City officials say benefits have been curtailed

City officials say benefits have been curtailed
Salary ordinance carried to Dec. 29 meeting
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

Long Branch officials last week defended weeks of bad press over large payouts for employees' accrued sick and vacation days with a presentation outlining the efforts the city has made to limit spending.

Long Branch labor counsel Jamie Plosia gave a history lesson on labor agreements with the city at the Dec. 8 workshop meeting.

Plosia, of Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, of Liberty Corner, broke down the city units under contract, as well as those employees who do not collectively bargain.

"You have all but seven of your employees in collective bargaining agreements," he said. "You have the blue-collar unit, the white-collar unit, the supervisors' unit, the FMBA [Firemen's Mutual Benevolent Association] unit, its superiors, the PBA [Policemen's Benevolent Association] unit and its superiors."

It was later revealed that the seven employees not included in collective bargaining include the business administrator, the municipal clerk, their staff, one person in personnel, and three special police officers.

Plosia said a lot of what the city does with contracts, including compensation and vacation pay, is a result of a federal mandate.

"In terms of collective bargaining, you refer to the contracts," he said. "We are a civil service community, and we actually have code provisions that apply to all civil service employees."

Plosia said that where the city is able to control spending is with the accrual of sick days.

"There is a minimum number of sick days provided," he said. "The statutes don't talk about reimbursement for sick days."

Plosia described the measures the city has taken to limit payouts, starting with the blue-collar units.

"For employees hired prior to August 2006, they can get a maximum of $15,000 reimbursed for accumulated sick time," he said. "Employees hired after that date are not eligible for that benefit.

"We were able to succeed as a city to negotiate that benefit out," he added.

Plosia went on to describe the city's history with contracts for white-collar employees.

"The white-collar employees have the same provision, but that's for employees hired prior to 2003," he said. "Anybody hired after 2003 was not eligible for accumulated sick time."

Plosia then discussed the supervisors' unit.

"The supervisors union has a sliding scale based on number of years of service," he said. "The most that they can get after 25 years of service is 50 percent of their accumulated sick time to a maximum of $25,000.

"There is no grandfather provision in there, but that is something we are certainly looking to do," he added. "We'd like to have the same max there, too."

Plosia said that police and firemen formerly received very large sick time payouts.

"If they were hired before 1996 [PBA] or 1997 [FMBA], they would get a maximum of 260 days paid of accumulated sick time," he said. "That's a lot of time.

"So they can get a year's pay, but we have been able to negotiate that out for people hired after 1996," he added.

Plosia went on to say that the city tried to eliminate accrued time for all employees, but was unsuccessful.

"We certainly would like to eliminate that for all employees, and we did propose that repeatedly, and it didn't work," he said.

Plosia said that it is harder to negotiate with public safety units because of the required arbitrator.

"Understand that all the public safety units have arbitration," he said. "When you do a side-by-side and compare benefits, the public safety employees are going to have better benefits. Not just in Long Branch, but in the state."

The contracts for the PBA will be up for renegotiation in 2012, and the contracts for the FMBA are due in 2013.

Councilman Brian Unger asked Plosia about a large payout for three retired police officers, and Plosia broke down what could be controlled with the payouts.

"Some of it may have been accumulated compensatory time and some of it may have been accumulated vacation time," he said. "That is pay, and both [are protected] by federal law.

"What is left is reimbursement for accumulated sick time, and that would be the contractual limit you'd like to put in," he added.

Plosia said that a retirement actually benefits the city for a few reasons.

"When someone leaves, particularly a public safety employee, there is a considerable breakage when they leave," he said. "As in they were making $100,000 and the person coming in would be making $40,000.

"The person coming in might not start for a couple of months, so you'd be saving about $10,000 a month," he added. "They are less likely to have family health insurance when they come in because they are more likely to be single.

"From a breakage point of view, we'd all be thrilled with a spate of retirees," he continued.

Plosia went on to say that the city must compensate for sick pay because employees are more likely to use sick days if they do not receive compensation for them.

"Particularly with the sick leave, you have people where shifts have to be filled," he said. "The argument is more people would use more sick time if they are not going to be paid.

"If you think of what that means for the city, the people who are being paid the most are police and fire and those [positions] have to be filled," he added. "Certainly we can have a conversation about whether the compensation is too much, but certainly if they are not compensated at all, you'll see a rise in sick time."

Another issue that has been discussed recently and was addressed by Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr. was Long Branch's $10.4 million in liability for sick and vacation time due for employees.

Mehlhorn defended the practice by saying that the total payout is theoretical.

"Being conservative means going to an extreme in that liability," he said. "There is no way that you would ever accrue that."

The liability mentioned is the total amount the city owes in sick and vacation time, but would only be paid out in full in the unlikely event that the city shuts down.

The regular council meeting followed, and an ordinance setting minimum and maximum salaries for some city employees was on the agenda.

Mayor Adam Schneider explained the ordinance "encompasses every employee for the past year and includes contracts, some of which were approved three years ago. We didn't just approve raises."

The vote on the ordinance had to be delayed because the council fell short of the four votes necessary for adoption.

Councilman Anthony Giordano was absent for the vote, and Councilman Brian Unger voted against the ordinance. The ordinance vote was carried to the next meeting.

Unger explained his vote against the ordinance at the end of the meeting.

He said he voted no on the salary ordinance because he has objections to Ron's [Mehlhorn] contract."

"I like Ron personally, he's a gentleman, he's a fine professional and this is in no way personal or even political. This is about governance.

"I think we need to reopen the contract and take out some of the lavish provisions that were approved again in July 2006," he added. "I think it's unconscionable."

Unger explained his view further in an interview last week.

"It is simply stunning that the really egregious parts of his contract were renewed and limits weren't put on his accruals," he said. "I'm not going to vote yes to adopt a salary ordinance unless the mayor makes a commitment to change Mehlhorn's contract."

Unger wasn't the only one critical of the contracts. A local group, Long Branch Citizens for Good Government, criticized the contracts as well.

"How are other towns able to curb the outrageous accumulated sick and vacation time?" member Lynn Petrovich asked the council.

"I wonder how often, if ever, this mayor and this City Council has spent the time to define common good," Diana Multare, a group member, said. "I would love to know what your definition of common good is."

Multare then presented the council with a copy of a report by the state that studied public employee contracts.

"The commission did find some municipalities in New Jersey put the brakes on runaway employee benefits," she said.

Multare cited towns including Teaneck and Point Pleasant as municipalities that were more responsible in terms of employee compensation, according to the report.

The mayor and council members responded by defending their efforts.

"We scaled it back a tremendous amount," Schneider explained. "Mr. [Howard] Woolley [administrator] operates without a contract, and Ron [Mehlhorn] operates with a contract where many of the features predate us.

"We left features in there and haven't given them to anyone else," he said.

Council President Michael DeStefano backed the mayor up.

"We have, over the years, put caps and worked very diligently with the unions for a lot of sick-time buyouts," he said. "We have been doing that."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.