Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 11/27/2023
SPRINGFIELD — Springfield police supervisors were forced to wait even longer to have their long-awaited contract funded by the city after the City Council agreed at its Nov. 13 meeting to move the discussion to committee.
The contract, which would run through June 30, 2024, was settled in interest arbitration after more than 3 ½ years of negotiations and mediation sessions between the city and the police supervisors’ union, representing 75 sergeants, lieutenants and captains.
The terms of the contract called for 3% annual raises, retroactive to July 1, 2020 — a retroactive total of roughly $3 million — and included several items that would bring the bargaining unit closer to compliance with the city’s settlement with the Attorney General’s Office following the Department of Justice’s investigation of the department’s defunct narcotics unit.
Springfield Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations William Mahoney explained that after 11 bargaining sessions and four mediation sessions, the dispute between the city and the union elevated to a 3(a) hearing in accordance with a decision made by the state Department of Labor Relations’ Joint Labor-Management Committee. Both sides were bound to the terms of the contract decided on by the panel overseeing the hearing, he said, and the decision could not be altered by the council. If the council rejected the agreement, the two sides would have to renew negotiations and the award would be voided.
Among the new policies were a stipulation that the department’s Internal Investigation Unit and Force Investigation Team would record their interviews with police supervisors during their investigations; implementation of a new disciplinary policy and matrix; a field training officer program through which academy graduates would spend 12 weeks with a field training officer and receive daily observation reports; an updated body worn camera policy; and an annual performance evaluation program.
As part of the contract, supervisors would also get $1,000 stipends for their participation in the field training officer program and performance evaluations.
Problematic, however, was discussion of a policy that was not included in the agreement that would have extended the amount of time in which the city could bring a charge against an officer from 90 to 120 days following an alleged incident. This change would bring the supervisors’ contract in line with the language found in the patrol officers union contract.
The current contract also includes a provision that the city could charge an officer after the allotted time has passed if it can display reasonable evidence that it was unable to proceed within that timeframe. For example, if a complaint was filed at 89 days, the department could complete an investigation and pursue charges even though the 90-day limit had been exceeded.
Councilor Sean Curran called for a vote to send the contract to committee for further discussion, stressing the importance of the 120-day policy, but that motion was defeated. However, after initially stating her support for the contract and resisting sending the issue to committee, Councilor Tracye Whitfield ultimately reversed course and called for a second vote to send the matter to committee, which passed.
Deliberations
During his presentation, Mahoney explained that both sides were only able to bring forward five negotiating priorities at the 3(a) hearing and was successful in arguing for all five, which he called “significant issues that we wanted for police reform through negotiations with the Department of Justice,” he said.
Curran asked why the city did not consider the 120-day policy a priority heading into the 3(a) hearing. Mahoney explained that because the contract would expire by the end of June 2024, the two sides would likely begin negotiations on a new contract in January 2024. At that time, the city would pursue that issue, along with policy changes related to the Internal Investigation Units’ ability to make recommendations to the Board of Police Commissioners, video and audio recording of disciplinary hearings and nametags on uniforms, which patrol officers already wear.
Curran, however, opined that the 120-day issue should have been prioritized and was a “major sticking point” preventing him from supporting the contract.
“This City Council in particular has led the charge for police reform. This City Council in particular has led the council to go all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has said that we needed an added layer of transparency,” Curran said. “I actually think that not bringing this to the table is indicative of why we’ve had so many problems.”
Capt. Brian Keenan, president of the supervisors union, admitted his own surprise that the 120-day policy was not brought to the 3(a) hearing.
“The union was more than willing to give the city all four issues that didn’t make it and we are still willing to do that. We believe in transparency. I was here at the last contract that was denied by the council and know how important that extra 30 days was in the investigation process and we were astounded that it was left off of the list. But we don’t bargain against ourselves. We pick our five issues, Mr. Mahoney picks the city’s five issues and then the arbitrator makes the decision and we all have to live with it,” Keenan told the council.
Mahoney said the combination of the timing of upcoming negotiations, existing language that allows for investigations to occur and charges be brought forward after the deadline in certain circumstances, and discussions with Superintendent Cheryl Clapprood’s office led to the conclusion that it wasn’t a priority for the hearing. Curren, however, continued to push back.
“I would have to disagree with that. In light of all the lawsuits we’ve had, and we’ve had multiple over the last three, four, five years, multi-million-dollar lawsuits, I would think that it would be imperative that there’s a level of transparency in the Springfield Police Department and imperative that we have as long as possible from the date of offense to figure out if something is awry,” Curran said.
During a late October Race and Civil Rights Subcommittee meeting chaired by Whitfield, it was reported that the city has distributed nearly $14 million in settlements related to civil rights issues and the Police Department since fiscal year 2013.
Curran also stated it was important that the supervisors’ contract mirror that of patrol officers.
On the other hand, Councilor Victor Davila pushed back on the idea that charges could be pursued after a deadline has passed.
“It’s like having a noose around your neck at all times. At some point, resolution has to come,” he said.
In initially opposing extending the conversation of the contract, Whitfield said, “I have questions too, but the reason I don’t want to send it to committee is because the officers haven’t had a raise since 2020 and they deserve it and we are not going to be able to change it right now. It’s the law, the statute ... We can have a subcommittee meeting and discuss the language and how it works without holding up the vote. I think they’ve waited long enough.”
Curran, however, argued that with as long as it took to negotiate this contract, the city could be stuck with the 90-day language for multiple more years. He suggested that while the arbitration award couldn’t be altered, that a separate deal could be negotiated in committee. Mahoney said a side negotiation could take place without holding up the contract. Curran retorted, “I don’t think a two-week delay is unreasonable. You haven’t been able to get a contract signed in two years and I can see by your somewhat combative tone — and confusing tone — why.”
Curran’s initial motion to send the issue to committee failed in a 6-6 deadlock with Councilor Maria Perez absent. Council rules state that a motion must pass with a majority of the council.
Whitfield later asked for clarification on Curran and Mahoney’s exchange, looking to confirm that the committee could negotiate a policy without altering the contract awarded by the arbiters. “With all due respect, the committee doesn’t get to negotiate anything,” Mahoney objected. He said the city and the union only negotiate, adding that the two sides had been discussing the policies in the contract since 2020 and “I don’t think that’s going to change what we’re doing today,” while also admitting “anything is possible.”
Whitfield subsequently called for a vote on the contract, stating, “I think that we had the opportunity do something when we were sending it to committee, but right now, I think that they need to get paid. I’m sorry, I just can’t go no other way and I’m going to move the question.”
However, questions regarding rules of order were raised, prompting a brief recess. Coming out of that recess, Whitfield changed course, making a second motion to send the issue to committee, which was approved and the issue was sent to the General Government Subcommittee.
Asked by Reminder Publishing why she abruptly changed her mind, she said, “I still want to see them get paid, but I don’t think that I fully I understood the process and it was my understanding that nothing could be done and we can’t make changes. Based on what Councilor Curran and Bill Mahoney said, and upon that understanding, I thought it was worth giving it one more stab.”
Councilor Michael Fenton, chair of the General Government Subcommittee, said a date for the next subcommittee meeting had not been set as of press time.