Alright, good evening.

I'll go ahead and call the Columbia City Council pre-council for September 2nd, 2025 to order.

I think the only thing on our agenda is a presentation from our Columbia Police Lieutenants Association.

So I'll kick this over to Clinton.

Thank you.

You want to use the microphone, if you mind.

I mean, I guess there's not as many people in here, but it'd be nice to hear you.

I mean, if you're gonna talk to us, it would be nice to hear you.

So it's for some of us.

You'll hear me already.

No, that's not true.

Everybody assumes that, but that's not true.

So, Madam Mayor and members of council, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Columbia Police Lieutenants Association.

And while we're here to talk about the progress of labor negotiations, the bigger problem is the future of leadership at CPD, and I'm going to show you how the process of labor negotiations now is going to affect that future.

And unfortunately, you're going to hear the same things you heard from the other labor groups, which is there's just not good faith bargaining on the part of the city.

There hasn't been.

Good faith bargaining is coming to the table.

It's listening, it's engaging, and it's tailoring the outcomes to the group.

And in the years that we've been bargaining with the city, that has never happened.

We have brought the repeated concerns of the lieutenants up and offered solutions, and they are rejected.

So quick history.

We had a hiatus with collective bargaining for several years and came back in 2022 and reformed the association.

And from there, some of our goals and objectives that have been available, you can find those in the history.

The only thing that we really accomplished out of this was a written collective bargaining agreement in 2023.

Everything else has essentially been rejected by the city.

This year, the timeline's been a little skewed.

We were asked to hold off on meeting until they got some sales tax figures back.

And when we did meet, we were told the same thing all the other labor unions were, which is there's no money.

You're not getting anything.

Yet three weeks ago they announced a budget where everybody in the city was getting something.

And between then, there's been a couple meetings where we've made offers, suggestions to take baby steps in solving some of the problems that we're facing, and yet they come back with the exact same offer that they're offering everybody.

A blanket offer is not good faith bargaining.

That is surface bargaining.

Offering us what they offer, everybody else is not tailoring the results to the needs of our group.

There's eight of us.

And they're not fixing the problems.

They've accepted zero pay proposals in the last four years.

And we have brought up consistently our number one concern is that our subordinates out-earn us.

It is easy for a police sergeant to out-earn a police lieutenant by working overtime.

They are hourly, they are not exempt, we are, we understand that.

And our argument is it should not be impossible.

There are some sergeants that work extremely hard.

But it should be difficult to out-earn your supervisor.

The running joke in the middle of the night when we get called in is that your sergeant's making more than you are right now.

And it's true.

And in fact, last year one sergeant out earned an assistant chief of police.

That is what goes to the future of the leadership of the Columbia Police Department.

There is almost no interest in promoting to the rank of lieutenant.

The number one complaint is the pay.

They make more, they work less, and they have less responsibility as a sergeant.

The ones that are working hard that are earning that money are the same ones that we want to promote to leadership, and it's not happening.

We've brought this up year after year.

And by offering us the same thing they offer CPOA, by offering us the same thing that they offer the entire city, it's not fixing the problem whatsoever.

In fact, it makes it worse.

Because the overtime rate of those sergeants is more valuable as their pay increases in proportion to ours.

So in FY23, nine sergeants out earned at least one of us, five out earned all of us.

And last year that number increased.

Eleven out earned at least one lieutenant, and six out earned all of us.

One of them also out earning that assistant chief.

This trend is going to continue.

The sergeants are telling us they are on track once again to out-earn us, making upwards of 120,000 as an hourly employee.

I'll come back to this slide, but where we sit now with the city, $12,000 total.

Not per person, not per lieutenant, total.

That's the sticking point in our current negotiations.

And why is it problem for leadership?

In the next five months or within the next five months, 80% of our senior command, five of the six of our senior command assistant chief and hire, are all eligible for retirement.

We don't have five people on the lieutenant's list right now.

We don't have five people that are willing to promote because of the pay issues.

There's other things that can be done, other benefits that we've asked for that are also been rejected, but the number one complaint that we hear from current sergeants is why would I make less money and have more responsibility?

Sometimes in the middle of the night, these lieutenants they are in charge of the entire city.

They're the most senior ranking city official that is awake that is on duty, and they have all that responsibility, and they're getting out-earned by the people that work for them.

So this is a small step in the right direction.

This is not the fix.

What we are asking the city is to show us that they are actually concerned about this problem and take one small step.

There is an overnight fix.

It's it's it's there.

There's a price tag with it, but this is one small step in the right direction.

To show us that they care about the future of the leadership, that they actually want to hear the concerns of their employees, and that they need to address the concerns of their employees.

So once again, we brought this problem up year after year, and we are getting nowhere.

We have not received any meaningful increases in our pay above what the sergeants receive, so the problem just continues to compound.

Taking small steps now can get us started in the right direction.

So in the future we can continue to improve and change the inequity and pay that's occurring at the level from labor to management at the Columbia Police Department.

And I'll be happy to take any questions you guys have.

Yeah, Nick.

Use the microphone.

Okay, so the city so far is proposing 3.5.

To everybody, yes.

That we're lacking in the number of sergeants that we have, and so we're calling on them more often to do overtime.

I'm wondering if this is just a not only, but that it's a staffing issue at least in part.

That we don't have adequate coverage with sergeants, and so we're calling on those that we do have more often, and they're just working more often.

No, it's not a staffing issue because the like the sergeant that out earned the assistant chiefs, they work in detective, they get called in in the middle of the night for homicides, violent crimes, things like that.

Those positions are gonna naturally generate a significant amount of overtime just because of the nature of their jobs on call coming in.

But overtime is readily available for anyone in the department, whether it be a parade or a community event, it it's not a staffing problem in our opinion.

Yeah, Al is that you can use a microphone, please.

Okay.

And then between microphones.

Um is that overtime overtime for the police department for CPD, or over time for other events?

Are they able to work other events?

It's all city overtime.

This is specifically from our payroll.

Yeah, if they go work at Walmart, we don't count that money or anything like that.

This is on the clock city time, how much the city paid them in their wages with overtime.

How many sergeants do we have?

25.

You already gave us the number of lieutenants, but I didn't write it that way.

Eight lieutenants.

Okay.

Thanks.

Other questions from council.

So what you're asking is a pay raise that means that you make more than the sergeants who work a lot of overtime now.

Is that what you're asking?

Or how did you guys come up with the 5%?

So if they're giving across the board pay raises, ours needs to be higher than what the sergeants are giving.

We need we want to essentially we want to create a gap between sergeant and lieutenant.

Is that because we didn't do that before?

There, I think there's a lot of reasons that go into it.

The pay scales are a problem.

You there you can't start anybody at the minimum of a pay scale of the Columbia Police Department because it is below their subordinates.

If you have to hire a new police chief tomorrow, you cannot start that police chief at the stated minimum of that pay scale because it is below even an assistant chief pay.

The pay scales have not been adjusted over time, and with the overtime cost, those have never been calculated out, in my opinion, never been calculated into what the transition from hourly to salary includes.

I thought we did that a couple of years ago once we did the pay-in comp classification, like two years ago.

So you're saying that you that was not adjusted two years ago?

It may have been adjusted, but if everything is adjusted at the same, we're not creating any gaps between the subordinates and the lieutenants.

We're not saying we have to make more than that.

It should just be more difficult to out-earn us in what it is at the current overtime rates.

Okay, thanks.

What percentage increase would it take for that overnight fix?

So the way we factored that in is from the lowest paid lieutenant to what the chief of police makes.

There's four ranks.

There's lieutenant, assistant chief, deputy chief, and chief.

There's a spread of about 60 some thousand dollars between the lowest paid lieutenant and what the chief makes.

So if you want the overnight fix, 17.5%.

That puts the lieutenants in the 120 range, bumps the ACs up to the mid-130s, you put the the deputy chief and chief higher than that, obviously.

But that's the overnight fix.

There's a price tag with it, obviously, but that would make it difficult for sergeants to out earn us.

Not impossible, but it would make it difficult.

They would have to work a significant amount overtime every year to do that.

Yeah, the other the other thing that goes into that is the pension considerations of there are there are retired sergeants who make more in their pension every year than a retired deputy chief.

Because of the way that the city pension is set up, and we don't have no desire to change that, but working three consecutive years with a significant amount of overtime, you can pack your pension.

We're okay with that.

It's the for me to put in the work that I do, and for these other lieutenants to put in the work that I do, the responsibilities, the hours, and we're working all the same hours as the sergeants.

When the homicide sergeant comes in for a homicide, the homicide of the lieutenant is working right alongside them.

I did that for a couple years.

So we're putting in the hours, we're just not giving the pay.

Yeah.

Yeah, I understand it.

That's the difference between hourly and exempt.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

So you mentioned seeing this as kind of a step in the right direction, um, proof that people are willing to meet on this.

Is this something where so I'm thinking about like the the conversations we're having about water and electricity rates of having small increases every year rather than that one giant increase?

Is this something where you would hope that in continuing years we would have this same conversation, the same proposal ideally faster?

Ideally, we need that we need the 17 and per half 17 and a half percent now, just because of the retirement eligibility of senior command.

We we don't have anyone to promote to lieutenant.

There's nobody to promote to lieutenant.

The senior command that if the people that retire tomorrow left, nobody can, nobody wants to promote.

And you can't force people to take that job, and the other option is to bring in outsiders who don't know our community and don't know how to police in Columbia.

So with this 5% that we've got on the board here, is this something where it would be 5% this year and then maybe 5% next year until we get to that 17.5?

Probably 20% by then.

So you're talking about step plan, like a defined step plan.

No, we're just talking about going up 5% a year.

Yeah.

We are not talking about you're all favorite step plan conversation.

Step plan is a good, yeah.

I mean, that's what it sounds like to me, and I'm sure it's what it sounds like to Clint in the remainder here.

Um but having that ability to say, hey, at this point in your career, at this point in your career, you're gonna be here, you're gonna be here, you're gonna be here.

That's what we hear a lot from our membership.

Uh that's what we hear a lot from CPUA's membership, which I'm sure you've heard about before with the step plan.

But you know, I guess that would be wonderful.

I don't think taking 5% and moving it across five years, one percent here, one percent there, one percent there is not the it's not the answer.

But to get where we're looking to, yes, I understand the project out funding and and all that, yes.

But the the step step plan is ultimately I think our organization would have to be at the problem is fixed, you know, and what clean is that I guess the the point of the question was this five percent would not be the end of the conversation.

There would be because the the end goal is that 17%.

So this five percent would be an initial step in the right direction, and then we would continue talking to get to that point that you're wanting to see.

Yeah, and our CBA is up for renegotiation next year, um, and we understand that.

This our 5% ask was actually done before they announced the 3.5% citywide.

Okay.

And we have not raised that.

We're trying to be reasonable.

We're we're we're we are we are wanting the city to at least acknowledge the problem, they haven't done that.

We're we're we're we are we are wanting the city to at least acknowledge the problem they haven't done that they we can sit at a table all day long and they can say yeah that's true they out earn you but until they give us some meaningful raise and it has to be more so if they're gonna give CPU a five percent this year they have to give us seven.

Well they have to give us six and a half it has to be more it has to be more so I've got Jackie Jackie in talking about the number of leadership who are ready to retire can you describe um the hiring processes for promotion uh like how long does it take is it something to that they just apply for it I mean what is how long does it take to get them trained up to move into leadership position if we were to effectively address this.

So the the the promotion process is typically every year every two years uh a process is open it's every year for sergeant it's been every two years for lieutenant uh but we've done it every year before um you apply and you get put into the list if you make the list if you pass the interview or the the test whatever the process is you just get put into a list and sergeant there's rules in a collective bargaining agreement for CPOA on how that process works for lieutenant the chief can pick any of the lieutenants that are on the lieutenant's list or in the lieutenant's pool and typically those are people who have identified as wanting to promote have taken on leadership responsibilities in their roles of sergeant have demonstrated the capabilities of doing that I mean we can look at all these gentlemen behind me that have been promoted and that's true for all of them as well.

Is that an extra question?

It does I'm I'm just I'm thinking timeline wise and if if people who were eligible to retire and we needed to replace them really quickly and there's not a pool of qualified people I'm wondering you know about the panic number one but you know that the timeline it would take to get people in those positions.

Yeah you have to set up a process open it up hold the process and then pick I mean that could take weeks just to do a process alone typically takes quite a bit of time and some of the the senior command can leave tomorrow if they want theory.

Thank you.

Alright and Nick you said no more.

Betsy do you have yours?

Yeah question about the pension plan.

I know there's been some discussion about trying to move um at least the new folks which you guys wouldn't be I guess um to loggers but also looking at the same thing for anyone who would like to go in into the loggers pension because as you all know we're having problems funding the pension plan I think if it were me I would want to be on loggers because I think it sounds like a more stable and I mean I think we're doing pretty well with the pension plan but we're way behind and this is not a surprise to anybody.

So you said something about not at all being willing to discuss moving to loggers is that true?

No no no the current pension like the way the current plan is set up that over time counts towards your three highest years for that for the purposes of retirement which I think it does in loggers too but and that I see so that that brings up the other thing of historically the position of lieutenant has not been a long term position.

People haven't sat in this role for 10 years or so it's it's a it's they move up or they it's a retirement.

But with the current 25 year plan and even moving to loggers you're gonna have people who will sit in a lieutenant's position for 15 years.

That's a very real possibility and be out earned by your subordinates for 15 years why would you stay why would you stay here and Scott's got a lot more on pension.

So the in regards to the loggers of the eight of us six of us are in the tier one pension the before 2012 yeah so unless we want to go to the loggers there's there's two in the year today that are in loggers and I'm not gonna speak for them but one has how many years you got up there 14 Derek's got 14 years left in the police department Anthony how long you have Anthony's got 12 left here that you had how long in loggers he had 13 years in loggers so obviously that's going to be their personal decision I don't think any of the ones that are on tier one would want to leave but I don't know we're against it it's more about hey we just want to be involved in that conversation with the exception and we've talked about the the tier one folks that you know the tier one people aren't going to want to leave.

Okay.

We're too close the our senior command is up there I don't know that people are oh we don't want to go to it that's all going to be a personal decision because everybody here is the in the defined pension program that would be a decision they have to make on their own based on what loggers comes and says I just wondered because of that oh you were happy with the pension plan I'm like well wait a minute yeah um my other question is if you went up 17 and 17% that would be more like 150 thousand dollars for the lieutenants yeah for the lieutenants and alone yeah so it'd be about 147000 to move lieutenants and there's three assistant chiefs that you would have to move up about 10 so you're talking 170 180 total to to move ever because there's a there would be three assistant chiefs that you would have to also bump up to get us out of the to get them out of the lieutenant's pay raise but that's where that's where the waterfall stops.

For the lieutenants, yeah.

For the lieutenants and alone.

Yeah, so it'd be about 147,000 to Google lieutenants, and there's three assistant chiefs that you would have to move up about 10.

So you're talking 170, 180 total to move everything, because there's a there would be three assistant chiefs that you would have to also bump up to get us out of the to get them out of the lieutenant's pay raise.

But that's where that's where the waterfall stops.

Okay.

So there's those three probably around 180, no more than 200,000 to move us all.

Alright.

But the assistant chiefs you think don't want to be out earned by you guys either.

I wouldn't have to do that.

So we'll do a couple of other questions, and then I know we're gonna go in close to get some additional details.

So you had your hand up?

Can I address something?

Yeah, yeah, grab the mic from Clayton.

So you asked about the overtime.

And just to give you some clarification about that.

Um I'll use homecoming day, for example.

Uh I'm part of the parade, putting together the parade, we'll do that.

We're gonna have two supervisors sergeants working that day.

Uh and I'm gonna be working at this.

So we've got the parade all morning, and then we have a game that evening that I'm gonna work.

Uh and having those two sergeants, they'll sign up for that CPD overtime that comes from money.

Uh they'll work that in the six, seven hours they work the parade.

They're gonna make more money as I I'm gonna be here from five in the morning until the end of the game, plus um, and so that's kind of the like if you if you look at that when they come and work that overtime, they get that overtime rated at one and a half percent, or one and a half times uh all day, you know, that entire time period the year.

Uh but a lot of that overtime is generated from homecoming, it's generated from special events that we have.

We have the concert going on right now.

I've got a supervisor over there now, sergeants over there working at whatever that hourly rate is 100 plus dollars an hour machine factoring benefits and and such.

So that's where a lot of that overtime is coming in from Alan and done.

Okay.

What kinds of things are eligible for overtime?

And when are they doing overtime versus regular time?

That may be a so they're normally 80 hours.

So it's truly once you've exceeded 80 hours.

It doesn't matter the type of.

So whether it's vacation, sick leave, whatever.

So it's not necessarily just working.

They're on an FLSA cycle for 14 days, which is 80 hours and 14 days.

So anything over 80 hours in pay status would qualify as overtime.

Okay.

And is it equally available to everyone who is hourly?

Is there a limit to how much overtime you can do?

Defer to the chief idea.

Um, sorry, Chief.

Didn't have a microphone, you did.

So I have a good outside voice though.

Um got a microphone now.

So there's different types.

There's what I would call planned overtime and then planned overtime.

So the type uh Lieutenant Albert's is referring to is usually done by sign-up.

We very rarely have to draft sergeants to work events.

The other type is homicides, those types of things that there's just no plan for that.

That's your job, Jenny, you just have to come in and do it.

So there's really two ways.

City ordinance requires us to equalize overtime to the extent possible.

The way we usually do that is through just allowing people to sign up so that everybody has an equal opportunity to sign up for planned overtime.

Really my main question is about, huh?

She's got a microphone.

Um I can't hear her, she's not anywhere nowhere near it.

My main question was about um how you arrived at the 5% increase.

Um where those figures come from.

Um I feel like what I'm hearing is a question surrounding pay compression, and I'm wondering if re-evaluating the um class steps, which is kind of what Betsy was getting at, um, if that achieves the purpose in a way that has more longevity.

We we're trying to be reasonable in our ask.

But we we know going in and asking for 17 and a half percent is unreasonable.

It's what needs to be done, don't give me wrong.

But we were told from the beginning, don't ask for anything, there's no money.

We said, well, we have to do something.

And when we were offered two percent, we said we need five.

And then they came back and said, hey, we're giving everybody three and a half.

And and I'd like to also point out that all these budget things were done before any of these negotiations are finished.

I don't know if any of the labor negotiations have actually finished yet, and we're already announcing.

We have one on council tonight and one at the next one.

So we're so I think we have two remaining.

You and FIRE.

We have two remaining and we have three that are results.

Agreed, right?

Well, we have a yeah.

I'm gonna go to Don and then I have one last question, and then I'm gonna need to go into closed um just so I can get some additional answers.

So Don.

You mentioned your process about passing everything and then basically going on a potential list, waiting list until there's a vacancy to move up.

Do you current is there currently a pending lieutenant's list?

Yes.

Okay.

There's one person on it.

And one person actually, another person actually withdrew because I said I'm not I'm not taking the pay cut, taking me off the lieutenant's list.

I no longer want to promote.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask a really quick one?

Yeah, yeah.

So I know we've got uh obviously a room full of lieutenants here, but it is sounding like this is a plan that would support all ranks because people would be more interested in promotion and moving upward if there would actually be a pay increase in that.

So has this plan been have you received report from other ranks within CPD for this plan?

So when we talk to the sergeants, the biggest concern about promoting is pay.

And we're we're not allowed in on the the CPOA negotiation, so I can't speak for for what they're asking for, but the there needs to be a bigger divide between the hourly was considered labor and the salary was considered management, and that is lieutenant's assistant chief, the deputy chief, and the chief of police, and with the current pay the way it is, there's plenty of room to play with those scales and move it up, and yes, you would begin to see people actually develop and want to stay, particularly on the 25-year retirement plan as well as the loggers, which we we support.

And then being able to see what their future looks like at the police department if they choose leadership is a huge benefit to retention.

Okay, um, so my it's similar to Don's.

Um you mentioned that there's a current pending list with one on it with one withdrawal.

When was the last time a lieutenant's list was approved or opened?

We had it last fall.

It looks like we've been doing it once a year in the fall for the past six years.

Okay.

Um, and then you mentioned um other things though related besides just the pay increase, but there were other things that could make it more beneficial.

Do you have a quick list of those?

Uh we've asked for an um improving our vehicles that that the lieutenants are one of our persons to take home vehicle or stipend because of the nature of our own call status and and the duties that we have.

Uh vacation accrual, uh, we've asked for a limited vacation accrual uh because we just we we don't get the opportunity to take vacation.

Um holidays if you're if you're the watch commander, you know you you don't drink, you answer your phone, you stay available.

So holidays don't really exist for us.

Vacation, unless you're actually going out of the state and burning vacation time, your phone can still ring.

Um I was in Florida a couple weeks ago, I had my work laptop with me doing work because we're gonna start an academy tomorrow.

So we ask for those kind of things to offset the fact that as a salary employee, there's we we do lose some of those benefits.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, quick follow-up and then I'll go.

So it's supposed to be 20 minutes.

I'm sorry, Doug.

But the um you mentioned you said that uh the city hasn't been uh negotiating in good faith for years.

How long a period is that?

I mean, do you have an idea about which?

Well, I mean, uh for the lieutenants, what I've been involved in is the last well, now we're in year four.

And before that, there was no negotiation with lieutenants because there was no lieutenant association.

2017 was the last time that there was a collective parking agreement with lieutenants.

Great, thanks.

Alright, thank you.

Um, I'm now gonna make a motion.

I move that the city council or the city of Columbia, Missouri to immediately go into a closed meeting here in conference room 1A1B of City Hall.

You can just discuss.

To discuss the preparation, including any discussions or work products on behalf of a public governmental body or its representatives for negotiations with employee groups pursuing to section 610.0219 of the revised statutes of Missouri.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Second by um Nick, whoever you are.

Mr.

Waterman.

Yes.

Miss Peters.

Yes.

Miss Buffalo, yes.

Miss Carroll.

Yes.

Miss Elwood.

Yes.

Miss Sample.

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

Yes.

All right.