|
As you all know, last October, the
Nassau County Legislature approved the County
Executive’s 2012 Budget.
This Budget requires 150 million dollars in labor
savings in order to be balanced.
In addition, the County Executive’s four year
plan, required by NIFA, contains an additional three
years of 150 million dollars of annual labor savings.
All five of the Nassau County civil service
unions urged the Legislature to vote down this budget
since the labor savings was not attainable, either
through givebacks or by the reduction of the County
workforce. Over
our objections, the budget was passed.
The NIFA directors, all of whom doubted that
these savings could be achieved, still approved the 2012
budget and the four year plan.
In December, the Nassau County Legislature
approved an ordinance allowing the County Executive to
reduce the workforce to attain the 150 million dollars
in labor savings if concessions could not be reached.
The County Executive designated Dec 31, 2011 and
February 1, 2012 as trigger dates to receive 75 million
in concessions from labor or
he would reduce the workforce to save that
amount. We
know that before the end of the year some CSEA workers
were laid off and others took advantage of an incentive
that reduced the size of their workforce.
In addition, some corporals at the jail, members
of SHOA, were demoted thereby saving the County revenue.
Members of the County government testified at a
legislative hearing that attrition in the Police
Department would supply the savings required by the
three police unions for the December 31, 2011 date.
As of now, it is not known if on December 31,
2011, the County actually attained the first 75 million
in targeted savings.
Although the labor savings required in the budget
are unrealistic and unattainable, all the County unions
still hope a reasonable solution to the County fiscal
problems can be reached.
Speaking of unreasonable options,
the County Executive held a press conference on January
30, 2012 to announce that he intends on closing four of
the eight police precincts in Nassau County.
This proposal must be approved by the Nassau
County Legislature.
The proposal will be subject to hearings by
multiple Legislative committees and then will be voted
on by the full legislature.
Needless to say, the Superior Officers
Association does not approve of this proposal and will
work to prevent it from being implemented.
This proposal was not well planned.
It eliminates a precinct on each of the four
radio bands. The
Seventh, Second, Third and Fourth Precincts would remain
as full precincts and the remaining precincts would
become Community policing centers manned only with two
officers at a time.
The total number of officers on patrol and
supervisors on patrol would remain as is.
Apparently, the desk personnel, precinct
administrators and detectives would be severely reduced.
No further information was provided.
We will meet with the Administration to obtain
more details of exactly how they plan on achieving this
consolidation. Once
again, we are against this proposal.
Hopefully, it will never see the light of day.
During the press conference, the
County Executive mentioned that he hoped a retirement
incentive would reduce the members of the Police
Department. An
incentive package has not been proposed at this time.
However, the SOA believes it is appropriate to
propose a retirement package to the membership and will
explore the various options for a proposal.
ON
THE COVER
A picture of the Third Precinct Satellite was
placed on the cover of this issue because the way in
which it is now being supervised is an example of what
often occurs during times of fiscal concern.
When pressure is placed on the administration of
the Police Department to achieve unrealistic savings
often times the decisions that are made actually
increase the liability the Department may incur.
The potential loss of revenue from future
litigation should outweigh the day to day savings
achieved by reducing supervisory staffing.
However, under pressure, this fact is ignored.
I
was a supervisor in the Third Precinct when the
Satellite first opened.
The expansion of the Roosevelt Field Mall and the
creation of the Fortunoff Source Mall, along with the
development of the shopping corridor between the two,
placed a tremendous drain on the resources of the Third
Precinct. Until
this expansion occurred, arrests could be processed at
an office in the lower level of the much smaller
Roosevelt Field Mall.
When arrests weren’t being processed, one or
two police officers would be available to patrol the
mall in order to deter crime.
As the amount of retail stores in this area grew,
the incidents of shoplifting also grew.
We, in the Third Precinct, were having difficulty
in processing the amount of arrests that were being made
and did not have the additional resources needed to
deter crime. The
members of the Third Precinct and the management of the
Source Mall came up with a creative solution to this
growing problem. The
Third Precinct Satellite was created and the building
was donated by the Source Mall.
Shoplifting arrests for the two malls and the
retail corridor were processed at this facility.
In addition, RMP patrol was provided to deter
crime. The
Satellite was open seven days a week.
It was staffed with two teams each working a four
day a week tour. Each
team had a dedicated supervisor.
This meant a supervisor was always present to
oversee the arrest processing and direct anti-crime
activities. Eventually,
this Satellite office was processing more arrests than
some of our precincts.
This was accomplished with two dedicated
supervisors along with experienced and highly motivated
police officers.
So what happened?
Well, crime didn’t decrease.
There were no studies done that indicated arrest
processing shouldn’t be supervised.
It was the pressure to reduce spending that
motivated the decision to reduce supervisory staffing at
this facility. Sound
long term plans were abandoned in favor of quick
savings. The
police administration did not believe, or they ignored,
that the potential loss of revenue from litigation
outweighed the cost of properly supervising the
Satellite. This
is similar to those who feel that paying for car
insurance is not worthwhile.
They believe that if you never have an accident
that you wasted money on needless premiums.
So, the supervision at the Satellite went from a
supervisor present all the time, to a supervisor being
present half the time, to no supervisor being present at
all. A
decision was made that when no supervisor was assigned
to the substation that the east patrol supervisor would
become responsible for the arrest processing at this
facility. This
would be in addition to his regular duties.
While the SOA had expressed concerns over the
reduced staffing at the substation when it occurred, the
new policy of transferring the responsibility to the
east end patrol supervisor warranted increased action on
our part.
The administration of the Police
Department can determine how this Satellite is to be
supervised. However,
if it is under supervised then those that set the policy
have to assume responsibility for any incidents that may
occur due to reduced supervision.
They cannot pass that responsibility onto a
patrol supervisor who has other duties to perform.
For that reason, we have requested that the Third
Precinct Satellite be staffed as it originally was, or
that the Department negotiate the specific
responsibility that the east end patrol supervisor has
in relation to the Satellite office.
The following is part of the text of the letter I
sent to the Commissioner regarding this issue:
“I am writing you to express my
concern for the lack of supervision at the Third
Precinct substation located at the Source Mall.
Currently, the east end patrol supervisor is
required to respond to the substation to review arrest
paperwork and prepare a PDCN 79.
The patrol supervisor cannot be present for the
total time that arrests are in the substation.
Therefore, the police officers processing the
arrests are not supervised until the end of the process.
It is my belief that the east end
patrol supervisor will be held liable should anything
improper occur during the arrest process.
In the past, supervisors have been charged
administratively for failing to supervise subordinates.
If a supervisor is charged departmentally for
failing to supervise, he can be subject to a fine and
possibly loose points on a promotion exam.
Therefore, the way the substation is being manned
has a direct effect on the east end supervisor’s
conditions of employment.”
We are now waiting to resolve the
Satellite issue with the Department.
If a successful resolution cannot be obtained, we
will file an impact bargaining request with PERB.
I am writing about this situation in my article
now because I believe as the “do more with less”
pressure is placed on the Department supervision will be
reduced in other areas and additional liabilities will
occur. Please
inform us of similar situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nassau County 2012 Budget is
required by law to be completed by October 30, 2011.
By the time you read this article, we will know
if NIFA accepted the budget as being balanced.
From what we have seen so far, the actual budget
document is not very specific.
The County Executive acknowledges that there is a
310 million dollar deficit that must be closed.
While he claims 115 million dollars of that
deficit is caused by increases in labor compensation
items, he is requiring labor to contribute 198 million
in savings. If
labor does not willingly make up the 195 million
dollars, the County Executive claims he will have the
Nassau County Legislature enact his “Fiscal Crisis Act
of 2012” to impose the savings.
In addition, he will close two police precincts
and possibly lay off workers to achieve his fiscal goal.
Many other items in his budget are also based on
conjecture and seem to have no chance of occurring.
I believe NIFA will declare this budget to be
unbalanced. Although
I have read the legislation that created NIFA, I am not
sure what they will do with a budget that is not
balanced. It
is apparent that the directors of NIFA do not have the
power to raise revenue, but instead, must concentrate on
reducing spending.
It is impossible to predict the
outcome of this horrendous situation.
When you look at jurisdictions where control
boards took control, it appears that there was a more
concerted effort at resolving the fiscal dilemma.
The Republicans, who are in control of County
government, have stood steadfast in their “no tax
increase no matter what” position.
The directors of NIFA have not backed off their
position of not allowing borrowing to raise revenue.
In addition, there is less sales tax revenue
coming in. So,
once again everyone is turning to labor to provide
additional givebacks.
Certainly that will not happen in this
atmosphere. While
the Mangano administration and Legislature Majority
Leader Peter Schmitt have portrayed the county union
leaders as being unwilling to negotiate, they are the
ones who are refusing to make any concessions.
In my October 2009 Gold Shield
article, I predicted that if the Republicans gained
control of the Legislature and the County Executive
office, we would be in the position we are in today.
That prediction wasn’t based on my ability to
see into the future, but instead was based on the
influence that the Tea Party and Tax Revolt party had on
the Nassau Republicans.
What I wasn’t aware of is the influence that
right wing billionaire businessmen have on the national
Republican Committee.
I was made aware of this fact at the NAPO
conference held in Dallas in July.
Union representatives from Wisconsin, Ohio and
New Jersey were present and gave a presentation on how
collective bargaining was attacked in their states.
The attack was led by Republican Governors.
What was enlightening was the influence that a
group called Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, has on
these governors. The
major financial contributors to AFP are Charles and
David Koch. These
two billionaire brothers were recently listed as two of
the ten wealthiest people in America.
They own numerous corporations and believe
corporate tax should be reduced and government should
not interfere with business.
The AFP organization supports right to work laws
and reducing the power of unions.
Right to work states are states were joining a
union is an option available to the employee.
In New York employees are required to join a
union if one exists in their workplace.
This organization also makes major contributions
to the Tea Party. Interestingly,
in the October 17, 2011 issue of Newsday, there was an
article on the relationship between Republican
Presidential candidate Herman Cain and the Americans for
Prosperity.
If it appears I am suggesting that
there is an organized plot to reduce the power of
unions, there is. David
Koch has a home in New York City.
In fact, his home was the site of a recent
demonstration conducted by the Wall Street protestors.
It is not far-fetched to believe that the Koch
brothers and the AFP are not influencing New York State
and Nassau republicans.
In addition, the Mangano administration has
consulted with the Jackson Lewis law firm.
This is a national firm that exclusively
represents management in workplace law.
A paragraph from their brochure states, “Recognized by in-house counsel of Fortune 1000
companies in a survey conducted by BTI Consulting Group
as “the single highest-ranked firm clients want by
their side in employment battles,” Jackson Lewis has
one of the most active employment litigation practices
in the United States. Whether we are counseling on legal
compliance or litigating a complex case, we help our
clients achieve their business goals and a greater
return on their human investment”.
What is telling in the above quote is the mention
of “employment battles” and “a greater return on
their human investment”.
We cannot face this challenge
alone. We
need the help of unions throughout the County, the State
and the Country. That
was the purpose of the Labor Rally on October 19, 2011.
I am also attending a NAPO conference this month
that deals exclusively with this topic.
This issue is bigger than Ed Mangano.
We must send the message to politicians
everywhere that we are united in preserving collective
bargaining and the sanctity of existing contracts.
|
