Police Take Their Contract Issues to the Village Board

by Judy Silberstein

(August 4, 2004) Larchmont’s Village Board had unexpected company at its August 2 public meeting – a roomful of Larchmont police officers, both in and out of uniform. The officers appeared in force to lend support for their union’s efforts to

With the courtroom full of police officers and their families, the head of the police union, Officer Michael Walsh, addressed the board.

negotiate a new labor contract with the Village. The last contract for 2001 to 2003, itself the result of “interest arbitration,” had already expired when it was signed in June 2003. According to Officer Mike Walsh, President of the Larchmont Police Benevolent Association (PBA), six meetings between September 2003 and June 2004 have failed to yield a contract. He called the union’s last offer “fair;” the Village’s labor attorney, Vincent Toomey, called it “ambitious.”

Reached later for comment, Mr. Toomey said, “ambitious” was an extremely kind characterization. He labeled the union’s proposal overall as “unacceptable,” but noted that parts were still under consideration. (See below for more details.) This echoed Mayor Ken Bialo’s hopefulness. “I am completely optimistic that we won’t have an arbitration this year,” he said to the officers. “They’re very expensive for us and for you,” he said, referring to extra fees for legal and arbitration services.

He also stressed that the board and the community are extremely appreciative of the police department and its members. “We are grateful every day for the work that you do,” he told the officers, and highlighted their “terrific service” and “wonderful leadership.”

Officer Greg Innes, a 25 year veteran of the police force, tells the board: "I've held up my end of the bargain; I hope you do too."

“No one is happy that your contract is outstanding,” the mayor told the police, and mentioned that contracts with all the other unions have already been settled. A number of officers expressed just how unhappy they were.

Detective William Walsh objected forcefully to having the police contract compared to those for the sanitation workers and firefighters. He indicated his resentment that Larchmont detectives are the lowest paid in the county. If the residents truly respect the police officers, “It’s time to put your money where your mouth is,” he said.

Mayor Bialo was also extremely unhappy with reports of two recent incidents involving the police that he called “a temper tantrum that was thrown on the second floor” and “a degree of rudeness shown to a Village resident that was extraordinary.”

The mayor’s comment brought an immediate appearance from Police Chief Steve Rubeo, who had been monitoring the meeting from his nearby office via cable television. “I was not going to say a word,” he began, but the “complaints against my officers rub me the wrong way,” he said from the back of the courtroom. “To my knowledge, they have not been substantiated, they have not been lodged and therefore it’s just two different opinions of an incident that may or may not have occurred,” he concluded.

Sticking Points in the Contract

Following the board meeting, the Gazette spoke with both Officer Walsh and Mr. Toomey to get a more detailed look at the issues separating the union and the Village.

The three major aspects of the contract concern benefits (health and retirement), work hours and salaries. The first two may be the stickiest issues at this point, according to the Village’s labor attorney, Vince Toomey, although salaries appeared to be of concern to many of the officers speaking out at the board meeting.

SALARIES: On salaries, Officer Walsh cited the following statistics to argue that Larchmont salaries were lower than they should be: In the 2000 federal census, Larchmont had the third highest per capita income of all the villages in the county, but in 2002, the salary for a Larchmont police officer ranked 19th out of the 22 villages. For example, top pay for an officer in June 2002 was $67,793 in Larchmont; $68,778 in the Town of Mamaroneck; and $70,412 in the Village of Mamaroneck. For detectives, the top pay was $71,270, $72,811, and $73,934 respectively.

Mr. Toomey countered that Larchmont salaries tended to be, appropriately, around the median for Westchester County. It was important to look at historical trends. For example, he noted that in 1997, Larchmont ranked 13 out of the 22 villages. For 1998 to 2000, it ranked 14, 14 and 13, respectively. When it dropped to the bottom of the villages (19 out of 22) in 2000, this may have been because the contract went to arbitration, and the union received less than it would have through negotiation, Mr. Toomey suggested.

BENEFITS: The union is looking for more generous benefits, which include a complicated package for active and retirement years. Officer Walsh called Larchmont’s medical benefits upon retirement as “the bare minimum required by law.”

The union is requesting “drastic changes that are very much not in the Villages’ best interests,” said Mr. Toomey, who warned of the impact of new federal accounting guidelines (known as GASB) which require, among other things, that municipalities set aside more funds in current budgets to pay for future liabilities – such as health benefits for police officers who will retire in the future. Furthermore, he pointed out, all the village employees traditionally receive the same benefit package. The other four bargaining units, firefighters, civil service, library and public works, have already settled their contracts.

WORK RULES: Working conditions are another sticking point. Among other aspects studied, Officer Walsh investigated the number of required work days in 37 Westchester departments. He found that five work as many days as in Larchmont, two work more days, and the other 30 work fewer days.

According to Mr. Toomey, the union’s most recent proposal would result in a “drastic reduction” in the number of days an officer works. “No one in their right mind on the management side gives up work days. With what’s going on in the world, there’s a need for greater police presence, not reduced work time,” he said.

THE PROCESS: It's unusual for a union to go public with its position at this stage of a negotiation, when there is no formal impasse, said Mr. Toomey. "We're not yet at an impasse," concurred Mr. Walsh, "but we might be headed that way, because I don't feel the Village is negotiating in good faith."

Clearly, as Mayor Bialo commented at the board meeting, there are still significant differences between the Village and the PBA that will require a “great deal of discussion” to resolve.