HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 97-6 RESOLUTION NO. 9 7—6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING THE CITY'S FINAL POSITION AT IMPASSE
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS,the City of Huntington Beach(City)and the Police Officers Association(POA)met
and conferred on a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) governing their respective obligations and
responsibilities under California Statutory Law and City resolutions, since the expiration of the current
MOU on September 30, 1994; and
After protracted meetings, impasse was declared on 21 issues; and
The matter was referred to Advisory Arbitration pursuant to Resolution 3335, the City's
Employer-Employee Relations Resolution; and
Both the City's and POA's positions were presented to a mutually agreed upon Hearing Officer;
and
On May 6, 1996,the Hearing Officer ruled on the 21 impasse issues as contained in Exhibit 1,
attached hereto; and
The City and the POA both modified their positions,but after additional meetings,could not
reach a final agreement. The City notified POA that it intended to adopt its final position which included
all of the Hearing Officer's recommendations except as enumerated below; and
The City's final position has been presented to the City Personnel Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby unilaterally adopt
the Hearing Officer's recommendations contained in his May 6, 1996 report, attached hereto as Exhibit
1, subject to the following exceptions:
A. The hearing officer's recommendation regarding the creation of a detective pay
status shall not be implemented.
B. The hearing officer's recommendation to continue to provide the City's
supplemental retirement benefit shall not be implemented. The City's proposal to
eliminate the supplemental retirement benefit for new hires shall be implemented
when this cost containment provision is applied to new hires from all bargaining
units.
SECTION 2. The hearing officer's recommendations regarding placing a cap on the City's
contributions toward health, dental and optical insurance benefits, and the establishment of a two tier
1
SFA TCDAesolution:POAImpas
RLS 96-880
1/14/97
Resolution No. 97-6
medical contribution system for new hires shall be implemented when these cost containment provisions
are applied to all bargaining units.
SECTION 3. The hearing officer's recommendation in favor of the City's final proposal
regarding cost containment changes to the City's health plan shall be implemented. Said proposal is set
forth at Sections 2C,2D and 2E of the City's final position as presented to the Hearing Officer.
SECTION 4. Employees who are eligible to receive compensation for hours of overtime worked
shall be paid in cash until such time as the POA and the City reach agreement on a compensatory time
policy consistent with the hearing officer's recommendation.
SECTION 5. The hearing officer's recommendation that the POA be permitted to administer its
own Long Term Disability Insurance program shall be implemented once the City and the POA reach an
agreement on issues regarding administration,reporting and auditing of the program.
SECTION 6. The hearing officer's recommendation that the City implement a random drug
testing program applicable to all sworn officers represented by the POA shall be implemented by the
department with the same safeguards recommended by the hearing officer.
SECTION 7. The Department is hereby authorized to implement the hearing officer's
recommended increase in POA release time bank and the accounting for its usage,the change in
language to clarify the meal allowance rule,and the shift selection/seniority exception changes as edited
by the hearing officer.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular
meeting thereof held on the 2is tday of January , 1997.
gvlei<
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
City Clerk City Attorney /-/(-�7
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I A�SfD jROVED:
j
ity Administrator ilsrA4n ib istrator/
Adm inistrative Services
2
SF/s:PCD:Resolution:POAImpas
RLS 96-880
1/16/97
Resolution No. 97-6
1
FACTFINDING REPORT
In the ?Satter of the Factfinding )
}
--between- )
CITY OF HUN71NGTON BEACH, }
)
the Citv, ) FACTFI2v'DER' S
}
-and- ) FINDINGS, CONCLU-
MJYTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS } SIONS RECO2QN-
ASSOCI.ATION (HBPOA) , ]
} DATI ON S
the Association. )
]
Re: Impasse Factfinding )
Joseph F. Gentile
Factfinder
CABaarNo.- 040180
May 6, 1996
Los Angeles, CA
196050541
EXHIBIT 1
Resolution No. 97-6
HB s HHPOA Factfinding p. 2 of 16
May 6, 1996
BACKGROUND
The City of Huntington Beach (City) and the
Huntington Beach Police Officers Association (HBPOA) have
a Memorandum of Understanding covering wages , hours and
other terms and conditions of employment for about 240
public safety and 40 =iscellaneous employees of the City ' s
Police Department (PD) .
As a result of negotiations leading to a re-
newed Memorandum of Understanding, the City and the EBPO?
reached impasse on certain. items . These items .were then re-
ferred to the factfinding process with the undersigned design-
ated as the Factfinder.
A factfinding hearing was held on Thursday ,
March 14 , 1996, at the City Hall. The City and the EBPOA
presented their respective views and positions on those
issues at impasse. Having reviewed the materials sub=dtted,
this Factfinding Report represents the findings, conclusions
and recammenditions of the Factfinder.
The approach used in this Factfinding Report
will be to address the issues and present a brief sunmary as
to each issue. A recommendation will follow each suamary.
With reference to the factfinding hearing all.
parties were afforded a full and complete opportunity to be
heard.
As a threshold gutter the Factfinder should
note, though the participants to this process were well
Ware, the Factfinder has over twenty-three years of exper-
ience handling all manner, including prior factfindings ,
of disagreements between the City and its represented em-
ployees. This disclosure is made for two reasons: first, to
inform those reading this Report who are not familiar with
this history and, second, to state that the findings and
Resolution No.. 97-6
HB UBPOA Fact€indi.ng p. 3 of 16
May 6, 1996
conclusions expressed are based on the material presented,
though the Factfinder ' s past experience provided insight.
REPRBSEh"'TATIVES FOR PARTIES
For EBPOA: For the City:
Mark Reid Daniel C. Cassidy , Esq.
Peace Officers Counsel of Liebert , Cassidy S Frier-
California son
27315 Jefferson Ave. , 3-217 6033 West Century Blvd.
Temecula, CA 92590 Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90045
696-2327)
I010) 645-6492)
IMPASSE ISSUES
Salary: ^he City proposed that the salary re-
main at "status quo" -- no increase. The BBPOp proposed per-
centage increases for various classifications ranging moron
9: 0% to 10. 75% . The HBPQA further proposed increases in cer-
tain "salary step enhancements and assignment compensation., "
sL'chtas compensation for working "graveyard shift" and extra
compensation for detectives.
Three positions within the PD were used by both
sides as "benchmarks" for salary comparison purposes: Police
Officer , Police Dispatcher and Police Sergeant.
These "benchmark" positions were the: compared
with comparable positions within other Orange County cities.
The City used eleven (11) cities for comparison purposes; how-
ever, the same eleven cities were not used for each of the
positions. The EBPaA used eight (8) cities and the County of
Resolution No. 97-6
BE & HBPOA Factfinding p. 4 of 16
May 6, 1996
Orange for comparison, but £BPOA too did. not use the sane
cities for all three of the positions.
Certain cities were common to all six of the
lists referenced 13 from the City and 3 from the HBPOA) .
Good advocacy dictates that selected cities enhance the
position being argued; however, the absence of one agreed
to list for uniform use as to all three "benchmark" positions
makes factual analysis difficult. From a Factfinder' s per-
spective, the parties should agree on one listing of com-
parable cities.
Compounding this difficulty was the City ' s
use of "total compensation." by position vis-a-vis the WDA' s
use of the top salary step.
Given the general economic climate with its
concomitant impact on the City' s financial obligations as
reflected in the budgetary processes, the Factfinde can
not recommend an increase in salary. This recommendation is
made most reluctantly, for, as the n?POA argued, adjustments
in compensation have not been made since 2992 and the Consumer
Price Index nonetheless shows a percentage increase, albeit a
modest in Crease.
The BBP0A argued that to recruit and retain
a high level of officer- in the PD and continue to maintain
the level of professional service as reflected in the City' s
standing, compensation must be competitive. The Factfinder
must agree with this position; however, when the "tote com-
pensation" package is considered, a competitive position is
being Maintained, but on a very thin line. It reasonably
appeared from the data that the UPDA' s assessment that a
competitive downturn was real or a real possibility enjoyed
factual support. The City should be cognizant of this in the
long-term.
The HBPDA' s proposal contained requests for
salary step enhancements and assignment compensations. These
requests are found in paragraphs 2a , 2b, 2c and 2d of the
Resolution No. 97-6
8B & HBPOA Factfinding P. 5 of 16
May 6, 1996
HBPOA' s April 21 , 1995 letter to the City.
These requests have been fully considered
and no chawe will be recommended as to paragraphs 2a , 2c
and 2d. As to paragraph 2n, "detective compensation, the
data indicated that some referenced cities have provided
for this additional compensation for officers assigned to
perform this function; other cities do not. The City argued
that the major cities do not provide for this torn of com-
pensation. The HBPOA requested additional compensation
equalling 7. 51; however, the iactfinder would recommend
only a 2. 5% "detective compensation. "
Retirement Issues: Paragraph 3a of the
"TPOA's April 21, 1995 letter was withdrawn. With reference
to paragraph 3b the i ac tfinder would recommend section 2t of
the City ' s vroDosal be ado}^.ted.
Miscellaneous Issues: Paragraphs 4 , 5, 6
and 7 of the HBPOA' s April 21 , 1995 letter addressed four
d0 erent topics. Eaving considered these paragraphs, the
aactfinaer would not recommend the chances as requested in
paragrarhs 4 , 5 and f]. As 4o paragraph 7 , this was with-
drawn.
Health and Velfare Benefits: Paragraph B
of the EMA' s April 21, 1595 letter proposed certain changes
in this benefit area. The City' s section 2 covered this same
area.
Paragraphs Sa and Sc ask that }she City con-
tinue payment of any increases in health. insurance benefits
and the Dental and Optical Programs respectively. in section
2X of the City' s proposal the City desired to "cap" these
plans at the 1996 premium rates as a "cost containment" measure.
The ractfinder need not restate the reasons for "cost contain-
ment" in the health care field as health care costs continue
to increase.
Resolution No. 97-6
EB s HBPOA Factfinding p. 6 of 16
May 6 , 1996
The available data indicates that cities with
the high monthly maximums all provide for some level of em-
ployee contribution. The referenced cities are all within
Orange County and appear on the various comparative salary
lists noted ante. The exception to this employee participation
is this City. The next lowest city in terms of the maximirn
monthly contribution also has no employee contribution; how-
ever, that monthly contribution is $44 . 00 less than currently
(as of February ' 96) paid by the City.
It reasonably appears that medical , dental
and vision plans in the City are ripe for the proposed "can" ;
thus , the Factfinder would recommend that the Cit ' s section
2A proposal be adopted. This is a difficult recommendation
given the absence of any salary increase; however, the sit-
uation reasonably appears to justify this proposal.
?rmplic t in making this proposal , the HBPOA' s
proposals found in paragraphs 8a and Sc are not accepted.
The granting of this proposal, however , should
be contingent upon its application to all employees of the City.
The members of the n3POA should not be "hung-out-to-dry" or
this one !
The City' s second proposal in this area , section
23, recommends a form of a two-tier medical contribution system
which impacts "new employees. " Though two-tier systems raise
the specter of disparate treatment, two factors weigh for the
adoption of section 23: first, the "new employees" will be well
aware of this condition of employment before taking a position
with the City and, second, the two-tier approach has a schedule
which will lead to its demise. It appears to be a transitional
devise.
Therefore, the Factfinder would recommend that _
the City' s section 2B be adopted, but with the same contingency
as noted ante.
Resolution No. 97-6
HB HBPOA Factfinding p. 7 of 16
May 6, 1996
Paragraph Bb of the HBPOA' s April 21 , 1995
letter asks that long term disability benefits be provided.
In considering this proposal the Factfinder is aware of
a parallel benefit enjoyed by members of the Fire Department;
therefore , the Factfinder would recommend that the members
of the HBPOA receive the same benefit enjoyed by the Fire
Department in this area.
With reference to the Citv' s proposals found
in sections 2C, 2D and 2E, the Factfinder would recommend
that they be adopted as thev refer to only the City' s health
elan
No recor endation is made as to paragraph 8d
Of the HBPCs' s April 21, 19Q5 , proposal.
Self-Ptanded Supplemental. Retirement Benefits:
The City proposed in section 3 that a two-tier approach be
taken as to Supplemental Retirement Benefits. The tiers
would be composed of current employees and new employees
who would be exempted from this benefit.
As a general proposition two-tiering employees
f-Dr wages, benefits or other terms and con d3t'_ons of em-r!Oy-
ment is not a recommended approach unless there is a reasonable
time when the differentiation ceases -- an-ascertainable ter-
rinal date. This proposal Fails to have this feature. Absent
this feature, two-tiering is generally employed when draconian
measures are demanded. Though there is a cost benefit to the
City as to this proposal, on balance the Factfinder can not
recommend the adovtion of section 3
Vacation Issues: Vacation issues were raised
in .paragraphs 9 and 10 of the HBPOA' s April 21, 1995 letter.
These proposals were withdrawn.
Holidays: Paragraph 11 of the HBPOA's April
21, 1995, letter requests that eac h holiday be based an the
Resolution No. 97-6
HB t HBPOA Factfinding p. 8 of 16
May 6, 1996
rate of ten hours. Currently Article VIY.B of the Memorandum
of Understanding provides for eight. This has a cost impact
and, as a natter of priority , the Factfinder felt detective
compensation, a new salary enhancement, 5hold receive any
available funds .
Presidential Release Time: Paragraph 12 of
the HBPOA' s April 21, 1996 , letter proposed the President
of the HBPOA be relieved of regular duty and paid by the City
during his terns of office as President. This proposal has
a direct cost impact and removes an Wiper from service.
This type of provision must be considered in tandem with
the City' s section 4A proposal regarding "Association Bank
Time" found in Exhibit B to the Memorandum of Understanding.
The EBPOA currently receives 800 hours a year
of bank tine to be used for HBPOA business. There is also
a carry over of up to 200 hours of unused time a year. The
data indicates that the HBPOA carried over 122 hour V froM
fiscal year 94/95.
There is also in place a "less-than.-one-hour"
practice. This means that "less-than-one-hour" is not
deducted from the HBPOA' s "Bank Time. " The City would like
to remove this practice and modify the language of Exhibit
B to eliminate the word 'substantial' from Section A of
Exhibit B. As a form of quid pro quo the City proposed
some increase in the "Bank Time. "
Saving considered both proposals (paragraph 12
and section 4A) the Factfinder would recommend that the HBPOA' s
"Bank Time" be increased to 1000 hours a Year and that "all
time' be included. This eliminates the "less-than-one-hour"
practice and the word 'substantial' from Section A of Exhibit
B. it reasonably appeared this would meet the representational
demands on the HBPOA. Additionally, the carry over should be
increased to 250 hours of unused time a year.
Resolution No. 97-6
EB t HBPOA Pactfinding p. 9 of 16
May 6, 1996
Representational Unit/Class: Paragraph 14
of the HBPOA' s April 21 , 1995 letter proposed a sweeping
change when it called for Article II.B be deleted in its
entirety from the Memorandum of Understanding. Paren-
thetically, the second and third paragraphs of paragraph
14 were withdrawn.
Article II.B addresses unit ;codification and
certain procedures associated with such modification. Having
fully considered this proposal the iactfirder would not
recommend any changes in Article II.B.
Meal Allowance: Section 4 .B of the City' s
proposal requested changes in Article $I9.A of the Memorandum
of Understanding_. The argument supporting the language
changes rests on the conclusion that the current language
is confusing and lends itselt to misinterpretation. The
Pactfinder would agree the language is not very artful and
can create confusion.
Having considered this proposal the Factfinder
would recommend the chances wroposed by the City as to Article
XIV.A. It reasonably appears , as the City argued, that these
proposed language changes would clarify peal reimbursements
and eliminate confusion.
Parenthetically, no change in the amounts
reflected in Article XIV.A.2 is recommended and none were
apparently proposed.
Term of M.O.D. : Section 4C of the City' s
proposal requested additional language be placed in Article
1 of the Memorandum of Understanding which would allow "meet
and confer" meetings between the City and EBPOA on issues
not specifically covered by existing provisions of the Memorandum
of Understanding.
Article 1 is a combination provision which
expresses the term of the Memorandum of Understanding and,
Resolution No. 97--6
HB z BBPOA Factfinding p. 10 of 16
May 6, 1996
at the sa:,ne tine, seems to serve as a "whole agreement/zipper
clause" tti-pe of provision.
The City proposal would open dialogue in the
"meet and confer" context as to "issues not specifically covered
by existing provisions of the M. O.U. upon request of the de-
partment. " If such a provision would be recommended by the
Factfindew it must be a two-way clause allowing either side to
request a meet and confer on items not covered in the current
Memorand-o-m of Understanding. The City acknowledged in its
data that this should be the situation.
Article 1 is designed to avoid what has been
described by some in the field as the "continuing negotiations
syndrome" where finality and closure of matters are unattain-
able. No Factfinder would recommend such a possibil—ity; how-
ever, the City' s proposal is narrow in scope and would allow
only i55L'ES not specificall]� covered by eXi s ting pr^:risions
to reach a "meet and confer" table.
isavinr considered this proposal the Factfinder
would recormiend that this proposal_ be Q_ra;%ted if it is clear?v
restricted in this manner: first , it is a two-wav Droyis-on
and second, only issues "not specifically covered by existing
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding" would be allowed
to reach the "meet and confer" table.
Overtime & Co=>ensatory Time: Section 4D
of the City' s proposal requests that the current language
of Article IX.C.1 be changed. The rationale for this pro-
posed change was extensive and having considered this pro-
posal the Factfinder would recommend the changes as reflected
in City n_onosa? 4D.
PTO Compensation: Section 4E of the City' s
proposal requests certain language changes to Article QII.I
of the Memorandum of Understanding. Having considered this
proposal the Factfinder would not recommend this chance be
made. Under the circumstances the Factfinder simply could
not add another "take-away" in the Reportl
Resolution No. 97-6
HB EBPOA Factfinding P. 11 of 16
may 6, 1996
Court Standby Time: Section 4F of the City ' s
proposal requests certain language be added to Article 1X.
C.3 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Having considered
this proposal the Factfinder would not recommend this chance
be made.
Shift Selection/Seniority Exceptions: Section
41 of the City' s proposal would add new language to Article
IX. This language would call for four exceptions when shift
bidding is conducted in accordance with seniority by rank.
All shift bidding in the Ur.i fo_-n Division,
Patrol Bureau, is done on a seniority basis. The data in-
dicates that there are three shift changes a year and, other
than probationary officers in training, all shifts and squads
are bid by seniority.
Section 41 would add exceptions for training
reeds, supervisory cancerr.s , probationary employees and
staffing concerns. The latter, "staffing Concerns, " is too
broadly drafted and provides a basis, if discretion is abused,
for the erosion of the seniority approach. therefore, the
Factfinder will recommend t�7at the proposed lanauaae be
adouted , but for naraaraoh E.4 .
Coamitment to Area Cow d: Section 4J of the
City' s proposal would add language which mandated that Officers
be omitted to their selected area for a minixm m of one year.'
The basis for this proposa2 rests in the PD' s desire to trans-
ition into community-oriented policing (COP) .
There is considerable merit to this proposal;
however, before this Factfinder would recommend this more data
would be required relative to the current work area changes
under the current terms of the Memorandums of Understanding.
Are Officers changing work areas that often? Do the current
work area changes present a problem to COP' s implementation?
Therefore, the Factfinder would not recommend this change at
this time , but Would reco=nend this change if the current
Resolution No. 97-6
EB S WPOA Pactfinding P. 12 of 16
May 6 , 1996
work area changes actually impede the implementation of the
COP program.
Special Assignment Rotation: Section 4A of the
City' s proposal would mandate that special assignments be
limited to a maximum of five years except when departmental
needs require an extension of time.
The data indicated that with the exception of
the Special Enforcement Bureau, there is no limit as to how
long officers may be assigned to special assignments ouiside
the Uniform Patrol Bureau. Part of the rationale for this
change was the ability to create movement and enhance experience
for the Officers.
The data did not demonstrate that the absence
of such a mandated limitation created efficiency and effective-
ness issues with the PD' s staff. There is always a 'strong
reluctance to mandate changes when the data fails to persuasively
establish a real need exists for such action. The Factfinder
did not find such a need in the data; thus:, the ►actfinder will
nbt recommend this vroDosal be adopted.
Call Back: Section. 4M of the. City' s proposal
would add language to Article IX.C.7 which would commence
compensation when an employee is called back 'at the time the
employee reports for work as his/her duty assignment.'
In support of this proposal the City cited to
situations where employees were compensated on overtime while
taking showers before making an one-half to one hour compute
to the City to commence work. Under the current approach
abuse is possible: and , as some of the examples indicate, abuse
has taken puce. officers choose where they live and must
assure both the burdens and benefits of such a choice.
Absent from the data was the cost impact of
the current approach and absent this information the Fact-
Resolution. No. 97-6
HB & HHPOA Factfinding p_ 13 of 16
May 6, 1996
finder is without sufficient data to make an informed
recommendation on a significant and substantial change in
the manner in which call back compensation is handled.
sactfinders are generally hesitant to recommend major changes
to solve abuses, unless the abuses have crossed the Rubicon
of reasonableness.
Therefore, the Factfinder will not recommend
this nr000sal be granted at this time; however , in making
this recommendation, it should be understood that it is
not condoning abuses of Article I%_C_7.
Take Home Vehicles: Section. 4N of the City ' s
proposal would correct what the rD has characterized as
abuses of the 25-ile radius relative to Administrative
Regulation 604. The data suggests certain Officers have
circumvented the 25-mile role and this in turn has created
"favoritism and unfair practice" within the PD.
The 25-mile rule is clear and must be con-
sistently and uniformly applied. Exceptions would fall with-
in the PD' s discretion and abuse of this discretion should
be handled accordingly.
This issue is a real issue; however, the
actfinder will not make any formal recommendations in this
regard for three primary reasons: first, it can be handled
administratively; second, it is simply not ripe for fact-
finding and, third, correcting abuses as stated above is
not the role of the =actfinder unless it is demonstrated that
the abuses have crossed the Rubicon of reasonableness.
Therefore, the ractfinder will make no recommend-
ation as to Section 4N.
Alcobol and Controlled Substance Testing Policy:
Section. 5 of the City ' s proposal requests random drug testing
R6solution No. 97-6
HB t HBPOA Factfinding P- 14 of 16
may 6 , 1996
for all employees represented by the HBPOA. The rationale
for such an approach in law enforcement is most persuasive
and not easily attacked; however , safeguards must be pro-
vided. The draft Administrative Regulation appended to
the Section 5 proposal attempts to address these safeguards.
Bowever, before recommending this proposal
the Factfinder must express concern as to these aspects,
for to meet the fairness and reasonableness tests in admin-
istering random alcohol and controlled sub-stance testing ,
these safeguards should be in place:
1) a control procedure to ensure that the
"random" character is truly ":andom' ;
3} a safeguard to prevent abuses relative
to the number of "random" tests on a yearly basis; the
percentages reflected in the draft Administrative Regulation
in Section 8_3 as applied to all ESPOA-represented personnel
appear unreasonable;
3} an opportunity for an eu:p?ogee with a
"positive reading" after a random test to clear his/her
system in order to successfully pass a test and return to
service; an appropriate and reasonable disci-.�?inary approach
should be articulated; and
4) a clearly articulated cu_deline to ensure
the integrity and protocol of the sample taxing, chain of
custody , including the testing (and confirmation if positive) ,
and test result analysis by a certified and independent
lab.
kith the above safeguards , the Factfinder would
recommend random testing as requested.
Fleet Management Proposal: Section 6 of the
City' s proposal requests that a representative of the HBPOA
Resolution No. 97-6
HB L HBPOA Factfinding p. 15 of 16
riay 6, 1996
be assigned to a City committee that will prepare a com-
pzehensive fleet management program for all City depart-
ments.
Factfinder_ avoid becoming entangled in the
internal affairs of either an employee: organization or the
management of a city. Facially, this proposal asks this
Factfinder recommend that the HBPOA assign a representative
to a City policy-making committee. This seers to be an
inappropriate entanglement.
The Factfinder was also concerned as to the
role and impact of this assignment on the "B'BPOA, namely, if
the representative to the committee states or agrees with
some issue, is the HBPOA legally or administratively *bound
by the statement or agreement of this representative. is
the rose advisory?
In amy event, the Factfinder will not recommend
this proposal be adovted; however, this should not be read as
encouragement to avoid participation, for it appears such
participation would be of considerable assistance if the
representational role is more clearly defined.
RECORDATION
The recommendations of the Factfinder were inter-
woven into the text of the Report; thus, they will not be re-
iterated. Some were conditional; however, the data and circum-
stances reasonably appear to dictate this approach.
All of the primary proposals were addressed and
any not identified above should be considered as a "not recommend-
In ;Waking the recommendations the Factfinder
should reiterate that the City ' s economic and financial. posture
Resolution No. 97-6
EB & HBPOA Factfinding p. 16 of 16
May 6, 1996
greatly influenced the recoanendations , for it is indeed un-
fortunate that a salary status quo and a "cap" on certain
health benefits be recommended at the same time; however,
the data supported the recommendations made.
'Rec ctfully submitted,
Jo u F. Gentile
Fac fi 'er
JFG:kk
May 6, 1996
Los Angeles, G_A
19605054)
Res.No. 97-6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January, 1997 by the following
vote:
AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green
NOES: Julien, Garofalo
ABSENT: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resolutJresbkpg/96-100