RESPONSE TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY WEBSITE
| Ike Leggett's Claims | The TRUTH |
| "Under "effects bargaining," Police Chief Tom Manger has to bargain everything about running his department with Police Union leaders. " | This is a bald-face lie. In fact, 95% of all police department operations are not subject to AN Y bargaining. Under existing law, the County must bargain over ONLY the effect on employees of an exercise of a management right. Most management decisions do not have an effect. Without triggering effects bargaining FOP members in Montgomery County have been able to effectively perform their jobs, including:
|
| "That includes the distribution of critical police equipment, ... " |
The law as it is provides that when there is a significant effect on the safety of the public, the employer may implement before resolving effects bargaining. The police depaltment has never had to do so. Agreement has always been reached. |
| "the redeployment of officers to crime hot spots, ... " | Effects bargaining has never delayed or obstructed the deployment of officers. In 2011 the FOP cooperated with and agreed to a police department program to temporarily assign additional officer to Silver Spring. Issues were resolved after the program was successfully completed. [See Attacltment A] |
| "...and even the revised policy on "Use of Force" important to protecting the public and officers alike which was sent to the Police Union for their "approval" on June 27, 2008." | This is an attempt to confuse the issue. It is individual officers who make life and death decisions under strict guidelines set forth by the US Supreme Court and the Maryland Court of Appeals. Under the law "Use of Force" is not an effects issue. In 2008, the FOP agreed to address the issue outside of the provisions of the law even though the FOP could have waited. During the following two years the FOP offered to deal with the issue in contract negotiations. The County declined both times. The FOP has agreed to three versions of the policy already, which the police department keeps changing. [SeeAttachment B] |
| "In all, 15 Police Department policies are awaiting union leaders' "approval" -12 of themfor over two years. Under effects bargaining, police officers still don't have to sign their time cards. " | The FOP has responded to every policy submission made by the police department. Police ChiefTom Manger confirms this in a letter. Since 2008, the FOP has repeatedly asked the County for outstanding issues for resolution and never received a response. [See Attachment C] By agreement, if the FOP fails to respond to a proposed change in policy, "such failure to respond shall indicate agreement by the FOP ." In the event the County and FOP are unable to agree on the categorization of a directive, the matter may be resolved in accordance to the provisions of the Police Labor Relations Act (PLRA). This process, which could be triggered by the police department at any time, would force the resolution of any dispute within 50 days. The County has never used this provision of the law.[See attachment 0] Until the recent transition to a computer based time keeping system, police officers completed and signed a biweekly timesheet. The computer system has made the time sheet obsolete. There are currently no time cards for police officers. |
| The Police Chief could not even require that police officers have County email accounts or check their emaiL It took months to negotiate that. | Police Chief Tom Manger never communicated any concern about police officers checking email to the FOP prior to the repeal of effects bargaining. He never proposed any policy requiring that officers check email until December 13,2011. An agreement was signed on January 20, 2012. The entire exchange, which occurred during the bargaining of other proposals, took 37 days. [See Attachment E] |
| No other Police Union in the entire State has "effects bargaining". Neither does any other County union have it in their contract. |
Every union employee in the private sector whoIives in Montgomery County has the right tobargain the effects and impact of the implementation of management right. All federal employees bargain over similar conditions of employment. Other Montgomery County union employees bargain the effects of management rights. Police officers should not have fewer rights than the community they serve. [See Attachment F] |
| "FOR" vote on Question B is a vote that lets the Police Chiefrun the department in the most efficient and productive way and still protects the full range of collective bargaining enjoyed by all other Police unions across the State and all other County unions. |
Question B is NOT A STEP FORWARD but is a step back. It is the REPEAL of rights granted to the police officers who actually do the job by Montgomery County voters over 30 years ago. This change has been advanced by a police chief who retired from a right-to-work Virginia police department. |
An "AGAINST" vote preserves Union
|
A vote "AGAINST" Question B is a vote to preserve a 30 year law that has protected police officers from the adverse impact of operational decisions, and to allow management to make those decisions. A vote "AGAINST" Question B is a vote to preserve the rights of management to manage, but to include those effected in dealing with the impact. A vote "AGAINST" Question B is a vote to support the police officers who respond to your horne when you call for help. It isn't the police chief risking his life at 2:00 a.m. while his children are at home, yet he has a Montgomery County salary of$216,000, while drawing a Fairfax public pension of well over $100,000 with health care. |
The only thing this Ike Leggett has right is that the County Council and the County Executive unanimously repealed "effects bargaining. "Not one of them has worked as police officers. They do not know the job. Police officers know the job, police officers do the job and police officers deserve the right to collectively bargain to the same extent as the union members in the community they serve. It was FOP members in Montgomery who responded to the Beltway Sniper, crippling storms and extreme weather. It is FOP members who investigate crime. This is an attack on collective bargaining, and an attack on working police officers. Please back up your police officers -Vote NO on Question B.
The Police Department's revised policy on "Use of Force" --important to protecting the public and officers alike was sent to the Police Union for their "approval" on June 27,2008. More than four years later, Chief Manger is still waiting. |
It is individual officers who need to make life and death decisions under strict guidelines set forth by the US Supreme Court and the Maryland Court of Appeals. Under the law "Use of Force" is not an effects issue. In 2008, the FOP agreed to address the issue outside of the provisions of the law even though the FOP could have waited. In each subsequent contract negotiations during the following two years the FOP offered to deal with the issue. The County declined both times. The FOP has agreed to three versions of the policy already, which the police department keeps changing. [See Attaclunent A1]
|
In all, 15 policies are awaiting union "approval" --12 ofthemfor over two years. |
The FOP has responded to every policy submission made by the police department. Police Chief Tom Manger confirms this in a letter. Since 2008, the FOP has repeatedly asked the County for outstanding issues for resolution and never received a response. [See Attachment B]
|
With effects bargaining, the FOP contested and stalled for nearly a decade the placement of video cameras in police cruisers, demanding to negotiate the "effects" of accountability ofofficers for what might be recorded. Keep in mind that, in the overwhelming number of cases, cameras in cruisers support officers' actions in cases where questions are raised. |
In 2000, the Montgomery County police department installed cameras in police cars.Shortly after, they stopped the program andremoved them. The issue was never brought upagain until 2006. The FOP never challenged the use of "footage" from video cameras incars. The FOP challenged the use of the audio under strict Maryland wiretap laws. The FOP challenge did not delay or prevent the installation of video cameras in cars. (See Attachment C]
|
Effects bargaining meant that the Police Chiefand command staffcould not communicate with officers bye-mail because union leadership would not agree that officers should be expected to use their County e-mail account or check it. It took months to implement that simple, common sense step. |
Police Chief Tom Manger never communicated any concern about police officers checking email to the FOP prior to the repeal of effects bargaining. He never proposed any policy requiring that officers check email until December 13,2011. An agreement was signed on January 20, 2012. The entire exchange, which occurred during the bargaining of other proposals, took 37 days.[See Attachment D]
|
When Chief Manger sought to quickly shift more officers to Silver Spring in the summer of2011 to meet a deteriorating crime situation in downtown Silver Spring and the Route 29 corridor, he had to bargain this operational shift with the Police Union even though officers had already volunteered to do the duty. |
Effects bargaining has never delayed or obstructed the deployment of officers. In 2011 the FOP cooperated with and agreed to a police department program to temporarily assign additional officer to Silver Spring. Issues were resolved after the program was successfully completed. [See Attachment E]
|
Chief Manger can't decide how to best distribute new public safety equipment the Police Union demanded to bargain over it. |
The FOP cannot demand to bargain over "how to best distribute new public safety equipment." If Police Chief Manger makes a decision and it has an adverse effect or impact, the police chief must bargain with police officers over how to deal with the effect. Making operational decisions is a management right and is not subject to bargaining. Even if we do not like the decision, if it has no effect, it is not subiect to bargaining.
|
The Police Chief wanted to require that officers use yellow "Police" armbands in situations where officers in civilian clothes responded off-duty to incidents (such as the Discovery standoff) in order to protect officers from "friendlyfire" and make clear to civilians who were the police in a given situation. Using effects bargaining, the Union objected. |
The protection of officers is an issue of safety and a mandatory subject of bargaining under the law, not an issue of effects. [See Attachment F]
|
Even emergency management issues proposed by the Chiefare subject to being bargained with Police Union leaders. |
We do not know what is meant by "emergency management issues." Effects issues are usually minor issues. Effects bargaining has not prevented or delayed a response to any emergency or other call for service. The law provides any issue proposed by a chief of police can be resolve within 50 days, or be implemented absent a resolution. Police Chief Manger has NEVER used the process provided by law to resolve these issues.
|
Effects bargaining hinders the department from moving into tlte 21s1 century taking advantage of innovations in public safety technological and program advances because the FOP can demand to bargain anything or can delay and not bargain until the nextfull term contract --which can be up to three years |
This is a lie, and the County Executive should be ashamed of publishing it. Any effects issue the County wants to pursue can be resolve within 50 days under law. The County is hiding that fact. If the issue is not resolved within the time prescribed by law it can be implemented by default. The County Executive, not his police chief, have every used this process to implement a policy in dispute. They blame the FOP for delaying effects issues for years when they have been able to resolve them date certain. [See Attachment GJ
|
This is about the ability ofthe Police Chiefto manage the Montgomery County Police Department in the most efficient and productive way --respecting collective bargaining on basic employee issues but not having to submit every management decision to the Union leadership. |
This is about protecting the police officers who perform the work from arbitrary action by the County. A vote "AGAINST" Question B is a vote to support the police officers who respond to your home when you call for help. It isn't the police chief risking his life at 2:00 a.m. while his children are at home, yet he has a Montgomery County salary of $216,000, while drawing a Fairfax public pension of well over $100,000 with health care.
|
RESPONSE TO THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL
| The Washington Post Editorial Claim | The TRUTH |
| "notoriously, the union disputed and delayed even departmental rules requiring that officers read their e-mail" | The FOP never disputed or delayed any departmental rule requiring officers read their email. Until December of 20 11, FIVE MONTHS after the passage of the legislation, the FOP had received no communication from the County about email. To this date, no one has claimed that there was any problem with employees checking email, just a complaint that they believe that couldn't make employees check email. All that it required to have employees check County provided email was to give the employee the time and means to do so. (See Attachment A) |
| "The FOP delayedfor years the installation ofcameras in police cruisers, insisting that the department be barredfrom usingfootage to hold police officers accountablefor their actions in most situations. " | The Washington Post knows this is false. In 2000, the Montgomery County police department installed cameras in police cars. Shortly after, they stopped the program and removed them. The issue was never brought up again until 2006. The FOP never challenged the use of "footage" from video cameras in cars. The FOP challenged the use of the audio under strict Maryland wiretap laws. The FOP challenge did not delay or prevent the installation of video cameras in cars. (See Attachment B) |
| "The union has objected to andforced changes in the deployment ofbasic equipment such as electronic ticketing devices and semiautomatic weapons, insisting they be distributed according to seniority rather than operational need. " | The FOP has never forced changes in the deployment of electronic ticket devices. The police department can put the devices in any unit. There is an agreement that if two officers in a unit want the device, the more senior officer will get it. (See Attachment C) In regards to semi-automatic weapons, every single officer in Montgomery County is issued a semi-automatic pistol and the question of how they are distributed has never been at issue. Everyone needs one. Everyone gets one. |
| "Amazingly, it tried to obstruct efforts to beef up patroLs in Silver Spring last year to address a spike in crime; " | The FOP never obstructed any effort to beef up patrols. The FOP accepted the County's plan to temporarily assign volunteer officers to Silver Spring. The FOP agreed that the transfers would proceed unhindered despite the absence of a signed agreement. Police Chief Manger testified that the resolution was reached after the transfers programs had successfully ended. (See Attachment D) |
| "The FOP has even challenged the introduction ofnew technoLogy intended to ensure offlcers' security. A case in point: It insisted on assurances that tracking devices tomonitor the Location ofpolice cruisers couldnot be used in disciplinary proceedings. " |
This is a reference to the Automatic Vehicle Locator System (AVL) in police cars. It is the outcome of a 2003 arbitration award for theCounty. It was the County's final language not the FOP's. |
Authorized by “Citizens For Effective Law Enforcement Against Question B, Marc Zifcak Treasurer”