HCSO contract finalized; employees forgo raises to prevent layoffs
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
The Highland County Board of Commissioners and the union representatives for employees of the Highland County Sheriff's Office reached a contract agreement Monday in which the HCSO employees will forego raises in order to prevent staff layoffs.
Instead of the wage increases, employees will receive one payment of $400, and insurance will stay the same.
A conciliator in binding arbitration had ruled in favor of 33-cent per hour raises for the employees, retroactive to January 2011. That meant that approximately $38,000 to $44,000 would be needed to make payroll. Highland County Sheriff Ron Ward said that because the county commissioners did not have the funds to appropriate additional monies to the HCSO, that meant eight to nine people would have to be laid off in order to stay in budget and pay out the raises.
"The employees did vote to concede their raise," Ward told The Highland County Press Monday. "The employees will forego a raise because of the effects it will have on the office. I think it's admirable what they did. They had every right to say 'we want our money.' They are dedicated to the citizens of this county and the people we serve."
The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) met with HCSO employees Friday and signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the contracts. The memorandum was presented to the commissioners Monday. The commissioners met with Ward in executive session to discuss the matter Monday afternoon, after which the commissioners signed the agreement.
The commissioners released a statement Monday thanking the HCSO employees for their understanding of the county's fiscal difficulties.
"The board of commissioners appreciates the recognition by the members of the sheriff's department local union that Highland County is not in a fiscal position to grant raises to the employees at this time. We thank the members for demonstrating a greater understanding of the budget situation than shown by the conciliator, Jack McCormick," the commissioners stated."
Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley said, "Even though I felt like the conciliator did not understand the budget process, the deputies who represented the union did, and we appreciate that."
According to Monday's agreement, which became effective upon the approval by all parties:
• Insurance is continued with no changes to the current contract language.
• No across-the-board wage increases for 2011, and the wage scale will remain the same as it has been since January 2008, and steps will be followed.
• The sheriff agrees to issue to each member of the bargaining unit a check during the month of October 2011 in the amount of $400 as an additional uniform and equipment maintenance allowance.
• Acceptance of this payment by the bargaining unit members resolves the wag re-opener for 2011.
According to the conciliator's report written by McCormick, the county did not dispute that the employees deserved a raise, but rather it was a matter of insufficient funds. According to the report, HCSO sergeants are paid $18.93 per hour, which is 89 cents below average for comparable counties; and deputies receive $17.10 per hour, which is 62 cents below average. The county also noted that no other county employees paid out of the general fund have received raises in the same period the HCSO has gone without raises.
"President of the county commissioners Shane Wilkin testified that if money was available they would not hesitate to afford these employees, 'a much-needed increase in wages.' It is (the county's) position that due to the ongoing economic slump suffered by this and all other Ohio counties, and the state of Ohio's recent cut in local government funds makes it virtually impossible to fund any increases, for these, or any other employee," according to the report.
The report examines the financial situation of the county, including the "improved" unemployment rate from 19.1 percent in January 2010 to "a current 13.1 percent."
According to the union, the conciliator stated, documentation on the county's financials from the Auditor's Office of the State of Ohio, "as of July 31, 2011, (Highland County's) general fund had a balance of $1,151,814. That compares to a balance of $602,209 in the same period in 2010 and $270,380 in 2009. The county's general fund carryover from year to year has declined from $721,772 in 2007 to an estimated $300,000 to $350,000 in calendar 2011. If these uncontested figures are correct the union's proposed wage increases would amount to less than 15 percent of the projected general fund carryover. It is noted that according to the Auditor of the state of Ohio, Highland County's general fund balance in calendar year 2010 increased from $522,753 to $685,702."
The conciliator noted that "the ability of the employer (the county) to fund applies not to the Highland County Sheriff's Office budget, but rather the general fund budget of Highland County itself. The county argues that if there are not sufficient funds in the Highland County Sheriff's Office appropriation to fund these wage increases it will necessarily have to seek layoffs of sheriff's employees because there are no other funds 'available.' ... If there are sufficient funds in the general revenue fund of the county to fund a wage increase then it is totally irrelevant whether or not those funds currently appropriated to the sheriff's office are sufficient to fund such an increase. All the Highland County commissioners need to do is to appropriate additional funds to the sheriff's office (if actually necessary) to fulfill the mandate of the conciliator's award."
According to McCormick, the county is within its legal rights to appropriate additional funds, as well as to not appropriate additional funds, and that the commissioners would be "within their rights to order layoffs." McCormick said that how the commissioners choose to handle a wage increase would be "strictly a political decision."
"The current law does not give a conciliator the authority to mandate particular department appropriations within a governing unit, but does give a conciliator the authority to order the wage increase," McCormick said. "The decision how that wage increase will be funded is strictly a political decision lying within the authority of the legislative body, i.e. the Highland County commissioners."
The commissioners said in a statement Monday that they were "offended" by McCormick's assertion that the matter was a political decision.
"The decision by Mr. McCormick shows not only the issues with binding arbitration, but a lack of understanding by Mr. McCormick regarding the rules controlling local government funding, an important factor to consider when discussing the making a decision on a county's financial situation and ability to finance wage increases. During the proceedings, it was disappointing to hear Mr. McCormick tell the commissioners' representatives that if he awards the increase, the board of commissioners would be forced to make 'a political decision.' This board is highly offended by this comment as this is in no way a political decision. It is simply a matter of available funding. To bring that type of rhetoric into a conciliation hearing is unwarranted and unprofessional. It is disturbing that, as a neutral party, Mr. McCormick would insinuate to the representatives of both sides, after hearing only partial testimony by the county auditor that he was already leaning toward a decision," the commissioners wrote.
In the conciliator's report, the McCormick said that statements made by Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley during the conciliation hearing regarding budget appropriations were "puzzling."
"The county auditor stated on several occasions that if the commissioners attempted to increase any department's budget, including the sheriff's department budget, that he would tell them, 'you cannot do that.' He seemed to express a position that a county auditor can somehow override the appropriating authority of county commissioners. The conciliator knows of no legal authority for a county auditor to do so," McCormick wrote.
Fawley told The Highland County Press that he felt like he was misunderstood by the conciliator, and that he understands the authority of the commissioners and the duties of the auditor's office.
"Since all projected or anticipated funds have been appropriated, the commissioners cannot increase the sheriff's appropriations without reducing someone else's (another department's budget)," Fawley said. "(The conciliator) said I was saying they could not increase appropriations. I said that unless they take it from someone else they can't, until we receive our anticipated receipts of $8.3 million. The conciliator said there is a projected carryover of $350,000 and the county could give a raise if they wanted to. The problem is, we don't know exactly what that carryover is going to be. We have to see if people have spent their appropriations. We always have to have some money left to get us through the first of the year until revenue starts coming back in so we can reach payroll. I certainly know the auditor cannot appropriate funds, but the commissioners cannot appropriate funds more than what the anticipated received receipts are."
In conclusion, McCormick wrote, "The conciliator, having taken into consideration all the statutory factors, as well as the arguments and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties, hereby adopts in its entirety, the recommendations of SERB fact finder David W. Stanton, dated May 10, 2011. All employees of the bargaining unit in the Highland County Sheriff's Office shall be granted a wage increase of 33 cents per hour, effective Jan. 1, 2010. Pursuant (to the Ohio Revised Code) this award constitutes a binding mandate to the public employer and its exclusive representative to take whatever actions are necessary to implement this award."
The commissioners stated, "In summary, it is the effort, duty, and intent of this board to manage the finances of the county. This board finds it troubling that the conciliator, who neither understands local government funding, nor relies on the very capable deputies of the Highland County Sheriff's Department to react when called upon, can make such a detrimental decision after incomplete testimony from only one witness. Moreover, we find it disturbing that Mr. McCormick placed political weight to the board's position following his decision to grant the wage increase. Economy, not politics, will dictate the board's position. We believe his decision and its conclusion may place taxpayers of Highland County at increased risk as a result of reduced services from the Highland County Sheriff's Department."
The Highland County Board of Commissioners and the union representatives for employees of the Highland County Sheriff's Office reached a contract agreement Monday in which the HCSO employees will forgo raises in order to prevent staff layoffs.
Instead of the wage increases, employees will receive one payment of $400, and insurance will stay the same.
A conciliator in binding arbitration had ruled in favor of 33-cent per hour raises for the employees, retroactive to January 2011. That meant that approximately $38,000 to $44,000 would be needed to make payroll. Highland County Sheriff Ron Ward said that because the county commissioners did not have the funds to appropriate additional monies to the HCSO, that meant eight to nine people would have to be laid off in order to stay in budget and pay out the raises.
"The employees did vote to concede their raise," Ward told The Highland County Press Monday. "The employees will forgo a raise because of the effects it will have on the office. I think it's admirable what they did. They had every right to say 'we want our money.' They are dedicated to the citizens of this county and the people we serve."
The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) met with HCSO employees Friday and signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the contracts. The memorandum was presented to the commissioners Monday. The commissioners met with Ward in executive session to discuss the matter Monday afternoon, after which the commissioners signed the agreement.
The commissioners released a statement Monday thanking the HCSO employees for their understanding of the county's fiscal difficulties.
"The board of commissioners appreciates the recognition by the members of the sheriff's department local union that Highland County is not in a fiscal position to grant raises to the employees at this time. We thank the members for demonstrating a greater understanding of the budget situation than shown by the conciliator, Jack McCormick," the commissioners stated.
Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley said, "Even though I felt like the conciliator did not understand the budget process, the deputies who represented the union did, and we appreciate that."
According to Monday's agreement, which became effective upon the approval by all parties:
• Insurance is continued with no changes to the current contract language.
• No across-the-board wage increases for 2011, and the wage scale will remain the same as it has been since January 2008, and steps will be followed.
• The sheriff agrees to issue to each member of the bargaining unit a check during the month of October 2011 in the amount of $400 as an additional uniform and equipment maintenance allowance.
• Acceptance of this payment by the bargaining unit members resolves the wage re-opener for 2011.
According to the conciliator's report written by McCormick, the county did not dispute that the employees deserved a raise, but rather it was a matter of insufficient funds. According to the report, HCSO sergeants are paid $18.93 per hour, which is 89 cents below average for comparable counties; and deputies receive $17.10 per hour, which is 62 cents below average. The county also noted that no other county employees paid out of the general fund have received raises in the same period the HCSO has gone without raises.
"President of the county commissioners Shane Wilkin testified that if money was available they would not hesitate to afford these employees, 'a much-needed increase in wages.' It is (the county's) position that due to the ongoing economic slump suffered by this and all other Ohio counties, and the state of Ohio's recent cut in local government funds, [it] makes it virtually impossible to fund any increases, for these, or any other employee," according to the report.
The report examines the financial situation of the county, including the "improved" unemployment rate from 19.1 percent in January 2010 to "a current 13.1 percent."
According to the union, the conciliator stated, documentation on the county's financials from the Auditor's Office of the State of Ohio, "as of July 31, 2011, (Highland County's) general fund had a balance of $1,151,814. That compares to a balance of $602,209 in the same period in 2010 and $270,380 in 2009. The county's general fund carryover from year to year has declined from $721,772 in 2007 to an estimated $300,000 to $350,000 in calendar 2011. If these uncontested figures are correct, the union's proposed wage increases would amount to less than 15 percent of the projected general fund carryover. It is noted that according to the Auditor of the state of Ohio, Highland County's general fund balance in calendar year 2010 increased from $522,753 to $685,702."
The conciliator noted that "the ability of the employer (the county) to fund applies not to the Highland County Sheriff's Office budget, but rather the general fund budget of Highland County itself. The county argues that if there are not sufficient funds in the Highland County Sheriff's Office appropriation to fund these wage increases it will necessarily have to seek layoffs of sheriff's employees because there are no other funds 'available.' ... If there are sufficient funds in the general revenue fund of the county to fund a wage increase, then it is totally irrelevant whether or not those funds currently appropriated to the sheriff's office are sufficient to fund such an increase. All the Highland County commissioners need to do is to appropriate additional funds to the sheriff's office (if actually necessary) to fulfill the mandate of the conciliator's award."
According to McCormick, the county is within its legal rights to appropriate additional funds, as well as to not appropriate additional funds, and that the commissioners would be "within their rights to order layoffs." McCormick said that how the commissioners choose to handle a wage increase would be "strictly a political decision."
"The current law does not give a conciliator the authority to mandate particular department appropriations within a governing unit, but does give a conciliator the authority to order the wage increase," McCormick said. "The decision how that wage increase will be funded is strictly a political decision lying within the authority of the legislative body, i.e. the Highland County commissioners."
The commissioners said in a statement Monday that they were "offended" by McCormick's assertion that the matter was a political decision.
"The decision by Mr. McCormick shows not only the issues with binding arbitration, but a lack of understanding by Mr. McCormick regarding the rules controlling local government funding, an important factor to consider when discussing the making a decision on a county's financial situation and ability to finance wage increases. During the proceedings, it was disappointing to hear Mr. McCormick tell the commissioners' representatives that if he awards the increase, the board of commissioners would be forced to make 'a political decision.' This board is highly offended by this comment as this is in no way a political decision. It is simply a matter of available funding. To bring that type of rhetoric into a conciliation hearing is unwarranted and unprofessional. It is disturbing that, as a neutral party, Mr. McCormick would insinuate to the representatives of both sides, after hearing only partial testimony by the county auditor that he was already leaning toward a decision," the commissioners wrote.
In the conciliator's report, the McCormick said that statements made by Highland County Auditor Bill Fawley during the conciliation hearing regarding budget appropriations were "puzzling."
"The county auditor stated on several occasions that if the commissioners attempted to increase any department's budget, including the sheriff's department budget, that he would tell them, 'you cannot do that.' He seemed to express a position that a county auditor can somehow override the appropriating authority of county commissioners. The conciliator knows of no legal authority for a county auditor to do so," McCormick wrote.
Fawley told The Highland County Press that he felt like he was misunderstood by the conciliator, and that he understands the authority of the commissioners and the duties of the auditor's office.
"Since all projected or anticipated funds have been appropriated, the commissioners cannot increase the sheriff's appropriations without reducing someone else's (another department's budget)," Fawley said. "(The conciliator) said I was saying they could not increase appropriations. I said that unless they take it from someone else they can't, until we receive our anticipated receipts of $8.3 million. The conciliator said there is a projected carryover of $350,000 and the county could give a raise if they wanted to. The problem is, we don't know exactly what that carryover is going to be. We have to see if people have spent their appropriations. We always have to have some money left to get us through the first of the year until revenue starts coming back in so we can reach payroll. I certainly know the auditor cannot appropriate funds, but the commissioners cannot appropriate funds more than what the anticipated received receipts are."
In conclusion, McCormick wrote, "The conciliator, having taken into consideration all the statutory factors, as well as the arguments and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties, hereby adopts in its entirety, the recommendations of SERB fact finder David W. Stanton, dated May 10, 2011. All employees of the bargaining unit in the Highland County Sheriff's Office shall be granted a wage increase of 33 cents per hour, effective Jan. 1, 2010. Pursuant (to the Ohio Revised Code), this award constitutes a binding mandate to the public employer and its exclusive representative to take whatever actions are necessary to implement this award."
The commissioners stated, "In summary, it is the effort, duty, and intent of this board to manage the finances of the county. This board finds it troubling that the conciliator, who neither understands local government funding, nor relies on the very capable deputies of the Highland County Sheriff's Department to react when called upon, can make such a detrimental decision after incomplete testimony from only one witness. Moreover, we find it disturbing that Mr. McCormick placed political weight to the board's position following his decision to grant the wage increase. Economy, not politics, will dictate the board's position. We believe his decision and its conclusion may place taxpayers of Highland County at increased risk as a result of reduced services from the Highland County Sheriff's Department."
[[In-content Ad]]