If Becky plays her cards right...she could be the big HERO in the end that made it work. Hopefully, solving the firefighter issue Morally, Ethically, and most important, LEGALLY right is the direction she will take. Hopefully she will choose the high road.
As usual, Becky Ames doesn't get it. Her arrogance shows when she acts as if she won a total victory. Almost 50% of the voters think that she needs to look closer at her actions. As usual, she has her own agenda, not those of the citizens of Beaumonts. Why does she hate the firefighters so much? This would be a great time to work this matter out that instead of putting them down. Now that would be the mark of a good leader.... something that Beaumont needs right now.
This is a question for Ames or Patterson. After the Firefighters contract award in 1998, I hear there was a standing ovation from all of the city council except one member (Mr. Cokinos). The Firefighters lost in that award. Is this true One explanation I have heard for this is that council was awarding the city attorneys efforts and not the award. Have you given the current attorneys the same ovation? I know that they have worked hard on the issue because you have paid them over $250,000 for this one issue. (This is not a city attorney, it is an attorney from a private law firm If the system was not broken then, why is broken now?
The Enterprise responds: This post seems more like a comment than a question. Thats fine, but if the author of this post has a specific question for a candidate, we would be happy to relay it to the candidate. We will then post his or her answer if they reply.
So a return question to Mr. Hayes, Becky Ames, or Bobbie Patterson: So does this mean that these provisions are still "guaranteed" to the city employees or does it mean that it is left up to the discrepancy (discretion) of the city manager to decide who gets the paid leave? It sounds as if it is the latter according to the language that is left in. That would make a big difference.
The Enterprise responds: According to what City Manager Kyle Hayes told The Enterprise, the benefits are indeed guaranteed. He said they have always technically been at the discretion of the city manager, but he again said there will be no change in policy. Hayes said the move was done only to remove items from the code of ordinances that are covered in the manual on policies and procedures.
It is true that empoyee benefits are at the discretion of the city manager unless they are included in an ordinance. By taking them out of the code of ordinances, Hayes can get rid of those benefits after the election so that he and city council can buy some more bricks.
It is strange that the official employee holidays were not removed from the code of ordinances since they are also covered in the manual on policy and procedures. I guess city council did not want Hayes to take those away.
In response to the use of the word "guaranteed" from Mr. Hayes. I find it interesting that he added the phrase "at the discretion of the city manager." We have already seen what he has done at his discretion. Poor city employees!
So a return question to Mr. Hayes, Becky Ames, or Bobbie Patterson: So does this mean that these provisions are still "guaranteed" to the city employees or does it mean that it is left up to the discrepancy (discretion) of the city manager to decide who gets the paid leave? It sounds as if it is the latter according to the language that is left in. That would make a big difference.
The Enterprise responds: According to what City Manager Kyle Hayes told The Enterprise, the benefits are indeed guaranteed. He said they have always technically been at the discretion of the city manager, but he again said there will be no change in policy. Hayes said the move was done only to remove items from the code of ordinances that are covered in the manual on policies and procedures.
This is a question for Ames or Patterson. After the Firefighters contract award in 1998, I hear there was a standing ovation from all of the city council except one member (Mr. Cokinos). The Firefighters lost in that award. Is this true?
One explanation I have heard for this is that council was awarding the city attorney's efforts and not the award. Have you given the current attorneys the same ovation? I know that they have worked hard on the issue because you have paid them over $250,000 for this one issue. (This is not a city attorney, it is an attorney from a private law firm)
If the system was not broken then, why is broken now?
In response Mrs. Ames, If you have not been able to negotiate a new contract so far, why would you think this would change anything? This has only made matters worse in my opinion. The award is still in the courts. When Mr. Hayes restarted the back and forth talks in February, why did he not try to make another offer? To me, that is what negotiation is supposed to be. The evergreen clause which has not been proven "unlawful" was put in there to protect first responders from actions such as the city council. Why didn't the city council try something else? This big mess seems to be a product of the city manager. Why not send another qualified person to the table? It would seem that you have thrown gasoline on the fire in this instance. Your one vote out of the six made quite a statement to the firefighters.
"My question is for Beck Ames and Bobbie Patterson.
Do you honestly feel it was right to vote to terminate the firefighters contract?
Do you realize that you are terminating over 30 years of give and take negotiations because you dont think its "fair"?
Lastly does this mean that you can terminate any contractual agreement that the city has with any other groups, businesses etc?"
Do you honestly feel it was right to vote to terminate the firefighters contract?
I do believe this to be the right thing to do for the citizens of Beaumont due to many circumstances. One being our fiscal responsibility to our taxpayers. The primary term of the contract that we terminated had expired in September of 2005. This contract was being honored since 2005 due to the Evergreen Clause which has been determined to be unlawful. This was also done in an effort to honor the firefighters request to man four on each truck. Starting fresh with collective bargaining of the contract will allow for negiotiations to achieve that goal. In addition, this in no way affects the 9-9-9 pay increase over three years awarded by the arbitrator in binding arbitration. As you are probably aware, this award has been appealed by the city and will be determined by the Court of Appeals. The vote to terminate the existing contract effective September 30, 2007 was unanimous.
Do you realize that you are terminating over 30 years of give and take negotiations because you dont think its "fair"?
It's not that I don't think it was "fair". The intent of this action is not meant to ignore the good faith negoitions over the years. It's only that the mandatory binding arbitration clause has allowed for offers to be made that acclerated the movement toward binding arbitration rather than collective bargaining. This is only meant to keep the parties at the table negiotating and in no way is intended to elimanate collective bargaining.
Lastly does this mean that you can terminate any contractual agreement that the city has with any other groups, businesses etc?
Most if not all contracts that are executed by the City of Beaumont have a 30 day notice of termination clause in them. A contract that lasts for more than one year without the ability to terminate violates the state constitution as to the fact that one council cannot bind another.
I respect our firefighters and the job they do for our city. I also am aware that they are first responders in times of emergency which means so much to our citizens and to me. It is unfortuate for me that the timing of this vote took place during election time. Although, I honestly think it to be the right thing to do for all involved. Therefore to fulfill my obligation as a Councilmember the timing because of my personal goal couldn't be a factor in my vote. I have enjoyed a strong relationship with the firefighters over the past 13 years. I intend to do everything that I can to encourage the most equitable contract possible for the firefighters and our citizens. I appreciate your concern because all of this is concerning to me as well.
Sincerely, Becky Ames
The Enterprise left a message for Bobbie Patterson about this question. If shse provides a reply, The Enterprise will post it.
The explaination by Kyle about streamlining and getting rid of redundency does not make sense when you see that the official holidays are also listed in the employee handbook but were not deleted like the military leave and the jury duty pay.
So a return question to Mr. Hayes, Becky Ames, or Bobbie Patterson:
So does this mean that these provisions are still "guaranteed" to the city employees or does it mean that it is left up to the discrepancy of the city manager to decide who gets the paid leave? It sounds as if it is the latter according to the language that is left in. That would make a big difference.
My question is why was it necessary to delete the provisions that the city had to pay its personnel for military leave and jury duty? I know that city council voted in favor of this yesterday. It seems to be that most places pay their employees when they perform this duty. This seems unpatriotic in my opinion! This question was not directed to a particular candidate, so The Enterprise asked Beaumont City Manager Kyle Hayes to explain what the City Council did.
Hayes said that the change was procedural only and does not affect pay for military leave or jury duty. Those provisions are in the city's manual on policies and procedures, and they remain unchanged. What the council did was to remove redundant provisions on these items from the city's code of ordinances as part of a streamlining effort.
My question is why was it necessary to delete the provisions that the city had to pay its personnel for military leave and jury duty? I know that city council voted in favor of this yesterday. It seems to be that most places pay their employees when they perform this duty. This seems unpatriotic in my opinion!
Thank you for your question regarding my recent vote in reference to the downtown development. I am a strong advocate for downtown development as it was in my original platform in 1994. I believe that a city must have a thriving downtown to grow.
I voted against the recent development due to the fact that the parking for the tenants was not addressed. In all other areas of the city, 1.5 parking spaces are required for each apartment. I believe that all developments should have the same requirements to be fair to all developers. In addition, I don't believe it to be equitable to the residents that may live there that they have no parking provided. One of the sites was actually land locked. The apartments and lofts that were built nearby (which I supported) had ample parking provided to their tenants. This was a fairness issue in my opinion. I would have been willing to table the issue until the parking was addressed. The motion that was approved finally did include a reference to parking but there was no proximity requirement which I didn't agree with. These are the reasons why I voted against the issue.
I absolutely think developing downtown is a good idea; I have been a strong advocate of developing downtown since I have been on the City Council. I believe those efforts have been successful. Although, I am not for growth for the sake of growth but "good" growth with guidelines. I do believe that we (the city) need to address parking in downtown which is an initiative that I have in my campaign to be your next Mayor. The parking downtown is a challenge that I am more than happy to address because that means the need is there and we are successful in our efforts. Thank you for your interest in our downtown area and my campaign.
The Enterprise plans to endorse candidates in contests for the Beaumont City Council and the mayor's races in Port Arthur and Vidor. We don't have the resources to do that for all the cities in our region, though we will have news coverage of those contests. Generally, we endorse in races that affect a larger number of residents, such as those that are citywide or countywide, rather than those that affect one ward or precinct. Thomas Taschinger, Opinions Editor, The Enterprise.
Are you only interviewing Beaumont candidates? I am a candidiate for Lumberton City Council and would like an opportunity to speak with you as well if possible.
The editorial board of The Enterprise is interviewing candidates for several area races in the May 12 local elections. We use these interviews to help us decide which candidates to endorse.
Is there a question you have for a candidate for city council or school board?
Log in (below) and click reply to post your questions and we will do our best to get an answer.
You just might be thinking about something that other voters are concerned with too.
-- Edited by BeaumontEnterprise.com at 12:10, 2007-04-02
