Councilors refuse to cut own pay

Faced with the chance to freeze or cut the salaries of the city’s elected officials this week, city councilors did nothing.

Three councilors sought to impose a two-year freeze on pay for those elected this November, but three others voted against it.

The trio who opposed it said they want to see a pay cut instead, an idea that couldn’t muster support from the three who backed a freeze.

One city councilor, Democrat Craig Minor, missed the meeting.

But it’s not clear which way he would have gone.

“I need to know more before I make a decision,” Minor said Wednesday.

The city’s Salary Committee recommended freezing the pay of elected officials for the next term, a move that hasn’t been done in years.

But city Councilors Cliff Block and Ken Cockayne said they want to see salaries cut back by 3 percent for the mayor, city councilors, treasurer and Board of Assessment Appeals members.

Block said that officials had no idea “the sky was going to fall” on the economy last year when they agreed to hike elected officials’ pay by 3 percent in 2008. Reeling it back down, he said, would set the right example for the rest of city government.

Cockayne said that Bristol’s leaders should show “they are willing to take a cut” and not just hold the line on increases.

Three officials – Mayor Art Ward and city Councilors Frank Nicastro and Mike Rimcoski – said that freezing pay was the right move for the times.

Nicastro told Ward that as the city’s leader, he earns his money.

“You’re far from the highest paid” municipal worker, Nicastro told the mayor, pointing out that the Top 50 earners all raked in substantially more than the mayor.

City Councilor Kevin McCauley said he didn’t think the council could take up the idea of reducing pay because the salary panel had been told to consider a freeze. He said the committee should have a chance to reexamine options.

The issue is likely going to be taken up again at the May council meeting. If nothing is done, though, the pay would remain the same for the next term.

The city is obligated to set the salary for elected officials before the municipal elections so that voters will know how much the people they choose will earn. The pay rates can’t be changed mid-term.

Rimcoski told Block that he had a chance to freeze pay, but refused.

“I hope you enjoy your 300 extra bucks, Mike,” Block responded.\

Current pay for city leaders

Mayor - $102,025

City councilors - $10,156

City treasurer - $5,079

Board of Assessment Appeals chair -- $1,343

Board of Assessment Appeals - $1,140

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

A city board may be axed next month

City councilors are likely soon to eliminate Bristol’s Personnel Appeals Board.

Though the change would eliminate a layer of bureaucracy on paper, its practical impact is virtually nil.

The panel hasn’t met “in a very long time,” Personnel Director Diane Ferguson said, though it tried to hold a session about eight years ago but couldn’t muster a quorum.

The board’s purpose is to allow non-bargaining unit employees who want to appeal a firing or suspension to make their case, but most these days would simply use a union grievance procedure.

The proposed change would hand the responsibility for dealing with appeals to the Salary Committee instead.

“It’s a good idea. I think it makes sense,” city Councilor Frank Nicastro said

Nicastro said some might say the revision opens the door for councilors “to play politics.”

But, he said, “I don’t believe that” will happen if the three-person salary panel handles the appeals instead.

Ferguson has said it makes more sense for the appeals to go to a committee that at least meets regularly and knows how the personnel system operates rather than pleading to a panel that hasn’t met within memory.

“It’s a committee that has not been called on in many, many years,” Ferguson said.

The Salary Committee unanimously endorsed the proposal last week.

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

City's politicians freeze own pay, but reject effort to cut their salaries

City councilors plan to freeze the pay of Bristol’s elected leaders for the next two years, but a committee turned back an attempt to reduce salaries instead.

The three-person Salary Committee recently backed a pay freeze that would lock in this year’s salary levels through 2011.

City Councilor Frank Nicastro, who chairs the salary panel, said the freeze would send a message to taxpayers and municipal workers that Bristol’s elected leaders are ready to set an example for the sacrifices needed to get through the economic crisis.

But city Councilor Cliff Block said he would prefer to slice the pay levels by 3 percent so that election officials would make what they did in 2008.

Block argued that when the 3 percent raise for this year was set back in 2007, “we didn’t know the world was coming to an end in ’08.”

He said that nobody would have supported that increase had they known so much turmoil and heartache lay ahead.

Block said a pay cut would send an even stronger message than a freeze.

But Nicastro and the panel’s other member, city Councilor Mike Rimcoski, said that a pay freeze was enough.

Nicastro said that he’s not running for reelection so the money doesn’t matter to him at all. He said this simply a matter of conscience and fairness.

“We had a chance to make a statement,” Block said, “but I got outmaneuvered by the two older gents.”

Block said that Ward, the only elected leader to earn full-time pay, would lose about $3,000 a year the council backed a 3 percent cut.

“Art doesn’t need that other 3 grand,” Block said.

Rimcoski said he would go along with letting officials have the option of taking less money, if that’s possible.

Block said that taking less money themselves would perhaps help with efforts to push for the city’s unions to accept cuts.

But Nicastro and Rimcoski said there is no way that municipal unions would ever agree to a pay cut. A freeze, they said, is possible. But a pay cut goes too far, they said.

“I want a pay cut,” Block said.

In committee, Block was the only one to vote for the 3 percent cut. He did not join Nicastro and Rimcoski in voting for the freeze instead.

Rimcoski, the salary panel’s only Republican, said he favored a freeze because that’s what Mayor Art Ward asked the panel to do.

Nicastro said that he wouldn’t necessarily object to cutting the pay for councilors and the mayor, but it would be wrong to slice the pay of the treasurer or Board of Assessment Appeals members who earn so little now.

But the difference is minimal.

A Board of Assessment Appeals member would make $1,140 for the next two years if pay is frozen. It it’s cut 3 percent, he would get $33 a year less.

The treasurer would earn $296 less over the two years if his pay were cut 3 percent.

The Salary Committee’s pay freeze proposal heads to the council in March, where it’s possible another effort to cut the pay of elected officials may be made.

Current pay for city leaders

Mayor - $102,025

City councilors - $10,156

City treasurer - $5,079

Board of Assessment Appeals chair -- $1,343

Board of Assessment Appeals - $1,140

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Personnel Appeals Board to get the boot

The Personnel Appeals Board is likely to be abolished, but it’s doubtful anyone will notice.

The panel hasn’t met in at least 12 years, said city Councilor Frank Nicastro, a former mayor who chairs the city’s Salary Committee.

Officials are looking into the technicalities of dumping the board and letting the Salary Committee pick up the slack, such as it is.

Personnel Director Diane Ferguson said that axing the board would allow non-bargaining unit employees who want to appeal a firing or suspension to make a case to the Salary Committee.

She said it makes more sense for the appeals to go to a committee that at least meets regularly and knows how the personnel system operates rather than pleading to a panel that hasn’t met within memory.

It tried one time some years ago, Ferguson and Richard Lacey, a city lawyer, recalled. But the board couldn’t get a quorum so it gave up trying.

Nicastro said the proposal to dump the board “has a lot of merit” and deserves serious consideration.

One point that arose when the Salary Committee discussed the issue recently is that department heads are covered by a union contract that lays out who has the power to order them to do anything.

They would appeal grievances and punishments through their union, Ferguson said.

Several officials pointed out there is no role for the proposed chief operating officer in the union contracts, leaving it unclear how someone in the new job would have any clout over the municipal supervisors he’s supposed to oversee day to day.

“How’s the COO going to be able to do his job?” asked city Councilor Cliff Block, who opposes the position’s creation.

Nobody offered an answer.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

No fees for city job seekers

A proposal to begin charging job seekers at City Hall a fee fell flat this week.
“There’s other ways we can save money,” said city Councilor Frank Nicastro, who heads the Salary Committee.
The salary panel killed the request because its members feared that imposing a fee for those seeking to take the police and fire tests – the first step toward getting a public safety position in Bristol – could potentially keep good people from coming forward.
Personnel Director Diane Ferguson said that charging about $12 an applicant would bring the city about $2,000 annually, an idea she said was spurred by Mayor Art Ward’s request that department chiefs look for ways to bring in new revenue to cover costs.
Many municipalities in the state charge fees for entry level police and fire tests, Ferguson said, including West Hartford, which imposes a $20 charge; New Britain, which asks for $35; and Waterbury, which socks residents for $75 and out-of-towners for $100.
City Councilor Mike Rimcoski suggested that if Bristol opted to begin imposing fees, it should ask for $10 from residents and $15 from those hailing from other towns. He said it would probably average out to about $12 per applicant that way.
Ferguson said there are about 100 applicants annually for firefighter jobs and usually a bit less for police positions.
Hitting them up for the expenses involved would be “a way to cover some of the costs for the testing,” Ferguson said.
City Councilor Cliff Block said that he worries that if the city begins requiring a fee, some qualified people won’t bother to apply.
“I don’t want to deter anyone,” Block said. “I’d like as many people tested as possible so we get the best and the brightest.”
Block said that the $2,000 or so the city might get from test-takers is “not going to make much of a difference in the budget.”
“Not the way you vote,” Rimcoski responded.
But Rimcoski agreed that the $2,000 the city might gain is “peanuts” in the big picture.
Nicastro said he had “mixed feelings” about the issue, but that Block had made a good argument for leaving the system the way it is.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Hiring locals not as easy as it sounds

Changing hiring rules at City Hall to make it easier for Bristol residents to get entry-level jobs may be harder than supporters realized.
The top problem may be that it’s not easy to determine where somebody lives.
“It’s difficult to police,” said Personnel Director Diane Ferguson. “I don’t know how you’re going to know.”
It would be relatively easy, officials said Wednesday, for somebody to use a Bristol address on a job application for a municipal position.
Beyond that, Ferguson said, it isn’t clear just how the city could give its residents a leg up in the process.
Towns that offer their residents a boost in seeking jobs usually give them extra points on a Civil Service scale, she said. But Bristol doesn’t use that system in its hiring.
So it isn’t obvious how officials could provide a built-in advantage for residents without revising the entire hiring system.
The city uses a 100-point scale in grading applicants for police and fire jobs, officials said, and because of that it has been able to offer veterans an extra 5 points on top of their test scores, perhaps propelling some job seekers into contention for a position.
But other city positions, including the custodial and public works spots that city Councilor Mike Rimcoski is aiming to hand to Bristol residents, are not filled using a point system.
Ferguson said that her office and the relevant departmental supervisors weed through applications to determine which ones are most qualified for the positions that are open.
The best of the bunch, officials said, are interviewed in person before hiring decisions are made.
Rimcoski said hiring locally would mean more money would be kept in the city’s economy.
But Councilor Cliff Block said that he would rather the city hire based on merit so that it gets the best employees possible.
“Cliff Block doesn’t want to give local people the job,” Rimcoski said.
Block fired back that if the city builds two new schools and funds its education system properly, “the best and brightest” applicants will come from Bristol.
Ferguson said about 58 percent of city positions are filled by Bristol residents currently.
“That’s lousy,” Rimcoski said.
“Because our schools are lousy,” city Councilor Craig Minor responded.
“You must have gone to them,” Rimcoski fired back.
The Salary Committee agreed to consider the issue further next month.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ax city's Personnel Appeals Board?

Whatever the Personnel Appeals Board may be, it's safe to say it isn't busy.
City Councilor Frank Nicastro said the panel hasn't met in at least 12 years.
Personnel Director Diane Ferguson and Richard Lacey, a city attorney, said there was a time when it tried to have a meeting, but members couldn't get a quorum so the session never happened.
Nicastro said that the Salary Committee - which consists of three city councilors -- should look into taking over the functions of the appeals board to simplify city government.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com