Published: Monday, April 9, 2007
Parking changes irk police union
The city's 'hostile stance is unreasonable,' the union president says.
YOUNGSTOWN — The president of the Youngstown police patrolmen's union describes contract talks as "terrible," specifically saying the city administration's decision to eliminate most of the patrolmen's parking spots at the city hall lot as "an indication as to how bad negotiations are going."
The Youngstown Police Association, representing 117 patrolmen, not only filed a grievance over the city's decision to take away 18 of its 28 spots in the lot on the corner of West Boardman and Hazel streets, it took the city to court seeking a temporary restraining order.
Magistrate Eugene J. Fehr of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court denied the order but agreed to hear the union's request for a preliminary injunction at an April 18 hearing to get back the 18 parking spots.
The union's contract expired Nov. 30, 2006, and the parties are far from an agreement, said Edward Colon, YPA president.
Mayor Jay Williams said negotiations are "progressing."
Both sides agree the union's contract calls for the city to provide "free, secure and ample" parking for the patrolmen. For the past nine years, those parking spots were in the city hall lot.
But that has changed.
What happened
The YPA received letters Jan. 21 and March 19 from Sean McKinney, the city's buildings and grounds commissioner, that its members were no longer permitted to park in the lot and any unauthorized vehicles would be towed. A grievance filed by the union was rejected.
The city backed off from its original position and is permitting the YPA to keep 10 parking spots and unauthorized vehicles won't be towed while the matter goes to arbitration, Williams said. The city recently erected signs for the former YPA spots designating them for other departments.
The city made improvements, including fencing and a security system to stop unauthorized access, to its parking lot on South Phelps Street, just south of the city hall annex. There are numerous spots for city employees, including YPA members at that lot, Williams said. The use of the lot next to the annex complies with the parking language in the police contract, Williams said.
Because the city guarantees free parking to about half of its city hall employees, it is reconfiguring the city hall lot to add more spots, Williams said. That will enable more city workers to park in that lot instead of having the city pay monthly fees for them to park elsewhere, he said.
Spots in the city hall lot are needed during peak work times between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., and police officers who work during off-peak hours can park there, Williams said.
Effort seen as insult
Colon sees the move as an insult to the patrolmen.
"We thought the decision was a little unprofessional," he said. "I'm disappointed with the way they treated us. ... To take a hostile stance is unreasonable. It takes away our sense of belonging to the city that they would do this to us. It creates a morale issue. ... It's a shame the city took such a hard stance."
The patrolmen are required to carry their gear and duty bag, including their weapons, to work each day, Colon said. The gear and bag weighs between 75 and 90 pounds and puts a strain on officers who have to carry it to the police station from the annex parking lot rather than the one next to city hall, he said.
"I reject claims of mistreatment out of hand. There are 100 free spots two blocks away at the city annex lot," Williams said. "There's a difference of opinion here. Seeking a restraining order was the most disappointing thing."
The city is doing nothing to mistreat or disrespect the patrolmen, Williams said.
Arbitration
Colon said the city's edict to take away most of the patrolmen's parking spots during the negotiation process left the union with no other choice but to file for a restraining order. The city should have permitted an arbitrator to determine which side was correct before taking away most of the patrolmen's spots at the city hall lot and its initial hard-line position, he said. An arbitrator should have a decision on the parking issue in about a month, he said.
Also, the union and the city will go to fact-finding, scheduled for May 7, to resolve the contract dispute, Colon said.
The parking issue "sets the tone for negotiations and fact-finding," Colon said. "It will have a substantial impact on this and future negotiations."
More Stories from Thu, Apr 12, 2007
- Valley fruit growers assess damage from cold
- No chance for a levy, Boardman clerk says
- Valley residents testify at hearings in Columbus
- Trumbull husband charged as wife's robbery accomplice
- Traficanti wants Cafaro Co. to drop lawsuit
- Fire official wants trustees to toss out vote against chief
- DARFUR CONFLICT
- Warren council OKs business incentives
