By James Lomuscio
UPDATE By a vote of 44 to 5, the Westport police rank and file members have rejected a town-approved pension agreement that reduced benefits for current officers with less than 20 years service, the union president said today.
.jpg)
Westport police officers listen to the Oct. 3 Representative Town Meeting (RTM) debate on the police pension agreement. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
Cpl. Howard Simpson, who heads Westport Police Local 2080, said he wants to sit down with town officials to rework the agreement, which was approved by the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) on Oct. 3.
The RTM approval, by a vote of 17 to 6 with 3 abstentions, followed three hours of debate and impassioned pleas by police to reject the agreement
“The members overwhelmingly rejected it,” Simpson said about the agreement retroactive from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2024.
“The biggest problem was the members thought the town was taking too many benefits away, and it was more of a concession than a negotiation,” he added.
The biggest rub for police is that officers with fewer than 20 years on the job would have the benefits they had signed on to changed.
“The union was willing to give those concessions for new hires,” said Simpson, “but we thought they would leave the current employees intact.
“We’re hoping now to sit back down at the table and to renegotiate some of the issues with the town, and we’re hoping to wrap it up,” he added.
First Selectman Jim Marpe and Ralph Chetcuti, personnel director, said today that is the town’s intent.
“We intend to meet with union leadership soon,” said Marpe, who had urged the RTM to approve the agreement. “We hope to reach an agreement to meet excellent retirement benefits that also reflect the fiscal challenges the town faces today and in the future.”
Chetcuti said the Fire Department’s union’s members have yet to vote on their contract.
“They have not voted yet,” Chetcuti said. “They requested additional information, and they will vote after they receive it. We’re re working on (providing) that right now.”
Firefighter Nicholas Marsan, who heads the union, was not immediately available for comment.
The RTM also approved the fire pension agreement by a vote of 20 to 4 at the Oct. 3 meeting.
Asked if the RTM votes prior to the unions’ membership votes were premature, Marpe said no.
“The executive team of both unions had signed the agreements that the RTM voted on,” Marpe said. “So from our perspective, the union leadership signed it.”
Melissa Kane, who is Marpe’s Democratic rival in next week’s municipal election and a RTM member, was one of the RTM “no” votes on the police agreement. But she voted “yes” on the similar fire agreement.
She said at the time she did not see why the RTM was voting on it, calling it premature. She said she expected that the police members would not ratify it.
“I feel like this is not the way we want to treat our public safety officers,” Kane said. “It does not sit well with me.”
She added that she felt there was a need to get the best deal for the town but one that was also “fair” to police.
In response to word that the rank and file had rejected the agreement, Kane said: “I have a long record of supporting pension reform as a member of the RTM. I also believe when the town makes an agreement with someone, particularly an individual who puts his/her life on the line to protect ours, we should do everything in our power to keep our word.
“I fully support complete pension reform (moving to a defined contribution system) for all new hires –- including police officers. However, when someone has spent up to 19 years of his/her life working to protect us based on a contract signed when starting the job, I don’t think we should change it drastically mid-stream.”
Marpe backers have attempted to make a campaign issue about Kane’s police union “no” vote, portraying it as an example of her not willing to hold the line on expensive pensions.
This story has been updated with Melissa Kane’s response to the police union vote.
