Municipalitythe A publication of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities February 2015, Volume 110, Number 2
Local Government Employee Issues
In this issue: Protective Services Collective Bargaining Municipal Grievance Policy WI Municipalities’ Employment Statistics
Municipalitythe A publication of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities February 2015 Volume 110, Number 2
Departments Contents
From the Protective Service Executive Dir. 41 Collective Bargaining in a Post-Act 10 and Act 32 World 42 Legal FAQs 58 Municipal Grievance Policy Under League Acts 10 and 32 52 Calendar 67 Wisconsin Municipalities’ Web Employee Statistics 61 Siting 67 We’re Gearing Up Legal Join the Captions 69 League’s Lobby Team 62
Local Officials Street Talk In the News 70 One Hundred Years Ago 65
Cover photo: Village of Work Place Wellness Programs Waunakee Fire Station No. 1 by Jean Staral. How Well Do You Measure Up 71
the Municipality February 2015 39
From the Executive Director
Don’t Forget Leadership
This month’s issue of the Municipality You’re a manager and you need to hawks soar but can’t run worth is focused on important topics for the understand how to use the tools of a darn.) people who manage local govern- management. But you must also be ments. In the last few years, a lot has a leader. You are the one who must There are lots of ways to define the changed when it comes to manag- have the vision of where your com- skills needed for leadership, but I ing local government employees, munity is and where it should be, or think these four work pretty well. and we’ve asked some of the state’s could be. And you have to sell that How do you rate on each one? Which leading personnel experts to give you vision. ones do you need to polish? their best advice on these changes. It’s great information and I hope you Both management and leadership This year, the League will be provid- find it useful for your management require study and practice. Even ing you with plenty of management tool box. people who are “born leaders” need skills training, but we also want to to practice their craft. (Most of us help hone your leadership skills. Along with management, you as require a lot of practice.) This after- Later this spring we’ll hold New a community leader have another noon, I enjoyed a webinar by national Officials Training. In the summer, we important topic to study. That topic author and leadership trainer, Anne host the Chief Executives Confer- is leadership. Leadership matters, Grady. http://www.annegradygroup. ence, and in the fall our Annual whether you’re the Mayor, Village com/. Grady put leadership skills into Conference will provide you with President, Trustee, or Council mem- 4 basic baskets: opportunities to learn how to manage, ber, or appointed manager or admin- and how to lead. istrator. Leading is convincing people • Lead by example (because hypo- to follow you and to adopt your ideas. crites make lousy leaders.) You’re the leaders of Wisconsin’s (Remember the last time the Village • Invest in relationships (if you communities. Sometimes you lead Board shot your great idea down? know how the people around city or village employees. Sometimes Leadership matters.) you “tick,” it’ll be easier to keep you lead fellow elected officials. them on time.) Sometimes you have to lead an entire The difference between leadership • Have high expectations (What community. It’s a basic skill, and per- and management is the difference you see is what you get from haps your most important one. We’re between creating a sculpture and people. See great things.) here to help you sharpen it. banging on rocks with sharp objects. • Maximize strengths. (Rabbits are Leadership is the art of creating; great runners but lousy fliers and management is the tactics and tools. Jerry Deschane
The Municipality OFFICERS DIRECTORS President 2015 Term Official Monthly Publication of the Tim Hanna League of Wisconsin Municipalities Dean Boehne Mayor, Appleton Volume 110, No. 2, February 2015 President Eileen Nickels Strum Council President, Platteville Editorial Offices — Justin Nickels Mayor, Manitowoc 131 W. Wilson St., Suite 505, Madison, WI 53703 Donna Olson Dial (608) 267-2380 1st Vice President Mayor, Stoughton Dan Devine In-State (800) 991-5502 2016 Term Fax: (608) 267-0645 Mayor Michael Aubinger STAFF e-mail: [email protected] West Allis President, Ashwaubenon Website: www.lwm-info.org John Dickert Executive Director Jerry Deschane Mayor, Racine 2nd Vice President Neil Palmer Assistant Director Curtis Witynski The Municipality serves as the medium of exchange of ideas President, Elm Grove and information on municipal affairs for the officials of George Peterson Ashanti Hamilton Legal Counsel Claire Silverman Wisconsin cities and villages. Nothing included herein is to Alderman, Milwaukee President Assistant Legal Counsel Daniel M. Olson be construed as having the endorsement of the League unless Rothschild 2017 Term so specifically stated. The Municipality (ISSN 0027-3597) is Tammy Bockhorst Publications Coordinator Jean M. Staral published monthly at $25 per year ($5.00 per copy, back issues Trustee, Shorewood $5.00 each) by the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, 122 W. Past President Kathey Ehley Event Manager Carrie Jensen Mayor, Wauwatosa Washington Ave., Suite 300, Madison, WI 53703. Periodical Larry Arft Al Erickson Technology Coordinator Mary K. Malone postage paid at Madison & additional offices, WI. POST- Manager Mayor, Mosinee MASTER: Send address change to: The Municipality, 122 W Dean Kaufert Member Engagement/Comm Gail Sumi Beloit Washington Ave, #300, Madison, WI 53703-2715. Mayor, Neenah Administrative Assistant Ginger Contreras
the Municipality February 2015 41 Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining In a Post-Act 10 and Act 32 World
42 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining In a Post-Act 10 and Act 32 World
By Attorneys James R. Korom and Kyle J. Gulya
he passage of 2011 Act 10 and, to a lesser degree, 2011 Act 32, Twere watershed events that dramatically changed collective bargaining for all Wisconsin municipal employers. Act 10 gave local municipal employers sweeping control over personnel costs, job security, and perhaps most significantly, over day-to-day op- erational decision-making. Local municipal employers have used these “tools” — some to greater and varying degrees than others — to achieve substantial cost savings and operational efficiencies, James Korom is an attorney and and to develop sustainable compensation and benefit packages for shareholder in the law firm of von Briesen & Roper, s.c. their employees that reflect the labor market in a time of reduced
Act 10 made this possible by drastically limiting the scope of collective bar- gaining for general municipal employee collective bargaining units to wages, and even then only to “total base wages.” Act 10 also allowed the municipal employer to impose its last best offer once the parties reached impasse, thereby eliminating interest arbitration for general municipal employees. Effective use of this virtually unrestricted freedom has allowed most municipal employers to change wages and benefits, but also to completely change how services are provided, and how employees are evaluated. These three components: (1) levels of compensation, (2) job security, and (3) freedom to direct the workforce — are reserved to management.
While not as extensive, through Act 32, the Legislature made meaningful chang- es to collective bargaining for public safety bargaining units. Those changes are Kyle J. Gulya is an attorney and the subject of this article. While the legislature has preserved most of the tradi- shareholder in the law firm of tional scope of bargaining for public safety unions, and preserved the traditional von Briesen & Roper, s.c. He access to interest arbitration to resolve disputes, it has been the change to the ne- may be reached at
the Municipality February 2015 43 Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining ditions in the jurisdiction of from page 45 the municipal employer than the arbitrator gives to the fac- gotiability of one critical issue, health tors under par. (bm). The arbi- insurance, that has generated the most trator shall give an accounting significant impact on how negotiations of the consideration of this in those units are carried out. factor in the arbitrator’s deci- ct 32 also sion.5 A 2011 Act 32’s Major Changes Third, the legislature applied some of Act 32 first tried to make clear which “established a new the economic components of Act 10 classes of employees would continue to new hires in public safety employ- to enjoy broad access to collective bar- ment. Thus, employees initially em- gaining and those covered under the ployed by the participating employer “greater weight” narrower scope of bargaining under on or after July 1, 2011, are required to Act 10. Act 32 only covers an employ- pay towards WRS the same percentage ee who is a “public safety employee”1 statutory factor share as that paid by general municipal or a “transit”2 employee. The new employees. Employees hired before law defined “public safety employee” July 1, 2011, could still lawfully bar- as those persons classified by the that interest gain over that obligation. Sensitive to employer as a protective occupation the problems of compression between participant under Wisconsin Statute the wage and benefit packages of section 40.02(48)(am), in the occupa- arbitrators must non-union command staff compared tions of “police officer,” “fire fighter,” to the employees they supervise, Act “deputy sheriff,” “county traffic police 32 requires command staff initially officer,” or a “person employed under consider and employed prior to July 1, 2011, to pay s. 60.553(1), 61.66(1), or 62.13(2e) the same WRS contributions as their (a),”3 and to an emergency medical subordinates hired before that date service provider for the participating account for in — so if the union agrees to pay more, employer’s emergency medical service then the command staff do as well. department.4 any decision. Fourth, the legislature prohibited Second, the legislature wanted to be unions from bargaining over any sure that unique local conditions were disciplinary matters otherwise subject properly considered in collective bar- to the jurisdiction of a local Police and gaining. Thus, Act 32 also established Fire Commission under Section 62.13 a new “greater weight” statutory factor Wis. Stats. Thus, like general mu- that interest arbitrators must consider nicipal employees, most job security and account for in any decision. Sec- issues are no longer a proper subject of tion 111.77 (6)(am), Wis. Stats. now negotiations. ” requires: Finally, and most significantly, Act 32 In reaching a decision, the dramatically restricted the scope of arbitrator shall give greater collective bargaining regarding health weight to the economic con-
1. Wis. Stat. sec. 111.70(1)(mm)1–2. 2. Wis. Stat. sec. 111.70(1)(p). 3. Wis. Stat. sec. 40.02(48)(am) 9–10, 13, 15, 22. 4. Wis. Stat. sec. 111.70(1)(mm)2. 5. 2011 Act 32 sec. 2409iv; Wis. Stat. sec. 111.77(6)(am) (emphasis added).
44 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment insurance. The parties are prohibited which encompassed the following • In May 2013, a WERC hear- from negotiating: issues: ing examiner decided no duty to bargain existed regarding the the design and selection of • In October 2012, a circuit court employer’s unilateral changes health care coverage plans by judge decided that contributions to health care plan selection and the municipal employer for to a Health Savings Account are design changes for a pre-2011 Act public safety employees, and prohibited subjects of bargain- 32 contract (entered into before the impact of the design and ing, and the County had no duty July 1, 2011) when those changes selection of the health care to bargain over changes to the occurred after expiration of the coverage plans on the wages, amount the employer contributes collective bargaining agree- hours, and conditions of em- to the employee’s HSA.7 ment.10 ployment of the public safety employee.6 • In April 2013, the Court of Ap- • In fall 2013, the Court of Appeals peals rejected the Milwaukee overturned a Circuit Court’s writ By creating Section 111.70(4)(cm)6, Police Association’s argument of mandamus compelling a mu- the intent of the legislature seemed that once an employer decides on nicipality and County to comply clear — that matters related to the a plan design and selects it, then with the health insurance provi- design and the selection of the health bargaining must occur as to the sions of their expired collective care coverage plan and impact bargain- direct results of the plan design bargaining agreements until new ing regarding the design and selec- and selection—that is bargaining agreements were reached.11 tion of the health care coverage plan regarding changes the employer constituted illegal subjects of bargain- makes to the deductibles and other • In November 2013, the Court of ing. Likely because of the significant out-of-pocket costs.8 Milwaukee Appeals, in a decision involv- bargaining power this language gives Police Association appealed this ing Eau Claire County, affirmed to the employer, litigation was initi- decision to the Wisconsin Su- a Dane County Circuit Court ated by unions in many jurisdictions preme Court, where it is currently decision reversing the WERC and challenging the scope of the employ- pending. found — under the old version of er’s unilateral authority over health 111.70(4)(mc)6 (which no longer insurance plan design, including the • In April 2013, the WERC decided exists) — that bargaining over the selection of different types of plans, the employer’s changes to the allocation of responsibility be- deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, and Health Reimbursement Accounts, tween employers and employees contributions to health reimbursment which define the type and amount to pay deductibles is not a prohib- accounts (HRAs), Health Savings of health care costs covered by the ited subject of bargaining.12 The Account (HSAs), and similar funding plan, are functionally no differ- Court of Appeals decision made vehicles. The Wisconsin Employment ent than a “health care coverage no reference regarding whether Relations Commission, as well as plan,” and therefore constituted a several circuit courts issued decisions prohibited subject of bargaining.9 Protective Service Collective Bargaining continued on page 47
6. 2011 Act 32 sec. 2409c; Wis. Stat. sec. 111.70(4)(cm)6. 7. Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department Employees v. Manitowoc County, Case No. 12-CV222 (Man. Cty Cir. Ct. Oct. 2012) (appeal No. 2013AP1, appealed to the Court of Appeals, awaiting decision pending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, appeal No. 2012AP1928). 8. Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, 2013 WI App 70, 348 Wis. 2d 168, 833 N.W.2d 179 (appealed and decision pending by the Wisconsin Supreme Court). 9. City of Marinette, Dec. No. 34096 (WERC, 4/13); see also Wisconsin Professional Police Association v. City of Hudson, No. 12-CV-371(St. Croix County Cir. Ct. July 2013). 10. Village of Menomonee Falls, Dec. No. 34017-A (Jones 5/13), affirmed 34017-B (WERC 6/13). 11. Green Bay Professional Police Association, et al. v. City of Green Bay, et al., 2013 WI App 269 (The other half of this case, 2013AP270, is still on appeal to the Court of Appeals and also awaiting decision pending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s deci- sion in Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, appeal No. 2012AP1928). 12. Wisconsin Professional Police Association v. WERC, 2013 WI App 145.
the Municipality February 2015 45
Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining The Except for the employee negotiate with a collective bargaining from page 48 premium contribution, all representative to require the employer costs and payments associ- to offer more than one health insurance the Union’s proposal constituted ated with health care cover- plan option.14 The pending appellate- an “impact” bargaining proposal age plans and the design and level cases under the old version of that may have been illegal. That selection of health care cov- Wisconsin Statute Section 111.70(4) decision was not appealed by the erage plans by the municipal (cm)6 are held up on appeal awaiting WERC, likely due to what the employer for public safety the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s deci- Legislature did next. employees, and the impact of sion in Milwaukee Police Association such costs and payments and v. City of Milwaukee. In the next state budget bill, 2013 Act the design and selection of the 20, the legislature sought to “clarify” health care coverage plans on Post Act 32 Interest Arbitration what it originally intended — that ne- the wages, hours, and condi- gotiations regarding health insurance tions of employment of the Following the passage of Act 32, the must be limited exclusively to the em- public safety employee.13 interest arbitration process has largely ployee’s share of the health insurance remained unchanged. Arbitrators premium contribution. The legislature Following the inclusion of this lan- continue to closely track the statutory modified Section 111.70(4)(cm)6 by guage in 2013 Act 20, employers and factors required under Wisconsin Stat- clarifying the prohibition of bargain- unions throughout Wisconsin seem- ute section 111.77(6)(am)–(bm).15 As ing health insurance plan design and ingly agreed on what the legislature before, external comparability remains selection, and the legislature included intended and litigation involving the dominant factor. The addition of language affirmatively identifying pre- health insurance plan design and the new “local economic conditions” mium contributions as the only subject selection has largely ended. In the only factor, the impact of Act 10 on non- of bargaining: published post-Act 20 case, WERC ruled that the employer has no duty to Protective Service Collective Bargaining continued on page 48
13. 2013 Act 20 sec. 1722p (strikeout in original, emphasis added); Wis. Stat. sec. 111.70(4)(cm)6. 14. Milwaukee County, Dec. No. 35042 (WERC, May 2014) (“Implicit in the MPSO’s proposal is the fact that the two plans for health insurance coverage must be different. Whether the requirement is for two plans or ten plans the presentation of different plans creates choices for employees. We read the new language as limiting all health insurance decisions (other than premium pay- ment) solely to the employer. Put another way, the employer has the discretion to make all decisions regarding the type of plan or plans to be offered. If the employer chose to offer more than one choice that is their prerogative, but a union cannot bargain for language requiring that a certain number of optional plans be offered. If an employer, for example, were to propose a health insurance plan, the union would be barred from offering an alternative plan with different coverage provisions. Requiring an employer to offer two or more plans is, in effect, similar to the union offering a counterproposal.”) 15. Wis. Stat. sec. 111.77(6)(am)–(bm): (am) In reaching a decision, the arbitrator shall give greater weight to the economic conditions in the jurisdiction of the municipal employer than the arbitrator gives to the factors under par. (bm). The arbitrator shall give an accounting of the consider- ation of this factor in the arbitrator’s decision. (bm) In reaching a decision, in addition to the factors under par. (am), the arbitrator shall give weight to the following factors: 1. The lawful authority of the employer. 2. Stipulations of the parties. 3. The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit of government to meet these costs. 4. Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the wages, hours and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services and with other employees generally: a. In public employment in comparable communities. b. In private employment in comparable communities. 5. The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living. 6. The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacation, holidays and excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received. 7. Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. 8. Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the deter- mination of wages, hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, fact-finding, arbitration or otherwise between the parties, in the public service or in private employment.
the Municipality February 2015 47 Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining than public safety compensation, or if retained all their bargaining from page 49 the employer is not taxing to the full rights. Neither the County public safety employee bargaining, extent of its legal authority, or if there nor the Union created this and elimination of bargaining over is a significant fund balance (and your inequity. The newly enacted health insurance, raised three poten- finance director will never think it is state law created it. The Leg- tial new questions for Arbitrators that significant enough), then the Arbitrator islature even had a chance to practitioners continue to watch closely. is likely to give little consideration to review the WRS contribution First, how would Arbitrators apply this factor. by protective employees in the new statutory factor in communi- May of 2011 and refused to ties where state revenue sharing has On the role of internal, non-public force protective employees been reduced and local taxpayers are safety comparability, Arbitrators have pay the employees’ share of already paying high taxes? Second, given them little weight, especially the WRS except for new hires. will internal comparability continue to as to economic issues. In the seminal It is appropriate to consider be used by Arbitrators to inform their post-Act 10 interest arbitration case this case involving protective decision-making when those “settle- issued in November 2011, Arbitrator employees with traditional ments” are the result of an imbalance Mahwinney stated: arbitration considerations in of bargaining power between the analyzing the final offers and employer and the general municipal While internal bargaining unit how they best fit the statuto- employee bargaining unit? And third, settlements can be very impor- ry criteria (as the criteria ex- what role will the employer’s exercise tant in arbitration, especially in isted before July 1, 2011). The of unilateral authority over health the area of benefits, there are external comparables clearly insurance play in the application of the no internal settlements. Due to favor the Association on both “overall compensation” factor? the changes in state law, the in- wage increases and the WRS ternal units have been stripped contribution. The internal So far, the new “greater weight” fac- of almost all of their bargain- comparables have little, if any, tor involving local economic health ing rights except for limited weight in this case because the has not played a significant role in bargaining on wages. They 5.8 percent WRS contribution the reported decisions.16 Certainly, are prohibited from bargaining was imposed upon them by arbitrators recognize that municipal over contributions to the WRS. law and because there are no budgets are tight. However, they The 5.8 percent employee con- voluntary settlements in the also recognize that budgets are tight tribution was imposed on these internal units. everywhere. What they seem to expect units during 2011 by state law. is a showing that the parties before However, the Legislature did . . . them demonstrate the local economic not impose the same contribu- conditions are uniquely tight, war- tion on public safety employ- If the County wants to achieve ranting a departure from the otherwise ees, except for new employees internal consistency among its preexisting settlement pattern. In other hired after July 1, 2011. employees, it may do so over words, if the surrounding communi- time, as new hires come on ties with tight budgets can figure out The County says it is inequi- board or bargaining starts to how to pay their public safety work- table to have the internal bar- equalize benefits. However, ers at a certain level, the parties to the gaining unit employees pay at this point in time, none of case should be able to do so as well. more to the WRS than the the statutory criteria favors In looking at the exhibits produced in deputies. Of course it is ineq- the County’s final offer, and these hearings, most Arbitrators seem uitable. It is also inequitable the Association’s final offer is to carefully scrutinize the budget of that the non-protective bar- preferred and to be incorporat- the local community. If the Arbitra- gaining units lost almost all ed into the parties’ successor of their bargaining rights and collective bargaining agree- tor finds individual expenditures on 17 items they deem “less important” protective bargaining units ment.
16. See, e.g., City of Greendale, Dec. No. 33924 at 30 (Strycker, March 2013). 17. Oconto County, Dec. No. 33283-A at 12–13 (Mawhinney, Nov. 2011) (emphasis added).
48 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment
In short, while some reference to tors are loath to award settle- internal comparability on issues such ments that are greater than as certain types of leave, or those those voluntarily agreed to by relating to difficult to administer ben- other bargaining units within efits might occur, for the most part a the same municipality. (In- “voluntary settlement” with a general ternal comparables) . . . . The f the municipal employee bargaining unit Association says it was not I means little. In essence, the Arbitra- able to bargain with the City tors seem to recognize that by creating because it (the City) refused surrounding different bargaining systems for the to bargain in good faith since two types of employees, the legislature they knew they were never go- “ recognized that public safety employ- ing to offer more than the Fire- communities ees are simply a more important core fighters had received. It went governmental service than Act 10 through the motions but did groups. no more than that. To award with tight the City’s offer based on the While Arbitrators so far have given Firefighter’s offer flies in the little weight to internal morale issues face of the arbitration process budgets can created by disparate benefit treatment and the arrogance of the City of general municipal employees and cannot be condoned. Each bar- public safety personnel, Arbitrators gaining unit must be allowed figure out how have begun to define the “hot is- to determine what is, and what sues,”18 the most dominant of which is not, worth fighting for. The seems to be external comparability. Undersigned agrees with the to pay their One Arbitrator was more inclined to Association’s position in this rely on the external comparability regard and has mentioned it factor in Wisconsin Statute Section above under No. 4.20 public safety 111.77(6)(bm)4a than internal com- parability, even with another internal The issue of “total compensation” has public safety unit.19 Arbitrator Mor- also been addressed by Arbitrators. workers at a rison stated: If the employer offers a better-than- average health plan, do they get any The Association says it is well certain level, aware of the fact that arbitra- Protective Service Collective Bargaining continued on page 50 the parties to
18. City of Oshkosh, Dec. No. 33976-A at 28 (Gallagher, June 2013). the case should 19 See, e.g., id. at 30–32; City of Greenfield, Dec. No. 33924 at 37–42; Douglas Coun- ty, Dec. No. 33350-A at 39 (Kossoff, Jan. 2012) (rejecting the Association’s offer and identifying the unsupported shift in the external comparability wage rankings be able to do so created by the Association’s offer); City of New Berlin, Dec. No. 34024-A at 19 (Gordon, Dec. 2013) (“There is a matter of how much weight should be given to [internal comparability]. The police and fire are separate bargaining units. as well. They are autonomous from each other. Some interests may be similar, but each is independent of the other. Effective, productive collective bargaining between one group and the City would be undermined if one bargaining unit’s settlement were to be determinative of what the other bargaining unit must or will get. That could have negative morale repercussions and fail to take into account other priorities in the other unit. While the internal comparable with the Fire settlement in this case does favor the City, it does so slightly.”) 20. City of Beaver Dam, Dec. No. 35654-A at 38 (Morrison, Sept. 2014). ”
the Municipality February 2015 49 Legal Comment
Protective Service Collective Bargaining proach was unsuccessful in the City of not support the party’s position. After from page 51 New Berlin, Dec. No. 34024-A. There, Act 10, employers tried to get pen- the Arbitrator stated: sion contributions from public safety “credit” for it from the Arbitrator? unions so as to preserve equality with Conversely, if the employer unilater- The City Final Offer does not non-represented and general municipal ally gives a less competitive plan, will provide for the (better) health employees. Arbitrators have required a the Arbitrator “punish” the employer insurance plan now used by quid pro quo for concessions involving because of the lack of any “quid pro the Fire and general employ- benefit contributions in the absence of quo” for the reduced benefit? Cer- ees. The undersigned does support from external comparables: tainly, pre-Act 32, the answer was not doubt the City’s word that “yes”. But by making health insurance it would put the Association Furthermore, the County’s of- and the impact of health insurance members on that plan as a re- fer has no wage increase and on wages, hours and working condi- sult of selecting its Final Offer no quid pro quo for the 5.8 per- tions a prohibited subject, what will that proposes a two year term cent WRS contribution. Such a Arbitrators do? How Arbitrators have expiring December 31, 2013. significant concession without approached the “quid pro quo” issue But that is not contained in its any support in the externals generally after Act 32 gives us some certified Final Offer. Selection demands a quid pro quo. At a guidance. of the City Final Offer would minimum, it demands a quid of necessity bring some un- pro quo of some value. Noth- Looking only at WRS and health certainty into the relationship ing is offered by the County.23 insurance premium contributions (not between the parties, with the at plan design) after Act 32, Arbitrator City having a free hand to de- The importance of a quid pro quo Strycker stated: sign the plan under the law as in the absence of support from the it negotiates a new agreement. external comparables has encouraged It is important to recognize The certainty of knowing what continued incremental changes to ben- that wage adjustments can- the wages, benefits and work- efits (albeit now on a larger scale than not be viewed independently, ing conditions are provides a incremental change pre-Act 32) rather as employee health insurance more stable environment for than immediate wholesale change. premium and employee WRS the parties to negotiate. These contributions impact actual matters make the City offer Bargaining Trends earnings. In order to have a less preferable.22 more complete understand- Based on the authors’ personal experi- ing of the economic situation In summary, Arbitrators feel con- ences, as well as the information- within the comparables and strained by the language in Act 32 gathering required for effective the Union proposal, an analy- such that insurance plan design deci- negotiations, there seem to be sev- sis of employee contributions 21 sions, either good or bad from the eral collective bargaining trends in is necessary . . . employee’s point of view, will not the public safety sector which have play any overt role in their decisions. developed since the passage of Act Some employers have either made Whether it plays any “unofficial” role 32. (The reader may have his or her significant health insurance plan de- is the subject of mere speculation. own perceptions about whether these sign reductions to encourage favorable trends may exist, as reflected in their settlements, or have “promised” posi- What is not subject to speculation is own local experiences). The first trend tive changes as an incentive for unions the continued importance of a quid pro is the high rate of voluntary settle- to accept other concessions. That ap- quo when external comparability does ments. Whether voluntary settlements
21. City of Greenfield, Dec. No. 33924-A at 41. 22. City of New Berlin, Dec. No. 34024-A at 20. 23. Oconto County, Dec. No. 33283-A at 12; see also City of Oshkosh, Dec. No. 33976-A at 30.
50 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment are the result of local economics, local The second category of settlements similar to pre-Act 32 practices, with a politics, or a desire for labor peace, involves the employer “buying” the few important exceptions. Foremost the low number of interest arbitration WRS contributions by offering cor- among these will be the ability of the cases shows a strong preference for responding wage increases. So, over local community to use the “nuclear voluntary settlement. Both employers the term of a two-year or three-year option” of drastic cuts in health insur- and unions seem to recognize the cur- contract, the employees may move ance benefits as leverage when there is rent political climate and respect the from no WRS contributions up to a significant issue facing the commu- new financial realities facing them. “full” contributions in steps, with nity that the local union refuses to help wage increases phased in over time address. Such issues could include Second, employers are opting for to make up for part or all of those local economic problems, but could shorter collective bargaining agree- contributions. That may mean net also include day-to-day operational ments. Municipal finance structures wage reductions in some years, and net issues that prevent the employer from have changed, resulting in greater increases in others, but over the term effectively serving the community. As uncertainty year-to-year for munici- of the contract, the employees see little indicated above, this option carries pal employers who have previously or no net wage increases. If you see a with it significant consequences to the been reliant on higher levels of shared 3 or 4 percent wage increase in one of relationship between the parties, but revenue, grants, and other aid. As your comparables, that is likely due to if the union refuses to help the local such, those employers are attempting the employees absorbing more WRS community solve its unique problems to achieve greater certainty regarding contributions at or near the same time. because of “past practice,” or because their expense budgets by negotiating By now, most public safety employees “the comparables don’t do that,” collective bargaining agreements of a have agreed to pay “full” WRS contri- then the employer may have no other shorter duration of one or two years butions, so future collective bargaining choice but to use the “nuclear option” rather than three years. trends will focus on “normal” factors to effectively serve the public. involving other benefit changes. Finally, settlements seem to have The good news is that most public fallen into three main categories. First The third category involves employ- safety unions recognize the fact that (and by far the lowest), are those ers who have taken the view that both Act 10 and Act 32 changed the where the employer has told the union employee turnover will solve the WRS status quo, and they have voluntarily that if the voluntary settlement is not contribution issue over time (because absorbed the WRS contributions, fiscally sound enough, the employer every new hire automatically pays the accepted greater premium share pay- will implement significant reduc- “full” WRS contribution), so those ments, and worked fairly and effec- tions in health insurance plan design, employers have allowed pre-2011 tively with the employer to come to a to include dramatic (and, at times, hires to pay nothing towards WRS. new balance of power under these new draconian) changes in deductibles, There, the wage settlements have been laws. Similarly, most local employers drug co-pays, co-insurance levels, and zero or low, commonly tracking the recognize the difficult, often dangerous more, which would cost the employees CPI or the trend among the general jobs our public safety personnel per- significant out-of-pocket costs beyond municipal employees. This category is form, and they have tried to maintain the premium share. There are serious not widespread, but can help explain their current levels of compensation morale, political, and legal implica- what would appear to be an “out of in a challenging fiscal environment. tions to this approach, both short and line” settlement. We can only hope that trend continues, long term. But for those that have done and it will be the rare case that works it, and have the political will to fol- Conclusion its way through the interest arbitration low through, the short term economic process that gives us all more guid- results are favorable to employers. Act 10 had dramatic and far-reaching ance on how the Arbitrators will apply (Note that those employers participat- effects on non-public safety collec- the statutory factors in this new legal ing in the “State Plan” do not have this tive bargaining. The impact of Act 32 environment. option because of the structure of the on public safety collective bargaining State Plan.) will be much less. We predict that Employees 345 police and fire collective bargaining will continue to function in a manner
the Municipality February 2015 51 Legal Comment
Municipal Grievance Policy under Acts 10 and 32
By Attorney Steve Zach, Boardman & Clark
long with the elimination The statute provides little guidance and Heidi Burden v. Dodge County, as to what should be included in the 2014 WI APP 8, the County adopted a Aof almost all municipal grievance policy and there is scant grievance procedure which excluded legislative history to aid in its interpre- from its provisions “termination collective bargaining, 2011 tation. For example, the statute does of employment due to . . . lack of not define “employee,” “termination,” qualification. . . .” The employee was Wisconsin Acts 10 and 32 (Act “discipline,” or “workplace safety.” convicted of operating a motor vehicle 10) also require municipalities Given this lack of clarity as to the while under the influence of alcohol. scope of employment actions subject The employee worked as an Elderly to adopt a grievance policy if to sec. 66.0509(1m), municipalities Benefit Specialist II and County policy have adopted policies which limit the required as a qualification for employ- they do not have a civil service application of the grievance process ment that she not have any convictions by excluding through definition certain for operating under the influence with- system in place. Codified at employment actions from its coverage. in the past twelve months. The County terminated her employment upon her Wis. Stat. sec. 66.0509(1m), What are Discipline & Termination? conviction. The employee grieved the discharge under the County’s statutory this legislative mandate requires This is particularly true with respect grievance policy. The County refused municipalities to implement an to the definition of “discipline” and to process the grievance contending “termination.” Most sec. 66.0509(1m) that the employee was terminated for impartial hearing procedure as policies exclude from their cover- lack of qualifications, which was ex- age employment actions caused by cluded from the definition of “termina- one step of the grievance policy economic factors, including layoffs, tion.” furloughs, reductions-in-force, and with respect to “terminations,” wage and benefit adjustments. They The employee filed a lawsuit alleg- also exclude “non-disciplinary” ing that sec. 66.0509(1m) required “discipline,” and “workplace employment actions such as resigna- her discharge be considered a “ter- tions, retirements, voluntary quits, and mination” and, thus, subject to the safety.” administrative leaves with pay. Some County’s grievance procedure. The policies go further and exclude verbal Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed Steve Zach is a partner in and written warnings on the basis they with the employee, holding that the Boardman & Clark LLP which are remedial rather than disciplinary in County’s exclusion of her discharge provides a wide range of legal nature. from the grievance process violated services, including serving as sec. 66.0509(1m). In interpreting this general counsel to local govern- The extent to which municipalities can statute, the court used the dictionary ments and providing specialized self-define the scope of their statu- definition of “termination” and found services to municipally owned tory grievance process by narrowly it to mean “to terminate” or to “dis- electric, water and wastewater defining the terms has been the subject continue the employment of; dismiss.” utilities. He can be contacted at of recent litigation. For example, in The court held that not all employ-
52 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment
Municipal Grievance Policy under Acts 10 and 32
emphasized that its ruling was meant “discipline” will be subject to judicial procedural due process was addressed to convey that only the action taken review and interpretation. Beyond that, in Nesvold v. Roland, 2014 U.S. Dist. against this specific employee was a clarity is still elusive, although both LEXIS 105268 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 1, termination within the plain meaning courts based their holdings on what 2014). The county employee filed a of the statute. The court also pointed they perceived as a common sense lay federal lawsuit alleging that his separa- out that the exclusion itself defined the interpretation of “termination” and tion from county employment violated employment action as a “termination.” “discipline.” his due process rights. To prevail, the employee had to prove that the terms In Schneider v. Howard Suamico Due Process of his employment provided for termi- School District, Case No. 2013-CV- nation only for “cause” or otherwise 397 (Brown County Circuit Court), Another question that has been the evinced mutually explicit understand- the school district adopted a grievance subject of legal proceedings is whether ings of continued employment. The procedure which excluded teacher a §66.0509(1m) grievance procedure county adopted a sec. 66.0509(1m) non-renewals under sec. 118.22, Stats., creates a property interest in municipal policy which articulated that the from the definition of “termination” employment. A municipal employee impartial hearing officer could only and “discipline.” A non-renewed who has a property interest in em- overturn the county’s employment teacher argued that this exclusion ployment is almost always entitled to action upon a finding that such action violated sec. 66.0509(1m). The circuit a pre-termination hearing, although was “arbitrary and capricious.” This court also interpreted the statute by individual circumstances will affect standard has been the primary standard reference to the dictionary definition of how elaborate such a hearing must be. adopted by municipalities, although “discipline” and concluded that “dis- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, some have adopted a higher “cause” cipline” encompasses “punishment.” 105 S.Ct. 1487 (1985). standard. The court concluded that because some non-renewals may constitute As a general rule, municipal employ- The court held that the adoption “punishment,” non-renewals could ment is at-will. Vorwald v. School Dis- of a grievance process pursuant to not categorically be excluded from the trict of River Falls, 167 Wis. 2d 549, sec. 66.0509(1m) does not create a grievance procedure. The court did 482 N.W.2d 93 (1992). A protected federally-protected property right. not consider whether non-renewals property interest generally only arises Significantly, the court also concluded are also “terminations.” The circuit if an employee has an expectation of that the adoption of an “arbitrary and court opinion suggests that an Act 10 continued employment arising from a capricious” standard does not create a grievance procedure may exclude from policy, statute, handbook, collective property right, holding that while such its scope non-renewals based upon bargaining agreement or individual a standard moves the employment set- non-disciplinary reasons. The decision contract that provides job security ting out of an “at-will” status, it does suggests that other non-disciplinary (such as a “cause” standard) akin to not establish a “cause” standard suf- actions may also be excluded from a tenure. Sanguigni v. Pittsburgh Bd. of ficient to create a property right to the statutory grievance policy. Public Educ., 968 F.2d 393 (3d Cir. position. The court further recognized 1992). that the statutory grievance process These cases also hold that munici- in-and-of-itself satisfies federal due palities cannot unilaterally define the Whether a sec. 66.0509(1m) policy process rights, even if that process scope of the grievance process, and creates a property right and requires that the definition of “termination” and that a municipal employee receive Municipal Grievance Policy continued on page 56
the Municipality February 2015 53 54 the Municipality February 2015
Legal Comment
Municipal Grievance Policy for discipline and termination. The the fact that Act 10 made “just cause” from page 57 court held that “no one reading the and grievance arbitration provisions does not provide all the relief that an internally inconsistent provisions of prohibited subjects of bargaining. employee seeks, such as front pay or the City’s agreement for 2012-13 and This suggests that at least part of the future loss of earnings. the City’s new Grievance Policy could legislative intent in adopting sec. reasonably believe that it established a 66.0509(1m) was to provide munici- A similar result was reached in Marks binding employment relationship that pal employees with some procedural v. City of Hayward, et al No. 13-CV- gave plaintiff a property interest in her employment protections if they were 366 (W.D. Wis. April 16, 2014), in job in 2012.” not already covered by a civil service which the plaintiff alleged the City process. violated her right to constitutional due These cases suggest that the adop- process by terminating her employ- tion of a sec. 66.0509(1m) grievance This raises the question of whether ment through layoff without giving her process which includes a standard of a municipality can exclude from the a pre-termination hearing. The City review short of “cause” does not give scope of its grievance process those contended that the plaintiff did not rise to a property right which would employment actions in which a munic- have a property right in her employ- impose due process obligations on a ipal employee has procedural recourse ment because its statutory grievance municipality. through other sources. Examples of policy gave the City complete discre- those situations include: tion in determining employment ter- Impact of Alternative Processes minations and discipline. The plaintiff • Police officers and firefighters can argued, however, that this right arose The Act 10 grievance provisions were only be terminated, suspended from a City employment policy that not part of initial legislation and were or reduced-in-rank in confor- established a “just cause” standard presumably added in recognition of mance with the process and cause
56 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Comment
standards set forth in sec. 62.13(5) There are a variety of state and federal interpreting that statute has confirmed (em), Stats. discrimination statutes which provide that discipline and terminations which municipal employees with protection occur under such policies do not create • Police officers and firefighters are from discriminatory employment ac- due process rights, unless the policies able to bargain for a grievance tions and the administrative and legal adopt a substantive cause standard. arbitration process for discipline venues to enforce those protections. They also suggest that any attempt to and termination. limit the application of the grievance The statute and its legislative his- procedure by means of definitional ex- • Municipal officers who are ap- tory do not provide an answer to this clusions must comport with common pointed to their positions are question, but some municipalities sense definitional standards. To the subject to removal pursuant to have taken an aggressive approach and extent that a municipality can define various statutory provisions and excluded from their sec. 66.0509(1m) an employment action as “non-disci- processes. process those employment actions or plinary” and support that argument, safety conditions which provide an the courts have shown an inclination • “Workplace safety” is not defined employee a procedural review process to permit the municipality to exclude in the statute, but typically has by means of other statutory sources. that action from the grievance process. been defined by policy to include Given the dearth of statutory guid- conditions that substantially Conclusion ance, however, many questions remain endanger an employee’s health as to the ability of municipalities to or safety. These conditions can The Wisconsin legislature gave mu- shape the application of the grievance be subject to state and federal nicipalities significant discretion in the process. standards and enforcement mecha- drafting of grievance policies under nisms (e.g., OSHA). sec. 66.0509(1m). Recent case law Employees 346
the Municipality February 2015 57 Legal FAQs FrequentlyLegal Asked Questions
Is it necessary for a municipal- mental grants for funding, a municipal- race, creed, color, disability, marital 1. ity to advertise a job opening ity need not advertise a municipal job status, sex, national origin, ancestry, before filling the position? opening. sexual orientation, arrest record, con- viction record or membership in the Although no state or federal law Even though a municipality is not military. In view of the desirability of requires that available positions of required to solicit applications for an providing equal employment oppor- municipal employment be advertised, available municipal position, munici- tunities, and to ensure that the above it is probably better practice to do palities should be aware that state and factors are not improperly considered so. See League opinions Employees federal law (i.e., Wisconsin’s Fair Em- in hiring decisions, it might be advis- 240 and 271. Absent an advertising ployment Law, Wis. Stat. secs. 111.31 able for a municipality to develop a requirement imposed by a local civil to 111.395, and the Americans With procedure for soliciting applications service ordinance enacted pursuant to Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. secs. 12101 which recognizes these goals and pro- Wis. Stat. sec. 66.0509, or imposed as to 12213) prohibit discrimination in hibitions. Word-of-mouth advertising a condition to the receipt of govern- hiring on the basis of things like age, is not a very effective means of provid-
League of Wisconsin Municipalities Business Partners
MSA Professional Services inc. WEA TRUST
For more information on becoming a League Partner, contact Jean Staral, (608) 267-2383; League of Wisconsin Municipalities Business Partners 58 the Municipality February 2015 Legal FAQs ing equal employment opportunities the first pay check. Wis. Admin. Code employer, provides an employment and may in fact be illegal where the DWD 270.05(1) and (3)(e). reference to a prospective employer employer has established an affirma- at the request of an employee or the tive action program. Minors must be at least 14 years old to prospective employer, the employer be employed in most jobs. However, is presumed to be acting in good faith Does a municipal employer minors who are at least 12 years old and is immune from all civil liability 2. have to offer compensatory time may work in agriculture, street trades that may result from providing that in lieu of overtime to employees and, jobs such as delivering newspapers, reference. Wis. Stat. sec. 895.487. conversely, does a municipal employee school lunch programs and as football However, the immunity may be lost have to agree to accept comp time in sideline officials, ball monitors and if it is shown by clear and convinc- lieu of overtime? golf caddies. Statutes and administra- ing evidence that the employer did tive regulations regulate the hours that not act in good faith when providing No. The Fair Labor Standards Act minors can work and the total number the reference. Lack of good faith may (FLSA) gives local governments addi- of hours that minors can work in a be shown through evidence that the tional flexibility that private employers given week. These hours vary depend- employer: do not have by giving local govern- ing on whether school is in session. ments the option of using compensa- To a large extent, with the exception 1. knowingly provided false infor- tory time instead of paying overtime. of employment relating to school pro- mation in the reference; However, there are certain require- grams, minors may not be employed ments that must be met with regard to or permitted to work during hours that 2. made the reference maliciously, or; the use of comp time. First, both the minors are required to attend school employer and the employee must agree unless the minor has completed high 3. made the reference in retaliation that compensatory time may be substi- school. Sec. 103.67(1), and Wis. Ad- for the employee exercising cer- tuted for overtime pay although a local min. Code DWD 270.11. tain statutory employment rights. government can require the acceptance Wis. Stat. sec. 895.487(2). of compensatory time as a condition of Certain types of employment are employment. Second, compensatory deemed too hazardous for minors. See Are municipalities and rep- time, like overtime, must be awarded Wis. Admin. Code DWD 270.12. For 5. resented general municipal at time-and-a-half for actual hours example, minors under the age of 16 employees limited to collectively bar- worked in excess of 40 in a week. are prohibited from operating power- gaining on total base wage increases driven machinery including lawn and at or below the consumer price index What restrictions govern the garden equipment and sidewalk-type (CPI) only? 3. employment of minors? snow blowers. Minors 16 and 17 years of age may be employed as lifeguards Yes. 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 limits Municipal employers that hire minors and swimming instructors and aides increases to total base wages that may must be aware of restrictions govern- if they have successfully completed a be bargained by local governments. ing child labor. Restrictions govern bona fide life saving course. Under Act 10, if a local government the age a minor must be to work, the agrees to increase total base wages specific hours and number of hours For further information about child la- by a percentage that exceeds the CPI minors can work, and also the kind of bor, contact the Wisconsin Department change, the governing body must work which minors can be asked to of Workforce Development’s Equal adopt a resolution specifying the perform. With limited exceptions, be- Rights Division. amount by which the total base wages fore a minor under 18 years is permit- increase will exceed the CPI limit. ted to work, the employer must have Does Wisconsin law provide a The resolution may not take effect a work permit on file. If a minor pays 4. local government employer with unless it is approved in a referendum.. the work permit fee to the permit of- immunity for employment references? The referendum must occur in Novem- fice, the employer must reimburse the ber for collective bargaining agreements minor for that expense not later than Yes. Wisconsin law provides that when Legal FAQs an employer, including a municipal continued on page 60 the Municipality February 2015 59 Legal FAQs Legal FAQs pensation other than base wages). Lo- tor and federal agencies in Wisconsin, from page 60 cal governments will have discretion OSHA does not have jurisdiction over that begin the following January 1. The over how much or how little to award the state or local governments because results of a referendum apply only to as “other compensation” to general the definition of “employer” under the total base wages in the next collec- municipal employees. Moreover, lo- the OSHA Act of 1970 specifically tive bargaining agreement. cal governments may award different excludes states and any political sub- levels of “other compensation” to em- division of a state. Instead, the State It is important to note, however, that ployees based upon the performance of Wisconsin has jurisdiction and Wis. Act 10 allows local governments to of the employee or any other measure Stat. sec. 101.055(3)(a) requires that unilaterally implement other compen- the employer deems relevant. the Department of Safety and Profes- sation measures or policies such as sional Services adopt, by adminis- performance bonuses, merit increases, Are local governments sub- trative rule, standards to protect the premium pay, pay schedules, automat- 6. ject to Occupational Safety safety and health of public employees. ic pay progressions, and supplemental and Health Administration (OSHA) These standards must provide protec- compensation for general municipal regulations? tion at least equal to that provided to employees without the need to go to a private sector employees under OSHA referendum. In essence, under the bill No, but local governments are subject standards. represented employees are treated the to state regulations which are at least same as non-represented employees as stringent as OSHA regulations. Al- regarding “other compensation” (com- though OSHA governs the private sec- Answers At Your Fingertips! lwm-info.org Anywhere, Anytime 60 the Municipality February 2015 Article Wisconsin Municipalities’ Employee Statistics isconsin cities and vil- the services that provide for thriving Applied Economics, UW Madison, lages provide the services communities. we have an answer. Professor Deller Wthat businesses and people provided us with the following 2012 expect and need from their local Have you ever wondered how many data on municipal employment in Wis- governments, including police and fire people work to provide these services? consin. The source for the information protection, sewer and water, roads and Thanks to Steve Deller, Professor and is the Census of Governments which is public transit, garbage collection, re- Community Development Econo- conducted every five years. cycling, libraries, and parks. These are mist, Department of Agricultural and Wisconsin Municipalities 2012 Employee Statistics Full-time Part-time Part-time hours Full-time equiva- employees employees lent employment Police Officers Only 7,659 754 48,071 7,930 Other Police Employees 1,575 1,491 76,369 2,005 Corrections 31 25 1,867 41 Judicial and Legal 336 338 17,720 435 Firefighters Only 3,946 3,095 79,488 4,390 Other Fire Employees 162 188 3,978 187 Highways 3,481 269 27,309 3,637 Parks and Recreation 1,101 2,483 122,115 1,789 Financial Administration 1,566 515 40,937 1,794 Other Government Administration 1,874 3,046 72,335 2,272 Sewerage 1,267 162 13,078 1,336 Water Supply 1,784 158 14,185 1,865 Solid Waste Management 1,146 131 8,051 1,188 Local Libraries 1,397 3,038 232,808 2,722 Health 649 834 38,714 869 Hospitals 53 43 3,436 72 Housing and Community Development 391 45 4,135 415 Natural Resources 219 12 691 223 Transit 804 172 17,968 907 Electric Power 446 38 2,309 457 Public Welfare 116 201 17,585 215 Water Transport and Terminals 18 1 39 18 Air Transportation 25 27 2,911 42 All Other and Unallocable 1,640 1,478 62,051 1,975 Total 31,686 18,544 908,150 36,784 All Local Governments 56,094 49,328 2,612,301 70,851 the Municipality February 2015 61 League Note We’re Gearing Up — Join the League’s Lobbying Team by Gail Sumi, Member Engagement & Communications Dir. s an elected or appointed Lobby Day starts with a briefing and Rapid Action Team then you will meet with your Legisla- Amunicipal official, you can tors in the Capitol to lobby League This is the League’s “virtual lobby legislative positions. After your team.” You will receive an email alert join the League’s Lobby Corps meetings, you will reconvene for lunch with talking points from the League and report out. Note: if you join the and are asked to communicate the and participate in the 2015 Lobby Corps, you will automatically League’s position quickly to your Leg- “Lobby Day in the Capitol.” be added to the League’s Rapid Action islators. We then ask that you report Team and receive legislative emails. back and let us know what you hear from your state elected officials. 2015 Lobby Days are February 18 Travel Expenses: The League reim- (the Legislature will begin to debate burses mileage expenses and will also Interested? Contact Gail Sumi at 608- the state’s budget), May 13 (this is the reimburse you for one night’s lodging 267-4477 or [email protected] League’s Legislative Luncheon) and and meals if you must travel more November 11 (the important fall Leg- than 400 miles round trip to attend the islative Floor Session.) The League’s meeting. 62 the Municipality February 2015 League Note Adopt the League of Wisconsin Municipalities Resolution Partnership for Prosperity: An Agenda for a Competitive 21st Century Wisconsin Whereas, the state Legislature and the Governor understand that job creation and economic growth is a top priority; and Whereas, municipalities are the foundation of Wisconsin’s economy and local leaders share the same goal of job creation and economic vitality; Whereas, the state should focus its support and limited resources for local government on incorporated communities, which are the economic engines of the state as evidenced by the following: • Wisconsin’s metropolitan regions already account for 75% of the state’s Gross Domestic Product. • Wisconsin’s cities and villages are home to 70 percent of the state’s population, 87 percent of all manufacturing prop- erty, and 89 percent of all commercial property. • Most of the small businesses created in Wisconsin get their start in cities and villages. • Cities and villages are where nearly all technology-based entrepreneurship is occurring in Wisconsin. • Startups and other knowledge-based economic activity occur almost exclusively within cities and villages. Whereas, to compete globally, Wisconsin needs to develop and maintain quality communities that can attract and retain talent and enterprise and spur job creation; Whereas, for the state’s economy to flourish, state and local leaders must work collaboratively; Whereas, the League’s Partnership for Prosperity legislative agenda recognizes that thriving municipalities are critical to a successful state economy and calls for a new state-local partnership to drive the state’s economy forward and spur job creation by: 1) Helping communities continue to provide quality local services while holding the line on property taxes. 2) Investing in local transportation infrastructure. 3) Enhancing and promoting economic development best practices, like the expansion of the historic tax credit that was accomplished in the 2013-2014 legislative session. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the (City/Village of ____) urges the Governor and the Legislature to work collabora- tively with municipal leaders to accomplish the critical goals of job creation and economic growth. Be it Further Resolved, that the (City/Village of ____) urges the Legislature and the Governor to enact the League’s Part- nership for Prosperity agenda (copy attached). Upon adoption, please send a copy to your Legislative Delegation - addresses at Questions? Contact Gail Sumi at the League at (608) 267-4477 (direct) or [email protected] the Municipality February 2015 63 64 the Municipality February 2015 Municipal History Street Talk — One Hundred Years Ago by Mary Malone, Technology Coordinator, LWM A street poem was published in the The poem was followed by this bit of February 1915 Municipality. news: Fixing the Streets By a verdict recently rendered the city of Fond du Lac secured a judgment They took a little gravel, of $13,000 against E. H. Lyons and J. t is the first And took a little tar, P. Connell, bondsmen of the McCugo I With various ingredients Construction company, which paved Imported from afar; Third and Fourth streets and guaran- time in Wisconsin They hammered it and rolled it, teed the paving for five years, the court And when they went away finding the brick of inferior quality. It “ They said they had a pavement is the first time in Wisconsin a con- a contractor or To last for many a day. tractor or bondsman has been sued to They came with picks and smote it make good a five year guarantee. To lay a water main, bondsman has And then they called the workmen To put it back again. To lay a railway cable been sued to make They took it up once more And then they put it back again Just where it was before. good a five year They took it up for conduits To run the telephone, And then they put it back again, guarantee. As hard as any stone. They tore it up for wires To feed the ‘lectric light, And then they put it back again, Which was no more than right. Oh, the pavement’s full of furrows, There are patches everywhere; ” You’d like to ride upon it, But it’s seldom that you dare; It’s a very handsome pavement, A credit to the town, They’re always digging of it up Or puttin’ of it down. From North-West Side Commercial As- sociation Monthly Bulletin of Chicago the Municipality February 2015 65 Professional Services 66 the Municipality February 2015 Websiting Find New Employees: The Web Extends Your Reach ne often overlooked This January we discontinued printing you can also post municipal items for the classified ads in the magazine but sale, check for municipal equipment Obenefit of being a League that wasn’t the end of them. You can your municipality needs or even post a still find them at 2015 League of Wisconsin Municipalities Calendar April 22-24 September 16-18 Building Inspectors Plumbing Inspectors Osthoff Resort, Elkhart Lake Tundra Lodge, Green Bay (800) 976-3399 (877) 886-3725 June 17-19 September 29 - October 2 Attorneys Institute Assessors Institute Lake Lawn Resort, Delavan Osthoff Resort, Elkhart Lake (800) 338-5253 ( 800) 876-3399 June 24-26 October 28-30 Clerks, Treasurers, Finance Officers Institute 117th Annual Conference Best Western Premier Waterfront, Oshkosh w/Engineering & PW Track (855) 230-1900 Hyatt Regency, Milwaukee (866) 460-7456 August 19-21 Chief Executives Workshop TBD Osthoff Resort, Elkhart Lake Police & Fire Commission Workshop (800) 976-3399 the Municipality February 2015 67 We love serving our members and wanted to share this thank you sent to Claire Silverman, our Legal Counsel: “Thank you! The league has been invaluable to me in these last couple of weeks. Several issues have come up that needed just a little more information. You and Daniel have been such excellent resources! You make my job and therefore my life easier! I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how grateful I am!” Debbie Koehn City/Clerk Treasurer City of Spooner Professional Services 68 the Municipality February 2015 Legal Captions The following are legal captions. All factor that interest arbitrators must Employees 346 legal articles are published in full on consider and account for in decisions, the League’s webpage at 12/31/14. The complete text of this (Attorney Steve Zach). 12/31/14. The Legal comment updates status of legal comment is on page 43 of this complete text of this legal comment is protective service and transit employ- Municipality. on page 43 of this Municipality. ees collective bargaining in Wisconsin post-2011 Wis. Act 32. Changes Act 32 included defining “public safety employee” and “transit employee,” establishing a new “greater weight” Professional Services the Municipality February 2015 69 Local Officials in the News Welcome — Retirement — The League welcomes the following as they begin their The League thanks the following for their service to new municipal responsibilities. Wisconsin’s municipalities. Sullivan. Dale Horton, Clerk, Treasurer and Zoning Attorney, Assistant: Appleton, Emily Truman Administrator of the Village is retiring after 29 years of service. Clerk: Milltown, Diana Virkus La Crosse. Street Superintendent Randy Hinze retired the Clerk-Treasurers: Montfort, Michelle Kazda; Rosendale, end of December 2014 after nearly 26 years with the City. Emily Wirkus, Sullivan, Heather Rupnow; Waterloo, His knowledge and experience will be greatly missed. Chris Astrella Milton. Joyce Stener name retired after almost 20 years of Deputy Clerk: Sullivan, Diane Penosky service as the Village Clerk. Dir. of Public Works: North Freedom, Bryan Fry Owen. Gary Smith, Public Works Director, retired from the city after 40 years of municipal service. Electrical Inspector: Onalaska, Brad Neumeister Plymouth. Fire Chief Ron Nicolaus retired as of December Engineer: Pleasant Prairie, Matt Fineour 31st after faithfully serving the Plymouth Fire Depart- ment for 50 years. Ron answered the call for firefighters at Engineer/Dir. of Public Works: Franklin, Glen E. Morrow age 19 and went on to be sworn in as Fire Chief in 1980 through his retirement in 2014. Governor Scott Walker has Fire Chiefs: Cambria, Ryan Hart; Eugene Rataczak issued a Certificate of Commendation to Chief Nicolaus honoring his dedication and contributions to the State of Police Chiefs: Chilton, Craig Plehn; River Hills, Todd Wisconsin. Cowie Waukesha. Ed Henschel retired as City Administrator in President: Rockdale, Kimberly A. Zuelsdor Waukesha on January 9, 2015. Street Superintendent: Chilton, Travis Boll Superintendent: Merrillan, Karl Miller Trustees: Genoa City, Shannon Sperandeo; Rockdale, Julie M. Nelles Additions and Changes — Submit additions and changes to: Mary Malone, Technology Coordinator, League of Wisconsin Municipalities email 70 the Municipality February 2015 Partner Article Workplace Wellness Programs Workplace wellness programs are increasingly popular Want to get ahead in your wellness program? Go to Info. methods to keep employees healthy and shape their behav- WeaTrust.com/LWM for tips about creating an effective ior. Chances are you’re doing something with wellness, but wellness operating plan, taking advantage of an online well- how does that compare with what other employers are do- ness portal, and leveraging already-healthy employees. ing? WEA Trust breaks down the key points from bswift’s 2013 Wellness & Benefits Administration Benchmarking Study in this infographic. Join Us at the Capitol February 18th! • Make your voice heard. • Shape the future of your community. • Influence the issues that impact your opportunities. Take the next step and join us in Madison as a Lobby Team member the next “in the Capitol League Lobby Day” February 18. We need your voice! Get the details: Sign up at http://bit.ly/LWMLobbyTeam Or call, Gail Sumi at 800-991-5502 and she’ll get you signed up.