The Columbia Public Schools is way ahead of the city, because they understand that employees have a constitutional right to bargain collectively. The CPS board just needs to get it right when devising the election process that will allow teachers to choose their bargaining representative.
Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:26 p.m. CDT; updated 8:46 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, September 13, 2011
BY GARRETT EVANS, JAMES AYELLO
COLUMBIA — Members of the Columbia School Board were divided Monday on whether to adopt a collective bargaining policy or to keep the "meet and confer" system currently in place.
The discussion began with a report from Columbia branches of the Missouri National Education Association and the Missouri State Teachers Association, which each represent roughly one-third of the teachers in the district. The remaining third of Columbia's teachers are unaffiliated.
Susan McClintic, president of the Columbia education association and a second-grade teacher at Alpha Heart Lewis Elementary, showed support for the first proposed collective bargaining policy.
This policy would allow one bargaining representative to speak for all teachers and district employees. Most likely, the representative would be from one of the two associations.
"We believe this policy is the best practice, as it mirrors what most voting Americans are familiar with — a one-step election on who should represent them in a collectively bargained, binding agreement," McClintic said.
McClintic added that there is no precedent of a policy like the second resulting in a successful agreement.
This second policy, which allows for multiple representatives, is one that isn't commonly used by districts across the country, Superintendent Chris Belcher said in July.
This model, which would allow for multiple representatives during the bargaining process, is one that teacher association president Kari Schuster would support if the current "meet and confer" method is changed. During this process district officials confer with teachers but ultimately make decisions about employment conditions.
Belcher said the second version could be legally challenged if representatives are unable to reach an agreement on bargaining conditions.
But board member Jan Mees "adamantly" opposed the exclusive representation model outlined in the first proposal on Monday night.
Mees said exclusive bargaining "is not Columbia Public Schools, not good for the children" and strongly supports the second version, if a policy must be chosen.
When board members opened the floor for public discussion, teachers from each association voiced their opinions.
Members of the local branch of the Missouri State Teachers Association expressed concern about the lack of voice among both organizations if the first option is allowed.
Missouri National Education Association members stated the need for a strong, unified voice among teachers in the district, which they believe the first policy option will allow.
The next meeting will be at 7:30 a.m. Sept. 22.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
City officials advise against labor deals Council hears union concerns.
Under Article 1, Section 29 of the Missouri constitution, "...employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." How can Columbia city officials "advise against" honoring the constitutional rights of employees. Do city official want to be sued?
Columbia Missourian
By ANDREW DENNEY
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
At a Columbia City Council work session last night in which labor unions for city employees outlined grievances, city staffers advised the council against authorizing the city to enter collective bargaining agreements with the unions.
Currently, city administrators talk with public employee labor unions through the meet-and-confer process, in which unions can bring forward issues but the city is under no obligation to agree to a union’s demands. It has generally been the city’s practice to avoid entering collective bargaining agreements.
Union representatives last night made the case for binding agreements between city workers and their employers. But city staffers countered that entering into contracts with unions could compromise the city’s flexibility to contain costs — such as through wage freezes — during hard fiscal times.
Paul Prendergast, a representative of the Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, said entering into binding contracts with labor unions would assure city employees that their bosses would hold up their end of the bargain.
“It gives the union and it gives the workers the respect and the dignity that they deserve,” Prendergast said. Among several demands, Local 773 has said the city should pay two hours’ time for a union steward to investigate complaints.
Local 773, which has changed names several times over the past few decades, had entered an agreement with the city in 1982, but a provision allows the council to alter the agreement at any time. Prendergast said the union began representing Public Works employees in 1978 during a strike of Solid Waste Division workers. He said the city had asked the union to help broker a deal and that the union has been representing Public Works employees ever since. The union also represents Boone County and University of Missouri employees.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which represents employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said the union has entered agreements with similar departments in smaller cities, such as Kirkwood and Hannibal, and that an agreement between the city and Local 2 on employee pay could help bridge a wage gap between Columbia workers and workers in those cities.
Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010. The union has said an across-the-board 25-cent-per-hour pay raise for city employees is too small.
City Manager Mike Matthes said binding agreements can lead to hard decisions when municipal budgets go south. He said while he was an assistant city manager in Des Moines, Iowa, binding agreements between the city government and labor unions were “how we did business.” But he said because of the agreements, the Des Moines city government was forced to lay off workers in tight budget years, rather than take less-drastic measures.
City Attorney Fred Boeckmann told the labor representatives that even one-year agreements, which Local 773 has asked for, could lead the unions to ask for longer agreements in the future.
“You want one year now,” Boeckmann said. “That’s the camel’s nose in the tent.”
Matthes advised that no changes to city labor policies be made in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.
This article was published on page A2 of the Tuesday, September 13, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune. Click here to Subscribe.
More like this story
City council to hear union reps’ concerns- September 12, 2011 2 p.m.
Wisconsin labor clash ignites debate elsewhere- February 22, 2011 2 p.m.
City budget has no room for employee raises- August 31, 2010 2 p.m.
Workers seek alternate cut in city payroll- September 9, 2009 1:59 p.m.
Law reform is long overdue; act levels field for bargaining- February 15, 2009
Columbia Missourian
By ANDREW DENNEY
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
At a Columbia City Council work session last night in which labor unions for city employees outlined grievances, city staffers advised the council against authorizing the city to enter collective bargaining agreements with the unions.
Currently, city administrators talk with public employee labor unions through the meet-and-confer process, in which unions can bring forward issues but the city is under no obligation to agree to a union’s demands. It has generally been the city’s practice to avoid entering collective bargaining agreements.
Union representatives last night made the case for binding agreements between city workers and their employers. But city staffers countered that entering into contracts with unions could compromise the city’s flexibility to contain costs — such as through wage freezes — during hard fiscal times.
Paul Prendergast, a representative of the Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, said entering into binding contracts with labor unions would assure city employees that their bosses would hold up their end of the bargain.
“It gives the union and it gives the workers the respect and the dignity that they deserve,” Prendergast said. Among several demands, Local 773 has said the city should pay two hours’ time for a union steward to investigate complaints.
Local 773, which has changed names several times over the past few decades, had entered an agreement with the city in 1982, but a provision allows the council to alter the agreement at any time. Prendergast said the union began representing Public Works employees in 1978 during a strike of Solid Waste Division workers. He said the city had asked the union to help broker a deal and that the union has been representing Public Works employees ever since. The union also represents Boone County and University of Missouri employees.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which represents employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said the union has entered agreements with similar departments in smaller cities, such as Kirkwood and Hannibal, and that an agreement between the city and Local 2 on employee pay could help bridge a wage gap between Columbia workers and workers in those cities.
Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010. The union has said an across-the-board 25-cent-per-hour pay raise for city employees is too small.
City Manager Mike Matthes said binding agreements can lead to hard decisions when municipal budgets go south. He said while he was an assistant city manager in Des Moines, Iowa, binding agreements between the city government and labor unions were “how we did business.” But he said because of the agreements, the Des Moines city government was forced to lay off workers in tight budget years, rather than take less-drastic measures.
City Attorney Fred Boeckmann told the labor representatives that even one-year agreements, which Local 773 has asked for, could lead the unions to ask for longer agreements in the future.
“You want one year now,” Boeckmann said. “That’s the camel’s nose in the tent.”
Matthes advised that no changes to city labor policies be made in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.
This article was published on page A2 of the Tuesday, September 13, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune. Click here to Subscribe.
More like this story
City council to hear union reps’ concerns- September 12, 2011 2 p.m.
Wisconsin labor clash ignites debate elsewhere- February 22, 2011 2 p.m.
City budget has no room for employee raises- August 31, 2010 2 p.m.
Workers seek alternate cut in city payroll- September 9, 2009 1:59 p.m.
Law reform is long overdue; act levels field for bargaining- February 15, 2009
Labor groups present proposals to City Council about wages, bargaining
Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:21 p.m. CDT
BY ALEXANDRIA BACA
COLUMBIA — Three labor groups that represent city employees presented proposals for higher wages and bargaining agreements to the City Council on Monday night.
Groups representing workers for the Water and Light, Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments and Columbia police officers have been negotiating with city officials since May on issues including wages and work contacts.
The City Council is not allowed to negotiate with employee groups, but is instead informed of negotiations by City Manager Mike Matthes. However, the council will ultimately decide whether their requests are approved.
Columbia police officers
Ashley Cuttle, executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association, presented her union’s requests to the City Council last.
The association presented only one request, the highest priority from an initial list of five proposals.
That priority is to reduce "salary compression" in the department. This occurs when new hires are given a starting salary higher than predecessors', whose pay is often at a stand-still because of tight budgets.
For the Columbia Police Department, this has resulted in situations in which superiors are paid less than the workers they manage.
In previous fiscal years, the department relieved this compression for the deputy chief, captains and lieutenants. “This year, it’s the sergeants’ turn,” Cuttle said.
By law, the Columbia Police Department had to ask City Council for permission. As a compromise, the police chief is only asking to do it for the most severely affected police sergeants.
About $45,000 worth of raises would be given to these sergeants using in-house funds budgeted by the police chief.
If the council gave the police chief permission to fix the salary compression for some sergeants, it would signify an act of good faith on the part of the city to continue what was started in previous fiscal years, Cuttle said.
It would also be a morale boost for the department.
“The Columbia Police Department already has a problem with recruitment and retention,” Cuttle remarked.
Water and Light employees
Rick Weirich spoke for Local 2 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents employees of the city’s Water and Light Department. Weirich said the union hopes for progress on three issues:
• The union said the city has been unwilling to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement with the union. Union members "want the security of an agreement, with predictable terms and conditions,” Weirich said.
• Workers are also unsatisfied with the 25 cent per hour wage increase proposed by the city, Weirich said. The union asked for wage increases of 2 percent for top-tier employees and 4 percent for other employees.
• The union contends that employees who benefit from the collective bargaining of the union should pay dues or the equivalent of dues to the union.
Other city departments
Parks and Recreation employees, along with those who work for the Public Works Department and the Municipal Power Plant, were represented by Local 773 of the Laborers' International Union of North America.
Paul Prendergast, a lawyer for Local 773, lobbied the city for a one-year work ordinance. A work ordinance is a type of city ordinance dealing with the working terms and conditions of a certain group, said Margrace Buckler, director of human resources for Columbia.
“Money has nothing to do with it,” Prendergast said. “What we’re asking is that the city agree that they are bound by the terms of the agreement.”
First Ward Councilman Fred Schmidt expressed the depth of the requests made by the three labor unions.
“I’ve heard quite a few complaints that are highly technical,” he said.
Matthes told council members there is no deadline for the requests presented at the work session. However, the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be voted on by the City Council in October.
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 19 at 7 p.m.
Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:21 p.m. CDT
BY ALEXANDRIA BACA
COLUMBIA — Three labor groups that represent city employees presented proposals for higher wages and bargaining agreements to the City Council on Monday night.
Groups representing workers for the Water and Light, Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments and Columbia police officers have been negotiating with city officials since May on issues including wages and work contacts.
The City Council is not allowed to negotiate with employee groups, but is instead informed of negotiations by City Manager Mike Matthes. However, the council will ultimately decide whether their requests are approved.
Columbia police officers
Ashley Cuttle, executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association, presented her union’s requests to the City Council last.
The association presented only one request, the highest priority from an initial list of five proposals.
That priority is to reduce "salary compression" in the department. This occurs when new hires are given a starting salary higher than predecessors', whose pay is often at a stand-still because of tight budgets.
For the Columbia Police Department, this has resulted in situations in which superiors are paid less than the workers they manage.
In previous fiscal years, the department relieved this compression for the deputy chief, captains and lieutenants. “This year, it’s the sergeants’ turn,” Cuttle said.
By law, the Columbia Police Department had to ask City Council for permission. As a compromise, the police chief is only asking to do it for the most severely affected police sergeants.
About $45,000 worth of raises would be given to these sergeants using in-house funds budgeted by the police chief.
If the council gave the police chief permission to fix the salary compression for some sergeants, it would signify an act of good faith on the part of the city to continue what was started in previous fiscal years, Cuttle said.
It would also be a morale boost for the department.
“The Columbia Police Department already has a problem with recruitment and retention,” Cuttle remarked.
Water and Light employees
Rick Weirich spoke for Local 2 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents employees of the city’s Water and Light Department. Weirich said the union hopes for progress on three issues:
• The union said the city has been unwilling to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement with the union. Union members "want the security of an agreement, with predictable terms and conditions,” Weirich said.
• Workers are also unsatisfied with the 25 cent per hour wage increase proposed by the city, Weirich said. The union asked for wage increases of 2 percent for top-tier employees and 4 percent for other employees.
• The union contends that employees who benefit from the collective bargaining of the union should pay dues or the equivalent of dues to the union.
Other city departments
Parks and Recreation employees, along with those who work for the Public Works Department and the Municipal Power Plant, were represented by Local 773 of the Laborers' International Union of North America.
Paul Prendergast, a lawyer for Local 773, lobbied the city for a one-year work ordinance. A work ordinance is a type of city ordinance dealing with the working terms and conditions of a certain group, said Margrace Buckler, director of human resources for Columbia.
“Money has nothing to do with it,” Prendergast said. “What we’re asking is that the city agree that they are bound by the terms of the agreement.”
First Ward Councilman Fred Schmidt expressed the depth of the requests made by the three labor unions.
“I’ve heard quite a few complaints that are highly technical,” he said.
Matthes told council members there is no deadline for the requests presented at the work session. However, the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be voted on by the City Council in October.
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 19 at 7 p.m.
Woman fired for backing a union
Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011
BY JOSH EIDELSON
Last month, Target fired Tashawna Green — but not for being bad at her job. They fired her, she says, for trying to make her job better.
Green, a 21-year-old single mom, was the most public supporter of a campaign to unionize the workers at her Long Island, N.Y., store. Before an unsuccessful union vote, she told The New York Times and other media outlets about the challenge of supporting her daughter on $8 an hour and insufficient hours. Her photo appeared in several newspapers.
Target, which has more than 1,760 American stores, earned $704 million in profits in the second quarter. Like its big-box competitor Walmart, Target has zero union employees in the United States.
That means none of Target's workers may bargain collectively over wages or the company's refusal to schedule more workers for full-time hours. More than 50 of Costco's nearly 600 stores, in contrast, are unionized.
Target isn't claiming Green didn't show up to work or couldn't do the job. Instead, the company put out a statement saying she was fired for acting "in an overly hostile, disruptive manner."
Green and representatives of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union say that's just a tricky way of saying she wanted to join a union, and Target doesn't want its employees to have that option.
The UFCW is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, saying Target illegally punished her for engaging in activism.
It would be nice to say that what happened to Green is unusual or that going to the government means she'll get justice. But the truth is that companies fire workers for union activity all the time, and they often get away with it.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than a third of companies respond to union elections by firing union activists. Other tactics that make workers fear losing their jobs are even more common, according to the institute.
Under the current law, companies dead-set on keeping out unions have a lot to gain by firing workers like Green. Firing union supporters removes them from the workplace and sends a chilling message to their co-workers.
Since none of us is perfect, it can be hard to prove to the government that union activism was the reason someone was fired — with appeals, the process can take years.
Even if a worker wins a case, usually the stiffest punishment a company faces is bringing the worker back to work, paying the wages she missed (minus any money earned at another job in the meantime) and posting a notice saying that it won't fire workers for union organizing in the future.
Unfortunately, that's a small price to pay for refusing to negotiate with your employees over their wages and benefits.
During the two years that Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, it looked like the Employee Free Choice Act might pass. The bill would have tripled the damages for companies that fire workers for union activism, as well as given workers the option of winning union recognition just by signing up a majority of their co-workers.
This majority sign-up ("card check") solution, which is the main way workers have won the opportunity to join unions in recent years, sparked a debate over its fairness. But there wasn't enough discussion of the problem that inspired it.
Workers like Green, who speak up to improve their jobs, too often lose their jobs as a result.
Workers who step up to organize their workplaces are really whistle-blowers. They break a silence that can otherwise leave people thinking that the problems they're experiencing are theirs alone.
They create an avenue for addressing workplace issues that can otherwise hurt not only workers but also their consumers and communities.
These workplace whistle-blowers deserve the respect of our culture and the protections of our legal system.
Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a former union organizer. He wrote this commentary for otherwords.org. His website is www.josheidelson.com.
Monday, September 12, 2011
BY JOSH EIDELSON
Last month, Target fired Tashawna Green — but not for being bad at her job. They fired her, she says, for trying to make her job better.
Green, a 21-year-old single mom, was the most public supporter of a campaign to unionize the workers at her Long Island, N.Y., store. Before an unsuccessful union vote, she told The New York Times and other media outlets about the challenge of supporting her daughter on $8 an hour and insufficient hours. Her photo appeared in several newspapers.
Target, which has more than 1,760 American stores, earned $704 million in profits in the second quarter. Like its big-box competitor Walmart, Target has zero union employees in the United States.
That means none of Target's workers may bargain collectively over wages or the company's refusal to schedule more workers for full-time hours. More than 50 of Costco's nearly 600 stores, in contrast, are unionized.
Target isn't claiming Green didn't show up to work or couldn't do the job. Instead, the company put out a statement saying she was fired for acting "in an overly hostile, disruptive manner."
Green and representatives of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union say that's just a tricky way of saying she wanted to join a union, and Target doesn't want its employees to have that option.
The UFCW is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, saying Target illegally punished her for engaging in activism.
It would be nice to say that what happened to Green is unusual or that going to the government means she'll get justice. But the truth is that companies fire workers for union activity all the time, and they often get away with it.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than a third of companies respond to union elections by firing union activists. Other tactics that make workers fear losing their jobs are even more common, according to the institute.
Under the current law, companies dead-set on keeping out unions have a lot to gain by firing workers like Green. Firing union supporters removes them from the workplace and sends a chilling message to their co-workers.
Since none of us is perfect, it can be hard to prove to the government that union activism was the reason someone was fired — with appeals, the process can take years.
Even if a worker wins a case, usually the stiffest punishment a company faces is bringing the worker back to work, paying the wages she missed (minus any money earned at another job in the meantime) and posting a notice saying that it won't fire workers for union organizing in the future.
Unfortunately, that's a small price to pay for refusing to negotiate with your employees over their wages and benefits.
During the two years that Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, it looked like the Employee Free Choice Act might pass. The bill would have tripled the damages for companies that fire workers for union activism, as well as given workers the option of winning union recognition just by signing up a majority of their co-workers.
This majority sign-up ("card check") solution, which is the main way workers have won the opportunity to join unions in recent years, sparked a debate over its fairness. But there wasn't enough discussion of the problem that inspired it.
Workers like Green, who speak up to improve their jobs, too often lose their jobs as a result.
Workers who step up to organize their workplaces are really whistle-blowers. They break a silence that can otherwise leave people thinking that the problems they're experiencing are theirs alone.
They create an avenue for addressing workplace issues that can otherwise hurt not only workers but also their consumers and communities.
These workplace whistle-blowers deserve the respect of our culture and the protections of our legal system.
Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a former union organizer. He wrote this commentary for otherwords.org. His website is www.josheidelson.com.
City council to hear union reps’ concerns
Union activity in Columbia is picking up.
By ANDREW DENNEY
Monday, September 12, 2011
Labor unions representing city workers will have a chance to air their grievances to the Columbia City Council tonight at a special work session.
Union representatives will have the council’s ear on several issues pertaining to city workers, including pay raises City Manager Mike Matthes proposed for the coming fiscal year and the city’s rules of engagement for labor unions.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which covers employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said Matthes’ proposed 25-cent-per-hour raise does not do enough for workers who have to deal with higher health care insurance deductibles. With more expenses, Weirich said, the pay raise comes out to about 8 cents per hour.
Weirich also said the union is pushing for the city to adopt collective bargaining rules. The city’s ordinance regarding labor talks now follows the meet-and-confer process and prohibits collective bargaining between council members and labor unions. With a meet-and-confer process, Weirich said, the city’s administration is required to meet with union representatives to hear their concerns, but the administration is under no obligation to satisfy a union’s demands.
But with collective bargaining, Weirich said, it would be more likely a binding agreement between the city and unions could be reached. He said Water and Light employees have said the city has not been following its own ordinances regarding employee grievance procedures.
“They’re not wanting to play by the rules, it seems like to us,” Weirich said. Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010 after the employees contacted the union, he said.
Weirich said a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision that allows teachers’ unions to take part in collective bargaining with districts should also extend to municipal employees.
Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, will also come before the council tonight to discuss disparities in policies between the 12 divisions of the department, said Regina Guevara, a union representative.
The Columbia Police Officers Association also will address the council to discuss pay raises for police sergeants. City spokeswoman Toni Messina said the city could consider the issue in preparations for the fiscal year 2013 budget but said city leaders did not want to give higher raises to one particular group of employees in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
The work session will be at 6 p.m. in conference rooms 1A and 1B at City Hall.
By ANDREW DENNEY
Monday, September 12, 2011
Labor unions representing city workers will have a chance to air their grievances to the Columbia City Council tonight at a special work session.
Union representatives will have the council’s ear on several issues pertaining to city workers, including pay raises City Manager Mike Matthes proposed for the coming fiscal year and the city’s rules of engagement for labor unions.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which covers employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said Matthes’ proposed 25-cent-per-hour raise does not do enough for workers who have to deal with higher health care insurance deductibles. With more expenses, Weirich said, the pay raise comes out to about 8 cents per hour.
Weirich also said the union is pushing for the city to adopt collective bargaining rules. The city’s ordinance regarding labor talks now follows the meet-and-confer process and prohibits collective bargaining between council members and labor unions. With a meet-and-confer process, Weirich said, the city’s administration is required to meet with union representatives to hear their concerns, but the administration is under no obligation to satisfy a union’s demands.
But with collective bargaining, Weirich said, it would be more likely a binding agreement between the city and unions could be reached. He said Water and Light employees have said the city has not been following its own ordinances regarding employee grievance procedures.
“They’re not wanting to play by the rules, it seems like to us,” Weirich said. Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010 after the employees contacted the union, he said.
Weirich said a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision that allows teachers’ unions to take part in collective bargaining with districts should also extend to municipal employees.
Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, will also come before the council tonight to discuss disparities in policies between the 12 divisions of the department, said Regina Guevara, a union representative.
The Columbia Police Officers Association also will address the council to discuss pay raises for police sergeants. City spokeswoman Toni Messina said the city could consider the issue in preparations for the fiscal year 2013 budget but said city leaders did not want to give higher raises to one particular group of employees in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
The work session will be at 6 p.m. in conference rooms 1A and 1B at City Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)