Sorry, >> I have You can pass it out. >> Yep. >> My winter coat. ready. >> Well, good afternoon everybody. Thank you all for being here today. Hope
you're all doing well. Um D is passing out some information, the proposals, a lot of which I think we've already been through. Um I think we've reached at least uh you know the point where we will have a tentative agreement for many
of the articles that the recommended changes that that have been introduced during bargaining. So we we have uh D is passing that out. She's also passing out some information related to the career ladder that we discussed and and um
would like to discuss that further today and and chief is prepared to to share what her thoughts are behind the the recommended changes. So once you have that uh that document I think we can start there. And your your check is in the back. The
checklist is in the back. problem. Thank you. You want to start with career ladder? >> Yeah, I think so. Are we ready to go over the career ladder? >> However you want to do it. >> Sure. Let's start there. >> All right. I just um good afternoon
everybody. Um I think that the the career ladder conversation and I was talking to Tim a little bit about it. We we did have in the contract last year that we would have a couple of workg groupoups in order to address the career ladder. We did do that. They had the work groups a couple time and they were going to come forward we were going to
come forward with a proposal for the definitions of how to achieve the different steps in the ladder. Um just as a summary of the meetings that they did have, it was um we had proposed a a
um change to the number of rungs on the ladder, so to speak, and some variation in the percentages that they would get on those various rungs that still equaled what the what the prior process was. Um that was turned down in within
the work group on the union side. So we worked within the parameters of what the what the uh current we've maintained the current steps and timing of them and focused more on outlining specific
outlining specific not tasks but specific items that you would have to achieve in order to check the boxes so to speak to achieve each of those levels. Before it was kind of like throwing spaghetti at the wall. They were told you have to have x number of
skills, but there was nothing that defined what a skill was. So, it left it up to the arbitrary in interpretation of the board that was reviewing the applications for each of those things. So, the career ladder itself in the in the
contract just says that we will have a career ladder. There's no there's no indication how that's supposed to be run. Um so the whole goal of changing up this policy was to actually kind of tighten up the career ladder process while also giving defined criteria in
order to achieve each of those rungs. So as the policy reads now the criteria that the that the group from at least our side came up with to be honest we didn't really get much feedback on what should count or not count um from the union side during these work groups. I
think uh Chief Weights you were in those or no or was it you major on the on the career ladder stuff because you guys can speak directly to the work group. I think uh officer Lynch was in there too so that you guys can kind of do the feedback on that. But basically this
policy is a culmination of our take on how the career ladder should be run. So >> okay I'm just gonna and I don't know if this is on or working. Is it on? >> Red's on. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to just speak frankly. I think this was very
unprofessional how this was put out by Major Moore. I think that it's an unfair labor practice. This is the third or fourth time. I've told you you have to bargain policies. And Jean, you weren't on all these emails and you weren't involved in the committee, so that's fine, but you have to bargain policies.
You have to bargain eval sheets. You have to bargain the career ladder. And there is an indication of how it's run by past practice. This has been going on for a very long time. So the fact that he would email them out with other policies that were redlined showing the changes and then this was not redlined
just we're going to issue this in a week. No, we verbally TA this is status quo. So and that's just it blew my mind honestly and I hope you didn't know that he put it out like that because it's kind of ridiculous. And he he told them verbally, well if you don't just if you
don't agree to it, we're just going to put it out anyway. And other officers have heard that. So it's ridiculous. It's unacceptable. And to make it so restrictive, their ask was for more money tied to it. So that was their response during those
committee meetings in a nutshell. So we'll review this on caucus, but that that's not how you do things. And I hope you and Major Moore are on the same page going forward with that because I spoke to the board and they're on the same page with me. So, do you guys want to
kind of summarize what your committee meetings were? >> Yeah, I I could say that on some of the things like the um um the volunteer work. Um I see that the
volunteer work would be based on our um list of events or things that we sponsor like tips for cops and stuff like that. And that's how you could build up your hours uh to to achieve um the qualifications for the career ladder,
one part of it. And and we brought up stuff like um well, let's say, you know, we have over 200 officers here and someone else comes up with an idea. For example, um I brought up the the the Royal Palm uh Strikers, the soccer team. They uh there's 400 kids that belong to
that. They all go to our schools. So, uh, if we decided if a cop said, "Hey, I'd like to volunteer to go to the soccer field, you know, during on volunteer, not for pay, and to help out over there." Could that be considered um
a uh uh time towards this goal? And the answer was no. It's whatever we have now. So, it to me a lot of the things similar things we suggested was like non-negotiable and that's how we perceived it. So small things like that
in a sense were non-negotiable. I think the bigger picture raised eyebrows on our end. >> And also not just bargaining unit members get the career ladder. So if your change is to just only include officers, then that
would be a no. If that's the proposal, >> well I that's that's up for negotiation obviously. um we didn't have a separate level for um sergeants because sergeants were
considered special assignment. So they were technically officers before they created a union and we created a rank as opposed to a specialized position. >> The lieutenants get it. >> Not all the lieutenants get it there. That was there there was a handshake
deal on some of the lieutenants. Any of the the newest lieutenants have not been included. They don't lose it when they become a lieutenant, but you would kind of, so to speak, die on the vine where you're at. If you're if you're at step two, step
three when you get the lieutenant promotion. There's nothing in place right now that would indicate that lieutenants would get the next step as a lieutenant in the in the category that they're in. Now, there's there's one or two lieutenants, I think, that were able to get an additional step that we we
honored the the handshake deal of administration three administrations ago that was trying to get people to take lieutenant spots and that was one of their sticking points. But since then, there hasn't been a discussion about that and we have we have actually promoted people that could have
potentially qualified for additional steps that did not get them because they were not part of that initial handshake deal. As far as I knew, they were getting it. And I think I addressed this with one or two people, but it's been a year or two since I've had someone complain, honestly. So, I would have to
check with the members on that. I think we had a discussion about that like a year or two for someone because they weren't in the unit, but under the GO, they were entitled to get the career ladder. >> I don't recall. >> It was a while ago.
>> And a quick footnote to what I just said. Um, so getting to 200 officers on this job, some of them may have ideas that no one came up with some great ideas because we don't know because we haven't implemented it yet. So my position was, can we bring that up? And we even said with approval from the
chief that we make this a volunteer thing and we would just shut down. >> Well, at least we're open in the conversation now because no, that wasn't brought forward. I I'm all for at as long as it's defined. I'm I'm opposed to the spaghetti at the wall that here, does this count? When you present a
packet to some people that have to determine after the fact whether or not it's something that would qualify as a as a as a part of this career ladder piece. Now, the whole idea of doing outside volunteer work, great. But if it is part of the police department and you're representing the police
department, that's one thing. But if you're just doing it on your own as volunteer, like I I do volunteer work that has nothing to do with the police department, as I'm sure that there's other people sitting in this room that do. This is geared towards police officer >> affiliation. So I'm and I'm open to more
of it. Some of it has to do with coaching and that kind of thing, but it's got to have an attachment to the district. It's not just, hey, you're a wonderful person outside of here. It it has to have some sort of nexus to the police department. We did offer with your approval, >> you know, not that it was just blanket. Whatever we come up with, we're going to
do it was >> clear, hey, chief has to approve it. >> But but like I said is I'm trying to establish some guidelines so that people know what they need to do in order to be qualified for the for the steps. >> So to pick from a list >> and there's some flexibility. There's some flexibility that's built in. If
there's something that comes up after the fact, I'm I'm more than happy to entertain that. This is just to try to have a starting point because right right now there's not even really a starting point. It's you have to have x number of skills. Well, what if you bring me hey I can write a police report? We have people that literally
put in that I wrote a I can write a police report and they got credit for a skill. I would hope you can write a police report that there's there's nothing that would >> Is this the last one that you guys presented at the committee? >> This is the most recent. Yes. >> The same one that they got at the last committee.
>> I can't advise that. Major, I don't know if you can advise or AC. I believe that's the that's the the last one that they had presented, but I didn't see anything in writing from the from the union in regards to suggestions to add to this.
>> I emailed more and I said if it were going to make it so restrictive, then we would want a little bit more money attached to it. >> So, okay. I didn't see that. >> I think you were on there, but >> All right. Well, we'll probably just have to caucus on this and read it and talk about it.
Do you want to just go through? I think that I went through article 17 and it matched your last proposal. So hopefully we can TA all of 17 if you guys didn't change anything. >> We have not changed anything there. So
we're good with that >> from our side. The only changes that we have that we wanted to discuss was the career ladder. That that was it. Other than that, our our proposals have not changed. >> Okay. I think we can TA article 17
because they match. I rewarded the language to match yours because they meant the same. So, >> okay. >> Article 18. We do want to talk more about the workers comp proposals. Um,
PBA does not handle workers comp in house. We refer to outside attorneys for our members when they need a workers's comp attorney. So, I did talk to him about these proposals, specifically the proposal to supplement your workers comp pay with your acred sick leave. And his
name is Paul Kelly. And he said basically he works with a lot of different employers. He's never seen one deny an employee use of their acred sick leave time to supplement their workers comp pay. He doesn't know of a valid legal reason why you would do that other than basically so that they wouldn't
reach full pay. So we're again proposing that because it's their acred sick leave. It's their leave. So we believe that they should be able to supplement their workers's comp. >> That's if they choose, >> right? If they choose and they're out
totally because of a workrelated injury or illness. So, but page 16, we kept that proposal. Instead of two weeks uh leave or I'm sorry, two days leave that's at the chief's discretion for extra leave. We proposed the 20. And
Jody, do you want to talk a little bit about your experience with this and why we're proposing it? >> Yeah. So, a couple years ago, I broke my ankle and it took three weeks for me to actually get a diagnostic um MRI to know my ankle was broken. Not my fault. the
insurance company. No one called me. I had to reach out to them. They kept saying they were going to call me back. So, it's not like I didn't want to come back to work. I would have came back to work, but I had to wait for the insurance company and go to the doctor. So, my thing is is that, you know, not
giving us that time and going right to 66% after the two weeks, I think should be extended another two weeks because you don't it takes like three weeks sometimes to get a doctor's appointment when you first get injured. once you go to um the the first medical place empty
now. >> And another thing that Mr. Kelly said is that um under workers comp, you they you guys don't have to pay the first seven days unless someone's out over 21 days. So I don't know if you if you do that.
So >> yeah, we also have Okay, we'll have to talk about that as a team. Um, our position has been status quo. Um, and and I I think that's where we where we're sitting with it, but we can talk further about it. Do you have >> um some different language or is it the
same language? >> It's the same. And I guess we would just want to know again why you would deny them use of their own acred sick leave to supplement. Yeah, we're getting this from other officers as well. And me personally, I
give you a great example. Um, I'm out right now. I was out on workman's comp. My next appointment was December 11th. I would have continued to been out since December 11th had I not called the specialist and asked him to to squeeze
me in because I feel much better just to see the doctor. and I they they double booked me today and I got I got a clearance because I pushed it otherwise I would have been home till December 11th. So this happens all the time. And what
could happen is and what could make this this could add to your cost if uh if that if those things continue to circulate the officers may tend to hire more workman's comp attorneys all the time and that that's your cost that doesn't come out of the officer's
pocket. So if they if you see a rise in that that's going to end up costing you more money on the back end. Um, so this this this supplement may help that prevent that from happening. >> Well, basically my conversations with the PBA and and the workers comp attorney were I don't know what your
reason is like other than wanting them to be short with their paycheck. I don't know what the reason would be to not allow them to use their own leave. >> We'll have to discuss that a little further and we'll we'll get back to you.
>> Okay. So, those were really our only proposals. I'm less concerned about the I still think that it should be addressed, but it's an oddity um with the eval with if you're out um but you said maybe that would be
addressed with the new eval form. So I can talk more with the reps about that too for if you're out on a light duty position, how you're eval evaluated. So >> the sergeant promotion process, there was a item added.
All qualifications must be achieved by December 31st of the testing year. >> Yeah, I think we were fine with that. >> We're good at that, right? >> You guys were fine with that. Yeah, we're fine with that. >> And then the other part Oh, you're saying the performance the
performancebased plan 20.6. >> I'm saying that for page 18. This was a specific situation for what we were trying to address. If someone's out um on a light duty assignment, how
they're evaluated, but it may be a non-issue now that you have the new eval form. >> Okay, >> if that makes sense. >> Got it. Then I think we're I think we were good on 20.6, the performance-based pay plan, changing it to 80%. That's
something we've reviewed I think at least a couple times. >> Yeah. Yeah, we're good with that. >> Okay. >> So, really for wages, we're just asking again for 3% to the base and we're fine with not doing the 10,000 signing bonus
as we call it sometimes, but your status quo. So, >> okay. Do you guys have anything else or do you want to caucus? Okay. Um Diane A. >> Thurber A. We have Thurber Avail
available for you. >> A >> Yes. Okay. Okay, you guys ready? >> Yes. Okay. So, article 17, I think that we taed that. Article 18, I don't know if
you guys have a response for us about your reasoning or if you have any other >> on workers comp. Yeah. >> Is that what that is? >> Um, so I'm I'm sorry to hear that it's been difficult to get appointments. Um
we we are we during the caucus we did reach out to our director of risk to find out you know what it is uh we could do differently and and she highly recommended that if anybody's having a difficult time getting an appointment to call her directly and they can assist with that process. Um you know we we do
also work very hard to accommodate light duty. So our our goal is always to have people at work uh whenever possible and as soon as possible. Um and so we do accommodate light duty uh frequently throughout the district and and
definitely within the department. Um but o ultimately for just for purposes of consistency and in alignment with what's required by state law, our our position is going to be status quo. >> But what is what does that mean? Like why do you think that they shouldn't be
able to use their accured sick leave to supplement? >> We're we're just for for consistency throughout our system. That's that's our position. >> What does that mean though? Like you don't want to give it. >> We're not going to do it for we're going to have one consistent approach to it. That's it.
>> But why are you denying it for anyone? >> We that's just our position. >> But you have to have a reason. So what is the reason? >> We ultimately we we feel that uh we we we're aligned with what's required by state law and and that's where we're our position is.
>> Is it to squeeze them so they don't? >> No, it is not to squeeze anybody. >> So what is the reason? because it's their own accured sick leave. So, I don't get the reason. >> I I understand that our reason is that it's aligned with with what's required by state law and that's where we are. >> All right. Well, I don't know about you
guys what you want to do with that. So, I would I feel like the board would feel differently. Have you discussed it with them? >> Uh, no. I have not discussed this with the school board. >> Okay. Have you discussed it with Mr. Burke? >> Uh, no, I haven't.
>> Okay. I would ask that you do that. Okay. >> Can you do that? >> Sure. >> Okay. And get back to us and then maybe we can talk more about that because I feel like the board >> wouldn't necessarily be in agreement for why you're denying people use of their own accured sick leave to supplement
when they're injured or ill at work when they can use that same time for a personal injury or illness. So, I would just ask that you get their feedback on that. >> Is that okay with you guys? Do you have any other comments on that? >> Okay.
All right. Um, regarding the career ladder, I just I honestly find it very honestly it's it's messed up. It's messed up how it was done. It mess it's messed up how it was presented. You're un our understanding is you're trying to cut
out now sergeants. And I just want to make it very clear sergeants have gotten the career ladder across the board. Is that right? >> Yes. So, and I'm being told that lieutenants now when they're promoted are being told they are not eligible for
it when the policy in the language specifically says that they are eligible for it. >> No. >> Okay. Because >> I don't because they're not the the the I think that might be something that's forthcoming that needs to be part of the discussion, but as a part of the
management team, they're not eligible right now. the GO specifically says you are if you're below the rank of captain. >> So we were not informed that they're being told that. So we're going to reject that. And then for 20.5, we discussed it at
length. We're fine with the one and a half and one and a half contingent on the meto clause with the CTA. So basically if the CTA gets anything over the 3%, the PBA unit members get >> Let me make sure I understand. Um, so on on that
>> and Jean can look that over and we can rephrase it how you want if you're in agreement but >> so so with with CTA when by law we have to pay different amount like the package is a like for for MBU for uh PBA for um
SEIU ASOP we would it's always you know an amount right for certified staff enough uh or their their bit their raises are tied to their evaluation rating. So if you're highly effective, you get more, right? But
>> I worded it as if any if any CTA member receives over the 3% then they get that same amount over the 3%. I think that CTA has less issues as far as vacancy rates. Again, this is your only sworn units of law enforcement officers. So
that's that's our contingency. we'll agree to the one and one and a half and present it to a vote, but only if we have the me too clause in there with the teachers. So, >> but what I'm saying is, let's just say, so this same offer is with the teachers, right? It's a one and a half and a one and a half, right? Um, if you're a
highly effective teacher, you get a little more. If you're an effective teacher, you get less than that. >> Right. I understand. >> So, are you saying that you'll be get whatever the highly effective teacher got or >> I'm Yes. I'm saying that for any >> language means >> right for any CTA member who receives
over the 3% >> and we can word it whatever the highest percentage is in the CTA agreement that that's what the PBA unit members will get. >> How how high can the highly effective go that >> right the offer that we have with them is 3.3%.
So it's an addition% it's an additional 1.5. Yeah. >> So all right. Um if we could have some time to caucus for and discuss this we'll come back. All right. Thank you for giving us some
time to talk it over. Um, we we are in agreement with your me too clause. >> And I just want to add because I didn't put it in there that for retro if that happens like to January 1. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> that's fine. Well, it's on record. I mean, we we would do that anyway, right?
>> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so um we we are in agreement. I think we I have a bunch of things I'd like to get um TA with you today if we can. Uh because if I can get it on the board agreement tomorrow, I can get the
lumpsum payout in the last paycheck of December. So it would come um otherwise it would wait till January. >> Um we do want to hear back on the article 18, but yeah, let's TA as much as possible. You're saying you want to
present this to the board in December. >> Uh no, I wanted to present it tomorrow. We have a board meeting tomorrow. >> Oh, you do? Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Would we be receptive of that and then continuing to have discussions about the workers comp on a separate issue that we
can resolve this? I could because if I go past that December 10th, I can't get it. Uh December 10th is the next board meeting and I wouldn't be able to get it in time to get it out paid out before the winter break. >> So, if it's tomorrow, when would they get it?
>> They would get paid out on uh December 19th. Is it right? Our last is that the Friday? >> The Friday before winter break. >> Yeah, we're we've Well, I think we'd be removing the language that was there,
right? That's all I have here. Um, well, and it says officer. >> I >> Yeah, I I guess on on that I I'd recommend that the parties continue having, you know, greater discussion on it. Um, it sounds like you you all have
some ideas. >> That's kind of what our thing is. as long as it's it's open still that we can still discuss the every the career ladder would stay status quo as is including the sergeants as is um and the workman's comp that we come to agreement
that we will look into that further um and work on that also then then we're fine with with that too am I not overstepping here correct >> you guys Yes.
>> Right. Well, we could bring it to the board and then as soon as we hear from you, um, >> not us, >> no, we bring it to the board. The sooner that you have it on on >> Turn on your mic.
um sooner we get it, you know, with the board meetings. Um >> let me let me think about it and I'll get back to you today because I just I don't know if we want to do that without the unit members voting first because that's always our practice. If if it
goes to the next board meeting, >> when is that? The meeting is what? >> December 10th is the next one. >> And when would the payouts be? Yeah, it's it it's just pending the ratification. It's it it is how we've always done it. As soon as I get an
agreement, I always put it on the next available board meeting and and usually um you know for a good cause >> just to get it get it done because a lot of them actually trigger there's something in it that says you know you have to be an active employee at the
time. So if anybody was leaving your unit's smaller, so it it might not impact, but a lot of them, you know, if people are if they leave, you know, if they leave, if if they're a member of the unit when it's approved by the board, they get paid. >> I'd like to look up that um perk rule,
but that's our internal practice to always do the unit vote first. But if it goes before on the December 10th meeting, when would the payout be? sometime in January. >> Maybe February. >> Either January or February.
>> Are we Are you okay with us looking into that? I think that should go to the members first >> and the would it be u possible that you will would put it to the to the boards uh ask the board about the workman's comp and why they're not um willing to
>> I I don't normally bring those things to the board and now when you asked can we ask the superintendent we we have conversations with the superintendent >> I guess it's something we'd like to have on >> I would like to hear from the board >> also >> just to see what it is I mean I I don't see what to be the problem would be
>> all I I don't I don't determine what you know the board weighs in on. Um that that would be subject to the superintendent. So >> he's he decides solely what they hear. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. All right. Um, yeah, I would just like to put this in the contract anyway, like what we sign, and then, um, I want to look up that specific rule, and I mean, we would like to hear back on article 18, but um, I'll
get back to you by the end of today. >> Okay. I I have a five o'clock deadline, so I it would not get on if I don't have >> posting. That's fine. I'll I'll do it. I'll do it quickly. Um, do you want me to sign
my version of 17 in the preamble? >> I have it all right here. I like I I think I like this. I've got lines for it and everything like that. And it's a little larger font. It's easier to to read through. Um, I have it. So, if if
you want um I have it ready. Uh, but I'm not sure what I'm not sure I guess what you're saying. Are you Are you saying you'll you'll let me know before the end of the day if we want to put it on the agenda for tomorrow? >> Yeah, because I would want to incorporate that clause into the draft as well. >> I was just going to TA it as is like
this. >> Yeah, >> I'm fine with that. >> Um, with a note for retro to one January one, but >> that's fine. I can TA that. You want to TA article 18?
And just to >> just to confirm though, just so I mean it still can't go anywhere unless harm I mean >> unless you ratify >> unless we ratify it either way. So it's not it's not that big of a deal I don't believe at this point. >> It's a matter of timing of payouts >> and that's fine. I think our our members
would rather see it earlier than later. Um >> but I >> but I I still think we need >> I think they should do the vote. I I don't like to rush this. So if they have to be paid in January, I feel like that's better because I feel like we always do the unit member vote first. >> Vote first.
>> Yeah. Vote. >> Yeah. We're going to present it to a vote. So >> yeah, definitely. >> And I'll incorporate that clause into there and just make sure everything is squared away. If you want to send me the word format of your version, then I can
work off of that in red line if that's easiest. >> Okay. One second. Yeah. >> Yeah. We would have to get back to you on on the timing of the payouts and and when we would do retro because >> probably January or February, that's
fine. We're going to do the unit member vote. Yeah. Okay. All right. >> All right. We'll get back to you quickly. >> All right. If you want to send me the word version of yours, then I can work off of that and I can sign whatever and email it back to you. >> Okay. Okay. And >> the quicker we can get somebody to set
up the the voting dates too, then we can >> do that. >> Those are usually pretty quick. We have those, you know, we've >> we do one location last time. I can't remember. >> We've done the central office here as as part of it. I know, but I feel like there was another location too on a different day.
>> Okay. We'll talk about >> we'll email you. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Have a nice day, everybody.