Shelby City Council participated in sometimes-heated discussion during their Monday evening meeting, with Mayor Marilyn John updating council on labor contracts with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and county bridges in Shelby.
At the request of Councilman Garland Gates, the issue of the FOP contracts was added to Monday evening’s agenda in Shelby City Council. Citing the current debate between the Reynoldsburg Board of Education and teachers, Gates voiced his concerns that the council should be aware of the city’s initial position going into contract negotiations.
“Council needs the assurance that the city would not present some sort of extremist position as its only position,” said Gates. “I think the council in a case like that can give advice to the administration before it goes into negotiations, because ultimately it’s the council that approves the contract. I want to make it clear that I want to avoid a situation where the city may present an extremist, outlandish position as its initial bargaining position.”
John stated the city currently has no position because the FOP contracts are not open. She explained the State Employee Relations Board (SERB) would receive a request from either party wanting to make changes to the contract, then open the case and notify the other party that the contract is now open for negotiation. At that point, said John, the two parties can meet to negotiate; however, prior to when contracts are open for negotiation, there cannot be discussion back and forth about set parts of the contract.
“I do want to point out that I called and sent an email to verify whether the contracts have been open; there has not been a request,” said John. “I can tell you right now we don’t have a position because the contracts are not open.”
Finance Director Bob Lafferty added the city would not have a position until the FOP opens the contract and communicates what they are interested in changing. Councilman Harold Shasky shared in his Safety Committee report that John had previously stated the contracts had not been initiated yet, and when the time comes she would inform council on the progress.
“I will be happy to call an executive session and have it added to the agenda, and go over proposals that we would have,” said John. “I’ll be happy to report on it whenever I can.”
Councilman Nathan Martin agreed that an executive session would be the best place to discuss the contracts, and stated it is up to the executive branch to negotiate those contracts, not the legislative branch.
“As much as I love to be informed, there’s nothing I can do with that information regardless,” said Martin. “If we go into executive session and the position is revealed, there is nothing we can do at that juncture. Even if I was completely unhappy with those negotiations I can’t go to the press with that information, it’s executive session. The only benefit to being aware of that position ahead of time would be to try to leak that and get it out to try and swing favor to the ‘opposing side’ in the negotiations, and I think that would not be the correct thing to do.”
Gates corrected Martin by stating there is nothing in the open meetings law regarding executive sessions that prohibits someone who is in an executive session from sharing that information to anyone he or she may desire to.
“It is not classified information, for which there would be some criminal penalty,” said Gates. “Having said that, I would caution anyone against doing that, but there is nothing in the law that prohibits that.”
“Knowing that makes me very concerned,” said John. “You’re requesting that I call an executive session and I share with you the city’s position prior to even beginning negotiations, which we don’t have a position at this point. Even though it’s shared in executive session, there is nothing that would keep members of council from sharing that negotiation information with anybody they would choose.”
“I’m saying there’s nothing in the law that prohibits that,” said Gates. “Mayor, I will ask you point blank, are you trying to intimate that in such a situation in an executive session that I then would have coffee with the FOP negotiator and release that information? Is that what you’re trying to hint at?”
“I’m not hinting at anything, Mr. Gates,” said John. “I am clarifying a point that you have brought up. You have asked that I share with council the position of the city in executive session. Mr. Martin is stating that information cannot be shared, and you are correcting him and saying it can be shared.”
“Let me correct you, Mayor,” said Gates. “I said there’s nothing in the law that prohibits that. But I immediately said members of council, or county commissioners or township trustees or school board members, would ill serve their communities by disclosing that information they learned in executive session.”
“Which is then a trust factor,” said John, to which Gates replied, “Indeed.”
“So the reason the FOP contracts is continuing to be requested to be under unfinished business is a reminder to me?” John continued. “If I have said in two council meetings that I would be happy to have an executive session and ask why it needs to be continued, why does it need to be continued? If I have said I will do that, do you trust that I will do that?”
“I will concede that point,” said Gates. “I will ask the clerk to remove that from the next agenda.”
In other news, Martin updated council on the state of two county bridges in Shelby as discussed in the Utilities and Streets Committee. The State Street bridge and Smiley Avenue bridge both need repainted, and Martin noted due to construction and replacement of bridges at the county level there is no county money to give for painting the bridges.
“Out of the 360 county bridges, 200 have been replaced during this project and 74 still need replaced,” Martin explained.
John explained the State Street and Smiley Avenue bridges are considered county bridges because if a road is coming into a city from the county and exiting out the other side of the city into the county, any bridges falling on that road are considered county bridges. She noted County Engineer Tom Beck stated if the city would like to pay to paint the bridges themselves he would be happy to help organize the process, but the cost of painting bridges is quite expensive.
“One of the costs that goes into painting a bridge, as explained to me by the engineer, is it’s quite costly to paint a bridge because you have to sandblast the bridge first and then come back and paint it,” said John. “You have to contain the bridge with some type of plastic as it’s being sandblasted so that paint chips, rust and other things do not end up in the river below. The process of sandblasting is very costly.”
John added Beck’s office has been looking for extra funding for the 74 bridges still needing replaced.
“They applied for federal funds to replace five to six bridges throughout the county; they received funding to replace one,” said John. “There is not funding outside the county, and I think we are all very aware of the financial issues the county has had over the last few years.”
John noted she had left a message asking the ballpark cost for painting the two bridges, whether either of the bridges in Shelby is on the list of 74 to be replaced, and about repairs for the State Street bridge.
Gates pointed out the city of Shelby has an external property maintenance ordinance requiring residential and commercial property owners to maintain a level of quality for their properties. He noted not having sufficient monies to comply with the external property ordinance is not considered a defense, and asked how the city could require residential and commercial property owners to comply with the ordinance but not a governmental unit.
“I certainly appreciate the situation the county is in with their finances, I know for decades the needs for bridges is greater than the monies available to replace them,” said Gates. “I would like to work in good faith with the county engineer, but I don’t think we want to be in a position enforcing the law in one set of circumstances but not in another.”