. First and foremost, anyone who wants to speak on the council floor is welcome to do so, we do have public participation. However, council rules clearly specify that speakers are allowed to speak on issues that are on the agenda and only the ones on the agenda. I thought that I was pretty clear when I said that the council meeting was clearly not the enue to air grievances and that those members who chose to do so can contact my committee. People have to understand that what they wanted to speak on were grievances that have already been filed with the state of CT. Therefore the Council walks a very thin line when getting involved in something like that. It would be an ethics violation on our part to even get involved. As far as contract negotiations, we cannot and I repeat, cannot discuss, get involved in, nor allow the contents of contact negotiations to be aired in a public meeting. Yes, we were all aware of what they wanted to speak on as they delivered packets to our homes in advance of the meeting but again. Most of what was in those packets is well out of the jurisdiction of the council and we cannot nor will we breach our resposibilies in order to apease those who hold grievances. Had they come to the personnel committee prior to filing their grievances with the state it would have been a different situation. Since they chose not to go that route, we as council memebers have no say about these problems until they have settled their grievances on the state level. If they so choose to contact me as chairman oof personnel I would have to caution them against speaking to us because of the ethics violations and the thin line between what we as a council can and can get involved in. As I have said before, I have no doubt that their grievances are very real to them and I sympathise for what they allege but as a council person entrusted by the voters to do the right thing I for one cannot breach that trust . Rules are rules and everyone needs to abide by them.
All well and good Joanne, and thanks for the information. From what I could gather from the video it was unclear to the union rep (and even unclear to the Mayor) that what the union rep wanted to speak on (or even the parts he COULD speak on) had to go through the committee before being aired by the council. I believe that is where the bulk of the confusion was, not the issues the union rep wanted to bring before the council. The mayor did a pretty lousy job of explaining that in so many words IMHO.
The mayor does have a very good grasp of the rules when it’s something he also doesn’t want to deal with. It’s hardly a surprise he wants to suppress the union and his party’s attempts at breaking the unions. As a rule, republicans are usually (but not always) anti-labor. That’s why there is the impasse that exists in the first place. While the issue is buried in arbitration he can avoid any kind of public statement, claiming it would be an “ethics violation” to do so. Sure, he’d be legal, and I’ll let others judge the ethical implications, but in the overall scheme of things, it prevents the taxpayers from knowing the whole story about how their money is being spent and manipulated.
Sorry about the spelling mistakes…I was typing on my phone and just noticed how badly I do with little objects.
Are you shutting me down, Mr. Mayor? Are you shutting me down? HA HA HA
Joanne clears up a few things. Apparently the union has filed grievances, which are going to the state labor board, and contract negotiations are at impasse, also headed for the State Labor Board. The way she reads what was sent to her, she believes they wanted to talk about the grievances and, she believes, the council is not the place to talk about greivances. She apparently believes none can be resolved without the State Labor board. The board doesn’t have to worry about the next election. It is unfortunate the union has grievances and an impasse at the same time. Morale must be terrible. Their members believe their jobs are threatened.
I don’t presume to understand the union rep’s strategy, but he is certainly free to air the grievances anyplace he chooses. We have seen grievances published in full-page paid ads in the local papers. Didn’t the firemen do that when they endorsed Moccia and their contract negotiations were stalled ? I don’t see how the council would be breaking any law listening to the man, but the City has already given their negotiating team marching orders, resulting in the impasse. After hearing him, they might decide to go into executive session and talk about strategy. They might even send further instruction to their negotiators. The excuses for refusing to hear him may not sit well with the public. This tape will stick with lots of us at election time. I would expect the entire council would be interested to hear the union rep. How else can the City personnel dept. be held accountable ? Doesn’t the City hire outside counsel for negotiations, paid by the hour, giving them an incentive to prolong the process ?
That story about the thin line if the council gets involved being an ethics violation is hogwash. The council is required by law to get involved, at some point. It is a good thing nobody put Maslan on the spot to back up that story, or not. Anybody know how many grievances are pending against the City ? Is there a policy to refer all grievances to the State ? Isn’t anything decided locally ?
Old timer, I respect your opinion but I think you read me wrong. Of course it is the counsel’s business to listen to its constituents but it is also our job to hold to policy. The labor negotiations were not on the agenda because they are just that…negotiations and are as you said at an impasse and the grievances filed were sent by the Local 2405 union to the state labor board therefore taking it out of our hands. Each and every council person is very much aware of what is in that packet and yes, we do have concerns and as I told them as soon as I have a legal opinion of what the council can and cannot get involved in I will set up a meeting on the Personnel Committe level to discuss what we can discuss. I am not uninformed about procedure and therefore would like to do things properly. If an item for whatever reason is not on the council agenda then it cannot be spoken on. The procedure to get something on the agenda is to send it to the proper subcommitte for their perusal and at the subcommittee level we vote on whether or not to send it to the full committee if we feel it is the proper venue. This was not the procedure taken in this case. As I said to the gentlemen, dropping the packets in our home mailboxes is not the proper procedure. I would have been happy to go over those packets in my committee and have myself and fellow committee members go over them, discuss them and then make a recommendation. Please don’t misconstrue the meaning of my words as I am not someone who pushes others problems by the wayside.
Joanne: You said they wanted to talk about greivances, not contract negotiations. Somebody has decided all their greivances must go to State Labor and the Council should stay out of it. The mayor convinced you it might be an ethics problem to let the man speak. What harm is there in courteous listening ? Is refusing just a way to put pressure on the employees that have been almost a year without a contract and fear their jobs are being eliminated ? To the union members, their paid state rep was refused a chance to speak at a council meeting when anybody else gets that opportunity. Is nobody in City government, including the council, capable of telling certain managers to behave ? One greivance reported in the paper is about Alvord using his position to try to get a handicap parking sticker revoked because he doesn’t think the doctor who certified the handicap is as smart as he is. That sounds like harassment. Do you support that kind of management ? Are you interested in wether the contract greivance procedure is being followed ? Are you interested in knowing if good-faith negotiations are really taking place ? Did anybody present a real privatization plan to the council before talking about it with the union ? Where did the City get the numbers reported as potential savings, if they have not already gotten bids from private contractors ?
Old timer = know it all.
Do you ever listen to anyone else? I’m not defending the council, the mayor or the union but you always have such an ax grind when it comes to unions. America would be so much better off without them and this current god forsaken administration that continues to increase our debt by the second!
Old Timer, what part of “ethics violation” don’t you understand?
Old Timer, again you are not understanding…nobody in the city government told them to take their grievances nto the state. they and their union leaders made that decision way before deciding to bring it in front of the council. As far as the privitization goes, it has not yet been brought to the council so therefore I have no idea what to speak on since I do not have all the facts and figures as yet. It is my understanding that it is still in the thinking stage and when and if it comes beforwe the council you can be sure that we will all have opinions about it. I’m not sure I understand how you are not getting my point. I offered to meet with them as soon as I know all the legalities of doing so and then they turned it over to the newspapers. In all fairness here, I was doing my job ( you know, the one I got elected to do) and they chose to take it to the newspapers rarher than go through the suggested avenues. I am still willing to address whatever is legal to discusswith them but have not heard one word from them since that night. So, who’s wrong here? I followed procedure. Please ask anyone who has ever wanted to get somethging on the council agenda and they will tell you what the procedure is and has always been.
As far as “To the union members, their paid state rep was refused a chance to speak at a council meeting when anybody else gets that opportunity” This again was against written council rules ..once more for clarification, If an item is not on the agenda it cannot be discussed. I didn’t make these rules but as an elected official I adhere to the rules as presented to me and these rules have been in place for way longer than I have been in politics and thats a pretty long time.
And that rule about nobody ever speaks about anything this is not on the agenda, is always strictly enforced, right ? Or is it selectively enforced, depending on who signs up to speak. I have been there when people spoke about subjects that were not listed on the agenda. The rule limiting speakers time is generally enforced when the speaker is talking about a non-agenda item, just as it is strictly enforced when the council majority is opposed to the speaker’s position.
I do not necessarily agree with the union strategy in this case, because taking an issue public makes it harder to get compromise later. Nobody wants to look like the one compromising, once an issue goes public. Nevertheless, I believe nobody would have been harmed letting the man speak for his three minutes. That would not have obligated the council to anything beyond listening.
Joanne, I am not blaming you for anything. I think this was mishandled and you, and others, are being deliberately misled. Of course, under the contract greibance procedure, the City makes the decision to either resolve a greivance locally or take it to the State. Why would we need the State to order Alvord to mind his own business about how the State issues handicap parking placards ? Don’t hold your breath waiting for a legal opinion pointing out the law that would have been violated by showing the Union rep a little courtesy.
In our form of democracy, council people have enormous power to allow anyone you choose to speak anytime you decide, without letting the Mayor or anyone else make the decision for you.
Old timer, I respect your opinion but I think you read me wrong. Of course it is the counsel’s business to listen to its constituents but it is also our job to hold to policy. The labor negotiations were not on the agenda because they are just that…negotiations and are as you said at an impasse and the grievances filed were sent by the Local 2405 union to the state labor board therefore taking it out of our hands. Each and every council person is very much aware of what is in that packet and yes, we do have concerns and as I told them as soon as I have a legal opinion of what the council can and cannot get involved in I will set up a meeting on the Personnel Committe level to discuss what we can discuss. I am not uninformed about procedure and therefore would like to do things properly. If an item for whatever reason is not on the council agenda then it cannot be spoken on. The procedure to get something on the agenda is to send it to the proper subcommitte for their perusal and at the subcommittee level we vote on whether or not to send it to the full committee if we feel it is the proper venue. This was not the procedure taken in this case. As I said to the gentlemen, dropping the packets in our home mailboxes is not the proper procedure. I would have been happy to go over those packets in my committee and have myself and fellow committee members go over them, discuss them and then make a recommendation. Please don’t misconstrue the meaning of my words as I am not someone who pushes others problems by the wayside.
Anyone of the council could have made a motion to suspend the rules to add an agenda item. But frankly, the union rep should have been allowed on the agenda or not when the written request was forwarded to any committee chair. It is apparent that even the Republican chairs are being bamboozled by the Mayor.
If there are rules in place, voted on by the Council members how do one or two rogue Council members decide what’s good for everyone else on a particular night?? A newbie at that! Simms got his proverbial you-know-whats handed to him that night an Mr. Hilliard got shut up too. I’m no fan of this Mayor, seems like a bully, but RULES ARE RULES.
Seems like the repubs have their whitey tighties showing. Why are they so afraid of three minutes of sunlight?
My guess is he wanted to talk about pending grievances that went to the state and they are embarassed by those grievances. How do you defend, even to your own caucus, allowing that grievance to go to the state, about Alvord writng to the motor vehicle department, trying to get a handicap placard revoked ? How much will be wasted on outside lawfirms, by the hour, dealing with that one ? Nobody at City Hall able to manage the managers ?
It is not the Repubs covering up, just the Mayor, with a few very loyal supporters who believe everything he tells them. That union contract expired last June. What is the problem ? Anybody on the council have the courage to ask ? Will the “rule are rules” crowd prevent asking ?
Thank you for your leadership here Mr. Mayor.