Monday, November 09, 2009

Consultant discussion on the PD's "no confidence" vote

The Personnel Committee and full Council met tonight (Altieri, Ecke, Hall, Ruocco, Sima, Slocum and White were present. Falvey and Giddings also attended). The discussion was regarding possible consultants for the Police Department 'no confidence' vote.

Two vendors made presentations.

The first proposer was from the ICMA or International City Management Association - an association of which the TM is a member. Generally, I thought they had something to offer. They suggested speaking with the principals. Then they would set out a timetable with benchmarks for a variety of issues, including operational improvements. That's exactly what I want to do. But I'd add consequences for failure to meet the goals.

On the flip side though, I believe that any investigation may ultimately include the TM as a principal. And if that's the case, I'm concerned about the independence of the ICMA. Furthermore, they have a former President of the International Association of Chief's of Police as a team member... but no former President of AFSCME. That seems a bit lopsided to me.

The second proposer was some sort of behavioral specialist. Frankly, this sounded a bit touchy-feely. I figure the TM and the Personnel Director have had a year to work on behavior management. I don't see the point in spending a bunch of time, money & energy going down that path.

After the two proposers were done, I offered a few thoughts...

I previously asked the TM to invite another proposer - an attorney from Waterbury - who worked on 'no confidence' investigations in PDs in Wolcott and Naugatuck. But he didn't attend tonight. So I asked why?

Unfortunately, the TM said that the goal for these proposers was to include ideas for both operational and behavioral improvements. Frankly, I don't recall the Council saying that we were looking for anything beyond a fact-finder. But then... maybe last Tuesday was a statement?

At the end of the meeting I asked the TM to compile a timeline of actions taken by his office over the past 12 months. I requested that the timeline include a general description of the actions and the principals involved. It seems to me that if the Council is to move forward, we need an historical context for the present situation.

Tim White

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope that when you recieve the timeline, you make it public. I am curious to see how many times the union refused to meet compared to the chief.

Why exactly do we have a town attorney? Didnt he say that we should not waste money looking to outside consultants? Didnt the republican party just win an election telling voters that they would not hire consultants? The ICMA rep gave you all the ideas that you need to solve this problem. Go with what you have. Spending money on a personality problem does not fly with this voter.

Tim White said...

I figure the confidential personnel stuff ought to be able to be culled from the timeline. And yes, then I think it should be public.

Personally, I don't see a need for an outside consultant. Not yet anyway.

I just want a timetable with benchmarks. If goals are not met, then there are consequences.

As I see it, the outgoing Council failed to get results in a two year timeframe. Therefore, they were replaced. The same can happen with the incoming majority. But I see no reason why the incoming majority can't hold subordinates to the same standard - meet your goals or someone else will.

I'm not in HR though. So while I can google stuff, it's a bit difficult for me to determine reasonable benchmarks for either side for improvement.

If you can give me any guidance, I'd really appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

First, you cannot say this problem is 2 years old. It is only as old as the no-confidence vote. I know Deegan has been complaining for over 2 years about the chief, but it was only a disgruntled employee until then. As I recall, you were part of the prior council. In the future, you will be included in the good and bad decisions they made.

Take the ideas from the consultants and put them to use. As I have seen this matter, it is mostly a personality conflict. Personalities do not change over night. The chief and the union leaders need to sit down and verbally discuss what is wrong. Once this has happened, both sides need to have formal discussions to dictate changes to be made. Timemarks can be set here. Meet again in 3 months to see what needs to be done. Readdress what needs to be worked on and meet again in 3 more months. If things are going better, continue on this path. If not, changes should be considered.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why all the complaints can't be made public. Names do not have to be included, but the public has the right to know what the complaints are and to determine for themselves if they are legitimate.

Right now it looks like the chief is at fault when in reality he may not be.

Anonymous said...

not sure why we bother with a consultant; doubt the relationship of the Chief and the PD rank and file will EVER be what it should be. The Chief is an honest person. Unfortunately, he enjoys the sound of his own voice too much to be an effective leader/manager. Approach him with a retirement package and move on...

Anonymous said...

Package should be looked carefully. We are on the books for two retirements due to Heart attacks. If we look at the cost of a police chief we as a Town are paying a lot. Let's resolve this problem in a positive way.

Anonymous said...

"...not sure why we bother with a consultant; doubt the relationship of the Chief and the PD rank and file will EVER be what it should be. The Chief is an honest person. Unfortunately, he enjoys the sound of his own voice too much to be an effective leader/manager...."

The 800 lb gorilla in the room really is the labor union and its outside handlers representing the unhappy local officers. For the many townies who have never been in the thick of it inside of a company with a labor union and just a couple of unhappy card carrying union members, hang on to your wallets and checkbooks! And don't forget our town government is just full of labor union mentality. Good luck because productivity just might depend upon luck.

Anonymous said...

Tell me again why we do not get rid of the unions? All they do is cost us money. I beg anyone to show me where it says government must be unionized. We can be a trend setting community by getting rid of unions. Imagine not being forced to give 4% raises? Imagine people actually working? Imagine the workers being held accountable to do their jobs? Get rid of the unions and we can get rid of dead weight.

Anonymous said...

You can't "get rid of unions." The right of workers to organize is a First Amendment right. The solution to the teachers' 13% pay raise would have been for the previous (Dem) Council and BOE to stand up and say NO.

Anonymous said...

the ignorance is astounding. To my knowledge no one outside the Union local has said anything or had any involvement. Further "get rid of the unions", can you imagine how poorly the town would treat its employees then. So tired of those in the private sector cclaiming that public employees abuse the sysyem or are lazy. Walk a mile in our shoes then comment. This town has cut its teeth on screwing its employees, for the betterment of management. Do I think teacher salaries are high, maybe, but the arbitor didn't, because this is a wealthy town. Almoat every position on this town is paid lower (except management) then their countrrparts in other towns. But the residents here don't care they are ENTITLED to services. There are many town employees who take pride in their jobs and services rendered. Be happy they don't look for other employment or many of you who are complaining would be out of your jobs because of what these people can offer.

Anonymous said...

IF they were being so poorly paid, why didnt the union get them more money? Unions protect lazy employees. Thanks to our unions, the town pays a custodian $40/hr to lock a door. Thanks to the unions, we have to pay a maintenance worker to sit at the football games to lock the gate. Thanks to these unions, we pay someone to mow only the parklets and he cannot mow town property that he has to pass. These unions say we need to buy new trucks every so many years so the guys have up to date equipment.

Every town worker would suffer in the private world. Especially in these times of financial uncertainty. A majority of our towns spending is because of what the unions say they have to have to do their jobs. Union mottos include if it aint broke, replace it.

The 3 laziest people I know are union workers. Over paid and under worked.

Anonymous said...

From what I've heard, the conflicts between the chief and rank n file are more personality than organizational or policy.

Isn't the chief close to retirement anyway? His early retirement may not cost the town that much more in net terms.

Anonymous said...

"...Further "get rid of the unions", can you imagine how poorly the town would treat its employees then. ..."

Interesting view. Clearly, just down the street from town hall one really big company is trying exactly that right now. Pratt & Whitney has told about 1,000 local, highly paid union workers, so sad, too bad, your jobs will be leaving the state quite soon. Don't worry, you won't have to move, stay right here. We don't want you any more because we can't afford you anymore. You'll be replaced by non-union workers doing the same work for less elsewhere.

It is pretty clear that the local and state economy isn't thriving anymore either. Just how long will local residents be able to afford to pay for the bloat associated with the current town union labor practices throughout the town's many departments?

Anonymous said...

Bovano's even said they are going to leave for cheaper labor and services.

Anonymous said...

will local residents be able to afford to pay for the bloat associated with the current town union labor - do some research, TOC employees are paid less than that of most towns. Dont just have diarhea of the mouth spouting nonsesnse about the economy. This town is not in a financial hardship, what was the surplus last 3 years, over 2 million. this year more than a half million. Lay off town employees, youll be complaining then about no services.

Anonymous said...

I dont think we should fire the employees, just get rid of the union. We are in an employeers market. Get rid of the union and we can get rid of those that are only here for the protection with no work. People that want to be here will shine.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"...Dont just have diarhea of the mouth spouting nonsesnse about the economy. ..."

Nonsense about the economy? Only fools and CT Democrats are painting a rosy picture for the local and regional economy. Just look at the north end of this town. Look at the second of 2 pretend malls. Head a bit to the west and maybe you'd like to speak to some of the highly skilled and highly paid ~ 1,000 card carrying P&W union brothers and sisters who in about 18 months will be collecting unemployment checks if the state has any unemployment dollars left. And then there is our state budget which is close to a billion in the hole after just about 2 months of the current budget cycle.

Local and state budgets as well as this state's stupid binding arbitration rules for government employee labor unions are wrecking everyone's financial future. Want a look at CTs future, just head to California or New York or New Jersey for instance and take a look at the future waiting for our economy here.

Maybe Cheshire has very special employees who would work long term for less and not more. At least in the private sector when you realize you could be making significantly more at a competitor usually the smarter ones will actually move on to the higher paying position. I guess you believe that this town's employees just stay in a poorly paid position.

I'd bet the reality is if turnover is small to nil, those workers not leaving are either incapable of finding a better job or in fact, more likely the total pay package, including early retirement benefits are ridiculously high in the first place.

Anonymous said...

949... Card carrying members? What era do you live in. Learn arbitration rules.. The town (employer) has right toi reject findings, union does not. Arb mediators are appointed by the State and most findings favor theTowns. You don't want arb for public employees give them the right to strike. See how much it would cost to have the csp patrol this town for a few weeks, or have the schools shut down. Arb prevents thay by allowing a "neutral" party mediate a settlement. Further the decisions are based on the towns ability to pay compared to like and surrounding communities. If the town jist was reasonable during negotiations maybe there would be no need to go to arb. But this town wants something for nothing (pool overruns = low bids etc). Same approach with employees

Anonymous said...

Binding arbitration for municipal employee unions and in fact municipal employee unions are quickly forcing states like CT into devastating financial failure train wrecks. The way it works in this state is just patently STUPID. Appointing an arbitrator who really has no stake in local tax payments is in no way fair.

People who preach the wonderment of municipal labor unions and state mandated binding arbitration should take a 4 or 5 year sabbatical to the other side. Get a paying, productive job in the segment of the economy which has to create the wealth and pay the taxes that the money sucking municipal labor unions and the binding arbitrators are on the make for. Try it for a while if you can find anyone in the private sector who would have you in the first place and then come back after the experience and let us know if you changed your mind. Destroying wealth is a whole lot easier then creating it ever was.

Anonymous said...

Try it for a while if you can find anyone in the private - tried it. Left for a fat pension and better medical benefits, Thank you for paying for it.
Actually have had several offers to go private, fact is I can take my big pension and then go. Its called opportunity.
And the arbitrators are appointed by the STATE.... With reagrd to any town being forced into a financial wreck, that has more to do with investments, poor spending habits (pools, studies, mismanaged purchasing of useless software etc) than necessary public employees. Now go back to running your bank, Insurance company, car dealership (insert failed company here) into the ground and price gouging the american consumer....

Anonymous said...

has no stake in local tax payments is in no way fair.- That is the point he/she is neutral and weighs the towns ability against the requests of the two parties. If they had a biased stake and were from the affected town, how could they be neutral. Obtuse comments

Anonymous said...

At least in Cheshire it is the so called necessary public employees who are purchasing the software and who are responsible for much of the trouble associated with things like the pool, studies, and mismanaged purchasing. Quite possibly if there were fewer public employees there just might not be enough work time available for the town to get involved in so many things which don't ever seem to work out for the common good.

CT municipal employee unions, out of touch Democratic local and state politicians, stupid binding arbitration rules, and lax voters have all unfortunately allowed for a coming financial train wreck for state towns as well as for our state.

Thinking Cheshire government special interests and the state's binding arbitrators can maintain arbitrary policies which just increase property taxes while thousands of local skilled high paying jobs are being exported to other regions and overseas is a fools game.