Actually, this amendment is the same in substance as the amendment that I offered at the public hearing. 41 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
Councilman, let's just -- that description doesn't help us at all. What we need to do is have someone get copies of all of the amendments or the proposed amendments to each member of Council so that we know that every member of Council has a copy of every proposed amendment.
I understand, Mr. President, that there's now going to be distributed -- the Administration has a copy of the one that referred to the small group of people?
Yes. Councilman Street, this is Deborah Butler. Charlie McPherson or the sergeant-at-arms is now distributing the proposed amendment that covers the transfer of the or so 19 employees from Plan M to Plan J. They are 20 currently in Plan M, and they'll be --
Couldn't it be M as in "Martha?" 42 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
Councilman Cohen, let us get all of the amendments. We'll deal with them all.
You don't have to argue the amendment before it's in front of us. We'll have a chance to get to that. Now I just want to make sure that every member has all of the proposed amendments, and we'll kind of walk through them.
Mr. Erickson, please approach the Chair. (Mr. Erickson comes forward and confers with President Street.)
If I can have your attention, Councilmembers, please. Amendments in hand, can each Councilmember get your amendment. I want to make sure everyone has everything that we have in front of us. There was a proposed amendment to Bill 43 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 No. 980843, which is an amendment that is offered by Councilman Nutter. Does everyone have the Nutter amendment? Can I -- this is the amendment that says: "Further as to members of Plan L, any part of this ordinance that represents an increase or a diminishment in the benefits rights of such member shall not apply to an elected official during any term of office to which such official was elected. . . " Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba. Does everyone have that amendment, the last one handed out? Does everyone have that? Is there anyone who does not have that amendment? (No response.)
All right. Now, there is a proposed amendment regarding vesting within five years. This is Councilman Cohen's amendment. I think it was just recently distributed.
Is there anyone who does not have that amendment? (No response.)
And then there are 44 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 three amendments -- proposed amendments to Bill 3 No. 980843. Number 1 starts to amend Section 1 by amending the Table of Contents of Title 22 by adding, after 22-806, installment payments. Do you see that? It's number 1, it's the first amendment on the page. Does everyone see that? It amends Section 1 by amending the Table of Contents. I want to make sure that everyone has it 'cause they all look alike.
They're making copies now. You're lost because you don't have it. All right, may I have your attention, please, may I have your attention. To the stenographer, we are on the record. The Council session that we previously recessed until o'clock will now stand in recess until 1:30. For anybody who's interested in that Council session, it will be in recess till 45 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 approximately 1:30. If it's going to go on longer, we will make such an announcement. We are now in consideration of -- this is the Council Committee of the Whole for those who may have entered the chamber. The amendments are still being copied and collated.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Please don't leave, don't leave.
May I ask, what is now being distributed is the totality of the amendments?
I want every member to have in his or her hands every amendment that we will consider.
There is now being distributed two pages, which begin with the big title "Proposed Amendments to Bill No. 980843."
Yes. 46 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
I am asking whether these two amendments, whether these two pages constitute the totality of the amendments being offered by the City Administration to this particular bill.
Can we -- can we just hold that question until we get everything in our hands and then we can go down the proposed amendments sort of one at a time and then we can get to that.
'Cause it could be confusing if we do this now and then wait, and then you'll get handed other pieces of paper, okay?
All right. It is now my understanding that Councilmembers have a series of pieces of papers that we are going to refer to as proposed amendments. I see Councilman Ortiz shaking his head. Councilman Ortiz does not have that. Can we please make it available to him. He now has it. 47 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 All right. Now, does -- I'd like to start from the beginning. Does everyone have an amendment regarding elected officials and benefits, the amendment that's being offered by Councilman Nutter?
All right. Just put "Nutter" at the top, that's what I did. It's the Nutter amendment. Now, there's an amendment that ou should have just gotten that reads, "Proposed Amendments to Bill No. 980843." The first number on the page has "Amend Section 1 by Amending the Table of Contents of Title 22 by Adding. . . (Ba-ba-ba-ba). . . Installment payments." Does everyone have that? It's two pages. The last section says, "Separation Prior to Minimum Retirement Age. . . (ba-ba-ba- ba-ba-ba). . ." Does everyone have those two pages. Is this an Administration amendment?
So we put at the top 48 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 "Administration." Is this the only amendment the Administration is offering?
That's clear. Now, I have a piece of paper that says "Proposed Amendment Regarding Vesting Within Five Years." Do you see that? Does everyone have that? We'll call that "Cohen."
This is the "Cohen" amendment, all right. Now, it's my understanding that these three amendments are the amendments that members in the Administration wish to have considered. There's a Cohen amendment, there's a Nutter amendment, and there's the Administration's amendment. Now, Councilman Cohen, Councilman Cohen, you had two amendments -- one amendment regarding the -- is that incorporated in the Administration's amendment?
No. 49 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
Where is the amendment that you plan to offer which deals with the --
The one you identified as the "Cohen amendment" is the amendment. I would like to say that the Administration supports it but --
No, no, no, no, no. 13 Councilman, that's the five-year vest; that's a different amendment.
That's right, that's the one we're looking for. Now do members of City Council have it? I have it. Are there copies of it?
Is that the 50 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 22-people amendment? May I suggest you call that "Cohen-2."
Amendments Regarding Members of AFSCME District Council 47, we all have it.
Well, they're saying they don't have it, Mr. President.
Well, I ask that they get a copy. It's three pages. This is also "Cohen." We'll call this "Cohen-2." There's the "Cohen amendment" and then there's the "Cohen-2 amendment" regarding members of AFSCME distribute Council 47. Does everyone have that?
For some reason, they are not included when everybody else in the city is included; that's why --
Yes, you are, you're arguing the amendments now. 51 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
We have the bill. Now I would like to start with something easy. Can we start with the Nutter amendment. This is an easy amendment. All right, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Mr. President, I have a document that reads "Proposed Amendments to Bill No. 980843." In parentheses it says "Amendments Regarding Members of AFSCME D.C. 47."
What is this one that reads at the top "Proposed Amendment Regarding Vesting Within Five Years"? 52 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
And then there's "Proposed Amendment Regarding Members of AFSCME Local 21-86."
Can we take an easy one? Let's just sort of ease into this. Is there anyone who has any questions about Councilman Nutter's amendment? This amendment is done, and my understanding is that it only impacts three members, and those are the three members that came on this Council in the election that saw Councilman Nutter come to this Council. And I think it's Nutter, Kenny, and Blackwell. And this kind of makes sure that they 53 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 aren't voting for something that has the effect of increasing their compensation. It keeps everyone out of trouble. Is that the bottom line here?
You know, there's all the Wiener case and that all that -- you can't increase your own compensation and all. And rather than run the risk, this amendment is designed -- and for the rest of us, it has no 12 impact,. Is that correct?
That is my understanding, Mr. President. Councilman Kenney and myself and Charlie McPherson tells me that Councilwoman Blackwell may now possibly not be impacted because of her previous service.
It would prevent Councilman Kenney and I from accessing the eight-year vesting provision --
-- next year. And 54 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 it would require us to only -- to have to be reelected in order to take advantage of the vesting requirement which, at that point in time, it would be --
But it would not allow us to either not run next year and then take advantage of --
That was the second. Or run and lose and take advantage of the eight-year vesting provision; we would not be eligible for it. And that's the purpose of this amendment.
The question I have, 55 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 I think the President referred to it, I'm not certain. We are barred from increasing -- we, as members of the Council, are barred from increasing any benefits during our term of office.
Because -- right, it makes us ineligible for the provisions that are being passed -- that would be passed today; we would not be eligible for them until after the next election.
And then it becomes moot because if they get reelected, they'll have more than eight --
Under the current pension system, we have to run for reelection in 56 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 order to get the ten-year vesting anyway. I don't want to change that situation. We would not be eligible to take advantage of the eight-year vesting right now.
Is there anyone that has any question about that? (No questions.)
Can we put the Nutter amendment to the side for the moment 'cause we all understand that.
Section 2. The underlying language is added to Section 2.
Can we now go to Cohen-2, Cohen-2. Mr. Hayllar, what is the Administration's position on Cohen-2, the 57 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 amendment offered by Mr. Cohen, which has been identified as "Cohen-2." This is the 22-person amendment.
This deals with people in Local 2186. We're fine with it; we do not oppose it.
Mr. Hayllar has indicated that the Administration is not opposing it. Is there any questions about -- does anyone have any questions about this amendment? (No questions.)
Can we now go to the Administration's amendments. Is there any question about the Administration's amendments? Does anybody have any question to ask Mr. Hayllar about the amendments that you have that are labeled "Administration"? Are there any questions at all? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. These amendments actually may not deal 58 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 with this particular issue at all, but in a conversation earlier today -- and I don't know whether this is a question for Mr. Hayllar or Mr. Herkness. But I believe about six months ago or so, we passed a bill that had to do with a hero provision, I believe, for police and fire. The question is whether or not that provision has made it into the recodification bill.
No, Councilman, it hasn't. That arbitration -- the Fraternal Order of Police Arbitration that deals with language that would propose to change the pension ordinance 15 to allow for heroic action interpretation has not been yet passed by Council.
Are there any 59 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 question for the Administration on the Administration's proposal? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
When a pension vests, that does not automatically mean that the person whose pension has vested and, say, leaves the government service, the fact that vesting does not mean that that person will start receiving retirement benefits; is that correct?
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions regarding the amendment that we are referring to as "the Administration amendment?"?
I have a question for Councilman Nutter. I want to know if he qualifies on the age question or not.
Councilman Cohen refuses to dignify such a question from a youth. 60 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 (Laughter.)
Can we now consider the proposed amendment regarding vesting within five years. This is Cohen's amendment number 1. The Chair recognizes the Finance Director, Mr. Hayllar.
The Administration opposes this amendment. It's slightly different than the one we'd seen yesterday and earlier today, so we haven't studied it in depth. First, our opposition is based on the fact that we hold this to be a bargainable issue with the four principal union groups. Secondly, the change that was made from yesterday's amendment, today's amendment, it includes about 2,000 court employees. That creates a problem down the road since we estimate that the court employees will be moved as State employees sometime earlier in the next century. The whole question of how their pension will be treated is a very complicated one. This makes that problem more complicated because, as you know, the State has a ten-year vest, and this group of people would be in a pension plan with a 61 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 five-year vest. The State has not resolved how to deal with the pension matters of employees that would move over. This certainly will complicate it. Also, there's something confusing in the amendment that the Councilman has presented in that it covers only current employees. Somebody hired the day after this would go into effect would have a ten-year vest. So this is somewhat confusing and I'm not sure it was the intention. It certainly suggests that there might have been some haste in preparing the amendment. Finally -- and this is the least of our concerns, but I should note it. We will have a massive system with optional five-year or ten-year vesting. It will increase and add an administrative burden to the Pension Fund staff. I believe they can handle it, quite honestly, but it is an additional administrative problem that Mr. Herkness and his people will have. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 62 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
The purpose of this amendment is to treat everybody equitably. The Administration, in the codification bill, proposes that employees who are both exempt from civil service and who are not entitled to be represented by a union will have the option of vesting their pension rights after five years. They will have to pay an increased amount; that is, an increased amount would be deducted from their paycheck if they exercise their option to vest in five years. I believe it is wrong to give a benefit to a select group of people without making that benefit available to all others. If there is any special problem about court employees, then I think it might be appropriate to separate them from the general mix. I don't know how serious that problem is. But except for that possible problem, it seems to me very unfair to have two different standards of vesting. And I would, therefore, suggest that I would find it equally acceptable to eliminate the five-year vesting provision for the exempt non-civil service people who cannot be represented by a union; then we'd have the 63 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 standards vesting period. Or if we're going to move to a five-year vesting period, then I think it ought to be applicable to everybody rather than having it just applicable to nonunion members. It seems to me to be very unfair, and that's the purpose of my amendment. And, incidently, it would not cost a penny more because anybody who exercises the option would have to agree to having the deduction from their payroll -- from their check increased. So it's no cost whatever to the City because the employees would pay the full amount of money. And, therefore, I'm trying to prevent a discriminatory situation. And I say as far as I'm concerned, I could go in either direction provided it's applicable to all employees. Thank you, Mr. President.
Councilman Cohen, I'm sorry, I was wondering what the rationale was for having a five-year vest for current employees but not allowing that option for somebody who's hired 64 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 the day after this bill would go into effect.
I would be delighted to have that included. I was trying to make the demand as minimal as possible with respect to current employees and permitting the normal bargaining process to apply to those who are not yet employees. I would be delighted. I was trying to cut it down by saying, Let's just make it applicable to current employees and credit the Administration with having some freedom in the negotiating process with respect to future employees. But if it creates a problem, I would like to amend this further to have it apply to all employees.
Councilman Cohen. I'm trying to understand this. It is my understanding of all the employees in this city, as the bill currently stands, all the union members will be vesting in ten years.
Right? And there are a few thousand people. Those who are ineligible to be in the union, those who are 65 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 exempt -- and they primarily work for City Council and for an administration, they come into an administration. My recollection is, the idea was that people who come into an administration don't usually stay -- as a matter of fact, they can't -- almost never stay for ten years. They tend to stay eight and they usually tend to stay less than eight.
Yeah, some stay on, a few will stay for a full eight years. And I can remember, in some of our discussions about some of this, the idea was that those people, if they have a ten-year vest, they're out. I mean, what's going to happen is -- I mean, pension deductions will be made at the end. They'll leave after 2, 3, 4, 5 years. They'll get their money back, and they basically have to start all over again. It's my understanding the basic idea was to allow those people who are unlikely to be here for ten years, under any circumstances, and 66 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 those people who may work for a Councilmember who might be here, you know, for 3, 4, years or so, 4 to be able to vest in 4 years. But it is my 5 understanding that the overwhelming majority of our 25, 30,000 employees will all have the same 10-year vest. And you know, if there is other -- if there is other information to add, it's my understanding that at least that in part was the rationale for carving out this much -- this very -- this really represents a very small group of people and say, Look, we're going to let these people vest in five years if they're willing to pay for it.
Mr. President, my understanding is that the provision does not cover Council employees and that it was crafted purposely to exclude -- for Council employees, I believe the vesting period eight 8 years.
No, sir, they're they're not excluded. They would be included.
Well, they -- as far as I know, Council employees don't fit within this 67 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 description.
Yes, but they have to meet three conditions. They have to be exempt from civil service, and a Council employee is that, but cannot say to a Council employee, "I know of no law which says that Council employees are not entitled to be represented by a union." Those are words of art which mean that if the issue -- if Council employees sought to be organized by a union, they would have what are call "bargaining unit problems." They may or may not be held eligible for a bargaining unit. But there's no law that I know of that exists now that excludes Councilmembers from forming a union, and this language could easily be used --
I'd like to get the opinion of the Administration on that.
Well, it will be interesting to see if Council employees try to form a union. 68 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
No, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that they're not covered by the language that the Administration proposes to it.
That would be interesting. Where's Johnny Morris when we need him? (Laughter.)
If it even said, Mr. President, if it said "And who are not represented by a union. . ." then Council employees would be eligible. But this says they are not entitled to be represented by a union. That's a vastly different thing. Would the Administration agree to remove the words "entitled to be"?
Councilman, the bill 19 presently includes exempt employees any employee who is categorized as exempt. That includes Council staff. They are exempt employees under the present system; they would clearlyb be included by the language of this ordinance.
For a five-year vest. 69 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
If your scenario of this (unintelligible) could -- you know, anything could change, but they would still be included if they were five-year vesting.
You can't raise a point of order, Councilwoman. That's inappropriate for --
I believe that now the legislative history around this amendment would be such to sustain what is meant and, therefore, it would will have met the objection that Councilman Cohen raiseds.
I understood exactly what you said; I agree with it. 70 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
The legislative history surrounding the amendment would be sufficient to show the intention and, therefore, to meet the objection that Mr. Cohen raises by making a distinction between those people who are eligible to be represented by a bargaining unit. By Mr. Herkness's comments that Council staff members meet exemption in every definition covered by the language, I think, would be sufficient. Mr. Cohen, I think you've done an excellent job in raising it. And I think that his answer to your question is sufficiently clear to serve as to what the legislative intent of this body is. Mr. Street, would you like to have me repeat that?
Councilman Cohen, Councilman Cohen, it's my understanding that this amendment would cover uniformed workers as well as workers in District Council 43; is that correct? 71 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843
And at no point in time have I ever heard any of those unions come in here asking us to change their vest from a ten-year vest to a five-year vest. So why are we now offering an amendment to this bill that gives them something that they never even asked us for?
Well, I met with the leadership of all of the unions, and they all requested this amendment. I mean, I can't account for discussions at which I was not present.
But all of the union leadership said they favored strongly this amendment.
But none of that union leadership is in this chamber today except maybe some of the 47 people, but I don't even see the head of District Council 47 in here today. And I have to tell you, we're having a lot of discussion about this, and I have never known the unions to be bashful or shy about coming in here and telling us exactly why they want, and 72 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 they're not here doing that now.
Mr. President, I think they're planning to be here on Monday.
And I understand why they're going to be here on Monday; I do not understand why it is you are -- you are urging this amendment and they are not here today.
Well, I can't answer for them, Mr. President. They make their decisions.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to go back to the area where Councilman Cohen started with this, which was the equity discussion. Mr. President, you began to explain what the original purpose was of this provision in the pension recodification bill that deals with the exempt-from-civil-service person. If I could ask either Mr. Hayllar or Mr. Herkness for some further discussion on that particular point. As you went through this process, what did you -- what did you think you were trying to 73 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 cure and how did you get to five years? If --
Okay. The major problem is that there are many employees of the City exempts who are appointed for the term of the Mayor. And because the Mayor can only serve two terms in this city, they will only be here for eight years. Therefore, they cannot vest.
In that category? I mean, how many people are we talking about?
Councilman, the total number of exempts, including assistant district attorneys, which are numerous, and the Law Department attorneys, is 1100. But that includes -- at least half of them are attorneys that are hired by the City.
The attorneys in the Law Department or the attorney's in the DA's office?
Yes. 74 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843