Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: $800,000 and still no definitive reply

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922

    $800,000 and still no definitive reply

    Supervisor Fudoli, I will not be available the night of the public hearing on the 2016 tentative budget. I am not here to speak on the budget, but I would ask you to clarify what you posted on your Facebook account regarding the police contract negotiations costing the taxpayers $800,000. I cannot find such accounting in the budget you presented.

    Fudoli: It is not one number. I thought Dave Brown (Financial Administrator) called you and talked to you about that.

    Chowaniec: He said you are the person who wrote it and that I should get the information from you.

    Fudoli: Okay. It’s a makeup of a budget that includes back pay, benefits…it’s not all in one spot. That is the total cost of settling the contract. But again, it’s not in one spot; some of it is back pay, some of it is current pay, part of it is an adjustment to longevity.

    Chowaniec: Is the contract settlement in a position right now that its contents can be made public?

    Fudoli: Not quite yet, we are still waiting on one signature. The terms have been given. The cost of it is in the budget and that’s public knowledge. That is public knowledge and that’s why I put that statement out there. The terms of the actual settlement cannot be disclosed yet. The board doesn’t even have those terms yet, just me and our legal counsel; and the PBA and their legal counsel.

    Chowaniec: When you are talking about benefits, that is kind of confusing me. If you look at the police budget and you look under health care, you don’t see any increase, you don’t see any decrease, so what benefits are you speaking of?

    Fudoli: I can’t disclose that because that would give you information that I can’t discuss as yet.

    Chowaniec: Some others and I when examining the budget cannot determine or account for the $800,000. When you look under police wage increases there is only a total of $160,000. When you look at the total police budget of $9.6 million, there is but a $60,000 increase from last year’s budget. You know that I examine the budget quite closely and you say the $800,000 is accounted for in this budget, I can’t find it.

    So, I guess I will just have to wait until the contract agreement is finalized to see the terms and determine where this $800,000 figure is coming from because it is not discernible to me that it can be found in this budget. When will the terms of the police contract agreement be made public?

    Fudoli: What we are waiting on right now is for the arbitrator to sign. That’s really it. There are three signatures needed for any arbitration settlement; the representative for the town, the representative for the PBA, and the arbitrator. We are waiting for the arbitrator to sign off. When he signs that, I don’t know. We were supposed to have it this afternoon but didn’t get it.

    Chowaniec: For clarification, it is my understanding that when you go into arbitration there are three parties like you said; Town, PBA and arbiter. If one party agrees with the arbiter offer and signs the agreement, does it nullify the third party from further negotiation procedure?

    Fudoli: Here’s what happens. It’s like any town board vote. You have a three member town board, two votes passes it. So the arbitrator’s job is essentially to get one side to come over and they can vote. So the arbitrator throws offers out to both sides. When one side bites you have two votes. The arbitrator sends something out that he would vote for. So, whether it is in favor of one side or the other, he needs one other vote to make it three votes. The arbitrator throws numbers out there until someone bites. Essentially then he has two votes – his and the one party that took the offer.

    Chowaniec: So then the agreement becomes binding. So then you are telling me that the town has no further say in the matter; as it was the PBA that accepted the offer? The town can’t vote and say they oppose the agreement reached?

    Fudoli: Yes. You will see that our concurring opinion. Our legal counsel drafted a concurring opinion that will come out with this settlement. That speaks of our side. I am sure their legal counsel (PBA) will do the same thing.

    Council member Donna Stempniak: But that doesn’t change the award?

    Fudoli: No. There is no appeal process because the agreement is binding. But it does present an opportunity to at least to say…

    Stempniak: We agree to disagree.

    Fudoli: Because it is not always three parties that get to vote on it. Like I said earlier, it only takes two parties to get it to a vote. Someone who did not agree with the settlement does not vote for it. You then have an opportunity to voice your opinion. But that’s all it is, an opinion.

    Chowaniec: Considering budget spending only went up $320,000 in the General Fund, you maintain this agreement cost the town $800,000. Again, when you examine the budget, it does reflect such cost. Does this indicate that you are looking at this increase over time, like the length of the contract settlement negotiated?

    Fudoli: No, we have to pay this in sixty (60) days.

    Chowaniec: And that money is going to come from the fund balance?

    Fudoli: It varies, It doesn’t come from the police fund.

    Chowaniec: So am I to assume that this preliminary budget is just that, preliminary?

    Fudoli: No. It can be adopted as is.


    Resident Mike Fronczak sought further clarification of the process:

    Fronczak: When the arbitrator is putting offers out, does our legal counsel have the power to say, “Oh, that’s a good deal I will take it. Or does he have to report back to a board and the board makes that decision?”

    Fudoli: He can’t technically report to the board because he can’t disclose that information, right? He has to make a decision, a judgment call, based on what he thinks is the best offer because a lot of times arbiters will throw offers out there getting one side to budge. If you don’t take it, for a term of a better word, piss him off and he may offer something better to the other side and they will take it. So, it’s a balancing thing.

    These legal experts are hired throughout the country for these hearings who understand the process from having experience from similar hearings and settlements in other municipalities; based on comparables. They make the decision based on what they think is the best possible deal we are going to get. And like I said, if you don’t take the offer a lot of times you are going to pay a price. An arbiter will swing a pendulum all the way to the other side.

    Fronczak: $800,000 to pay back in 60 days sounds undoable.

    Fudoli: Don't forget, the process is set by the state. That is not something we can control

  2. #2
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    If the $800,000 has to be paid out in 60 days, wouldn't come out of the 2015 budget?

    Georgia L Schlager

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My reply from Schumer on F.I.S.A.
    By gonerail in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Kathy Hochul
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 10th, 2008, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •