Guestblog: Reorganization Joke by John Milardo

The guest blog by retired city employee &  former union president Middletown resident John Milardo reflects his opinions, which may not necessarily be that of the Insider staff; guest blogs and letters to the editor are published as a courtesy to readers. 

The original piece by Milardo can be read and downloaded in its original format here:  

And Justice for All: Reorganization Joke

“And Justice For All” is a newsletter involving my opinions, views, and commentary as a life long Middletown  resident. In my capacity as a former employee of Middletown (retired) for over 41 years, I have a different perspective regarding how and why public figures do what they do."

 The consolidation of the Parks Division into the Public Works Department is coming!   
There is no stopping it!  The general public does not care one way or the other what happens with this merger.  There are those private entities that will benefit from the merger, and I’ll bet you they have 
already spoken with the administration to support it. 

      On July 31st, the Finance and Government Operations Commission held their monthly meeting.  
Mayor Daniel Drew presented the Commissioners his “Proposal for Merger: Public Works and Parks”.  
The report states there will be a savings of $150,000 due to the elimination of the Parks Maintainer IV/Working Supervisor position (retirement) an AFSCME bargaining unit job.  He also states the 
Parks Division Park Maintainer 3 employees will receive a one (1) pay grade salary increase due to 
added responsibilities.  Additionally, the Recreation Division, which will no longer be part of the 
department, is going to move into the Parks Division facility at Butternut Street, to save the cost of 
rent at their River View Center location.  (Recreation was moved due to lack of space 
at Butternut Street)  The Mayor states that combining Parks and Public Works will eliminate 
duplication of purchased items, and uses the example of a plasma cutter, used to cut steel, 
a $2,000 piece of equipment. 

Christine Bourne, President of AFSCME, Local #466 spoke at the meeting and stated the Union was not on board with the merger as presented.  The Parks Division has always been short staffed, but is currently at an all time low.  At one time, there were eighteen (18) employees.  Currently, there are eight (8) Park maintenance employees.  A far cry from the thirty (30) recommended in a job study performed years ago.   According to the minutes of the meeting, Commissioner Thomas Serra asked if Public Works Director William Russo could be brought forward to speak on what President Bourne had mentioned. The minutes reflect Director Russo’s exact statement:  “the Mayor doesn’t want five guys atthis level telling one guy at this level what to do, this is where the consolidation is coming in.” WTF gibberish is that!? This isthe person who is going to be in charge of the new department and get a big fat raise!  Director Russo also stated he spoke to Parks Division employees to find out their concerns.  Has anyone ever heardof “direct dealing”? It is a violation of labor law to deal directly with employees when they have a Union.The employer must only contact the Union’s executive officers.       As a long time Union officer, I understand the employer has the right to reorganize.  If the employer creates changes in job duties, hours of work, wages, benefits, and responsibilities, the employer must sit down with the Union and formally negotiate such changes.  When the Water & Sewer Department reorganized a few years ago, both AFSCME and the Teamsters were involved in formal negotiations with  the City.  After reading the minutes of this meeting, it doesn’t sound like any formal negotiations have occurred.      As for the $150,000 in savings by not filling one (1) position, no cost breakdown was included with the report.  The $150,000 figure seems unreasonably high.  If you do not fill a position there will be a savings on paper but what is the effect of the loss?  How does the work of that position now get performed?  If there are more positions unfilled, it compounds the problem.  How do you compensate for the loss of manpower?  Do you contract more bargaining unit work out?  Do you hire more part-time or temporary employees throughout the entire year instead of just during the summer?  What is that cost going to be?A complete explanation is needed.       Unlike the reorganization of the Water & Sewer Department, the Parks and Public Works  employees will not be cross trained.  No employees will work inter-departmentally.  The employees will stay within their existing divisions.  The only thing that is changing is the person in charge of the combined departments and some other supervision within the department administration.  They are using the guise of shared equipment --- which has always occurred anyway --- to push through this “reorganization”.Oh crap!  They should stop cooperating now!  Someone, please mind erase all the employees so they can truthfully say the departments never share or shared equipment before!      With a new Director overseeing the Parks Division, you can bet the cost of business is going to  go way up.  More contractors, consultants and engineering firms will be hired for every little thing. There will be a saving of one unfilled position with this consolidation, but there will be a high cost for private consultants, engineers,and contractors.  That’s how the Public Works Department operates, that is how the Director will want the Parks Division to operate.       The more consultants, engineers, and contractors hired the more perks and contributions to election campaigns.  Once you get through all the BS, it always boils down to one thing---money! Check the campaign donation lists this election year.  There are unmentioned costs other than  the one (1) pay grade increase for Park Maintainer 3 workers.  The Director of Public Works job  description has a two (2) word change in it.  The Deputy Director of Public Works has many  changes which increased his duties and responsibility, and the Parks Superintendent position has several changes.  There are office employees whose work will be changed, as well as the responsibility and duties of the Manager and Budget Analyst of the Mayor. Past City history shows these positions will receive pay grade increases and/or maybe even  additional assistance; if not now, then very shortly down the road.      So, what has the taxpayer gained with this recommendation to combine the Parks Division into  the Public Works Department? • You still have a Parks & Recreation Director on board, who will probably be in charge of Recreation and Senior Services at some point in time, so there is no cost reduction there. • No co-mingling of manpower for assistance to the Parks Division or the City Yard (Public Works) employees, so manpower needs have not been met or addressed, work load and completion will not change.  • There will be big increases in pay for the Public Works administrator(s); sooner or later. • There will be budgetary cost increases in the Parks Division, (work previously performed in-house), for engineering services, private contractors, and consultants.      Bottom line is the reorganization of the Parks Division into the Public Works Department is going to happen no matter what!  Even if there is a large public turnout objecting to it, it will be approved by the Common Council.  I believe the Mayor has the votes on the Council to push his agenda through. The Mayor and those voting in favor of this reorganization can put a pin in their lapels exclaiming  how they “improved services to the taxpayers, and reduced the cost to do so!”  It won’t happen  without them throwing millions of dollars to ensure success.  In my opinion, it’s all a giant smoke screen for the real reason(s). They are willing to approve this reorganization to monetarily take care of one or two people who are loyal political friends.  All the other mentioned costs are just peripheral  damage the taxpayer will have to pay for.       There will be a cost increase to combine the departments, just as there was combining the  Personnel Department into the Legal Department.  The premise of this new consolidation, according to  Mayor Drew is to not duplicate items.  He cannot say there is a duplication of services because  each division performs work completely different of the other.  There may be similarity with some  of the equipment used, but the work is far different, as are the job duties of employees.   The savings may be a $2,000 plasma cutter. Stay strong. Stay involved. Stay together. Seek the truth.  John Milardo, Middletown CT

Arbitrators Rules in Favor of Middletown AFSCME Union

 To read the judgement summaries use links here:

AFSCME Statement

Time line of of Dispute Events & Summary of Ruling 

From the Ruling Summary: "There is no way to sugar-coat the facts:  Ms. Bourne was treated horribly by the Board of Education.  

And when push came to shove, the City punished the victim."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 30, 2013

Contact: Larry Dorman (860) 989-9127 (cell) or (860) 612-3855 (office)

Arbitrators Rules in Favor of Middletown AFSCME Union

New Britain, CT — The union representing Middletown public service workers today applauded an arbitrator’s ruling that the City acted illegally when it transferred an employee from the Board of Education to the Parks and Recreation Department after she had raised concerns about the Board’s financial practices.

In a decision issued July 29, Arbitrator Roberta Golick found the City acted without just cause by removing the grievant, AFSCME Local 466 member Christine Bourne, from her position as Payroll Supervisor at the Board of Education and moving her to the position of Program/Budget Analyst in the Parks and Recreation Department.

The involuntary transfer took place in 2010 amid litigation between the City and the Board of Education.

Golick wrote, “There is no way to sugar-coat the facts: Ms. Bourne was treated horribly by the Board of Education. And when push came to shove, the City punished the victim.”

 In the award, Golick directed the City to immediately reinstate Bourne to her prior position at the Board of Education and to make her whole for any losses, if any, in wages and benefits for the period December 8, 2010 to date of reinstatement. She also directed the City and the Union to jointly attempt to calculate damages.

“Arbitrator Golick’s ruling is a victory for workers’ rights in the City of Middletown,” said Bourne, who was elected President of her bargaining unit in 2012. “Our union was caught in a political turf war, so I hope the arbitration award sends a strong message about the importance of respecting the collective bargaining agreement. You can’t discipline employees without just cause, and you can’t retaliate against them when they speak their mind. I’m glad this ordeal is over.”

Council 4 Staff Representative Ed Thibodeau advocated for Local 466 during the arbitration. Council 4 is the parent union of Local 466, which represents nearly 400 City and Board of Education employees in Middletown.

A copy of Arbitrator Golick’s ruling is attached to this press release.

# # #

Larry Dorman

Council 4 Public Affairs

(860) 612-3855 (Direct)

(860) 989-9127 (Cell)

ldorman@council4.org

www.council4.org

 

John Milardo: City Officials & Mayor Drew Rehearsed Statements

Also appearing on Middletown Patch  here: http://middletown-ct.patch.com/articles/milardo-letter & and as part of John Milardo's latest edition of his newsletter "And Justice for All." Milardo's previous edition touching on a variety of problematic topics is featured here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/guest-blog-his-town.html.  We previously covered the story of Mayor Drew loosing his cool at PRC here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/mayor-drew-losses-his-cool-at-prc.html
-----------------------------------------------

"Which is it?"
by John Milardo

About three years ago, when I was the union president of the Middletown Managers & Professionals Association, someone called to inform me that the city of Middletown was getting ready to privatize the sanitation district trash and recycling collections performed by employees of the public works department.

This was the first time anyone I knew had heard this news. It would have affected MMPA members, so I began to investigate and ask some questions of the finance department.
The finance department informed me that the sanitation division was $250,000 in the red, and it was only going to get worse. When asked how long the deficit had been going on, the finance department could only say they were just made aware of the situation.

Upon further investigation, I was told that a local private trash collection company was ready to sign a contract with the city and take over the sanitation division's collection routes. Employees would then be either transferred or laid off from work. I set up a meeting with the finance director to look into the matter, to find out how this could have happened.

When the meeting took place, I was told it was a false alarm! Someone had made some accounting errors, and not only was there $500,000 in the fund balance, but the division also had plenty of funding in the capitol account for the purchase of new trash and recycling trucks for the next five years. That’s a $750,000 mistake. No contract to privatize was signed.

Why am I bringing this up now? I’ll tell you why. On Jan. 22, at the monthly Personnel Review Commission meeting, the public works director was requesting to have the Teamsters Local 671 manager position in the sanitation division changed to add truck driving route duties, and eliminate the AFSCME, Local 466, truck driver who now performs the work.

Tony Lepore, business agent for Teamsters, Local 671, objected to the change. When the assistant superintendent of sanitation job was created, the intent of the driving duties listed in the job description were strictly for supervisory purposes (a pickup truck), as had always been the case with all the past supervisors who held this position in one form or another. The position manages employees, complaints, problems, and the district.

The public works director stated he was performing his due diligence in looking to save money in the sanitation division, because the division is having financial problems, and it could not handle the increase in wages to fill a vacancy. At one point, the director stated if he knew the existing job description contained driving duties in it, he would have had the retiring assistant superintendent of sanitation drive a trash route all along.

Mayor Daniel Drew was in attendance at the meeting, and he concurred with the director. They needed to save money or pass the increase onto the sanitation district taxpayers. The director also stated if the Teamsters did not agree with the proposed language change in job duties, he would have to inform sanitation users that an increase was coming and it was due to the Teamsters. Mayor Drew nodded in agreement with the statement. Is that a responsible action by local leaders?

Teamsters Business Agent Lepore began to speak regarding the issue, when for no reason the mayor laughed at him. Lepore called the mayor on it, and didn’t let him get away with it. A lively one-way discussion ensued. The mayor's behavior only leads me to believe he probably did behave improperly at the last PRC meeting to Commissioner Deborah Kleckowski.

The mayor called for a recess to meet with his new city attorney and the deputy city attorney. They came back in the room and the mayor withdrew the assistant superintendent of sanitation job description change from the agenda.

He stated the existing language gives him the authority to order the employee to do the work, and he did not care about what the intent was regarding driving duties for the job when it was originally approved. Both the Teamsters and AFSCME labor organizations stated they will file charges.
You could tell the mayor and public works director had practiced their testimony together. Statements that stood out at the meeting to me; the director stating he did not know what duties were entailed within a job description in his own department. This is the most basic knowledge any supervisor/manager needs to know. The statement made by the director that the sanitation division could not absorb the increase in their salary account to hire a vacant driver position is not correct.

First of all, both the assistant superintendent of sanitation and the truck driver position are 100-percent funded with the existing budget. There was no additional cost to the sanitation district taxpayers, the money is already there.
Secondly, because of my past experience with the sanitation divisions accounting practices, I later checked with the finance department, and the sanitation division is in great financial shape, and has been for the past few years.

John Milardo
“And Justice For All” is a newsletter involving the opinions, views, and commentary as a lifelong Middletown resident. In my capacity as a former employee of Middletown (retired) for more than 41 years, I have a different perspective regarding how and why public figures do what they do.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1RDeTx8hfRH2p18W7M9yN4wKJU0Byal-VkKJo1nfT5Yim1Orvk0kClxZx7YLq/edit?usp=sharing