All right, good afternoon everybody. Thank you all for being here today. It's nice to see you. Uh I think since this is our first session, we'll we'll get started with the round of negotiate um with introductions and uh then get started. >> Good afternoon, Chief Sarah Moody. Um
chief for the school district police department. >> Heather Frederick, chief financial officer. Tim Kubri, chief of human resources. >> The amaz Cruz, HR, labor relations. >> Jamie Middleton, Office of General Counsel. >> Diane Wyatt, labor relations.
>> Mark Mitchell, HR. >> Vanessa Snow, Deputy Chief, >> Mexico, Major, Support Service for Police. >> Carol Session, PBA. >> Officer Joel Leo, PBA. >> Officer Nella, PBA. Katie Mendoza PBA.
>> Lynch PBA. >> Red is on. >> There you are. Red. There you go. Oh, it's >> I can't We can't see the light from this side. >> Officer Lynch PBA. >> There you go. All right. Well, again, thank you all for being here. Uh, I'll
quickly move ours and then we'll I see you have a presentation up here as well. Uh so I just want to first recap on on what we did last year. I think uh we had a a successful year, made some meaningful gains. Uh we did have a a 4% increase across the board. We continue
to raise our outside detail. Uh, one of the, uh, biggest accomplishments I think last year through negotiations was our new hire experience credit uh, that we offered so that Chief Mooney and her team can recruit, you know, officers with experience. And in doing so, being
able to offer that to our our current employees and and give them credit for the experience that they had uh, before this was brought in was a nice thing as well. So, all of our our adjusted pay rates are there. Um so that brings us to
this year though and um we're facing one of our our most difficult periods in in decades here. Um this year the district experienced its largest non-COVID enrollment decline that really any of us
can remember. Um we were expected to be down about 400 students. It turns out we're we're down about five 5,500 students. Um, and part of that is the Florida empowerment scholarship. Part of it is our our EOL population that we had
seen increasing where we saw a significant decrease this year. So, um, that that's our enrollment numbers right there. The blue is us, the orange is charter, the gray are the Florida uh, the family empowerment scholarship. So,
you can see there we we did drop a significant amount this year at count day. So, so managing that is there's a big impact when you lose 5,500 students as opposed to gaining it, right? When you going up in enrollment, you have a surplus of
money. Um, you know, the cost to to add some staff, you know, and and think when you're the increased revenue you get from the students exceeds what you the cost of of putting new staff in place. We're the opposite. When you lose enrollment, we're not
eliminating, you know, the whole classrooms or something like that throughout the district and it's resulted in $25 million shortfall for us. Um, that's a that's a real huge financial impact to us. And um, back in COVID when we we did lose some students,
we were down roughly I think 6,000 or so. We had federal esser dollars and and really those dollars kind of masked what what kind of, you know, impact of losing 50, you know, 6,000 students and people didn't really notice it. This year, we don't really h we don't have that.
So, we are trying to do our best to to manage this. We have implemented a district-wide hiring freeze on most positions. There are some that are not part of the freeze. Um, and we'll we'll continue to evaluate that throughout the year, but school police officers are are
exempt from the the hold. um drivers, bus drivers, um some schoolbased food service, and and there will be some others because we will have to, you know, still continue to operate. Uh but we're this is the first time we've had a
real hiring freeze in a long time. Um you know, we've talked about before and we review them more carefully or something like that. This one was was much more broad and and you know it will not we won't just remove it you know it
will continue to be things held under under the hold >> the 5500 is that like projection or is that the actual >> that's act um so schools uh we we just went through a process to align our our staff at
schools with the enrollment decline. Right. So, we we've moved about 150 employees. We do have some more to move, but our our focus really right now is making sure that we keep our people in jobs, move them to areas that that do need to be filled, uh, where we see
maybe some vacancies or something like that. Uh, but with that, we're at our lowest vacancy rate that we've ever seen. I've I've been in HR since 2007, and we have never had a vacancy rate as low as what we have right now. Um, in
the upcoming year, we'll continue to align school staff with whatever revenue that we're going to be bringing in for students, but we're also going to be looking at departments as well. Um, so this this will be something we're we're doing throughout the year to really align our all of our uh offices and
schools with with our revenue. say that this is the best of the the next few years, the best of the worst the next few years. We do anticipate enrollment to continue to decline. >> So, we know that's not good news, but I think it's important for all of us to
understand the the financial status that we're in. Um, Mr. Burke did send an email to all employees yesterday following the the budget adoption on Wednesday. um really trying to bring light to this is the the most difficult financial situation we've been in and
and probably any of us here can remember. Um I was here for 2010 when we had our the the recession. Um it wasn't like this. We we didn't hiring or anything like that. So this is a a little bit different kind of year for us.
>> And this is all based on what it's anticipated. Correct. It's not that it's been >> No, this is actual. This already happened. So we've had we had 5,500 students. >> No, no, that I understand. But I'm talking about the funding and everything else a lot.
>> So So with when when the kids are gone, you just won't get that funding. So >> included on that email you're talking about. >> All employees got it. Yeah. >> Does that answer? >> She was expecting future years, but he specific
count was record. >> Yeah. Um Yeah. I'm I'm talking not just on the the student per student funding. I'm talking about the whole funding general for school district >> that is actual. So >> the actual budget number
>> Yeah. the actual budget number. So like just say we get $25 million a year. Is it 25 million that were projected to not get this year or >> depending on if they cut the Department of Education?
>> No, it has nothing to do with that. This is just based on the loss of the 5500 students, our revenue should decline by $45 million this year. >> Okay. So, we're not basing this on anything other than what we're not getting from student enrollment.
>> Just strictly related to student enrollment. I do anticipate impact of the federal programs going forward in FY27, but at least in FY26, those federal grants that were held were released and then we're going to have to wait till the fall um and maybe even to
the spring to see what the federal government does. It does look like they may take all those grants they put on hold and froze and they might put them into a block grant. So, so that's another potential concern that we're monitoring going into FY27.
What is the loss per student? >> What is the loss per student? >> Well, it's not per student. It's it's going to average out to approximately $8,500 per student. And that piece of it is a projection because I won't receive the actual um
adjustments. It depends on whether they're elementary, whether they're an ESC student, whether they're an ELLL student. They have different cost factors and DOE will not give us that information. and I don't anticipate to get that until January. They've been
very delayed in sending us the information, but we have to do adjustments so that we can we can start making changes prior to that. We couldn't wait till January to make adjustments. >> So, that's a ballpark. >> The 45 million is a ballpark. It could be a little bit more. It could be a little bit less.
>> The student part of it is not >> the student is not. It's just the actual revenue reduction that we're going to receive. That's an estimate. And and just uh what was our loss our decline last year? >> We were we were actually up slightly
>> slightly last year >> about 300 about 300 students. If we go back to the if you look at that we've had increasing enrollment each year maintaining or slight increases since co charter schools have actually been declining the last three years in a row.
Uh we were anticipating that we would be down slightly like Mr. Kubrick said about 400 students. So to be down 5,500 was unanticipated. And it's not just here in Palm Beach County. U Miami Dade School projected that they would be down
5,000 students and they were down 13. Um Broward was projecting to I'm not sure what they were projecting to be down, but their actual is close to 10,000. So it's not just here in Palm Beach County, also Hillsboro in Orange. So most of the
large urban districts actual enrollment came in much lower than was projected. >> Are more of the students going to virtual? >> No, we saw the number of students and we're still trying to finalize the numbers. It's between 1300 and possibly
2,000 that went to vouchers went to private schools that were in our schools previously. more of the the impact appears to be as we're digging into the numbers the English language learner students because we've had pretty consistent growth the last two years
averaging about 4,000 what what we call LY and LF students and then this year we saw a decline of 1,800 so a complete you know reverse from seeing growth of 4,000 to a decline of only 1,800 >> and they can't take those vouchers for
Florida virtual >> well Florida Florida virtual is just another another option. >> Home schooling or whatever. >> Home school. They can they can use the fees voucher for homeschool that can be used for home school too. But I mean it looks like more of the impact appears to be as we're digging
into the numbers uh related to to immigration potentially. And then also just changing demographics. It's very expensive as we all know to live in Palm Beach County. Families are leaving. um declining birth rate, you know, a bunch of different
factors, but the the unanticipated part I think is more uh immigration related. >> And just one other >> that seems consistent with the large urban districts with what Broward saw and Miami Dade. >> One other quick question on that. So, as we do, we budget for and I'm just going
to throw out a number 315 people even though we don't have 315 people uh officers. Um does the district do that as well? Budget for positions they project it to have >> but their teacher slots are filled
mostly. >> Yeah. So what we build so the way that we address that because it's come up before is we build in a vacancy rate for example to the teacher uh how I budget the teacher salary. So I assume that we're going to have a certain number of vacant positions and so the but the rate
that I budget is lower than what the actual average is. And so that's why what Mr. Kubri was saying this is the lowest we've ever seen. So so now we're at the point of where I actually budget for a vacancy rate. We're only slightly above that. So there's no what you're
talking about is lap salary. we have salary budgeted that we know we're not going to use uh with this change and and um we we didn't have to lay off any teaching staff. We were able to to realign them as because there were some schools that did have growth. So we were
able to realign them to to where there was actual need for that position. So this is just that's why it's it's unique it in and a unique challenge that we're facing. So, not only a 1.7 1.3% increase in per student funding, but
then that combined with something that we honestly didn't anticipate and >> and we will work through it, you know, with changing the the staffing formulas to align with the revenue, but it is going it is going to definitely be a challenge, you know, for FY27. And like
I said, I I'm just projecting that it it's it it does look like it's going to unfortunately continue over the next couple years. You you should be able to correct that with the staff and formulas though. Correct. >> It's if the as the if we keep seeing
continued declines, it's it will get more challenging each year that we go. >> Let's just deal with this year. >> What was that? >> I said, let's just deal with this year. >> Yes, I would I Yes, I I would agree with that. And let's be hopeful it gets
better. All right. So, I believe you have copies of the district proposals. >> Do you guys have copies um of theirs? >> Yeah, >> you got you got one. All right. So, the first
one is just the do the joint study committee language. >> I don't think we have copies of yours over here. I think just just >> just one extra. Do you guys have more? That's ours. >> I gave you a few extras. You might have one underneath there. >> Oh, I just have one. I think
>> I just need one. >> You could share mine if you want. Carol, you share with >> That's okay. >> All right. So, this the first one is just the uh the joint study committee language that they did meet. I'm told
five times. I am also told that we don't have any recommendations for any modifications right now, but that chief will continue to meet with her team and and the reps to discuss any may possible future changes to that. But I don't have any >> You guys are still talking, right? You
haven't come to an agreement. So, I'm fine with you guys keep going. >> We have to we can finish it in here. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Next one is uh related to the uh performance-based pay plan. So right now
the uh the pay plan references a raw score of 165 points needed for calculating who's eligible for this the stipend. Uh we're proposing that the 165 be converted to a percentagebased evaluation score of 80%. Which is really
what 165 is but it als it aligns closely with the better with the instruments they're using to evaluate. Um, there's also a a a removal of a sentence in there that is something that I'm told doesn't really align with
what the practice is in the department. Um, but with that, I'll turn over to Chief to weigh in on this a little bit more. >> Yeah. Basically, the only thing we're looking to do is is change that number so that it's not called the 165 bonus.
It's it's the evaluation performance bonus >> is the actual like >> the instrument has not changed yet. We will still work with you guys if and when we change it, but the the scoring we want to go to a percentage base as opposed to a specific number. So it
gives us the ability to adjust a um a a an evaluation tool that isn't married to a numerical score as opposed to a percentage score. So like right now if you get on the current the current um tool that we use there's 203 points you
can get and to me I feel it's very arbitrary and the 165 actually comes out to 81.2% is what you need to get of your total score. So, we're proposing go to 80%, leave it as the standard, keep the keep the six years as part of it just so it gives us some flexibility to work
through changing up the evaluation tool itself without being married to a point number as opposed to a a percentage value. >> But the actual number system on the form is going to change too or no >> if and when the valuation changes. So the we're going to keep the tool as it
is and and continue to work with you guys in order to try to come up with something new. But the the overall oops the overall ranking or rating we want to go to a percentage because this this kind of says when you get evaluated you
have to achieve X number of points or percentage >> Mhm. >> of your total. We don't want to be married to the 165 number. I'd rather be married to a percentage of a tool so that in case we do change the tool at some point in time, you'd still get 80%.
It might be based off of, you know, 100 points as opposed to 165. Right now, the scale on the 165 evaluation, I think that they came up with the points before they came up with the evaluation tool. And it's to me it's just kind of it's it
it kind of ties us to the tool that we have right now and the scoring mechanism that they have right now based on one to seven per each category. Now in addition to that we would like to align it a little bit more with the evaluation processes we do with field training in
addition to getting off of probation. So the things that you're ranking people on to make sure that they're doing well enough to move to the next level. It'd be the same type of thing. it'd be a a more condensed version ideally when we get to the final tool working with the
union in order to establish that. But the scoring mechanism itself, it really doesn't matter if it's out of 300 points or if it's out of, you know, 500 points. But 165 and coming out of 203 points just doesn't make sense. It ties us to those numbers as opposed to the
percentage that it that it equates to. I'm fine with changing it as long as they're good with it. But I just think in my mind it makes sense to change the eval form because otherwise you're just doing 80% whatever that is over 165, right? >> No, just 80% 80% out of whatever
whatever the tool total is. Yeah. Like if you had if we came up with something that has 150 points, 80% of the 150 is what you would need in order to be able to qualify for the bonus. You're just talking basically pass or fail >> at 80%.
You have to get at least an 80%. So if you have a scale that's 1 to five, you'd have to average fours on your scale. >> So you're not just talking about putting a P or F >> next to the number, and if you get eight out of 10, you get correct. It's not it's not a pass or fail. will still have
a a scoring mechanism, but the total number of points, the way it's set up right now, we have to base it on 203 points and you have to score 165 of those 203 points. It doesn't allow us to it doesn't allow us flexibility in
changing what we're what we're trying to assess. >> Do you have an idea of what you want? >> Yes. Yes. think that we should just do it all, >> but that but the evaluation tool itself doesn't fit into the contract that the scoring does and whatever the qualification of that tool does. And
that's that's what we want to do. If we can knock that out so that we can agree, okay, whatever the tool is going to be, you have to get at least an 80% with your six years on to qualify for the bonus. It just kind of lays a groundwork and then the tool itself, we can work together to come up with. We're we're we're gauging trying to get to something
that's more on a 1 to five 20 or so categories and and kind of put a little bit more meat into it as opposed to having I think there's like 39 different categories right now. And and it's just we want to make it a little bit more streamlined. We make it easier for the
supervisors to be able to assess um and and to be less subjective. If you're going on a scale of one to five, it's a little easier than going on a scale one to seven because that total number right now, if I give everybody a six on or if
I give somebody a six on everything, that's above average on the current scale, but you get a new supervisor next year and they give you all fives. You you could significantly reduce your score. You could you could basically go down by like 40 points in one year and still be above average. So, I want to
tighten up the scoring so that you're going for the percentage point. there's not going to be as much room for error and flexibility or subjectivity and and to really articulate what you are scoring them on, but at the end of the day, it would still be an 80% that you would need to get in order to qualify for your for your bonus.
>> What do you think of that, Carol? >> I' I'd be happy if we can simplify it. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't have a problem with it. But paper performance is always going to be regardless of how you look, >> but I'm trying to make it less subjective. That's and and this, like I
said, is with the number of points that are available. If you're tied to that 165, then you're tied to that scoring mechanism. So, I mean, we could cut we could make 165, we could change the tool and try to plug those numbers in, but it still gives you too much wiggle room. I'm trying to make it so that it's more
consistent amongst all the supervisors. So just cuz you're working the south end one year and you have somebody that that thinks you did XYZ, it would be you can you could change a a score significantly just by knocking off one point. If you if you minimize some of the categories,
you you shrink the the um the scoring mechanism a little bit. You you're going to think a little bit more before you knock a point off because you're going to you're going to see the difference. You don't really see the difference until you total it when you're looking at a scale of 1 to seven for each question in my opinion.
>> Can we talk about the new form next meeting? You have like a draft. >> We have a draft. >> Yep. >> But it's not that that part is not part of the contract. So whatever evaluation she creates and we still have to bargain it though, so we might as well just knock it all out together.
>> We don't actually. I mean the the evaluation contract explicitly says it's not in part of the CBA. >> No, I know it's not part of the CBA, but it is you have to bargain it. It's impact bargaining. So either way, we're going to have to bargain it, so we might as well do it at the same time. I'm not
proposing to put it in the contract, the form. >> I don't I don't think you're going to get much resistance on this side on it either anyway. I just think we'd like to see what it is. >> Does that make sense? It's just the form. It's not going in the contract. >> What can I just interject? Um, I would rather get this part worked out so that
we can have more time for the instrument cuz I I want to get it right. My goal would be to have it ready to go like to implement at the end of this school year. But if there's if there's room to change the instrument itself, I'm I'm more concerned with just the basic language. This is what you have to get
and then we build the instrument with the scoring. Cuz if we just made this change, then it would be whatever is 80% of the >> Yeah, it'd be like a 164 if we kept the same. >> Is that a 203 right now? >> Mhm. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, I'll talk about it with them, but I think that we're we they're fine with it. Yeah. So, >> Okay. >> The next one has to deal with the sergeant promotional process. Uh we're proposing to add a date specific uh
indicator for the process. All qualifications must be achieved by December 31st of the testing year. >> What is it now? By the posting. Is that I thought we I don't have the full contract in front of me. Is it by the posting? >> Right now it says by the start of the
testing process. And and the reason that I would like to establish a date or we would like to establish a date is because the test date is not in writing. So, if if I do the test at the beginning of September as opposed to the end of September, it says that we will do the test in September. But if I do it the
first week and then I've got people that actually would meet the criteria during the last week of September. And had I just made the test date a little bit early or a little later, they would qualify. I I want to take the I want to take that out of the picture so that there's no question that anybody picked
a certain date during September in order to disqualify anybody or to qualify anybody. >> This is opening up the pool. >> Yes. Yeah. Are >> you fine with that? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Do like an October 1st and since we're doing September for the testing, do an
October 1st. >> That would be different. So, I'm just saying I would like to have a date in the contract that says by XYZ date. You have to meet all the criteria. So the reason that I that I suggested December 31st is that the list itself will not be
um active until January 1st after the test is done. So if you had met met all those criteria by the end of the year, you would be qualified to be a sergeant. Now there's there's wiggle room on that. I just want to make sure that we have a
specific deadline date that that is crystal clear to everybody that's taken the test when they have to be qualified by. The only reason that I would say December 31st in my opinion is that we have many many many people that are here that are very qualified to take the test that would be very good sergeants that
I'd hate for them to miss it by 3 months which cuz 3 months equates to 2 years and 3 months. >> When have the tests been so far? >> September. This is only the second one we're having is uh September 22nd this year. And I I'll give you an example. So this
would equate to also so somebody that has five years on the job. We had we had three people three people this goound um that did not qualify based on their dates. There were two guys that were um two weeks short of having three years in a row with the
district. And we had one guy that was one month or two months two months short of five years with the district. So the minimum would be the 5 years experience total. So that guy that started here doesn't get to take the test because he missed it by a month and a half.
>> Okay. That's really we'll we'll just talk more about that. >> But either way, I would suggest just a date. Whatever the date is. >> Yeah. I'm not so concerned about because you're always going to upset somebody on date. But as long as we have something in finality that we can put and say this
is it. This is no there's no wiggle room in that. >> Correct. >> West because I I know I miss 165 by 10 days and I wait another year. So >> okay we'll talk more. >> All right. For salary adjustments we
know that salary is a priority for all employees. Um a proposal for for salary will be brought to our next session. uh we're still in the process of assessing the impact of the enrollment decline and and trying to figure out just how we're
going to handle that. So, we we'd expect to bring one uh at our next session. >> Okay. >> So, um >> I can just go over my proposals and then I'll do >> put up here though, right? >> Uh those aren't my proposals. It's
really just like uh the market stats right now cuz they've all recently changed. >> Okay. So, I did a little PowerPoint on that, but I can do our proposals first. Okay. Uh, the cover page, I just wanted to put it by the actual I thought it was
confusing, but we have the contract duration there and the school year. So, I guess it's fine to leave the school year, but I just wanted to to note that if it has both, then it's fine. But I thought that was a little confusing
cuz the contract duration differs from the school year cuz I think that the other units are on a different contract duration, right? >> Yeah. Um, some of our units are on a a fis on a fiscal year calendar and some are on the calendar year. >> Okay.
Um, article one, I was just changing the dates. So, we had a member meeting and a lot of members actually came. Um, and the two main concerns that they brought up were how the 904 overtime and details and
leases are assigned that and also workers comp. So, that's what most of these have to do with. So, article 17, the first change is 17.12. So, this is all new language and I and I
think that the members at the meeting were voicing that some of them were told different things than others for how the 904 overtime is assigned. So, we are trying to make it clear and in writing so that we all understand the practice. So the first sentence was already in
there. That's what we did just last round to define extra duty work. So extra duty work is defined as any work eligible for overtime that is not considered an outside detail. I'm sorry. 17.11 was the first change. So we're just proposing to increase the outside
detail rate from 55 to 60. So and I know that your contracts might have different dates for when they're up. So, we can talk about that, but we're proposing to increase the outside detail rates from 55 to 60 and then from 65 to 70 for the holidays.
[Music] We just did that at PBSO. They're actually going to go above that and we're going to send a letter out for Buon soon. The membership actually controls what the rates are. So, we're going to do that in Buon soon, too. And I think one or two other places just increased them as well. So, that was
>> the employees control the rates. in Buon the employees control the yeah the lease rates so $5 for each there and I think that other places have even more than that so we're trying to increase them by five and I think you
said last time that that a lot of those contracts are up in the summer >> uh we bring our our lease uh our rates to the board uh to start new on July 1st with the fiscal here.
>> Okay. >> So, I left the July one in there. Okay. So, going back to 17.12, I left the extra duty work definition that we just did last time. And then the new language is what the membership was
saying is confusing right now. Um, so we propose 9004 overtime details and leases will be assigned by seniority and then hours worked on a 30-day rotation basis. However, school details leases first will be offered to homeschool officers
and then to officers by sector zone and then districtwide as described in section 17.104. Overtime that is requested for a specialized unit shall be delegated by the unit supervisor including K9 emergency field force detective ESU when
such units are requested for special events. Seniority and number of total hours worked will be counted on a 30-day rotation basis which is based on the date of the assigned work. I think that's how most of them are voicing that it's happening now. If any detail lease
or overtime is posted less than 24 hours prior to the applicable start time, the offering will be posted as outbound and will be available for any and all members to sign up regardless of the sector or zone. So we trying to be really clear because I know that all the
different terms get confusing. Um so basically my understanding is when these overtime details leases go out there actually they go out as the 904, >> right? And then we wanted to differentiate when it's like an actual school detail release which are handled
differently. So um >> we're not changing anything. Everything is pretty much the exact same. Just specifying each and every one. So it's it's there's nothing in there that's changed. >> Yes.
>> Does that look accurate how they're doing it now? And the only thing we actually added, we added the in the I'm sorry about the um the specialty unit detail and that was um for um if if if an outside agency or
somebody wanted to use a K9 units, they don't need to go through the the whole process. They can the sergeant can pick the person who they want to do that. It shouldn't go out to everybody in the agency anyway. Chief, any thoughts on that?
>> No, I mean it's that's similar to what we're doing right now. The only thing is we haven't outlined the the idea of total number of hours versus total number of jobs that people get. >> So that seems to be the big kicker. So I I would like to have more discussion on that. And then also just for a point of
record is uh ESU is renamed to CRT. So we're not going to be referencing ESU on anything anymore. CRT and that's we we didn't know either. So we we just >> that was I think the confusion because some have been told that I was doing it
one way or other the other way for actual number of assignments versus hours. >> Yeah. It's it it's the it's the logistics of trying to figure out the hours to make a comparison because of the fact that they are able to sign up continuously. Like most other agencies
will have, hey, they post next month's jobs. The problem that the problem that we have is we have jobs that post that that pop up every week. So trying to tally the hours as opposed to the number of jobs is going to be more
difficult than the total number of jobs. >> Now are you doing just only by number of assignments >> there? It's a mix. So we're trying to make sure that everybody has equal opportunity to get similar numbers of hours in. But it's right now because
there's so many and you have, you know, you have x number of details that are 3 hours long, then you have others that are 4 hours long, then you have others that are 6 hours long. To try to add everybody's numbers up to make sure that we're right on the money is is pretty difficult to do. >> You don't have where it can just tally
those up or >> if you do it as you go, it it it may not work properly. Like I said, it's not like like I think we could do it on things that are um standardized jobs. So like right now we have Charlie shift. We know that that's going to be every day
after school 4 hours a day for the particular um assignment. So you got 20 jobs. You know exactly how many hours and how many of those are available like that job itself. You could you could set some parameters so that you get equal numbers of those jobs. But then you have
bravo shift that's a different number of hours. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. We have some flexibility in being able to change the number of hours on a detail so that they don't overlap if something doesn't get filled. So there's just I I just have concerns with trying to say that we could commit to doing it.
>> We just did it that way. We actually talked about that exact what you're talking about. Um >> you mean by number of assign >> by number of of details versus ours. We're just say we thought our thought process was the hours would be more would be fairer across the board. I know
most agencies use go by hours not jobs. So I I think I think that the it' be it would just be fairer for everybody and it' be easier I think than doing by jobs itself. I can tell you it's not easier for our end because >> that's why we decided on on again we
actually sat and talked about it for a couple hours yesterday on the difference between going hours versus jobs. I don't know if we're necessarily against going either way. We just thought it'd be easier on the >> I I think that we could do an assessment like and it would have to be spread out though. Like I said, if we have jobs
that we know are going to be posted in advance, like you have a month to sign up for them, there's got a deadline on filling them and then using that as an assessment, how many people got those jobs. So like again, Charlie and Bravo shift would be two
perfect examples. You know, how many slots are going to be they're going to be there consistently. As long as the kids are in school, then we're going to have those slots available and we need to fill them. So, we have some people that will try to work as many Charlie shifts as they can. And then you have others that don't want them. Um, and and
then you might have something that's open. So, somebody that that already took a bunch of them, might take more because there's there's vacancies. But we can post those like a month in advance. If we can post those a month in advance and they're closed out and there's got to be a final, you know, amount of time that we could say, "Okay, well, these don't count towards that
total now because we just need to get everything filled." I don't want to I don't want to try to get into the weeds to where we're so busy counting numbers that I don't get my details filled. >> That that's what I I think we need to get away from anyways. Why are we even getting that nitpicky? You had the opportunity to sign up for these things.
If you didn't sign up, that's your own problem, >> right? >> So I I just saying you it's easy. >> Are all of these posted like far in advance or >> No, there's a lot of things that just pop up. Oh, hey, like two weeks from now we have a, you know, we have a parents parents night or we have a, you know, we
have trunk or treat or we have, you know, different things at the school that require more than just the homeschool officer. So I I could say that we could we could try to consistently do that on the details that are standardized, more standardized, but the ones that just pop up because of the nature of the way they get posted,
sometimes we only have like a week notice and and to be able to to have to worry about how many hours somebody had before they sign up for it is is going to be a problem. >> Well, maybe instead of the 24 hours that could be changed. >> Yeah, would it help if we go to a
different just to put it out there? I mean, if it's a week away, I mean, at that point, we can we can't be nitpicky about every one of these little things. >> We can look at it. We can we can look at it and sit down. I think it it it needs more discussion. I'm not opposed to trying to set some parameters on them, but they just got to be something that
we can actually follow through on and because I don't want I don't want somebody coming after me because um Officer Smith got, you know, 2 hours more than Officer Jones. And that happens every year or every every month. It's >> at the membership meeting. they just felt like it's just being given to
whoever. And >> yeah, so there the system is going to be live, like completely live. October 1 is is what we're looking at. There's still a couple little kinks because we're allowing the officers still to kind of get in the system a little bit more than
they should. Um I think in October we're going to have a better idea of how to how to handle those that may be trying to manipulate the opportunities for themselves right now. How's it like what are you doing now? What do you mean the system will be live in October? It's a you're
>> that it's going to talk to our our payroll directly. >> Okay. >> It's going to take it's going to take the uh you know like requests for time and and different things that that are not required or that are required right now just as backup. We're kind of getting rid of that backup and and we're going full boore with the the te staff
part. Um some of the things has to do with visibility of what's there too. I I don't mind being transparent about it and and we've worked every week. We've had meetings um with Captain Kio who's running the system and trying to get it up and running. And as we hit these little and you guys know hiccups here
and there, we've addressed pretty much all of them, I think, but for every hiccup we you know, it our guys are pretty resilient and come up with something new. So, it's it seems like we're still trying to troubleshoot um workarounds. So once we get the
workarounds all kind of eliminated as as best as possible, then we can be a little bit more um consistent on making sure that we can manage that everybody's getting equal amounts or close to equal amounts of opportunity to sign up. >> Yes. So the 9004
Charlie and Bravo and then the details that get posted, are they counting both of those for jobs or just the details that are posted or just uh Charlie and Bravo? That's part of the conversation we need to have because if you're if you're an individual officer and your school happens to have a lot more
overtime than than an elementary school down the street, you may get more hours just by the just because you've got more hours available in activities on your campus. So, I I don't know that you want to discount, you know, your your high school people um from being able to sign
up for jobs that are not on their campus. So there's there's just different dynamics that you have to take into into consideration when you try to say by the hour. >> Okay, we know it's a lot to think about. So we were trying to put in writing how it works or should work. So
>> we could talk more. >> 17.13. That's just where that definition was and I thought it was an odd place to put it. So I moved it to the top of 17.12. Um 17.14. This was another question at
the member meeting um that if Junth was used against their overtime, which I I think that they said that they didn't think that it was. So, I added that there though to go along with the paid holidays for the paid non workday.
>> I I'm I'm not sure all to think about this um really, but I probably wouldn't put Junth in there. Well, do they have more than that? >> No, right now, but you know, part of the legislative platform across the state is is looking to expand on the number of
paid holidays allowable per statute. So, some things could change there. But, um, >> yeah, if you want to take that out and just leave paid non workday, >> I'll take a look at it. >> Yeah, we only put that in there just because that was >> Okay. But if I'm not if I'm not mistaken, we were paid for that day
anyway. Am I correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. The question at the meeting was just whether or not it was used against your your hours worked basically. So we Okay. Article 18 leave. Um you'll see further down we're going to ask for paid
parental leave. Leave for personal reasons. We're proposing instead of six, seven days which come out of their sick leave bank. >> Do we want to talk about that? >> It's not allowable, is it? >> Under statute.
>> Um, >> how many personal days they can get? >> In statute. >> So, we can get that language too. >> Yeah, if I can see that statute. >> I think we asked for this before and I don't know. >> 12.61. 61 parenthesis
>> 22. Yeah. 2 A2 >> 2 A2 >> 2 A 2 >> because those actually come out of their sickly bank though, right? Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. It's it's specific in the statute.
>> Okay. I'll look at that. Okay. So, like I said, this was the second other than the overtime assignment. This was the second main concern, the workers comp. Um, so I changed the heading on page 16 to workers comp so that it's clear that
that's what this section references. Um, if you'll see on page 17, we're proposing that if a member becomes temporarily or totally disabled due to a worker's comp injury, that they receive 100% of their base salary for up to 90
calendar days. And we have this at some other agencies and after that that they can supplement um their workers comp rate of pay with their sick leave and comp time bank. >> Is that allowed right now at all? Do
they supplement with their sick leave bank? Their workers comp >> cuz that's really common at our agencies. They they let you do that now. Can you use sick? I mean, can you use if you're on workers comp, can you like run your sick leave out? >> Like like at a lot of our other
agencies, they get the workers comp rate and then to make up all the way to the base full pay, they use their sick leave bank. >> Oh, I'm not sure. >> I have to I'll have to get back to you. >> We'll we'll get back to you on that. >> Okay. This is actual I think I took this
language from PBSO. Um but at a lot of our agencies we do that where they can they can make up that extra fraction with their sick leave bank. And then um for that subsection B,
this was a specific issue, so I wanted to address it that members who are temporarily or totally disabled or or who are working under a light duty assignment for 90 days or less will receive a complete annual evaluation from his or her supervisor, if
applicable, based on the member's performance during that period of time that he or she was working sworn law enforcement duties. So if you remember chief, we had that one issue. So basically, if you're out like doing a civilian position, we just
wanted to establish a cut off date for when you can be evaluated under the eval form for sworn officers cuz they're doing civilian duties for part of the year and then the sworn duties for the other part. So we just propose 90 days or less.
Okay. And then page 21 is our proposal for paid parental leave. and we're proposing six weeks of paid time off in conjunction with their FMLA for those three qualifying events. So, birth of a child, adoption of a child,
and foster care placement. >> Okay. >> Okay. Article 20, I just highlighted that. So, if they can't come to an agreement, we can just talk about it in here during a later section. Um, salary adjustment. We didn't propose that. I
know that you guys just approved the budget, so I wanted to give you time to propose something. Performance-based play plan. I knew that we were going to talk about that, so I just highlighted that. So, if you want to get into the eval sheet more in the coming sessions, I think that would be
good. >> You know, I I got to tell you though, we we don't bargain our eval sheet with anybody. >> I can send you the case law. You have to bargain it. It doesn't mean you have to put it in the contractor that it's grievable, but you can't just change it without asking. You have to bargain it.
>> All right. Well, you can send it. I I I disagree, but >> well, it's clear law. So, yeah, it's >> I think there's confusion between something being bargainable and something being in the contract. >> So, and Jean should be able to explain
that to you, but I can send you some stuff on that. Okay. And then for current employees that language for the u the experience credit page 28. I just want to be sure because I think we talked about this
last time if they missed the deadline for providing proof that they have that experience or whatever that they can get it this year if they didn't get it the last year. [Music] >> Has that happened? Do we have >> I'm not sure. Is are you talking about
new phone, >> right? Like we talked about last time, if they're current officers, but they didn't meet the deadline or provide the proof for whatever prior experience they had, if they for some reason didn't make that cut off, just to make sure that they can get it this year, if they they didn't get it last year, if they have
that experience, >> it's built into their their salary. So last year, I is there somebody in particular that is claiming they missed it because everybody everybody made it. Well, some folks who were like six months short, you know, would qualify this year.
>> No, that was a one Yeah, that was a one one time. They still got a handful of people. Not even a lot. >> No. >> Well, my intention was that I didn't know if everyone made it based on their proof. So, >> they didn't have to look at everyone.
>> But, but what what it was at that time is what we're talking about, right? >> Not like since then, now it's a year later like, oh, now I have this. No, I'm talking about at that time. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, we >> that's what we emailed about if they couldn't get their paperwork in on time. >> I don't think there was anybody that
that wasn't able to uh there's only one person I can think of and I don't think that he had the proof and that's why we didn't get it. I mean, we continued to work like months. We we gave a deadline so that we could do it in bulk because this isn't supposed to be like an ongoing thing. The idea was to kind of
level set everybody that was here already and then have the additional money available for those that are coming in the door. >> If everyone got it, it's a non-issue, but this was my >> Yeah. So, >> okay. >> Can you just look at it?
>> Okay. Well, do you think that someone missed it? >> I'll send out a number. I I can tell you that I know that there's one person and we bent over backwards trying to it was like pulling teeth to try to get any kind of verification for what he was claiming. He had he got about half of
the total that he could have. Not not that he could have. He qualified for about half of the bonus and he got it but the additional he didn't have any proof of anything and there was nowhere for us to look records whatever. There was nothing that showed it as full-time employment. So that there's only one
example of that. Everybody else, to my understanding, got got what they were qualified for. >> I'll I'll send out a membership email. >> I think some were former corrections, even though their FDLE it says sworn law enforcement officer, their couple years
were corrections, and that didn't apply. I think there was an issue with that, too. Like there would >> I think the only ones that had corrections experience had enough total that they qualified for the maximum. I I don't there's one or two people that I can think of that had the corrections in
there, but they didn't even need it to qualify. I >> I know of of one or two that um was short because they were a deputy assigned to corrections and not on the road. >> That wasn't that wasn't really what we
qualified them on though. It was law enforcement. So from their certification date in law enforcement, >> I'll get in touch with me. the FD under FDLE it says that they're law enforcement. I know there's a difference, you know, because of the EOT
class, they don't qualify. They have to take a their corrections crossover. So, they don't qualify even though the certificate says law enforcement. >> Yeah. We don't do you do you know of anybody that says law enforcement? >> I know, but do you know of anybody complain? Okay, then that's just good morning. >> Certified law enforcement is the easiest
way to do it, >> right? >> Cuz I haven't had any complaints, so I don't know. So, >> okay. and then I'll get you that because that's just a staple of bargaining. It's like impact bargaining. So even if something's not in the contract if it's
in a policy, you still have to bargain it before the change. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. And then I can go through the PowerPoint just very quickly. I wanted to give you an update of the market standards. Where's present? Is it
>> I don't use PowerPoint anymore. I don't know. >> I haven't seen these for a while. >> Really? >> No, we use Google for Guess I'm old school.
Okay. So, we just bargained with a lot of different agencies and municipalities. So, I wanted to give you an update. And most of our contracts are three-year. Some have reopeners, some don't. A lot actually do not. So, um this is Bokeh. We are not their
bargaining agent, but um the annual shift starting is actually 91,000 for officers. And I'm going to go through these quickly because I can just email you a copy uh for reference. This is PBSO. So,
of course, the local sheriff's office. They have a split cola each year. So, this is the current step plan. It should be with the the the summer cola and step one. They're starting at 74712 right now. And then they have their own
career deputy uh pay plan. And of course, all of these places, most of them, if not all, have step plans. It's not our intention to ask for a step plan, but I just want to make that known. Um, so that's just uh their article 29 on their salary plan. It'll
show you how their COLA is split and that's um added to the step plan each year. Palm Beach Gardens, they're one of the few without a step plan, but they have a pay range and they basically got 10 10 and 10 for the next 3 years. They
just ratified this and so their current starting for officer and sergeant is 75,115. That'll show it was actually a market adjustment for the first year. So you'll see that you can add the 6.93 and the three for example for the officer for the first year and then they get 10 and
10 for the next two years. This is Buon. It was just ratified this week. Um so their starting is going to be 76650. It was raised 55 and five for officers and sergeants plus the step.
[Music] Highland Beach was also just ratified. So 2526 their starting is going to be 80,000 for officer and 109341 for sergeant. This is the current uh we we just did
that public records request in August. So this was the count here. 259 total, 213 officers, 23 sergeants. So and I think it shows that there's no hiring freeze with the, you know, police department. You need more officers. So there is still a shortage of about 50
officers. Um but the retention has been better because we were seeing you guys losing like 50 or more per year and now I think that you are around 15. So that's good. And this I just wanted to put an overview of the overall budget amounts
for the last four years. So I don't think we need to get into this today, but and I don't envy Heather's job, but this is just the overall amounts. Okay? And I can email you this, but I just wanted to do this cuz I think three of the contracts were ratified this week
and I think five this year. So Okay. >> Okay. you going to share that with us? >> Yeah. >> All right. I'll email you. >> Great. >> Uh, so next question I have is is we have some dates scheduled for um the next one is in like a week or so. I
think 10 days somewhere. I don't know where I put it. >> I think the 30th. >> Oh no, that's a different meeting for me. >> September 20th. The 23rd. Is that going to work or do we we have another one for the
>> We actually have the PBA board meeting that day, but we should be here by two. So, that should be fine. >> We could also I don't know if we have enough time to go through all these things and talk through it on our side um to have some you know meaning I want
I want to make sure that they're the sessions are as meaningful as as possible right and not not just coming to say we don't really have an update. Do we want to look at October se moving our second section to October 2nd? >> Well, if you'll have the wage proposal by the September date, then I think that
we should still keep it. >> Okay. We we might not have uh everything else worked out though by that time. >> So, all right. >> Y >> if you want to maybe move it to 2:30 cuz we have our board meeting at 12:30. Do
you guys want to push it back half an hour? They have to go. So, um I'll email you that cuz we we'll still have an hour and a half. That should be good, right? >> Yeah. I think that'll be fine. So,
>> instead at 2 2:30 if you want to do that. >> That's on the 23rd still. >> Yes. >> All right. Any questions from the team? All right, folks. Well, thank you. Appreciate your time today and we'll see you then. >> Your keyboard's over here.
>> Yeah. And will you send me both of yours, too? Yeah. Perfect. I'll send it on Monday. Oh, where did Got my zip drive. >> Oh, excuse me. I think he Do you have my zip drive? Okay.
He gave me [Music] some kind of I love you.