EAST WINDSOR POLICE COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING: December 10, 2008
East Windsor Town Hall Meeting Room
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE:
Meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Nelson. Joseph Sauerhoefer was absent. All other commissioners were present as well as Chief of Police Edward DeMarco and Captain Roger Hart.
Chairman Nelson informed the commission that there was an error on the agenda that was posted on the town’s website. The website’s agenda showed a date of December 12, 2008, however, the actual agenda submitted and received by the commissioners and Town Clerk was correct with a date of December 10, 2008.
2. ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Under item #9, New Business:
a) Board of Finance questions
b) 2009 Meeting Schedule
3. PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES:
The minutes from November 12, 2008 regular meeting were reviewed by all commission members. MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept the regular meeting minutes of 11/12/08, as presented. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to go out of agenda order and directly to #9, New Business. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
9. NEW BUSINESS:
A) Board of Finance questions
The Chairman of the Board of Finance, Marie DeSousa, along with committee members, approached the commission to inquire about the police budget within last month’s treasurer’s report. Mr. Jack Mannette questioned why the police budget showed that variable overtime was already 70% expended. Mr. Mannette had brought this to the Chief and Captain’s attention. The BOF received new documents as of 12/1/08 and it shows that the variable overtime was reduced by over $6K. Mr. Mannette states that it is still running higher than it did last year and there is concern that if things keep running the same way that there will not be enough money left in the budget for the remainder of the year.
Chief DeMarco stated that when they presented the 1.9% budget to the BOF, the variable overtime account was reduced from a requested $128K to $110K. Chief DeMarco explained that there have been a number of injuries, long-term illnesses and absences that have affected the department and its budget.
Captain Hart stated that they can not annualize the budget by looking at one snapshot and annualize that monthly. The department manages the budget on a daily basis. Captain Hart presented a working budget spreadsheet to the BOF. Captain Hart stated that this document is reviewed on a daily basis (by the Chief, himself and Maria) and that the issue in question is line 103.
Captain Hart explained that the reason that line 103 was higher earlier is that the department was waiting for grant money to come in (DUI, SLOW grants). Grants have now been received since last month’s budget presentation. Captain Hart presented copies of both grant checks to the BOF committee. Captain Hart also mentioned that the department fronts all the money for “Click It or Ticket” but it is 100% reimbursable. Captain Hart also informed the BOF that some of the grant money received went to last year’s budget – back into the General Fund.
Captain Hart stated that the department, as of this point, has expended about $7500.00 beyond budget as compared to this point last year. Chief DeMarco added that the committee needs to keep in mind that the department is dealing with long-term worker’s compensation and absences that they have no control over, yet Public Safety still needs to be maintained. He added that, with the department’s weekly and daily meetings, they do try to anticipate trends. Captain Hart explained the positions that are currently being covered due to illness, injuries and an officer excused (earlier) for a peace-keeping mission.
Mr. Mannette responded that this was the response and information the BOF was looking for. He added that when he had looked into the grants section from last month’s report, neither grant was listed. Mr. Mannette added that it would help the BOF if they knew of pending grants so they can compare them to the overages at their meetings. Captain Hart commented that the commission was informed of pending grants and what looks like a problem in line 103 at the October meeting. Mr. Mannette stated that the October minutes did not mention that. There was a brief discussion among BOF members regarding the grant money. Ms. DeSousa then requested that if line 103 stands out, in the future, to please communicate it to the BOF to keep them
updated. First Selectwoman Menard commented that eventually all budget reports will be formatted the same way and that the new treasurer will produce a comprehensive report that will better clear the communication lines.
Captain Hart added that the operational line may periodically raise questions due to pending PO’s. Chief DeMarco also commented that some budget lines will expend fast at the beginning of the budget cycle and then will not be touched for the rest of the year.
B) 2009 Meeting Dates
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept the 2009 Meeting Dates schedule, as presented. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to go back in agenda order to item #4. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
4. BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES:
A) Police Department – Monthly Billing: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept the monthly billing, dated December 5, 2008, in the amount of $ 8,894.66. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
B) Police Department – Financial Statement: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept the monthly financial statement, dated December 5, 2008. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
C) Police Commission – Monthly Billing: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept the monthly billing, dated November 30, 2008, in the amount of $ 139.70. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
D) Police Commission – Financial Statement: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to accept monthly financial statement, as presented. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
E) Animal Control – Monthly Billing: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to approve monthly billing, dated December 5, 2008, in the amount of $ 648.73. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
F) Animal Control – Financial Statement: MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to approve the monthly financial statement, as presented. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
G) Legal Billing: All commissioners were given copies.
5. PUBLIC INPUT #1 – Comments and Discussion (5 minute maximum per subject):
No public input at this time.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
No unfinished business
7. TRAFFIC AUTHORITY:
None
8. PUBLIC INPUT #2 – Comments only – NO DISCUSSION:
No public input at this time
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A) Legal Update:
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to go into executive session for legal update to include the Chief and the Captain (7:28pm). SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session closed at 8:06pm
No action taken.
B) Grievance 08-07:
Grievant chose to have an open session. Grievant added a voice recorder to the session and informed commissioners.
Detective Matthew Carl, President of AFSCME Council 15, Local 3583, acted as Officer Drolett’s spokesman and presented Officer’s Drolett’s report.
Detective Carl summarized the events leading up to the grievance. In July, 2008 Officer Reimer sent an inter-departmental email requesting interest in becoming a firearms instructor within the department. Officer Reimer’s email stated that anyone who is interested to email him back within a certain date. Officer Drolett and others responded within that time. As the date approached, Officer Drolett had not heard back that he would be sent to the pretest (one of two pre-requisites). Officer Drolett inquired with the training officer (Officer Capen) as to why he did not have notification of his pretest date. Officer Capen informed Officer Drolett that he was only instructed to send the other two officers. Officer Drolett spoke to Officer
Reimer. Officer Reimer stated that, from his conversation with Captain Hart, he had learned that Officer Drolett was in the process of negotiating a separation package from previously filed suits against the town and that he would not be sent. Detective Carl states that this is the first time Officer Drolett was informed that he was being excluded. Officer Drolett’s first attempt to contact Captain Hart was on Monday 9/29/08 which was after the pretest (held at the academy the previous Friday). Captain Hart did acknowledge that a conversation had occurred with Officer Drolett and that he would not be sent. The grievance was filed (first step) by Officer Drolett in accordance to the collective bargaining agreement and was denied by the Chief. Second step was filed. Officer Drolett’s remedy is that he would like to be able to participate in the pretest, as the other two officers did. Then, if he was able to go to the
firearm’s instructor’s course and successfully complete it, that he would be appointed as one of the department’s firearm instructors. Commissioners were provided copies of the grievance and the Chief’s response.
Captain Hart responded by first handing out a copy of the original grievance to all commissioners. Officer Drolett was denied the opportunity for training in violation of “Article 5 ‘non-discrimination and any other sections that apply’”. Captain Hart states that the grievant feels he is being discriminated against. Captain Hart reviewed pertinent sections of the collective bargaining agreement (article 5, section 2) as it relates to the case and decisions made. Captain Hart states that a business decision was made on this case and that the union had failed to show any form of discrimination, based on the collective bargaining agreement language. Copies were submitted to commission for review.
Captain Hart next presented Connecticut Regulations for Firearm Instructor (CT General Statute #7-294E, section 12, subsection E). Captain Hart paraphrased: firearms course must be completed by post-standards – MOI (Methods of Instruction) must be completed/passed as well as a pretest and firearms qualifications course. Captain Hart submitted copies of regulations/requirements to the commissioners.
Captain Hart stated that in July it was discussed (with Sergeant Reimer) in the department that a third firearm’s instructor may be needed.
Captain Hart provided commissioners with copies of the email sent in July by grievant’s union member. Captain Hart pointed out that the email was not sent to the Captain or the Chief. Captain Hart stated that he did have a conversation with Sergeant Reimer who informed Captain Hart that Officer Drolett wanted to be a firearm’s instructor. They had a conversation discussing losing an employee for two weeks – an employee who the department does not know the longevity of at that point.
Captain Hart highlighted a 4/30/08 document drawn up by the grievant’s union attorney. Letter states: “Under these terms, Mr. Drolett will leave active town service immediately.” Captain Hart added that two month’s prior to this grievance, Officer Drolett was actively negotiating leaving the department.
Captain Hart reviewed the “Training and Career Development Department Operational Directive 33.02”. Captain Hart brought attention to the section related to firearm instructors – highlighting who chooses the officers to attend the course and the basis for selecting those individuals. Captain Hart highlighted one of the four criteria listed: based on rank and seniority. Captain Hart reiterated that the decision made was a business decision based on the best interest of the police department and the town.
Captain Hart stated that the grievance was submitted in an untimely fashion. According to the contract, an officer has ten days to file a grievance. Captain Hart stated that the grievant waited until after the pretest to file grievance. Captain Hart reminded the commission that Officer Drolett and another officer had not attended MOI (the pre-requisite). Captain Hart submitted the training schedule for MOI’s – there was an MOI on 8/18-8/22/08 – Officer Drolett did not request to go to the course to have the pre-requisite needed. In closing, the union has failed to show the officer was discriminated against. The decision was based on the best needs of the agency. In addition, the grievance was untimely – it had been
two weeks.
Detective Carl requested to see the training schedule document.
Detective Carl agreed that the email did not go to the administration, however, he argues that it is not the union or grievant’s responsibility to know what the sergeants are sending to the administration.
Detective Carl further states that the grievant feels he’s being discriminated based on the fact that he had previously filed suits – both federal and CHRO. Officer Drolett has since been allowed to take the MOI class and passed.
Regarding the issue of filing the grievance in an untimely manner, Detective Carl stated that he has been disciplined in the past for not going through the chain of command and now has made attempts to go through the chain of command. Officer Drolett feels that that was the first time he was able to speak to the Captain to avoid any disciplinary action. Officer Drolett feels he was not harmed or wronged until he was not allowed to go to the pretest (9/26/08) and that is when he feels the clock started for any violation that may have occurred to the collective bargaining agreement.
Detective Carl also contacted the academy to get a list of courses that they instruct. There was is a discrepancy between his information and Captain Hart’s information as to whether or not the 8/18/08 MOI course ever took place.
Officer Drolett addressed the 7/24/08 email from Officer Reimer and the issue that MOI was not required. He stated that Officer Ludemann was able to take the course without having MOI and that he should have been given the same opportunity. Captain Hart had previously addressed this issue stating that the department was not aware that Officer Ludemann did not also have previously taken MOI.
In regards to the active negotiation issue, Officer Drolett added that the town had made an offer and it was accepted on 4/30/08. He feels that that offer was used to stall a labor board meeting and on 5/28/08 the town did not go through with the offer. At that point, all active negotiations had ended. Officer Drolett disputes that he was still in active negotiations at the time of this incident. Officer Drolett feels that the business decision is a justification for their administrative mistake. Officer Drolett is looking for the same opportunities as other officers.
In conclusion, Captain Hart reminded the commission of the untimeliness of the grievance and also that it is not the decision of an officer or sergeant to decide who will attend the firearms instructor course. Captain Hart stated that the interested parties would submit paperwork applying to take the course and then a decision would be made by the Captain and/or Chief based on pre-qualifications and departmental factors.
Commissioner Devanney asked Detective Carl if this could have all been avoided if the union went to the administration at the beginning. Detective Carl responded by stating that he has had conversations with Captain Hart regarding all three officers and the union. He states that the Union could have only asked to hold off on the appointment while the interested officers met their prerequisites to see who tested highest. He agreed that better attention could have been made to the training records and pre-requisites. In closing, Detective Carl re-stated that Officer Drolett was trying to resolve the issue prior to the testing.
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to go into Executive Session for Grievance 08-07 (8:39pm). SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session closed at 8:49pm
Commissioner Sinsigallo: “After reviewing testimony and the evidence presented, the grievance (08-07) is denied.” MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
11. COMMUNICATIONS:
A) Animal Control – Spay/Neuter program
Commissioner Sherman presented a letter from Tracy Powell, DVM to all commission members. Mr. Sherman reviewed the letter which states that, although it is a good program, it may not be good for the town. There are non-profit organizations that will spay/neuter. Dr. Powell stated three main issues of consideration for such a program: (1) the town would need to consider their maximum number to spay/neuter, (2) the town would need to take into consideration the state regulations regarding up-to-date shots for the animals – the town could incur additional costs, (3) some residents may take advantage of the program. Dr. Powell added that very few towns offer such a program.
After a brief discussion among the commissioners, Commissioner Sherman suggested that the program would be too costly for the town.
12. MONTHLY REPORTS:
C) Chief of Police-
All commissioners received copies of the new “Metro Police Services Agreement”. Chief DeMarco reviewed the basis of the agreement explaining that this would empower the police officers to act, if needed, for police services (beyond just traffic services). Towns included are: South Windsor, Manchester, Coventry, Glastonbury, Windsor, East Windsor, Vernon, Enfield and potentially adding Windsor Locks. Police officers would have a broader range of police powers – “shared regional services”. The contract would need to be renewed every five years.
MOTION made by Commissioner Sinsigallo to allow Chief DeMarco to present the proposal to the Board of Selectman. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
Chief DeMarco informed the commission that the department has a number of non-working Life Packs – AED Defibrillators. There are six units that need new batteries. This was an unforeseen expense that was not budgeted. The cost would be $1576.00 to replace the batteries. Commissioner Sherman asked if there are other town agencies that use the same units. Chief DeMarco responded that the other agencies in town have more up-to-date units. Commissioner Sherman asked if it would be to their advantage to get new units if the batteries are so costly. Commissioners Sinsigallo and Devanney asked what the usage is. Chief DeMarco does not have information on that. Chief DeMarco has checked for extra batteries at other town agencies and there
are none. Commissioner Sherman asked if there are any grants available to purchase new units. The units currently use LifePack 500 lithium batteries. Captain Hart reiterated that although the units are older, they can still be used in an emergency. Chief DeMarco will be purchasing the new batteries, however, he wanted the commission to know that there may be some budget questions down the road due to this unforeseen, but necessary, expense.
D) Commission Members-
Chairman Nelson asked if there were any questions regarding bid specs. for maintenance. There were no questions.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Sinsigallo made a MOTION to adjourn the regular meeting at 9:04pm. SECONDED by Commissioner Devanney. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Pellegrini
EWPC Recording Secretary
| 
