Report Inappropriate Comments

Another "SIDE DEAL" made by Avedisian without council approval.

Faced with court action, Avedisian, firefighters adopt new contract

Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2005 1:00 am

By MARK SILBERSTEIN

After his administration was harangued and bombarded by the media on the issue, and after the majority of the City Council agreed to court action to halt the practice, Mayor Scott Avedisian announced late last week that he re-negotiated terms of the tentative contract agreement he first reached with the city's firefighters' union in February, agreeing to scuttle plans for the lucrative 80-percent pension reimbursement for employees on the force with at least 30-years on the job.

In a prepared release issued, Avedisian said the union gave their "overwhelming" approval to the changes last Wednesday, modifying the existing tentative accord from three years to a one-year agreement, while setting forth terms of yet another three-year pact that would extend the firefighter's labor contract until June 30, 2009.

According to the mayor's statement the city and the union went back to the bargaining table "after it became apparent that a provision of the current contract had become a political issue that has been misrepresented to the public."

"I began discussing the existing contract with [firefighter union President] Warren Wright back in June when I felt that there was ample indication that two things were happening: a lack of support for 80-percent [among the City Council] and consistent biased reporting from the Beacon that never gave me the opportunity to talk about the fact that the 80-percent initiative would have resulted in one less person in the pension plan for each person who stayed until the 30th year," Avedisian remarked in a statement.

Terms of the new one-year agreement, according to the release, include a provision to retain a 3.5 percent pay increase; establishes a committee to conduct a study of fire apparatus replacement issues and requires a report to the Mayor and City Council six months from when the contract is signed; eliminates the restriction on the number of employees allowed on each promotional list; and includes a caveat that the city will submit legislation to the City Council to allow Fire Department employees who retired between July 1 and Sept. 18, 2005 to retain the 80 percent of pay pension rate.

So far, four firefighters have already retired under the higher pension reimbursement, even though payments have been issued by the city in apparent violation of an existing statute contained in the City Charter that clearly requires the City Council approval before any pension hikes take effect. Avedisian directed the City Finance Department begin paying out the higher rates, arguing it had been the practice of leadership that pre-dated his own that traditionally permitted higher pension rates be paid until the appropriate legislation was submitted to the city council.

Last month, the Democratically controlled council agreed to seek "injunctive relief", voting 8 to 1 (including the two GOP representatives) to take the mayor to court in hopes of obtaining a temporary restraining order to bring a halt to the higher pension payments.

Council President Donald Torres (D-Ward 2), who was the only council member to vote against court action, said yesterday that he was still discussing the issue with fellow council members but hoped they would agree to withdraw the resolution that sought legal intervention.

Those already benefiting from the higher, 80-percent pension reimbursement rates include:

• Fire Marshal John Campopiano, 56, who earned $79,262.04 before he left the Fire Department. Now, based on the 80-percent reimbursement rate, he is getting paid $77,773.54.

• Deputy Chief John Feeley, 54, who earned $79,262.04 before leaving the department, now gets paid $78,447.46.

• Battalion Chief Henry Heroux, 53, who earned $73,526.96 before leaving the department, now earns $72,771.14, and,

• Capt. Glen Scowcroft, paid $64,553 before leaving the force, is now earning $63,315.46 in retirement.

None of the figures include the value of city-paid medical and dental coverage until each retiree reaches the age of 65, less employee contributions based on the terms of the tentative agreement Avedisian announced in February. According to the mayor, those same provisions will continue.

"The old contract called for $11 per week co-pay," Avedisian said. "That remains unchanged and is in effect for all four years," he said.Â

Effective July 1 of this year, firefighters have been contributing the weekly sum towards the cost of their medical insurance — the first unionized workers in the city to agree to a co-pay provision.

City Personnel Director Oscar Shelton estimates the co-pay amounts to a firefighter contribution of approximately $47.67 a month. The monthly cost of a Blue Cross policy for individuals Shelton said runs the city $418.71 a month, or a family plan that is $1,024.23 a month.

Shelton noted the tentative accord reached in February also raised the co-pay firefighters would shell out if they were treated in an emergency room from $25 a visit, to $100, describing the increase as an incentive to discourage personnel from using a hospital or walk-in emergency settings rather than first seeking out their own physician for treatment. The difference, Shelton added, is expected to result in "significant savings" for the city.

Torres, who remains confident the city council would never have approved the 80-percent rate even if the mayor introduced the appropriate legislation, criticized the figure and the precedent it would have established for other unions in the city. With the Warwick Police and the municipal employees union prepared to open negotiations soon on new contracts, and the teachers contract still unsettled, Torres feared if the council approved the 80-percent rate other unions would have expected the same, something he emphasized neither the city nor the taxpayers could afford.

Shelton said yesterday that he was among the team that participated in renegotiating the firefighters contract, revealing a shift in the administration's position since he as Personnel Director had not been included in face to face talks that resulted in the mayor's February announcement.

Avedisian commented in a prepared statement, "Oscar Shelton is always part of every contract team that we have — whether he is sitting at the table or not, he is always there to give advice and counsel."

Bringing Shelton to the table this time, remarked Torres, was a "wise move."

Other members of the negotiating team this time around, said Shelton, were the mayor, union President Warren Wright, City Solicitor John Earle and Assistant City Solicitor Diana Pearson who has routinely represents the administration on labor relations issues.

Effective Sept. 18, Avedisian's statement indicated, "no employee shall retire at a percentage higher than 75 percent," a rate the council recently approved, but only after it took the administration nearly three-years to submit the necessary legislation covering terms agreed upon in a multi-year contract that had been in effect since 2002.

In addition to the new, tentative one-year accord, the mayor's release detailed that the proposed three-year agreement that would take effect next July 1 and expire on June 30, 2009, contains 3.5 percent increases for the first two years and a 3.75 percent increase in the last year.

The cost to taxpayers, explained the mayor, would be the percentage increase of each year plus $74,000 per year to bring firefighter longevity payments in parody with other municipal employees. The added costs, the mayor noted, would be offset by approximately $150,000 annually in health insurance savings.

Council President Torres said that Avedisian has not shared any such information with him or, to the best of his knowledge, any members of the city council.

"If history repeats itself we'll get those numbers at the start of the 2006-07 budget hearings," Torres said, frustrated that the mayor, in his opinion has not made detailed contract information public knowledge.

City Councilman Steve Merolla (D-Ward 9), a vocal opponent of the 80-percent pension increase, cited his own example of what he believed was the mayor's lack of public disclosure when he raised a document for the audience to see at the Sept. 19 council meeting, remarking the "chicken scratches" on the document was the only evidence he had that Avedisian even had a tentative agreement with the firefighters.

"The previous contract was meant to encourage veteran members of the department to stay on the job longer, thus reducing costs that would be associated with the salary and benefits of hiring new employees," Avedisian's press release went on to say.

Based on the mayor's reasoning, if a firefighter could be retained for at least 20 years the city saved money by not paying, in this case, a pension equal to 50-percent of the employee's salary, plus their health insurance, in addition to the salary and benefits associated with the hiring of a replacement.

Figures supplied by the city treasurer's office indicate that this fiscal year alone, retirees will receive $10.7 million in pension payments, an amount reflecting both city and employee contributions to one of two retirement funds.

"The Warwick Firefighters' Union looked at the fact that the previous contract negotiated with the city earlier this year was weighted heavily in the city's favor and did not offer our members much opportunity for advancement," commented Warren Wright, whose remarks were included in Avedisian's press statement.

"Accordingly, in light of the City Council's comments, we felt there was no reason to continue and decided to alter our contract language," Wright's statement went on to say. Wright did not return a phone call from the Beacon seeking comment.

Merolla, who sponsored a resolution seeking a temporary restraining order against the continued payout of the 80-percent pension reimbursement issued his own statement last week, applauding Avedisian for his decision to reverse course on what he labeled a "giveaway."

"The mayor can whine; he can call me names; he can question my motives when I challenge him on an issue, but at the end of the day if he backs off a bad deal for the taxpayers because I spoke out, I will continue to do that," Merolla remarked in his statement.

"This was not about politics," Merolla continued. "This was about fiscal responsibility and putting the interests of taxpayers ahead of the special interests and I'm glad the mayor was pushed into reconsidering his position."