All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for being here today. Uh we'll get started. I think um I do have uh some responses to your proposals. If you'd like, I could start there. Sure. Sound good? Okay. So, on the preamble,
um adjusting dates, it from what we see, it's in alignment with what we would do as well. So, we're we're in agreement there. um on work week and overtime, the increase outside detail pay rate from $55 an hour to $60 per hour and $65 an
hour to $70 an hour on designated holidays, the district um does agree to this proposal, but starting July 1st. Okay. All right. for the work week and overtime, the extra duty rotation. I feel like there's
a little bit more discussion that probably needs to occur on this side. Um, and maybe with us here, we can we can all have this discussion. I know Chief is is ready to to talk about it a little bit. And, uh, so I'll turn it over to her. All right. I was just going to say, um, part of what we're doing right now
Whoops. Hey, I got a lid on it. It's not bad. We're good. We're good. you guys need an extra. Um, right now we are currently doing a 30-day rotation basis that they're reviewing it, but it's a rolling 30 days. So, I want to make sure that we have that part in there that it would be
a rolling 30 days. Um, and then instead of doing it by the number of hours that the system can automatically calculate the number of details as opposed to the number of total hours because sometimes those hours are going to change. So I would propose that if
we're going to do the number of jobs andor hours that we need to do it not by the hours themselves but the number of details that they pick up. What do you mean the hours change? They were trying they were trying my understanding is how we're trying to put this in is that you there would almost
be like a balancing point seniority and if you had x number of hours that somebody that may be less senior than you would be able to get another detail. Instead of counting the hours themselves, we would like to count the number of details that you sign up for because it's just that the system can
automatically that's what we did in now in in Yeah, right now it's looking Yeah, it that's what it is doing now. But what the proposal here is to look at the number of hours as opposed to the number of details. So, I would be opposed to the hours, but I would be
pro number details because it just there's so many like you could be off by an hour here, an hour there, and the officers kind of have the opportunity to pick what they want to work. Somebody might pick an eight-hour detail as opposed to, you know, three two-hour details or two three-hour details. So,
the number of details would be easier for us to calculate. Thank you. than than the uh than the number of hours in the jobs themselves. I think we were hearing both in the member meetings. So, I guess I'll just talk to them when we caucus.
You you don't think that the uh it it's more equitable with the hours versus detail the numbers the days at the end. It might I don't think it's going to be that different. However, the detail the number total number of detail hours could change. So there's a chance
that your detail might go a little long, it might go a little short, but it's still a detail itself. You're saying you're worried about the hours fluctuating every day to to try to count the hours accurately is going to be more difficult than counting the number of details accurately.
Is that going to be like the system will do that? Right now it's doing it by detail, not by the number of hours. Didn't she? Okay, we'll we'll talk about that. Okay. Um, what about the 24-hour? Were you were you good with the specialized unit in the 24-hour?
No. Um, the specialized unit I don't to me I don't think it's necessary. And instead of 24 hours, I'd rather have 48 hours just to make sure that the details are full. 48's good. What happens now with the specialized units?
How are those? It's not really prioritized. It's on on the team pretty much. They if they're working working something, it's within the unit that they determine who's working what. But it's it's it's internal according to the unit.
If there's if there's issues within a unit and somebody thinks that they're not getting deta or getting overtime equitably with everybody else, I would rather they bring it to me and because I I can manage the units easier than managing, you know, a whole overtime deal because it's not it's not pre-posted or anything like that. So
ultimately, I've got to be the one that that authorizes the overtime for any of them. Okay. Okay. Well, we well caucus. Yeah. Go ahead, Chief. The reason that got brought up is sometimes we have um community engagement events after hours and it's
been brought up that the person that sets it up might want a specialty unit there particularly and that's just putting so that way no one can go why is that person in that detail over somebody else getting picked. I got it and I we could have discussion on that. That's different than having just the specialized units supervisor
determining it. Um we do have a sergeant in charge of the community engagement. some of the events they they specifically would want one type of unit as opposed to another, but I can be involved in that conversation. And if you guys feel that there's something inequitable there, bring it to me
because I I can manage that at my level. I don't I don't think it belongs in the contract. Yeah. Just trying to keep it clean in case anybody questions it and goes, "Hey, why is this officer in this detail?" Well, it's because he's on the ESU team or that and they wanted that for the event for somebody. So that way they can't question why they're there.
I I got you. Um, we could work with that that supervisor that does organizes it and I can help manage that with the supervisors of the specialized units. Okay, we'll talk more about that. For article 1714,
uh, work week and overtime overtime computation. Um, you propose adding a paid nonworkday. Um, did we agree to add paid non workday just not u limited to Junth? That's fine. So, is that the only one right now? Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. [Applause] Uh, for paid parental leave, um, we recognize the importance of parental leave and and the value it is for for families and and our employees. Um, unfortunately, the district's just not funded for to add we're not funded well
enough this year to add any new paid benefits. So, our positions uh to reject that on the leave for personal reasons. Um I know we discussed it last session, but per Florida statute 101261
2.2. A.2 uh district school board can authorize up to six days of personal leave. That that's just the statute. So, what about a mental health day? personal leave, right? Is it
I think I mean I I don't know if there's it's I don't think it defines that. It defines personal, you know, that that you can get up to six days personal leave. So on the workers comp, uh our we are our district position is to adhere to the
statute, ensure consistency, avoid setting precedent beyond anything that's legally required. So our position here is is status quo on workers comp for the joint study committee. Um I guess we're at status quo. I know you
all met I think five times. Um and we're willing to when if I I think chief is willing to continue meeting and discussing this and if something is coming out of it and and you know you want to bring that back you're talking about the career ladder. Yeah. if that wants to, you know, if we want to bring that back and and look at
anou or introduce it in future bargaining sessions, um we're we're happy to do so, but as of right now, we just don't have anything. I don't think we have any recommendations. Yeah. Yeah. So, on the experience credit, um this enhancement was something that Chief and
I I think were discussing since she came in the door as an effort to try to increase recruitment. And um I think we're really lucky we got it in last year um before you know our enrollment dropped so significantly. Um but we're we're not looking at any changes to what
was established last year. So our our position on any changes would be status quo. We weren't proposing to do it again. We were just concerned if anyone missed it, which I haven't heard of anyone in person. I haven't heard that either, but if they have, we're happy to take a look at it and just try to, you know, work
directly with that employee and figure out what what happened. No, I think there was a mix up, but I think we're fine. Okay, good. Um so as I shared earlier um earlier today but also last session we are down 5,500 students and um also in this year
we've had the smallest increase in per student allocation uh per student funding increase in in 10 years with the exception of one year during COVID but during that year we had er funds that offset it. So honestly we didn't really feel the impact of it right. Um, this
year with with the small funding increase and $25 million shortfall, this directly impacts our operations and not just classrooms and students and schools and teachers and stuff like that, but all of our operations, every single one of us, all of our positions, everyone.
And so the district's initial wage offer is a a 1% recurring and a 1% lump sum cash out. And I recognize that this is lower than what you'd expect. And in the past, we've had increasing enrollment every single year. And this year, we've
gone the complete opposite by a lot. You know, we had increasing enrollment of a thousand kids, maybe 500 kids almost last year. This year we're 5,500 students, the oppos, you know, below what we, you know, decline. So, with that, um, that's our opening wage
increase. And we wish we could do more, but we're in a really tight budget this year, so that's where we're going to start. Okay. I don't think we're surprised because we know this is what you offered the teachers, but they're are law enforcement. They're the only one of two groups not subject to a hiring freeze
and they're a much smaller unit, the only unit of sworn. I think based on what Heather said, a 1% raise, according to the district, is $281,791. That's what it costs to give all the officers a 1% raise. Um I think for the
teachers, a 1% raise is 10 million. That's correct. So, you're still 50 short. I honestly don't know how you're going to keep up with you are in the law enforcement market. I don't know how you're going to keep up with it with that proposal. So, okay, we'll caucus, but I don't think
that the members would vote for that. So, I understand that that is our initial offer. Um, depending on what where we go with everything else, maybe, you know, we we have some room, but we don't have a lot. I'm just going to be honest with you. Okay. But again, they're law
enforcement. I I understand they're below market. Teachers, I think, for Palm Beach County are above market. I understand that. That's our That's our initial wage offer. Okay. Like I said, I don't think we're surprised, but we'll talk about it in our caucus.
Right. Is there a room A which is over that way. So, okay. And then the performance pay, like I said, that we have to bargain that with the eval. So, you want to pass it around now?
So, we're opening we're open to changing the eval form, but we have to change the eval form to agree to change the percentage. So, I think you're she's going to pass out what our draft new eval tool looks like. Okay. Um in addition to an explanation of the
categories on it and then there's also a copy of the current form um so you can see how kind of long and drawn out that is compared to what we're trying to do to okay to modify it. So, I have something real quick I'd like to bring up. Um, during a a wellness
day, I had a lot of officers approach me. Um, in regards to sometimes, uh, officers when they're at school, um, they may not feel well. So, I know at the wellness thing, it's like, "We're
great, everybody. You know, we care about your physical and mental condition, and here's some free uh uh uh blood pressure machines and all kinds of stuff." So, we had several officers that they felt a little shaky, dizzy, whatever it was, while they were
working, and they weren't able to use the school nurse just to get a quick evaluation, maybe take blood pressure, maybe take their their their temperature or whatever it is. I know at one time uh this was a common practice to do it and that I think the guidelines changed
where they're not allowed to do it now. So is any way we could look into that because on the back end of it um let's say there's an officer that feels a little dizzy and maybe it's because his sugar went up or his blood pressure well is a little high or just something that
just came and went. The other alternative is to call Palm Beach County Fire Rescue. they come down to check out the officer, it turns out to be a non-event and we tied them up for half an hour, an hour, whatever it is, when it could be a real emergency out in the street that they could be
attending someone with a real problem. So, I was wondering if there's a way we can look into possibly uh having the okay where the nurses can check our guys out if they are feeling a little shaky. Yeah, I can uh during the caucus I can
call Mr. Oswald who who his division oversees that. Um, but I believe there's uh something in the contract that um possibly prohibits them from seeing any of our employees. So, I but I'll look into it and we can talk about that after.
Yeah, I I understood that was a possibility and maybe there's a way and to change that, you know. Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm not sure where they're at with their contract or anything like that, but I'll I'll get some information and and I'll get it to you. I could at least address some of that
because I am involved in the uh negotiations. It's from the healthcare district and it it there that is not a possibility for us to change that and it's at the healthc care district's direction that they are limited to um just seeing students and not employees
and we asked um and it is not something we could agree. Is that is that because of a contract? It's the healthc care district is not able to do that. And so they they say that contractually it is they are there because of a contract stipulation that says they're now not allowed to do that.
Is that what it is? At the request to the healthcare district and they're saying it's a request. No, it's they're saying it's statute driven that they are limited to seeing students only and it is a change that the healthcare district made and they're saying it's statute. It's driven by
statute. Okay. Chief, in in regards to the uh um evaluation, so basically you have to get a all fours or fives to qualify on average. It 80% would be the the
score that you're looking for. So, yeah. So, 80 points total, but you could get you could get a three on something and get a bunch of fives and you'd still qualify. Okay. Okay. We're going to go that way. You said
Yeah. Um, third a Okay, I'm just going to go in order. So, 17.11, I think we're in agreement. We are a little below some other places, but I think that's a good place for here. So, thank you. I think that we're in agreement on 17.11
details from 55 to 60 and then uh 65 to 70. So, 17.12 um speaking with the reps and based on the last membership meeting, we are still going to propose it based on ours. I
think that it can be managed through the system. So um but change the 30-day to rolling. So 9004 overtime details and leases will be assigned by seniority and then hours worked on a rolling 30-day
basis. However, school details first will be offered to homeschool officers and then to officers by sector zone and then districtwide as described in 1710. And then um and I think that the reason for that is because a lot of the jobs
and details are like a lot of them are one hour smaller hours. So they think that that going by um the hours is more fair than the number of jobs. So and then the specialty unit section, we're fine
getting rid of that. Um I think that next sentence is still good to keep. seniority and number of total hours worked will be counted on a 30-day uh we can change that to rolling basis which is based on the date of the assigned work and then we're fine with changing 24
hours to 48 hours. Um 17.14 and then 17.13 I just moved that sentence to the beginning of 17.12 because I thought that was an awkward place for it. 17.14, we're fine with
removing Junth. Okay. Article 18. Um, we're going to drop the paid parental leave and the mental health day that we talked about, but we do feel and the members feel very strongly about the workers comp. As I said the last member
meeting, the two main things that we talked about were how those 904 overtime and details were being assigned and then the workers comp. And I think that we've had a lot of workers comp issues and members coming to us with concerns about the workers comp. Um, but we did change
our proposal. So instead of the 10 extra leave days, we're going to propose 20. So one month basically if you're out and then sick leave is really their sick
leave time anyway. So I don't see the problem with letting them supplement if they're temporarily or per or out, you know, permanently for disability based on workers comp to supplement the workers comp pay with their own sick
leave if they request it. So, um, because it is their time and they're out injured. And then that one section we're going to keep as well based on those who were out for the performance eval. And that's if you go to my proposal page
18, subsection B, members who are temporarily or totally disabled or who are working under a light duty assignment for 90 days or less will receive a complete annual eval from his or her supervisor basically so they can be evaluated under
the LEO eval form. because we had this come up and I don't think this is a a widespread issue but there is a question if you're out on light duty when you're evaluated under the LEO eval form versus like the civilian.
All right. Will will you reddraft your proposals and then be able to send that to us? Sure. All right. So basically instead of the 90 days paid if you're out temporarily or totally disabled, we're going to propose 20 days. how they get the extra 10 days of
leave. Now, we're going to propose 20 and then um if they request it to supplement if they are out totally with their sick leave, but I can I'll I'll revise that and send that
the career ladder. I think we're fine with that being status quo and if if either side wants to reopen that, we're fine with that, too. Um, salary adjusted. Salary adjustments 20.5.
We're going to counter at 3% with a $1,000 signing bonus. And that basically puts it just over a million dollars for the whole police department. And I think that unless some other benefit is
provided, that's as low as we can go because all these other agencies are getting 8 to 10% between the wage increases in the step plan. I I understand. I recognize your proposal. I I'll talk with the team. Um
we're not below market though. I know you said that in the last when we caucus. We are we are not below market. You are. and and the 50 positions you referenced. I will just say that we do overbudget our our department um to have
excess officers and you know kind of like a a dream there but we're we're not I'm just making it clear in our opinion we're not below market and um we're we're not you know down 50 officers.
Well, I'll say from our opinion, we don't just look at hourly rates. And if you look at all the stats that we gave to you last time, all these other places have step plans. They're all seeing 8 to 10% this year. They're all starting between 75 and 80,000
this year around, right? Yes. And they have longevity. They have the step plan that it's an accelerated step plan. So, it's not just the 3 to 5% with the steps. It's 8 to 10. I I get it. I understand. I I I know
what you showed us last time. Um we are funded differently than than these agencies, just so you know. But you are one of the few school districts with your own accredited police department. So you do have to keep up with the market. We we feel we are and we feel you are not. So that's where
we are. 3% with a $1,000 signing bonus, which puts you just around a million dollars for the whole police department. You don't mean a signing bonus, right? You mean a a lump sum? Is that what you mean? That's what we call it at other places in CBA is a signing bonus, but yes, a lump sum. Okay.
And then the performance-based pay plan, I think that we're fine with it. The 80% and the form as proposed. So, I think that's everything. Okay. Um I think that uh in our next
session we'll we'll have some we'll have some further discussion on our side and then you know get ready for our next session. And they brought it to my attention that these dates are all in I think they're off days. So I don't know if we can get more sure. I mean I know we I'm not I I
really didn't set in the schedule but um I don't know if we can get more dates. If you guys have more dates about the they two of them I think might be unavailable the next date. So the test the date sign off on the sergeant test be
oh and we're fine with your proposal about the sergeants the qualifications through December 31st. So okay um sticking with December we'll stay with that's what based on I think the language of the testing eligibility list period that
makes sense. So, so the dates the next session you guys are not available. Um, I think two are not, but I'll I'll follow up with you in an email cuz if others can come then Okay. And if not, we can send float some other dates out there.
But if you have more dates um to I don't know when our last date is. If we can get an extra I'm not sure, but we I can get D. Last day is October 7th. What What was the last day? October 7th. Yeah. So, if we can get like a later date as well. Um,
what we can work if we have to I don't want to give up the date. We can switch out the reps, too. I'll follow up with an email, but if we can get a later date. Okay. Sounds good. Well, I appreciate everybody's time today and we'll see you at the next session. Okay. Thank you.
Thanks.