Ann Arbor approves new contract with city's largest labor union 3 days before right-to-work starts
Three days before Michigan's controversial right-to-work law is set to take effect, the city of Ann Arbor has struck a deal on a new contract with its largest labor union.
The Ann Arbor City Council voted unanimously Monday night to approve a new collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 369 and its roughly 270 members.
The contract is effective as of Monday and runs through Dec. 31, 2017.
Because the contract starts before the new state law takes effect, the city's AFSCME union won't face the consequences of right-to-work for more than four and a half years.
The vote on the new contract was 9-0 with Council Members Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin absent.
John Hieftje
The city's human resources department recommended approval of the new AFSCME contract, which was renegotiated early and supersedes a contract set to expire on Dec. 31, 2013.
The new contract includes wage increases of 1 percent in January 2014, 0.5 percent in July 2014, 1.5 percent in January 2015, 1 percent in January 2016 and 1 percent in January 2017.
It also includes a revised wage table with lower step increases for new hires effective Jan. 1, 2015.
The union also has agreed to have its newly hired employees participate in any alternate retirement plan the City Council might approve. That's targeted for July 2014, according to the city's human resources director.
AFSCME new hires would move to the alternate pension plan at the same time that nonunion new hires move to such a plan. That could be a defined contribution plan or a hybrid plan.
"I think this is an important step forward," said Council Member Jane Lumm, who said she's particularly pleased about the promise of pension plan changes. "That is significant."
Lumm said it's a fundamental responsibility of the city to provide services effectively and efficiently and moving away from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan is more sustainable.
"It is nice to see there's an option to do that in this contract," agreed Mayor John Hieftje, who said that's something the city has been looking at for years.
Council Member Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, asked if the city could be penalized by the state for doing an end run around right-to-work. Hieftje said the city's not crossing any lines.
Last week, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners also took steps to beat right-to-work, approving 10-year contracts with five of the county's unions.
The city's new contract with AFSCME includes a decrease in personal time for employees on alternate shifts, full participation in the city's wellness incentive program, certain cost contributions related to arbitrations and grievances, as well as other operational changes.
The negotiated agreement also includes AFSCME's acceptance of a change in the city's pension board composition, which was approved by city voters in November 2011.
The new pension board makeup includes five appointed citizen trustees, one trustee elected by fire members, one trustee elected by police members, one trustee elected by general city members and the city's chief financial officer. The city administrator was removed.
Under the new agreement, AFSCME will have 30 days to provide candidates and input to the mayor before a citizen trustee is nominated to serve on the pension board.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Scott Alf
Sat, Apr 27, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.
So we have 4 years to study the contract, and prepared for next time. Centralized high density living has service needs ,and infrastructure is born to service the mother of neccesity. As we loose the skyline, we may be missing the picture. Wise use,is like wide view , low density residences with sustainable incomes surrounding them. I know its supply and demand, not, demand and supply ,right? Encouraging the downtown ,come and spend it crowd though, keeps people funding the University and the drain commission with some perpetuity.
WLD1
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:12 p.m.
Well the biggest thing these union huggers don't understand is that the higher the wages the higher the cost of living. The more you pay for taxes, the less services that will be available. You have to consider why was it when minimum wage was $1.25 that a man could support a family of five , own a house and a car, all on one income. With minimum wage around $8 you can't even afford a room in the basement of a run down crack house without electricity. It is the greed of the executive's and unions that causes poverty and crime to rise, the higher the wages the fewer jobs available. Why do you think every time there is a minimum wage increase many small businesses close down, the prices of everything go up. Wages keep going up that white castle hamburger will cost $5. mcdouble $8. Big Mac $25. That's just the sandwich. What needs to happen is minimum wage for small business and food service should be lowered to $5.00 an hour. If you don't want to work for that then don't .
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
The jealousy just oozes on this page.
Roger Kuhlman
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 4:29 a.m.
How is the funding of the pension and post-retirement healthcare benefits going with this group of city workers? Unionized government employees get a real plush benefits package that employees in private business do not get. If City Council was going to approve a new labor contract early, it should have demanded that some of this premium employee compensation be given back to bring it more in line with what regular non-unionized average Americans get.
barefootdave
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.
I bet this is gona cost us! "Any community renewing a contract between Dec. 12, 2012 and March 28, 2013 would be ineligible for the portion of funding provided for under the employee compensation category, unless the new contract nets at least 10 percent savings, is not longer than the contract being extended and doesn̢۪t contain a requirement that employees remain in a labor union, according to the Michigan Municipal League." -RTW Penalty language
upnorth45
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
Ann Arbor use to be a quiet and wonderful college town. Now its getting too expensive to live in, gas prices higher than the surrounding area, and taxes keep going up. Ann Arbor is turning into another Detroit or Chicago -- cities that are a dime a dozen. Its no longer a great place to bring up a family.
dotdash
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 7:46 p.m.
Really? I think it's a great place to raise kids, taxes seem to have been steady for the past 4 years, and I hardly think AA is responsible for rising gas prices. Do you actually live in Ann Arbor?
Really??!!
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.
Bravo, City of Ann Arbor! It is extremely disheartening, albeit not surprising, that the City of Ypsilanti has failed to do the same. Our police officer and firefighter unions have for months attempted to negotiate in good faith new collective bargaining agreements that are fair and equitable for both sides. Instead of settling on new agreements, our city manager and elected officials have done nothing (unless one considers negotiating with a new Family Dollar store a successful accomplishment). What a shame that our police officers and firefighters are underappreciated and taken for granted by the city. And, what a shame that this news remains unreported by the media.
WLD1
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 11:26 p.m.
First of all the police department should be shut down and the area should be patrolled by the sheriffs department. Fire department should be consolidated with Ypsi Twp . All the police and fire does in Ypsi is keep the taxes high.
harry b
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.
Yes. You people just keep paying your taxes and like it. Your city council is not interested in getting the best contract from the workers. Just shut up and like it.
cindy1
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 4:56 p.m.
Has anyone noticed that the mayor's photo is all over annarbor.com today?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.
Yep, I'm having a hard time keeping lunch down.
Judy
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
Unions looking out for themselves. A 1% per year increase for the employees should cover the Ann Arbor Employees Union Dues each month. Personally I would rather have that 1% to do as "I" would like with.
dotdash
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
RTW advocates have to decide if rush tactics are okay (which would make both this contract and the original lame-duck-no-committee-meetings RTW law okay) or not okay (which would make neither this nor the original lame-duck-no-committee-meetings RTW law okay). What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
clownfish
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
It's OK if their side does it, not OK if the other side does it. Not OK for unions to give to political parties (even though Citizens United says it is), OK for corporations to donate to their causes without shareholder approval. OK for Ronald Reagan to outlaw public display of guns and to approve of assault gun ban, not OK for Obama to suggest renewing the weapon ban Reagan approved of. I think they call this "core values"?
nekm1
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
Just look east to Detroit to see how well AFSME has worked out for the citizens. Low information voters will always vote with the pack mentality. How will any of you Union folks ever look your kids in the eyes knowing that your legacy costs (not your salaries) will bankrupt them in the future. Line your pockets now at your children's expense later. Cold, very cold.
America
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.
I think the union is using the looming RTW deadline to their advantage (longer contracts) and the employers are using it to their advantage (poor contracts) and the workers are getting the short end of the stick. I look forward to the day when Michigan can remove the "rose colored union glasses" and begin using unions in the way they were intended rather than as just another master/slave relationship.
jcj
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
What is to prevent the union and the city/ county from renegotiating these contracts in2-9 years? After all the unions are in bed with the county/city Dems.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.
Lets see: Any shareholder in any company that donates to political action committee or politician? Any person that belongs to AARP, AAA, or the NRA may not want their dues going to certain groups or people. I guess I did not realize that the De-voss "worked" for all that cash, their pyramid company sellers did most of the work.
harry b
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
Its pretty disgusting. If I lived in A2 I would vote everyone of these council men. Glad I don't.
jcj
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
clownfish Please revise your list so it only includes those that were FORCED to pay to support a particular party or they could not work. BTW The Michigan Education Association, contributed $235,000 to the state Democratic Party. Would you care to go into how many other unions make contributions to the Dems with no choice for the members?
nekm1
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:23 p.m.
Hey Clown, they, the DeVos', earned their money. They, the DeVos', employ people. They are not the enemy. They create jobs! The Unions...not so much
clownfish
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.
Are people that give donations to other political entities "in bed" with them? For instance, is Dick DeVos in bed with the Mi GOP? Here is AMWAYS/ALTICOR donations for 2012 Mitt Romney (R) $50,500 Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) $38,300 Justin Amash (R-MI) $28,500 Bill Huizenga (R-MI) $26,000 John Boehner (R-OH) $15,000 Here are family contributions: (how many union members do you know that give away $87k in one year?) Here is a breakdown of the DeVos Family 2012 Election cycle contributions: Dan DeVos $87,800 Richard DeVos $85,900 Dick DeVos $71,800 Betsy DeVos $70,800 Pam DeVos $68,300 Helen DeVos $62,900 Doug DeVos $62,800 Maria DeVos $58,300 Rick DeVos $2,500
jcj
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Hieftje said the city's not crossing any lines. He also said there would be a state grant for the removal of the houses on North main!
clownfish
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
Let me see if I have this: Republicans say they want more local control Republicans say they want lower wages for municipal employees, with a rein on "out of control costs" Republicans say they want better systems for pensions. They say they want "democracy". Locally based A2 City uses democratic institutions (elected council vs elected union reps) to set wage increases at 1% or lower annually and new pension rules. And our GOP posters are still mad? A couple even want to now accuse the UNIONS of short changing the workers! Amazing.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.
I guess all that talk about local control, democracy, and new pension systems was just talk. What the real agenda is is low wages and union busting. Thanks for clearing that up.
Judy
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:01 p.m.
Nope he does not get it! I think he is a lawyer.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.
"Let me see if I have this:" Nope, you don't.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.
Let me see if I have this: Clownfish goes on another partisan, broad based rant. Yep, got it.
pbehjatnia
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
i support rtw. after having been forced to pay too many of my hard earned dollars to unions i am thrilled that no one else will have to pay a useless self serving union just to have a job. shame on the city for forcing employees to accept another four years of forced union support. shame.
WLD1
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.
That is right no one should be forced to work, just like other people should not have to go to a place and inhale other people's smoke vomit.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:26 p.m.
Yes, being forced to breath hazardous materials should be allowed, there should be no government intrusion into that! But, if people belong to a union where they have a vote and can run for representative, well, it is a long held conservative belief that we need government to look after us.
goblue91
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.
What clownfish fails to mention is that more than half of all unionized workers are in the public sector. So where does that wonderful $943/wk that union workers enjoy come from? The taxpayers' wallets. Governments are broke, can't afford to offer adequate basic services, which affects all citizens whether they are union or non-union workers, and what is a big part to blame? The ridiculous contracts that government officials agree to. And who walks away fat and happy? Unions - "1" Everyone else - "in the hole"
Usual Suspect
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 3 p.m.
"Who forced you to take a union job?" So, clown is saying it's good to have a choice not to be forced to do something. We agree. Like being forced to join a union because of who hires you. We tried to say, "If you don't want to work in a smoky restaurant, go get a job at one that's not smoky," but we were told that's not right. So, neither is the, "If you don't want to join a union, don't get a job at a union shop." Karma is sometimes hard to swallow, but such is the bed you liberals made.
pbehjatnia
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:12 p.m.
@clown...: 83 % of jobs in michigan are union? that explains the dismal state of our economy and a big chunk of why new jobs dont come here. no one should have to pay to work. ever. no one.
clownfish
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.
Who forced you to take a union job? 83+% of jobs in MI are non-union. Take out gubment employees and that % goes up. In 2012, union members had median weekly earnings of $943, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $742. More money in your pocket means more spending power, which equals a faster growing economy. Less money in your pocket equals a slow growing economy. Which do we have now?
Jim Mulchay
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.
Am I correct that anyone in this employment category is either a member (by choice) of the union or already having union dues deducted? If I am correct in that, then it seems the "looser" is anyone who wants to be in that employment category and not pay dues; So - to me - there is no real skulduggery here - the city looks good (ie "we still respect the union"), the union has a contract that continues (while they - I assume - try to get "right to work" overturned), and the employees are (in general) in the same boat they were in their prior contract. I would wonder if future hires can elect to not have the dues deducted during the life of the contact?
Mackinac Straits
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.
Score: Union Bosses and City Mandarins: 1, Working Stiffs and Families: 0.
Dave
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.
Too funny. The unions were all about the dues and not looking out for their members...again. Trying to stave off any chance that the members might forfeit having to pay dues, the unions caved into some deals just to make a few bucks. Remember: Unions like your dues, not you.
Scott
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.
Idiots! Why not wait a few days then destroy them. bring in minimum wage or less labor without benefits. Mitt Romney
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:12 p.m.
Pssst. I don't think Mitt had much to do with this. But you go ahead and believe wh...at.....ev.....er makes you feel good there, Scott. Really, it's OK.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:15 a.m.
I'm so silly. I thought City Council represented the citizens. But now I understand they actually represent the unions. What a bunch of back-stabbers. "Because the contract starts before the new state law takes effect, the city's AFSCME union won't face the consequences of right-to-work for more than four and a half years." Make that, "Employes won't reap the benefits of workplace freedom until 2017."
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 11:21 a.m.
you make a good point in your first sentence. No matter what side of right to work one falls on the fact that they renegotiated early AND an unusually long contract makes your point.
walker101
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:39 a.m.
It also includes a revised wage table with lower step increases for new hires effective Jan. 1, 2015. I guess the unions are really looking out for those new members, kinda like the big 3, we'll just start you off on tier 1 and you'll make 50% less than the guy next to you doing the same job. Unions only looking out for unions.
clownfish
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.
Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil's oil company to benefit China and George Soros? A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services. As reported by Bloomberg News, Soros reduced his stake in the company before any of the Ex-Im Bank's promised loan has been dispensed. although Soros is an investor in Petrobras, he is not even in the top 15 of major holders. Dispelling the Brazil Oil Loan Myth as Obama Heads to Rio http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/17/dispelling-the-petrobras-loan-myth-as-obama-heads-to-rio/
Great Lakes Lady
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Scott: your statement is completely false. The Obama Administration is looking out for the 1 or 2 % ers that funded his campaign....as you stated the Repubs were. There has been no oversight of Wall St as a result. It doesn't bother you that your tax money was used to bail out Wall St who then still received their bonuses in the millions of dollars? WMD were discussed during the Clinton Administration and back then, the ugly war was supported by Dems. It was voted for by Congressional members on both sides. There is no difference between the two parties; when they get into office they cut deals with each other to get their laws passed. BTW, George Soros who won bets on the currencies of England and Japan and who funds the Dem Party received taxpayer money to drill with Petrobras off the coast of Brazil while the the Obama Adm banned US. offshore driilling....it's "pay to play" politics....educate yourself.
Scott
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.
True- but republicans only look out for the 1 or 2 %. Senseless wars, tax cuts to guys like Romney with their money in the Cayman Islands, The Koch brothers whose daddy founded the racist John Birch society. One just has the choices of picking the best of two bad options.
theo66
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:31 a.m.
when are we going stop making deals that the are not substanable
javajolt1
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.
......and the deadline to receive $96,000 approved State dollars to tear down those dangerous and hazardous houses on Main St. Was missed by Hieftje so he could apparently prioritize like this? Doing this now probably cost the taxpayers money. NOT meeting the State mandated deadline to basically receive FREE money already allocated DID cost the taxpayers money. Hey... No biggie. It's only money. Yours!
Great Lakes Lady
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
The $96K was not FREE money.....it's our taxpayer money.....that will presumably go to a more worthy cause.
DBH
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:05 a.m.
I am unclear on how the renegotiations of the contracts work. Is this done with just the leadership of the union, or does the leadership negotiate on behalf of the union's members after which the proposed, renegotiated contract is put to a vote by the membership? If the latter, there is nothing in this story on the membership vote. If not the latter, how can the union agree to a contract without explicit consent of the union's members?
hmsp
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.
@ dancinginmysoul, re: Could the city "be penalized by the state for doing an end run around right-to-work." Answer: Yes and no. So it would be best to divide that question up into two distinct parts: Question #1: "Will the reactionary Tea Party types launch an attack on Ann Arbor because of this?" Answer: You betcha! And they might just get away with it. Question #2: "Is it legal to write contracts based on current law?" Answer: You betcha! And, as my kids would say, "I mean, Duh!" One thing about laws: not only are you SUPPOSED to follow them, you actually have a RIGHT to follow them. Until such time as new laws supersede them. Which has not happened yet in this case.
easy123
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:05 a.m.
Hate to burst your bubble- I think your generation has become the folks what cannot be trusted oder"30". Detroit and A2 were never in this mess when your parent's generation were accountable for this city. Rather than blaming the "tea party" - they do not run this place - look at folks like you in the mirror - you have met the enemy. What ever happened to the personal responsibilty. It seems the more educated A2's resident got the dumber it became - lol.They threw common sense out of the windows. Bottom line is, you cannot afford it. Just like Detroit, you will sell your children's future
JBK
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:45 a.m.
With one HUGE caveat! The City's labor contract and UM seem reasonable at face value. BUT, some of these contracts that are 10 years in length are absurd. You and I both know it. A 10 year labor contract is out of the norm. Those Universities and Cities that are signing something that is totally excessive will get smoked. And then the clown Mayors, Councils, University Presidents and Regents will be left to explain to the taxpayers "why" they lost millions............:)
Kafkaland
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : midnight
This is clearly a contract, with raises so low, the city could have gotten only because the union was desperate to sign before the deadline, or they would lose out on dues. Same for the UM LEO and GEO contracts. Such great deals would not have been possible earlier, or later, without that deadline that left the unions effectively neutered. And shame on the state for trying to penalize UM for taking advantage of this, for the sake of the tuition paying students.
Roger Kuhlman
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 4:45 a.m.
Local Government units cooperating with Union leaders to circumvent Right To Work legislation and deny Union members their freedom of choice should be punished for their chicanery. These local government units are not representing their publics but instead are favoring special interests to whom they are politically heholden.
Joe Hood
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.
That contract would never have been possible without the looming Right to Work law. Right to Work has already saved the city money. This is a boon for the city and the union. The employees, not so much.
Mike
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:35 p.m.
Good thing our government officials are working so hard for us.............Unbelievable
dancinginmysoul
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:23 p.m.
"Council Member Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, asked if the city could be penalized by the state for doing an end run around right-to-work. Hieftje said the city's not crossing any lines." Chea, explain why we should trust Hieftje at this point, especially given the MSHDA fiasco.
JBK
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:40 a.m.
Thinking out loud! If the State has already promised that UM may lose 45 million due to their end around, and THEN along comes the City of Ann Arbor and THEY pull the same stunt, what do you think the odds are that the State will absolutely withold funds from UM? I would say pretty close to 100%. So UM loses 45 mil, which then causes enrollment to drop, which then means fewer dollars spent in downtown A2, which means fewer restaurants and bars, and lower parking lot revenue for the City........... Ahh, I love how someone at City Hall actually gave this more than 5 seconds to think about. Here's to hoping that UM gets burned for the 45 mil, and the City goes into the tank! And then of course we FINALLY find a Mayor and a City Council worth their weight, instead of the Bozos that we now have. Incredible!
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:22 p.m.
Is this the same contract we would have gotten had the RTW law not been in place? Do you think it is more generous? or less so?
Judy
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
Do all employees of Ann Arbor "live in Ann Arbor?"
BHarding
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
A 1% increase through 2017? Compare that to inflation rates and cost of living in Ann Arbor.
DannnyA
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:20 p.m.
Maybe the Governor will punish the city with an emergency manager! What ever happen to state and local politicians that were respected for being straight shooters? The only straight shooters around here these days are Dave Bing, John Dingell, Charles Pugh and Mark Hackel over there in Macomb. Hieftje and Snyder and all the others nebbishes like them are just plane annoying.
Superior Twp voter
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.
"and all the others nebbishes like them are just plane annoying." Is there a plane above you, buzzing around, and annoying you?
jcj
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
DannnnnnyA It is no coincidence that all of the end arounds are done by Democratic controlled bodies. Just in case you haven't figured it out. The union dues help pay for politicians and politicians votes help keep union bosses in office.
B2Pilot
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Mark Hackell did not bend over like the rest of the democratic politicians. He wanted real negotiations with the unions if they were wanting to extend their contract; He can expect a fierce smear campaign next election for working for the citizens of his county instead of the unions. Telling isn't it
GoNavy
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:14 p.m.
I'm sure that the mayor and his appointees have done the city a huge favor. After all, if the mayor isn't looking out for us, who else could he be looking out for?
Judy
Wed, Mar 27, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
Himself!
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:10 p.m.
There's a parable here somewhere about foxes getting together and guarding hen houses and stealing all the taxpayers' nest eggs. Who knows? Maybe fairer contracts are possible when the foxes are more concerned about keeping their own power bases intact - the union bosses and their cut, and the council members they purchase during campaign season.
Brad
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11 p.m.
Margie Teall absent? Say it ain't so! She must be over there supervising the demolition at the Georgetown Mall. While the mayor personally takes care of the blighted houses on N. Main. Sorry, parallel universe.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
She wasn't seated for roll call, but it turns out she was seated at the time of the vote. My mistake. I have corrected the story. She was there for 99% of the meeting.
Brad
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.
She wasn't there for the vote on the contract that this article is about, right?
Brad
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:08 p.m.
Glad she could make it!
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:05 p.m.
She wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting but she's here now.