20060410 Westminster Employee Action

Monday, April 10, 2006

20060410 Westminster Employee Action

20060410 Westminster Employee Action

Note: I was given this document by certain Westminster City Employees anonymously… KED

April 10, 2006

Employee action: Most of the employees agree with most of these points. Not all the employees agree with all the points. Police not included.

1. Non-sworn employees have waited several years for an increase in pay and benefits. During this wait, police officers and certain other employees have received substantial pay increases.
2. Non-sworn employees need to be prioritized for FY 2007 pay and benefit enhancements.
3. Relations between the mayor and council - and employees are at a crisis breaking point. All communication has broken down. The situation at present appears to have passed a point where anything can repair the relations.
4. Employees feel blown-off by current mayor and council. Current mayor and council are condescending and only give lip service to the employees. Efforts from the mayor seem misleading, superficial, and not sincere.
5. Employees distrust current mayor and council and feel they lack integrity.
6. Employees lack confidence that the current mayor and council have the competence to run the city. The city is not a bank, where you can make it up as you go.
7. Many feel the mayor and council are in it for themselves and not for the city.
8. Many feel that the mayor only wants to be the mayor, so he can say that he is the mayor. There is concern that councilmen just want to run for higher office and are using the city and its employees for their own gain.
9. Mayor and council don’t know the employees, their jobs or how things work and don’t appear to care to know.
10. Mayor and council do not back up employees leaving them to twist in the wind.
11. Employees afraid to disagree or take their problems to the mayor and council because they fear negative repercussions.
12. Employee attempts to talk with press ignored by Carroll County Times and Baltimore Sun, which appears to not question mayor, while the Times and the Sun questions all the other towns.
13. Employees have to look out for their own best interests.
14. This mayor and council not looking out for employees – just themselves. As a result, employees actively seeking union representation, feeling that they have no choice. Outside union organizers have contacted city personnel to take advantage of this situation.
15. The mayor and city council have created employee unrest and low morale for which union organizers can capitalize.
16. Confidential employee morale study not confidential and further lowered morale.
17. Concern that if mayor and council raise taxes and/or if the employees get a pay raise; the mayor and council will blame the tax increase on employees and not on their wasteful spending, which includes the city manager.
18. Right now, employees don’t see long-range plan for the city, except what is in it for mayor and council.
19. Employees don’t know where the city is going or what to do.
20. Whatever is agreed to can change whenever mayor and council find it expedient with no feedback or consulting with the employees. Things just seem to be made up as they go.
21. Making recreation a department level ill timed and made morale worse. Used money that should have gone to other employees, while other employees have been waiting for years for pay parity. Decision to make recreation a department was knee-jerk and made by suspending the rules and doing it all at one council meeting. As a result, an employee quit and another threatened to quit.
22. While other employees wait and wait for pay relief, recreation made department level without a committee or study. Proof that a study is just a stalling technique.
23. Meanwhile city has no separate independent human resources department - but now has a director level recreation department.
24. Mayor and council considered an information technology director – before it had a department level human resources director.
25. There is a strong lack of trust for current human resources office. Employees feel that confidentiality is not maintained.
26. Employees impatient for things to change for the better. Feel too many committees are a ruse to insulate mayor and council from decisions.
27. Mayor doesn’t accept responsibility for anything – especially if he can hide behind a committee.
28. Employees are proud to be frugal and save the city money. They don’t need to be given money rewards by mayor and council, their pride is their reward.
29. Employees proud to do their job well and solve problems creatively, when there is lack of budget.
30. Hiring a city manager is an affront to the employees and destroys a sense of team. Previous mayor did the job for $10k a year.
31. Last time city hired a city manager it didn’t work.
32. Money to be used on city manager is not necessary and could be better spent elsewhere.
33. City manager will only add an additional insulating layer between employees and mayor and council. City manager position does not have support of employees.
34. City manager adds complicating layer between public and city. Often citizens currently have direct access to city and can get things done.
35. July 1999, new contributory pension system became effective…
36. June 2000, 129 employees, including some police, had to choose paying one-year retroactive cost or be penalized when they retired.
37. It would have cost the city approximately $75,000 to pay the retroactive costs for the 129 employees under the new contributory pension system.
38. City didn’t offer to pay the retroactive amount. When LEOPS was subsequently adopted for the police officers, all retroactive contributions were paid by the city.
39. 2000 to 2001 Budget, only police officers received reclassified pay scale: $1,200 more than everyone else. This did not include other non-sworn police personnel.
40. Fiscal year 2002 to 2003, city council gave employees a 1% cost of living increase when cost of living in area with month used for calculation was actually 2.2%.
41. 2002: city police got union representation and started requests for separate retirement system (LEOPS).
42. 2002: city offered police a plan where the city would put in between 5 to 9% of officers annual salary based on the number of years they have been employed. The police officers rejected the offer.
43. Now police seem to have what they want. (Baltimore Sun, November 12, 2002). LEOPS will cost the city $364,000 a year or $17 million over 25 years after factoring in inflation and additional officers. Police gave up their pay raises the next year to support the plan. Yet several years later, they got a triple-step increase.
44. LEOPS was adopted July 2003 and the city paid the police contribution retroactively.
45. City employees would like an improved non-LEOPS pension plan. The 401a can be used as an instrument to increase the percent available to city employees at the time of retirement. Six percent, with an equal match, would be great. The city’s goal should strive for 50% of an employee’s salary at retirement.
46. The city employees would like to be compensated for unused sick leave at retirement.
47. Improved longevity and shift differential is important. Longevity needs to reflect cost of living changes. Our number is static and not pegged to inflation.
48. Non-sworn employees have waited several years for an increase in pay and benefits. During this wait, police officers and certain other employees have received substantial pay increases.
49. Non-sworn employees need to be prioritized for FY 2007 pay and benefit enhancements.

Posted by Kevin Dayhoff at 4/10/2006 02:55:00 AM