HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0486.003 2000-2002
02i04i2002 09:35 FAX 808 891 7750 HONOLULti FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ 001
FIRE DLPARTNIENT
'A37E_NCO.KFA,KA_S'FRCET. iUITE N~26
_ HONOLULU.HAWAll96819.166s
r1 ~ ~
FED `~('l `
r
l
JGRCP9Y MAWg15 r~ ~ _ ATTl LIO K. LEO NAROI
pq ~ 1
NAYOR ~~~...f{ 4 + ~ ~ FIRt QMIt~
F ~
JOHN CLARK
t Goucr rlq[ CNI[F
February zoo2
°Thc ]Honorable Jaanes rakaki, Chair
and 1Vlesnbers of the :'ity Council
I-Iawaii County Co~anci:.
25 Aupuni Street, Suite ?09
I-Iilo,, Iiawaii 96720
Dear Chair Arakaki anti Councilcnembers:
Subject: Resolution 7 i8-02 Approving the Cost Adjustments Agreed upon by flee employers
for Exciudeci Managez°ial lmployees Covered by Chapter 77, IHawaii Revised
Statutes
NIy name is Attilio K. I, ;onardi and I asn the Fire Chief of the Honolulu F'ixe Depax~eaient (HFD).
VV'hile I expect our excl~ ded rx~anagerial employees (i.e., lRattalion Chiefs and t~ssistant Chiefs)
to dilig~eaztly perforr,c the it dines, the delay or uncertainty of a pay raise is begr~aning to create
morale problems with, ~y n~anagenaent team and between managers and their subordinates. It
justifiably creates a tzxo:•~ !le problem between our m~agernent staff and their subordinates to
constantly hear about tt, ~ substantial pay raises their subordinates just received. Y understand that
the above situation array be no different than in other jurisdictions; however, as Fire Chief, I
strongly feel that it is na ~ ' responsibility to support the pay praise due to the excluded ma~gerial
employees in the I~`17.
Resolution 168-02 seek; the approval of cost items for salary and benefit adjustr~aents that are to
be applied to excluded ~i lanagerial ers~ployees for the period July 1, 1999, tkxrough June 30, 2003.
Cn behalf of excluded tr imagers in the I strongly urge passage of this resolution.
Under §89C-5(a), the ate legislature or the legislative bodies of the counties acting in concert,
as the case may be, maS approve or reject the cost iteans submitted to them, as a wktole. If the
state legislate or tlxe lc: ~slative body of any county rejects any of the cast items submitted to
tbe~n, all cost items she] i be returned for revision." however, should the I3awaii County Couxicfl
decide to reject the excl~ ded managerial cost adjus~.ents aatd they are returned for revision, it
should be understood tb..t flee law also requires that adjustanents for officers ~d employees in
the excluded maxaagerial compeaxsation plan (~MCp) be not less thAn those peovideai nnder
c®Ilectlve bat°galning t: officers anti employees in the professional ~d sc9e~atifgs effipluyce
bargaining unit (1$arg,~ fining Unit Y3). Fut•Ylaer, It is my understanding that not only do the
Corf}pYt. NO, •
F'Ile No.
Re+'. ~o:
02i04i2002 09:35 FAX 808 831 7750 HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ 002
The FIonoz°able rasx~es -akalci, Chan _
and Me~.bers of the ity Council
Fage 2
JFebru~ry 1, 2002
proz ^sed cost adjustine r is ffieet this requ~'trenlent, but duc to scla;owled$ed fiscal constraints,
they also do aot provic' ~ ~no~e than that pr®vided to employees in Barg ~ T3nit 13.
'Therefore, if the cauaty °ejrcts the eaccluded s~auagerial cost adjustanents and they ~ returned
for revision, the same G. st package vvotald be resubnait~d to the legislative bodies based on the
requireffients under §89~ "-2(2), d~S. This v~nill result iu the sssne predieaxr~ent and dviIl serve no
positive purpose.
In view of the foregoing; I strongly ask for your support in passing 12csolution 168-02.
Sincerely,
AT"CTLIO LEONARDI
Fire Chief
,~~.1DJM:cn