Mayor, Police Spar Over Overtime Audit and Management Study

The Melrose Board of Aldermen approved $16,000 on two audits requested by Mayor Rob Dolan—one on police overtime, one on department policy and procedures—that the police union presidents argued are flawed.

Editor's note: This article is separated into three sections. Read about and read about . Also, the word "affect" was corrected on Wednesday at 9:10 p.m.

If Monday night is any indication, Mayor Rob Dolan and the Melrose Police unions are headed toward combative collective bargaining negotiations this coming year.

Melrose Police officers and some of their family members filled the Aldermanic Chambers on Monday in a show of union solidarity as the Melrose Board of Aldermen approved spending $16,000 on two audits of the police department requested by Dolan.

Dolan pitched the audits last week to the aldermen's Appropriations Committee, which is comprised of the full board. In doing so, the mayor said that the police department has spent an "unacceptable" amount of overtime so far this fiscal year, and cited the department's command structure as being "based upon the 1970s model," which he said has resulted in a "top heavy" police department.

On Monday night, Melrose Police Lt. Timothy Maher, president of the Melrose Police Superior Officers Union, said that last week Dolan made "baseless and inflammatory comments about the Melrose Police Department" and that "we are puzzled by the mayor’s choice of words."

Maher said that vacation time is a contractually bargained right and that the planned overtime audit "will not produce a complete picture of the contractual obligation," and with regard to the department's organizational structure, that the department "is not top heavy, but we are in fact bottom light."

Both the Melrose Police Superior Officers Union and Melrose Police Patrolmen's Union are working under a contract agreed to last year during the city-wide wage freeze and set to expire on June 30, 2012, with negotiations set to start after the first of the new year.

City Wants to 'Turn the Table Over;' Unions Say Process is Flawed

In his remarks before the aldermen last week, Dolan that "the Melrose Police Department is very good, but it is not excellent, and we strive always to be excellent."

The audits that went before the board, Dolan said, would give the city the tools to identify where the police department can improve as an organization. He compared the process to the reorganization of other city departments, "most notably" the Fire Department and the Melrose Retirement Board, and said that he began his tenure as mayor focusing on the financial practices of the city.

"In fact, I brought in then Plymouth CFO Patrick Dello Russo (now Melrose city auditor and chief financial officer) in 2002 to be an outside evaluator of our practices," he said."I believe we have made the often difficult organizational changes necessary to bring those departments to excellence."

Speaking to changes within the city's retirement system, Dello Russo said that system was "totally operationally inept" and now has received an award from PERAC (Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission) for operational efficiency.

"That would not have happened if we didn’t turn the table over, identify, implement and monitor," he said. "Those are the steps we have to do there."

Dolan added, "We have to have this discussion in public and that’s difficult, because it hurts. We have to convince the police department and public we’ve done it for other departments because the only road now is less police, less public safety, less for Melrose."

However, on Monday night, Maher and Officer Joe Donovan, president of the Patrolmen's Union, offered a rebuttal to the aldermen, saying that the is too limited in scope to accurately pinpoint the reason for higher overtime costs this year.

The union presidents also said the lack of an engagement letter specifying the , and a potential conflict of interest because the conductor of the study previously worked with Dello Russo in Plymouth are reasons for concern.

Dolan also drew the ire of the union presidents by specifically citing last week the current vacation policy, as enumerated in the collective bargaining agreement, that allows an officer to take a vacation day and work a detail, as something that has to change; and by saying "there’s not going to be any more" funding available for more officers.

Maher said that there are "fiscal realities" that the city and Melrose Police Department face together.

"Many of these can and should be discussed in collective bargaining, which is due to commence one month from today," Maher said. "While the board considers spending approximately $16,000 on limited audits, it’d be best for city officials to collaborate with the department and with the individuals who can provide much of the relevant data—and for free."

Aldermen Cite Need for Independent Evaluation

In comments at last week's Appropriations Committee meeting, when the committee approved both the overtime audit and management study funds unanimously, several aldermen commented on the need for independent and objective evaluation from outside experts.

Ward 1 Alderman John Tramontozzi said that the board "should not fear this proposal.

"What I mean is time management concerns not only affect municipalities and city departments, but the private sectors," Tramontozzi said. "It's not unusual to hammer out the problems. I just want to make sure we’re getting our value for our money."

Alderman at-Large and Board President Don Conn said he wanted to make clear that the board has "absolutely nothing to do with labor relations" and that the aldermen's role is to monitor city spending.

"This order, if we pass it, is going to authorize a study that is going to analyze how we’re spending money in the police department," Conn said. "I would like to see why the overtime is spiking up ... I’m not going to vote for overtime if I don’t think it’s justified.

"Maybe there’s a good reason (for the overtime). I’m looking for this gentleman to tell me," he added, referring to Daniel Sullivan of public accounting firm , which will perform the overtime audit.

On Monday night, after the union presidents addressed the board during public participation, the full board ultimately approved the management study—one of several items in a free cash appropriation before the board—without any further discussion, which seemed to surprise members of the police department still present.

When the overtime audit came before the board again, Ward 7 Alderman Bill Forbes asked Melrose City Solicitor Rob Van Campen that if the management study produces several recommendations, "don't they have to go before collective bargaining to be approved?"

Van Campen replied that it depends on the nature of the recommendations, as any recommendations that may require providing the unions notice and the opportunity to collectively bargain, and other recommendations may not touch on subjects related to collective bargaining.

Forbes then asked Maher and Donovan to address the board again and Maher pointed out that the order in front of the aldermen was not the management study, and that the overtime audit before them is "a very specific request that has to do with whether vacation is used for details or used before or after details." He added that "there are many areas we do have issues with."

Tramontozzi asked Dello Russo to clarify his understanding that the overtime audit "is not designed to name names, it's not designed to interfere with any of the rights of the officers' contractual obligations," and that the audit is "not suggesting in any way there is any abuse."

Dello Russo reiterated the specific scope of the audit itself and said that it does not suggest any abuse, citing state law in his reason, as the city's chief financial officer, to question any city payments that may fraudulent, unlawful or excessive.

Van Campen added that the overtime audit seeks to ensure that overtime spent in the police department is spent "as efficient and wisely as possible.

"To the extent we can use this order to be smarter, better and more efficient on behalf of taxpayers, that’s what this is all about," he said.

The aldermen approved the overtime audit by an 8-3 vote, the minimum number of votes needed for passage. Voting no were Forbes, Ward 4 Alderman Robert Boisselle and Alderman at-Large Ron Seaboyer.

Dave Gray December 07, 2011 at 08:04 PM
Good point. I was trying to clarify what Steve meant in his first post. He did that, and we are in agreement. Do you have an editorial opinion as to whether or not they should be able to work a detail or overtime if they are on vacation? My understanding is that vacations are scheduled months in advance, so there can be no suspicion of manipulation. They're going to be gone in any case. What possible legitimate link can be drawn between potential overtime liability due to vacation and whether or not someone works extra while they're out on vacation? That makes no sense. I think if you're going to look for that kind of scenario, you'd do better to look at the sick time correlation, but my understanding is that they have policies already in place the prevent people from working details or overtime within 24 hours of calling in sick. Perhaps someone could confirm that.
Daniel DeMaina December 07, 2011 at 08:36 PM
Good points too, Dave. I wouldn't go so far to hold an opinion on whether an officer on vacation can or cannot work a detail—that's not my place in trying to be an objective editor, and is something left to negotiations between the union and the administration. You raise some good questions, re: vacations being scheduled months in advance and policies regarding use of sick time around the time of working details or overtime. I have no idea what the audit will reveal, but I can look into current policies in the CBA regarding use of vacation and sick days.
Erica Stone December 07, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Regarding details, Correct that your tax dollars do not pay for police details---but they will pay for flagmen and by the time you pay for their health insurance, etc..it's not more cost effective. Not to mention the added bonus of extra police on the streets at the utility/construction companies expense.
Daniel DeMaina December 07, 2011 at 09:21 PM
Interesting argument, Erica. One question that I don't know the answer to: Would tax dollars pay for flagmen? Wouldn't the private and utility companies that currently pay for police details pay for the flagmen?
marc bowlen February 17, 2013 at 04:07 AM
How many relatives does Andrew have as police officers? That's total B.S. Any paving done on the roads where there is a police detail, the cost of the job + the police detail is all figured into the bid for the paving job! That makes the cost of the job higher and is passed on to the taxpayer! How about that I-93 paving and bridge projects across the state? All taxpayer money pays for that, I love the State Police sitting in the breakdown lane with the cruisers running and the lights flashing! All taxpayer money pays for that! Or how about the utility pole work where 1 cop stands there talking on his cellphone on side streets with no traffic! The citizens of the community pay for that because the utility company that pays for the details passes the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher utility bills! Please people stop being fooled by these thieves! The purpose of government is to rob, steal, cheat and economically enslave everybody to make everyone dependent on government!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »