Public Safety Millage? You've got to be kidding!

19 Oct 2010
INTRODUCTION
Before we begin, let's address the personal dimension of what will be essentially a debate about institutional behavior.

There are people, thankfully very few, who have nothing positive to say about the Police or about Firefighters. You've read or heard them: "Royal Oak Cops are jack-booted bullies." "Firefighters sit around most of the time and work so few hours that most of them have second jobs." At the other end are citizens whose home or life has been saved by Firefighters or who have experienced helpful and protective service from cops.

in this debate about a dedicated millage, the anti-public safety crowd will refuse to acknowledge that there can be any valid input from Police or Fire. And the pro-public safety throng will deny that their heroes can be anything other than 100% right. Try, readers, not to think of the guy or gal who saved your life or who gave you a speeding ticket. Think, instead of City Hall and of Unions, each of which is an institutional Special Interest having a mindset with which all of its members don't always agree.

Public Safety unions are like unions in the education and academic sector. They have double protection.

Teachers and professors have their union and they have tenure. Police and Fire have their union and they have Act 312. Compulsory arbitration, for practical purposes, provides the same protection as tenure. Most Public Safety employees will consider that an apples-and-oranges comparison, and therefore invalid.

Serendipity occurs again.
Within two days of each other, I had occasion to converse with a fireman and a patrol officer, one of whom has served on his department's negotiating committee. Neither of them spoke in anger. Nor was there any tension. Just two quiet dialogues from which I'm sure I learned more than they. We covered such topics as how many times each union has been involved in compulsory arbitration; whether Management or Labor was responsible for causing impasse; the limits of the arbitrator's authority, and how that limitation influences what each party asks for to begin with; that none but Public Safety workers are legally prohibited from striking; how the respective departments are perceived by the public.

There is no reason why this ongoing VersagiVoice dialogue about the wisdom of a dedicated Public Safety millage cannot continue in the same respectful manner as those conversations with a firefighter and a patrol officer. Certainly, I won't publish unthinking attacks on Public Safety like those paraphrased above.

In a handful of the many encounters with residents about all this I was challenged: "Well, if you're willing to spread the attacks of the Public Safety guys by printing pages of their propaganda, we opponents should get the same courtesy."

"Are you willing to be identified with your comments?"

"Well . . . um . . ."

Now that we've established the reasonable constraints on personalizing this debate, we'll begin dealing with the substantive arguments. -- End of Part One

09 November 2010
Part Three of an ongoing series

Perhaps one indication that the scare tactics have been overplayed is the handful of residents who bothered to show up at CITCOM meetings this year, compared to the scores of supporters who came out previously

Then again, there are those observers who maintain that the only millage increase which residents will support is one dedicated to Public Safety.

That may be so at the moment, because reductions in services out of city hall have not yet reached the point where the public is as aware of them as it is about being told to come to the police station to report a burglary or a fender-bender accident if no one was injured. In one visit to city hall I encountered nothing but smiling service in four separate departments on all three floors. Not just to me but to others, too.

Whether elected and appointed officials want to try for a general millage or a dedicated millage, and whether they hope for 6 mills or 10 mills, they should soon begin a steady drumbeat of education. They can't legally attempt to "sell" a tax increase but they are permitted to inform their constituents.

Not just with town halls which draw only those 117 or so who are already paying attention plus a few chronic complainers. But with a series of informative news releases. Talks at CITCOM meetings (after all we have invited lecturers about everything from medical marijuana to the benefits of ice hockey). Talks before service clubs and civic organizations and church groups (scripted, so the message is legal and consistent).

Speaking specifically of a dedicated Public Safety millage, invite Police and Fire representatives to speak, even debate, at some of these gatherings, but guard against either Labor or Management packing the house with supporters. Loan videos of all these presentations to those groups which can serve their own smaller gatherings..

Next, I'll do a short piece on Act 312, which I find is a shorthand reference that many of my readers are hearing or paying attention to for the first time. -- FJV: 01 Nov 2010 The Ongoing Series

Development:
By voting, 90%-10% to preserve Royal Oak's green spaces, voters have doomed themselves to having to choose a hurtful drop in services or a painful and long-lasting millage increase.

More about public sector employees, unions
"Unions have made it almost impossible to sack incompetent government employees." That is not only an American complaint. Addressing incompetent public sector employees: The Greeks put them "in the fridge," giving them pretend jobs. The French put theirs "in the cupboard." Americans speak of " the dance of the lemons" to refer to the practice of reassigning bad teachers to new schools, rather than getting rid of them. In America, dealing with public sector incompetence is made more difficult, contends The Economist, by the fact that more than a quarter of America's unionized public sector workers have a college degree and have liberal views . . . "

25 Oct 2010
About Compulsory Arbitration
The most helpful reaction to Part One of this series was a challenge to my contention that compulsory arbitration for Police and Fire is equivalent, in job-protection value, to tenure in the academic arena.

The fundamental counterargument is that Michigan's Public Act 312 operates differently than does arbitration in the private sector: "In private sector arbitration -- which is usually a last resort anyway -- the usual settlement about wages is to split the difference between the final offers of management and labor." (If management offers $1.00 and labor insists on $2.00, the wage will be settled at $1.50.) Under 312's compulsory arbitration, "The arbitrator can 'split the difference' about language -- about work rules, for example -- but not about wages," I am told.. "About wages, the choice is one or the other." ($1.00 or $2.00, in my example.)

"Knowing that keeps both the city and the union from insisting on crazy wage demands."
Is it not a factor in negotiations knowing that the fallback position, compulsory arbitration, is guaranteed? Management (City Hall) and Labor accuse each other of deliberately seeking impasse, of bad faith bargaining, to force arbitration. (Unlike other city employees, Police and Fire cannot legally go on strike.)

Left unclear so far in this dialogue is whether the same either-or rule applies to health insurance and pensions. (Act 312 does refer to "The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits . . . ").

The cost of such fringe benefits has become the major cause of financial crisis for cities nationwide and a phenomenon so widespread as to attract the attention of the international press.

"Lieutenant Columbo, the finest fictional detective in the history of Los Angeles Police Department, had a knack for instantly identifying the culprit. Were he investigating the threat to American state finances, he would be looking at members of his own force. One California mayor estimates that the effective cost of employing each police officer and fireman is $180,000 a year."

The Economist's headline for the article with that lead paragraph was "Public-sector pensions: Three-trillion-dollar hole." its subhead continued, "American states have promised their employees benefits they can't afford." The piece goes on to comment, "Most public-sector workers are still being promised retirement incomes based on their final salaries, at a time when private companies have been retreating from such commitments." It speaks of "Alice-in Wonderland accounting" and maintains that reform won't be easy because "Unions are at t heir most powerful in the public sector and its workers are an important voting block."

The most targeted reaction to my plea that voters distinguish between individual firefighters or policemen and their respective unions came from those who know and love school teachers but consider the Michigan Education Association an irresponsible and selfish and arrogant monopoly in the public sector.

From Readers & Others

Tom Wurdock
Frank: I am sure this has been around the block several times with reasons it wouldn't work, BUT: Is it possible with a lot of work to establish a bar tax on liquor sold by the glass in our bars?

Since a great deal of our money goes toward complaints in the city late at night, and the thought of raising parking fees is another tax on our community that could be handled through a liquor tax, why not pursue it? I am sure the bars with fight it, but if we keep hearing about more bars wanting to come in to our city, let them pay the price. People going to the bars aren't gong to stop with a tax put on their drink. -- 12 Oct 2010

16 Nov 2010
Part Four of an Ongoing Series
Understanding Compulsory Arbitration
Why there is law which mandates compulsory arbitration
when a city and its public safety unions cannot reach a contract settlement.

"What does Act Three-Twelve have to say about that?"
That is the way verbally to pronounce "312" when speaking of Michigan Act 312 of 1969. The act's title is "Compulsory Arbitration of Labor Disputes in Police and Fire Departments." The document formally announces that the act's popular name is "Act 312." Among those actively involved, you often will hear simply, "Three-twelve says . . . "

It is possible without getting excessively legalistic to convey what about 312 matters most to taxpayers and voters.
The section numbers cited below are all preceded by "423.231."

Because Michigan law does not permit a fire department or police department to strike:
" . . . it is requisite to the high morale of such employees . . . to afford an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of disputes." To that end, the act, "providing for compulsory arbitration, shall be liberally construed." -- Sec. 1

A city's ability to pay
Royal Oak's City Commission has attempted to obtain formal recognition that arbitrators be mandated to recognize a city's ability to pay when making a ruling. Sec. 9(c) states, "The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit of government to meet those costs" are among the factors to be considered. One public safety officer told VersagiVoice that the arbitrator does not "split the difference" between the city's and the union's wage demands, but chooses one or the other. That keeps either of the parties from making unrealistic final offers, the officer contends.

Resolving grievances
Act 312 is not to be used to resolve grievances, which 312 defines as "a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of an existing agreement.". Sec 3

The reasonableness of a compulsory settlement
Wages, hours and conditions of employment of "other employees performing similar services and with other employees . . . in public employment in comparable communities and in private employment in comparable communities." Sec. 9(d) "Overall compensation is defined as including "direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received." Sec. 9(f)

Take it to court?
An arbitrator's ruling may be challenged in a county's circuit court, "but only for reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction." Filing such a challenge "shall not automatically stay the order of the arbitration panel." Sec. 12 Addressing another legal dimension: " No person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any violation of the provisions of this act or an order of the arbitration panel." Sec.16

Much of 312 deals with process, speaks of awarding compensation or other benefits "retroactively" (Sec. 10), and the like -- matters of importance primarily to negotiators.

My mention of teachers and teachers' unions in Part Three of this series caused some readers to ask about teacher-strikes. There is widespread taxpayer-uncertainty about whether teachers are legally allowed to strike, a topic for another time. For our discussion, the point is that "Because teachers' unions do not have the right to ask for binding arbitration, the school district could impose changes that affect salaries and heath-care benefits" in some collective bargaining scenarios.
[The quoted comment refers specifically to a recent Oakland Press report out of West Bloomfield.]

NEXT: The End. Why I think a dedicated Public Safety Millage is a bad idea.

Links On This Page

Picking up the dialogue in 2011

Input from others

Conclusion

Part Four
Public Act 312

Part Three
Flow of Education needed

Part Two
About Compulsory Arbitration

Part One
Introduction:
The Personal Dimension

Links Elsewhere

2011: continuing the dialogue

2010 Scare Flyer

Public Safety Unions
It's time to fight back

Budget Talk in previous years

07 Dec 2010
Conclusion
A Public Safety millage is a bad idea
We've covered a lot of ground in the first four parts of this series. It all comes down to this:

The Revenue Dimension

The General Fund, in effect, is the Public Safety millage. 80%-plus of that fund goes to Fire and Police.
How would dedicated revenue be divided between Fire and Police? Who should decide?
If we go for two millages, one for each department, what should the split be? Who should decide?
For how many years should a dedicated millage last? Should the years differ by department?
An increased General Fund millage would provide city officials the flexibility required to make decisions as conditions change.
The city's task is to educate the public re how much increase is needed or make clear how much more city services will be reduced at the current tax rate.

How we have come to this
As important as this debate about a Public Safety Millage is, the issue is only a part of overall budget considerations. Readers with more than superficial interest in the background have much to skim or study:
44th District Court controversy
Past CITCOM meetings dedicated to the Budget
Budget problems of other cities
Public Safety Millage overview
The impact of Public Safety Unions

Even earlier, from the Archives
Advice for the 43rd CITCOM
Where did that $6.4 million shortfall go?
Would it help to restructure the DDA?
Sandy Johnson: Don't kill the DDA

The Attitude Dimension

The arrogance and indifference to the General Welfare of the Public Safety Unions have already been displayed. See above.
We're not talking about the good-to-excellent services Fire and Police continue to provide. We're talking about their institutional behavior.
Given quasi-control of their own funds, those institutions would become even more unaccountable.
Imagine giving the Pentagon its own funds. Or, worse, giving Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force their individual funds.
Cities with separate Fire and Police millages are encountering rigid collective bargaining, Obviously, having their own funds does not elicit greater cooperation from Public Safety Unions.
Troy has a volunteer fire department but also employs Fire Officers. Their union has just granted concessions.
Royal Oak's CITCOM Seven should avoid the "Only a Public Safety Millage has a chance of passing" mindset. Nonsense. Educate the voters.
Talk to the citizens. Dare the Public Safety Unions to make their case -- with something other than scare mailings -- at the commission meetings and in Town Halls.
There have been far-out suggestions. The most far-out idea recommends that we both (a) Turn Police over to the Sheriff and (b) Begin converting to a Volunteer Fire Department.

Sort-of related to the above --
Will anti-public pension tide swamp trade unions, too?
That is the headline on a Labor newspaper's article which explores how private sector unions might be affected by what the writer sees as growing anti-union sentiment. [See]

And in its predictions for 2011, The Economist includes: "The main political battle of 2011 will be between suddenly thrifty politicians and public-sector unions. The latter may find little sympathy from their brothers and sisters in the private sector. Average pay in the public sector is higher, retirement often earlier and pensions relatively lavish."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The conclusion of my 5-part series opposing a Public Safety Millage, above, was written before the 06 December 2010 CITCOM meeting. Also, late in November, I wrote:

Man up! (Apologies to Patricia)

Start the debate and educational process.
Get out front.
Go around-the-table yourselves.
Each of you say out loud where you stand: "No new taxes" . . . "Only a Public Service Millage" . . . "Only a General Fund Millage" . . . Something not yet mentioned
Put your thoughts in writing and post them on the city's website.

06 Dec 2010 CITCOM meeting
Commissioner Andrzejak mans up.
Although absent from the meeting and having his motion introduced by Chuck Semchena, Mike Andrzejak was the Main Man of this meeting. In a long letter included on the agenda, Mike:

►Made clear he is still against any attempt to increase millage, at least until Police and Fire agree to concessions.

►Offered a short-term proposal to use part of the General Fund Balance to enable hiring back 6 police officers.

►Put it in writing and posted it on the city's website.

Mike's proposal, modified a bit to fit in with the fiscal budget, was passed unanimously. Whatever the financial wisdom of the move, what I like best about it is that it focuses on maintaining General Fund control of Police funding.

Mayor Ellison, replying later in the meeting to the Police spokesman who spoke during Public Comment, shouted -- almost screamed -- "We are a city with a police department, not a police department with a city." Jim repeatedly objected to the president's having said that we need more police. "We know that. We've said that for months, years." The mayor was joined by former policeman, now commissioner, Terry Drinkwine, who a couple of times stopped just short of using street language when saying something like, "You haven't put any skin on the table." Both Terry and Jim were referring to the fact that only Police and Fire have refused to offer concessions during labor negotiations.

Union spokesman Brian Zelozchevck, speaking during Public Comment, opened with a scary scenario of increasing crime resulting the department's inability to assign more than one officer each to the east and west sides of Main Street above 12 Mile. Zelozchevck said the Andrzejak's idea for adding six patrol officers falls short of the mark. He said that the city can return to full staffing and, without offering any details, insisted that the union has explained how that can be done at no additional cost.

In true militant mode, Zelozchevck offered threats and vague assurances but no concessions.

The necessary education of voters began in earnest last night. The city made clear that Police and Fire are part of the problem and is engaged in what I recognize as "Bad Faith Bargaining." But, even there, there is hope. In real terms, both the City and the Police have gone public with their "last best offer."

As VersagiVoice has suggested, it would be great if the police union put in writing its proposal for full staffing at no additional cost and posted it on the city's website. And I would encourage them to conduct their own Town Hall to present those ideas and engage in 2-way conversation with voters. Such openness would put at least a little "skin" on the table and help educate voters.