Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-05-09 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON May 9, 1977 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL MiNHtES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI* FLORIbA ***************** On the 9th day of May, 1977 the City Commission of Miami, Florida; met at its regular meeting place in said City in Special Session to consider business of public import. The meeting was called to order at 1:50 o'clock P.M. Mayor Maurice A, Fevre with the following members of the Commission present: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner J.L.Plummer Jr. Vice-N!ayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. Absent: Mrs, Rose Gordon. ALSO PRESENT: Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager R.L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk Absent: Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Reverend Theodore R. Gibson, who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Mayor Ferre: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This is a special City of Miami commission meeting for the purposes of discussing some internal matters of the City of MIami affecting the sanitation workers. I think perhaps the way to begin this, Father, I will recognize you. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, during last week, certainly on Friday morning, I had a revealing experience. Something I did not know of my own. I suspected as much, and as a result of that experience I wanted to have a man come here and share that experience with you because to me, it was shocking and shameful. You may recall some months ago when we were talking about the various bargaining units up in the Mayor's office suite, one of the things we,the commission,agreed to do was to recognize sanitation employees as a unit. We instructed the administration to proceed and negotiate accordi:igly. I have not heard to the contrary, that is, that we have changed that position. Nobody informed me of such change. When I found out T proceeded to get in touch with the Manager and our negotiators. I have had a con- ference with the negotiator and the Manager, and each time Mr. Smith was there, with both the negotiator and myself, then with the Manager, the negotiator, myself and Mrs. Paramore, Mr. Smith disclosed to me at that time, a very shocking attitude. I then asked him if he would repeat in the presence of the negotiator. Then I had the Manager there, and I said I thought the time has come we must put it on the line and I asked him in the presence of the negotiator and he unequivocally repeated his position. The Manager then wanted me to believe that it was rumor. I said rumor, hell. I said either Smith is lying or the negotiator is lying and I said this: the negotiator doesn't work for me, he works for you. They went before the group to be heard. The attitude hadn't changed, position didn't change, and I guess they had no intention of changing, but theythought they had buttered me up enough for me to go home and go to sleep. . Mr. Smith had enough sense and guts to bring his lawyer to see me Friday morning past. Seldom have I found a white lawyer representing black folk who was as candid, positive, simple and direct and I was so moved with his presentation that I picked up the phone forthwith and called the Mayor's office, talked with his secretary, and told her I was mad as hell because I felt I had been done -in. Both men were there when I said that on the phone. She tried for several hours to get you on the phone, to no avail, ur to get you. I don't know. She didn't get you. She finally got you and the Manager called me before you talked with him. At that point in time, I said to the Manager, I shall call for a Special Commission Meeting and you can hang it out before the public. In other words, I believe in the Sunshine Law. I wanted to put (Continued on next page) every commissioner on the line, let hits or her vote, to give a sense of direction to the administration. I wanted us, the Commission, to set the policy and not have the executives set the policy for us, who must face the public. At that time, having gone that far, I called each commissioner to find out if he or she was available for meeting at 12 o'clock. I got word each commissioner was available and I asked the Mayor, to call this special emergency meeting which you agreed to do. And I said to you as the Mayor, keep in mind I have already talked with these commissioners or their assistants. They are available but I would feel far more comfortable and I would be happy if you, the Mayor would formally call the meeting, which you did by a memo. And that is how we are here today. I would like, with permission of the Mayor to have that attorney who represents the sanitation people, go to the mike and tell the story, tell what is happening, and put it on the conscience of this com- mission, that the administration answer and then we will start tangoing from there on. Sir, if you will go to the mike, give your name, and tell what you do please. NOTE: Mrs. Gordon entered the meeting at 1:53 o'clock P.M. Mr. Don Slesnick: Commissioners, my name is Don Slesnick. I am the attorney for the Sanitation Employees' Association. Presently we are involved as you well know in a series of hearings conducted by the State of Florida to determine the appropriate negotiating units for the City of Miami, which involves ourselves, the Get'eral Employees' Association, and the American Federation for, State, County and Municipal Employees. Mr. Plummer made a statement. Mr. Don Slesnick: No, I practice on my own, and my mailing address is 802 Sevilla Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. I was invited here today to tell you the story that maybe will bring home the problems that the sanitation employees' association is having in the matter that is before the state. I will try to do it as quickly as I can. Rev. Gibson: Take your time. Mr. Don Slesnick: 1 want to hit the high points, and do it in such a way that maybe make it clear some of the things which might not have been made clear to you by others who have spoken with you before this. You will remember back last Spring when you had a change of your labor relations administration. Before that time, the City of Miami as you know had negotiated with several labor associations for a number of years under agreements between themselves and the city before there ever was a state law requiring collective bargaining between employees and the public employer. Based on the relationships which have been created over a number of years, since the late sixties, after the state law had been made effective, this commission addressed the problem and I think first with Mr. Lanken when he represented the City, as to what bargaining units you wish to have a labor relations association with, now that there had been a new law created by the State legislature and in your wisdom at that time in 1976, you designated certain units which Mr. Lanken should proceed to have certified by the State as selective bargaining units for or selective bargaining agents for your employees. At that time you decided if I am not mistaken, it was appropriate to continue collective bargaining with the fire or with police and with the general employees association and also with the sanitation employees association, a unit which has traditionally represented your sanitation employees. Only sanitation employees, those people hired and working under the direction of the sanitation department. With the coming of some new personnel in Tallahassee, and the coming of new personnel here in the City of Miami, the whole story after that became a little bit more complicated but in essence Mr. Mielke assumed his position right about that time and again at the direction of this commission, Mr. Mielke issued a voluntary recognition of the sanitation employees association as being the appropriate body to represent sanitation workers. Implicit in that recognition, is the concept that also a separate sanitation bargaining unit i appropriate, that you all desire to negotiate or continue negotiations in the future with a group of people that represented sanitation employees only. Based on that recognition which was a formal document and issued last year, as required by law, we proceeded to Tallahassee, The law requires that you take the document Mr. Mielke issued and go to Tallahassee with the petition and reseek certification by the State government, Certification really, not to be overly technical, but certification means the state has put their stamp of approval on what the City .977 and the Sanitation Employees Association have already agreed to, and that is there should be a bargaining unit for Sanitation only. We had a chairman at that time, of the public employee relations commission, who in his background had decided that it was his position that sanitation only units were not appropriate bargaining units. He believed that for efficiency in government, and for effective- ness in government and for good return to the taxpayer, that the only appropriate bargaining unit was an across-the-board bargaining unit of all employees,to include public works and if you had a transportation, as does the County, it woal.d include transportation workers. And he had so ruled in many cases at that time. Like many other state and federal bureaucrats who do not pay taxes to the City of Miami and who have never lived in the City of Miami, who has never taken part in any of your dealings he,of course,felt that the wisdom of his labor relations back- ground dictated to him that the only appropriate way for you to conduct business, was the way in which he perceived would be an across-the-board collective bargaining unit, all employees. Well, he dismissed our petition and based on the fact that we believed in our cause, and we still felt that the City of Miami believed in our cause, we fought that dismissal. This money,this fight continued on. The money came from the pockets of the sanitation employees and we continue to press for a certi- fication as a separate bargaining unit. We went back in the fall to Tallahassee, for a hearing before a new chairman. The chairmanship had changed to the public employee relations commission and we explained to the new chairman that this was a different case. They had heard other sanitation appealr:to them for separate bargaining unit. But those other sanitation units, there were several differences and distinctions. One, the history of labor relations. No other sanitation unit in the state which had applied to the commission before this had the history or background that this unit had had with its employer. No other unit had had a series of contracts as this unit had had with its employer. No other unit in the state had had the blessing of its employer as this unit had, by the voluntary recognition process. The new chairman understood our arguments and he understood the distinction that we tried to point out to him. Based on those distinctions he overruled the former chairman's dismissal and reinstated our petition and ordered a hearing be held to find out was this an appropriate unit andthe circumstances in the City of Miami. I want to stress that he said in his order which I am sure is on file with Mr. iiielke's office if you have not seen it, that one of the major considerations that he took into account was the fact that you had voluntarily recognized them as a collective bargaining unit. That was one of the considerations he used in bringing our petition back to life. I guess our first indication that something was wrong came at that hearing. In the interim time since we first started the process and the hearing, and I forget if it was September or October, whenever it was, Mr. Grassie had assumed his position as City Manager. Mr. Mielke came to Tallahassee that day for the hearing and all of a sudden the city's position had changed, which was quite distressing to the leadership of the sanitation employees association who is sitting here with me today. They were in Tallahassee and they did not know that the City's position had changed. In fact they felt that the City Commission had been very verbal and very vocal in its support of the appropriateness of this unit and had never varied from that position. But when Mr. Mielke appeared in Tallahassee his story was different. His story was, we don't disagree with the past cnairman's dismissal of the sanitation employees unit petition. His story went something like, we are not really opposed to these people but we really see the wisdom in an across-the-board bargaining unit. Well, despite that, which placed us in a very precarious position and I have never had that feeling before, of sitting there, and the only reason I am sitting there, is because the city has voluntarily recognized the unit that I represent, but of having the chief labor negotiator for the city saying despite the voluntary recognition we are not so sure it is appropriate. it sort of makes the whole situation ludicrous and makes the actions of the commission look a little absurd. I was embarrassed. I don't know how the commission feels. Well, the hearing was ordered for December and it got posponed, and postponed. We finally had the hearing last month. It has been continued in fact to this week. The hearing will be continued on Thursday and Friday of this week. At the hearing the City of Miami has also changed its labor attorneys, and we had an attorney fly in from Chicago to tell the hearing officer and to make a case to the hearing officer that sanitation only units are inappropriate and are not to be acceptable. So we had come the full cycle, from this commission supporting the sanitation employees association wholeheartedly,to in the late fall or the fall, not being so sure and then to the hearing last month of absolutely being opposed to a sanitation unit only. Again a confusing situation since the reason we are in that hearing is based on the voluntary recognition of this commission. What 3 took Bill Smith to Father Gibson was the fact that he understood that this commission still supported the sanitation only unit while the administration played the tune 'no sanitation unit before the State commission.' I think really that is Bill Smith's question today to you, as president of the sanitation unit, before this hearing is concluded this Friday and before out position is finally put in record and the decision is made by the state. Does the City of Miami recog- nige the appropriateness of the sanitation only unit or does it not? It really of course undermines our position and destroys about a year and a half of legal battles legal hassles , if we now find out the City of Miami does not support that petition. Of course we will have to change our approach toward the state in a completely different way. It irriates me greatly. I was talking to Dean Mielke before this meeting. Dean Mielke is a well respected man in labor relations. He and I have known each other for quite a while in doing different things in labor relations. But no two people, now matter how well educated or how learned they are on the subject necessarily agree. Mr. Mielke and Mr. Grassie have subscribed to a position which was held by the former chairman of the commission who is no longer there, as sanitation only units are inappropriate. What upsets me so greatly is, that you can't tell me that if we are really worried about what the commission thinks we will find out in their final decision, when it goes before them. But are we really worried in the position that the city is taking before the Florida Public Relations commission, what are we worried about there? Are we worried about the city supporting one or another specific labor position based on evidence accumulated in other cases or are we worried about what you as commissioners of the City of Miami and elected officials of the taxpayers, are really interested in doing with your city. If your interest and your taxpayers interest lies in recognizing these people and having sanitation bargain only, that is a position you have taken before and still should be your position. We could have continuing law school debate on whether or not across -the board unit or a sanitation unit only is more appropriate. That is not the question I think is before you today. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Grassie, I think we can save some time, with your permission if we can let Mr. Grassie respond at this point, and then we will give you opportunity to finish your statement. Is that all right? Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor I think we have to raise some question with regard to really what is happening to you. Basically what you are seeing, is the case of a traditional bargaining unit having worked several wf'h the city, represented by counsel, having gone through a process mandated by state law. Now, being in the position where they feel that they have not been able to make their arguments where in fact they have a feeling that they are losing the case, and apparently deciding that the only avenue left to them to approach the question politically. Now, as happens very often in cases like this, you have the truth. The trouble is you only got half of it. In fact what has happened in the last approximately 9 months is that the first representation that was made to the city commission in the labor negotiation session in the Mayor's office has been alluded to, is that it was the recommendation based on the then present circumstances, our recommendation to you, that voluntary recognition be extended to two of the traditional units, one being sanitation employees and the other being general employees. And that was done. AS a result of that and having this go to the state capitol, P.E.R.C. the agency responsible for making determinations in these cases, in fact said that the proposed recognition on the face of it did not seem to be appropriate and what they required was that there be a hearing on the facts. Another little thing happened and that was that A.S.F.C.M.E. a bargaining unit which had represented a small number of city employees files an unfair labor practices charge against the city because of the voluntary recognition process that we had gone through. That unfair labor practice charge is still pending. Nca, since then, we have held the hearing that was mandated by P.E.R.C• and we have been in front of those officers to present what was at this point not a question of the voluntary recognition which we had already extended, but which was the point of view of the city administration as against the point of view three bargaining units each of which was there and represented by their lawyers. So we had four parties presenting four points of view. Now, all of the evidence in front of that hearing officer has been received on that point which has to do with unit determination. There are other questions and there was some comment about the hearing still having one or two more sessions. There are other questions open but those questions have to do with conf i- dential and not included employees. That is the question of who is going to be in the unit, not having to do with what are the units going to be. What I am saying to you is, that all of the arguments with regard to what the units should be, both thier attorneys and ours, have been made for more than two weeks now. These arguments have been in front of the hearing officer and there for their discretion, their determination, l 4 I repeat; this process is mandated in the case of Florida, by a constitutional provision, and also by state law. Now, in good time, the state agency will come out with a determination. We don't know what that is going to be. They may decide whfst we should have is two units. They may decide that we should have one. But it within their discretion to do that and the important thing is, that every party, and keep in mind that we are talking about four parties to this discussion. Not two. very party had a fair opportunity to be represented and have their point of view put forth. It seems to me, completely inappropriate, and in terms of the best iterest of this community, unwise, to try and inject in the middle of what is a quasi-judicial process, this kind of all -faced political appeal, and something which is still going through a legal, legitimate process. Rev.Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I heard what Mr. Grassie said and I don't think anybody on this commission can ever accuse me of being,knowingly,unfair, nor impartial, ,I heard what Mr. Grassie said and he made some reasonable argument but I want to talk about the practicality of what Mr. Grassie is talking about. It just isn'tthere. And I offer a motion. I think we are going to have to make sure that we get some things done. WE are going to have to establish that if this commission sets a policy, the administration goes and says this is the policy of the com- mission. If you don't agree with it, tell us and then don't go. That is the way to do that. I move you, that we sustain that action of the commission previously carried out. Mayor Ferre: We have a motion on the floor that the commission reiterates its previous posture of recognizing as a matter of policy both of these bargaining units. Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, let me second the motion. Mr. Mayor, and my friends of the sanitation department, I am not speaking for you or against you. What I have to speak to is something I feel that is touched by Father, but to me a more important issue than this individual case, and that issue is, has the policy of this commission, since the initial action, in any way changed? My memory doesn't recollect either information from the administration, or action by this commission that in fact a policy which had been set, had changed. So Mr. Grassie, my first question would have to be, to your recollection or to your knowledge, has any action that you have taken contrary to that initial policy, changed, if so, did you notify us, and if so, did we take any action? Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, as far as I know, the city commission does not have a policy on this point, and should not have. The question of how many units, we have to deal with in the administration is not a question of policy. That is a question of how we relate to the employees of the city whom we supervise. Now, as far as I know, there is not a policy,and as long as I have been here, I am not aware that you have ever adopted by a resolution or any other form a policy on this question. Mr. Plummer: WE are getting to the base of it. Mr. Grassie: It is true that we in an executive session on labor relations, recommended to you a certain course of action. You accepted that recommendation. We followed that. That recommendation was turned by PERC. We have taken another course of action, but that is not a city commission policy. Mr. Plummer: Let me follow through. Let me ask another question, --from a technical question. You have to assume that we accepted at that time your recommendation. Mr. Grassie: We were informing you of what we intended to do. You did not object. Mr. Plummer: So the commission has to go under the assumption until otherwise informed that that is the pursuit of the administration. My question to you then is whether it was in memo or any other way. Did the administration in any way indicate to the Commission that you were going to have to go now against your own recommendation. Mr. Grassie: I don't think that I put that in writing just as we did not the first. In questions of labor relations, we attempt to maintain a negotiating posture for the city and we attempt not to get locked in to a written position. You know that is simply common sense. I was aware that there was an on -going contact between some of the bargaining units and some members of the city commission. So I felt you were probably aware of what was going on. But we try not to put that sort of thing in writing. Mt, Plummet: The thing as I understand it, the adtainistration basically has the right before PERC to either voluntarily rocognize, or you do nothing.Is that cottect? I am not that familiar with PERC, Is that basically the concept. You either give them a free ticket, or you don't give them a free ticket. Mr. Grassie: We can help, we can take a position one way or another. But in fact, regardless of the position the city takes, the laws specifies that PERC has the right and ability to make that determination on their own based on whatever they feel is good grounds. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I don't think that is really a question at this commission meeting. I think really the only thing before us is whether or not this commission, No. 1 has the right to set the policy of this city regarding bargaining units of negotiation from a policy point of view, recognizing that PERC has the legal authority to make a final determination. I think the second thing that has to be recognized is, is there an underlying social question here? That is what the heart of it really is. We have, ---I am not being critical of you because I recognize your job as manager is to manage the city as best you can. And that is what you are doing. You cannot distinguish, you cannot make social decisions. That is not your role, ---your role is to manager under the guidelines as well as you can. That is what you are doing. But it is the role of this commission to discuss social issues that affect people within our jurisdiction and in effect, what we have before us as I see it, is a unit, a bargaining unit. I don't think there is any big secret that the bargaining unit is composed mainly of black people. Rev. Gibson: Ninety percent. Mayor Ferre:It doesn't take much to figure out that what this unit is trying to do it maintain the integrity of their unit, in the very same way that for example Fla. A. & M. wants to maintain itself as a separate unit. It doesn't want to be integrated into Florida State at Gainesville. Yes, there are a lot of arguments why Florida STate and F.A.M.U. should be integrated and united, for a lot of good academic reasons, but I think the cabinet and regents acted with wisdom in recog— nizing that there is a specific social value of maintaining Fla. A. & M. University as a separate unit. Therefore even though there had been administrators, within the state college system, who have wanted to elimintate Fla. A.& M. University, it hasn't been done because the policy that has been set by the governing body has taken into account and has recognized the value of the existing structure. I think that is a philosophical thing which this commission has to deal with and we have to set the policy now. That does not mean in any way, that the master will not rule whichever way the master thinks is appropriate, and that he is not going to be guided by an awful lot of things. That does not relieve this commission in my opinion of establishing a policy in this social issue. I think we ought to get on with it. Mr. Plummer: I want to make some comments about that. Mr. Mayor, these are friends, --yours, and mine, of everyone sitting up here. But you know the basis of union is a friendly adversary position. Okay. I am sure every general who goes to war and even though thank God we don't have wars around here in labor negotiations, at this present time, I would like to pick out who his enemy is. That is my one comment. My other comment Mr. Mayor, I don't think it is right, and I think this was in the wisdom of the legislature, for us to get involved. That is why they made it a state commission, to take it out of the realm of local people dictating what was going to be. We did not enter into saying, even though thank God, we had one police group, fine. That was the police. We had one fire group. Why didn't PERC say, police and fire, there is no difference between them. Why didn't they make it one. They didn't. Are we going to address here today the problem of other than sanitation? Are we going to address the problem of AFSCME? Mayor Ferre: If they are social issues, I would imagine that we would have a responsibility to address ourselves on the philosophy of how the city is going to be governed. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor let me tell you I guess what I am scared of more than anything. I am scared that this commission is going to get itself involved in meddling in union business. I think that is wrong. Mayor Ferre; Mr, Plummer, you and I have sat on this commission on many occasions 97 / and voted just exactly that way on many issues that were brought befote this cohrtission to determine ofi major factots. Recently we have avoided doing that and 1 concur with you and with Mt. Gtassie that thete is wisdom in. that, T1otievet, thete is no question that thete is an underlying social issue which must be addressed. Mr.Plummer: Two wtongs don't make a right. Mayor Ferret bet me make a point to you here. You remember that the Latin builders and whole group of other people, and the union on both sides came before us about art issue, whether or not the city of Miami was going to pay some additional wages. Do you recall that? Mr. Plummer: I recall it well. Mayor Ferre: As you will remember the vote went 4 to 1, against taking a position. There was one member of the commission who had a different view. As you may recall, ----if not I will remind you, ---the commission took a position, officially and the position officially was, since it could not be limited to the City of Miami, per se, that we would let Metropolitan Dade County make the decision, because it had to be just like for example, gun registration, (I happen to be for gun registration) but I don't think you can do it within the limits of the city of Miami. It has to have a larger jurisdiction. Otherwise it is meaningless. In that circumstance, the Manager did bring this matter back to the commission. As far as I understand, it was not at the request of any member of this commission. It was something the manager decided to bring back to the commission for the commission's decision as a matter of recommendation to Metropolitan Dade County, and this commission decided that it had already taken a posture on that. Therefore the matter was not voted upon. What I mean to tell you is this, that I don't philosophically see a big difference between that and this, ---that is, we understand that Metro was going to make that decision, and they did.And we understand that this is going to be decided by a master, and he will. But that does not mean that we can shirk the responsibility of taking a position. In that particular issue of wages, we did take a position. We said look, as far as we are concerned, we are not going to get involved in this, and we are going to let somebody else make that decision. That was the posture of the majority of this commission. The posture of the majority of this commission on this issue up in that conference room when we were discussing it, was as I recall,unanimous, ---I didn't hear any dissent that we were going to go forward for two bargaining units because of the very special circumstances, Mr.Plummer: No, here is where you stand corrected. We did not go forward and say we would. It was the administration who said to us this is the way they plan on proceeding. Rev. Gibson: J.L. what is the difference? We voted for it. Mr. Plummer: Father, no we didn't. Rev. Gibson: We agreed to it. Mr. Plummer: We understood a certain set of circumstances and like I say, we are the crux of the problem, if there is a problem, is that Mr. Grassie, (excuse me, let me take it out of personalities) ---the administration did not come back to us, letting us believe that we are traveling a certain way, stating that their position has now changed. Mr. Mayor, let me use an example since you wish to do such. I will vividly recall to your memory Father Gibson coming before this commission and rightfully so, when they built the fire station No. 6 at 36th Street and N,W. 7th Avenue, in which he got into and brought to this commission's attention, that there were no black faces on that job, and they were even to the extent that maybe we ought to take the contract away. Mayor Ferre: Precisely. Mr, Plummer; Okay? What did this commission do? Mayor Ferre; The fact is, this commission d Mr, Plummer; What? Mayor F'ette: Out opinion was abundantly clear to Mr, Paul Andrews, and he corrected that situation. Mr, Plummer: By friendly persuasion he went up there and said put some black faces on that job. Mayor Ferre: The difference is that in that particular occasion the vote of the city commission was the determining factor. In this particular case the vote of the city commission is not the determining factor. The question is, what's the policy of this commission. Mr. Plummer: Let's get it headon, Jessie McCrary is sitting right there, represents a group of black police officers. You have a name. What's the name of it Jessie? Miami Community Benevolent, ----whatever. Okay. Mr. Mayor, if tomorrow, Jessie McCrary files in behalf of those group of black officers that he wants them represented as a unit of the police department. Is he going to get involved? Mayor FErre: There is a major difference. Mr.Plummer: The difference is that is 100% black and this one is only 90. Mayor Ferre: The difference is, you are dealing in a department which is 90% black. Mr. Plummer: WE are talking about a group that would be 100% black. Mayor Ferre:---that has (if you will permit me to finish Mr. Plummer), ---that has a 90% factor of the total membership of the department that is black. In the case of the police department however, there is not a 90% factor of blacks that are part of that department. You are only talking unfortunately because we have been doing our very best, but I want to tell you that we have less than 10% and we have less black policemen today than we had 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago. We talk a lot around here but I don't see, there are a lot of reasons why that has not happened. I am not blaming anybody. I think everybody is in good faith, and tried to do a job. The fact remains we are talking about a completely different situation. I personally do not feel that the e::ample that you made is analogous, or pertinent to the point. Mr. Plummer:Let me conclude by saying this. I think the issue is very clear. Mr. Mayor the easiest thing in the world to do is to vote for my friends and I love to do it. That is the easiest thing in the world to do. But let me say to you Mr. Mayor, my overall philosophy is that we keep our hands out of union affairs. I simply believe that Mr. Mayor and I frimly believe that. I will conclude by saying I wholeheartedly concur that they should be, but I am not going to put in a public record, or put it into a public vote. I don't think it is right. As you said, when we upstairs agreed that it was a unanimous decision, I was part of it. They said it. I agree. I still agree, I don't think we should get involved in union business. Mr. Don Slesnick: If I may have a couple of minutes. I won't ask to be heard again, but I would like to address a couple of Mr. Plummer's comments and Mr. Grassie's comments. Commissioner Plummer, I would like to correct the concept you have of the state law, in labor relations. The state has not removed local government at all. In fact it has put the burden on local government to come up with such things as voluntary recognitions. Local government is in fact very in- volved in the whole process of determining what is appropriate and what is not -appropriate. And it is just as much yourburden that you carry to the state, to explain to them what your concept is as to what is appropriate and what is not approprate. You took that position by approving your administrations recommendations to you by saying yes these two units are appropriate. The administration,however, changed in midstream that policy and has now proposed to the state that it is not appropriate and that is the feeling of this city. The state needs to know, does the city feel that this is appropraite bargain unit or not. They have an R A commission,----R,A. petition, voluntary recognition petition, which is based upon the voluntary recognition issued by the city administration after advisement with this commission. They also have on record 3 weeks ago, statement in evidence presented by the city administration which would lead them to believe that the city does not agree with the appropriateness. It is a very absurd position you have been put in. The state government now has two conflicting pieces of information saying the believes in this unit, and the city of Miami does not believe in this unit, Let me address the point about the other unions: The General Employees Association Which is represented p back of me here, has not asked, or does not now ask, to represent thesepeople And AFSCME,whooriginallyasked at the beginning of the hearing to represent an across-the-board unit, has now amended their position to exclude the sanitation and supports a separate sanitation unit. So there is no meddling in inter -union problems. There is nobody at the present time who also asked for these people to be included in their unit. No other union asked for these people. The only party to this hearing who is muddling the issue, is the city of Miami administration, who is saying in their eyes, the most appropriate unit is an across -the board unit. I would say to Mr. Grassie's comments that this hearing is not closed. I don't care whether they accepted one kind of evidence three weeks ago and are looking for another issue to be talked about the coming two days. The hearing is open and any type of evidence can be presented. And certainly the city's position has been weakened by what has already been presented. But the city's reaffirmance of their belief, this commission's belief, and the appropriateness, will strengthen our case. I know you that you are not going to decide what is an appropriate unit and which is not. In the final analysis it will be the state. That is not why we are coming here and Mr. Grassie's analysis is completely off target. We are not asking you to do anything because you can't. The only thing we are asking you to do is reaffirm your belief in the unit and help us in that fight with the state. Mrs. Gordon: I would like to state my personal feelings because I am going to vote. The way I feel is that the type of work performed by the individuals that are part of the separate unions is the key to the decision that I will make in casting my vote. I don't honestly feel that we should eliminate a group whose labors are so different than of other individuals who are covered by other units. Mr. Grassie's recommendation when we met some time ago, probably took that into consideration in that recommendation. Far as I am concerned nothing has changed since then. Mayor Ferre: Father, I think we need, if I can recommend, ---you are the maker of the motion, ----we need to reword this a little bit. I think there is some question as to whether or not we voted on this before. I think technically we never voted on it, though we expressed our opinion. So I think the way to do that is that this commission goes on record officially as stating that there are sufficient reasons, that as the transcrips of this hearing will determine, for this unit to be a separate bargaining unit and that that is a policy of this commission. Mrs. Gordon: What you would call voluntary recognition Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Yes, that is fine. Mrs. Gordon: Could we ask our attorney to advise us if we are legally able to cast a vote on this motion as regards to some statements that have been made prior. Mr. Jose Alvarez,Assistant City Attorney: Commissioner,the policy of this commission regarding voluntary recognition is a matter of record. The question is to what extent is the commssion going to have an input through the hearing to let the PERC commission know, that you do want or do not want to have two separte units. Mrs. Gordon: What we have before us is a motion, intent to reinforce our previous action. Was it an action? It was an agreement by us with the Manager's recommendation. Is that correct Mr. Grassie? Would you say that is correct? Mr. Grassie: Yes, a fair characterization. Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Then we are in effect, today reinforcing our previous feelings as not having changed. Are we permitted to express ourselves in this way and what is being said here now,is taken from these public records to some other bodies, state or others, is beyond our personal control. Is that correct? Mr, Knox; Yes, Mayor Ferre; Any further discussion on it? Mr, Plummer: Let me just say this, If a motion of this commission were to come forth, that this commission recognizes the unique posture of this given group of individuals, and were to forward that, I could agree with it, Mr, Slesnick, let me say to you sir, and this will sound funny I atn sure. I personally, not speaking for the cotttissioiti, of the adtinistration,would find it objectionable if they went up there for of against any one unit. Because to the that is the city meddling in union business and I would be opposed to it.I think that lets you know where I stand. Rev, Gibson: Mr. Mayor I call the question. Mayor Ferret One comment from Mr. Grassie, Mr, Grassie: I think Mr. Mayor I have an obligation to tell you that in my estimation, the kind of discussion you are now having makes it virtually impossible to have any kind of effective labor negotiations undertaken by thit city. As I understand it, you have come out of an era of being pretty ineffective in this area for about the last 5 years.You are just starting to turn the corner.If you decide that makes no difference, then I can understand continuing this kind of an approach to labor negotiations but I feel I do have to alert you to the danger you are putting us all in. I would suggest to you that social questions have to do with citizens and the community. What you are dealing with here is an organized group of city employees and what you are faced with, is the question of how this city is going to manage that kind of question in the future. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie would you answer a question for me? Mr. Grassie: Yes, I certainly will. Let me emphasize for you again, what is at stake, is how effective you as a community are going to be in labor negotiations. That is why I am concerned about this particular question. Mrs. Gordon: My question is, since you took us into your confidence so to speak when you made that other recommendation that we are now reinforcing, why wern't we brought into confidence at the time you changed your recommendation. Mr. Plummer's question brought out there was no attempt to bring us up-to-date on your change or recommendation. Why didn't you? Mr. Grassie: Basically Commissioner because the decision of PERC, the commission itself was the point at which we took a different direction. That was in the newspapers. It was not a question not known. It was well known by everyone having any interest in this. In fact the voluntary recognition petitions had been turned down and at that point we went back and keep in mind that it was also very well known that the city had been charged with an unfair labor practice as a result of that recognition. Again, something reported. Mayor Ferre:it has been moved by Father Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Reboso, Mr. Plummer: I seconded it. Rev.Gibson: Plummer seconds it. Mayor Ferre: It was seconded by Commissioner Plummer.As restated, call the question. Ms. Hirai, Assistant City Clerk: Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: As I said before, summed up in one word, I don't feel the commission should meddle for or against any one unit, and I vote "No." Mrs. Gordon: Could I ask the Clerk to repeat the motion as you have it? Ms. Hirai; 'A motion of intent to reinforce the previous agreement of the City Commission to follow the administration's recommendation.' That was the second restatement. Mrs, Gordon; For clarification insert the word The following fnotioii was inttoduced by Revetend Gibson , Who moved its adoptioh: MOTION NO. 77=397 A MOTION OF INTENT TO REINFORCE THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATION'S FIRST RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RECOGNITION OF SANITATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AS A SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES:Mr. Reboso,Reverend Gibson,Mrs. Gordon, Mayor Ferre. NOES:Mr. Plummer. ABSENT: None. Mayor Ferre: In the first place this is in my opinion, not a political matter. You are dealing with a unit that has in it, as I understand around 300 people. Is that correct? 600? Whereas you are talking about over 2,000 people in the other unit?If anything, the political thing to do would be to vote where the most individuals are involved. So I don't accept that, that this is a political matter. Secondly the Manager was well informed and knew quite well what the position of this commission was and on different occasions. I know that when I talked to him on at least three different occasions in the last months, I have mentioned this matter to him and the importance I thought it had. No. 3 I think there is a definite social issue involved in this matter which I think the commission is not only entitled but should participate in. It has a moral obligation, and lastly there is no question that this is a separate unit in the nature of the work this unit does. I would conceive that police department, for example and the policemen, have, because it is a separate, specific kind of work should be separate from the firefighters and the fire fighters separate from the policemen. I don't see there is any distinction when you have over 600 people Oat are involved that do a specific type of work as to what the difference, is between this department and say the fire department, recognizing these units and I therefore vote 'yes.' Rev. Gibson: Before we go I want to raise two things. I am concerned with the representation of this city to the committee.I am very concerned. I hope I don't have to say any more than that. You could tell me, Gibson, go to hell. I just wish we had time to really deal with this thing because I have some real gut feelings about some things around here.How some of these people get done —in and pushed —.in. I am concerned about that representation. I hope Mr. Mayor we take some necessary measures and precaution to make doggone sure the feeling and attitude of this commission is made known before that commission. And I don't just want us to do what I think we might do. I know one thing.If I were to do what I think, every— body would swear I don't trust anybody. You know what? Hell, man, I trust you up to this point.I want to make sure the position of this commission is reinforced and emphatically reinforced. Mayor Ferre: I think that has been made abundantly clear by the record. Mr. Grassie do you want to comment or react to it. If not, we can adjourn. Mr. Grassie: I think it is in the best interest of clarity Mr. Mayor that I do react.I want the City Commission to be clear that I will be conveying a written statement of your verbatim resolution to P.E.R.C. I also reserve the right to tell you I do not agree with it. I think you are doing the wrong thing. I think you are undermining the whole process of labor negotiations for this city. But I will convey your feelings to P.E.R.C. I will not agree with them. Rev, Gibson: Let me respond. I don't ask you to agree with them, but I just want you to carry out the mandate of the commission.That is all I ask. I don't want anybody to agree with me because they love me, because they like my looks, I want them to carry out the mandate of the commission. I shall never forget, ---we had a matter with regard to the Orange Bowl.A bond was set in there instead of money, Some things I learn damn well, 1 eyt5t VEtret All right Mt, MdCreety, Will it be long? Mt, McCrearyt Nos sit, it will be very short. Pot once itt my life, 1 Jesse '` Mctreatys member of the law firm of the law firm McCteatys Betkowiths otid bevies 3000 Executive Buildings Miami3Floridai Mr, Mayor and members of the etaMIS-Siott, first this is not a political appeal. Two,Mr. Grassie and I agree on Otte thing, I think this commission may be doing something wrong on another latter of the administration is doing something wrong, Mr, Plummet: This is another matter. Mr. McCreary: This is so vitally important. Mr, Plummer: The Mayor can call another special Meeting, Mr. McCteary: My law partner is at the courthouse now to take the City to court. Mayor Ferret Jesse, I have a problem and I am going to be very blunt with you about this. I called this meeting first for 12 o'clock. One of the members could not make it at 12.To accomodate that member we moved it to 1:30 P.M. and it is 4 minutes to 3 right now. I cannot stay more than another minute or two. If you want to tell me what this is about we can move, Mr. McCreary: I can do it in 30 seconds. Mayor Ferre: We stand adjourned. .NOTE: The meeting was adjourned at 2:54..o ATTEST MATTY.HIRAI ` ASSISTANT CITY: CLERK cloek.P►M. MAURICE A FERRE MAYOR MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA * * * * * * * On the 9th day of May, 1977 the City Commission of Miami, Florida met . at its regular meeting place in said City in Special Session to consider business of public import. The meeting was called to order at 2:55 o'clock P.M. by Mayor Maurice 'A Ferre with the following members of the Commission present: Commissioner Manolo Reboso Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice -Mayor Theodore R. Gibson Mayor Maurice A Ferre ALSO PRESENT; Joseph R. Grassie City Manager R.L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney Natty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk Absant; Ralph 0, " Cagle, C .ty. Clerk, et co ahead, Jesse Mti Jesse McCreary: Mr, Mayor, Jesse MoCteAty, of McCreary, i erkowith and DAVIS, MOO executive building, Eiscayne Eouievatd.My whole question is,the city, by And through its agents have promoted individuals to sergeant in defiance of the court order and they ate prepared to now promote five other individuals to the tank of sergeant this coming week in defiance of Judge Eaton's order that that order would take effect immediately as of the 29th of March, 1977. I wrote to the City Manager on April 20th directing him there were certain members who want to be considered in the consent decree pursuant to that order. It has ttot been done. They have defied the courts. My partner is at the Courthouse at this moment pre= pared to file an injunction against the City unless these matters ate recalled, _. or unless these promotions are stopped. Mayor Ferre:We are not going to solve that this afternoon. Mr. McCreary: Well, as the lawyer for a, legal opinion. Mayor Ferre: As far as I am concerned, the way we are going to do it, is we Will be meeting here as I understand it, in three days on the 12th. I would like to ask that you have a legal opinion, and Mr. Manager you will be prepared the first thing in the morning to address this point. Okay? If I hear no other items, this commission stands adjourned.. Before we break up I would like to announce to you that Mr. 'Johnny JOnes was selected superintendent. Mr. McCreary: I was there, sir. NOTE:. The meeting was adjourned a o'clock; P.