Spokane7
61°
December 14, 2010 in City
City Council adopts police concessions
Deal defers a pay raise, preserves officer jobs
The concessions agreed to by Spokane’s police force to save jobs and help balance the city budget include giving up a scheduled 4 percent pay raise, increasing out-of-pocket costs for health insurance and reductions in one of the two taxpayer-financed retirement plans that officers receive.
Details of the concession plan, agreed to by officers last week, were adopted Monday by the Spokane City Council.
The deal saves 35 jobs that were slated to be eliminated the day after Christmas and stops the city from severely cutting its investigative ability.
“I really, truly am delighted,” Spokane police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick said after the council’s decision. Kirkpatrick focused many of the proposed cuts on the department’s detective force to try to preserve the force’s patrol and response abilities.
City Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin praised union members for their willingness to accept the deal.
“We really appreciate that we’re not going to have 35 fewer police officers on the street,” she said.
Under the agreement, the guild will push its scheduled 4 percent raise to Jan. 1, 2012. Members still will get raises based on seniority.
Members also agreed to pay more for their medical coverage and to accept less in their deferred compensation plan. Like most city employees, guild members have two taxpayer-funded retirement plans: a traditional pension and a “deferred compensation plan,” which is similar to a 401(k) in which the employee sets aside money that the employer matches.
For medical insurance this year, officers pay $67 or $74 a month for insurance for themselves and dependents, depending on which plan they choose. That will increase to $105 a month next year.
In 2010, for their deferred compensation plan, the city matches up to 4 percent of an officer’s pay, plus contributes $50 a month even if the worker doesn’t match it. The guild agreed to give up the $50 payment and to reduce the city’s matching amount to 2 percent in 2011. In 2012, deferred compensation reverts to 2010 numbers.
The guild also promised not to “cash out” banked vacation or sick time next year. Under the current contract, guild members are allowed to bank vacation and sick time and can get paid up to 96 hours of that time each year on Nov. 1.
The deal makes 2011 the guild’s second straight year without a cost-of-living raise. Last year, the guild bargained for an extra week of vacation in lieu of a 2010 raise.
Attempts made to reach Guild President Ernie Wuthrich late Monday were unsuccessful.
In the event of another dire budget next year, Erin Jacobson, acting human resources director, said the city is under no obligation to fill positions as they become vacant or to avoid layoffs in 2012.
“That’s sort of our safety valve,” Jacobson said.
Kirkpatrick said there are at least 10 retirements scheduled among officers next year and that she will be cautious about filling those spots to avoid having to lay off recent hires.
In exchange for the concessions, administrators promised that no guild member would be laid off for 2011. The concessions cover a large part of the cost, but not all of it. Last week, the City Council diverted $1.5 million from the city’s street department to cover employment costs among the three unions that agreed to take concessions: the guild, the firefighters union, and the assistant prosecutors.
The fire deal was reached late last month. The deal with the Spokane Prosecutors Association, which covers about 10 members, was approved on Monday in the same vote that finalized the guild agreement.
The prosecutors’ concessions eliminated a scheduled 2 percent raise for 2011. It also raised their cost of medical insurance from 14 percent of the premium to 16.3 percent. Additionally, it reduced the amount the city matches for deferred compensation from $120 a month to $80 a month.
City Council President Joe Shogan said guaranteeing jobs for 2011 is well worth the concessions.
“For money up front, we’re saving a lot of money down the line,” Shogan said.
MAC faces angry crowd 
Jon on December 14 at 8:00 a.m.
Lets just hope the City Council will honor this contract with the Unions.
misjustice on December 14 at 8:34 a.m.
All they essentially did was shift some of the burden from 2011 to 2012. And then shift/divert MORE money from the streets’ department…
“… the City Council diverted $1.5 million from the city’s street department to cover employment costs..”
This is not real savings; the city is just delaying the inevitable.
liarsinnews on December 14 at 9:20 a.m.
There they go again (city council), receiving the proverbial rabbit and give away the horse.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 14 at 10:53 a.m.
They belong to unions. They are therefore bad. End of discussion.
TheRoyLarsen on December 14 at 1:55 p.m.
Let’s look for a moment at what dick adams wrote. “There they go again” is most likely a whimsical breath of disgust at local government and graft in general. But more interesting and cryptic are his following statements. “Receiving the proverbial rabbit” is not doubt a keen reference to the willful ingestion of political tripe. His mention of “give away the horse” can mean we should consider the reality that our own city council is involved in the greatest fleecing man has ever known. Or, it could mean THAT DICK IS DRINKING BONG WATER BECAUSE WHAT HE SAID DOESN’T MAKE A BIT OF SENSE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 250 POLICE OFFICERS GIVING UP PART OF THEIR WAGE TO SAVE JOBS.
Yo Dick. When you come to this forum, 1) bring your brain; and 2) make sure it’s functioning properly. Thanks.
lewis8457 on December 14 at 9:55 p.m.
Roy boy a bit on edge today? Did you know using capital letters is shouting in written word? You don’t need to shout no one is reading your stuff anyway.
Now get your fingers ready i am sure you will
like what i have to say. Don’t we pay them enough now? i think we need to get back to the realization this is Spokane Washington and not LA. Our police do not need to make 60 grand plus. I would think it is pretty safe out there for cops. and yes give me the car and i can and will do the job and guess what i wont kill anyone in the process.
Our unions should not be paying their members based on national figures not when it is clear to me we have some real problem officers at the SPD,SVPD, and sheriff..
If they want to save money simply lay off all 7 officers that helped kill Otto Zehm take away there pensions and benefits, same with Hirzel, Olsen, Torok, Kirkpatrick to name a few. Get our 256 grand back from GayJay too.
I also think it is funny that the powers that be think 2011 or 2012 are going to be any better. it has been two years and nothing no more jobs, and the city and county are laying off folks so how can anyone with brain think we are supposed to afford a million+ in raises for a select few?
While our roads are in worse and worse shape? Just goes to show once again no one is thinking at city hall.
TheRoyLarsen on December 15 at 5:46 a.m.
Thanks for reading my stuff, Lewis.
News flash to Lewis: THE LATE JIM WEST WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING A STREET BOND PASSED. OUR ROADS ARE GETTING FIXED.
Farts are easy. Stick with them. Policing is hard. It requires a worldview larger than a chicklet and objectivity you simply don’t have. Case on point: the officer that restrained Otto Zehm is currently indicted. I’d bet the next generation of faucet grommets that he’ll be acquitted. Now you can’t understand that because 1) you won’t; and, 2) you can’t. And that’s why they make more money than you do.
liarsinnews on December 15 at 6:05 a.m.
Roy: You say Jim West was responsible for getting the street bond passed. How profound and brainless giving West credit. Mickey Mouse could have been mayor and would have been smart enough to realize the taxpayers were sick and tired of driving on neglected streets for so many years. I thought the voters passed the ballot. You talk about brains? Were you behind the door when brains were passed out?
BitofBacon on December 15 at 9:41 a.m.
Lewis,
I read TheRoy’s stuff all the time, just like I read yours. I find his comments to be witty and engaging, as opposed to yours, which, to be truthful, are mostly rehashes of crap you’ve been harping about for years. You must have read in a magazine about capitalization, perhaps the August issue of Janitor’s World?
I think you’re right when you say the cops don’t deserve to be paid $60K a year, I think they should be paid more to put up with crap they have to deal with. I’ll bet you have never had a floor polisher point a gun at you, have you?
From somewhere else on the planet,
Louis
TheRoyLarsen on December 15 at 9:50 a.m.
Dear Dick,
Actually, I was way ahead of you guys in line. Bit was standing behind me and he doesn’t recall seeing you guys either.
I wrote that Jim West was “successful in getting a street bond passed” meaning that he was instrumental in getting it on the ballot. Voters didn’t put it on the ballot, his administration did. The voters passed it. Spokane history, for those who read about it, tells us that Jim West wasn’t the first mayor to attempt this. In fact, many mayors and councils attempted this. He was the first one to be “successful in getting a street bond passed.”
That’s how it is with brains. You have to use them. Got it, Dick?
TheRoyLarsen on December 15 at 9:54 a.m.
Hey, Bit. Darned if you weren’t right. Check it out.
http://site.janitors-world.com/
bszottlinger on December 15 at 10:42 a.m.
TRL:
Allow me to attempt to expand your worldview. Flatulence is not always easy. Although I cannot be much help because I am perfect in that area, I would suggest you talk to someone with hemorrhoids.
On another matter;
“ the officer that restrained Otto Zehm is currently indicted. I’d bet the next generation of faucet grommets that he’ll be acquitted.”
Is this open, or just for Lewis? I might be interested if you would clarify “acquitted”. Do you mean both counts or just Count 1 (242) ?
One never knows when they might need a grommet or two.
TheRoyLarsen on December 15 at 6:14 p.m.
Dick or Lewis, can you help the man out on this hemorrhoids issue?
bsz,
“Acquitted.” I guess it’s when 12 people hear evidence, actual evidence vetted by a judge, and unanimously decide that it does not prove that the accused is guilty of the crime charge. This, of course, is quite different from eleven people voting to convict and one holding out. In that case, it would be a hung jury and a mistrial might be declared. In yet another instance, a jury could return a verdict of guilty. On that occasion, 12 people unanimously agree that the person committed the crime(s) charged.
Of course, this is quite different from how we decide things here in the blogs. Here, we rise in the morning, crank out that fart (in your case, we strain), and write whatever we think. And because we write it, it is true. No evidence. No judge. Not even spellcheck. At least that’s what I’m learning from Dick and Lewis.
bszottlinger on December 15 at 8:55 p.m.
TRL:
I will type slowly, I think I went to fast for you last time. I do not need help from Dick or Lewis with hemorrhoids. As I implied before I am a perfect one.
I think I understand “Acquitted”, I was just wondering if I could get some grommet action. I wanted to clarify the bet. Are you betting acquittal on both counts? If so, I am in for all your new generation faucet grommets, and I will raise you ten. Keep in mind a plea deal is not an acquittal.
I might point out that you are absolutely right there is no comparison between these blogs and a real courtroom. There is no judge to rule on the admissibility of the evidence or instruct the jury as to assessing the credibility of a witness. The jury is well beyond 12, and you cannot voir dire even one. So I guess it boils down to a matter of the members of this jury are on their own when it comes to deciding the admissibility of evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Having said that, I would venture a guess that regardless of how well you defend or prosecute the case the jury will end up hung.
I might also bring to your attention that this blogury bears some similarity to juries that I am sure you and your associates have testified before. This blogury is also made up of janitors, retired executives, teachers, small business owners, lawyers, cops, college students, college professors, liberals, conservatives, even a communist here and there. That is what is very scary, can you just imagine a group like this sitting in the jury room trying to assess the credibility of two witnesses who have testified completely contrary to one another, even after a standard instruction for assessing witness credibility was given. If one were assessing you, Lewis, and Dick from the standpoint of credibility since the testimony is caustic all three ways, and the biases are evident for all, what it really boils down to, as it does for many jurors, is how the witness physically presents. Since you really are ugly, and look like a dishonest fellow (based on your avatar of course), I will have to give Lewis and Dick the credibility nod.
TheRoyLarsen on December 15 at 10:59 p.m.
Why do you think I have to use an Avatar like that? I am as deceptive as they come, my fellow blogger.
On the Zehm matter…
If the case goes to a jury, the officer will be acquitted. The only evidence that the judge will allow, as it relates to the officer’s perspective or intention, will pertain to what the officer knew in his mind at the time of the call. The bet would be an acquittal on both counts. There will be no plea because no one in their right mind would plead to something that is so weak the US Attorney’s Office tried to end run the Connor decision.
But if I really had some serious cabbage to lay down, my money would be on the Ninth Circuit (I can’t believe I’m saying this) upholding the Connor decision and ruling that the United States will only be allowed to present evidence that pertains to the officer’s state of mind. The US Attorney’s office will then most likely drop the charges alleging that “the conspiracy within the Police Department is too vast and widespread” and that the “wall of silence is just too thick.” Demonizing the police would be my play. That way you can make an excuse for a shoddy investigation and still give Lewis and Dick a purpose to live.
But, if they go to trial, the jury will ultimately see that this was a tragedy, but not a crime. Plain and simple.
BitofBacon on December 15 at 11:28 p.m.
TheRoy,
That was eloquent and succinct and I have believed that all along.
bszottlinger on December 16 at 9:34 a.m.
TRL:
Avatars are interesting, one can learn a lot from them. You certainly are deceptive, no question about that.
You have an interesting position, apparently shared by Bits, and likely many others. It’s difficult to say how the Circus will rule and it will be interesting to see whether it goes beyond the three blind mice or even further.
Keeping in mind, I only know what has been reported in the press and you are likely in a position to know some of the details surrounding questions asked during the Grand Jury, which puts you in a better position then me, I just do not agree with your assessment that the case is weak. I know how difficult the review process is for the government to bring CRV charges. However, perhaps there was a counter conspiracy permeating the review process with the intent to expose the vast and widespread conspiracy within the Spokane Police Department and break down that thick wall of silence. The press accounts seem to indicate that the government may have broken down some of that wall with officers now changing their tune including the Assistant Chief. I am sure you know that a “Target Letter” which was sent to one of you folk’s means that whoever got it is in a world of hurt, unless of course they decide it would be in their best interest to talk and tell the truth. Since it has been a long time since we have heard anything about that, I would guess there might just be another crack in that wall.
I don’t know if it makes any sense to me for the government to drop the charges and demonize the locals in an effort to cover up the government’s “shoddy” investigation. My play would be to go to trial, put Detective Ferguson on the stand and have her reiterated several times (as according to court documents she has done) that the Police Department investigation was “shoddy”. I think I would also spend a lot of time with Officer Boothe on the stand going over his various assessments before, after, and between his conversations with the government and Mr. Treppiedi. After Boothe, if I could figure out a way to get Mr. Treppiedi on the stand I would, even if it were just to let the jury see him assert the privilege. Then I would call my experts so the jury could compare the testimony of Officer Boothe with my experts. Then I might just put Assistant Chief Nicks on the stand. I would start with his testimony that Officer Thompson’s actions were excessive force which would not only back up my experts, make Officer Boothe among others look bad, but also would make the jury wonder what the hell went on. Then I’d get into the other stuff with Nicks.
With respect to Count II, carefully watching the video, and comparing the video with Officer Thompson’s statement (the one Mr. Oreskovich tried so hard to get thrown out, asserting Thompson didn’t swear to it so he didn’t have to tell the truth). I just kind of think you might be able to sell a 1519 charge to a jury.
I will take the bet! Doesn’t matter whether it is cabbage or grommets.
TheRoyLarsen on December 17 at 5:49 a.m.
The jury won’t be buying anything without context. I’ll take your bet.
bszottlinger on December 17 at 8:28 a.m.
We are on! I will be back in Spokane by March and hope to attend some of the show. I should have a pretty good idea prior to summation if I need to find a place to buy new generation grommets. Any ideas just in case? The cabbage I can handle.
I’ll be able to recognize you from your avatar (among other things), I’ll be the guy in the razzu chair.