.
Feedback

New London Council Approves Fire Union Agreement; Layoffs Rescinded [VIDEO]

Councilors vote 4-2 to ratify agreement after it is amended to add safeguards on Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System contributions

The City Council voted Thursday to ratify a tentative agreement with New London Firefighters Local 1522, ending a months-long stalemate on the issue.

The council voted 4-2 to approve the agreement, with Councilor Adam Sprecace changing his vote to support the terms after they were amended to specify the leve of bargaining in the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System. Mayor Daryl Finizio said 24 layoffs—which would have gone into effect next week if a court did not extend an injunction granted to the union—will be rescinded.

“We have always known through this process that we have an amazing fire department, one of the best around, and we’re very proud of our firefighters,” said Mayor Daryl Finizio. “We’re very glad that this could be resolved both through our negotiations and through tonight’s vote of the City Council. I hope everyone can breathe a great sigh of relief and that everyone in the department can get back to work.”

Receive updates to this story and other breaking news in your inbox or smartphone by signing up for our newsletter here

The terms of the agreement which remain unchanged from the document initially presented to councilors include:

  • A reduction in the minimum manning levels per shift from 18 to 16
  • The permanent elimination of one fire inspector’s position through attrition, and the agreement that hiring levels in the are “solely within the discretion of the city”
  • The promise that no layoffs will occur in the department through the end of Finizio’s first term in office in 2015
  • A transfer of the department’s retirement plan from a 401(a) to a MERS pension, with an estimated processing time of six months for the move
  • A union forfeiture of a total of 4.25 percent in pay increases in 2012 fiscal year, with two percent pay increases occurring at the beginning of fiscal years 2013 through 2015.

According to an amended agreement signed Tuesday between Chief Administrative Officer Jane Glover and union president Rocco Basilica, the parties agree that if contributions to the MERS plan by the city increase to 18.5 percent or higher or decrease to 12.5 percent or lower, they will “bargain the impact of that increase or decrease only.” This bargaining would be subject to binding arbitration via the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

Council and union reactions

Sprecace said he considered that were immediate savings under the original agreement, but that he did an independent cost-assessment analysis and determined that it was “financially a wash” for long-term savings.

“My concern with that original agreement had always been that there was no protection for the city against potential cost increases as a result of the MERS program,” he said.

Sprecace said he did not believe the amended agreement set the exact conditions he was seeking, but that it did provide protection to the taxpayers. He said the agreement would also provide savings in the short term by allowing some older firefighters to retire, with younger firefighters who would be paid at a lower salary taking their place.

Sprecace joined Council President Pro Tempore Wade Hyslop and Councilors Don Macrino and Anthony Nolan, who previously voted to support the original agreement. Councilors Marie-Friess McSparran and John Maynard remained opposed, with Friess-McSparran saying she was concerned about the effect the transfer to a pension system would have on the taxpayers.

“No bonding, that’s what I would have preferred to see,” she said.

Basilica said he was proud of the department’s continued effectiveness through the uncertainties over the agreement.

“I just want to thank the mayor’s staff and the councilors who supported us,” he said. “We certainly won’t forget that.”

Meeting legality

There was a brief disagreement at the start of the meeting over whether or not Friess-McSparran would be present for an executive session to discuss the agreement and the subsequent vote, as she was absent for the roll call. Maynard said she would be able to join the conversation and vote via phone, but Hyslop said she would only be able to do the former.

“Then I won’t attend either, because this is an illegal meeting,” Maynard replied.

Glover interjected to say that Friess-McSparran was on her way to the meeting, and the meeting adjourned briefly until she arrived. Friess-McSparran was present for the 20-minute executive session.

Prior to the session, Maynard also questioned whether the meeting had been properly called. He asked whether Council President Michael Passero could call a special meeting, since he is a firefighter who has recused himself from discussions and votes on the agreement.

Law Director Jeff Londregan said Finizio and Passero each have the ability to call special meetings of the council, but they are not required to preside over the meetings.

End of a stalemate

The issue of layoffs in the New London Fire Department has gone back and forth between the mayor’s office and City Council for two and a half months. Finizio said on May 17 that Fire Chief Ron Samul informed him that under the , it would be necessary to and leave five vacant positions unbudgeted. Finizio said Glover would negotiate with the union to seek a solution that would avoid layoffs.

At the third reading of the budget on May 30, the council . These reduced some salaries in the mayor’s office and eliminated funding for other administrative positions, including the deputy police chief, director of the , assistant city clerk, risk manager, and Finizio’s office manager.

Finizio on June 13, saying it overestimated revenues and defunded “critical administrative positions.” On the same day, he announced that the administration had reached a tentative agreement with the union. The council on June 19 but also restored funding to the administrative positions, in part by taking money back out of the fire department budget.

The council vote on whether to approve the agreement on July 2. Opponents to the plan said they had not had sufficient time to review the agreement and wanted assurances that the city would see long-term savings with a switch to a pension plan. The council voted unanimously on July 16 to .

Finizio , with were set to go into effect on July 3, after the first vote. After the decision to table, he said the layoffs would have to go into effect the next day in order for the fire department to stay within its budget. The union acquired an injunction from the to prevent the layoffs, and they were once until a court hearing on the issue. The hearing was scheduled for Monday morning.

 

Original breaking news:

The City Council voted 4-2 this evening to ratify a tentative agreement with New London Firefighters Local 1522, ending a months-long stalemate on the issue.

Councilor Adam Sprecace, who previously opposed the agreement, voted to support an amended version specifying bargaining for the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System.

Mayor Daryl Finizio said 24 layoffs set to take effect next week if an agreement was not approved will be rescinded.

A full story will be posted this evening.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from New London Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Doc Halliday May 19, 2013 at 08:23 am
Should the general public be required to support the retirement of our elected/hired governmentRead More officials? Should those retirement checks be based on base salary and not base salary plus overtime/extra pay/bonuses etc? Should ALL government officials be on a 401 system instead of a government (public supported) retirement system? ie: government official retires at 95% pay, in a few years with cost of living increases that official is making more in retirement than when working. The public cannot afford to continue such high retirements. Social Security is being tapped by government officials to pay OTHER items rather than for what it was intended and future retirees who contributed to SS may be left out.
Richard Waselik May 19, 2013 at 06:02 am
The general public would not be supporting anyone. This is funded by those that contribute. I amRead More glad you and your wife are able to retire off of social security and what ever savings you were able to put together. But, unfortanately, there will probably not be enough when others are eligible to retire, even though every paycheck we have put in without being asked. Now, some other solution needs to be developed. This is one.
Zak Leavy May 18, 2013 at 10:45 am
Rich, Great blog and I couldn't agree more. American workers have a right to retire with dignityRead More and SB 54 takes another step to make that a reality. This bill is a common sense solution to the problem that many workers face as they near retirement. Considering the analysis of the bill shows only an extremely low, one-time, cost then hopefully that will be enough to have both chambers pass it.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 07:44 am
Pretty funny Spencer. But you don't want a museum there. You need something that generates taxes.Read More Museums are mostly non-profit thereby not generating any taxes. I know you were being funny. I was disgusted to read the developer couldn't show financial backing.
Kathleen Mitchell May 17, 2013 at 05:47 pm
Who would haveever thought of Wasp Spray? When you get the case of spray, be sure and drop a can offRead More at my house;>)
Jeff Brown May 17, 2013 at 03:46 pm
Good article, gonna have to pick up a case of wasp spray!
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Barbara, I agree with you. But it is probably a lot easier to get an illegal social security numberRead More than we would know. There are two ways of looking at this issue, but my resentment is that I have to pay for them.
Barbara Crocker May 17, 2013 at 07:52 am
But for state aid they would have to have a Social Security number. Bending and breaking laws isRead More how they got here in the first place. The fact that elected officials condone and encourage these laws to be broken is the biggest problem that I have with this whole debacle. "Undocumented residents" place a burden on all of us, and take jobs that could be worked by legal residents. Employers hire illegals (yes I prefer calling them what they are, to hell with being politically correct) because it saves them money, not because "no one else would work these jobs". This is a slap in the face to all of our ancestors who came to this country and followed the rules to become citizens.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 06:51 am
The way things have been going in the eastern part of the United States, as long as the illegals areRead More not breaking the law criminally (motor vehicle is different), they are not arrested for being illegal. Its the illegal immigrants who break the law, such as the large drug bust recently in the papers. As long as they are minding their own business, they get a pass. The only problem I have with illegals is their rush to get on state aid, food stamps, etc. I don't think we should have to support those that choose to live in this country illegally. Becoming a US citizen is not cheap. It is expensive, but it is something that they must work for.
Spencer May 16, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Perhaps because people who vote continue to vote the same way they have for years--and expect to getRead More different results when they do so?
Carol Haley May 15, 2013 at 05:05 pm
Sounds like a bunch of goobledygook to me. And Sue, the Democrats being divided isn't anything newRead More as well as the backstabbing and bs. It's been going on for years. That is one of the reasons I changed to independent a long time ago. I'm presently a Democrat, but changing back to independent as soon as I can get down there.
Felicia Hendersen May 15, 2013 at 09:00 am
Bravo Sue P. And Kathleen I changed the word from "her" to "his". Why shouldRead More people not question the motives of the city council president?
Sue P. May 15, 2013 at 08:53 am
Glad to here that Felicia, I sure hope that you are who you are and not the HE I was told you are.Read More Now is the time to work together and not pick each other apart like the Administration is doing to the Democrat Town Committee.You should see how divided they are and all the back stabbing and bickering that goes on. I say stay clear of that group.
William Desmond May 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I must say this has created quite a stir!
Luis Smart May 14, 2013 at 07:04 am
I agree Richard argyle sweaters would have really made it. It is really sad Michael Passero has goneRead More to the dark side and has aligned himself with the administration rather than the people of the city. The one time high vote getter will be all done in November.
Richard Cranium May 13, 2013 at 10:26 pm
I think it is pretty funny although they should be wearing argyle vest sweaters!