Print Page | Close Window

Council retreat waste of time ??

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2640
Printed Date: Jun 29 2024 at 12:41pm


Topic: Council retreat waste of time ??
Posted By: Hermes
Subject: Council retreat waste of time ??
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 7:19am

Reading about council retreat January 30th sounds to me like it was a major waste. From the sound of the article nothing was accomplished except to set goals that should be the norm.

The only thing I got out of it is a possible fire & police levy coming soon.
 
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/councils-top-goals-finances-safety--531712.html - http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/councils-top-goals-finances-safety--531712.html



Replies:
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 7:39am
OK- they talked about public safety and the need to "give the people what we promised them in the last safety levy". But I am intrigued with this "dog park" thing that was discussed. What's that all about? Sounds like a worthy subject and certainly should be on the priority list in a city in the condition that this one is in. I also was very pleased to read that they are going to "restore socioeconomic balance to the city". How about the generalized statement- "various issues related to housing and code enforcement"? What's that mean? More Section 8 and property citations?

Now- none of this crap is going to really happen. It's just "retreat talk" to go through the exercise of discussing "something" to justify the meeting. But, how would they go about "restoring socioeconomic balance to a city that is so skewed to the lower income/poor/destitude side of the scale (by the way, thanks past/ current council for the saturation of Section 8!), and, knowing how unattractive the city is to middle and upper income folks to locate here....... how would one possibly go about doing this in a normal person's lifetime???? Nothing to lure middle/upper income to town to balance it out. Who's fooling who here?

Oh... and how do we know how that the $286 given to each council member will be spent on business lunches, "training" and "dinner meetings"? Who is accountable to the public to see that that is conformed to?


Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 7:51am
Vet - You picked up on something that I missed...."give the people what we promised them in the last safety levy". So apparently we didn't get what we paid for by passing that last safety levy !! What happened to the money ??!!!
 
And I'm with you Vet on the $286....sounds to me like that money is being used to pay themselves for going to the retreat. Do council members need an expense account ?


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:02am
Nothing to lure middle/upper income to town???  Surely you jest!!!
 
Once the word gets out about our new dog park, the new "energy conserving" bike paths, and our new MILLION DOLLAR plus "gateway" (complete with water feature), the high-class, high income, gentrified types will be will be burning up the interstate to get here and bid up the prices of our real estate!!!
 
Well, at least a few "starving artist" types, but hey, council (not this council but some other council) will be happy to authorize more Section 8 vouchers to accommodate them. Clap
 
I wonder if the new "dog park" will have any "Section 8 dog houses" for all of the indigent dogs that will be flocking here??? Wink


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:10am
Originally posted by Hermes Hermes wrote:

Vet - You picked up on something that I missed...."give the people what we promised them in the last safety levy". So apparently we didn't get what we paid for by passing that last safety levy !! What happened to the money ??!!!
 
And I'm with you Vet on the $286....sounds to me like that money is being used to pay themselves for going to the retreat. Do council members need an expense account ?
What happened to the money???  They used it to balance the budget.
 
Hmm...expense accounts should be public records.  I always heard that there were lots of city "business" luncheons and dinners at a now defunct Bar-B-Q joint on Roosevelt.


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:46am
Got a few questions on the doggie park. Will this park have a purpose such as greyhound racing? (no gambling please, or we'll raid your little operation, confiscate your dogs and use your winnings for revenue for the city) OR will it just be your typical "run-of-the-mill" doggie park where one can take their beloved pet for a potty break and some exercise? If the latter, I would suggest it be located on the Becker, Armbruster or Mulligan properties. It would be nice to see our councilmembers leading the effort by donating some property to our new doggie park concept. Well, alrighty then..... nothing like setting up some serious priorities for the city in these little retreat sessions!!!!


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:55am
Let's see...maybe we should run some rough numbers to try to figure out where the Public Safety payroll tax increase money stands.  First, remember that, during the budget discussions PRIOR to the decision to float the tax increase, the chiefs of both police and fire said that they needed about $500,000 year over year increase each to maintain services at the (then) current authorized levels.  Somebody check my math, but that should total somewhere around ONE million per year.
 
Let's work this out for, say, three years:
 
There are what...about 170 police and firemen???  (I'm just estimating on all of these figures!!! Remember, I said a ROUGH ESTIMATE!!!)  And they AVERAGE wnat...say $70,000 per year???  And the largest year-over-year increase was supposed to be the wage increases REQUIRED by contracts.  What would that be???  Let's say 3%, which equals about 9.3% over 3 years.
 
So...170 people times $70,000 times 9.3% equals...ummm...carry the one...add in the age of an old oak tree...mvoe the decimal point a couple of places to the right...no...to the LEFT...
 
Why, that comes up towhat...about $1,106,700???
 
But wait a minute!!!  During those same three years, the tax increase (standing alone) amounted to somewhere between SIX and NINE MILLION!!! 
 
So, the DEDICATED "safety tax increase" brought in over SIX MILLION, bet the increased costs over the then-present levels were only about 1.1 MILLION!!!   What happened to the "other" FIVE MILLION???  I dunno, and I''m sure that it's just a coincidence, but isn't that about what the BUDGET DEFICIT would have been over three years
 
Now, as Barbie once said, "Math is hard!!" So anyone who feels inclined to research the ACTUAL figures, please do so, and PLEASE, correct any errors I might have made!!!
 


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:59am
Vet,  Maybe the city can get those two gals to clean up all the doggie do-do for free???  You know, to stock up for their next fight!!!  LOL LOL LOL LOL
 
 


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 10:17am

I think it was very noble for one of them to admit that we never got what we paid for on that last safety levy. (or was that a mere slip of the ole political tongue ?)

Mike - Thats why I asked where's the money. I'm guessing but a copy of the contract with the fire & police unions would probably be a must in order to track the raises and find out exactly what union members recieved in pay & benefits. Plus figure in the amounts for upkeep,vehicles,stations,so on.
 
 


Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 10:51am
Originally posted by Hermes Hermes wrote:

I think it was very noble for one of them to admit that we never got what we paid for on that last safety levy. (or was that a mere slip of the ole political tongue ?)


 


Hermes, where is that in the article? Who is the "they" that you have in mind? I only look at the online version, but all I see is AJ Smith quoted as saying:

“We need to at least sustain what we told the public we would when they passed our public safety levy a few years ago,” he said. “We promised we would be able to maintain the staffing we had, so we need to work on putting more public safety forces in the street.”

I'm no expert in staffing levels for public safety in Middletown, but it may be just a poorly phrased, or perhaps more likely, poorly quoted statement.

But as phrased, this quote could suggest that fewer officers are on the street since the public safety levy, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Also, I imagine that if folks here have a question about whether staffing levels have changed, that information can be obtained from someone in the fire and police departments who is responsible for knowing those facts.   



Posted By: Nelson R. Self
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 11:03am
Perhaps we should withhold further comment until the City Council meeting on 2/16 when Miss Judy and Doug unveil their FY 2010-14 HUD Five-Year PlanConfusedConfused
 
Surely the City's latest version of the "Plan of All Plans" is bound to transform our ailing community into a destination location for home buyers throughout the tri-state area?  LOLLOL
 
Maybe the City will embark upon Phase II of the Housing Code Enforcement blitzkrieg and handout citiations to 2,300 new property ownersConfusedConfused
 
Could it be that yet another HUD Multi-Million Dollar Grant Application is in the offing that will solve numerous housing problems over the next 50 yearsLOLLOL
 
Could it be that more "hefty pay raises" are on the horizon for the poorly paid Community Revitalization Department staff too?  LOLLOL


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 11:06am
NO! on Safety Levy. We need to be prioritizing our Budget. Safety and Infrastructure should be FULLY Funded before a dime is spent on anything else. Then if we need a Middfest Levy, have a vote. Anything less is outright Corruption!


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by lrisner lrisner wrote:

NO! on Safety Levy. We need to be prioritizing our Budget. Safety and Infrastructure should be FULLY Funded before a dime is spent on anything else. Then if we need a Middfest Levy, have a vote. Anything less is outright Corruption!
 Irisner:
Too late!!!  The 0.25% increase in the payroll tax, purportely dedicated to public safety, has already passed.  (I believe it was in November of 2007.)  The question was: Where did the money go, and where is it going in this, its third year?


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 12:45pm
Thank you Marianne for the correction.
 
AJ did in fact say that according to the article.
 
“We need to at least sustain what we told the public we would when they passed our public safety levy a few years ago,
 
I withdraw my statement and change my plea to temporary insanity. Wacko


Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by Hermes Hermes wrote:

<FONT size=3 face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thank you Marianne for the correction.

 
AJ did in fact say that according to the article.

 
“We need to at least sustain what we told the public we would when they passed our public safety levy a few years ago,

 

I withdraw my statement and change my plea to temporary insanity. Wacko


Hermes, he seems to be saying two different things in that quote: on the one hand, we can't be making cuts, because we said when we passed the levy it was to maintain current levels, but he's also calling for more officers on the street. The way it's phrased in the MJ, I could see what you were saying.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 1:53pm
Marianne:
Actually, I remember quite well what was said.  During the budget discussions earlier in the year, the half million (+-) that each of the chiefs mentioned needing was supposed to ADD a couple of people to each department by by filling some of the "authorized but vacant" positions.
 
A few month's later, during the campagn rhetoric in support of the tax increase, that 0.25% increase was supposeddly enough only to "maintain the current manpower levels."
 
I'm sure that anyone who cares to spen the time can find the documentation for this. At the time of the vote on the tax increase, the 0.25% was projected to equal about THREE MILLION per year. I kept asking the question: "what changed in just a few months that took us from A HALF MILLION more for each department per year buying us MORE manpower, to THREE MILLION per year just maintaining the status quo???"  I was never able to get an answer.  In fact, I was never able to find anyone who acted like they understood the question!!!
 
I even asked it of the encumbents at the Forum held at the Sorg Theater just the weekend before the election.  (Somewhere there is a tape of that Forum.)  No one could answer.  (I guess they were "not set up to answer questions at that time."  Big%20smile)


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: A.J. Smith
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:15pm
By http://www.ohio-share.coxnewsweb.com/incoming/ryan-gauthier-305962.html - Ryan Gauthier , Staff Writer Updated 12:07 PM Friday, February 5, 2010

MIDDLETOWN — Public safety. Finances. Infrastructure.

In four simple words, Middletown City Council outlined its goals for the year.

During the group’s annual retreat on Saturday, Jan. 30, council members and city staff shared highlights of the past year while looking ahead to potential concerns in 2010.

Vice Mayor Anita Scott Jones said in ranking their priorities for 2010, it just panned out that the top three were perhaps the most obvious choices.

“They are really what the city is supposed to be about,” Jones said. “ I believe if we take care of those things, everything else should just fall into place.”

Russ Carolus, city finance director, said his department’s goal is to remain “conservative in (its) outlook” and continue to closely monitor revenues as they come in.

“We want to make sure we’re proactive in looking at ways we can better handle our resources,” he said.

It likely will become increasingly important for city staff to participate in the legislative process at the state level, he said, particularly as it pertains to possible changes in police pensions.

In the end, Carolus said every service made available to residents boils down to how much money is left in the city’s pocketbook.

“The will of the people and what they want to do is accomplished with money,” he said. “Planning out how to spend and allocate those resources is a big part of the deal.”

Councilman A.J. Smith said his first priority has always been public safety.

With Middletown already “down 17 police officers from where a city our size should be,” the 2nd Ward representative said he would like to see the city increase police, fire and EMS staffing in the near future.

“We need to at least sustain what we told the public we would when they passed our public safety levy a few years ago,” he said. “We promised we would be able to maintain the staffing we had, so we need to work on putting more public safety forces in the street.” [Sorry for the confusion here] The reason I said we need to work on putting more public safety forces on the street is because we have cut below what we said we would not cut in police and fire when the public passed the levy.

“If we want to keep our citizens and attract new citizens, those individuals need to feel safe here,” he said.

Discussion during the retreat included the feasibility of establishing a dog park, restoring a socioeconomic balance to the city, updating the master plan and various issues related to housing and code enforcement.

Council members also agreed to split the $2,000 budgeted for 2010 evenly among the seven council members, with each allowed $286 for business lunches, dinner meetings and training opportunities.



Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by A.J. Smith A.J. Smith wrote:

[COLOR="#000066"][Sorry for the confusion here] The reason I said we need to work on putting more public safety forces on the street is because we have cut below what we said we would not cut in police and fire when the public passed the levy.


Can you be more specific?


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:28pm

Stand firm on that, AJ!!!

Public safety is the FIRST PURPOSE of Municipal government!!!


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:30pm
AJ:
What was the "pact" that Mulligan mentioned that all of the council members signed???  (Something to do with boards and commissions, but he glossed over what it actually said.)
 
Can you post it here, please???


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: A.J. Smith
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:31pm
What do you mean?

When council asked the public to pass the levy, council said that they would not cut any positions if it passed, but instead sustain the current levels of staffing.

That hasn't happened. Council, has indeed cut public safety forces. I was simply saying that we need to uphold our promise to the public and restore those positions by adding more public safety forces to the streets.


Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:40pm
Originally posted by A.J. Smith A.J. Smith wrote:

What do you mean?When council asked the public to pass the levy, council said that they would not cut any positions if it passed, but instead sustain the current levels of staffing.That hasn't happened. Council, has indeed cut public safety forces. I was simply saying that we need to uphold our promise to the public and restore those positions by adding more public safety forces to the streets.


AJ, If your question was directed to me, I'm asking for you to provide (if you can) the specific numbers regarding staffing of fire and police. You say above that Council has cut public safety forces, but what does that mean in terms of concrete numbers (patrol, support, firefighters, etc.)?

Sorry if my initial request was unclear.


Posted By: A.J. Smith
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:44pm
Originally posted by Marianne Marianne wrote:

Originally posted by A.J. Smith A.J. Smith wrote:

What do you mean?When council asked the public to pass the levy, council said that they would not cut any positions if it passed, but instead sustain the current levels of staffing.That hasn't happened. Council, has indeed cut public safety forces. I was simply saying that we need to uphold our promise to the public and restore those positions by adding more public safety forces to the streets.


AJ, If your question was directed to me, I'm asking for you to provide (if you can) the specific numbers regarding staffing of fire and police. You say above that Council has cut public safety forces, but what does that mean in terms of concrete numbers (patrol, support, firefighters, etc.)?

Sorry if my initial request was unclear.


1 dispatcher - Paid out of Division of Police budget, however, he/she dispatches for both police and fire.

3 fire admin positions - I do not know what all three of them are. I do apologize, but I will find out.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:45pm
Marianne:
Exactly as I said above!!!
 
Part of the campaign rhetoric promoting the Public Safety payroll tax increase was that:
If it FAILED, the city would have to lay off police and fire personnel.
But, if it passed, they would: 1)  Keep the ENTIRE 0.25% increase separate; and   2)  Use it ONLY for police and fire.
 
At the time (when unemployment was around 5.5%) they projected that the 0.25% would equal about THREE MILLION per year.
 
Instead, they used it to balance the budget so they wouldn't have to cut back anywhere else!!!


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:46pm
Mike I believe the Pact you are talking about is some  type of Code of Conduct if we are talking about the same thing.  Also as far as Public Safety goes you must also remember with the new Police Contracts the City must now come up with an additional  $185,000.00+/- a year for the next 3 years if I remember correctly.


Posted By: A.J. Smith
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by Mike_Presta Mike_Presta wrote:

AJ:
What was the "pact" that Mulligan mentioned that all of the council members signed???  (Something to do with boards and commissions, but he glossed over what it actually said.)
 
Can you post it here, please???


I am trying to figure out where the okay button is in the "paste from word" option. I can not find it. I will copy and paste out of notepad. It's going to look kind of sloppy because it's notepad, but it's the best I've got.

Btw, this is a public document.

--

City of Middletown
Rules for Elected Officials and Members of
Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees

Statement of Purpose

The citizens and businesses of Middletown are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity.  The City of Middletown’s strong desire to fulfill this mission therefore requires that:
 
Public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government;

Public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;

Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and

Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential.

Public deliberations both open and closed shall be conducted in an atmosphere of respect and civility.
 
To this end, the Middletown City Council has adopted these Rules for Elected Officials and Members of Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees (“Rules”) for elected officials and members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.

1.    Act in the Public Interest

Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Middletown and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the Middletown City Council, boards, commissions, and committees.

2.    Comply with the Law

Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of Ohio, and the City of Middletown in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and Ohio constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.

3.     Conduct of Members
 
The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, harassment, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Council, boards, commissions, and committees, the staff or public.

4.    Respect for Process

Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council and boards, commissions, and committees governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff.

5.     Conduct of Public Meetings

Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers, making personal comments not germane to the business of the body, or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings.

6.     Decisions Based on Merit

Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand.

 7.    Communication

Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration
by the Council or boards, commissions, and committees which they may have received from sources outside the public decision-making process.

8.    Ethics

Members shall comply with all requirements of the ethics laws of the State of Ohio.  These laws are included in Chapter 102 of the Ohio Revised Code and Sections 2921.41, 2921.42, and 2921.43 of the Ohio Revised Code.  Members shall also comply with Article III, Sections 18 and 19 of the City Charter.  Copies of these statutes and the Charter provisions are attached hereto.  Members, if they  have questions, are encouraged to seek advice from the Law Department regarding the interpretation and application of these laws.

9.     Advocacy

Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board, commission, or committee to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City of Middletown, nor will they allow the inference that they do.

10.    Policy Role of Members

Members shall respect and adhere to the council-manager structure of Middletown city government as outlined in the City's policies and procedures and follow the City Charter with respect to the City Manager's relationship with the City Council. In this structure, the City Council determines the policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards, commissions, and committees and City staff. Except as provided by the City ordinance, members therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or the professional duties of City staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Council policy decisions.

11.    Positive Work Place Environment

Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City.  Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City employees and refrain from creating the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

12.    Implementation

As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the City, these Rules are intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions. For this reason, standards shall be included in the regular orientations for candidates for City Council, applicants to boards, commissions, and committees and newly elected and appointed officials. Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they have read and understood the Rules. In addition, the Rules shall be reviewed bi-annually by the City Council, boards, commissions, and committees, and the City Council shall consider recommendations from boards, commissions, and committees and update it as necessary in November of even-numbered years.

13.     Compliance and Enforcement

The Rules express standards of conduct expected for members of City Council, boards, commissions, and committees. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. The chairs of boards, commissions, and committees and the Mayor have the additional responsibility to intervene when members' actions appearing to be in violation of the Rules are brought to their attention. The City Council, by a vote of a majority of its members, may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the City's standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, removal from meeting (if the member’s conduct is disruptive or impedes the orderly conduct of business at the meeting), or removal from any position or assignment to which the member has been appointed by City Council. The City Council also may act to remove members of boards, commissions, and committees from office.











City of Middletown
Rules for Elected Officials and Members of
Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees
STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT

As a member of the Middletown City Council or of a Middletown board, commission, or committee, I agree to uphold the Rules for elected and appointed officials adopted by the City Council and conduct myself by the following model of behavior.  I will: 

Recognize the worth of individual members and appreciate their individual talents, perspectives and contributions;
Help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where individual members, City staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential;
Conduct my personal and public affairs with honesty, integrity, fairness, and respect for others;
Respect the dignity and privacy of individuals and organizations;
Keep the common good as my highest purpose and focus on achieving constructive solutions for the public benefit;
Avoid and discourage conduct, which is divisive or harmful to the best interests of Middletown;
Treat all people with whom I come in contact in the way I wish to be treated.
Before I speak or act I will ask myself the following four questions:
1.    Is it the truth?
2.     Is it fair to all concerned?
3.     Will it build goodwill between all concerned?
4.     Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

I affirm that I have read and that I understand the City of Middletown’s Rules for Elected Official and Members of Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
 
Date:     ______________________
Signature:    __________________________
Position:                                                     




Posted By: Kelly
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 3:09pm
Before I speak or act I will ask myself the following four questions:
1.    Is it the truth?
2.     Is it fair to all concerned?
3.     Will it build goodwill between all concerned?
4.     Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Is it just me....or aren't these the official guidelines that the Rotary Club uses? Any Rotarians out there who can affirm?


Posted By: Kelly
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 3:12pm
Here it is - I pulled it from the website: http://middletownrotaryclub.com/About_Us.html - http://middletownrotaryclub.com/About_Us.html
 
The Four-Way Test-
[of the things we think, say, or do]

1.  Is it the TRUTH?

2.  Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3.  Will it build GOODWILL & BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

4.  Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 3:13pm
AJ:  Thank you!!!

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 4:05pm
"As a member of the Middletown City Council or of a Middletown board, commission, or committee,......."
"Treat all people with whom I come in contact in the way I wish to be treated.
Before I speak or act I will ask myself the following four questions:
1.    Is it the truth?
2.     Is it fair to all concerned?
3.     Will it build goodwill between all concerned?
4.     Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"
 
Does anyone here actually believe that a member of an elected governing body can actually follow 2, 3, & 4?


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 4:54pm
NO! On the Safety Levy when they put up for renewal in 2012.

OK Mike...is it clear enough now. It disappoints me that you think someone Posting on here would be so out of touch to not know Middletown's Tax rate.


Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 5:32pm

Our city gives 3% raises to union workers at a time when this city is talking about going down the tubes is ludicrous.I firmly believe that every one should have the chance to have a well paying job with excellent benefits but how is it justice for people with little or no money,low paying jobs with little or no insurance and kids to feed to have to pay for public employees making three times more then them how is that fair?



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 05 2010 at 8:44pm
Bo you are exactly right.  under the current economic conditions no one at the city should be getting raises like this.  These raises are costing other non-union employees their jobs.  The city is crumbling under our feet and Public Safety has gotten out of hand with excessive raises to try and keep up with the Jones'.
 
The only thing the citizen can do is vote down the Public Safety levy when it comes up in 2012 and say enough is enough. 
 
Vote down the Library Levy, the Public Safety Levy, etc.  The average citizen has no other alternative to get the city's attention, as you can see from the Citizens comments at council meetings. 
 
We have a Council retreat and what comes out of it, Public Safety, Infrastructure, finances.  This is all fine and good. 
 
What about the conversation on Section 8 that was asked for in Public by Mr. Laubach.  Nothing
 
There is no Infrastructure Fund how is this going to accomplished, except for one time Stimulus money this year and nothing after that.  At what point do we get some neighborhood streets paved?
 
Public Safety, well now we have to come up with $185,000.00 each year for the next 3 years.  I guess more non-union employees will be out in the cold.  Vote no on the Public Safety levy.
 
Finances where do you even start with this one.  revenues are in decline, poverty is rising, city is doing nothing about Section 8 poverty, etc.  City is doing nothing to improve the city SO that Middle Class residents would want to move here.  Hell we will probably be applying for more Section 8 to balance the budget.
 
Then we get, "Discussion during the retreat included the feasibility of establishing a dog park, restoring a socioeconomic balance to the city, updating the master plan and various issues related to housing and code enforcement."
 
Funny how Dog Park came first.  can't take care of the City Cemetery but we are talking about another damn Park and a doggy park at that.  I just shake my head in amazement.
 
Restoring "socioeconomic balance", now this discussion the whole city would be interested in and we get nothing.  Why don't we get these discussions where they can be televised?   What about the decline of businesses in Middletown?  Excessive Poverty? etc., etc, etc., nothing, Nada, zip, zilch.
 
Code enforcement back to nailing the citizens while the city ignores it's responsibilities to those citizens.
 
Updating the Master plan oh boy here we go again, another plan for downtown and other grandiose ideas that are out in left field.
 
How about making it simple and deal with:
 
The Socioeconomic imbalance
Finances
Infrastructure
Revenues
Section 8
Poverty
Business decline in Middletown
 
And give us some specifics and LISTEN to what the citizens want in these talks.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Bocephus Bocephus wrote:

Our city gives 3% raises to union workers at a time when this city is talking about going down the tubes is ludicrous.I firmly believe that every one should have the chance to have a well paying job with excellent benefits but how is it justice for people with little or no money,low paying jobs with little or no insurance and kids to feed to have to pay for public employees making three times more then them how is that fair?

 
I mentioned this very thing in another posting concerning negotiations between the city and the police & fire unions. I stated that apperantly the city does not know how to negotiate or they have an outside source that does their negotiating for them. To absolutely give in to the union like that is beyond ridiculous.
 
Maybe AJ or Josh could shed some light on union negotiating and who does it,the city or a hired outside source.


Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 10:58am
Originally posted by Kelly Kelly wrote:

Here it is - I pulled it from the website: http://middletownrotaryclub.com/About_Us.html - http://middletownrotaryclub.com/About_Us.html
 
The Four-Way Test-
[of the things we think, say, or do]

1.  Is it the TRUTH?

2.  Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3.  Will it build GOODWILL & BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

4.  Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
 
So whoever drafted this "code of conduct" contract is or was a member of the Rotary Club ? Or someone stole this from the Rotary members ? Maybe the Rotary Club members are the ones actually running this town,kind of like the Illuminati or the Bilderbergs ? Shocked


Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 11:48am

1. There are hereby established the following bi-weekly pay ranges for certain members of the Division of Police within the service of the City.

Sergeant – Effective November 1, 2009

             A                  B                    C                    D                   E                   F                  G

Annual  $51,455.10  $53,897.91  $56,429.37  $59,075.12  $61,850.91  $64,756.73  $67,802.89

Bi-Weekly $1,979.04  $2,073.00  $2,170.36  $2,272.12  $2,378.88  $2,490.64  $2,607.80

Hourly  $24.7380  $25.9125  $27.1295  $28.4015  $29.7360  $31.1330  $32.5975

Sergeant - (2.5%) Effective January 1, 2010

Annual  $52,741.48  $55,245.77  $57,840.73  $60,552.00  $63,397.39  $66,375.86  $69,497.97

Bi-Weekly  $2,028.52  $2,124.84  $2,224.64  $2,328.92  $2,438.36  $2,552.92  $2,673.00

Hourly  $25.3565  $26.5605  $27.8080  $29.1115  $30.4795  $31.9115  $33.4125

Sergeant - (3%) Effective January 1, 2011

Annual  $54,324.35  $56,903.56  $59,576.37  $62,368.77  $65,299.52  $68,367.55  $71,583.11

Bi-Weekly  $2,089.40  $2,188.60  $2,291.40  $2,398.80  $2,511.52  $2,629.52  $2,753.20

Hourly  $26.1175  $27.3575  $28.6425  $29.9850  $31.3940  $32.8690  $34.4150

Sergeant - (2.5%) Effective November 1, 2011

Annual  $55682.67  $58326.36  $61065.78  $63928.82  $66932.22  $70077.36  $73373.11

Bi-Weekly  $2141.64  $2243.32  $2348.68  $2458.80  $2574.32  $2695.28  $2822.04

Hourly  $26.7705  $28.0415  $29.3585  $30.7350  $32.1790  $33.6910  $35.2755

Sergeant - (0.5%) Effective April 1, 2012

Annual  $55961.29  $58618.61  $61371.52  $64249.09  $67267.29  $70427.75  $73740.18

Bi-Weekly  $2152.36  $2254.56  $2360.44  $2471.12  $2587.20  $2708.76  $2836.16

Hourly  $26.9045  $28.1820  $29.5055  $30.8890  $32.3400  $33.8595  $35.4520



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 11:56am

Lieutenant – Effective November 1, 2009

A B C D E F G

Annual $59,074.07 $61,850.91 $64,756.73 $67,801.84 $70,991.49 $74,326.72 $77,818.04

Bi-Weekly $2,272.08 $2,378.88 $2,490.64 $2,607.76 $2,730.44 $2,858.72 $2,993.00

Hourly $28.4010 $29.7360 $31.1330 $32.5970 $34.1305 $35.7340 $37.4125

Lieutenant - (2.5%) Effective January 1, 2010

Annual $60,550.92 $63,397.39 $66,375.86 $69,496.89 $72,766.70 $76,185.10 $79,763.91

Bi-Weekly $2,328.88 $2,438.36 $2,552.92 $2,672.96 $2,798.72 $2,930.20 $3,067.84

Hourly $29.1110 $30.4795 $31.9115 $33.4120 $34.9840 $36.6275 $38.3480

Lieutenant - (3%) Effective January 1, 2011

Annual $62,367.66 $65,299.52 $68,367.55 $71,582.21 $74,949.70 $78,471.06 $82,156.83

Bi-Weekly $2,398.76 $2,511.52 $2,629.52 $2,753.16 $2,882.68 $3,018.12 $3,159.88

Hourly $29.9845 $31.3940 $32.8690 $34.4145 $36.0335 $37.7265 $39.4985

Lieutenant - (2.5%) Effective November 1, 2011

Annual $63,927.68 $66,932.22 $70,077.36 $73,371.98 $76,823.85 $80,433.67 $84,210.95

Bi-Weekly $2,458.76 $2,574.32 $2,695.28 $2,822.00 $2,954.76 $3,093.60 $3,238.88

Hourly $30.7345 $32.1790 $33.6910 $35.2750 $36.9345 $38.6700 $40.4860

Lieutenant - (0.5%) Effective April 1, 2012

Annual $64,248.15 $67,267.29 $70,427.75 $73,739.04 $77,208.60 $80,836.05 $84,632.01

Bi-Weekly $2,471.08 $2,587.20 $2,708.76 $2,836.12 $2,969.56 $3,109.08 $3,255.08

Hourly $30.8885 $32.3400 $33.8595 $35.4515 $37.1195 $38.8635 $40.6885



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:10pm
HealthCare benefits:
 

Employee Contribution

                                  Single      Employee & Spouse     Employer & Children           Family

11/1/09-12/31/09    35.85         71.07                                 64.30                                          92.24

1/1/10-12/31/10      37.55           78.87                               71.37                                          102.34

1/1/11- 12/31/11     41.31           86.76                               78.50                                            112.58

1/1/12-10/31/12      46.08           96.78                               87.58                                             125.58

Doctor, and Misc. Co-Pays MEMBER COST ($)ITEMIZED CO-PAYS      

                                               2009               2010             2011                  2012

Physician Visit Co-Pay

 (In Network)                        15.00                20.00            25.00                30.00

Physician Visit Co-Pay

(Out of Network)       2009 Meet 1st Dollar deductible then 20% employee responsibility

                                      2010, 20111, 2012    Meet 1st Dollar deductible then30%responsibility

 

Specialty Care Physician

Visit Co-Pay

                             20.00             25.00               35.00                      40.00

ER Co-Pay         75.00             75.00              100.00                   150.00



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:13pm

Prescription Co-Pays

MEMBER COST ($)

2009 2010 2011 2012

Tier 1 Retail (30 day supply) 10.00 7.00 10.00 10.00

Tier 2 Retail (30 day supply) 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Tier 3 Retail (30 day supply) 40.00 40.00 50.00 65.00

Tier 1 Mail Order (90 day supply) 12.00 10.50 30.00 30.00

Tier 2 Mail Order (90 day supply) 30.00 37.50 50.00 70.00

Tier 3 Mail Order (90 day supply) 50.00 60.00 70.00 130.00

Out of Pocket Maximums

Total Out of Pocket Limits Per Year

(Deductible Plus Co-Pay)

2009 2010 2011 2012

Per Covered Person (In Network) 500 500 700 1,000

Per Covered Person (Out of Network) 1,000 1,000 1,400 2,000

Per Family (In Network) 1,000 1,000 1,400 2,000

Per Family (Out of Network) 2,000 2,000 2,800 4,000



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:14pm

Members who “opt out” of the medical benefits from the City of Middletown shall receive an annual amount of $4,000.00 to be paid on or about October 31st of each year. Such benefit shall cease effective November 1, 2010.



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:20pm

Patrol Officer – Effective November 1, 2009

A B C D E F

Annual $45,497.86 $47,638.16 $49,874.25 $52,213.28 $54,673.74 $57,240.50

Bi-Weekly $1,749.92 $1,832.24 $1,918.24 $2,008.20 $2,102.84 $2,201.56

Hourly $21.8740 $22.9030 $23.9780 $25.1025 $26.2855 $27.5195

Patrol Officer - (2.5%) Effective January 1, 2010

Annual $46,635.72 $48,829.11 $51,121.11 $53,519.45 $56,041.41 $58,671.51

Bi-Weekly $1,793.68 $1,878.04 $1,966.20 $2,058.44 $2,155.44 $2,256.60

Hourly $22.4210 $23.4755 $24.5775 $25.7305 $26.9430 $28.2075

Patrol Officer - (3%) Effective January 1, 2011

Annual $48,035.62 $50,294.40 $52,655.16 $55,125.24 $57,723.07 $60,432.28

Bi-Weekly $1,847.52 $1,934.40 $2,025.20 $2,120.20 $2,220.12 $2,324.32

Hourly $23.0940 $24.1800 $25.3150 $26.5025 $27.7515 $29.0540

Patrol Officer - (2.5%) Effective November 1, 2011

Annual $49,236.72 $51,551.76 $53,971.74 $56,504.20 $59,166.56 $61,943.50

Bi-Weekly $1,893.72 $1,982.76 $2,075.84 $2,173.24 $2,275.64 $2,382.44

Hourly $23.6715 $24.7845 $25.9480 $27.1655 $28.4455 $29.7805

Patrol Officer - (0.5%) Effective April 1, 2012

Annual $49,483.11 $51,809.73 $54,242.23 $56,787.14 $59,463.02 $62,253.43

Bi-Weekly $1,903.20 $1,992.68 $2,086.24 $2,184.12 $2,287.04 $2,394.36

Hourly $23.7900 $24.9085 $26.0780 $27.3015 $28.5880 $29.9295

 



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:24pm
It is funny that the ONLY area that the city is interested in keeping up with the Jones' is employee pay and no where else within the city for it's residents:
 

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Both units received a slight wage adjustment in order to bring them more in line with the pay of

comparable jurisdictions. This reduces the risk that a fact-finder or conciliator would award a

large increase to either of these unions during fact-finding or conciliation. Typically, the salary

increases for this contract would be effective on November 1, 2009, 2010, 2011. However, to

minimize the impact to the 2010 budget the first two wage increases have been delayed until

January 1. The wage adjustments range from $450 to $770 per employee dependent upon the

employee’s current base salary and rank. Additionally, the contract includes a wage increase in

each year of the contract as follows:

January 1, 2010 2.5% (delayed from November 1, 2009)

January 1, 2011 3.0% (delayed from November 1, 2010)

November 1, 2011 2.5%

April 1, 2012 0.5%

The increased cost of the wage adjustments averages approximately $183,000 each year of the

contract. This amount is within the range of authority previously authorized by City Council.

Additionally, the phased-in modifications to the holiday exchange program will reduce the City’s

long-term liability.

While it is difficult to equate the changes in health insurance into a specific dollar amount, there

is not doubt that there will be a savings in administrative costs and the ability to make plan

changes more quickly.



Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Feb 06 2010 at 12:45pm
The Stumbling blocks of Public Safety Union Negotiations courtesy of the State of Ohio.  Next go around I suggest a Citizens Committee be called in for any deadlock in negotiations as allowed below.  I volunteer. Big%20smile
 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4117.14 - 4117.14 Settlement of dispute between exclusive representative and public employer - procedures.

(A) The procedures contained in this section govern the settlement of disputes between an exclusive representative and a public employer concerning the termination or modification of an existing collective bargaining agreement or negotiation of a successor agreement, or the negotiation of an initial collective bargaining agreement.

(B)(1) In those cases where there exists a collective bargaining agreement, any public employer or exclusive representative desiring to terminate, modify, or negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement shall:

(a) Serve written notice upon the other party of the proposed termination, modification, or successor agreement. The party must serve the notice not less than sixty days prior to the expiration date of the existing agreement or, in the event the existing collective bargaining agreement does not contain an expiration date, not less than sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make the termination or modifications or to make effective a successor agreement.

(b) Offer to bargain collectively with the other party for the purpose of modifying or terminating any existing agreement or negotiating a successor agreement;

(c) Notify the state employment relations board of the offer by serving upon the board a copy of the written notice to the other party and a copy of the existing collective bargaining agreement.

(2) In the case of initial negotiations between a public employer and an exclusive representative, where a collective bargaining agreement has not been in effect between the parties, any party may serve notice upon the board and the other party setting forth the names and addresses of the parties and offering to meet, for a period of ninety days, with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.

If the settlement procedures specified in divisions (B), (C), and (D) of this section govern the parties, where those procedures refer to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, it means the expiration of the sixty-day period to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement referred to in this subdivision, or in the case of initial negotiations, it means the ninety day period referred to in this subdivision.

(3) The parties shall continue in full force and effect all the terms and conditions of any existing collective bargaining agreement, without resort to strike or lock-out, for a period of sixty days after the party gives notice or until the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement, whichever occurs later, or for a period of ninety days where applicable.

(4) Upon receipt of the notice, the parties shall enter into collective bargaining.

(C) In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they may submit, at any time prior to forty-five days before the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement, the issues in dispute to any mutually agreed upon dispute settlement procedure which supersedes the procedures contained in this section.

(1) The procedures may include:

(a) Conventional arbitration of all unsettled issues;

(b) Arbitration confined to a choice between the last offer of each party to the agreement as a single package;

(c) Arbitration confined to a choice of the last offer of each party to the agreement on each issue submitted;

(d) The procedures described in division (C)(1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section and including among the choices for the arbitrator, the recommendations of the fact finder, if there are recommendations, either as a single package or on each issue submitted;

(e) Settlement by a citizens’ conciliation council composed of three residents within the jurisdiction of the public employer. The public employer shall select one member and the exclusive representative shall select one member. The two members selected shall select the third member who shall chair the council. If the two members cannot agree upon a third member within five days after their appointments, the board shall appoint the third member. Once appointed, the council shall make a final settlement of the issues submitted to it pursuant to division (G) of this section.

(f) Any other dispute settlement procedure mutually agreed to by the parties.

(2) If, fifty days before the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, any party may request the state employment relations board to intervene. The request shall set forth the names and addresses of the parties, the issues involved, and, if applicable, the expiration date of any agreement.

The board shall intervene and investigate the dispute to determine whether the parties have engaged in collective bargaining.

If an impasse exists or forty-five days before the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement if one exists, the board shall appoint a mediator to assist the parties in the collective bargaining process.

(3) Any time after the appointment of a mediator, either party may request the appointment of a fact-finding panel. Within fifteen days after receipt of a request for a fact-finding panel, the board shall appoint a fact-finding panel of not more than three members who have been selected by the parties in accordance with rules established by the board, from a list of qualified persons maintained by the board.

(a) The fact-finding panel shall, in accordance with rules and procedures established by the board that include the regulation of costs and expenses of fact-finding, gather facts and make recommendations for the resolution of the matter. The board shall by its rules require each party to specify in writing the unresolved issues and its position on each issue to the fact-finding panel. The fact-finding panel shall make final recommendations as to all the unresolved issues.

(b) The board may continue mediation, order the parties to engage in collective bargaining until the expiration date of the agreement, or both.

(4) The following guidelines apply to fact-finding:

(a) The fact-finding panel may establish times and place of hearings which shall be, where feasible, in the jurisdiction of the state.

(b) The fact-finding panel shall conduct the hearing pursuant to rules established by the board.

(c) Upon request of the fact-finding panel, the board shall issue subpoenas for hearings conducted by the panel.

(d) The fact-finding panel may administer oaths.

(e) The board shall prescribe guidelines for the fact-finding panel to follow in making findings. In making its recommendations, the fact-finding panel shall take into consideration the factors listed in divisions (G)(7)(a) to (f) of this section.

(f) The fact-finding panel may attempt mediation at any time during the fact-finding process. From the time of appointment until the fact-finding panel makes a final recommendation, it shall not discuss the recommendations for settlement of the dispute with parties other than the direct parties to the dispute.

(5) The fact-finding panel, acting by a majority of its members, shall transmit its findings of fact and recommendations on the unresolved issues to the public employer and employee organization involved and to the board no later than fourteen days after the appointment of the fact-finding panel, unless the parties mutually agree to an extension. The parties shall share the cost of the fact-finding panel in a manner agreed to by the parties.

(6)(a) Not later than seven days after the findings and recommendations are sent, the legislative body, by a three-fifths vote of its total membership, and in the case of the public employee organization, the membership, by a three-fifths vote of the total membership, may reject the recommendations; if neither rejects the recommendations, the recommendations shall be deemed agreed upon as the final resolution of the issues submitted and a collective bargaining agreement shall be executed between the parties, including the fact-finding panel’s recommendations, except as otherwise modified by the parties by mutual agreement. If either the legislative body or the public employee organization rejects the recommendations, the board shall publicize the findings of fact and recommendations of the fact-finding panel. The board shall adopt rules governing the procedures and methods for public employees to vote on the recommendations of the fact-finding panel.

(b) As used in division (C)(6)(a) of this section, “legislative body” means the controlling board when the state or any of its agencies, authorities, commissions, boards, or other branch of public employment is party to the fact-finding process.

(D) If the parties are unable to reach agreement within seven days after the publication of findings and recommendations from the fact-finding panel or the collective bargaining agreement, if one exists, has expired, then the:

(1) Public employees, who are members of a police or fire department, members of the state highway patrol, deputy sheriffs, dispatchers employed by a police, fire or sheriff’s department or the state highway patrol or civilian dispatchers employed by a public employer other than a police, fire, or sheriff’s department to dispatch police, fire, sheriff’s department, or emergency medical or rescue personnel and units, an exclusive nurse’s unit, employees of the state school for the deaf or the state school for the blind, employees of any public employee retirement system, corrections officers, guards at penal or mental institutions, special police officers appointed in accordance with sections 5119.14 and 5123.13 of the Revised Code, psychiatric attendants employed at mental health forensic facilities, youth leaders employed at juvenile correctional facilities, or members of a law enforcement security force that is established and maintained exclusively by a board of county commissioners and whose members are employed by that board, shall submit the matter to a final offer settlement procedure pursuant to a board order issued forthwith to the parties to settle by a conciliator selected by the parties. The parties shall request from the board a list of five qualified conciliators and the parties shall select a single conciliator from the list by alternate striking of names. If the parties cannot agree upon a conciliator within five days after the board order, the board shall on the sixth day after its order appoint a conciliator from a list of qualified persons maintained by the board or shall request a list of qualified conciliators from the American arbitration association and appoint therefrom.

(2) Public employees other than those listed in division (D)(1) of this section have the right to strike under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code provided that the employee organization representing the employees has given a ten-day prior written notice of an intent to strike to the public employer and to the board, and further provided that the strike is for full, consecutive work days and the beginning date of the strike is at least ten work days after the ending date of the most recent prior strike involving the same bargaining unit; however, the board, at its discretion, may attempt mediation at any time.

(E) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the parties, at any time, from voluntarily agreeing to submit any or all of the issues in dispute to any other alternative dispute settlement procedure. An agreement or statutory requirement to arbitrate or to settle a dispute pursuant to a final offer settlement procedure and the award issued in accordance with the agreement or statutory requirement is enforceable in the same manner as specified in division (B) of section 4117.09 of the Revised Code.

(F) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a party from seeking enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement or a conciliator’s award as specified in division (B) of section 4117.09 of the Revised Code.

(G) The following guidelines apply to final offer settlement proceedings under division (D)(1) of this section:

(1) The parties shall submit to final offer settlement those issues that are subject to collective bargaining as provided by section 4117.08 of the Revised Code and upon which the parties have not reached agreement and other matters mutually agreed to by the public employer and the exclusive representative; except that the conciliator may attempt mediation at any time.

(2) The conciliator shall hold a hearing within thirty days of the board’s order to submit to a final offer settlement procedure, or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

(3) The conciliator shall conduct the hearing pursuant to rules developed by the board. The conciliator shall establish the hearing time and place, but it shall be, where feasible, within the jurisdiction of the state. Not later than five calendar days before the hearing, each of the parties shall submit to the conciliator, to the opposing party, and to the board, a written report summarizing the unresolved issues, the party’s final offer as to the issues, and the rationale for that position.

(4) Upon the request by the conciliator, the board shall issue subpoenas for the hearing.

(5) The conciliator may administer oaths.

(6) The conciliator shall hear testimony from the parties and provide for a written record to be made of all statements at the hearing. The board shall submit for inclusion in the record and for consideration by the conciliator the written report and recommendation of the fact-finders.

(7) After hearing, the conciliator shall resolve the dispute between the parties by selecting, on an issue-by-issue basis, from between each of the party’s final settlement offers, taking into consideration the following:

(a) Past collectively bargained agreements, if any, between the parties;

(b) Comparison of the issues submitted to final offer settlement relative to the employees in the bargaining unit involved with those issues related to other public and private employees doing comparable work, giving consideration to factors peculiar to the area and classification involved;

(c) The interests and welfare of the public, the ability of the public employer to finance and administer the issues proposed, and the effect of the adjustments on the normal standard of public service;

(d) The lawful authority of the public employer;

(e) The stipulations of the parties;

(f) Such other factors, not confined to those listed in this section, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of the issues submitted to final offer settlement through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, fact-finding, or other impasse resolution procedures in the public service or in private employment.

(8) Final offer settlement awards made under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code are subject to Chapter 2711. of the Revised Code.

(9) If more than one conciliator is used, the determination must be by majority vote.

(10) The conciliator shall make written findings of fact and promulgate a written opinion and order upon the issues presented to the conciliator, and upon the record made before the conciliator and shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy thereof to the parties and the board.

(11) Increases in rates of compensation and other matters with cost implications awarded by the conciliator may be effective only at the start of the fiscal year next commencing after the date of the final offer settlement award; provided that if a new fiscal year has commenced since the issuance of the board order to submit to a final offer settlement procedure, the awarded increases may be retroactive to the commencement of the new fiscal year. The parties may, at any time, amend or modify a conciliator’s award or order by mutual agreement.

(12) The parties shall bear equally the cost of the final offer settlement procedure.

(13) Conciliators appointed pursuant to this section shall be residents of the state.

(H) All final offer settlement awards and orders of the conciliator made pursuant to Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code are subject to review by the court of common pleas having jurisdiction over the public employer as provided in Chapter 2711. of the Revised Code. If the public employer is located in more than one court of common pleas district, the court of common pleas in which the principal office of the chief executive is located has jurisdiction.

(I) The issuance of a final offer settlement award constitutes a binding mandate to the public employer and the exclusive representative to take whatever actions are necessary to implement the award.

Effective Date: 06-26-2003; 01-27-2005; 2008 HB562 09-23-2008

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4117.15 - 4117.15 Strike - injunction.

(A) Whenever a strike by members of a police or fire department, members of the state highway patrol, deputy sheriffs, dispatchers employed by a police, fire or sheriff’s department or the state highway patrol or civilian dispatchers employed by a public employer other than a police, fire, or sheriff’s department to dispatch police, fire, sheriff’s department, or emergency medical or rescue personnel and units, an exclusive nurse’s unit, employees of the state school for the deaf or the state school for the blind, employees of any public employee retirement system, correction officers, guards at penal or mental institutions, or special police officers appointed in accordance with sections 5119.14 and 5123.13 of the Revised Code, psychiatric attendants employed at mental health forensic facilities, youth leaders employed at juvenile correctional facilities, or members of a law enforcement security force that is established and maintained exclusively by a board of county commissioners and whose members are employed by that board, a strike by other public employees during the pendency of the settlement procedures set forth in section 4117.14 of the Revised Code, or a strike during the term or extended term of a collective bargaining agreement occurs, the public employer may seek an injunction against the strike in the court of common pleas of the county in which the strike is located.

(B) An unfair labor practice by a public employer is not a defense to the injunction proceeding noted in division (A) of this section. Allegations of unfair labor practices during the settlement procedures set forth in section 4117.14 of the Revised Code shall receive priority by the state employment relations board.

(C) No public employee is entitled to pay or compensation from the public employer for the period engaged in any strike.

Effective Date: 04-01-1984; 2008 HB562 09-23-2008

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4117.16 -  




Print Page | Close Window