06-25-1973 Minutesis 8
City of Salina, Kansas
Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
June 25, 1973
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room,
City -County Building, on Monday, June 25, 1973, at seven o'clock p.m.
The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance to the Flag and a
moment of silent prayer.
There were present:
Mayor Jack Weisgerber, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Robert C. Caldwell
Commissioner Norma G. Cooper
Commissioner Mike Losik, Jr.
Commissioner W. M. Usher
comprising a quorum of the Board, also:
L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney
Norris D. Olson, City Manager
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
Absent:
None
The Mayor called for the approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 11,
1973, and the Special Meeting of June 19, 1973.
Commissioner Losik - on the last page of the minutes of June 11, 1973, under the
appointments. We show under the Library Board, the Mayor via Commissioner Bill Usher. I
believe we are in conflict with our own City Code and the Kansas State Statutes regarding
this. There is no provision for delegation.
After a lengthy discussion, and directing the City Attorney to research the matter
for the Commission, Commissioner Usher moved, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell, that the
minutes be approved with the understanding that there is an area of disagreement on the
appointment to the Library Board. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
MAYOR WEISGERBER introduced and welcomed Cathy Herbeaux who has been living with Dr.
and Mrs. Donald Amend, and family, representing the American Field Service of France, and is
about to return to France.
STAFF AGENDA
BIDS WERE RECEIVED for Miscellaneous Improvements in Engineering Project 73-555A
and 73-555 B.
Engineering Project 73-555 A
Brown and Brown, Inc. $49,643.00
Engineer's Estimate $51,202.00
Engineering Project 73-555 B
Smoky Hill, Inc. $19,837.00
Stevens Contractors, Inc. $21,316.00
J. S. Frank Construction Company, Inc. $22,870.00
Engineer's Estimate $19,965.00
The City Engineer reported there are some administrative details which are not
finalized on some of the petitions, and requested the City Commission delay the award of the
contracts until the details have been completed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept
the recommendation of the City Engineer and accept the bids, but not to award the contracts
until the details have been completed, but to award the contracts within 30 days. Ayes: (5).
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A RESOLUTION was introduced for second reading entitled: "A RESOLUTION determining
the necessity of and directing that the owner or owners of certain lots construct, in
compliance with plans and specifications of the City Engineer, a sidewalk, abutting said lots
within 30 days of the adoption and publication hereof and providing that in the event the
owner or owners fail to do so, that the City of Salina, shall proceed to construct or cause
to be constructed said sidewalk and that the total cost thereof shall be assessed against
such lot or lots on which such sidewalk shall abut as other special assessments." (Sidewalk
on the east side of Lewis Street between Republic Avenue and Beloit Avenue, as requested in
Petition Number 3328, which was filed by Uhl Wheatley.) A motion was made by Commissioner
Usher, seconded by Commissioner Losik to adopt the Resolution as read and the following vote
was had: Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Usher, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The
Mayor approved the Resolution and it is numbered 3328. The Resolution was introduced for
first reading June 11, 1973.
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE providing
for the vacation of a certain easement in Block 3, of the Replat of Edgemere Addition to the
City of Salina, Saline County, Kansas." (Requested in Petition Number 3331, which was filed
by Randall Lewis.) A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
adopt the ordinance as read and the following vote was had: Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik,
Usher, Weisgerber (5). Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is
numbered 8289. The ordinance was introduced for first reading June 11, 1973.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Final Estimate for Engineering Project 72-544 for street
improvements in Lakewood Park, for Smoky Hill, Inc., in the amount of $21,467.20. A motion
was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Usher to approve the final estimate.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Building Code Advisory Board, recommending the
approval and adoption, by the City Commission, of the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing
Code and all appendices thereto. A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by
Commissioner Usher to accept the recommendation of the Building Code Advisory Board, and
introduce the ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: Number:
A LETTER was received from the School Safety Committee submitting proposed amend-
ments to the School Crossing Protection Manual for consideration and requested that they be
adopted.
Mayor Weisgerber asked Dean Boyer, "I might ask you about this. I read through
their recommendations and it appears to be in line and useable. Have they checked with you
on this? What is the situation on this?"
Dean Boyer stated, the situation that brought this up was some of these cases
where you have an extra added factor as it relates to hazard on certain street conditions,
which isn't normal on all the rest of the streets. They have formulated this table whereby
under certain conditions, they can add safety factors which would create more protection at
this crossing.
The City Engineer and Commissioners discussed the recommendations as they relate
to crossing signals, and the extra width of some streets.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to approve
the request of the Safety Committee and approve the amendments to the School Safety Manual.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Metropolitan Planning Commission stated that the
proposal of the First National Bank and Trust Company of Salina for the redevelopment of
land in the Central City Project is not in conflict with the general development plan for
the City of Salina and approval is given subject to a letter, dated June 19, 1973, from the
City Engineer concerning traffic. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by
Commissioner Usher to accept the recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission and
approve the proposal of the First National Bank and Trust Company. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
COMMISSION AGENDA
"CITY EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND 1% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, TABLED FEBRUARY 26, 1973."
(Sponsored by Commissioner Losik).
Commissioner Losik stated, "Jack, all I wanted to do - we had tabled this and, of
course, time being what it is, hadn't got a chance to get back to it. I think it is more
misunderstanding than what we are attempting to do. When this was first brought up under
the Kansas -Denver Study we agreed that the whole Kansas -Denver Study, as proposed by the
consultant, was not completely valid in every respect from the standpoint of our use here in
the City. So we adopted only certain areas and we implemented only certain areas of the
Kansas -Denver Study. Now one of the things that came up was that we would adopt Schedule K,
which gave the range scale of salaries of people in certain categories. Now to apply the
rule and to keep the Kansas -Denver Study valid and to keep schedule K valid we cannot use
the same formula that was used in the past and arbitrarily just take 1% and add it onto that
salary study that they gave us because immediately then we would be changing that study and
the intent of that study. Now what I wanted to do and what I recommended and I think it was
my feelings that although there was some misunderstanding later that we would give this
cost of living over and above what the Kansas -Denver Study showed without altering the range
of salaries in the Kansas -Denver Study. So this would mean then that all employees, across
the board, would receive a 1%; but the interpretation that came out that some people were
either at the top of their range or were already drawing more money than what the study
authorized so therefore they weren't entitled to this 1% increase. My feeling is that they
all would be entitled to it. The 1% was based strictly to offset inflation. We know that
right after the first of the year, just as an example while we are discussing this, the
hospitalization program that we have in the City automatically was raised approximately $5
a month for the dependent portion. Now this is inflation. This 1% would be the surplus
that we may have over and above what could be budgeted through savings and give this to the
employees. We know 1% is not the amount they should receive to offset inflation. We know
that is more than the 1%, but we also know it is a step in the right direction; and this is
the basis for bringing it up to try to get this set up because I would like to see equitable
application of this with the full understanding of what it is. We agreed that next month we
would look at this thing again to see if there was sufficient money to adjust this up, and
if there were, we would do it again, but before we go that far, we should complete what we
have not completed when we first brought in the 1%. Now this is my proposal that we give
this 1% and not alter the salary ranges that are set up under the Kansas -Denver Study.,
Commissioner Usher said,"Well, then what you are saying is at the end of the year,
everybody goes back to - subtract 1% off.`
Commissioner Losik replied,"That is right Bill, because this 1% was surplus money
we had over and above what we budgeted, and it was to have been used to give everybody a
cost of living increase or to adopt the Kansas -Denver Study. We adopted the Kansas -Denver
Study and it didn't use up all the money we had allocated so this 1% would be in addition
to this. Now, if we don't apply it in that manner then we have wasted our money in getting
this consultant to give us these range scales on the salaries."
Commissioner Caldwell said,"I don't think the 1% increase in salary had anything to
do with the Kansas -Denver Study. We had the Kansas -Denver Study way before we had the 1%
increase, as I recall, so it had no bearing at that particular time on the study. The study
was to help the Commission and the staff in their program and the 1% raise came on quite a
bit of time after that."
Commissioner Cooper commented, "Well it had a little bit to do with it because we
adopted the new pay scale that Kansas -Denver recommended."
Commissioner Caldwell said,"We adopted the study."
Commissioner Cooper commented, ".Okay,the City employees, under the old Kansas
League of Municipalities schedule, had been getting a pay scale that the Kansas League had
recommended plus a cost of living. Okay, when we adopted the new Kansas -Denver Plan, the
new pay scale went into effect and the 1% across the board to go along with it, because we
had not specified we were eliminating it.''
Commissioner Caldwell said,"That didn't happen at the time we had the Kansas -Denver
Study. The Denver Study was prior to the 1% raise.'
Commissioner Losik said, "The Kansas -Denver Study was made back earlier in last
year, but we didn't adopt it until this year, and at that time when we adopted portions of
the Kansas -Denver Study is when we went into this cost of living thing, at the same time."
Commissioner Cooper commented, "For the 1973 budget, the staff and the Commission
allocated so much money to implement the new pay plan, if the Commission approved the new
pay plan. This amount was budgeted for the 1973 budget. After we implemented the new pay
plan, then there was a balance remaining of this money that had been budgeted for salaries.
Then we asked, when we realized that the cost of living had been eliminated, we asked that
this 1% cost of living, across the board, be funded out of the balance of this money that
had been budgeted for salaries. Now that is the way I remember it."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I think, in effect,what happened, to background this a
little bit, when we gave this 1% increase, it was put into effect and anyone who worked
for the city with the exception of about 20 people, who didn't receive the 1%. Those who
didn't was because they were already above the top of the scale which the Kansas -Denver
Study said they should have; so the way this would work out in the long run, if we kept
giving percentage increases, instead of a re -study, as soon as the bulk of the other
employees in the same classifcation would catch up, then we would all go on together.
How many actual employees are we talking about that didn't get the 1%?"
Commissioner Cooper said, "I think we find ourselves in this kind of a problem
because the Commission failed to make a decision and inform staff of that decision; because
you were still using the same kind of plan on your cost of living increase as you had in
the past. Okay, and there are evidentally mixed opinions on this Commission as to what
kind of a plan should be used for paying cost of living increases. This is where our
problem has come in, because under this Kansas -Denver Study, the administration is using
the same formula for applying a cost of living as they used under the old plan."
Mayor Weisgerber asked, "Norris, am I correct when I say that after that other
plan in 1966, cost of living increases were given until we had this plan done again in 1972,
and the staff did this exactly the same way this time. You put these increases into effect
the same way after that study as you did after this one; so that some people wouldn't have
gotten that first increase or would have gotten only part of it until the schedule caught
up. Then they would have gotten it, is this correct?"
Mr. Olson replied, "This is correct."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, needless to say, under the old plan, you weren't
getting a cost of living, you were just cranking an increase into the salary range that the
study recommended."
Mr. Olson explained, "Here is our rate schedule under the old plan. There were
some positions that were budgeted for 3% steps twice a year, every 6 months, then there
were some positions that were budgeted 5% steps once a year. Mel Abbott prepared a list
of dollars here from $313 running up to $697. In 1970, here, start down here, $246 to
$569. Those were the 3% step increments for 1967. There was a 2.7% cost of living in
1968, the $246 became a $253 check, and the $253 became a $260 pay check, and all the way.
So these dollar amounts in the columns represent a 2.7% increase over the 1967 schedule,
and each subsequent year the particular percentages were cranked into the salary schedule
and this is the way it was determined. Each one of these steps, each succeeding year.
So from 1967 to 1972 the salary that was $384 in 1967 became $486 in 1972. These were
cumulative, I guess you would call it a _cumulative cost of living, to determine the salary
for each and every position, each and every year."
Mayor Weisgerber asked if there were any other comments?
Commissioner Usher commented, "I understand it. After all that is why we have a
staff, they have to administer the salary schedule and I think if we spend $3,000 to have
somebody come out here and prepare it for us, that we ought to be sure and follow it and
use it. If you are going to make an adjustment, it should be on the salary schedule, not
a straight across the board."
Commissioner Losik said, "Okay, in that case then, we are talking about equitable
application. Right? In other words let's take for example Schedule K of the plan we
accepted, just to make sure this is clear. Under Grade 1, we go over to the top of the line.
Now this is the theory and the philosophy that is being applied right now, is $408, that
individual, whoever that would be in that category would not be entitled to a 1% cost of
living increase because that individual is at the top of that pay grade, and thereafter
would be being overpaid, is that correct?"
Mr. Olson replied, "The person at that step making $408? No! He will get his 1%.
$408 in the new schedule becomes $412."
Commissioner Losik said, "Now this is where the difference comes in."
Mr. Olson replied, "No."
Mr. Olson said, "That did not get the 1%? There were 23 who did not get a
salary increase under the Catherwood report which was presented to you on July 10, 1972.
Then after the 1% salary adjustment was made to the salary schedule, there remained 5 of
those 23 who still were above the top step. Ten of the 23 reached the top but did not
get a raise. Eight received some raise but less than 1%, so to answer your question,
there are 15 that did not get a raise at all."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "But of that 15 - 10 are at the position where they
would get the next raise, and that would leave 5 employees who would still have a little
way to go yet before any flat percentage increase would begin to apply to them.
Mr. Olson replied, "That is right. There are 23 that were above the schedule
of the Catherwood study. There were 21 who were above the League salary schedule when it
was put into effect in 1967. There were 21 in the same prediciment then that the 23 found
themselves in with the Catherwood study."
Commissioner Cooper said, "I think we find ourselves in this kind of a problem
because the Commission failed to make a decision and inform staff of that decision; because
you were still using the same kind of plan on your cost of living increase as you had in
the past. Okay, and there are evidentally mixed opinions on this Commission as to what
kind of a plan should be used for paying cost of living increases. This is where our
problem has come in, because under this Kansas -Denver Study, the administration is using
the same formula for applying a cost of living as they used under the old plan."
Mayor Weisgerber asked, "Norris, am I correct when I say that after that other
plan in 1966, cost of living increases were given until we had this plan done again in 1972,
and the staff did this exactly the same way this time. You put these increases into effect
the same way after that study as you did after this one; so that some people wouldn't have
gotten that first increase or would have gotten only part of it until the schedule caught
up. Then they would have gotten it, is this correct?"
Mr. Olson replied, "This is correct."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well, needless to say, under the old plan, you weren't
getting a cost of living, you were just cranking an increase into the salary range that the
study recommended."
Mr. Olson explained, "Here is our rate schedule under the old plan. There were
some positions that were budgeted for 3% steps twice a year, every 6 months, then there
were some positions that were budgeted 5% steps once a year. Mel Abbott prepared a list
of dollars here from $313 running up to $697. In 1970, here, start down here, $246 to
$569. Those were the 3% step increments for 1967. There was a 2.7% cost of living in
1968, the $246 became a $253 check, and the $253 became a $260 pay check, and all the way.
So these dollar amounts in the columns represent a 2.7% increase over the 1967 schedule,
and each subsequent year the particular percentages were cranked into the salary schedule
and this is the way it was determined. Each one of these steps, each succeeding year.
So from 1967 to 1972 the salary that was $384 in 1967 became $486 in 1972. These were
cumulative, I guess you would call it a _cumulative cost of living, to determine the salary
for each and every position, each and every year."
Mayor Weisgerber asked if there were any other comments?
Commissioner Usher commented, "I understand it. After all that is why we have a
staff, they have to administer the salary schedule and I think if we spend $3,000 to have
somebody come out here and prepare it for us, that we ought to be sure and follow it and
use it. If you are going to make an adjustment, it should be on the salary schedule, not
a straight across the board."
Commissioner Losik said, "Okay, in that case then, we are talking about equitable
application. Right? In other words let's take for example Schedule K of the plan we
accepted, just to make sure this is clear. Under Grade 1, we go over to the top of the line.
Now this is the theory and the philosophy that is being applied right now, is $408, that
individual, whoever that would be in that category would not be entitled to a 1% cost of
living increase because that individual is at the top of that pay grade, and thereafter
would be being overpaid, is that correct?"
Mr. Olson replied, "The person at that step making $408? No! He will get his 1%.
$408 in the new schedule becomes $412."
Commissioner Losik said, "Now this is where the difference comes in."
Mr. Olson replied, "No."
.84
Commissioner Losik said, "Yes, this is the thing. This is the point where we
are running into this. We do not,with the 1%, automatically change this pay schedule.
The philosophy of it was - you retain this particular thing for three years and then it
is adjusted. The cost of living index could be fluctuating, depending on the amount of
money we have, so actually he is still drawing $408. That is that pay schedule that we
adopted. We don't want to alter this. This ties in with what Bill says, we paid a sum
of money to have this man set it up, why should we alter it. We adopted it. What I am
saying is that you take $408, that is the top of the ladder; give that man 1% on top of
that, but that pay, the pay under our schedule is $408, not $408 plus 1%.
Mr. Olson said, "Alright now, if the employee in this particular grade then is
making $420, which would be $12 above the $408, is he given the 1%?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "Certainly. It is still to offset inflation and
not to disturb the pay schedule and that is not his fault that he is being overpaid. We
can't penalize that individual for that. The cost of living for him went up just the
same as it did for anybody else."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "I think we are in error in a way when we say that
Catherwood, when he made this out, didn't specifically put an addition in there for the
cost of living increase, at the same time this is a part of the overall work when he
compared the salaries with the people in industry and the people in other cities and gets
them on an equitable basis between the different departments and then also as it compares
to private industry and the other political units. In fact this takes into consideration
the wage scale that prevails today, and they, in a sense, reflect increases that have been
given for cost of living."
Commissioner Losik said, "No, he doesn't."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Perhaps he doesn't spell this out in such a way, but it
is in there as a factor."
Commissioner Cooper said, "I don't agree with you because I think he explicitly
stated in his study and he stated verbally in this room that he did not endorse a cost of
living."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "Well, what he is saying is that you should re -study
these and pay him the fee every year to see that he keeps these in line with what private
industry is doing and what other cities are doing. He prefers that you don't give a flat
increase each year and call it a cost of living, and yet, whenever he would make a study
and compare it with private industry or with other forms of government, they in turn are
reflecting a cost of living. It is in there in a way, by another name, I think."
Mr. Olson said, "Let me ask another question to clarify this. According to your
interpretation Mr. Losik, staying on the $408. Let's assume that we have then a cost of
living for 1974 of 5%, then for 1974 that employee, instead of receiving $408 would receive
$428."
Commissioner Losik replied, "He would receive $408, plus whatever the percentage."
Mr. Olson said, "5q."
Commissioner Losik said, "You see what I am saying Norris is that the pay schedule
that we adopted remains there. In other words that man is $408, but we have a fluctuating
amount for cost of living."
Mr. Olson said, "Now, you say this shall remain this way for 3 years, and this is
what we kind of arbitrarily ....."
Commissioner Cooper interjected, not the cost of living."
Mr. Olson said, "No, the schedule."
Commissioner Losik commented, "Right".
Mr. Olson said, "Okay, so for 1974 that employee would receive $428, because 5%
of $408 is $20."
Commissioner Losik said, "He would draw $408 plus $20 cost of living increase,
based on whatever that percentage was, it could be 1%, it could be 3%, it could be ..."
Mr. Olson said, "I am arbitrarily saying it is 5%."
Commissioner Losik commented, "Yeah, - well this is alright."
Mr. Olson said, "Okay - 21-,% then in 1975 would amount to $10, then are you saying
that his 1975 paycheck would be $418? Is that correct?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "That is right, because you haven't compromised this
pay scale that was adopted by us, otherwise if you add those in, you have completely thrown
it out of proportion, and this was the philosophy of having the pay scale. The ranges of
pay from low to high."
Commissioner Usher said, "I think what we ought to do on your theory then, is not
have any cost of living increases at all. We just operate on the pay schedule and just let
them get their increases by going through the different grades and schedules."
Commissioner Losik replied, "Bill, I am not opposed to your philosophy. All I am
interested in is equal application be made of this. That is all I am interested in, which-
ever we do."
Commissioner Usher said, "I think you get equal application when you add 1% to
the schedule, because then everybody gets the 1%."
Commissioner Cooper said, "You do if you add the 1% to the schedule, but it
wasn't implemented that way."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Well if you added the 1% to the schedule rather than the
individual, the individual would still draw the 1% that was added to the schedule."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Mr. Mayor, I feel now we have aired this to the public
and made our intentions known, I don't think we are going to come to any conclusions now.
I think we�ought to get with staff and find out gust where we stand on this and reach some
conclusion.
Commissionerl.rooper commented, "Mr. Harris told me they would implement whatever
kind of a decision the Commission made. Okay, the Commission evidently has not made any
kind of decision that would direct them to add a 1% across the board, because they are still
using the same formula for a cost of living pay that they used under the old pay plan."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "What happened is we agreed, and I am not just precisely
sure how that may read, but we agreed to a 1% increase; so what the staff did is the way
they have done it in the past. They took all the schedules that were put out by the Kansas
Denver Study and added 1% to them; so that in effect every classification in there was
given a 1% increase. Then, so far as the individuals were concerned that fit that particular
classification get that 1%. If they were making more than that classification called for,
and it applies to a very few people, then they wouldn't get it. The real question is
whether the 1% directly applies to our pay schedules, or whether it applies to the individual,
regardless of what he got, and it makes a difference to a few people. So I think our basic
decision is whether we are applying this to everybody regardless of what they got or whether
we are applying this to our schedules, as we set them up."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, in that case, Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that
we apply it to each and every individual."
Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion and said, "We have been down this road
before."
Mr. Olson said, "Mr. Mayor, I think there is a second issue, and it becomes part
of this. Thst is, if you are going to apply cost of living as a cumulative ....."
Commissioner Cooper interjected, "... it is a budget year thing!"
Mr. Olson said, "It is not cumulative?"
Commissioners Cooper and Losik said, "No;"
Commissioner Cooper said, "It is a budget year thing!"
Mr. Olson said, "Let me read you some statistics then. I don't think the employees
of the City would probably concur or appreciate this. We took a wild stab that this might
be what you meant, we didn't know, but since 1967, effective January 1, 1968, a hypothetical
case, an employee at that time making $500 a month, in other words he was making $500.a month
on December 31, 1967, he received a 2.7% cost of living effective January 1, 1968; a 3.9%
cost of living increase effective January 1, 1969; a one step increase across the board
Mr. Olson said, "That is
Commissioner Losik said,
$428 he
"Maybe
would
in 1975
receive during
he would only
1974."
draw $408 plus 2%."
Mr. Olson said, "Okay - 21-,% then in 1975 would amount to $10, then are you saying
that his 1975 paycheck would be $418? Is that correct?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "That is right, because you haven't compromised this
pay scale that was adopted by us, otherwise if you add those in, you have completely thrown
it out of proportion, and this was the philosophy of having the pay scale. The ranges of
pay from low to high."
Commissioner Usher said, "I think what we ought to do on your theory then, is not
have any cost of living increases at all. We just operate on the pay schedule and just let
them get their increases by going through the different grades and schedules."
Commissioner Losik replied, "Bill, I am not opposed to your philosophy. All I am
interested in is equal application be made of this. That is all I am interested in, which-
ever we do."
Commissioner Usher said, "I think you get equal application when you add 1% to
the schedule, because then everybody gets the 1%."
Commissioner Cooper said, "You do if you add the 1% to the schedule, but it
wasn't implemented that way."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Well if you added the 1% to the schedule rather than the
individual, the individual would still draw the 1% that was added to the schedule."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Mr. Mayor, I feel now we have aired this to the public
and made our intentions known, I don't think we are going to come to any conclusions now.
I think we�ought to get with staff and find out gust where we stand on this and reach some
conclusion.
Commissionerl.rooper commented, "Mr. Harris told me they would implement whatever
kind of a decision the Commission made. Okay, the Commission evidently has not made any
kind of decision that would direct them to add a 1% across the board, because they are still
using the same formula for a cost of living pay that they used under the old pay plan."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "What happened is we agreed, and I am not just precisely
sure how that may read, but we agreed to a 1% increase; so what the staff did is the way
they have done it in the past. They took all the schedules that were put out by the Kansas
Denver Study and added 1% to them; so that in effect every classification in there was
given a 1% increase. Then, so far as the individuals were concerned that fit that particular
classification get that 1%. If they were making more than that classification called for,
and it applies to a very few people, then they wouldn't get it. The real question is
whether the 1% directly applies to our pay schedules, or whether it applies to the individual,
regardless of what he got, and it makes a difference to a few people. So I think our basic
decision is whether we are applying this to everybody regardless of what they got or whether
we are applying this to our schedules, as we set them up."
Commissioner Losik said, "Well, in that case, Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that
we apply it to each and every individual."
Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion and said, "We have been down this road
before."
Mr. Olson said, "Mr. Mayor, I think there is a second issue, and it becomes part
of this. Thst is, if you are going to apply cost of living as a cumulative ....."
Commissioner Cooper interjected, "... it is a budget year thing!"
Mr. Olson said, "It is not cumulative?"
Commissioners Cooper and Losik said, "No;"
Commissioner Cooper said, "It is a budget year thing!"
Mr. Olson said, "Let me read you some statistics then. I don't think the employees
of the City would probably concur or appreciate this. We took a wild stab that this might
be what you meant, we didn't know, but since 1967, effective January 1, 1968, a hypothetical
case, an employee at that time making $500 a month, in other words he was making $500.a month
on December 31, 1967, he received a 2.7% cost of living effective January 1, 1968; a 3.9%
cost of living increase effective January 1, 1969; a one step increase across the board
„486
July 1, 1969; a 5.1% cost of living January 1, 1970, a 2% across the board January 1, 1970; --
a 6.1 cost of living January 1, 1971; and a 4.6% cost of living January 1, 1972. By these
cost of living and across the board step increases being on an accululative basis, to which
we prescribed in 1968 and thereafter to date, this employee, who was making $500 a month
on December 31, 1967, over these 5 subsequent years, 1968 through 1972, drew a total gross
pay of $35,646.00.
"Now, that same employee, if we were applying the cost of living on what we
defined as base salary, every time he got a step, across the board step increase, we
considered this as an increase in base salary only, but we applied the cost of living back
to that base, so we had a base in 1968, if this be the definition of base, January 1, 1968;
he had another base salary on July 1, 1969 when a step was added. He had another base in
January 1, 1970. These were the base salaries, but on that basis he would have made
$32,875 over the 5 years; so there is a difference of a little less than $3,000 to the guy
who was making $500 a month on December 31, 1967.”
Commissioner Losik said, "Well Jack, from 1968 to 1972 was one era of pay. We
cannot use that philosophy on what we paid a consultant to come up with a pay scale for us,
that we adopted, so we can't play both sides of this thing. We either are one or the
other. We are under the Kansas -Denver - Schedule K - Study. Now the reason for that was
so that we wouldn't continue this type of thing that the League, in 1968, proposed and at
that time was alright. But we felt it wasn't correct now, so we paid to have it done.
Now if we change, if we change what this consultant gave us under Schedule K, using an
accumulative type increase in those salary ranges, we are defeating, and actually wasting
the money we spent for that man's advice. Again I made the motion and it was seconded and
I would like to have the question."
Commissioner Caldwell commented, "Let's stay with the 1% increase came after
the Denver Study. It had no part to do with the Denver Study when it was presented to the
Commission. This was an aftermath. It came on later. Now, I still say we are probably
not together on what has happened, but I think until the time arrives we do know just
what has happened and where we are, I can't go along with that proposal."
Commissioner Losik said, "Bob, let me ask you this. How much time do we take?
Now we started this thing the first of the year. It was tabled in February."
Commissioner Caldwell replied, "It depends on the issue as to how much time
we take."
Commissioner Losik said, "That is right. Now this is what I am saying. We also
agreed at that time that we would review this, the 1% being up or down in July. Well,
you can't review something you haven't completed. This is the purpose of trying to reach
a decision on this, whatever the decision is."We will be asking for an adjustment next
month."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "The Denver Study had no across the board in it. That
is what Mr. Catherwood told us. He did not go for an across the board increase in salary."
Commissioner Losik said, "Now Bob, you forget that we did not adopt that portion
of his study and it was so clarified that we were not adopting this book in its entirety.
Only a set portion of it, because it did not apply, and that was one of them that we
differed on. He did not want a cost of living increase, and we did not adopt his
recommendation on that particular item."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Well, one thing which we didn't follow through on,
was that he said he would be willing to come back if we felt like we didn't understand
what was going on, he would be willing to return here and explain this to us, and we
haven't answered his offer."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Another thing that enters into this, from the point of
view of the accounting procedures, and from the employees point of view too, is that they
might be better off to have this entire schedule changed. It gives them a little bit more
of a permanent basis, and also, from the point of view of a new employee."
Commissioner Cooper said, "No, if he comes in and has, we'll say the job of
accounting clerk and the pay range is $450 to $550, this is hypothetical. When that
person hires on with the city there is no reason for that individual to automatically
start getting a 1%, because the cost of living is an after the fact.
Mayor Weisgerber said, "If he is in a $450 to $550 range, as the pay schedule
says, then if we give a 1% increase, then he would come in at $450 plus 1%."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Not unless he was here when we approved that across
the board cost of living."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "Oh boy!"
1
1
1
Commissioner Losik said, "Let us use this Schedule K, for example. I illustrated
the top of Grade 1, here on Schedule K, as $408. Now, if that new man coming in, his
entrance rate is $334. Now that is what we hire that man at, and if this salary has a
cost of living increase of 1% on his entrance, that doesn't necessary mean that this
automatically becomes the $334 plus 1%. It is still $334. This is where we are at odds,
because the cost of living is an inflationary ....."
Commissioner Cooper interjected, "... let's assume that the City doesn't even
even have a cost of living addition to its pay plan. Let's assume it doesn't even have
such a thing, and at the budget hearing time this year for the 1974 budget, the City
Commission says, okay, let's crank in here a cost of living percentage, an across the board I
cost of living percentage. Okay, come January 1 when that 1974 budget goes into effect,
then all the city employees at that pay grade, that they are presently holding, would get
that across the board percentage increase for 1974. It is the same thing, if you go through;
the same procedure the next budget year, then it would apply. If someone hired on in July,
they are not paid that cost of living simply because a cost of living is an after the fact
thing, they weren't here, the City wasn't responsible for their pay plan at that time.
Well that is right:"
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Well there could be the possibility that the cost
of living may rise so much that 1% wouldn't be justifiable."
Commissioner Cooper said, "This is so. These are fluctuating figures."
Commissioner Losik said, "Right, and this is why you can't take and alter this."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "It is kind of hard to set your budget at 1% when
you don't know what is going to be happening."
Commissioner Losik said, "You ought to set your budget on Schedule K, and this
is what I was basing it on. The 1% right now is the amount that we allocated, it could
be 2%, it could be none, and this is what we are using as a foundation, so this is the
point that I was trying to make, but as I say, we have hashed this over and hashed this
over. I don't know if we are going to resolve it. Let's vote on it and get it over and
go and move to the next item.
Mr. Harris said, "May I interject something here? The purpose of the adjustment
and cost of living index is to protect the buying power of that salary. Hopefully if you
have the financial resources to do it with, today the employees salary is worth as much to
him as it was a year ago, by the cost of living adjustment. Now the basis that has been
used since 1967 is the Consumer Price Index put out by the Federal Government, and since
that time it has never gone down. Each year it has increased the percentage ranging from
somewhere over 2% up to 6 or 6.1% over the previous year. Now, as the City Manager pointed
out, had we each year applied the cost of living increase and then taken it off at the end
of that year, and then gone with another percentage, it would certainly have been to the
employees disadvantage; because the information that we receive from the Federal Government
was cumulative. It was a percentage increase in the cost of living over the previous year.
Now, are you with me up to this point in the way this things is worked? Whenyou adopted
the new salary schedule, the consultant, and this has been pointed out a number of times,
did not agree with the way we had done it under the League plan of providing the cost of
living adjustment each year. He said that rather than do that we should make a complete
salary study each year, based on the laws of supply and demand to keep the pay for each
job in line with our various positions, with private enterprise, and with other cities.
I think you are in agreement that you did not agree with the consultant in that respect.
You said that you wanted to adopt his recommended schedule, but rather than re -doing the
schedule each year, for a period of 2, 3, or 4 years, you would apply a cost of living
factor. Now, naturally that is going to depend on your financial resources whether or
not you can do it. The understand that we had and Commissioner Losik and Cooper both said
on January 22nd, they intended and wanted to see the cost of living thing continue as it
had been in the past, and this is exactly what was done. Now, the interpretation we had,
and still have, is that the cost of living factor, whatever it might be, whatever percentage
would be applied to each step of that schedule, and that is exactly what was done from 1967
on up. I don't see where this thing is really as complicated as it has been made to appear."
Commissioner Losik said, "I agree, it is not complicated. It is just a matter of
giving each and every individual a lq increase. There is no complication."
Mr. Harris said, "But if you apply it to that person that your consultant has
said is already overpaid, and has been overpaid, you are going to compound the problem.
That is inequity. That is not being fair to the other employees."
Commissioner Losik replied, "If you change the schedule the consultant gave you,
then you haven't adopted what he gave you either."
Mr. Harris said, "All you are doing is preserving his schedule when you apply
a cost of living factor to it."
Commissioner Losik commented, "Well, Mr. Mayor, the hour is getting late, we have
a motion and a second and I call for the question."
Commissioner Cooper said, "What was the motion? I forgot it."
Commissioner Losik repeated, "That each and every individual be given a cost of
living .increase of 1%."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Let's get the motion so we will know where we are
going."
Don Harrison read the motion, "A motion by Commissioner Losik, seconded by
Commissioner Cooper to apply the 1% cost of living to each and every individual."
Mayor Weisgerber added, "As opposed to applying it to the schedule," and called
for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Cooper, Losik (2). Nays: Caldwell, Usher, Weisgerber (3).
The motion did not carry.
Mr. Olson said, "I would like, for the record, to indicate one thing further,
that we have, I think, since 1964, attempted to defend the employees and the salaries, and
worked for their salaries and the like. The cost of living index, as it has been applied
since 1967, or it went into effect January 1, 1968, for that hypothetical employee who made
$500 at that time and by applying the cost of living in an accumulative manner as we have,
on January 1, 1972 made $668. If we applied the cost of living not on a cumulative
manner, on January 1, 1972, he would have been making $561 a month, unless our arithmatic
is in error."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I think perhaps we should have another motion to clear this
up or be sure we understand it, but what I am saying is that in effect we are not leaving
the Kansas -Denver -Study the same and just applying the temporary 1%. I am saying that
in effect, we have changed all of the figures in the Kansas -Denver Study by 1% and that if
next year we give an increase of a percentage it is going to be on top of the 1%, which we
have already given, by putting on this 1%, in effect, we have upped the Kansas -Denver Study."
Mr. Olson said, "We must know this, because our figures that we are attempting
to feed into the 1974 budget is a figure of 4.7%. Now we must know whether that applies
to the $408, Step E, Grade 1 or if that applies to the $412, because it will make a
difference of approximately $20,000 in our budget. If we go back to our $408 and apply
the 4.7% to that $408, we will get by for somewhere, approximately $20,000 less than if we
apply it to the $412 figure. So we should know this, because we have our worksheets
worked up, based on the $412."
A motion was made by Commissioner Usher that we add a 1% "Cost of living adjustment"
to the present salary schedule.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Caldwell.
Commissioner Cooper said, "Well wait a minute, because I don't know where that
puts us. We don't have a 1% on all the salary schedule at the present time."
Mr. Olson replied, "Yes."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "We will apply this to the salary schedule rather than
the individual."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Oh, okay."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "What we are saying is, we are amending the present salary
schedule 1% above the salary schedule as published by the Kansas Denver Study. I am
sure you know what we are doing Don, do you have this thing worded so six months from now
we will know what we did?"
Mayor Weisgerber called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Caldwell, Usher,
Weisgerber (3). Nays: Cooper, Losik (2). Motion carried.
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Mr. Mayor I don't understand this. Here we are
trying to give the 1% now. We gave it before, but now we are giving it and we are still
in opposition."
Commissioner Losik said, "No we are not Bob, we just haven't given it to
everybody, and this is the point that I have."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "The way they are talking now is, it is going to be
that plus."
Commissioner Losik said, "Not for 21 people it isn't. There are still going to
be that many people not getting a 1%."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "No, no, there will only be 5. What will happen, by putting
this on and leaving this cumulative, come next year, when the 4.7% goes on top of this 1%,
this will catchup nearly everyone to some degree."
PUBLIC AGENDA
A REQUEST from R. E. Zaragoza and William Scholl to be put on the agenda - subject
a representative from the Civil Rights Commission :-:ants to contact the City Commission at
that meeting on a subject of violation of civil rights.
Bill Scholl introduced Stewart Nelson, a representative of the Kansas Civil
Rights Commission.
Mr. Nelson said, "I am here for more or less of an informative nature today. This
is the second time. The Kansas Commission of Civil Rights is an enforcing agency of the
State Government. I would like to explain the function of the Civil Rights Commission, in
particular to the situation at hand here in Salina; the Commission's action upon a petition
which came forth sometime in the past, and explain to the Commission how the Civil Rights
Commission handles situations arising from race, religion, color, national origin -and
ancestory, and sex now. The Commission consists of a Board of Commissioners appointed by
the Governor with a staff of about 25, and the power of the Commission is to receive
complaints alleging discrimination through the action which the Commission did take upon
this petition and also the action which the Minimum Housing Code does subject those
falling under it to. As of yet we haven't received a complaint, but there are two types
of complaints that we receive. One can be by individual complaint, the other one is a
commission initiated complaint which can arise in 2 ways; 1 something that the commission
takes note of, the other be that concerned citizens could petition the Commission to initiate
an investigation. In this particular case, if an investigation were carried out it would
involve research into the City Commissioners action taken on past petitions, and establishing
whether or not the actions taken on the petition, or the petition itself, to be legislative
or administrative, which seems to be one of the questions that has come up. The research
of the petitions would involve identifying those petitioners of majority on the petition,
as opposed to minority and from there you would establish some jurisdiction. And the
jurisdiction in this particular case would fall under, you have a copy of the Kansas Act
on discrimination. I will read to you specific sections in there. 44-1009 Section C3
under public accomodations. The Rights Commission does handle cases of this nature under
employment, housing and public accomodations,, and in this case the City Commission would be
construed as being public accomodations. The specific Section C3 reads, 'for any person
as defined herein to refuse, deny, and make a distinction directly or indirectly or
discriminate in any way against persons because of race, religion, color, sex, national
origin or ancestory, such persons in the full and equal use and enjoyment of its services,
facilities, privileges and advantages of any institution, department or agency of the State
of Kansas, or any political sub -division or municipality thereof. That is the jurisdiction.
and from there we go on to an investigation and under the investigation the Commission would
have the power to subpoena. I assume your petitions, your past records are public information
so we wouldn't be able to subpoena it, but should there be information in the investigation
to disclose, the subpoena would be utilized in that case; and after that a recommendation
is made of probable cause or no probable cause as to the effects of the Minimum Housing
Code, whether intent is shown or not, if it is discriminatory, it is still under the
jurisdiction of the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, and after the recommendation is made,
if no probable cause, the matter is dropped as satisfactory attest of no probable cause.
If, however, we find that there is a probable cause to credit the allegation, say that the
Minimum Housing Code itself or the disregard, for the lack of a better word, of the petition
did in any way effect a minority membership, then the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights
would have the liberty to pursue it to a public hearing. The decision from the public
hearing is not final because it is appealable to the District Court, which the decision
there is binding. Like I say, as of yet we do have a complaint, but it has been brought
to our attention. My purpose here is an informative purpose.
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "It seems to be rather a remarkable thing that you
would be here, because one of your main objectives, I think, is to try to see that minority
races and all are protected. If you take the Minimum Housing away, most of these people
rent. If you take this Minimum Housing away, they will loose any protection that they
have and I think you will find, if you check with the minority group leaders in Salina,
that they are quite anxious to have a Minimum Housing Ordinance. Now, there were some
things in the present ordinance which were a little severe which they did not like, and we
already have recommendations from the Citizens' Advisory Committee asking for certain changes
in that ordinance. We are in the process of working through these now, attempting to get
HUD's approval and seeing what can be done to change these, so that it does soften a few of
these provisions. This ordinance has never been used against the person who owns their own
home. It has been used in effect to help otherwise. So my first impression has to be that
you are working on the wrong side of the fence, if you feel that we are in error in having
a Minimum Housing ordinance. The second thing is we would be happy to have a court test
of this. One group is saying this is a legislative matter, we are saying it is an
administrative matter. Granted there can be two different opinions. We think we are right,
they don't. We would be very happy to have a court test of this particular thing, and
have it determined; but although we took this action to maintain this Mimimum Housing some
time ago, no suit to have a judicial determination of this has been made.
Stewart Nelson said, "Let me say that the position of the Civil Rights Commission
is a neutral position and I am not here, and the Commission does not exist to carry someone
else's load. I don't want you Commissioners to think that I am here with a complaint. I
am here in an informative nature only; also there could be some question, as you say, to the
Minimum Housing Code itself, possibly was a little bit extreme; however the disregard, or
the seeming disregard for the petition does bring up another question and that possibly
there is possibly two separate complaints or two together as one. One complaint being
against the effect the Minimum Housing Code does have on the minority or the low income
population in this town, and the other consideration would be the action the Commission
took upon the petition itself."
Mayor Weisgerber said, It also has been realized we took into consideration,
when we did this, the way the signatures were obtained. Being from out of town, obviously,
there is a lot of background and a lot of.facets of this of which you are naturally not
aware.
Mr. Nelson said, "An investigation would also attempt to gather a clearer picture
of both sides, the way the signatures were obtained and both sides."
Mr. Scholl related his discussion with the Assistant Attorney General, John Martin,
and feels the action taken by the City Commission is based on personal opinion.
L. 0. Bengtson, said the City would welcome an investigation of the Kansas
Commission on Civil Rights.
The discussion required no formal action on the part of the City Commission.
A REQUEST was received from Raymond E. Haggart for the City of Salina to release
and disclaim any interest in the borrow easement located on the SW, of Section 25, Township
14 South, Range 1 West of the 6th Principal Meridian.
L. 0. Bengtson reported this is an easement that the State Highway Commission
acquired at the time they were improving 81 South, and they have now turned this easement
over to the City of Salina. He suggested the Commissioners refer this to the City Engineer
to see if the City of Salina has any possible use for this in the future, and let him make
a report, and if there is no use for it, it could be released. If there is a possibility
that we may need it in the future, then it would be retained.
Mr. Olson recommended it also be referred to the Metropolitan Planning Commission
for consideration of land use.
A motion was made by Commissioner Usher, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer
this request to the Metropolitan Planning Commission and Engineering for a recommendation.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE license application was filed by Charles W. Robb and
Don D. Mallory, a partnership, d/b/a Salina Bait and Tackle, 1120 West Crawford. (New
application) The City Clerk reported the applicants have paid the required fee, and the
application has been approved by the Zoning Officer, Health Department and Police Department.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Usher to approve the
license application and authorize the City Clerk to issue the license. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the Saline County Ambulance Service requesting City
participation in the purchase of an external cardiac monitor and defibrillater unit.
Mr. Earl Morgan talked in favor of the purchase of this piece of equipment and
related his own experience.
He explained this piece of equipment is in the form of a battery operated device
which could be used on the street, or in an elevator, or any place because it is self -
powered. He said it is known that the treatment of a heart attack and the recovery from
it is in direct proportion to the rapidity with which professional attention, by an
accredited doctor can be given, and the interval of time of the transportation of the
patient from a point to the hospital. This is the time that is very critical to that
patients life.
Mr. Morgal referred to a letter from Dr. Jackson, who is in favor of equipping
at least one ambulance and spoke highly of the capability of the people on the ambulance
service.
Commissioner Losik asked about the attitude of the County Commissioners.
Mr. Morgan said he talked with Commissioner Wayne Lockard about it, and he
indicated the County Commission would go along with whatever the City Commission did.
Commissioner Losik confirmed that. He said the funding of the Saline County
Ambulance Service is strictly a County function, but under the circumstances where we in
the city are blessed with having the majority of their equipment housed right here, and
being the majority of the population of the County, it would certainly be to our advantage
to the people of this community, here in Salina, for ambulances to be so equipped, and I
would be the first to recommend that if the County is willing to pay half - that on a
one time basis use Revenue Sharing Funds to purchase this piece of equipment and put it
in use as quickly as we can.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if that was in the form of a motion.
Commissioner Losik replied it was a motion. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Caldwell with the understanding that it is done on a one time basis. Ayes: (5)
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PETITION NUMBER 3332 was filed by J. Barton Webster, 215 West Cloud for the rezoning
of the NW4 less the West 30 feet and 4 acres in the Northeast corner and less the railroad
in Section 35, Township 14 South, Range 3 West, from District "A" (Second Dwelling House
District) to District "G" (Heavy Industrial District). A motion was made by Commissioner
Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Losik to refer the petition to the Metropolitan Planning
Commission. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A REQUEST was received from James R. Todd, West Vice President of Kansas State
Council of Fire Fighters to discuss Senate Bill 333.
James Todd stated, "I am the West Vice President of the Kansas State Council of
Fire Fighters. I am here to speak on behalf of the members of Local 782, International
Association of Fire Fighters and the fire fighters of Salina, Kansas. The only thing I
have to go on as far as information, in July 1970, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs put out a magazine. I have got photostatic copies of that magazine in this red
book. The main topic says, 'Collective bargaining: your key to strike free relations'.
Along about 1970 is when the provlems started arising in Salina with the Fire Department.
It is very good information and I am very disappointed that somebody didn't notice this
sooner. About the third page back, on page 46, seven steps to good relations; 1. let your
men organize, 2. bargain collectively, 3. don't tolerate strikes, 4. act to end strikes,
5. penalties are no real solution, 6. find alternatives to strikes, 7 direct bargaining
is best. Now this is put out by the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Fire
Chiefs from all over the nation that get together, and this is more or less their opinion
of collective bargaining. I regret the fact that I don't have the second month issue,
because I turned them in to the Commission investigation. The three points I would like
to bring out came up in the May 22nd, 1972 meeting. It seems the percentage that the
fire fighters represent, wasn't the proper amount, 51% of the city employees. Now on
page 101 of the Kansas League of Municipalities Journal - the Kansas Government Journal
it states - it provides that in order to be recognized, an employee organization must
represent not less than the majority of the employees of the appropriate unit. This is the
only place that this thing mentions 51%, and somehow I got the idea back in May that they
throught 51% of the City employees had to come before you. What is an appropriate unit?
K.S.A. 75-4327 adds which expressly states that uniformed policemen and uniformed firemen
cannot be included in the bargaining unit with any other municipal or public employees.
Further that policemen and firemen, generally, cannot be included in the same bargaining
unit. There will be three units within the City of Salina. There will be the policemen,
the firemen, and the other city employees, and this is also somewhat of a problem. It
seems like a lack of communication, and needs to be cleared up. As the law states the
procedures exist for one purpose, to assist employers and employees in achieving a more
harmonious employer-employee relationship, and that is the intent of the law. This is
all from the Kansas League of Municipalities. It is all good recommendations and the
reason I put it in there was in case somebody had forgotten what the League had put out
about it. This last piece of information I have in there is an ordinance from Hays,
Kansas. The point was brought out in litigation against the City, the Hays fire fighters
have a $300,000 law suit on for the very same reason that ours started, the dismissal of
the union president. The Hays fire fighters went before the City Commission, along with
the policemen. The policemen are unionized there, and they did adopt it. They seem to
have no hard feelings there, or something. They wanted to keep any problems from arising
in the future.
"The other point that I wanted to bring out in this, was the fact that Commissioner
Ashton stated only one city was under Senate Bill 333. At the present time the cities that
have started formal action, in which they are adopting K.S.A. 75-4321 are the following:
Abilene, Chanute, Clay Center, Colby, Concordia, Council Grove, Greensburg, Hays, Humbolt,
Hutchinson, Manhattan, Marian, Mission, Phillipsburg, Sterling and Topeka. There are only
four cities that have working agreements, or formal agreements, at the present time;
Chanute, Hoisington, Kansas City and Coffeyville. Now these working agreements aren't
necessarily under Senate Bill 333. They are either equivilent to this or along that line,
and of course the Saline County employees have Senate Bill 333. This is what, in my eyes,
the City Commission voted on May 22nd, 1972, voted down Senate Bill 333. I have one ordinance
I should have in there. I just received it in the mail. The City of Hutchinson adopted
K.S.A. 75-4321 to 75-4335 inclusive, January 23, 1973, I have a copy of that. Are there
any questions?"
Commissioner Usher asked, "What did they adopt, just the Fire?"
Mr. Todd replied, "Basically what they are doing, you are adopting the state law."
Commissioner Usher replied, "I know, but I mean in Hutchinson."
Mr. Todd said, "No, all they did was take the formal action. What I am doing,
I am not asking you to recognize the fire fighters or any of the city employees. What I
am requesting is the fact you adopt K.S.A. 75-4321 to 75-4335, inclusive, and basically
that is what needs to be done. I am not asking for recognition of the fire fighters.
I think there was a misunderstanding at the meeting of May 22, on the very same thing."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "You say in there that you only speak for the fire
fighters? Have you ever attempted to talk to other city employees for some togetherness
on a thing like this, rather than for it to be one sided?"
Mr. Todd replied, "No, sir, I haven't."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "This only comes from one source and I think if I
was to work on something like this, I would want the whole group in on it, then there
would be no problems. Sometimes I have the tendency to think that we are leaning toward
a certain group."
Mr. Todd said,"Like I said, I am not asking for recognition for the fire fighters,
I am asking for the adoption of Senate Bill 333."
Commissioner Caldwell asked, "Have you put forth this effort to talk to them?"
Mr. Todd, "No, sir."
Mayor Weisgerber asked, "I am curious, why not? Because I think that maybe we
did indicate that if a significant number of city employees were all wanting it, we would
probably go on it, and since the fire fighters are those -who want it particularly and have
been the big pushers for it, when the door was left open, why not?"
Mr. Todd said, "Actually I think there is something in the personnel manual which
pertains to administrative policies, etc., etc. I don't know what the section is, anyway
what it amounts to is interdepartmental movement like this, I would be half way afraid to
attempt it myself."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "Well, as I recall that there was some type of
survey, but there was a questionaire sent out to all the employees of the City of Salina."
Mr. Todd replied, "That was the grievance committee."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "It was the grievance board, that is right. They
voted it down, but to me it would seem like it would be more togetherness,if you can sell
them, I think you are going to sell the five commissioners. The City employees are
concerned about updating themselves also, but it looks like only one side seems to want
that."
Mr. Todd replied, "Just because the problems haven't arisen, doesn't mean they
don't exist."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "I am not talking about what doesn't exist. I am
just saying what they are coming from now."
Mr. Todd said, "You may have lulled yourself into a false sense of security."
Commissioner Losik said, "I have supported this thing ever since I attended the
meeting at the League regarding this Senate Bill 333. I have always felt, this doesn't
mean that every individual in the City employed will be wanting this, and since Senate
Bill 333 has to be recognized, there must be a need for this to state, but they also
recognize that it should be on a local basis. Now obviously some of the other communities
are accepting this for whatever their particular reason is, but it is also states too, it
also has the guidelines as to what individual groups would be authorized to be recognized
under this. Now it was brought up here tonight the fact that this commission does or
doesn't adopt Senage Bill 333. If we were to adopt it, we have no assurance that the police
department or the fire department or any of the department people who are authorized to
form their own individual appropriate bargaining units would even bother with it. The
point is it would be there for them should they want to. Now the League has been a very
very fine arm for any city and I think this Commission and this city has followed many,
many of their recommendations and their advice -they -have given. Now quite some time ago
I brought this up and I noticed here too, this May 1972 personal services - the League
of Kansas Municipalities, which we place a lot of faith in, they definitely stated right
in here whether this is good or bad. Whether elected officials like it or not, this is
a fact of life which must be accepted. Local officials can accept it gracefully or they
can accept it eventually under compulsion. I believe this was brought up once before.
Nobody likes to be compelled to do anything. To build up good communication, to build up
i
good harmonious relationship, I think we can rest assured that the League would not have
put this out had they not felt that this was in the best interest of the communities. Now,
let's look around ourselves for example, and see whether this is such a bad thing to
recognize bargaining units. The Westinghouse out here is a very fine organization, they
are not plagued with any little problems that can't be solved. Beech Aircraft, same thing.
We have the Saline County has adopted it. The Journal is a classic example of good
harmonious relationship, and they have this type of thing. Unified School District 305
has recognized bargaining deals right along, so we see this around us. They don't have
chaos and confusion as a result of it. I think it has been a good orderly manner in which
to resolve any problems that exist. I frankly feel that we should move to adopt this
Senate Bill 333. There are safeguards built in to this thing both ways. Don't think that
once in we can't get out. The law provides us a way of getting out of it if we feel it is
getting out of hand on the same way we went into it, as long as we don't do it to eliminate
the bargaining. Bill, this is the only stipulation, that if there were a bargaining
session that we couldn't decide as a commission to drop it until that was completed. Now,
with this, there is a safeguard both ways. This shows integrity on both sides. The outs
are there for us and so I feel I would like to make a motion that we adopt the Resolution
recognizing Senate Bill 333.
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "Before we make a motion and a second, it would cut
off debate from the floor.' Are there any more comments?"
Mr. Harris said, "Mr. Mayor, I would like to make an observation here. In
Mr. Todd's letter I find it quite interesting and I think ironic. It says in part, 'we
are all quite aware of the problems we have had in the City of Salina for the past 3 years.
I would say a large percent of these problems came from the lack of communication.
K.S.A. 75-4321 has the guidelines to establish the long needed communications.' In
November, 1967 I accompanied the City Manager to the Fire Department for a meeting with
the Department. Lt. Caswell asked the Manager if a committee of them could, from time to
time, meet with him to make recommendations, submit requests and so forth. The Manager
said he didn't have the time. If he met with a committee from one department, he would
have to do likewise for all departments. In response to that Lt. Caswell asked him if
they could meet with me as his representative. He said yes, providing you go through your
captains and your chief comes with you. Now, to this day, I have no knowledge of any such
request being made for the Fire Department personnel to meet with me on any subject. So,
as I say, I find it interesting and somewhat ironic that the lack of communication is the
problem."
Mr. Todd said, "Mr. Mayor, I don't feel it is ironic seeing I didn't come on the
department until 1969. I wasn't aware of this, and as far as meeting with the City Manager,
Keith Armstrong met with him."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "One other thing that stands a little hard to figure out,
that is the proposition of the law suits. There is a little difficulty for a person to say
they are going to bargain in good faith when they have law suits. Up until now, at least,
it appears your side certainly is the weak side. You have lost law suit after law suit,
and yet you keep trying. I can't reationalize why this particular process. I always
figured if you are going to get involved in a law suit, you ought to get involved in one
you have a chance of winning. Well, at the present time, as far as those are concerned,
the City holds the trump card and I think if these were cleared up, or after these were
cleared up and are no longer an issue, in addition to having an interest in the other city
employees. To my way of thinking, this is another stone. The law, as it is written, I
won't argue that as states go, Kansas has a good law in Senate Bill 333. It is well
written and well worded, and one that is well done, but in Salina we have some particular
situations that aren't very condusive to going along with this, to my way of thinking."
Commissioner Usher commented, "I believe this Senate Bill 333 has value to it,
but I can't resolve in my mind how you can come to us asking for this when you still have
legal action pending, and without having any more support than just the union firemen.
I think what you are asking us to do is place the entire employee structure of the City
under it, Senate Bill 333, and yet we haven't heard from any other department that they
want to come under it.
Mr. Todd said, "I would like to make one comment'to that, as far as litigation,
this would be a good way to put a stop to any future litigation. This is my whole point
behind it. We have a lack of communication that is why this problem has arisen, and this
is a solution. Now I am merely submitting this as a solution. Now it takes 5 people to
pass an ordinance or a resolution and it is up to you five.
Mayor Weisgerber said, "When we are talking about the other employees, I think
there is a feeling, at least in my mind, that if we go under this for the Fire Department
only, and it may be one reason you haven't tried bringing the other employees along with
you, and this is a pretty sharp accusation, but yet it is there, but the reason you aren't
'r04
interested in the other city employees is that you figure if you can get this done, you are
going to be able to get the jump on them and take advantage of the other city employees.
Now this thought has got to be in my mind. It is there and this is part of it. I am just
being fair and honest with you and saying what I feel, but I feel this is the reason it is
promoted, not just for having fair bargaining, but for the fact it would give you a jump
on the rest of the folks."
Commissioner Cooper commented, "Senate Bill 333 has specific instructions. the
police department and the fire department ..."
Mayor Weisgerber interjected, "I know, they are organized separately."
Commissioner Cooper said, Okay, if the other city employees would want this kind
of action,
they are free agents to get it, but there is no way the Fire Department could
influence other departments, they don't have this kind of common denominator going for them."
Mr. Todd said, "The Fire Department has been organized since 1944. I don't
believe any other city employees have organized and you are saying we are trying to get a
jump on them."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I am thinking of the power and pressure you can have as
a result of this. Maybe I am being unfair, but I am just stating what sticks in my mind."
Mr. Todd said, "I don't follow you."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "You mentioned that if this was adopted that you
wouldn't have the law suits, right? I mean that it wouldn't be going on. Couldn't you
tell your union now that if we did drop it, that this might happen if you did drop the
law suit. Have you ever thought about that side of the program? There are two sides.
Here you are saying it is happening now because ..., but if you had Senate Bill 333 it
might be dropped. Couldn't that be dropped without going through that? Wouldn't that
be a good gentlemen's agreement?
Mr. Todd said, "Are you offering me a ...?"
Commissioner Caldwell said,. -"No, No. I am not saying that, but you told me, so
now I am going to tell you, this is my way of thinking. Turn about is fair play, but I
am not going to give up my goody."
Commissioner Losik said, "One of the things we adopt if we should adopt this,
this doesn't force the employee to organize and take advantage of Senate Bill 333. It
is up to them, if they want to in their own appropriate bargaining unit."
Commissioner Cooper interjected, "If a majority of them want to!"
Commissioner Losik said, "If a majority of the police wanted to use this, fine,
it is there for them to use. If they didn't, they could continue on as they have. The
same with the other departments because it is based on an individual departmental type of
set up and the reason Senate Bill 333 did this was because they also recognize that there may
be some areas in the city employees that they don't want to organize. Now, if this is their
case, fine, it is there for them if they want to, it is there for them, but the point is,
it is there, and it is a step, another step in the right direction for preventing
reoccurance of any of these misunderstandings or these law suits that we have and are
existing."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "When you are adopting something, it doesn't mean
people conform to it. I think in our personnel manual it says that no employees of the
City shall get mixed up in politics, and this type of thing. Well, it all depends on
which side you look on. If you want to do it, you can; and if you don't. Some of us
have this idea to do as we please regardless of what the law is and when we come to that
part, it is defiance. I haven't gone through a number of these things trying to get
some of the things out of my way to get somewhere, I can understand what they are doing,
but you don't always defy the law to do that, and I think that I couldn't possibly be for
Senate Bill 333 at the present time. I feel like I am an innocent Commissioner, but here
I am with something I don't have a thing to do with. I am subject to a court trial you
know, and I know every fireman over there, personally almost. No, I have no hard feelings
at all but here I am involved in a suit that I know nothing about basically, because in
1944 I was here, but I didn't know about all these things happening, but I do think laws
don't make you always conform to them. Like I mentioned on the Personnel Manual, that
has practically been done away with by certain groups, because you do what you like, so
the law doesn't have anything to do with it. We have had the laws for years in America,
but they all haven't always made people conform to them. So I've seen the Personnel
Manual defied in the last two years, since I've been on the Commission.
Commissioner Cooper commented, "I have seen the Commission defy the laws."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Larry, when it comes to giving up litigation ususlly it
is the loser that gives up and not the winner, and you negotiate from that point."
Mr. Harris said, "I don't feel in all the time that we have had the litigation
or while the problems have been going on here that the members of the Fire Department have
endeavored to utilize the machinery, the avenues, the channels that have been available to
them all the time. The Fire Department has a staff. The Chief, Assistant Chief, Captains,
this is primarily the supervisory staff of that department, and just like any other
department if any one individual employee or group of employees wants to make a recommendation
or request,ithey should submit it to that staff. The staff should consider it, study it,
whatever is necessary or appropriate. If they agree with it, then recommend it to the
City Manager through the Chief of that department. If they disagree with it, these people
on the staff, if they don't buy the proposal as made by the people below them, then they
should go back to them and say we don't agree with you for these reasons, or we agree with
you in part, whatever the case might be. When they work it out within the department then
it should come on up the line to the City Manager, as a recommendation from the chief and
his staff. Now, I honestly don't feel that, the approach has been sincerely tried; that
they have made use of the machinery that is available to that department and every
department. Before we venture into this area, a totally new area, I feel that we should
sincerely and honestly take advantage of the machinery that is available.
Mr. Bruzda said, "I would like to say that when I first joined this local,
roughly 80% of the captains on the Salina Fire Department belonged to Local 782. Within
the time period starting early part of 1970 the supervisory staff of the Fire Department
was successful in forcing out of the union, every captain, and approximately 6 lieutenants.
Now,right now, what Mr. Harris is asking me to do is to go to.the people who were forced
out of the union to ask them to handle union problems, so I can get to the City Manager.
This is what it is all about."
Mayor Weisgerber commented. "This is something that would be subject to
negotiations. Generally, however, under the general rules and regulations, supervisory
personnel are not members of the union. They can have a separate one of their own, but
they generally are not members of the union."
Mr. Bruzda said. "Mr. Mayor, I would like to call to your attention, Newton,
Kansas; Council Bluffs, Iowa, just to name two that I recently visited where clear up to
the rank of assistant chief they belong to the same organization as the members which I
represent."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I don't think we should discuss this, but this isn't a
good principal."
Mr. Bruzda said, "Sir, like you say, the Kansas League of Municipalities might
very well recommend -that the supervisory officers of the Fire Department, the administration,
belong to their own separate unit, however on the other hand, as Commissioner Losik has
already stated the League of Municipalities recommends the proposals outlined under
Senate Bill 333."
Commissioner Caldwell said, "But it am saying here that it depends on which
commission it is that defies the laws too, merely acting on Senate Bill 333. I am not
against the bill at all, but I couldn't possibly go along with it at the present time."
Larry Bruzda, President of Local 782 said, "I think as vice president Todd has
abley put it up to this point, what we are interested in, just as we stated in May last
year, we are interested in a sincere period of when we can get-together and communicate
with one another without fear. We are trying to make the future better than,the past.
We had problems in the past, we don't want,:problems in the future. The way we see it,
we have two court cases yet to go. Let's not build anything for the future. Let's end the
court cases where they are. Let's have a way to communicate in the future. Now I can
stand here right now and sincerely say I am afraid to communicate with the City Manager.
Call it chain of command, call it what you want, if I mention to a captain that I want
to talk to the City Manager the captain gets a little shakey. Under collective bargaining
there are guidelines to go through the proper channels to communicate with reprehension
that can come back on you, and this is what the interest lies in. We have been organized
since 1944 and we have always desired a channel to communicate through without fear and
I think what we need to do is look to the future. Now, I know that we want to keep
personalities out of this, and I would just say 2 members on the Commission either belong
to a collective bargaining unit or members of their family do. Now if either one of those
organizations were to be involved in litigation, would their bargaining agent, tear up the
collective bargaining that they have, and say we will talk to you after it is all over?"
Mayor Weisgerber said, "Larry, when it comes to giving up litigation ususlly it
is the loser that gives up and not the winner, and you negotiate from that point."
Mr. Harris said, "I don't feel in all the time that we have had the litigation
or while the problems have been going on here that the members of the Fire Department have
endeavored to utilize the machinery, the avenues, the channels that have been available to
them all the time. The Fire Department has a staff. The Chief, Assistant Chief, Captains,
this is primarily the supervisory staff of that department, and just like any other
department if any one individual employee or group of employees wants to make a recommendation
or request,ithey should submit it to that staff. The staff should consider it, study it,
whatever is necessary or appropriate. If they agree with it, then recommend it to the
City Manager through the Chief of that department. If they disagree with it, these people
on the staff, if they don't buy the proposal as made by the people below them, then they
should go back to them and say we don't agree with you for these reasons, or we agree with
you in part, whatever the case might be. When they work it out within the department then
it should come on up the line to the City Manager, as a recommendation from the chief and
his staff. Now, I honestly don't feel that, the approach has been sincerely tried; that
they have made use of the machinery that is available to that department and every
department. Before we venture into this area, a totally new area, I feel that we should
sincerely and honestly take advantage of the machinery that is available.
Mr. Bruzda said, "I would like to say that when I first joined this local,
roughly 80% of the captains on the Salina Fire Department belonged to Local 782. Within
the time period starting early part of 1970 the supervisory staff of the Fire Department
was successful in forcing out of the union, every captain, and approximately 6 lieutenants.
Now,right now, what Mr. Harris is asking me to do is to go to.the people who were forced
out of the union to ask them to handle union problems, so I can get to the City Manager.
This is what it is all about."
Mayor Weisgerber commented. "This is something that would be subject to
negotiations. Generally, however, under the general rules and regulations, supervisory
personnel are not members of the union. They can have a separate one of their own, but
they generally are not members of the union."
Mr. Bruzda said. "Mr. Mayor, I would like to call to your attention, Newton,
Kansas; Council Bluffs, Iowa, just to name two that I recently visited where clear up to
the rank of assistant chief they belong to the same organization as the members which I
represent."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "I don't think we should discuss this, but this isn't a
good principal."
Mr. Bruzda said, "Sir, like you say, the Kansas League of Municipalities might
very well recommend -that the supervisory officers of the Fire Department, the administration,
belong to their own separate unit, however on the other hand, as Commissioner Losik has
already stated the League of Municipalities recommends the proposals outlined under
Senate Bill 333."
Commissioner Losik said, "Getting back to this Jack, we have gone on this thing,
time and time again, and I don't know what more we can discuss. First of all, I would like
to maybe summarize it and say that what we are discussing here, the adoption of Senate Bill
333, now the rest of it as far as recognizing individual bargaining units; those people have
to get certified as outlined by Senate Bill 333 before there is anything done, and they
must comply with it according to Senate Bill 333. Now once that is done, then they in turn
would come to us to recognize them as a bargaining unit representing over 50% of the people
eligible for that particular unit. Now at this point, the adoption of Senate Bill 333
certainly as I have stated, would not effect us, because again, under the provisions once
an election has been made to bring the public employer, which is the city, under the
provisions of this act, it continues in effect unless recinded by a majority vote of all
members of the governing body; and here is the stipulation, no vote to recind shall take
effect until the termination of the next complete budget year following such vote. This
gives us an,out, just as easily as it give us an in. So on that basis, I would repeat my
motion that we adopt Senate Bill 333."
Commissioner Cooper said, "Oh, I'll second it; but I would like to add this,
that it is no secret this Commission has been divided on a number of issues, this being
one of them. Senate Bill 333 cleared the State Legislature, certainly by all the Salina
and Saline area representatives support, This commission has verbally stated to you
gentlemen that they believe you have a good program, but they can't go along with it. Well
I think this is typical of this Commission. They say one thing and vote something else,
so I kind of get the feeling that maybe somebody around here doesn't like you. But anyhow,
I'll second the motion and I think we should go under Senate Bill 333.
Commissioner Caldwell said, "I would like to make one comment here about the lack
of communication with the City Manager, or whoever on the staff that you want to talk to.
I don't think that Senate Bill 333 is going to eliminate you going through channels regardless
of how it is. Even if Senate Bill 333 is adopted, there is going to be open shop. You
are going to be under some type of supervision and you don't have to go to another union
man to get to the next guy, you go to that immediate person that is ahead of you. So the
union isn't the last word. It is part of it.. If I understand that a number of our firemen
work in the City and they work under a non-union lable on other jobs. Now, if it so
demanding that you work for a union for the Fire Department why don't you demand those
same rights on the other jobs that you have? You see, if a union is strong enough, it is
strong enough for everybody. I haven't been able to get in one for a lot of reasons, but
the point is if that union is good enough for the Fire Department, it has to be good enough
for the,.,other jobs; otherwise a union doesn't work; so let's give it some thought, you
see there are two sides to everything and some people can only see the one side. So give
that some thought. Question!"
Commissioner Losik said, "As far as that goes, right now at this point it is not
a matter of a union or a union lable, all we are talking about is Senate Bill 333. Senate
Bill 333 does not say that we recognize unions it says you recognize a bargaining unit.
Now this unit can be called anything as long as that unit represents a majority of the
people authorized to be in that, so at this point, this is not recognizing a union, being
for a union, or opposed to a union. This is the machinery under the Public Employer -
Public Employee Relation Law, Senate Bill 333. I call for the Question."
Mayor Weisgerber called for a vote on the question. Ayes: Cooper, Losik (2).
Nays: Caldwell, Usher, Weisgerber (3). Motion did not carry.
Commissioner Usher moved that the Commission table the request made by Mr. Todd
to further study the possibility of the City coming under Senate Bill 333. "I think if
we could sit down and discuss it amongst ourselves with some advice from staff and some
advice from other city employees, the fire department, they can be in on it, but of course
we have heard their story, the police if they are interested, and get a feeling on this
that maybe we could perhaps make another decision. Now you know why I voted against it,
gentlemen. I told you, that I just don't feel like I can vote for something where we are
in the midst of a legal hassle about it, but I am convinced that eventually this is
something we will eventually have, but of course we are not going to have it right now.
Commissioner Losik said, "Bill, I would second that if you would set a time
limit on doing just what you say, to get together with everybody."
Commissioner Usher replied, "Well, I hate to set time, Mike, particularly;
except I am sure people are going to be keeping us advised of this thing, and I can
assure you I will, I'll see to that, to see that it doesn't die on the table."
Commissioner Losik said, "Would you suggest 60 or 90 days? This would give
ample time."
Commissioner Usher replied, "Let's start with 90 days."
Commissioner Losik said, "I'll second your motion."
Mayor Weisgerber asked, "On the motion, are you talking about public hearing,
about executive hearings?"
Commissioner Usher said, "I think this is something the Commission ought to sit
down and talk a little bit about. What kind of feed in we need, and would like to have."
Mayor Weisgerber said, "You are putting that under the personnel heading where we
would talk with the other departments. Is that satisfactory for your second, Mike?"
Commissioner Losik replied, "Yes, as long as it follows our guidelines. If it is
going to be a personnel matter, then it wouldn't be under an executive session. Regarding
an individual then it would be, but since this a personnel at large policy, it would have
to be a non-executive session.
Commissioner Usher said, "Well, we won't make any decision, but at least we can
get some input and some information. I don't see how we can hassel out here in front of
the public."
Commissioner Losik commented, "I think we can do it informally out here, without
being in conjunction with the regular meeting, like we discusse Revenue Sharing."
Commissioner Usher said, "I am not going to argue the point. The point is I
don't particularly want this thing to die just right now. I think it is something we are
faced with, but I think we need to have more information and I am not completely convinced,
I know Bob isn't, but I think we both realize also, that eventually we will have Senate
Bill 333."
Commissioner Caldwell commented, "I am not saying I am against it, but under the
circumstances."
Mayor Weisgerber commented, "If the circumstances were a little different, it
would be quite different."
Commissioner Usher said, "In other words, I don't want this thing - what we have
done is kill this, and what they have done they have gone through time and effort to
present the proposal, and I think it requires that we continue to study it. That is
what I am trying to get across.
Commissioner Cooper said, "Oh! If you want a motion that we continue to study
it, I'll second that Mr. Usher, because it can certainly use some study.
Mayor Weisgerber called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Cooper,
Losik and Usher that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners be adjourned.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
owl
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
1