(the following is a letter recently sent to Lowell City Councilors by the International Association of Firefighters Local 853 in response to criticism about the budget, sick leave use and the selection process of a new Deputy Chief. Some of the items addressed below were the topic of discussion between City Manager Tom Golden and InsideLowell Founder Teddy Panos during a Podcast on December 7, 2022.

The portion of the podcast related to the firefighters begins at the 24:25 mark. The Firefighters’ response is posted unedited, in its entirety, with only minor adjustments for formatting purposes made to the copy InsideLowell received)

A Message to the City Council
International Association of Firefighters
Local 853
Lowell Massachusetts
December 19, 2022

A Message to the City Council

Over the past few months, the firefighters of Local 853 have received and appreciated support of the first session of our district-based city council. All 11 members have publicly expressed their support and gratitude for the men and women of the fire service here in the city, we are both humbled and honored by this. As a body, we take pride in our service to the residents of Lowell and will continue to maintain the utmost quality of service to the best of our abilities at all times.

In light of recent events that have taken place within, or in regard to, our department, we  have found it to be in the best interest of the council to hear directly from the local in regard to three specific topics of interest: The increases to the overtime budget; the use of member’s sick leave; and the hiring process for the Assistant Chief’s position. The purpose of this document is to give additional perspective to these topics while clarifying what we felt was misleading information that has been shared. It has always remained the stance of this Union to keep open dialogue with all of our council members, and as such it is our belief this paper is the best format to address our more current concerns as firefighters, and the department’s concerns/needs to the council. Please read through this document in its entirety and feel free to reach out to Local 853’s leadership with any questions or concerns. We are here for you, and for the city.

The Overtime Budget

The city council has committed to end the dangerous practice of rolling brownouts (closing a fire company for a shift) as a cost saving method. You have recognized that temporarily closing a firehouse for a shift is gambling with the lives and safety of the residents of Lowell. We thank you for this recognition and continued commitment. We all understand that this comes with increased costs, but how can we identify those costs accurately? Below we intend to show that the increased overtime costs over the last 2 years is a direct result of three primary factors: ending brownouts, covid, and reduced staffing levels.

Ending Brownouts

In FY’21, there were 691 Brownouts. In FY 22, 230 Brownouts. The current FY has seen 5 (not including 12/6 and forward). Using the city’s published fiscal budget, you can calculate the average cost of OT by rank. Knowing it takes an officer and 2 firefighters to properly staff a fire company (an Engine truck or a Ladder truck), you can also calculate its average cost, in overtime, as opposed to closing it for the shift. The average company cost for 24 hours of overtime this fiscal year is $4,206.15*.

Ending 691 Brownouts, or 345.5 24hr shifts would cost…………………..$1,453,224.82
In reality 461 closings were prevented YoY……………………………….$969,517.58
Overtime budget increase from FY21 to FY22…..……….………………..$350,000
Deficit ………………………………………………………………………$619,517.58
Ending 230 Brownouts, or 115 24hr shifts would cost………………………$630,922
In reality 225 closings prevented YoY……………………………………….$473,191.88
Overtime budget increase from FY22 to FY23………………………………$400,000
Deficit…………………………………………………………………………$73,191.88

In just 2 years the budget failed to account for $692,709.46 in the known calculable cost increases of reducing/eliminating brownouts. If we add in the $391,531.96* in COVID costs and the $1.5 million budgeted, we arrive at a figure of $2,584,240.96. Compare that to what was reported by the manager to have been spent in FY22: $2,560,000*. A difference of less than $25,000.
If it was known that we spent $2,560,000 (or were on pace for such), why was the initial FY23 OT request only $1,500,000? This has been a question directed at the Fire Dept.’s Fire Chief Charron in more recent council meetings and this Union feels it may be a difficult question for our chief to answer. To understand why there is difficulty we must first have a good understanding of the organizational structure by which the Fire Dept. operates. The Fire Chief was taken out of civil service in years past which has posed its own set of issues. The Fire Chief position is now hired and fired by the City Manager, with zero protections afforded the position from the civil service. Department heads are asked to consider what is best for their department, while at the same time attempting to ensure they are not placing their own careers in jeopardy with city management.

Let’s keep this in mind while we review the $1.5M overtime ask during the budget cycle last year. The initial request was made during the tenure of now retired manager Eileen Donoghue. $1.5M was a request made while the practice of browning out a single company each day was still in effect. Subsequently, months later the council determined this practice was a risky practice and agreed to keep every piece of fire apparatus in service 24/7, yet there was no adjustment made to the already submitted request. Perhaps, the deficit was expected to be made up from unspent salary and wages as there were many budgeted for vacancies within the Fire Dept. Budget.

Reduced Staffing Levels

Fully Staffed, the Lowell Fire Department should have 213 members. For several reasons (covid, academy placement, retirement), the department has struggled to maintain this level of staffing. Currently, the department has 198 members. When you factor in members attending the academy, out on injury or long-term sick leave, and members of the department in day staff/administrative roles that cannot work a shift on an apparatus, only 170 members currently can fill positions on apparatus. The minimum number of members needed to fully staff a shift is
41. Multiply that by the 4 working groups and 164 members are needed at minimum, meaning we currently have 6 extra members across 4 groups, less than two extra members per shift. Knowing that each shift may only be able to account for 0-2 members taking time off before requiring the use of overtime funds (to maintain the no brownout policy), let’s examine the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the city and our union. Currently the CBA allows for:

8 members to be off using vacation or personal time
1 additional member out on compensatory time
3 additional members out on “vacation weeks”.

This language has been mutually agreed upon across multiple negotiation opportunities and contract signings. The accrual of these benefits had often been negotiated and enhanced by the city management in lieu of salary and wage increases. This is exemplified by the fact that the police department earns 11.8% higher wages on average than the fire department when at one time there existed parity between each department’s salaries. The result of the CBA language means that up to 12 members could potentially be off any given shift. Potentially more with sick leave use (covered later). With currently only having 0 – 2 members to compensate for time off, overtime funds must be used to maintain the minimum staffing levels.

So, what impact do the 15 vacant positions have on the budget? We can find the answer by calculating the cost of filling those vacancies with the average firefighter’s overtime pay-rate.

The average firefighter on overtime makes $53.88/hr:
$53.88hr x 42 hour per pay week x 52 weeks a year = $117,673.92
15 vacancies cost $117,673.92 each = $1,765,108.80

Those same positions are budgeted for the entry level wage of $57,500, or $26.33/hr.
$26.33hr x 42 hour per pay week x 52 weeks a year = $57,500
15 vacancies “save” 57,500 each = $862,500

The net result is that 15 vacancies being compensated for by the overtime budget costs $902,608.80.

To Summarize the preceding sections:

Overtime Budget Request:……………………………………… $1,500,000
Ending of Brownouts:…………………………………………… $692,709.46
Covid Costs:…………………………………………………….. $391,531.96
Cost of Vacancies:……………………………………………… $902,608.80
Total ……………………………………………………………. $3,486,950.22

While this figure relies on average costs, it’s an accurate model in explaining the marked increase to the overtime budget and is in line with the current overtime needs expressed by the manager with a sound explanation as to how it was derived. An important figure to make note of within this section is the 15 vacancies at a budgeted cost of $57,550.00 within our FY2023 budget. This shows there should be an annual savings of approximately $862,500. This begs the question, why was the figure of unspent salary and wages only shown to be approximately $314,000.00 per the CFO during the overtime discussion at a more recent council meeting? There is an attached excel document within this file that uses the FY2023 budget as exported from the city webpage, and compares those figures to the current and projected manpower of the Fire Dept. through the end of this fiscal year. The figures within the file more accurately describes the surplus in salary and wages to be $1,070,264.00.

Why then are we only showing $314,000.00? One possible solution to this question may be that some of these funds were used to payout a former Lieutenant (now retired) that was placed on unpaid administrative leave approximately seven years ago, while awaiting a verdict on a long standing court case, a case that found this individual to be not guilty and due years of lost wages.

Sick Leave Use

It has been expressed that the “excessive use” of sick leave is a primary factor in the increased costs to the overtime budget. We adamantly oppose this view and would like to explain how our time is acquired and how our time is used. We feel that with proper understanding of our scheduling and accruals, it is clear to see that sick leave use is not “excessive”, nor is there any method of gaming the system in order to give another firefighter overtime, through the use of one’s own sick time. There have been certain articles negotiated within the current CBA that ensure there is no way in which this scenario can take place. These details will be explained in further detail within this document. As a quick reminder, our members work in 4 groups. Our regular schedule consists of working a 10-hour day shift and a 14-hour night shift, 24 hours total, followed by 72 hours (3 calendar days) off.

All members of our Local receive 15 units of sick leave annually. These units can be used to cover a single shift (day or night), meaning that 2 units must be used if a member needs the entire 24 hour shift off. Members must state a reason as to why they are requesting use of their sick leave. Members are also required to provide a note if they use their sick leave for three consecutive 24-hour shifts. Lastly, utilizing sick leave disqualifies you from working overtime on your scheduled off days until you return to work for at least 1 shift.

Average use vs. “Excessive” use

According to the city’s FY23 budget (pages 344 and 346), the average city employee used 61.98 hours of sick leave in FY20, 52.32 hours in FY21, and is forecasted to end FY22 with 59 hours of sick leave used. If we assume the typical city employee’s schedule utilizes an 8-hour workday, this means the average employee took 6-8 calendar work days off annually across these years. Given the unique structure of firefighters work schedule and sick leave accrual, let’s convert the average city employee’s time used to its equivalent in firefighter sick leave. If an employee has a cold and needs a full calendar day off, this will cost them 8 hours of their sick leave. Firefighters need to use 2 units of sick leave for that same calendar day off for that same cold. A city employee taking 6-8 calendar days off annually is the equivalent of a firefighter taking 12-16 sick units in the same timeframe. However, firefighter sick leave use is being called “excessive” if more than 10 units are used, or 5 calendar days’ worth. The 10 unit figure is an arbitrary number chosen with neither supporting documentation as to why the figure was chosen nor was it negotiated and mutually agreed upon between the union and the city. More specifically the current CBA cites no figure whatsoever to be used in order to “counsel” firefighters on the correct use of their sick time.

33 of our members were counseled for what was called “excessive sick leave use”, yet of them, 22 used less than the equivalent average city employee. Of the remaining 11, there are a few instances of family medical concerns (that we won’t discuss for privacy reasons) that members used sick units for but were not supported by a Dr’s note (again not a requirement and privacy), and are now being counted against the members, calling them “excessive”. While some members have indeed used more than the city employee average, it’s important to keep in mind that these firefighters are exposed to far more pathogens and infectious diseases because of the very nature of our jobs, and then go home to families who face their own set of exposures.  The manager aims to monitor for negative use patterns but should also look for causality patterns like the correlation to increased sick time use during the state-tracked ebb and flow of covid and flu patterns. For example, according to the Mass DPH COVID-19 dashboard, COVID’s 7-day average rose as high as 6,217.4 during January of 2021 (FY21) but nearly quadrupled during January of 2022 (FY22) to 23,221.9. This significantly correlates with a similar spike in the use of sick leave among our members. The manager’s 11-22-22 report to the council shows that January of FY22 was by far the single greatest month of sick leave use by fire department members in the last 5 years shown. That same month holds the highest 7-day average in covid cases of the entire pandemic.

Sick Leave & Overtime

There have been insinuations made that firefighters are somehow benefiting from a scheme of using their sick time to get friends of theirs hired for overtime. This is completely egregious, unfounded, and a slap in the face of all the hardworking members of this union. There are specific procedures in place to ensure overtime opportunities are spread evenly & fairly throughout the department. When a member is hired, their name is placed at the bottom of their respective companies’ call back list, ensuring that every other member of that company will have an opportunity to work overtime before that first member can take another overtime shift. Further, the Deputy handling manpower has the responsibility to ensure that company total amounts of overtime remain balanced across the companies. This means that the companies with a lower amount of overtime shifts worked will receive more opportunities to work unfilled positions, even if that is on another company. If a member utilizes a sick unit at any time, they are ineligible to be hired for overtime until they have returned to work for one of their regularly scheduled shifts.

Several times during this period of reduced staffing, members have been forced to remain on duty when their shift ends for the complete inability to find someone to come in and work. This is why on 08/18/21, less than two months into FY22, our chief issued an email titled “Forced Hiring Guidelines”. Given the rules around hiring, and the fact that members are being forced to stay beyond their normal working hours, they should be commended for upholding an exceptional level of service to the city, not criticized, and accused of wrongdoing.

The Cost of Sick Leave

Understandably, the costs of sick leave are hard to forecast because of the many factors that contribute to its use. As a whole, about 95% of our members use less than the average city employee. Given that we receive 15 units annually, in line with the city employee’s average use, we can calculate its potential costs to the city:

Average hourly rate……………….. $40.67
Multiplied by a 24 -hour shift……… $976.08
15 sick units = (7.5) 24-hour shifts… $7320.60
Multiplied by 198 members………… $1,449,478.80

While there has never been a year where every member uses every day accrued in a given year, when you factor in the costs of other contractually obligated time, like vacation/personals, it makes sense that the manager’s initial $1.5 million overtime budget is only accounting for the potential time off mutually agreed upon by the collective bargaining agreement. Ultimately, historical data and properly forecasting multiple factors (the CBA, COVID, trends in public health, etc.) is the only way to remain honest and transparent about anticipated costs. Anything less is misleading.

The city has also increased its own costs by eliminating a sick leave buy back option, ironically as a cost-saving measure. As of March 11, 2014, new members of our union could no longer sell back to the city 5 of their accrued sick days annually, a benefit that members who joined prior to that date still have. While there are a set of restrictions and requirements in place when using this sell back incentive, the potential exists that every member who is entitled to it remains eligible for it and its costs should be calculated. Using this fiscal year’s rate, a single day sold back to the city costs on average $487.99, so 5 units on average cost 2,439.95. If a theoretically fully staffed department of 213 members all sold back 5 days, the maximum cost would be $519,709.35. While the initial reaction to this number seems like an expense worth phasing out (as the former city manager saw it), let’s looks at the real costs of not being willing to spend this potential amount.

For reasons stated earlier, limited staffing has been an issue on the fire department with many factors affecting our ability to maintain minimum staffing requirements while keeping all companies open. It would be conservative to budget the costs of sick leave use AND the cost of an overtime shift as a replacement for that sick unit used. While that is certainly not always the case, that calculation can only decrease in reality as it accounts for the theoretical max for every sick unit used. An average sick unit used for a 10-hour day shift PLUS an average 10-hour overtime costs $1,032.90. An average sick unit used for a 14-hour night shift PLUS an average 14-hour overtime costs $1,446.06. If these days were instead sold back to the city at a rate of $487.99, the city would save $544.91 for a 10-hour shift and $958.07 for a night shift. While this scenario is proposed at its theoretical limits, it is intended to show that an expected annual cost is less expensive than an unknown future cost. Those days exist and will be used eventually, perhaps later in someone’s career when their salary has increased as compared to when those days could have been sold back at a today’s lower rate. The city buying them back creates a savings range of $580,329.15 (if all were used as 10 hours) to $1,020,344.55 (if all were used as 14 hours). That savings isn’t as clear as the upfront cost because the sick units’ use is spread out when compared to its buy back.

Lastly, it should be noted that one of the requirements of this buy back has always been that a member cannot use more than 5 sick units in a calendar year and must have greater than 75 sick units on the books to be eligible to sell back 5 units. While there is no correlating math to be done, this is yet another way to incentivize a reduction in sick use. Sick use that about 95% of our members already keep below the city wide average. You may ask yourself, “How does this incentivize people who are not misusing their time?”. Our members are allowed to use their time for the medical needs of their family too. If a member has a sick child, or a Dr’s appointment, they may opt to use their sick time instead of a spouse’s, as they have no incentive not to. An incentivized member may opt to have a spouse stay home from their job that day instead.

The Hiring Process of the Assistant Chief

The union acknowledges the Chief’s need for an assistant given the workload and span of control he currently faces. The union also acknowledges the City Council’s authority to create such a position by virtue of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 43, Section 105. The union has however, always contended that the city must collectively bargain the impacts of the creation of such a position as it affects several mandatory subjects of bargaining including, but not limited to:

Standards of Productivity and Performance
Job Duties/Work Assignments
Work Rules
Discipline
Bargaining Unit Work
Promotional Procedures

Even the Massachusetts Municipal Association has shared legal guidance that employers have “an obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over the
decision and impact before it makes a change to a pre-existing condition of employment or implements a new condition of employment.” (p.19 Murphy et al, 2010). They specifically highlight promotional procedures as an example (p.19).

Murphy et al (p.24, 2010) also states that the employer has the responsibility to show that the CBA clearly, unequivocally, and specifically authorizes its actions. The CBA does the exact opposite. Article I Section 1 of our CBA clearly states that “the Employer hereby recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative and bargaining agent for all members of the Fire Department of the City of Lowell but excluding office clerical employees, the Chief, and further excluding all other employees of the City of Lowell.”. Past practice has been that the Senior Deputy Chief was utilized in essence as the Chief’s Assistant. The city expressly agreed that this role is a union position in Article I Section 1 where they agreed to the language that states “It is intended by this Agreement that the Senior Deputy Chief, formerly excluded, is now part of the bargaining unit.”. Attempting to create a position with similar responsibilities under a new title undermines the contract’s agreed upon language and directly conflicts with the legal advice given by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Advice that likely understands that Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 150E, Section 7, Paragraph D, subsections A-Q state that should a conflict between a municipal personnel ordinance and a CBA exist, the CBA prevails.

Changes to the Job Posting

The City Council first saw and approved the job description/posting on June 7th , 2022. For the weeks before and after that date, the union attempted to meet with and negotiate the impacts of this position with the city manager. After several back-and-forth emails we met with the manager on July 19th and were told this position did not need to be collectively bargained, to which we disagreed and stated our intention to file a grievance should the position be filled prior to bargaining. That was the last interaction between labor and management regarding this position until October 25th, 2022. On October 25th, Our Chief emailed the department with the internal posting of the Assistant Chief’s position. Several substantive changes were made from the posting that the council had seen almost 5 months prior. In the summary, we can already see several impacts to mandatory subjects of bargaining. The first sentence calls this position second-in-command
(affects promotional procedures). The last sentence states that they may be required to perform operational line duties (affects bargaining unit work). Under essential duties and responsibilities
there are also several issues that require impact bargaining including but not limited to: managing SOPs, hiring and promotion, directing fire ground operations, and progressive discipline.

The most egregious changes made were in regard to the qualifications of potential applicants. The council saw and approved a job posting whose qualifications needs included ALL of the incentivized certifications and education we can attain. The October 25th posting included NONE of them. Specifically, the council approved job description required candidates to possess their hazardous materials technician certification, a EMT Basic license, and a 4-year degree in the appropriate field (with a 2-year degree and 2 years management experience also being acceptable). ALL of these requirements were removed. Inserted was the requirement of at least 15 years as an officer (Lieutenant, Captain, or Deputy) and at least 20 years on the department, both are arbitrary in length and do not speak towards a candidate’s professional capabilities other than their ability to pass an exam at least once. An exam process that was recently deemed unfair and is undergoing extensive statewide changes as we speak. The union asserts that the changes made here significantly weakened the potential candidate pool while also adversely affecting the federally protected class of race.

Let’s now analyze the effects of these changes on the potential applicant pool:

Potential Applicants – Original Job Desc: Potential Applicants – Final Job Desc
33 Members 17 Members
33 EMTs 16 EMTs
33 Degrees 7 Degrees
23 Bach/Master 5 Bach/Master
8 Minorities 0 Minorities

These changes directly contradict the city’s current policy on nondiscrimination & equal opportunity which state in several parts that: “…all City employees shall take affirmative action steps to ensure the equality of opportunity in the internal affairs of City government…” & “it must also entail positive and aggressive measures to ensure equal opportunity in the areas of hiring and promotion…” & ” this affirmative action shall include efforts required to remedy the effects of present and past discriminatory patterns and practices and any action necessary to guarantee equal employment opportunity for all people”. So now we have a less qualified potential applicant pool that also conflicts with the city’s equal opportunity policy.

If we continue to analyze the Final Job Description, the potential applicant pool shrinks even further. The chosen pay scale for this position did not take our current CBA into consideration. Deputy Chief’s would take a pay cut when contractually obligated incentives like holidays and overtime pay are factored in. Captains would likely break even, give or take a bit, when the same factors are applied. What this does is leave a more practical applicant pool of just 7 Lieutenants, possessing a single associates degree between them, that stand to jump several ranks and be significantly financially rewarded.

Another important factor to consider is that of the incident command system by which all first responder agencies must train on and utilize as part of FEMA’s National Response Framework. Company officers at the rank of Lieutenant very rarely have a span of control of more than 2-3 individuals. They are usually a first line supervisor with a task oriented supervisory role at the lowest of levels. It would be very unlikely for a Lieutenant to have command of anything at a fire scene. Those individuals who have progressed through the ranks to become a Captain or a Deputy Chief will have gained the experience of running fireground activities of a higher order. Captains may be assigned a whole division, interior/exterior operations, or fireground safety. Deputies generally have operational or overall command. Why this progression is important to consider has to do with the health and safety of every firefighter working on the scene. For example, timely recognition of the resources needed, or knowing when to transition from an offensive to a defensive attack can quite literally mean the difference between having fire related casualties or ensuring the health and safety of everyone on scene. Promoting any individual who has had little to no experience, education, or training of this nature, to a position that would require these command level assignments, and decisions to be made, is at best negligent and leaves the potential for great liability on the city. When you consider the risks associated with leaving the protection of the union and civil service (as presented by the city), it’s clear to see why the city only received 2 applications for the job. 1 Captain, and 1 Lieutenant. This should have caught somebody’s attention (other than the union’s). On page 344 of the FY23 fiscal budget, the performance metrics of the city’s Human Resources Department states that the average applicants per job posting for FY20 and
FY21 were 10.74 & 10.86, respectively, with an FY22 forecast of 22 and an FY23 Target of 25. Knowing this, and only receiving 2 applications, should have frozen the hiring process while a
review was conducted to elicit a greater response from potential applicants.

Recommendations

A union’s strength comes from its members. Local 853 is proud of its members and the contributions they bring to the department and to the local. We are not the traditionally blue-collar bunch from “back in the day” but rather a diverse, highly educated, and multi-talented group of brothers and sisters who stand up for what we believe in. Our union executives possess multiple degrees in Finance, Fire Science, and Public Administration. We represent a group of people who have dedicated their lives to the safety and protection of the residents, visitors, employees, and business owners of the City of Lowell. We have asked, and will continue to advocate for, a seat at the table and fair input when addressing the matters of the Lowell Fire Department, something that has not occurred, or has with great difficulty and resistance, and is long overdue.

To be very clear, this paper is NOT pointing the finger at the council, but rather asking for its support and assistance in clarifying these matters with the utmost transparency on our
behalf. As such, Local 853 would like to propose several recommendations addressing the topics discussed in this paper.

The Overtime Budget

As previously stated, the increased overtime costs over the last 2 years are a direct result of three primary factors: ending brownouts, covid, and reduced staffing levels. The over reliance on an inflated overtime budget is the unfortunate side effect of reduced staffing levels and the lack of academy spots to onboard new members from the logistical effects of covid at the state fire academy. Couple that with the desire to end brownouts and the strain is clear. Fortunately, there is an end in sight as we continue to acquire academy spots and train new members. This timeline may even last a few years but is not permanent and will get better. To help control overtime costs beyond that, the city should consider increasing our overall staffing beyond its current 213 personnel mark. The exact number can be further analyzed and mutually agreed upon but there are two clear benefits from this. The first being that attrition will always occur year-round making 213 more of a theoretical max than a practical working max. Hypothetically, if we are losing 5-10 members per year in retirements, increased staffing could bring our practical working number closer to 213 with the theoretical max up around 221. This would allow our chief to start the on-boarding process for new members without being constrained by a ceiling preventing that process from beginning. Secondly, knowing that fire companies need 3 members on them, but some have a 4th that can be “detailed” to cover vacancies, an increase in personnel could make additional 4th member spots, making the daily manpower easier to administer with more “detailed” members covering vacancies and less reliance on overtime.

Sick Leave Use

We again want to reiterate that there is not a problem with “excessive sick leave use”. There is a misunderstanding on how our time is accrued and used, and an arbitrary threshold being used to determine what is considered “excessive”. The math covered earlier clearly shows that 97% of our members use less than the citywide average in sick time. If the city wants to further incentivize a reduction in sick leave use, allow all members to participate in the sick leave buy back option with the same restrictions as currently eligible members. Spending a smaller known and upfront amount annually saves the city a larger, varying, and unpredictable amount of money in the future. Let’s stop kicking the can down the road.

The Hiring Process of the Assistant Chief

This process was severely flawed and brought up many issues concerning its quality, impact, legality, equal opportunity, and ethics. While Local 853 reserves the right to pursue any and all avenues legally available to us by state and federal laws, we have only ever asked for the opportunity to collectively bargain the impacts of this position. The outcomes of said bargaining can be retroactively applied where practical, and fully ensured going forward. The Union feels strongly that this position, as well as the chief, should be within civil service. Being that this position was created outside of civil service and our Union without bargaining, the members that fill this role, now and in the future, are afforded none of the employment protections they received as a member of our local. This could potentially risk one’s career as their position and its funding can be removed at any point, for any reason. This also has the potential to influence how information is expressed when advocating the needs of the department to the city. Re-admittance to civil service would correct many of the problems addressed here and would only require a home rule petition from the city council to be filed with the state legislature.

To close, our Union membership appreciates all that this council has done for the department, and the commitments to public safety that have been voiced time and time again. We hope that this document will assist in shedding some light on the cited concerns and may aid in developing some good dialogue on these concerns going forward. Please do not hesitate to reach out to Local 853 Union President David Provencher with any questions you may have in regard to this document.

Sources:
https://www.mma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mgmt_rights_and_impact_bargaining_hesse_0.pdf

https://lowellma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20496/City-of-Lowell-FY2023-Adopted-Budget