1975/01/1974-5 7
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 19, 19741 10:00 A,M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular
Session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M, Farrens
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry 0. McRae
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order and announced this Adjourned
Regular Meeting of the City Council was for the purpose of hearing a
presentation by the Anaheim Police Association and called for anyone
wishing to address the Council to come forward to the microphone.
Mr. Steve Warren Solomon, 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor,
Westwood, California, Attorney representing the Anaheim Police Association,
stated it was his understanding that this was to be a meeting with the City
Council in Executive Session to discuss the wage dispute between the Police
Association and the City of Anaheim and asked why this was not the case.
Mayor Dutton advised that a member of the Police Association with
authority to speak, did request an Executive Session, but the Council felt it
would serve no purpose because of the apparent lack of communication between
the Association Bargaining Unit and the Membership, therefore, a public hearing
of this nature was offered.
Mr. Solomon advised the Anaheim Police Association would consider
this meeting an act of bad faith on the part of the City Council if any of the
following would happen:
1. The Bargaining Unit of the Police Association is composed of
Sergeants and Patrolmen and he noted there were same ranking department members
present who have already received a pay raise and who are not members of the
Bargaining Unit.
2. The question of a vote on any presentation could only take place
after due notice has been given by the Police Association to all members of the
Bargaining Unit, and a vote called for at an appropriate time and place. There-
fore, they would not consider this meeting an opportunity for a vote because
no such notice was given their membership nor an offer presented to them.
3. Additionally, he referred to a meeting held about two months
ago with the Personnel Director at which time they informed Mr. McRae that the
Association ,had voted down the City's last offer and he indicated that the
City's position had not changed and that he had received no additional direc-
tion or instructions. Mr. Solomon asked if there has been a change in the
terms of direction and negotiating given to the Personnel Director.
Mayor Dutton advised that the Council has never been informed why
the Association turned down the package that was agreed upon in the negotiation
session and it was his understanding that the Personnel Director did not really
know either.
Mr. Solomon stated, if it's the Council's position. that they don't.
know why the Association voted down the offer, he assumed the purpose of this
meeting was to receive another proposal from the Association in terms of what
they are asking for.
Mayor Dutton felt this meeting could be an opportunity for the
Association to state their position and perhaps the issues could be clarified.
Mr. Solomon stated that the Association would not bargain publicly,
but if the Council would meet in the back roam for an hour the Police Associa-
tion would so indicate to each member of the Council and .Staff and this dispute
could probably be resolved.
74-58
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIh MINUTES -January 19, 1974, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Dutton replied this fs not a negotiating or bargaining meeting,
but because of the tremendous lack of knowledge on the part of all of the people
concerned, it is an effort to publicly clarify the issues involved.
Mr. Solomon did not agree there was a lack of communication because
for the past three months the press, TV and radio have adequately covered the
issues, both the offer of the City and the position of the Anaheim Police Associ-
ation. That their membership has always been fully informed and if there was a
lack of communication it may be on the part of the Council through their Staff.
But to set the record straight, Mr. Solomon stated that the simple non-mathemati-
cal situation in terms of wages, is that the Police Department wants to be paid
the highest in the County.
Mayor Dutton felt that if the issues were clarified it would be evident
that the Anaheim Police Association Membership would be the highest paid ~.n the
County. That the problem apparently lies in the lack of ability on the part of
the Association's key people to disseminate the information to their membership.
Mr. Solomon stated he took issue with that point, and felt that was a
direct derogatory remark about the negotiating team, as the Board of Directors
and Negotiating Team have been fully informed of the premises and have probably
held more meetings with their membership than the Council has with their Staff
over this issue. He was of the opinion, if a comparison of the actual benefits
of all of the other cities involved was done jointly by the Council Staff and
the Association Team, the results would be shocking. That one of the problems
has been that the data requested by Council has been done by Mr. McRae and his
Staff with no knowledge on the Association's part and no way to verify the fig-
ures that were used. Mr. Solmon stated again, so there would be no misunder-
standing, that the Anaheim Police in terms of dollars as to compensation, want
to be paid the highest in the County.
Mayor Dutton stated that was exactly the position of the Council, that ~.,,
the Association Members would be the highest paid in total compensation than any
other department in the County.
Mr. Solomon reported that in looking at only the dollar compensation
figure, and not other benefits as they would have to do a detailed study of each
city's benefits, that as of April 1, 1974, a Santa Ana Patrolman at top step
will be making $1,203.00 per month compared to the figure of $1,076.00 per month
the Anaheim Patrolman at top step is receiving today.
Mayor Dutton advised that this Council considers total compensation
received by each employee to include fringe benefits not just the take-home pay.
Mr. Solomon again stated that if the elected officials of the City
would sit down with them at the bargaining table on a give and take basis, he
was sure the dispute could be resolved. He noted that the City has not changed
its position for the past three months and that he assumed the Council was aware
of the definite morale factor problems and split in the Police Department.
Mayor Dutton stated he thought this would be the purpose of a hearing,
the Association Members could state their position and the Council could give
some clarification of the issues. That. the Council was not there to negotiate
any more than Mr. Solomon was because they both knew the procedures on that.
Mr. Solomon stated the clarification of the issues is that the Associa-
tion members want to be paid in terms of compensation the highest in the County.
He advised there were also some additional points. That if those present were not
"negotiating" he assumed the purpose of this meeting was to allow the Council to
hear that the membership is unhappy and to hear that the offer that was made to
them was voted down by the membership,
Mayor Dutton stated it was also to hear why they were unhappy and to
give the Council an opportunity to respond and to clarify the issue for the gen-
eral public.
74-59
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets), Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974, 10:00A.M.
Mr. Solomon pointed out that since negotiations began between the
City and the Anaheim Police Association there has been a 45% increase in the
price of gasoline alone, that inflation has caused prices of all goods upwards
to the pu~.nt where the policemen do not have enough money to buy some of the
basic necessities of life. He stated that there is a question of credibility
when the City Council is telling the Police Association Members that they are
the highest paid police patrolmen in the County, and they themselves know that
they are not.
Mr. Solomon requested a show of hands to indicate whether the A.P.A.
Members present felt they were the highest paid police officers in the County,
and a majority of those present indicated they thought they were not. Further
he requested a show of hands to indicate whether the Members present would
change their minds if the City Council gave them facts and figures to show what
their status is in relationship to other policemen in the County and a majority
indicated that this would not change their minds.
Mr. Solomon stated that the following are additional areas which are
of concern to the A„P.A. and are in need of some amendment:
1. There is a problem with the educational incentive program in that
the A.P.A, position is that once the officer has attained his educational pre-
mium, it should not be possible for administration to take this away from him
arbitrarily.
2, Any contract which the A.P.A. may enter should expire on June 30,
1974 and not in the middle of the Fall.
3. The A.P.A, questions whether a long term contract such as was
offered would be beneficial to them.
4. The A.P.A. resents the recriminations against certain of their
members, in which they have been interrogated regarding their activities, as
well as that the Police Department has issued orders that the situation cannot
be discussed on the job and that bumper stickers could not be displayed on brief
cases, etc. They would request that this type of activity cease and desist.
Further the question of firing and terminations of Members of the A.P.A. E xecu-
tive Board and/or Negotiating Team is of concern to them.
The Mayor asked if any other Member of the A.P.A. or representative
thereof was desirous of being heard; there being no response, offered the floor
to Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel Director.
Mr. Garry McRae .advised that he certainly did not wish to negotiate
with Mr. Solomon at this time and in this setting. He stated that he proposed
to make a short presentation which would attempt to clarify the City's position
by presenting some data regarding policemen's salaries in other cities, as well
as to review the basic Anaheim wage package as it was offered. in October of
1973. He remarked that although this may be repetitious it would serve to place
the offer made by the City of Anaheim in prespective.(a series of transparencies
were utilized by Mr. McRae to present the comparison data, complete set of which
are on f i le in the o f f ice o f the City C lerk~ .
The first transparency compared the dollar amounts of .police patrol-
men's salaries in 21 cities within the State of California with a population
over 100,000. This indicates the City of Anaheim to be 19th with the current
dollar amount of salary (without the 6 3/4% increase offered in October, 1973).
When the dollar amount resulting from the wage offer of October 19, 1973 is
included, the City of Anaheim patrolmen pay range ($1,149.at top step) then
ranks between Santa Ana and Garden Grove in the number 12 position. Mr. McRae
pointed out that salary figures used in this comparison are a benchmark and do
not reflect the actual wages paid since over 70% of the City of Anaheim police
patrolmen who have attained top step are receiving premium pay. Further he
noted that these premiums were bargained for previously and reflect detective
and hazard pay which is most likely also paid in the other jurisdictions used
in the comparison.
In discussion of this comparison, Mr. McRae explained that the City
of Santa Ana is shown in position No. 11 with g top step salary of $1,162 per
month. However they are scheduled pursuant to a two-year old agreement to re-
ceive a rate change effective April 1, 1974 to $1, 200 per month (an increase of 3%) .
74-60
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974, 10.00 A.M.
Mr. Solomon commented on the fact that only cities with population
over 100,000 were used in this comparison and inquired what position Anaheim
would hold if all of the cities in the State were used. He noted that according
to the A.P,A, investigation, Anaheim, which is the 8th largest city in the State
population-wise, in terms of compensation for policemen is 77th in the State.
Mr. McRae responded that the situation to which Mr. Solomon refers ~--...
reflects a certain quality of regionalness in that certain cities, for example,
those smaller cities adjacent to San Francisco and Oakland, which although lower
in population density, are directly tied to San Francisco as far as compensation
to police officers is concerned. He advised that the Personnel Department has
made a great effort to determine how the study by the A.P.A. was conducted and
the sources of the statistics, however this was not successful. He related that
it is their best quess that with the proposed increase which brings dollar com-
pensation at "E" step to $1,149 per month, the Anaheim salary would place•15,
20 or 25 in this State-wide comparison.
Mr. Solomon interjected that he was concerned that this dialogue re-
presented, to some extent, a form of negotiation, and again offered to meet
privately with Mr. McRae, if he would be given some authority, and/or with mem-
bers of the Council to resolve the dispute.
Councilman Pebley, noting that the patrolmen at top step cost the City
of Santa Ana s total of $1,381 per month including his benefits, of which he
takes home $1,162 and a patrolman at equal step with the proposed increase would
cost the City of Anaheim a total of $1,551 per month including benefits of which
he would take home $1,149, suggested that perhaps the City should consider a re-
duction or removal of the fringe benefits in an attempt to enable the patrolmen
to recover a higher dollar amount of his wages each month, to be spent as he
chooses. Councilman Pebley stated that if this is what the police officers would
like, he would be in favor of it, since he personally has always preferred to
manage his own money . --.~
Mr. McRae ~'eplied that there are certain benefits such as retirement
and workman's compensation which could not legally be deleted.
Councilman Pebley reiterated that the City must consider in its wage
negotiations the entire cost per employee of salary plus fringe benefits. He
related that as long as he has been a Councilman, he can recall the A.P.A. re-
questing health insurance, a retirement program, dental insurance and various
other employee benefits, and now, having won these at the bargaining table, this
year many of the members of the A.P.A. are stating that they do not want fringe
benefits but would prefer additional dollars in wages.
Mr. Solomon pointed out that in all fairness if Council is going to
compare the total cost of a patrolman to the City per month, then the figure for
Santa Ana should be increased to reflect their forthcoming higher retirement costs.
Mr. McRae advised this is correct, that as of July 1, 1974, Santa Ana
will adopt the C.H.P. retirement program and the cost will approximate that paid
by Anaheim.
Mr. Solomon also pointed out that each patrolman contributes 9% of his
paycheck to his retirement fund, the rate which is set by the State of California,
and not by the policemen.
Mr. McRae advised that the City also pays 23% of the patrolmen's wages
into the retirement fund.
Councilman Stephenson voiced the opinion that the purpose of this meet-
ing is to clarify the situation for the officers and consequently he did not think
that projections as to what will be occurring in July of 1974 are in order as they
confuse the issue. He felt that Councilman Pebley's suggestion regarding 8 reduc-
tion in fringe benefits might be acceptable to a certain point, however, he ad-
monished against the loss of such benefits as health insurance and the retirement
program, since these are of immeasurable value to the individual employee and his
family, He pointed out that the retirement program is actually an enforced savings
account which is completely refunded to the employee if he separates prior to his
retirement.
- _.
__
~.....-
74-61
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 19, 1974, 10.00 A.M.
In reference to disability insurance, Councilman Sneegas recalled
that the very reason that the A.P.A. was formed was because at the time of an
officers unfortunate heart attack there were no facilities by which he or his
family could be assisted. He reiterated that all of the fringe benefits are
items which have been obtained at the bargaining table to the satisfaction
of the police officers who now indicate they would rather have added dollars
in wages. He stated that the City must consider the total cost of a patrolman
per month.
Mr. Solomon advised that the Members of the A.P.A, do not wish to
give up their retirement plan and consider their life and medical insurance
plan important for the protection of their families.
Mr. McRae next displayed g transparency which showed the position of
the City of Anaheim when comparing wage dollars received with those received
in Orange County cities. This indicates Anaheim at present salary to be No. 18
and with the proposal offered in October of 1973, bringing Anaheim up to No. 4
in wages received.
Transparencies were then reviewed indicating the amounts paid for
salary, retirement, health insurance, workman's compensation, disability insur-
ance, life insurance for the City of Anaheim police patrolmen versus the Cities
of Buena Park, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana (currently), Brea, Garden Grove
and Huntington Beach. In discussion of the varying amounts paid for fringe
benefits, Mr. McRae pointed out that in some instances, certain benefits are
ommitted entirely and in others, with particular reference to health insurance,
the cost of the benefit provided is much lower, i.e., health insurance for
family coverage with two or more dependents City of Anaheim proposed - $4b.61;
City of Brea - $33.99; City of Santa Ana - $27.50. Mr. McRae advised that there
is a direct relationship between the benefit package received from a health
insurance plan by the employee and the cost of that plan. The transparencies
indicated that some of the cities were as much as $Z00 below the City of
Anaheim in total cost of entire wage and benefit package per employee per month.
In summation he displayed the transparency showing the total cost to the City
of Anaheim for each patrolman once he has reached the "E" step as follows:
SALARY AND PAID BENEFITS (PROPOSED AS OF OCTOBER 4, 1973)
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Salary $1149.20
Retirement (23.43%) 269.34
Health Insurance 46.61
Workman's Compensation (5.34%) 61.37
Disability Insurance g.27
Life Insurance 4.39
Dental Insurance 10.00
Retired Employee Insurance (Life) 2.00
Total $1551.18
(Copies of tables and information as shown on transparencies on file
in the office of the City Clerk.)
Mr. McRae announced that to conclude his presentation he would like
to display a description of the offer as it was made by the City in October,
1973.
Mr. Solomon interjected at this point that the A.P.A. Membership is
fully aware and knows what the offer is and therefore he could see no useful
purpose in reading the offer to the Members present, but stated that if Mr.
McRae has duplicates of the statistical compilations he would have no objections
to passing these out to the Membership. He noted that he is ready to negotiate
and will .clarify the issues to the Membership at their own meeting.
Mr. Solomon requested a show of hands to indicate whether or not the
Membership present wished to hear the City's offer again and a majority of
those present indicated they did not.
74-62
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974, 10:00 A.M.
A member of the audience who did not identify himself, stated that as
a citizen of the City of Anaheim, working in private enterprise, he for one
would like to hear the description of the offer which is made to the A.P.A. He
commented that the only information he has received on this subject has been
via the newspapers and he would like to hear what the Council and the City has
to present to the public.
Councilman Stephenson concurred with the gentlemen who spoke up and
reminded the audience that he too was a police officer for many years and fought
for wage increases and benefits before there was an A.P.A. Negotiating Team. He
stated that he always felt that the policemen of the City of Anaheim should re-
ceive the highest wages in the County and that he has not reversed that opinion.
Further he noted that according to the figures presented at this meeting, the
Anaheim Police Officer, if the wage package offered had been accepted, would be
receiving $170 per month more than any comparable officer in any city in Orsnge
County.
Mr. McRae displayed the transparency describing the City's final offer
dated October 4 , 1973 and reviewed same as follows:
CITY OF ANAHEIM - APA
FINAL OFFER
October 4, 1973
1. Wages
a. Term from 10-5-73 to 10-16-75.
b. 6.75% salary adjustment 10-5-73 and 6.0% effective 10-18-74.
c. A special salary adjustment of an additional 5.0% for a
total of 11.75% effective 10-5-73 for Police Sergeant -
P.O.S.T. Advanced.
d. Add 5% Detective Pay to SEB positions.
e. Add 5% Detective Pay to Accident Investigation after one
complete consecutive year in this assignment.
2. Salary Step Changes
a. Reduce the salary range from A-E to D-E for Police Sergeant,
Police Sergeant - P.O.S.T. Advanced, Police Sergeant -
Detective, Police Sergeant - Hazard.
3. New Job Classes
a. Police Patrolman - Senior Master Patrolman Intermediate
(10% above Police Patrolman).
b. Police Patrolman - Senior Master Patrolman Advanced
(12.5% above Police Patrolman).
4. Insurances
a. Guaranteed health insurance rates for two years.
b. Guaranteed life insurance rates for two years.
c. Expanded health insurance coverage for hyperactive children.
d. Guaranteed City paid long term disability insurance coverage
for two years.
e. Continued City sponsorship of employee paid short term dis-
ability insurance for two years.
f. Adoption of two City paid dental insurance plans effective
January 1, 1974.
g. Adoption of a new retired employee health insurance program.
h. Adoption of a new retired employee paid up life insurance
program.
S. Personnel Rule Changes
a. Revised Section 5.01 of Rule 5 Hours of Work and Pay Day.
b. Revised Section 9.01 of Rule 9 Probation.
c. Revised Section 11.31 of Rule 11 Layoff and Re-employment.
d. New Section 15.23 of Rule 15 Holidays.
e. New Section 18.11 of Rule 18 Industrial Accident Leave.
f. Revised Rule 20 Military Leave.
g. Revised Rule 28 Physical Examinations.
~~. ,,, ~,
~"'~".
74-63
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets), Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974,10:00 A_M.
6. Memorandum of Understanding Changes
a. Revised Article V Classifications, Wages and Hours, Working
Conditions, Fringe Benefits, and Grievance Procedures.
b. Revised Article VII Police Sergeant Post Advanced.
c. Revised Article X Master Patrolman.
d. Delete Article XI Long Term Disability Insurance and
Article XII Major Medical Health Insurance and replace
. with a new Article XI Insurance.
e. Revised Article XII Duration to include a reopener clause
if August 73 to August 74 CPI (LA - LB) exceeds 6.75%.
Mr. Solomon requested that the personnel Director place on the board
a comparison which will show the total cost of ell wages and benefits for
Santa Ana Policemen in June of 1974. Further he poiu.ted out that one of the
problem areas is that the police officers, once having attained educational
incentive pay are subject to losing this if they are transfered, i.e., if they
receive detective pay or hazard pay then they do not receive the educational
incentive pay and, to his knowledge, this is the only city in the State of
California in which this occurs.
Mr. McRae replied that a transparency was not prepared with the appli-
cable costs for the City of Santa Ana as of June,1973, but noted that the Per-
sonnel Department has repeatedly stated that they recognize the increase
scheduled in April, 1974 for the Santa Ana Police Department and that as of
July, 1974, the City of Anaheim will not be paying a compensation package that
esceada that of Santa Ana. In regard to the Master Patrolman Program, he stated
that this was developed, as it currently e=ists, at the collective bargaining
table in 1969. He stated that it is interesting to note that in spite of what
Mr. Solomon has said today, during the bargaining process this year, and in the
final offer made, there was a provision for additional Master Patrolman pay for
a person who moves back to the field. The net .effect of this would be that the
educational incentive opportunities would, with the offer made October 4, 1973,
be greater in the Patrol Division than they are in Detective or hazard assign-
ments. This also provides for a Master Patrolman to work anywhere in the
Department. Further, the Master Patrolman rate is higher under all circum-
stances than the schedule for incentive pay. Mr. McRae advised that at the
present time a substantial portion of the Police Department has taken advantage
of the incentive plans as they become eligible, i.e., of a total of 138 "E"
step patrolman, 91 are participants in the Master Patrolman Program, whereas
there are 7 employees on hazard pay and 14 on detective pay.
Mr. McRae summarized that what Mr. Solomon is saying is that the
Master Patrolman Program which was initially negotiated bilaterally with the
A.P.A., and which was revised again this year bilateva`11y with the A.P,A.
Negotiating ,Team is not really what they have wanted all along and to this he
could not respond except that the City recognizes its responsibility to deal
with the Negotiating Committee.
Councilman Sneegas summarized that comparing the Anaheim rate offered
in October, 1973, with the new Santa Ana rate effective July 1, 1974, and as-
suming that Santa Ana's CHP retirement package will cost approximately the same
amount as Anaheim -- the total cost for each Santa Ana Patrolman in July, 1974
will be $1,561.60 per month, or .approximately $10 more than Anaheim is presently
offering. This constitutes a difference in total benefits and wages of $10
from the time they enact that package in July, 1974, until the guaranteed 6Q/o
raise Anaheim would enact, without any further negotiations, in mid-October,
1974. When that increase is enacted, the total cost per patrolman per month
for Anaheim would increase to approximately $1,620.18 (plus some additional
dollars for percentage increases in the fringe benefits which were not calcula-
ted). In effect, this means that the City of Anaheim Patrolmen, if the offer
had been accepted in October, 1973, would have been receiving a wage-benefit
package, the value of which is $140 per month higher than Santa Ana until July,
1974, at which time the Santa Ana package would be a total of $10 higher for
approximately three months, when the next Anaheim increase would be effective
and then the Anaheim Officers wage-benefit package again would be worth $60
more than the Santa Ana package.
74-64
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974, 10.00 A.M.
Mr. Solomon felt that the fact that the Anaheim Policeman is required
to work 8~ hours instead of 8 working hours should be taken into consideration
in these comparisons since this amounts to an extra 14~ hours per month. He con-
tended that if this is multiplied by an hourly wage it would amount to a differ-
ence of $125 to $130 per month.
Councilman Stephenson asked the Personnel Director for his opinion as .,..,,,
to whether the fringe benefits received by the Santa Ana Police Department are
comparable with those offered to the Anaheim Police Department, to which Mr.
McRae stated he could only answer that the Santa Ana benefits do not cost as
much.
In reference to the working hours, Mr. McRae advised that he had asked
on two occasions whether or not the A.P.A. wished to make this a matter of nego-
tiation and they replied negatively. In answer to the Council, he advised that
he had no knowledge of whether or not the Santa Ana Policemen are required to
report one-half hour in advance of the start of their shift.
Mr. Solomon reiterated that the facts have been presented and that he
has been authorized to negotiate a contract so that the next step would be to
set up a meeting to negotiate.
Mayor Dutton replied that the Personnel Director's Office has never
been closed to discussion of the matter.
Mr. Solomon stated that he received a call from the State Conciliation
Office, during which he was told that the mediator assigned had one meeting with
the City and felt there was no sense in getting the two parties together since
Mr. McRae had been given no additional authority or direction in which to mediate.
Mr. McRae advised that he received almost the same identical comment
regarding the A.P:A. from the mediator, Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. Solomon then remarked that the entire proceeding which had been
conducted this date had brought forth no results.
Councilman Stephenson took exception in that he felt the purpose of
bringing the facts out in public as to what has been offered and the standing of
the City's offer in relationship to what is being paid in other cities in the
County have been clarified.
Councilman Stephenson further noted that it is evident from the facts
presented that the Anaheim Police Officers have been offered a wage-benefit pack-
age which costs the City of Anaheim $170 more than that which is in effect in any
city police department in the County.
Mr. Solomon noted that fringe benefits will not buy the every day
necessities of life, the costs of which have increased considerably.
Councilman Stephenson reminded Mr. Solomon that the package under con-
sideration was one which was negotiated before many of these increases and current
difficulties had occurred; and that the present situation would undoubtedly affect
the automatic cost of living increase scheduled in October of 1974.
Mr. Frank Cozza, ex-Anaheim Police Officer, was recognized by the Mayor
and he exhorted both parties to work together to reach a solution. He felt it
inadvisable to be overly concerned with what other cities are receiving. He re-
lated that he had .worked for the City for 16 years and is now an independent
businessman. As such, he noted that the current economic situation is difficult ~-
for him as well, but that simply means he will work harder to keep his business
growing.
Mr. Cozza expressed the opinion that he would like to see the City of
Anaheim Policemen receive the top pay in the State of California, and that they
eventually probably would, but that it might not be possible immediately. He
noted that the City must be considered as a business, 3ust as his own, and if the
City cannot afford to give the officers what they are asking without hurting the
citizens monetarily, then they should not do it.
74-65
Chartres Recreation Centers 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1974, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Thom agreed with the thrust of Mr. Cozza's remark refer-
ring to the Council and A.P.A. getting together, and was of the opinion that
the only logical outcome from this meeting was that the Council and the A.P.A.
meet and confer. He stated that he has offered such a motion in the past on
two occasions and since the motion never carried he could only assume that per-
haps the reason might be due to his own position which is in empathy with the
A.P.A. Therefore he offered, in order to alleviate any apprehension that the
remaining Council members might have, not to attend such a meeting.
Councilman Thom thereupon moved that the City Council meet with the
members of the A.P.A. for the purpose of resolving the problem.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Dutton reiterated that Mr. McRae's office has always been open
to Mr. Solomon for discussion.
Councilman Thom responded that the Council has repeatedly stated that
Mr. McRae had no authority to re-negotiate, and if in fact, the Council is now
giving him that authority, he concurred with it and thought they should proceed.
Councilman Dutton explained that Mr.. McRae has authority to negotiate
within the parameters outlined by the City Council and has always had such
ability.
Mr. Solomon stated that since the City's ability to pay an increased
wage was brought up by Mr. Cozza, he would like to know what the dollar reserve
of the City actually is.
Councilman Dutton replied that recently a report on the City's fin-
ancial status was presented (refer to Council meeting, January 15, 1974) and
although this revealed that the City's present position is about as estimated
at the beginning of the Fiscal Year, the current energy situation is very like-
ly to have an impact on the City via reduction in consumption of electrical
energy and reduction in automobile travel, both of which are important sources
of revenue, and therefor it is most difficult to judge what the City's financial
outlook is for the second half of this Fiscal Year.
Mr. Solomon again asked whether or not Mr. McRae was authorized to
negotiate and suggested that the Council meet privately with him to give him
some direction.
Councilman Dutton stated that as far as he was concerned, the nego-
tiating period is over, and noted that Mr. Solomon has come into the dispute
after these, negotiating sessions were held.
Mr. Solomon again remarked that if Council wished to give Mr. McRae
some authority or to meet with him themselves and with Mr. McRae, he would be
happy to do so' but that as it presently stands, the Personnel Director has no
authority over the final offer and there is no ground to mediate.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that approximately six weeks ago Mr.
McRae had been given direction on some areas of possible compromise in the
offer and that to his knowledge these have not yet been discussed with Mr.
Solomon, since there have been no meetings.
Mr. McRae advised that the only meeting he has had with Mr. Solomon
was one which lasted 20 minutes, in which the magnitude of differences was
assessed but no efforts were made at reaching any agreement.
Mr. Solomon again stated that he felt he should be allowed the oppor-
tunity to sit down and confer with the Council directly, without a "middleman".
Councilman Sneegas suggested then that the City Council should confer
directly with the A.P.A., without the aid of Mr. Solomon, and received a nega-
tive response.
74-66
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres Street (northeast corner Emily and
Chartres Streets) , Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 19, 1974, 10 :00 A.M.
Councilman Sneegas then gdvised that Mr. McRae is the representative
of the Council just as.Mr. Solomon is the representative of the A.P.A., and
therefore it is most appropriate that these two agents get together and conduct
the necessary discussion. He further expressed the opinion that if the entire
City of Anaheim taxpayers had an opportunity to vote on this pay package as
offered, the result would be quite different.
Councilman Dutton moved that Mr. McRae, as representative of the
Council, meet with the representative of the Anaheim Police Association in an
effort to resolve their differences within the parameters previously established.
Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED,
Adjourned: 11:28 A,M,
Signed ~. ~~G?%te ,~-~O/
City Clerk
.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINi3TES - January 22, X974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT : COUNC II~'iEN : None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Farrens
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry 0. McRae
CITY ENGINEER: James P, Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT PIANNER: Bob Kelley
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge a£
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION -DENS A~TD HAROLD DAOUST: A Resolution of Appr~~:_.iat.ic.;n
ern the occasion cif tl~~e~r. Tet~.rernsent after rendering alrzost 55 s:~=.~.~':~ .:
~-otal service to th~5 Ana~~Ksim ,'~rcr*m~ns..t~ was ~ananimousl~r adopted a:t~ _ ~ .
'dET1t8t3.OP t.C.~ ~enE' aT!<~ ~I~.1'~ .1, :. +~l4.'+t.t.~i_~ ~t..'-r~?F: .`w ,:a~~y ~'~~'rh. t'3I'fl~i PuY~i_?cc3.`^•:~,*
Agent respectively,
C:NUTES: A~~prova~ of the Mint:tes ~~~_ ~-fit- ~;;~i.x~~:i~~ "~i~:z7 ~~u~~ci~ Regular Meetings ~Yir~;i
T T ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ !
Januar., ? , ~,anuary S and ,,s.nua::~~ . , ~ ~ ~ r R snc the 4;~ ~caurned. Regu3.ar Mee^ :.rig .~~. ? :`
January ~~~, 1974, was deferred r.r £,~~~:~_ r~e:.xt ~Aegular ~~1r°~*ing,
~IVL"R OF READING -ORDINANCES ANU RESOLtTT~~)~vS ° =~:c>urt~r:i,lmar. Tram rr~oved to wai~rf~ thE=
reading in full of all ordi_nanves and ~°~µssc ~~t~o:~s r and prat c:onsE~nt to the ~f:~.a_:;~ ::
of reading ~s hereby given b~ =~1?_ ~ ~~un~•~lmen ux=`l€~is~, after reading of tl'~e ~~:A4.
specific request is made b~- a ~fao~:~~;r l.l~~ar f°~.:~~ th~~ :r.ea~in~; ~~:i :~ue~A urdin~~nra ~-
resolution, Councilman Dutton. sec:~ndet: ~~Eqe mc~ ~ ~.c~ , *1C~°ZC~`~ i.`;rIANIMOUSLY Cj'"~f2F; ~..,~:n~ ,
":PORT -FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST 'I'II ~:i'~' .. remands aga :dust fire amity in the sk7~~ ,~.~ns.
of 52,64Q,~321.62, in aceord~z~re ~~i*w~-f t~a~ `:9"3~'~- b~.»dge' were. aljpx°oved,