A resolution approving the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Denver Police Protective Association, for the years 2021-2022, that resulted from the 2020 impasse arbitration award. Approves a collective bargaining agreement with the Denver Police Protective Association for the years 2021-2022, that resulted from the 2020 impasse arbitration award. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-4-21. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item on 12-10-20.
Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. I would like I see Rob Ness, Nisga'a and Kirsten Crawford on the line, and I would love for them to explain to council members and the public what council members options are tonight for votes, considering this is a contract that was arbitrated. So if that's possible, Kirsten, can you can you let us know? But evening council members in the Senate may be up here and they're all. Well, yes, that's a good question. And a few of you have asked us as well. So there are a number of reasons that this agreement needs to be memorialized in writing. Beyond just the award that the arbiter has rendered, but starting in no particular order under Section 9814 of the charter, both the terms agreed to by the parties and the decision awarded by the arbiter require a written agreement. It's explicitly laid out in the charter, but there's other really important reasons. The the parties, as you know, are bound by the arbiters decision. It is binding arbitration. So both parties are bound to abide by what the arbiter has decided, but also beyond that can choose voluntarily if they mutually agreed to deviate from the decision. So in order of determining finality of the parties decisions as to whether they accept the arbiters award or choose to continue to negotiate for reasons of finality, the agreement needs to be put in writing. There's other reasons, too. They're just highlighting. One of the most important articles in the agreement that is beyond the scope of the Arbiter Award is Article five, which contains a provision where the city does not mandate any more fair share fees be extracted from the officer's paycheck. That's based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. And so Article five says we will take the dues if an officer agrees that they would want us to do so in writing. You know, some of the other reasons is projected liabilities need to be encumbered and the only way to recover is through a written agreement. In other words, the contract. And in this particular situation, counsel is the one who has to determine whether a contract is approved here. So that's clearly counsel authority. There's other just charter interpretation reasons, but those are the most important reasons. And thank you for the question because I have had others ask us as well. And so let me summarize and tell me if I am capturing this. So a vote tonight is not symbolic. And in fact, our vote tonight, it constitutes our agreement or disagreement with the arbitrator, which is required. Correct. No, that's not correct. The the arbitration decision is being analyzed. So it's not a discretionary decision. So my question here. So my question here is, given that we do have yes, no or abstain options to vote here tonight. This it doesn't it's not symbolic. It does allow the public to know where we stand on this agreement. But the agreement has to go into effect. No matter what. What if you get a council that votes this down tonight? What happens with it? Well, I mean, if we're in that particular framework, we. Would be. Discussing the potential litigants and outcome of litigation because the binding decision is enforceable and someone is bound to enforce it. But that's not a discussion that I don't think that anybody would want to have right now in a public session. So we can discuss that if that's what does the charter. Can you explain for the public a brief overview of what happened after the last vote? I'm happy. We're happy to do that. I feel that potentially John Griffin and Roberts were better suited to talk about the process because they were intimately hands on involved at every step of the way. So perhaps we want to hear from them first. Sure. John, I would appreciate if you could speak up and brief the public on what happened between the last vote and this one. Three. Do you have specific questions you'd like to have answered? Yes. Who was involved throughout the process? What offers were on the table? What happened through negotiations? Well, as you know, negotiations are confidential. So I will defer to Robert Nassau on some of these questions. But to overall answer, the mayor's office, the city council and then other people from Budget Management office were also involved in discussions. I'll hand it over to Rob to speak more if there's anything else to add. Yeah. I can speak to process. I'm leery to discuss any her. To address anything that was specifically said during those discussions because of their confidential and privileged nature. But after the. The tentative agreement was rejected by city council. We had an obligation to go back and try to continue to negotiate a replacement contract. Through those negotiations, we were able to come to an agreement on most every aspect of the contract, with the exception of five issues that remained in dispute and based upon the nature of those disputed issues, final offers from the city were developed in concert with the mayor and City Council, and ultimately those final offers were presented. To the arbitrator for resolution. So can I get some clarification on the confidential nature of. Essentially an autopsy. The charter does not require this to be confidential. And I was told at the beginning of the process that we choose this confidential process to protect both parties, leverage in negotiations. Now that negotiations are over and there is an arbitration agreement or arbitration decision, what requires the process and the offers to now be confidential? After it's been said and done. Well, the best answer I can give you is that negotiations do not end with this particular contract, that negotiations will continue not only with the EPA, but locally, by the way, on fire contracts, on on share of contracts. I would counsel against disclosing anything that may tip the city's hand in future negotiations. So there's. Did you. So do you agree that there's nothing that requires us to maintain a confidential process in the charter? I don't believe that there's anything in the charter that specifically requires that. But again, I would counsel against disclosing anything that was confidential. Thank you. And I would like to weigh in on that as well. That is not one member's decision to unilaterally decide what to disclose when it's attorney client privilege and confidential information and negotiations discussed in executive session. That is the client's decision. And, you know, the corporate parties are the client, which is comprised not only of city council but members of the other teams. So that is a discussion that the body would have to have before one member of not just decided to release information. Did city councils offer? Was it allowed to be presented to the arbitrator in there in the hearing? I can speak to that somewhat. And Rob can jump ahead because the corporate authorities could not come to. An agreement. No offer was presented towards the arbitrator. What prevented both corporate authorities from presenting what their offers were to the arbitrator or the arbitrator to decide between? They disagreed. But their their position was not presented to the arbitrator. The aisle at Rob. Tim, did you actually to talk about this? My understanding is that the city offers something as an entity. So if the city cannot, if the corporate authorities inside the city cannot agree, then no offers submitted. But I will rob chocolate. That's exactly right, John. The final offer issue by issue presented by the city was the city's offer. It wasn't the mayor's offer. It wasn't city council's offer. It was the offer of the city collectively as the corporate authorities. For the city. Is that are we joined together as one in an ordinance or in the charter? The Charter defines corporate authorities for purposes of collective bargaining as the mayor and city council or their representatives. And so because that's plural, it suggests that we would have. Separate offers as well. Correct. I don't agree with that. Why would they not refer to us as the corporate authority if it was synonymous with the city? I believe the mayor is one corporate authority, and I believe that city council is also a corporate authority. And so in an arbitration hearing, why would both corporate authorities not be able to present their position? The corporate authorities did. Present their final offers. On all but one issue, and that was the issue of salaries in 2022. And on that one specific and discrete issue. The corporate authorities were unable to come to an agreement on what offered 2% to the arbitrator, and therefore none was made. Is there any? Limitation to city council, putting forth an ordinance that makes this process more transparent and public in the future. It can. Council Members. Gibson Crawford Legislative Council. I neglected to introduce this stuff a couple times. Now I apologize. You know, we are talking to President Gilmore about continually, continually and sometimes daily and hourly about process improvements along the way and whether something can be codified and who it finds is a discussion that we're having. And happy to talk to you more about that, too. But to say kind of a vague or ambiguous question about can we put something in ordinance? Yes, the devil's in the details and we're discussing that now. And final question, where any city council members present in the first and only hearing with the arbitrator? No. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you very much, Madam President. It's been difficult to determine how to. Speak tonight on this issue. I very much respect the benefits of confidential negotiations and privilege, and I will honor them in terms of the the details of the process. But as an elected official, I cannot stand silent without an observation, which is that this outcome happened because of a disappointing failure to good faith negotiate with this council. And I will say that that. In my opinion, was a perversion of the charter. And requires a systematic solution such that the good faith obligations extend between the branches of government in the same way that they do to our bargaining partners across the table. With that, I will be voting for this tonight because of the legal consequences that will occur. But I could not remain silent in what I consider to be a bad faith outcome between the branches of government. That requires rectifying. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Canete. I'm going to go ahead. And I don't see any other hands raised. And so I want to just let folks know that this body has worked together over the last five months to shore up this process. I came in as president July 20th and that same exact week. This is when those negotiations were happening and through us as council working together, we have shored up this process and we have a stronger role in collective bargaining. And I really believe that these new protocols that we've put together will strengthen our role. And council has held our ground. We are now viewed as an equal partner in the negotiation process, which, as we all know, we haven't been viewed as an equal partner in a very long time, and we are an equal partner now. We met in executive session with sometimes a majority of council and if not, the others were briefed. We met during mayor council. We met and luti committee. We met six times to shore up our position and evaluate proposals. And I'm proud of the work that this Council has done together. We pushed each other. We asked questions. We were unhappy with some things. We pushed back. And when we outlined this process way back in August, we determined that we were going to have a representative and John Griffin was our representative. And like Kirsten Crawford said, I was sometimes talking to them daily, sometimes more than that. And we made sure to create plenty of time for council to talk. Now you've got to start out in a good fashion sometimes to get a negotiation to where it needs to be. And I agree with the criticisms that have been lobbed, Mark, tonight, because we weren't. On even footing when we started out, but we did the best that we could with what we've been given. And I had just that conversation today with Kirsten Crawford and Jonathan Griffin, how we share this process up so that this is not just a guidelines that the city council came forward with, but that we codify this in ordinance in some way so that this never happens again to another city council, so that there is a process related to it. And that's going to entail us working with the city attorney, Kristen Bronson, and the mayor's administration to make sure that we don't put something forth and then it doesn't take effect. We need to work with them, ensure this up. But that is the work that we've started. And at the end of the day, that's how you start to undo these systems that have been wound so tight for decades and decades. This council started that work. This wasn't the outcome that a majority, a supermajority of us wanted. But we have started that work and I'm proud of that work and we will continue to do that work. And so with that, seeing no other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. Now. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I ain't. No. Cashman. I can. I. Ortega. I. Cinnabon. I. Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Three days. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Resolution 1528 has been adopted. The next item up is Resolution 1415. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on it. Thank you, Madam President. I put I called this off a consent for questions because of an event that happened this weekend. GREENE Latino's has been through the leadership of and Tafoya collecting trash throughout our encampments with a crew of volunteers. And every week, they they come up with loads of trash that they have nowhere to dispose. And I'm wondering if this contract would allow them to to continue some of the innovation that they've started. Well, what they're doing is buying those large waste management bags that an individual can buy for their residents, where they call waste management , to pick it up when it's full. And I'm wondering if this contract would allow for us to be able to do that specifically for our unhoused residents at encampments. All right. Thank you for that question, Councilman. And go ahead, Christina. Thank you. And apologies, Christina Ulrich, administration supervisor with the General Services. Thank you, Councilman, for that question. So this contract is actually limited to pick up at specific two city facilities. In addition, it is limited to trash compactor, dumpsters, front load service and vehicle impound facilities. I don't believe that it currently has the capacity to pick up those bags as you as you're referring. And what would it take to modify to allow that sort of service for people who are not entitled to a dumpster? So I don't think that we're prepared to answer that question at this time. And this amendment really does focus on adding the cares in the female language. I do think that is a conversation that we could potentially have offline when we have some more information available. Is it possible to make sure that that conversation happens before? We? Finalize the Keres language. It feels like picking up trash where there's not a dumpster in a bag like this during COVID makes a lot of sense. If we're spending millions on hazmat cleanup when a situation has escalated beyond repair. And so for this to be a reimbursable thing within the CARES Act language I think is critical right now. Is there any opportunity to modify that language to make sure that this is part of the services in that contract? I'm sorry. You asking apologies to modify the CARES Act language. That language specifically cannot be modified in any way or shape because it does come from the federal government itself. And at this time, we actually only are looking seeking reimbursement for about 1200 dollars through the CARES Act for services received through this year. And as you're aware and less that cares funding is extended. Those services can only be through the end of this year. And that's really what this language covers. So the event that took place this past weekend, the city will be getting a bill from the organizers of that event for the costs of the bag and the pickup . Is that something that we would add into the contract that we are currently spending down and whether we get reimbursed by the CARES Act or not? Is that something we would pay for? Because that is not covered under the current contract. I don't believe that's something that we would pay for tying it to the contract. However, as I stated, this is really just specific to that cares and funding language. So I think this is a conversation for us to have offline, just as we gather some more information on that topic. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Madam President. You councilwoman. Thank you, Christina. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I. I understand that the the nature of the questions from my colleague was outside of this particular contract as just like District nine, District ten has a lot of enforcement actions and homeless encampments. And as I understand it, as far as I understand it, is currently against municipal or Denver law to place your trash in someone else's dumpster or trash receptacle. And so I too would be interested in a conversation necessarily about this contract. I just wanted to put it out there that there are those encampments. The people who live in those encampments have no place to put their trash. And so they're just putting it where they can. So I, I second to the idea that we should have a conversation about as we continue to have enforcement actions, we should have a way for, for, for the responsible residents of these unhoused encampments to to have a place to legally dispose of trash. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to request Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Sandoval, if you might consider asking Dottie to come to Ludi, to answer this specific question as it relates to trash pickup, perhaps a new contract or an expansion of an existing contract needs to be pursued. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. And we will definitely work on getting something scheduled so that we can have this conversation, seeing their hands raised. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise. This is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Canete, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 1126 1411 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370. 1387 1396 1405 14 1514. 18 1425 1327 1402 1403 1404 1410 1346 1347 1400 1419 1420 1421 1422 1364 1371 854, 13, 21, 1351 and 1377. Thank you. Councilman Creech has been moved. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President. I am secretary close to voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1159, changing the zoning classification for 3225 ten Argo Street.