|
Lodge 6 President's 11-04-06
Guest Editorial
The Fraternal Order of Police represents nearly
90 percent of the police officers employed by the City of Longmont. We are the
voice of those who dedicate their lives daily to protecting and serving the
community. No one knows the dangers and the difficulties faced by today's
police officers better than another officer, and no one knows police officers
better than the FOP.
On Tuesday, November 7, Longmont residents will
vote on an increase in the City’s sales and use tax. This vote will not provide
for higher wages or better benefits for Longmont’s police officers, but it will
provide for a safer community. The Fraternal Order of Police believes this is
an issue crucial to public safety services in Longmont. Longmont has always been
a progressive city. Our citizens expect high quality and responsive police
services. If approved, proceeds will be used to increase the level of service
for public safety in Longmont. If approved, this tax will benefit every citizen
of Longmont.
Longmont isn’t the bedroom community it once
was. Longmont is not immune to the growing crime issues that face most major
cities in Colorado. As Longmont has grown, the resources necessary for police
services have not kept pace. Providing the kind of police services our citizens
expect for a city of this size, with our current police staffing, has become
difficult at best. If police staffing is not brought up to acceptable levels;
then something will have to give. That something is the level of service
provided.
Crime is not a police problem; it is a
community problem. Proactive “Community Oriented Policing” is a proven approach
to effectively reducing crime versus traditional reactive policing. However, it
is more labor intensive and thus requires additional resources. Community
interaction is a primary principle of Community Policing; but when officers are
stretched so thin that they are in their assigned beats less than 50% of the
time, this becomes difficult if not impossible. With police staffing levels the
way they currently are, officers often go call to call. This reduces patrol
time, increases response time, and interferes with an officer’s ability to do
the necessary follow-up investigations on cases while the investigative leads
are still warm.
Public safety services affect each citizen and
are considered the most essential of all publicly funded services. Our everyday
work is in the interest and safety of the community. However, due to serious
staffing issues officers are commonly responding to calls without adequate
back-up. This places the officer and ultimately our citizens in danger. A
minimum of two officer responses are required to safely handle domestic
violence, weapons calls, fights and disturbances, persons under the influence of
alcohol and narcotics, and mental subjects who are out of control. This is a
citizens’ and an officers’ safety issue.
Longmont has armed robberies, methamphetamine
labs, homicides, gangs, street narcotic sales, and prostitution in addition to
domestic violence, burglaries, traffic problems and quality of life issues.
Longmont has more documented gang members on the streets than the City has
police officers. Not to mention felony probationers, registered sex offenders,
and active cases dealing with narcotics distribution in the City. And without
wanting to project doom and gloom or grandstand, we are just as eligible for
school violence as Bailey or Columbine. When faced with ever rising calls for
service and insufficient staffing, a police department is left with two choices:
Increase staffing to meet the demand for service; or reduce services in order to
effectively handle and investigate priority and emergency calls.
Police officers strongly believe in their duty
to serve and protect, and are committed to our citizens and community. You’ve
counted on your police officers for help and they have always been there for
you. Now your police officers need your help and your support. Funding
provided by this tax will provide the staffing and resources necessary to
adequately enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide a
safer environment for the citizens of Longmont. Ultimately the real winners will
be the community we so proudly serve.
The Fraternal Order of Police does not look at
this as a tax increase; we look at it as an investment in the future of our
city. The citizens of Longmont will decide in this election the level of public
safety service they want and are willing to pay for. The members of Longmont’s
Fraternal Order of Police urge the citizens of Longmont to vote yes on 2A for a
safer community. As a result, the real winner will be the taxpayer.
Detective Stephen Schulz
President Fraternal Order of Police
Longmont Lodge 6
Lodge 6 Trustee's Letter to
The Editor Safety Tax
I have lived
in Longmont for 36 years. I have always believed Longmont’s police and fire
departments are among the best in the state for a city its size. Longmont
residents rightfully expect to live in a safe and lawful environment. However,
maintaining a high level of public safety response does not come without cost.
Public
safety services come at a price. Longmont has historically paid for police
services out of its general fund. However, it is becoming much more difficult
to properly fund public safety services in this manner. Longmont’s police and
fire departments have not kept pace with the growth of the city’s population.
Staffing and priority call response times have fallen behind the national
average.
This
problem will not fix itself. Nationwide the financial plight of most city
governments is forcing cutbacks--many quite substantial--in police budgets.
Longmont is no exception. Escalating police and fire costs have forced Longmont
officials to go to the voters for support of both services.
If this tax
is rejected by the voters we will see a gradual degradation in the services we
all take for granted. Faced with increasing work loads, police administrators
will be forced to cut back services in order to make more effective use of their
personnel. Thus, with a decrease in resources, it is inevitable that pressure
will be greater to identify more clearly the relationship between police use of
their resources and the specific behavioral problems of concern to the
community.
The
amendment on the November ballot is the proper and correct solution. This tax
makes sense and is something the citizens can support for a better community.
Ultimately it will improve fire and police services for our city. That
translates into a good situation for the citizens of this city. Vote yes on
2A.
Michael
Violette
FOP Lodge 6
State Trustee
Lodge 6 Secretary's Letter to
The Editor Safety Tax
I
have been a police officer in Longmont for almost five years now. I can say that
it is a great place to work. The primary reason for this is the people the
Longmont Police Department employs. This includes not only sworn officers, but
community service officers, dispatchers, police service technicians, records
clerks and other support personnel.
If you have paid attention to the issue of the proposed public safety tax, most
likely you have read or heard about increased calls for service, response times,
officers breaking from one call to handle a higher priority call and one officer
being sent on calls requiring two. These issues are primarily the problem of the
patrol division, which is only one division within the Longmont Police
Department. Additional detectives (detective division), school resource officers
(community services division) and support personnel (all divisions) are also
necessary for the police department to keep pace with the growth of Longmont and
the demands of its citizens.
The common denominator between the first two paragraphs is people. We need more
of them and we need the highest quality we can get. This costs money, and you
get what you pay for. This tax will not increase the pay for police or fire
personnel. What it will do is buy more of us so that we may more safely and
effectively do our jobs.
On November 7, you, the voters of Longmont, will decide whether or not to pass
this ballot initiative. An increase of less than a third of a cent on every
dollar spent in Longmont will pay for the additional police and fire resources
to help us do our jobs more effectively. The issue is not only of supporting the
police and fire departments, but also of supporting the community in which you
live. Vote yes on 2A.
Todd Chambers
Secretary - Lodge 6
Lodge 6 Vice-President's
Letter to The Editor Safety Tax
As a member of public safety I am asking for a
yes vote on the upcoming public safety tax. Not because it means higher
salaries, which it doesn’t. Not because I want a cop on every corner, which I
don’t. It is because I want to do the best job possible for the citizens of
Longmont which requires adequate resources.
To try and protect a City of 82,000+ population
with our current 120 police officers, with 24/7 protection, is a gamble.
Longmont has more documented gang members on the streets than the City has
police officers. I won’t even get into felony probationers, registered sexual
offenders, and active cases dealing with narcotics distribution in the City.
Longmont isn’t Mayberry anymore. We have armed
robberies,
methamphetamine
labs, homicides, gangs, street narcotic sales, and prostitution in addition to
domestic violence, traffic problems and quality of life issues. And without
wanting to project doom and gloom or grandstand, we are just as eligible for
school violence as Bailey or Columbine have been.
I also know that crime is not a police problem,
but is a community problem. It has been proven time and time again that
Community Oriented Policing works over reactive policing. However it is more
labor intensive and thus requires additional resources. It is difficult at best
to interact with the community, a primary principle of Community Policing, when
officers are stretched so thin that they are in their assigned beats less than
50% of the time.
In closing, Longmont Police Officers drive over
an hour to use other agencies shooting ranges, vehicle driving facilities, and
SWAT training facilities. And if the worst should ever happen, response times
would require a majority of officers to respond to the scene in their personal
vehicles as there are too few police vehicles for a full scale response. Please help public safety help you. Vote yes on
2A.
Tim Miller
Fop Lodge 6
Vice-President
Press release 10-17-06
The Fraternal Order of Police Longmont
Lodge 6 today followed the recommendation of its Board of Directors and
voted unanimously to endorse the City of Longmont’s proposed Public
Safety Tax and urges the citizens of Longmont to vote yes on this issue.
The Longmont FOP is the representative police labor organization of
nearly 90 percent of the police officers employed by the city of
Longmont. Although the City of Longmont administration and the FOP
were at odds in the 2004 election initiative to gain collective
bargaining for the city’s police employees, the issue has no bearing on
this decision. The Fraternal Order of Police believes this is an
issue crucial to public safety services in Longmont. The Fraternal
Order of Police will work hard to assist in the passage of this
important election issue. Any member of the media with follow-up
questions are asked to contact the FOP Lodge 6 Public Information
Officer between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday.
*************************
The Fraternal Order of Police Longmont Lodge 6
joins with the City Administration in support of the Public Safety Tax.
Longmont Lodge 6 represents nearly 90 percent of the police officers working for
the City of Longmont. On Tuesday, November 7, Longmont residents will vote on
an increase in the City’s sales and use tax of three and one-quarter cents on
each ten-dollar purchase. This vote will not provide for higher wages or better
benefits for Longmont’s police officers, but it will provide for a safer
community. If approved, proceeds will be used to increase the level of service
for public safety in Longmont. If approved this tax benefits every citizen of
Longmont.
Longmont Police Department staffing ratios for
sworn police officers are below the front-range average. In 2005, the
front-range average for sworn police officers to population was 1.57 officers
per 1,000 residents. For Longmont this ratio was less than 1.45 per 1,000. In
the 2002, the City Council set a goal to staff the City with 1.6 police officers
per 1000 citizen population in accordance with projected public safety needs.
Per this goal, the City would currently have 136 police officers protecting and
serving the City of Longmont. However because of less than projected revenues
the City had to scrap this goal due to financial short falls in the budget. As
a result today we have less than 120 police officers which equates to running at
least two patrol shifts short. That is inadequate and unacceptable.
Due to serious staffing issues officers are
commonly responding to calls without adequate back-up. In 2005, it was
necessary to have a police officer break from a lower priority call for service
to handle a higher priority call an average of 14 times a day. During the last
three years, only one officer could respond to calls for service that
necessitated a minimum response of two police officers 35% of the time. Two
officer responses are required to safely handle domestic violence, weapons
calls, fights and disturbances, persons under the influence of alcohol and
narcotics, and mental subjects who are out of control. This is a citizens’ and
an officers’ safety issue.
Currently, Longmont’s sales tax rate is one of
the lowest in the area. Even with this increase, Longmont’s rate will continue
to be one of the lowest rates in the area. Funding provided by this tax will
provide the staffing and resources necessary to adequately enforce the laws,
preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment to the
citizens of Longmont.
The Fraternal Order of Police does not look at
this as a tax increase; we look at it as an investment in the future of our
great city. The citizens of Longmont will decide in this election the level of
public safety service they want and are willing to pay for. The members of
Longmont’s Fraternal Order of Police urge the citizens of Longmont to vote yes
on 2A for a safer community.
Letter To Council 10-04-05
On
Tuesday, 10/04/05 the following letter was sent to Mayor Julia Pirnack and each
City Council Member detailing the recent breakdown in negotiations and asking
them to intervene. It is hoped they each will recognize the need to resolve
this issue and give that direction to City Manager Gordon Pedrow. In addition
to that letter we sent council a copy of the draft re-write of last years
charter amendment that was given to him in the first session on May 2nd.
That document was submitted in a good faith gesture to provide a starting point
for negotiations. If one compares that document to last years charter amendment
2A’s version you will see there have been many changes. These changes have
eliminated most of the city’s objections on 2A and strengthened management’s
rights. A copy of the draft can be viewed by clicking your mouse on the
following link:
“CB Draft”
October 4, 2005
To: The Honorable Mayor Julia
Pirnack
Esteemed City Council Members
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
It is with great disappointment that we write this letter. On January 25, 2005
we wrote each of you asking to put aside the differences of the past and work
with us to explore common ground that might exist concerning public safety
collective bargaining. The City Manager answered our offer with an agreement to
meet and explore how best to improve employee employer relations. Two other
letters from us followed that acceptance detailing the mandate from our
respective memberships, and clarifying this meeting and any future meetings must
center on trying reach a compromise agreement on public safety collective
bargaining. We expressed our belief that the city would rather have a system
that they were partners in developing, rather than one crafted solely by us and
handed to them in a future election. We expressed our specific intent to
attempt to find common ground for talks concerning collective bargaining for
police and fire employees.
On May 2nd
we met. We entered the meeting cautiously optimistic that together we could
develop a positive atmosphere and lay the groundwork for future sessions. We
were optimistic that this path, which both sides agreed to, could eventually
result in an arrangement that addressed the needs of the parties and ultimately
benefited the citizens of Longmont. The meeting was cordial, candid and in our
opinion productive. We focused on whether there was enough common ground to
explore to facilitate future meetings. We assured Mr. Pedrow we were sincere in
our attempt to reach compromise.
We explained we had
reviewed Mr. Martin Sample’s critical analysis of last year’s proposed charter
amendment. That we had reviewed the concerns of both the Chief of Police and
Chief of Fire, and other city officials’ written concerns and objections to last
year’s proposed charter amendment. We told Mr. Pedrow we were ready to discuss,
and attempt to reach compromise, on those concerns and objections. As a gesture
of good faith a copy of a draft re-write of last year’s proposed amendment was
submitted. That draft had eliminated most of the City Administration’s
objections from the original amendment. We believed that this was a productive
starting point for compromise. We hoped that the City would view our proposal
in the same light.
The end result was
an agreement that we would meet again in the near future. Mr. Pedrow told us he
needed time to present our offers to you. He said he was uncertain how long
that would take. As a result a date for the next meeting was not set at that
time. We were assured we would be contacted when he had completed this
process. We left that meeting satisfied in the belief that after nearly three
years of adversarial relations progress had been made towards developing a
positive and productive labor management relationship.
Eleven weeks passed and we heard nothing from Mr. Pedrow. On July 28th
we sent a letter of inquiry asking when the next session would take place. In
response a meeting was arranged for September 19th to discuss what we
had been offered in our last meeting. We were expecting a
meeting that would result in
continuing negotiations that would lead to a system of collective
bargaining that both sides could live with.
Any hopes that would be the case were shattered early in the meeting. In our
first meeting we had been told by Mr. Pedrow he would take our input, our
proposal, and our offer of compromise to you. The timing of a second meeting
was based on the premise he would do as promised. Mr. Pedrow told us he never
brought our offer to you; nor did he seek input or direction from you on this
matter. We had previously agreed this second session would be based on his
doing exactly that, and that the date of this session would be determined on
when he completed that process. Instead he never fulfilled his agreement with
us and let us wait for nearly three months without a response.
Needless to say we were shocked and dismayed by Mr. Pedrow’s failure to follow
through on what he had stated he would do with our proposals. When asked if he
ever intended to bring our offers to you, Mr. Pedrow declared himself powerless
to do that. He claimed since he has not received (or sought) direction from you
he could not address the subject. Listening to Mr. Pedrow speak it became
painfully obvious that even during our first meeting he never intended to
address this or do anything more than pay lip service to our proposals. He said
he had no intention of bringing our offers to you and suggested that we should
take this issue up with you.
As a result the meeting ended and we told the City Manager that he had left us
with no choice but to suspend talks on this subject. We told him since he has
declared himself powerless and incapable of taking this to you, then we would
follow his suggestion and restate to you our willingness to compromise. That we
would provide you with details on the steps we have taken in a good faith
gesture to bring resolution to this issue. We told Mr. Pedrow that we would be
ready to meet again if he receives clear direction from you on this matter, and
if a meeting of substance and progress can take place.
We are very disappointed with how this entire affair has been managed by Mr.
Pedrow. We had opened the door for reconciliation and it was slammed it in our
face. It is inherently wrong to treat employees in such a manner. We expected
to be dealt with honestly in a manner that would not waste our time or yours.
If there was no interest in reaching compromise and agreement on this then we
should have been told that up front.
We believe a large majority of citizens of our city would agree that this is not
a proper, professional or honorable way to deal with this and certainly would
expect better from their government.
In light of the way the elected representatives of the police and fire employees
were treated, is it any wonder that we are entering the third year of an
adversarial relationship. This treatment serves as another outstanding example
of why your police and fire employees call for a system that allows them to
negotiate pay, benefits and working conditions to reach a mutually beneficial
agreement in the form of a written contract. That system is collective
bargaining. Communications, participation, and mutual respect are what seek.
Communications was a subject of much debate during last year’s election
campaign. It is this style of management and communications that made that such
a burning issue. We want this to end, and we want to work with you to end it.
We are sincere in that statement and our proposals to you. These recent actions
of your City Manager do not reflect that same desire. We believe working
together to achieve a system both sides can live with is the best solution. We
don’t believe being forced to go back to the voters next year with this matter
is the best solution; but if it is the only solution available then that will be
the course we will take.
Therefore we have enclosed with this letter a copy of our revision of last
year’s proposed charter amendment. If you compare it to last year’s proposal
you will see that we have made substantial changes to that document. As each of
you is aware, in Colorado there are three ways to institute a system of
collective bargaining at the municipal level. It can be accomplished in the
form of an ordinance or charter amendment. Or it can be an agreement reached
between the city government and its employees similar to the system currently in
place in Boulder. As we told Mr. Pedrow we would be willing to negotiate either
an ordinance or a mutually agreed to system.
We do this in good faith and with the hopes that this gesture will result in
renewed negotiations. We have made a significant gesture of conciliation and
good faith in this offer. If you truly want to mend the adversarial
relationship that has developed over the last three years with your public
safety employees, then we would expect the same in return. We have, are, and
always will seek a partnership with the citizens of Longmont and their
government on areas of mutual concern. To promote anything less does not serve
the interests of the citizens or their public safety employees. We expect that
you hold those same values. We have done what Mr. Pedrow suggested and we are
awaiting your response on this matter.
Respectfully,
Michael Violette
On Behalf of The Executive Boards of:
Fraternal Order Of Police – Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association – IAFF
Negotiations
With City Suspended - 09-19-05
September 25, 2005
Brothers & Sisters,
Last year the FOP/LPOA and LPFFA placed an amendment to the Longmont City
Charter on a ballot that would have granted both police and fire employees the
right to collectively bargain with the City. The decision to enter that
election, and put this question in front of the electorate, came after years of
frustration in dealing with a City Administration that had constantly turned a
deaf ear to its public safety workers’ needs and complaints. The memberships of
both the police and fire unions sought a system that would allow them to
negotiate working conditions and benefits with the City. They sought a system
that would be fair to both those employees and the citizens they so proudly
serve.
Both labor organizations knew that it would be an uphill battle to win the
election. History has shown that rarely do police or fire unions win (or even
come close to winning) in their first try at this. We felt if we could pull at
least 40% of the vote, then even in defeat we would have gained. We conducted a
fair and honest grass roots campaign and managed to get our message out. We
were taking on Longmont’s political power structure.
Three weeks prior to the election the local newspaper (Daily Times Call) ran an
online web site public opinion poll on question 2A. The results showed 2A
winning 77% in favor to 23% opposed. This was accomplished in spite of the
opposition’s campaign that was based on distortion of fact and scare tactics.
The opposition stepped up its attacks during the last two weeks of the
campaign. We refused to lower our standards and held to our message to the
electorate.
At
the end of the day the voters rejected our ballot question by a narrow margin.
A large number of citizens voted in favor of the amendment as it was worded. We
believe an even larger number supported the concept of public safety collective
bargaining, but were concerned with the wording of the amendment and thus voted
against it. Of the 34,700 votes cast only 3,500 votes separated the yes and no
votes on our amendment. Had 1,750 more voters cast a “yes” vote than a “no” we
would have won the election. The results of this election strongly indicated
that many citizens understood that a serious problem exists between the City
Administration and its public safety employees. Those citizens believed the
amendment offered the proper solution. This by itself was a victory for us.
In
the aftermath of the election the elected representatives of the police and fire
employees issued a press statement indicating their desire to put aside the
differences of the past and meet with City Administration in order to resolve
this matter of collective bargaining. We reminded the administration that a
very large number of citizens agreed that collective bargaining offered a
solution to the problem and wanted to see this resolved.
During last year’s election we had been criticized for bypassing the City
Council and taking this directly to the people. Although that was our right, in
retrospect we recognized that might have been a mistake. A mistake born in the
belief that City Administration would turn a deaf ear to our members’ needs. As
a result we never met with city officials to discuss the possibility of working
together to achieve a system of collective bargaining that would be agreeable to
all parties. This fact, and conflicts that surfaced during the election
campaign, had caused division and ill feelings between the parties. We wanted
to put that aside and try to mend that division.
On
January 25th we sent a letter to City Council proposing a meeting
between representatives of the police officers’ & firefighters’ unions and the
City Administration. We were very specific that we wished to meet to explore
any common ground that might exist concerning public safety collective
bargaining.
We emphasized that
we were more than willing to compromise and work towards a mutual agreeable
system of collective bargaining within the mandate placed in front of us by our
membership.
City Administration accepted our offer.
In
the process of arranging our first meeting two other letters were sent to City
Administration detailing the mandate from our respective memberships, and that
any talks must center on trying reach a compromise agreement on public safety
collective bargaining. We expressed our belief that the city would rather have
a system that they were partners in developing, rather than one crafted solely
by us and handed to them in a future election. We expressed our specific intent
to attempt to find common ground for talks concerning collective bargaining for
police and fire employees. We specifically advised them in those and later
communications that anything less would not serve the interest of our members or
the community.
On May 2nd
the parties met formally to explore common ground for future talks on this
subject. The meeting was cordial, candid and in our opinion productive. The
meeting marked the first time the unions and City Administration had met
formally in an attempt to resolve an issue of mutual concern. The meeting was
focused on whether there was enough common ground to explore that would
facilitate future meetings. We entered the meeting cautiously optimistic that
we could develop a positive atmosphere for future talks. We were optimistic
that this path, which both sides agreed to, could eventually result in an
arrangement that addressed the needs of the parties and ultimately benefit the
citizens of Longmont.
During that meeting we told Mr. Pedrow we had spent considerable time reviewing
Mr. Martin Sample’s critical analysis of last year’s proposed charter amendment
2A. We also had reviewed the concerns of both the Chief of Police and Chief of
Fire, and other city officials’ written concerns and objections to Charter
Amendment 2A. We told Mr. Pedrow we were ready discuss, and attempt to reach
compromise, on those concerns and objections. As a gesture of good faith a copy
of a draft re-write of last year’s proposed amendment was submitted. That draft
had eliminated most of the City’s objections from the original amendment. We
believed that this was a productive starting point for compromise. We hoped
that the City would view our proposal in the same light.
The
City Manager was told that if the City had a different agenda then these talks
would be less than productive.
The end result was
an agreement that we would meet again in the near future. Mr. Pedrow told us he
needed time to present what we had offered and discussed to the City Council.
He said he was uncertain how long that would take. As a result a date for the
next meeting was not set at that time. We were assured we would be contacted
when he had completed this process and that we would be notified.
Eleven weeks passed and we heard nothing from Mr. Pedrow. On July 28th
we sent a letter of inquiry about when the next meeting would take place. In
response a meeting was arranged for September 19th to review what had
been offered and discussed in the first meeting. We were expecting a
meeting that would result in a continuing effort to improve
relations between the City Administration and its public safety employees.
One that would lead to progress in achieving a negotiated system
of collective bargaining that both sides could live with.
Any
hopes that would be the case were shattered early in the meeting. In our first
meeting we had been told by him he would take our input, our proposal, and our
offer of comprise to council. The timing of a second meeting was based on the
premise he would do as promised. According to him he never did. Mr. Pedrow
said that he had not taken any of our offers from the first meeting to council,
nor has he sought input or direction from them. Instead he let us sit for
nearly three months waiting for a response. We had to approach him to have this
second meeting.
In
an “about face” Mr. Pedrow declared himself powerless to discuss this with us.
He claimed since he has received no direction from council he could not
effectively address the subject. Listening to Mr. Pedrow speak it became
painfully obvious that even during our first meeting he never intended to
address this or do anything more than pay lip service to our proposals. He
suggested that we should take this issue up with council and not him. We
reminded him that all of our communications concerning these meetings had been
sent to council and that it would be ludicrous to believe they were not aware of
our intentions.
We
had opened the door for them and they slammed it in our face again. As a result
the meeting ended and we told the City Manager that he had left us with no
choice but to suspend talks on this subject. We told him since he has declared
himself powerless, then we would follow his suggestion and restate to council
our willingness to compromise. That we would provide them with details on the
steps we have taken in a good faith gesture to bring resolution to this issue.
We told Mr. Pedrow that we would be ready to meet again if he receives clear
direction, and if a meeting of substance can take place.
The
FOP/LPOA and LPFFA finds it unfortunate that the City’s most powerful paid
employee did not at least make an effort to gain direction from the elected
officials on this. Council knew we were meeting on this subject. They knew of
our willingness to work with them. It is hard to believe the City Manager whose
position is to advise, recommend and counsel our elected officials on matters of
importance to this city is claiming he is powerless to do so.
We
have moved towards the City’s position in our offers of compromise. We expected
some movement from them, or at the very least some indication whether or not
they saw any common ground that would allow us to continue to meet with the
hopes of creating a system of collective bargaining both sides could live with.
That has not been the case. Instead we have a City Manager who claims he is
powerless and incapable of making a recommendation to City Council on this. As
a result we are left with no other choice but to suspend the talks and take this
directly to council.
As
we have previously stated, that last year during the election campaign we had
been criticized by the City for not trying to discuss collective bargaining with
them before making our decision to take it to the electorate. Our response was
based on the City Administration’s past performance of refusing to meaningfully
address our issues, and as a result we felt requests to develop a system of
collective bargaining would fall on deaf ears. We tried to correct that this
time. It is obvious this effort has in fact fallen on deaf ears. This latest
behavior of our City Manager and council is the main reason we sought collective
bargaining in the first place.
We
had hoped that the narrow loss in last year’s election and the large number of
voters who voted yes would be incentive enough for them to at least try to reach
a settlement. Unfortunately as the old saying goes, “tigers cannot change their
stripes”. In order to accommodate Mr. Pedrow’s dilemma we are drafting a letter
to council on this development. It will contain the offer we made to the City
Manager of our changes to last year’s charter amendment proposal. If council
turns a deaf ear to this move by us, and cannot find a path to meaningful
negotiations, then any further attempts to work with the City administration are
terminated.
Since last November
we have established a public record of willingness to work with the City
Administration towards an achieving compromise settlement concerning public
safety collective bargaining. In several letters to the City Administration,
and our two meetings with Mr. Pedrow we made that perfectly clear. We acted in
a manner which we believe our citizens expected before bringing this issue back
to the electorate. We tried but the City apparently does not feel it has the
same obligation to the community. We remain ready to work to that end through
negotiation and compromise or through the ballot box.
I accordance with
the expressed will of the FOP/LPOA and LPFFA memberships, we are moving forward
with our plans for a spring 2006 Special City Election amending the charter to
provide public safety collective bargaining. Petition circulation will be
addressed later this year. The only thing that would change this is a fair and
reasonable settlement.
We are prepared
both financially and politically. We established strong political associations
with various groups last fall and they have all been contacted. Support and
assistance from them has been committed for next spring’s election. We gained
valuable experience in our last campaign that will serve us well in the next
election. The coalition of Longmont’s police officer fire fighters unions is
as strong as ever and we will be working together and again combining resources
for the next campaign. Our FOP Lodge 3 and the State FOP are committed to
assisting us in our election. In addition National FOP Labor Services is also
committed to providing us with any support necessary in our next election. No
matter how long it may take we will get the job done.
Fraternally,
Mike Violette
Vice-President -
FOP/LPOA
08-23-05 Meeting Arrangements - Copy To Council
August 23, 2005
Dear Mr. Pedrow,
We apologize for the length of time it has taken to follow-up on our status
inquiry letter of July 28th concerning our next meeting. There were
administrative steps that needed to be taken within our two organizations before
we could finalize a meeting. As a result we have agreed to meet on Monday,
September 12th at 6:30 PM at a place of your choosing. That date
allows the maximum attendance of the elected representatives of the FOP and IAAF
representing your police and fire employees.
As we expressed in our first meeting it is our desire to work with you to
achieve a resolution and avoid another election. We believe that is what the
citizens of Longmont want and expect. In our last meeting we provided Police
Chief Mike Butler with a draft copy of changes to last year’s proposed amendment
to the City Charter. We believe the changes in that draft accommodate the
majority of objections raised by City Administration to the wording of last
year’s proposed amendment. The proposal was made in the spirit of good faith
and compromise with the interests of both the citizens of our great city and the
involved parties at heart.
We look forward to meeting with you in a continuing effort to work towards a
mutually agreeable resolution to this difficult matter. As we made clear in
our last meeting we firmly believe that by working together we can reach a
reasonable mutual resolution. We fully intend to approach every meeting with
that goal in mind. It is our firm belief that compromise is possible only if
both sides to any disagreement are prepared to move towards the other in an
attempt to resolve an issue of dispute. As we stated during our last meeting we
are prepared and ready to do exactly that.
Therefore we look forward to meeting on Monday, September 12th. Please advise
at your earliest convenience if this date is acceptable. If this does not fit
your schedule please advise the best date and time that works for you.
Sincerely,
Michael Violette
On Behalf Of: Fraternal Order of Police – Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association (IAFF)
07-28-05 Letter
Of Inquiry - Copy To Council
July 28, 2005
Dear Mr. Pedrow,
On May 2, 2005 representatives of the FOP/LPOA and LPFFA met with you and Chief
of Police Chief Butler. In that meeting we explained our desire to work with
City Administration to develop a system that will accommodate the needs of the
parties. We emphasized our willingness to work towards compromise on this
matter of collective bargaining. As we stated in our first meeting we are
prepared to work with you to achieve that end.
As we told you the memberships of the police and fire labor organizations have
directed their elected representatives to place a high priority on achieving
compromise with the City Administration on this matter of collective
bargaining. They have mandated their executive officers to make every
reasonable attempt at compromise before again placing this matter in front of
the voters in the spring of 2006. During that meeting we told you we had
reviewed the objections raised by City Administration to the wording of Ballot
Question 2A’s proposed amendment to the City Charter. In the spirit of
resolution and compromise we presented an offer that we believe accommodates the
majority of those objections.
As a result both sides agreed to meet again to further discuss the ideas put
forth by the police and fire labor organizations. It is been over twelve weeks
since that meeting and we have heard nothing from City Administration concerning
another meeting. We feel that more than sufficient time has passed for our
ideas and proposal to be studied.
We look forward to meeting again in a continuing effort to improve relations
between the City Administration and its public safety employees. We are pleased
to have this forum in which both sides can discuss the expressed needs of these
employees. As we have stated it is our position that if we can meet with open
minds in an atmosphere of mutual respect with hope of achieving compromise on
this matter, much can be accomplished.
Therefore we wish to meet again at the earliest possible date that will
accommodate the schedules of all parties. Monday evenings after 6:00 PM are the
only evenings when the elected officers are all off-duty. Unfortunately, some
of the executive officers of both FOP/LPOA and LPFFA have vacations and other
commitments that limit our availability to meet and confer in August on this
matter. We propose a meeting any Monday on or after August 29th,
beginning at or about 6:30 PM at a place of your choosing. Please advise the
best date and time that works for you.
Sincerely,
The Executive Boards
Fraternal Order of Police – Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association (IAFF)
Meeting With
City Brings Cautious Optimism
We are pleased to announce our 05-02-05 meeting with City
Administration concerning your goal of achieving a system of collective
bargaining went quite well. We are optimistic that progress can be made.
Hopefully we can avoid taking this to a spring of 2006 special election. Your
executive board promises you we will do all we can to achieve a compromise that
matches the mandate you have put in front of us. We are hoping the City
Administration is as sincere in its efforts to work with us. We received no
indication in our meeting that they are not.
Last year we put a charter amendment in front of the voters that
would have established a system of collective bargaining with the City of
Longmont. The voters rejected that specific proposal by a fairly narrow
margin. A large number of citizens voted in favor of the amendment as it was
worded. We believe an even larger number supported the concept of public safety
collective bargaining but were concerned with the wording of the amendment and
thus voted against it.
In the aftermath of the election we issued a press statement
indicating our desire to put aside the differences of the past and meet with
City Administration in order to resolve this matter of collective bargaining.
On January 25th we sent a letter to City Council proposing a meeting
between representatives of the police officers’ & firefighters’ unions and the
city administration to discuss this matter of collective bargaining. This
resulted in the City Manager’s offer to meet. That offer was followed by two
communications from us explaining the mandate from our members. Those
communications also expressed our membership’s specific desire to reach a
compromise agreement on this matter.
On May 2nd the parties met formally to explore common
ground for future talks on this subject. The meeting was cordial, candid and in
our opinion productive. The meeting marked the first time the unions and City
Administration have met formally in an attempt to resolve an issue of mutual
concern. It also marked the first time we have been officially recognized by
City Administration as your elected representatives and voice.
The
meeting was focused on whether there was enough common ground to explore that
would facilitate future meetings. We entered the meeting cautiously optimistic
that we could develop a positive atmosphere for future talks. In a gesture of
good faith and willingness to work with City Administration we submitted a draft
proposal of a charter amendment revised to accommodate all of the arguments
against last years amendment with the exception of interest arbitration. The
result was an agreement that we would meet again in the near future. Mr. Pedrow
needed time to take our offers and proposals to City Council. As soon as that
is completed he will get back with us to arrange a meeting date. We remain
optimistic that this path, which both sides have agreed to, will eventually
result in an arrangement that addresses the needs of both sides and ultimately
benefits the citizens of Longmont. Only time will tell.
03-16-05 Letter
To Pedrow Meeting Date Set - Copy To Council
March 16, 2005
Dear Mr. Pedrow,
We apologize for the length of time it has taken to follow-up on
our letter of February 15th accepting your offer to meet. There were
administrative steps that needed to be taken within our organizations before we
could finalize a meeting with you on the matters stated in our January 25th
letter of proposal to City Council, and our email of February 2nd to
both yourself and City Council which stated the expressed direction of our
memberships.
On February 26th the Executive Boards of the FOP/LPOA
and the LPFFA met and agreed that it is in the interest of all parties,
especially the citizens of Longmont, that our labor organizations make every
reasonable effort to resolve the issues that Ballot Question 2A was designed to
address. It is our firm belief that both sides of this issue can work together
in developing a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties and beneficial to
the citizens of this great city.
On Monday, March 14th the FOP/LPOA addressed this
decision with its membership in a special meeting. It was the consensus opinion
of the FOP/LPOA members that their Executive Board place a high priority on
achieving compromise with the City Administration on this matter of collective
bargaining. It was further stressed that our two organizations make every
reasonable attempt at compromise before placing this matter in front of the
voters again.
It is our desire to work with you to achieve a resolution and
avoid another election. We believe that is what the citizens of Longmont want
and expect. We have studied the objections raised by City Administration to the
wording of 2A’s amendment to the City Charter. We are prepared to accommodate
the majority of those objections in order to reach compromise.
Much thought has been given to this matter and we firmly believe
we can reach a reasonable mutual resolution, and fully intend to approach any
meeting with that goal in mind. Compromise is possible only if both sides to
any disagreement are prepared to move towards the other in an attempt to resolve
an issue of dispute. We are prepared and ready to do exactly that, and hope the
same holds true for the City Administration.
Therefore we wish to meet at the earliest possible date that will
accommodate the schedules of all parties. Monday evenings after 6:00 PM are the
only evenings when the elected officers are all off-duty. Unfortunately, some
of the executive officers of both FOP/LPOA and LPFFA have vacations and other
commitments in April that interfere with our availability to meet and confer on
this matter. We propose a meeting on Monday, May 2nd, beginning at
or about 6:30 PM at a place of your choosing. All ten executive officers of
both labor organizations will be present. If this date does not fit your
schedule please advise the best date and time that works for you.
Sincerely,
The Executive Boards
Fraternal Order of Police – Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association (IAFF)
02-15-05 Letter
To Pedrow Meeting Acceptance - Copy To Council
February 15,
2005
City Manager
Gordon
Pedrow
Civic Center
Complex
350 Kimbark
Street
Longmont,
Colorado 80501
Mr. Pedrow,
We are in
receipt of your response to our January 25th letter. In that letter
we proposed a meeting between representatives of the police officers’ &
firefighters’ unions and the city administration to discuss this issue of
collective bargaining for police & fire employees. We view your response to our
letter of proposal as a big step towards putting aside the differences of the
past and working toward a solution all sides can live with.
The FOP/LPOA
and LPFFA have a joint meeting of the Executive Boards of both labor
organizations scheduled for Saturday, February 26th. Your invitation
has been placed on our business agenda. Once we have finalized our schedule we
will contact you with a date and time that will work best for both labor
organizations. The flexibility you highlighted in your letter will certainly
make scheduling easier and is greatly appreciated. Any location of your
choosing will be suitable.
We are
looking forward to this opportunity for both sides to meet in an effort to
improve relations between the City Administration and its public safety
employees. We are pleased to have a forum in which we can discuss the expressed
needs of these employees. As you are well aware many cities have cooperative
systems in place that allows their police & fire employees to enter into
agreements with the employer on matters of working conditions and benefits. We
firmly believe there is a system that can be developed to accommodate the needs
of the parties and the citizens we all so proudly serve. As we stated in our
January 25th letter we will enter this meeting and any future meeting
with that being our primary goal.
Sincerely,
The Executive
Boards of:
Fraternal
Order of Police/Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont
Professional Firefighters’ Association
02-02-05 Email
To Council
Email sent 02/02/05
Dear Mayor &
Council,
We feel it
important that you have a copy of FOP/LPOA Resolution 01-17-04, which was voted
on last February by 100% of the members of FOP/LPOA. We have attached a copy to
this email. The results of that legal and binding vote mandated the Executive
Board of FOP/LPOA to enter in last year's 2A charter amendment election.
Although we lost that election the mandate of the membership, which we are bound
to follow, did not end. Nor will it end until we achieve the right to
collectively bargain with the City of Longmont. To that end we are committed to
use all reasonable and legal means to achieve the stated goal of the police
officers of the City of Longmont. Our brother and sister firefighters of the
LPFFA are equally bound to achieve that goal. The organizations representing
your police officers and firefighters are united and committed to that effort.
We have recently renewed our coalition in this common cause.
Although some in
the City Administration would claim we are attempting to form labor
organizations, the fact of the matter is we are labor organizations (unions).
FOP/LPOA and LPFFA have been in existence for well over twenty years
representing Longmont's police officers and firefighters. We are the duly
elected and recognized voice of these employees chosen by them to be
their representatives in employment affairs. Although we have been recognized
informally by some city officials, the City has never officially or formally
recognized our associations. The thing each of you should understand is we
ARE your public safety employees' representative labor organizations. We
will continue to work to achieve the mandate of our memberships regardless of
how long that may take. It will be accomplished through negotiation or
election. We know that set-backs will not deter us, and eventually we will be
successful.
In a recent
Longmont Daily Times Call article covering the council's retreat the following
was reported:
Council members acknowledged the unionization effort was driving
their new proposal and that they hoped it would reduce support for a public
safety union.
"This has to be something that applies to everyone," Councilman Fred Wilson said
of the proposed employee-relations committee. "We can't pick and choose who we
will listen to or not listen to."
We agree completely
with the words of Councilman Wilson who said,
"We can't pick and choose who we will listen to or not
listen to." Your
police & fire employee's representative organizations believe to do otherwise
would be unfair, unwise, unreasonable and would not serve the public interest.
It was in that vain we sent our January 25th letter to the City Administration.
Make no mistake about it, what we wrote in that communication was sincere and
truly represents our expressed desire to work with the City Administration on
this matter of collective bargaining.
We believe in
compromise, discussion, mutual respect and open communication. We believe it is
time we give our best effort to work with the city to resolve this matter in the
best interest of all involved parties. We are hoping the City Administration
views this as an opportunity to reasonably address this matter and work towards
a reasonable solution that both sides can live with.
We can assure you
any system that does not recognize the legal and elected organizations of
Longmont's police & fire employees will not "reduce support for a public
safety union"; rather it will only strengthen your public safety's
employees' support and desire to gain official recognition. We sincerely hope
our offer to work together with the city is accepted, and we look forward to
meeting with your representatives in the near future. Click this link:
Resolution 01-17-04
Sincerely &
Respectfully
The Executive Board
Fraternal Order of
Police
Longmont Police
Officers' Association
01-25-05 Letter
To Council
January 25, 2005
To: The Honorable Mayor Julia Pirnack
Esteemed City Council Members
City Manager Gordon Pedrow
Chief of Police Mike Butler
Chief Of Fire Steve Trunck
Dear Madam Mayor and Colleagues,
Last year we placed a Charter Amendment in front of the voters of this great
city that would have provided police and fire employees the right of Collective
Bargaining with interest arbitration. The election was hard fought and without
doubt placed stress on the relationship between the city’s public safety
employees and its government. Although Charter Amendment 2A did not pass in
last fall’s election, it is obvious from the results that there is a large
segment of the voting public who believe police & fire employees should have the
right to collectively bargain with the city. We believe 2A’s failure at the
polls was due in part to a lack of understanding of the issues by some of the
electorate and local government’s strong stance against the wording of that
charter amendment.
We the elected representatives of your police & fire employees have been
mandated by our membership, approximately 175 police and fire employees (over
92% of your police & fire officers below the rank of police Commander or
Battalion Chief), to achieve their goal of gaining the right to collective
bargaining. Our setback in last fall’s election did not end that mandate, and
is viewed by us as temporary. We will be working diligently in the future at
the direction of our memberships to obtain their stated goal to have a formal
process in place that allows them to negotiate wages, benefits and working
conditions.
During the election the subject of communications was much debated. Both sides
obviously had their own interpretation of that issue. Regardless, the ability
to communicate on a level playing field through negotiation, compromise, and
reaching a mutual understanding and agreement is what your police & fire
employees seek. Currently we have no system in place to accommodate that goal.
Therein lies the problem. A problem however for which there is a solution.
We were criticized by some for bypassing the City Council and taking this issue
directly to the people. Although that was our right, in retrospect we recognize
that may have been a mistake. A mistake born in the belief that City Council
would turn a deaf ear to our need. As a result we never met with city officials
to discuss the possibility of working together to achieve a system of collective
bargaining that would be agreeable to all parties. This fact and conflicts that
surfaced during the election campaign, caused division and ill feelings between
the parties.
We seek to put aside the differences of the past and mend the division that has
resulted. We feel we owe that to the citizens we serve, our employer and our
membership. We are proposing a meeting between representatives of the police
officers’ & firefighters’ unions and the city administration to discuss this
issue of collective bargaining for police & fire employees. We are open to any
reasonable format the City wishes to employ for such a meeting.
We firmly believe there is a system that can accommodate the needs of the
parties and we are prepared to enter any such meeting with that thought. We are
hoping there are those within the City Administration that see this opportunity
to meet and confer as a reasonable solution. If both sides can meet with open
minds in an atmosphere of mutual respect with hope of achieving compromise on
this matter, then we believe much can be accomplished. If not, or if City
Administration rejects this offer, then we will move to once again placing this
matter in front of the voters.
Respectfully,
The Executive Boards of
Fraternal Order of Police/Longmont Police Officers’ Association
Longmont Professional Firefighters’ Association
Election Loss
The
election totals are in and ballot question 2A was defeated. Although
disappointed by this loss the Fraternal Order Of Police/Longmont Police
Officers’ Association understands our citizens had their say and we respect the
results. That is how it should be in a democracy. We lost an election and
nothing more. We sincerely thank the large number of citizens who believed in
us, and all those who supported, struggled and worked so hard and so devotedly
for our cause. We are honored and grateful for their trust in us.
The difference between winning and losing our election was about
1750 votes to the “no” side.
There are still
many questions surrounding this election process and vote count. Our attorneys
are reviewing those concerns and we will be making a decision in the near future
as to whether a recount or protest of this election is in order. We want to be
certain this election was fair, valid and free of suspicion. We owe that to the
citizens of Longmont and to our members.
Winning is not everything and the real measure of a winner is not how they
handle themselves in victory but how they recover and move forward after
defeat. We are convinced many citizens who voted “no”, simply did not
understand the issues involved. As we prepare for another election on this
question in the spring of 2006, we now have time to educate those we so proudly
serve to the need for public safety collective bargaining. We are confident the
majority of citizens of Longmont will respond positively and pass this
initiative in the next election.
Our
associations learned much in this election. We learned we are truly a part of
this community. That we are partners with the citizens we serve daily. We
learned to make a difference we must be involved in the political process. We
plan to be involved in future local elections for mayor and city council.
We
understand more is to be learned in defeat than in victory. A large number of
Longmont citizens expressed their understanding that a problem exists between
their City Administration and their public safety employees. A problem that
needs a solution that involves the men and women of the police and fire
services. They understood this election was never about money. It was about
communications and recognizing the elected representatives of the police and
fire employees. It was about having an equal voice in our working conditions in
order to provide the citizens of Longmont the best public safety services of any
City in Colorado.
We
have the mandate and the support of thousands of Longmont citizens to again
reach out to the City Administration and ask they meet with the elected
representatives of the police and fire employees. On behalf of all of our
citizens we ask the City Administration to put aside the differences of the past
and meet with us in the common interest of those we serve.
Archived Articles
There are numerous article from this page on the subject of Collective
bargaining and related matters from the 2004 Longmont election. If you
wish to read the remainder of the history on this matter and detailed
information on our fight to gain an equal voice with a City Government that has
fought a system of fair treatment for its police officers and firefighters
please click on the following link: Labor
Relations
(click to return to top of page) |
Executive
Board
|
News |
FOP Grand
Lodge |
Colorado FOP Lodge |
FOP Lodge 3 |
Events |
In Memory |
Links |
Forum
