City Council approves: Worcester police officers to get $1,300 for wearing body cameras

WORCESTER - Following a wide-ranging discussion, with questions about the City Council's role in collective bargaining, councilors voted 8-3 to transfer funding for police officers to receive an annual stipend of $1,300 for body cameras.

The change amends the salary ordinance covering officers represented by NEPBA Local 911, the patrolmen's union.

The first payment of $650 will be made within 30 days of the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement and will cover the period between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year. Effective July 1 and annually thereafter, members of the bargaining unit will receive a $1,300 gross stipend.

The stipend would be counted toward members' retirement and would not be relied upon for purposes such as the calculation of the members' overtime rate, according to the agreement.

Toomey sought delay

After news of the stipend had drawn some questions from the community, at-large City Councilor Kathleen Toomey, chair of the public safety committee, postponed the item for a week during last week's council meeting.

Toomey said Tuesday that she held the item so more clarity could be provided on the process that got to the issue appearing before the City Council.

The two unions representing police officers in the city argued cameras were a change in working conditions and required a renegotiation of the contract. Contract negotiations delayed a City Council vote on the policy in February.

Negotiations with IBPO Local 504, the officials union, on the matter remain ongoing.

Following the April 25 Council meeting, Mayor Joseph M. Petty told host Hank Stolz on Talk of the Commonwealth that the City Council was somewhat obligated to approve the stipend as City Manager Eric D. Batista negotiated the contract that was already signed.

City Solicitor Michael Traynor also provided a legal opinion which stated that City Council was "legally obligated" to approve the amendment.

Traynor wrote that the state Supreme Judicial Court has ruled legislative bodies have the power to determine the purposes with which money can be spent, but not the power to determine the exact spending for a specific purpose.

The power of spending money is an executive task per the Supreme Judicial Court, Traynor wrote.

Mayor cites collective bargaining

Petty reiterated his view Tuesday that the City Council had an obligation to approve the stipend as it pertains to a settled collective bargaining agreement, referencing Batista's work on the renegotiation.

"(Batista's) done his job, now we have to do ours," Petty said. "We empowered him. We told him to come up with an agreement."

The mayor additionally referenced the possibility that voting down the ordinance could land the city in court and the city had recently lost several suits.

"I've been around a while. When we go to arbitration we usually don't win," Petty said.

Petty brought up the public desire for a body camera program, going back several years.

In addition, Petty said the city is working with the department on improving accountability.

At-large Councilor Khrystian King said the narrative around the stipend debate needed correcting. King said the matter did not pertain to "good cops or bad cops," and that the City Council knew cameras would eventually be a matter of bargaining.

King: Public wants cameras

As a union official for the social workers' union SEIU Local 509 DCF, King said NEPBA Local 911 did a good job negotiating for their members and said Worcester police delivered on body camera implementation.

While King said research found the overwhelming majority of Americans nationwide support body cameras, a smaller majority supported paying more in taxes for body cameras.

Approving an item that taxpayers may not want to foot the bill for weighed on King, who said he went back and forth on the amendment. He was especially concerned that the amendment would exist in perpetuity and cost the city $2.5 million over the next five years and $5 million in 10 years.

"That's a lot of money. That's the people's money," King said.

King also pushed back on the assertion that the City Council was legally obligated to approve the stipend. While a memorandum of understanding between the police and the union is in play, King said the City Council does have the discretion of enforceability in the event a governing body enters the joint use agreement.

Unlike the vote creating new school committee districts where the City Council was under a consent decree to vote unanimously, King said no such consent decree exists for the stipend.

"Our legal obligation is to vote it up or down, affirmative or not in the affirmative," King said.

At-large Councilor Thu Nguyen asked Traynor a series of questions about the City Council's role in approving the funds if contract renegotiation were already signed.

Traynor said the council needed to vote because of general law pertaining to the transfer of money and because the item is an amendment to a city salary ordinance.

When Nguyen asked why the city did not wait on the contract signing until the City Council approved the stipend, Traynor acknowledged the matter is a "unique situation."

The city solicitor said Batista had already appropriated the money for the stipends from the amount given to his office in the city budget for union negotiations.

When asked by Nguyen, Traynor said it is not illegal for them to vote no, but the city could be put in legal jeopardy for not approving the funds.

Batista also told Nguyen that the stipend would also apply to new officers represented by the patrolmen's union, who would not be experiencing a change in working conditions.

District 1 Councilor Sean Rose said he did a ride-along with the police department and saw the impact the body camera had on the officer, saying the officer had to juggle more in real time.

"I saw a real change in terms of the overall responsibilities of having (the camera) and the things associated with it," Rose said.

District 2 Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson brought up her own background in organized labor and referenced how elected officials tend to lean on unions come election time. She said the council does not ask the same question about the contracts of other unions who represent city employees.

"There are six different collective bargaining units in the city of Worcester, of which this council has not asked, what they got in each and every one of their different six contracts," Mero-Carlson said. "But we stand here tonight because this is such a hot-button issue."

Haxhiaj: Cameras part of job

District 5 Councilor Etel Haxhiaj said she "principally and ethically" had an issue with the stipend, which she saw as a reward for the police responding to a community ask.

"I cannot imagine that when community members called for police transparency and justice, beyond body cams, that they envisioned that it would come with a reward," Haxhiaj said.

Several councilors bemoaned what they saw as some pitting Worcester teachers, who are currently in pitched contract negotiations with the school committee, with police officers.

Some opponents of the stipend in public comment negatively compared police receiving the stipend with Worcester teachers not receiving additional spending for adopting Zoom during the stay-at-home period of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as teachers having to purchase their own supplies.

Councilors explained multiple times that their role differed from the school committee in terms of collective bargaining. The school committee is the body that negotiates with the teachers while the City Council has granted Batista the authority to bargain on the city's behalf.

Councilors also said they did not have a role in how the school committee spent its budget.

King made a motion for the city to determine if there is any additional funding that can be sent to schools, but said he does not think there probably is any more.

The council finally voted in favor of the stipend and transferring the funding, 8-3.

Petty, Rose, Toomey, Mero-Carlson, at-large Councilor Morris Bergman, at-large Councilor Donna Colorio, District 4 Councilor Sarai Rivera and District 3 Councilor George Russell voted in favor on both measures while King, Haxhiaj and Nguyen voted against both.

Other Business

City Council sent an item documenting the city's plans to make safety improvements to Grove, Burncoat and Stafford streets to the Standing Committee on Traffic and Parking.

Councilors complimented Department of Transportation and Mobility Commissioner Stephen S. Rolle for his work on the proposed projects during the new department's first year. Many also acknowledged that these improvements have been a long time coming.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Worcester police officers to get $1,300 for wearing body cameras