|
2U2
<br />Council adjourned to Executive Session at 8:18 p.m.
<br />The City Council reconvened at 9:03 p.m. All members present.
<br />Mayor Huntoon announced the Council had arrived at a decision on the matter of Meet and Confer. Mayor Huntoon
<br />called upon the City Attorney to report on this subject.
<br />City Attorney Hutton reported, "One of the last letters the Meet and Confer Team received and was communicated to
<br />the Council was from the San Bernardino County Employee Association, in which they stated that they wanted the
<br />11.94% wage increase and proposed a minimum of $100.00 in the event that the percentage did not amount to a
<br />$100.00 increase in the salary of certain employees. In effect, it would be a minimum of $100.00 wage increase or
<br />11.94% of the wages of the employees, whichever were the greater. The Council considered that and reacted favor-
<br />ably to the proposal. As a result the Council now proposes the following as a basis for a Memorandum of Under-
<br />standing not only with the County Employee Association, but also,with the Police Association and in the package a
<br />proposal with reference to all employees who are nonmembers of the two associations. It is to the effect: The
<br />employees who are members of both associations will receive 11.947. wage increase or $100.00 per month, whichever
<br />is the greater. In order to be consistent and fair, the Council will consider non -association member employees
<br />who have positions comparable to employees in the association and will treat them on the same basis. In other
<br />words, if there is an employee who has a job qualification or duties that are comparable to the duties and oblig-
<br />ations of a association employee, he will receive the same award, that is, the same increase in salary. There are
<br />some employees, obviously, who do not have comparable positions, that is; positions which are comparable to members
<br />of the associations, as to those, the Council, as a Meet and Confer Team, consider the salary benefits to each such
<br />person with, again the minimum of $100.00 or up to, but not to exceed 11.94'/0 of that employees salary."
<br />"Mayor I think I have stated the consensus of this body, it is my opinion that a motion would be in order to forma-
<br />lize this by minute action and if passed, that minute action would be reduced to a form of a resolution, the
<br />passage of which would be largely ministerial, at your next regular Council meeting. Assuming, of course, that
<br />is the majority vote of the Council this evening; so a motion along the lines that I have just outlined would be
<br />in order, in order to consider the same."
<br />Moved by Councilman Gonzales, seconded by Councilwoman Spragins, to adopt the employee salary proposal as indicated
<br />by the City Attorney.
<br />Prior to the vote, Mayor Huntoon stated he would allow each Council member to make any statements they wished to
<br />make and following that, he would allow anyone from the floor to ask a question.
<br />Mayor Huntoon made his statement first, saying, "that on July 1, 1974 this Council entered into a two year memoran-
<br />dum at which time we agreed on an average increase of 14'/o across the board or a dollar value of about $400,000.
<br />Now, the only item to be discussed this year by the Meet and Confer Team was to be the cost of living index. No
<br />Councilman ever agreed to an automatic cost of living increase in this package, never ever. Now, it is my opinion
<br />that if this Council agrees to another increase of 11.94, by the first of 1975 - a period of just one year - this
<br />would translate into about 26% or about $800,000, I feel that an increase in this amount at this time is neither
<br />justified or warranted. I also feel that if we go this route neither the Council nor the employees are demonstra-
<br />ting any fiscal responsibility."
<br />Councilman Hayes, stated that since the very beginning of budget sessions, he has been a strong backer of the cost of
<br />living at 11.94 and in his opinion the Council had a moral and legal obligation to honor the memorandum of under-
<br />standing. Councilman Hayes continued, "at the last meeting, Mr. Cooper representing one of the groups voiced his
<br />opinion. I too would have to agree that I think we have spent too much time over negotiations in regards to the
<br />memorandum of understanding. I am casting my vote so that hopefully, the cost of living may be granted. I am not
<br />in complete agreement with the mechanics of the distribution of the money. Much talk is made of the little man,
<br />I believe that the little man, the middle man and the top man all form an essential service to this City and they
<br />should receive appropriate monies accordingly. Without the services of all the three groups can this City have high
<br />morale which I believe in turn gives the City and the taxpayer a productive worker. I myself am an individual
<br />payed by tax money, hence I can appreciate this concern. I believe without my vote our impasse can't be broken,
<br />therefore, I am taking an affirmative position though I've stated I am not really happy about the allocation of
<br />these funds.
<br />Councilwoman Spragins stated with her seconding the motion tells everyone how she feels.
<br />Councilman Gonzales requested time to make his statement when the resolution is officially adopted at the next
<br />Council meeting.
<br />Mayor Huntoon replied in the affirmative.
<br />Councilman Rehrer stated, "I personally don't believe that we should grant 11.94% to the City employees for the
<br />following reasons: In the first place, we have an unemployment rate in this area of 15% plus and nowhere can I
<br />reading the memorandum of understanding, which was agreed upon by this City Council and the employees associations,
<br />both the Police and the Other employees, did we promise - and if you will get the letter,read it - nowhere did we
<br />promise an automatic increase for the cost of living. The letter states that at the time, we would take this
<br />letter and if there was any consideration at all, we would consider the cost of living. Due to the fact that the
<br />unemployment rate that we have in this area and if I would have known prior to the time that the budget was to be
<br />adopted or even presented to us at the preliminary budget, that this amount of money was in the budget, I would
<br />have flatly said no. Instead of considering any raise at all, I would have hired at lease 30 more people in this
<br />City and increased the employment in this area so that the money could be distributed. It is nice you know, the
<br />difference between a depression and recession is, a recession is when your neighbor is out bf work, but a depres-
<br />sion is when you're out of work and there are alot of people in this City that are out of work and I don't believe
<br />that 11.9% is justifiable to the employees".
<br />Upon Roll Call Vote, the motion carried.
<br />AYES: (3) Hayes, Spragins, Gonzales.
<br />NOES: (2) Huntoon, Rehrer.
<br />ABSENT: 0
<br />City Manager Huffaker asked for clarification on certain points. He asked if his understanding that a resolution
<br />would be prepared for the Council at the next meeting was correct.
<br />Mayor Huntoon replied yes.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated "probably the majority of the employees that are not represented are management employees, I
<br />understand the City Attorney correctly, the Council will meet as a Meet and Confer Team to meet with them indivi-
<br />dually?"
<br />ndivi-
<br />dually?"
<br />Mayor Huntoon replied that was a point.
<br />Councilwoman Spragin's replied "if they desire to".
<br />City Manager Huffaker then asked, "or what".
<br />The City Attorney simply stated, "or they get $100.00".
<br />AUG 5 X97"5
<br />
|