Click here to subscribe today or Login.
By ANDREW TUTINO [email protected]
Thursday, June 08, 2000 Page: 9A
HAZLETON – When three arbitrators sit down next week to begin deciding the
fate of the Hazleton Police Department’s controversial contract with the city,
millions of dollars could hang in the balance.
After five months of failed negotiations, police and the city were forced
into the arbitration process.
Interviews during the past month with a labor attorney for the city and a
representative with the police have shed light on what each side will try to
prove when arbitration commences Tuesday.
The negotiations will be Tuesday and June 29, when evidence will be
presented. A decision is scheduled to be made June 30.
On Tuesday Bruce D. Campbell, the city’s labor attorney, Gary M. Lightman,
the police union’s attorney, and neutral arbitrator Elliot Newman will begin
hearing evidence on the controversial police contract negotiated by former
Mayor Michael Marsicano but rejected by the City Council earlier this year.
If the city loses on many of the provisions it is seeking to change,
Hazleton taxpayers will be saddled with paying for them well into the future.
A victory by the city would change that and allow Barletta to keep expenses
low this year as he tries to dig out of a $525,000 debt.
The city is expected to paint a portrait of Marsicano as a reckless spender
and former state police officer who gave the Police Department three sweet
financial deals during his four years as mayor.
“What happened was you had a mayor who negotiated three contracts with the
police and he negotiated the contracts without any regard as to the financial
circumstances of the city,” Campbell said. “We will show what someone who
was fair and responsible would have negotiated for the city. Especially when
compared to similar cities in Pennsylvania.”
Among the items to which Campbell referred are a major increase in base
salaries and bonuses used in the complicated formula used to figure police
pay. Also, the pension plan that allowed officers to work 25 years and receive
a pension equivalent to 75 percent of their salary – a plan the auditor
general has called illegal.
“We should be able to go back to where we were,” Campbell said. “And
that is a tremendous difference.”
The city before Marsicano had a smaller department with lower salaries and
not as many fringe benefits. Pensions were calculated after 20 years of
service and started at the equivalent of 50 percent of a final salary.
Longevity pay was lower than that of the Marsicano contracts. Now it is capped
at 20 percent of base pay when an officer retires after 20 years of service.
The police are looking to keep their current deal.
Union President David Callavini – who was unavailable for comment Wednesday
– has said the city’s administration promised earlier this year to leave the
police contract alone if the union agreed to a settlement on the controversial
pension issue. The police did, settling on a three-pronged plan with each
officer selecting a different plan.
But Barletta, who staunchly denies making an agreement, forwarded a letter
to the union last month asking for reduction in many police benefits, with a
wage freeze for 1999, something the union had already agreed on. The proposal
angered the union, which immediately broke off negotiations.
The union will ask for 6 percent raises in 2000 and 2001, with keeping the
entire contract as is, Callavini has said.