"Police
work is the only profession that gives you the test first, then the lesson".
Longmont FOP Lodge 6
Our police labor organization has been representing
police employees in Longmont for over twenty years. We
are committed to improving the working conditions of police employees, and the safety of those we serve through education,
legislation, information, community involvement, and employee
representation. We are a professional police labor
organization committed to the promotion of our profession and protecting
the interests of our membership and the citizens of Longmont. FOP works to promote public safety.
It is common fact that every city expects its police
officers to sacrifice their lives if necessary protecting the peace,
safety and well being of the community and its citizens. No other
city employee carries that burden. In turn police officers expect to
have the right to be involved in decision effecting their working
conditions and benefits. Most progressive cities understand this and
have systems of collective bargaining in place and negotiate with their
police officers on these matters. Unfortunately Longmont's current
city manager and some on council view police work as being no different
than that of any other employee, and adamantly refuse to address that
need.
For years City Administration has refused to meet and speak
with our associations on working conditions and other critical issues of
employment. In the past, when issues of unfairness, or violations of
employment practices by City Administration have occurred, we have been
left with no choice but to involve ourselves in costly lawsuits.
This is not the best way of dealing with these issues, but City
Administration left us with no other choice. Collective bargaining
promotes a better way to resolve issues and prevent this drain on taxpayer
dollars. It will ensure that both sides work together in an atmosphere of
mutual respect. Our intent and motivation is to improve Law
Enforcement Services to our community. To reach that goal
we must be politically involved and politically knowledgeable.
Political
Involvement
The
right of citizens to petition their government is basic to our democratic
way of life. The manner in which your organization has been treated
by the City Manager and Mayor demonstrates the need for our
organization to become politically involved. They have shown you no
respect or willingness to work with your elected representatives on
matters of importance to the men and women who put their lives on the line
daily for the citizens of this community. This will be overcome
through our involvement in the political process.
We have cultivated
political friendships and a strong political base in our city. We have a
strong alliance with various groups who are working towards changing the
political face of Longmont. It will not happen overnight, but it
will happen and your organization will be a big part of it. We are
closely allied with the Fire Union LPFFA in this effort. Between our
two associations we have over 180 members. We also have developed an
underground network of city employees who encourage our efforts but are
not organized to comfortably go public. During our Collective
Bargaining election we formed relationships with other politically
oriented groups who believe in us and our right to have an equal voice in
our working conditions and benefits. They stand ready to help again
if we are forced to go into another election on that matter.
We will be actively
involved in all future Mayoral and City Council elections. We will
be attending City Council meetings when issues important to our
professions are on the agenda. We will actively endorse candidates
for Mayor and City Council who place PUBLIC SAFETY high on their priority
list of essential City services, and who are sympathetic to the nature of
police and fire work. We know Public Safety issues are a high
priority with the citizens of our City. We will examine the track
record of current City Council members with respect to their treatment of
issues important to promoting the best police and fire services possible
for the citizens of Longmont. We do have political influence.
Many of us live in Longmont. Some of us have for many years.
We have friends, neighbors, and relatives whose votes count.
Considering most local elections have a low voter turnout we will work to
get the vote out for those who support us. We fully intend to use
our influence and make our positions known.
We
have ran a large grassroots political campaign, and have been heavily
involved in a city council election. We know what it takes to fight
and beat the "Old School" political cronies who have ran Longmont politics
for years. We have the ability to advertise in the media our
endorsement of various candidates and issues. We have the ability to
assist in distributing literature and yard signs. When necessary we
will conduct Email and letter campaigns. And we will donate campaign
money to qualified candidates. We currently have friends on City
Council, and friends who aspire to a future council position. They
are not of that "Old School - Good Old Boy" political mind set that has
permeated Longmont politics for decades. They have our support.
These are good solid local politicians who bow to no special group and
know the right thing to do for our community. They believe that
public safety is a priority city service; and that an efficient and
professional police department is what the citizens of Longmont need and
demand. We will do our best to see they remain a voice on council
and we will do our best to help elect others who share those same
philosophies.
Our goal is to promote
the election of local, state, and federal legislators who will support and
advocate policies and laws that advance the interests of police officers.
We will aid in obtaining
legislation beneficial to the law enforcement profession. We ask you
check two links on this page to update yourself on important legislation
pending at the national level. Both the FOP Legislative Review and
Law Enforcement Alliance websites have detailed information for your
review. When important
Legislation is pending at the State and National levels, we will bring
that to the attention of the membership. We have friends in the
state legislature. Two of whom we campaigned for in the last General
Election and they truly appreciated our efforts. We will support
legislators at the State and National levels that having a voting record
or philosophy consistent with the interests of Law Enforcement. We
will no longer sit idly by on the side lines trusting our elected
officials will do the right thing. This website will be used to keep
you updated. We will work closely with both the Fraternal Order
Police (FOP) and LPFA to achieve our goals. We have had several members express an interest
in working in this area. If you have an interest please contact
one of your Executive Board members for information. Check this page
often for items of political interest.
Leave your comments or start a discussion on this subject at the
Public Forum.
Our voice will be heard!
City Manager Rejects All
Attempts At Compromise
Last year the FOP 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 by some 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
a letter was sent by us 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 will 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 his 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 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 last year’s 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 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 the
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 a 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 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.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL APPROVED BY SENATE COMMITTEE
National F.O.P. welcomes the news and urges floor action
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order
of Police, applauded the actions of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), which adopted S. 606, the "Public
Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," late last week. The bill was
passed by voice vote during an "off the floor" conference by members of
the Committee.
"This legislation is one of the top priorities of the F.O.P.," Canterbury
said. "We believe that the men and women who serve and protect public
safety deserve to have their right to bargain collectively recognized,
affording them the chance to have input on the important decisions
affecting their livelihoods."
The legislation would recognize the right of public safety employees to
form and join unions and bargain collectively with their employers. States
with collective bargaining statutes would be exempt, and strikes and
lockouts are prohibited by the legislation.
"Public safety occupations are unique," Canterbury said, "and collective
bargaining is a critical tool to resolve differences, not create them. The
success of the law enforcement mission depends on an open dialogue between
rank-and-file officers and police managers. The law enforcement mission is
the same for both--public safety, not profit--is the bottom line."
Identical legislation was favorably reported by the HELP Committee in the
107th Congress and, in November 2001, that bill was offered as an
amendment to an appropriations measure, winning the support of fifty-six
(56) Senators. Despite this strong show of bipartisan support, the
amendment was threatened with a filibuster and had to be withdrawn.
"Law enforcement officers take their sworn oaths and their commitment to
the protection of the public very seriously," Canterbury said. "This isn't
about strikes, work stoppages or slowdowns. Threats to public safety are
not used as bargaining chips by police or firefighters and are, in fact,
prohibited by the bill. The everyday heroism and bravery displayed by the
men and women who place their lives on the line demonstrates the law
enforcement officer's commitment to protect and serve. No other interest
comes first."
Although most of
the people involved with this website are employed as Longmont Police
Officers. The Longmont Police Department is not responsible for its
construction, content, or operation.
The FOP
star logo, the FOP scroll logo, the name "Fraternal Order of Police" and the
name "FOP" are registered trademarks of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of
Police. The use or reproduction of the FOP name or logo is forbidden without the
express written consent of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police
