1-16-18 Board meeting

[gorja]

https://cloudup.com/c-7sPbdryeF

[MaddMatt]

All:

We have instituted a new process at the board level whereas council members can debate an issue before voting on it. Last night, I engaged in such a debate with a fellow councilman and wished to clarify my stance.

Our Lancaster Police Department requested a resolution hiring a new patrolman. This applicant already serves on another police force outside Rochester but has his roots in Lancaster and wished to return if a position was available and he qualified. After a lengthy and thorough vetting process, our chiefs and captains determined that he would be a good fit and offered him the position.

Now it should be noted that there are a few ways to hire an officer.
- hire someone who has yet to go to school
- hire someone who paid his own way through school
- hire someone away from another police force.

Each option has pro's and con's. In this case, the officer's schooling was paid for by his current employer. NYS has a law that offers jurisdictions the option of re-cooping some of that money within a few years of graduation (on a pro-rated scale). It is not mandatory and up to each town/village etc to decide whether to pursue reimbursement. The bonus to us is that this officer is ready to go after a short orientation period having already served for close to 2 years.

Conversely, if we have to put an officer through school or hire someone that already graduated but has no experience, the ramp up time is substantially higher. Anywhere from 4 months to a year. During that time we are paying full salary (plus schooling costs if applicable) for months on end before the patrolman is allowed to be on his/her own.

Thanks to passage of the resolution last night, we have hired a patrolman who is ready to go. Within 6 weeks he should be ready to patrol solo. The town he is leaving can choose to bill us for a percentage of his schooling.... or choose not to. Either way we have an officer that cost substantially less to get up to speed than other hiring methods.

I stand by my support of this new patrolman and our Lancaster Police Department's hiring practices.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE

=MaddMatt;1775644]All:

We have instituted a new process at the board level whereas council members can debate an issue before voting on it. Last night, I engaged in such a debate with a fellow councilman and wished to clarify my stance.

That process decision appears to truly be a positive departure from the past (and I date myself here), and one that I can wholeheartedly support.

[MaddMatt]

[QUOTE

That process decision appears to truly be a positive departure from the past (and I date myself here), and one that I can wholeheartedly support.

Thanks Mark, I lobbied hard for this change.

Don't get me wrong, as the last councilman to vote I had the advantage of being able to say whatever I wanted without the concern of anyone else getting the chance to reply. But I felt a change was warranted to correctly follow Robert's Rules of Order. Now we can all have a healthy debate and actually try to change the minds of council members before the vote takes place. Ultimately, it was Johanna's choice to institute as supervisor and I applaud her decision.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

[Lee Chowaniec]

All:

We have instituted a new process at the board level whereas council members can debate an issue before voting on it. Last night, I engaged in such a debate with a fellow councilman and wished to clarify my stance.

Our Lancaster Police Department requested a resolution hiring a new patrolman. This applicant already serves on another police force outside Rochester but has his roots in Lancaster and wished to return if a position was available and he qualified. After a lengthy and thorough vetting process, our chiefs and captains determined that he would be a good fit and offered him the position.

Now it should be noted that there are a few ways to hire an officer.
- hire someone who has yet to go to school
- hire someone who paid his own way through school
- hire someone away from another police force.

Each option has pro's and con's. In this case, the officer's schooling was paid for by his current employer. NYS has a law that offers jurisdictions the option of re-cooping some of that money within a few years of graduation (on a pro-rated scale). It is not mandatory and up to each town/village etc to decide whether to pursue reimbursement. The bonus to us is that this officer is ready to go after a short orientation period having already served for close to 2 years.

Conversely, if we have to put an officer through school or hire someone that already graduated but has no experience, the ramp up time is substantially higher. Anywhere from 4 months to a year. During that time we are paying full salary (plus schooling costs if applicable) for months on end before the patrolman is allowed to be on his/her own.

Thanks to passage of the resolution last night, we have hired a patrolman who is ready to go. Within 6 weeks he should be ready to patrol solo. The town he is leaving can choose to bill us for a percentage of his schooling.... or choose not to. Either way we have an officer that cost substantially less to get up to speed than other hiring methods.

I stand by my support of this new patrolman and our Lancaster Police Department's hiring practices.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

How sad to hear that you had to explain the process to a fellow board member - a tenured one at that. Nice job!

[gorja]

How sad to hear that you had to explain the process to a fellow board member - a tenured one at that. Nice job!

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as the other councilman saw $$$$ signs law or no law. Also, in my opinion, he was trying to draw attention to the ambiguity of the resolution by not including the fee as part of the resolution.
Also no one gave a definitive answer whether there was or wasn't a fee or the amount.
That's how read his objection.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as the other councilman saw $$$$ signs law or no law. Also, in my opinion, he was trying to draw attention to the ambiguity of the resolution by not including the fee as part of the resolution.
Also no one gave a definitive answer whether there was or wasn't a fee or the amount.
That's how read his objection.

And the way I see it is that until several months ago Ruffino was the Chair of the Public Safety Committee and should have been familiar with the process – and especially considering Walter engaged Ruffino in a private session on the protocol before the meeting.

[gorja]

And the way I see it is that until several months ago Ruffino was the Chair of the Public Safety Committee and should have been familiar with the process – and especially considering Walter engaged Ruffino in a private session on the protocol before the meeting.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As I see it, the law is the law and Ruffino voiced his disagreement with that law and not knowing the amount of that fee.

[MaddMatt]

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as the other councilman saw $$$$ signs law or no law. Also, in my opinion, he was trying to draw attention to the ambiguity of the resolution by not including the fee as part of the resolution.
Also no one gave a definitive answer whether there was or wasn't a fee or the amount.
That's how read his objection.

I can understand your opinion, Georgia. But ultimately, whether we get charged is not up to us but the other jurisdiction. Sometimes they seek compensation and sometimes not.

This was discussed at length before we considered this patrolman and everyone understood the implications. Ultimately, the pros outweigh the cons. Even if we get charged something, it will cost us less than putting someone through their entire schooling and we will have a fully trained officer ready to go 6 months to a year faster than a true rookie.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council

[gorja]

I can understand your opinion, Georgia. But ultimately, whether we get charged is not up to us but the other jurisdiction. Sometimes they seek compensation and sometimes not.

This was discussed at length before we considered this patrolman and everyone understood the implications. Ultimately, the pros outweigh the cons. Even if we get charged something, it will cost us less than putting someone through their entire schooling and we will have a fully trained officer ready to go 6 months to a year faster than a true rookie.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council

I do agree that the pros outweigh the cons and I did read the law as soon as I got home.
My post was just expressing my opinion on what I believed was Ruffino's premise for voting 'no'

[mark blazejewski]

Thanks Mark, I lobbied hard for this change.

Don't get me wrong, as the last councilman to vote I had the advantage of being able to say whatever I wanted without the concern of anyone else getting the chance to reply. But I felt a change was warranted to correctly follow Robert's Rules of Order. Now we can all have a healthy debate and actually try to change the minds of council members before the vote takes place. Ultimately, it was Johanna's choice to institute as supervisor and I applaud her decision.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

If one were to suggest that the Town Board publicly debate legislation or appointments in the 1970's, the heavens would have descended on the Town Hall clock.

On the other side, there must be some very interesting facial expressions.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey Matt:

The Buffalo News reported today that Councilman Ruffino stated that he had suggested an officer who worked for the Depew Police Department to fill the vacancy of the 49-man roster of the Lancaster Police force.

I did not hear Ruffino bring this up when listening to either the work session or regular town board meeting recordings. Was this option presented to board members and was there any discussion on the matter? Or, was this something Ruffino shared only with the Buffalo News reporter?

BTW – I was shocked to hear there was a Buffalo News reporter present. And, the reporting of the police hiring report was much more substantial than the Bee’s; nothing surprising there.

[MaddMatt]

Hey Matt:

The Buffalo News reported today that Councilman Ruffino stated that he had suggested an officer who worked for the Depew Police Department to fill the vacancy of the 49-man roster of the Lancaster Police force.

I did not hear Ruffino bring this up when listening to either the work session or regular town board meeting recordings. Was this option presented to board members and was there any discussion on the matter? Or, was this something Ruffino shared only with the Buffalo News reporter?

BTW – I was shocked to hear there was a Buffalo News reporter present. And, the reporting of the police hiring report was much more substantial than the Bee’s; nothing surprising there.

Lee:

When it comes to discussions on personnel issues, I need to be careful not to talk about items that may have been discussed in executive session or might otherwise be considered private/privileged information. In general terms, I can say that, in my opinion, Chief Gill has been pursuing every avenue when it comes to hiring patrolmen and women. The two most recent hires are not the end with at least one or two more needed in the near future.
Every department head takes the lead when it comes to hiring and typically keeps us informed along the way. Some council members choose to interview the candidates as well or they support the department heads decision. In the specific case of hiring officers, due to the extensive background and psychological testing required, the process takes longer and is more restrictive.

Matt Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=MaddMatt;1776812]Lee:

When it comes to discussions on personnel issues, I need to be careful not to talk about items that may have been discussed in executive session or might otherwise be considered private/privileged information.

Throughout 18 years of attending town board meetings I have always heard the Supervisor declare that the board was going into executive session and if an action was taken it would be revealed to the public. So I find your charge that executive session determinations are private and privileged as disingenuous – especially that as taxpayers we are stakeholders in the town and how the decision to hire this officer is made known.

In general terms, I can say that, in my opinion, Chief Gill has been pursuing every avenue when it comes to hiring patrolmen and women. The two most recent hires are not the end with at least one or two more needed in the near future.

If Chief Gill was pursuing every avenue and chose the most qualified individual how would we know that? Unlike the past when the public was part of the process all I heard at his hiring was that this was a Rochester police officer and we needed to bring him home. Was his hiring based on qualifications; tenure & service record; avoiding academy costs; or for personal reasons?

Every department head takes the lead when it comes to hiring and typically keeps us informed along the way. Some council members choose to interview the candidates as well or they support the department heads decision. In the specific case of hiring officers, due to the extensive background and psychological testing required, the process takes longer and is more restrictive.

From what I have been informed Ruffino did bring before the board’s attention that there were two Village of Depew police officers that had resigned during the Village’s dissolution process knowing if that happened they would be the first to be let go. The one is a County Sheriff and the other working in another local municipality police force.

Then I read that Cheektowaga hired 6 new police officers and the Village of Depew two new hires to replace retiring officers – all from a pool of 70 available candidates.

So, I have to ask what made the new police hire so special that the Town of Lancaster had to hire an officer from Rochester to “bring him back home” – as the point was made at the meeting.

It is puzzling that we had to raid a police position from Rochester when we have so many local applicants available. How many other individuals were interviewed and vetted for qualifications by town board members – or was this just a police department request? We have a right to know Matt – and this should not be considered privileged information. This should have been Ruffino’s focus at the recent meeting, not the nickel-and-dime **** about academy cost fee obligation.

Lastly, I would expect Lancaster to pony up some money to Rochester to cover police academy costs. Lancaster has had a penchant for trolling for experienced officers from other municipalities to avoid academy costs. And considering we knew the town was going to hire a new officer months ago, immediacy in filling the position is no excuse.

[gorja]

This is interesting considering our newly appointed officer's name is Philip J. Carcaci - 1-22-15 Lancaster Bee.

Police officer’s position may hinge on arbitration
by JULIE HALM Editor
Union arbitration made the hiring of a new officer in the Lancaster Police Department a complicated matter during Monday night’s meeting of the Lancaster Town Board.


Two resolutions were proposed regarding personnel in the department as a result of the retirement of Lt. John Robinson III. Lancaster Police Chief Gerald Gill recommended Officer Jonathan Ziders, a member of the department, to be promoted to the position.

Members of the board spoke highly of Ziders and voted unanimously for his advancement to the position. “I know that John is a man of integrity,” said Trustee John Abraham.

To fill the position left open by Ziders’ advancement, Gill recommended Brett M. Carcaci, but the situation surrounding the appointment caused controversy. During the meeting, the Town Board adjourned to an executive session to discuss matters surrounding both appointments.

According to Lancaster Town Supervisor Dino Fudoli, who spoke to The Bee after the meeting, the town and the union are involved in binding arbitration, meaning that the outcome of the deliberation — which will include a legal representative from the town, union representative Shaun DiMino of the Lancaster police, and a mediator – could significantly alter the salaries of members of the department, according to Fudoli.

Before voting against the appointment of Carcaci, Fudoli said he was concerned that the officer would be put through training using taxpayer money, and then the result of the pending arbitration could result in his release from the department.

“Hiring during arbitration is not a good idea; it does not bode well for the outcome,” said Fudoli.

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly financial, and with the looming arbitration, I don’t think it’s fair to him [Carcaci].”

Carcaci was appointed to the position, however, as the remaining four members of the board voted in favor of the resolution.

Several of the board members cited a growing community as one of the reasons for their decision.

“I’m very proud that Lancaster is a full-service town. We cannot compromise public safety,” said Donna Stempniak, noting that the appointment is not increasing the size of the department.

Abraham also noted that ongoing problems with prostitution, as well as constant or increasing instances of drug use, shop lifting, domestic violence and routine traffic patrol, do not allow for the downsizing of the Police Department.

According to Fudoli, the department has roughly 50 members and the size has fluctuated only marginally over several years. The supervisor stated that the arbitration between the town and the union began roughly six weeks ago and the hearing is scheduled for March. He said he has been told not to anticipate a decision until August or September.