Vote to hire ICMA due to PDs "no confidence" vote

Tonight, the full Council met in conjunction with the Personnel Committee. The primary discussion was related to this resolution to hire ICMA as a fact-finder related to the October 2 Police Union vote of 'no confidence' in the Chief.

I believe I was the first person to ask questions. My goal was to ascertain the role played by the Town Manager's Office in this mess. After all, neither the Union nor the Chief report to the Council... but the TM does. Most of my questions were related to the below chronology of events that I requested to include actions taken and principals involved. I figure we need to know the history, if we are to move into the future in a responsible manner.

Here's the TMs chronology of events:

In response to a request from Councilman Tim White regarding the events leading up to the Police Union’s vote of no confidence, I am providing the following chronology from the date I first was informed about the Union’s concerns to the date of the vote.

I met with various members of the Police Union Executive Board (E Board) on September 28, 2008, and in 2009 on February 19, May 21, June 10, June 22, and July 23.

The meeting in September 2008 was the first time the Union expressed their concerns about the Chief’s management style. Specifically, they spoke about communication, delegation of authority, micromanagement, recognition of achievement, assignment of officers to specialties (Youth, Community Affairs, and Narcotics Officers), training and equipment needs.

I conveyed these concerns to the Chief along with recommendations for addressing them. Throughout the ensuing months, I checked on these issues at regular meetings, and through telephone discussions and emails with the Chief. He appeared to be sensitive to these issues and attempting to address them, and in the absence of feedback to the contrary, appeared to be making progress.

Lou Zullo and I met with the E Board on February 19, 2009, and it appeared that while I thought that progress was being made in addressing the Union’s concerns, the Union felt that little change had in fact occurred, and when changes did occur, they were not sustained.

Realizing that a more thorough process was needed, Lou Zullo and I began meeting with the Chief, Command Staff (Deputy Chief and two Captains) to formulate a more effective means of addressing concerns but also enlisting the assistance of his Command staff to more closely monitor the Chief’s behavior and provide feedback. To this end, the six of us met about every two weeks for about two months.

In response to the continuing concerns raised a number of changes were instituted:

1. A newsletter was developed by the Chief and distributed periodically which provided the employees with a variety of information about department activities, plans, etc. in an effort to improve communication.

2. At Police Department staff meetings consisting of the Chief, the Command staff and two lieutenants (generally held on Monday, Wednesday and Friday), an additional lower or non-ranking staff member was invited to participate to offer suggestions, ideas on department matters and to observe meetings to better understand policy making process and department oversight.

3. The Chief was directed to delegate much of the day-to-day operations to Deputy Chief Popovich as soon as possible, in an effort to lessen tension and limit micromanagement.

4. The assignment to specialties was being addressed and assignments were to be initiated as soon as practicable.

5. The training room was upgraded.

6. Kitchen improvements were made along with other general building improvements (i.e. painting, new furniture, etc.).

7. A schedule of regular Union Executive Board meetings was established to include the Command staff.

8. Periodic meetings were established between the Chief and Union President.

9. More frequent letters of commendation were being issued by the Chief.

10. The Sergeants’ exam was moving forward.

11. Increased training opportunities were planned.

On May 21, 2009 Lou Zullo and I met with the E Board of the Union to get feedback on changes that were implemented. They acknowledged changes that were made but felt that our efforts only resulted in short-term improvement and not sustained improvement. The Union indicated that after I would meet with the Chief, there would be a change in his behavior, but it would not continue for an extended period. At this meeting, the E Board provided me with a written document detailing the issues that had been previously discussed. This document formed the basis for the discussion on this issue that I had with the Town Council in Executive Session at the July Council meeting.

Up until this time the Chief had not participated in these meetings, and I indicated to the E Board that there needed to be a direct discussion/confrontation with us and the Chief. Union members resisted this recommendation as they claimed a fear of retaliation if they directly criticized or confronted the Chief. I explained that these meetings would be the only way I could expect to confront issues and possibly resolve them, and that we needed to have a direct dialogue among all of us. I attempted to assure them that my presence would eliminate any potential for retaliation by the Chief. The Union was unwilling to participate in such a meeting.

We met again with the E Board on June 10, 2009 and June 22, 2009, and much of what was stated in the May 21, 2009 meeting was reiterated. Since the Union was still unwilling to have the Chief participate in these meetings, I made it clear that I could not successfully achieve a change unless the E Board allowed the Chief to join us in these meetings. The Chief needed to hear the concerns, with specific illustrations, from those affected. It would be the only way to try to get to the root cause of the problem. I realized that there would be no opportunity for any positive change to happen unless the Chief participated in these meetings. With some reluctance, some of the members agreed to meet with the Chief, along with Lou Zullo and myself.

The E Board did indicate at either the May or June meeting that they would not pursue a vote of no confidence in the Chief. Also, on July 1, 2009 the Union President stopped by my office and left a message that things were getting better with the Chief.

On July 23, 2009 Lou Zullo and I met with members of the E Board and the Chief and his Command staff. We discussed communications and indicated that the Union needed to have one spokesperson, as a direct line, since there were multiple people communicating for the Union which was creating confusion, and in some cases misunderstandings. The testing procedure for the upcoming Sergeants’ exam was discussed extensively, revolving around the second part of the test which would be conducted by an assessment center, rather than using the traditional panel approach. Staff evaluations, supervisors and department meetings were also discussed, especially as a key means of improving communication. The meeting went well, as Deputy Chief Popovich took the lead on some of the policy issues. While we did see some progress in getting everyone together and discussing some important issues, we did not get to the critical issues that were discussed with the E Board relative to the Chief’s style of management. Nonetheless, the meeting was positive and laid the foundation for future meetings that could be more substantive. A subsequent meeting was scheduled in an effort to keep us all communicating.

Throughout this time period (February through September) there were about nine contract negotiation sessions as well as a few grievance hearings. The negotiating sessions were proceeding in a civil manner, but directed at curtailing some of the Chief’s discretion. Also, some grievance hearings were held, and while two were going to arbitration (and the Town has prevailed on one and awaiting the outcome on the second one) 3 others were settled internally.

During this time period I formally met with a few of the officers and informally questioned others about the impact on any Police Department changes. Additionally, I met with members of the Command staff to pose the same inquiry. My purpose for these inquiries was to get feedback to adequately evaluate what impact our efforts (frequent meetings, policy changes, reporting modifications, reassignments, increased communication, facility improvements, increased training, officer inclusion in meetings, etc.) were having on the state of the Police Department.

Little substantive feedback was provided, especially among the Command staff. The Police Department is a paramilitary operation with a strong adherence to and respect for the chain of command. This made it almost impossible to get specific, clear information on the state of the Department and the effect of any changes we had attempted to implement. Consequently, it underscored the importance of continuing to have regular meetings with the Chief and the Union.

With this in mind, a meeting was scheduled with the Chief, Deputy Chief and Union leadership for September 28, 2009, and an E Board meeting with the Chief, Command staff and Lou Zullo and I for October 1, 2009. I thought both meetings would be useful in building on our meeting of July 23. Unfortunately, the Union cancelled both of these meetings and proceeded to conduct the vote soon after.

I had a number of questions / comments. But it's getting late. Maybe I'll get into that tomorrow.

The vote on the resolution passed 7-1. I opposed spending the money without holding staff accountable. And Jimmy Sima was absent in relation to family concerns. The MRJs Jesse Buchanan has already reported on the meeting. Jesse captured my sentiments well:

White said he opposed the motion in part because he believes that the town personnel director, Louis Zullo, could mediate or resolve the conflict.

"If staffing changes need to happen, then they need to happen," White said.

I mean... when you get paid six figures and mediation is in your job description... I think this issue should have been handled a long time ago. But I'd agree to giving the TM another three months. And if it can't be handled impartially by staff... then yeah... let's get new staff. Whether the TM chooses to find a new Personnel Director or the Council chooses to find a new TM... staff should be able to handle this... and both Councilman Ecke and Council Chair Slocum agreed with me that staff should be able to handle this.

For me the most amusing part of the discussion was when Councilman David Schrumm said something to the effect of "This is not a consultant. This is a fact finder." That got Councilman Mike Ecke fired up and saying something like "In my business, this is the very definition of a 'consultant.'" Call ICMA what you will. I think everyone can come to their own conclusion.

I think the best part about the meeting for me though was that I didn't get berated by staff at all. It was a really pleasant change from being repeatedly dressed down by staff for the past four years. For that, I thank both Personnel Chairman Ruocco and the voters!

Last, but not least, all principals (TM, Union, Chief) involved were amenable to this course of action.

I'm sure I'll post more this weekend.

Tim White