HEALTH PLAN CHANGES FOR 2013-2014
May 17th, 2013 by AngelaW
Click on the title link to view this post.
DEFERRED COMP INFORMATION May 2013
May 6th, 2013 by AngelaW
Click on the title link to view this post.
ADIDAS EMPLOYEE STORE PASS FOR PPA MEMBERS
April 29th, 2013 by AngelaW
Click on the title link to view this post.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 26-150
April 26th, 2013 by AngelaW
CITY OF PORTLAND VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FAQ
April 24th, 2013 by AngelaW
The City has announced a new, one-time Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP) that is available to qualifying PPA members who are eligible to retire. Under the program, eligible officers who retire will receive a City-paid contribution of $20,000 into a Health Reimbursement Account.
To be eligible for the program:
- You must be a regular employee with at least 5 years of service;
- You must be retirement eligible under PERS or FPDR;
- You must submit the required application by May 10, 2013; and
- You must retire on or before June 30, 2013.
Please note that there is no “first come, first served” feature to the program; getting your application in first or last does not impact your ability to receive the incentive.
Some facts about the $20,000 HRA account:
- An HRA is an employer-established benefit plan.
- The City’s $20,000 contribution to the plan can be treated as non-taxable gross income.
- The HRA account can be used only for reimbursement of qualifying medical expenses, including health insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and other out-of-pocket medical expenses.
- Reimbursements to you through the HRA plan are generally tax free if used to pay for qualifying medical expenses.
- A list of eligible expenses can be found at http://www.benefithelpsolutions.com/pdfs/fsa_expenses.pdf
- Reimbursements can be made for you, your spouse, and/or eligible children.
- Any amount that remains at the end of the plan year can generally be carried over to the next year.
- The HRA account becomes effective on your last day of work for the City. Thus, the HRA account may be used only for qualifying medical expenses incurred after your last day of work.
- The account will not be impacted by the implementation of health care exchanges in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act.
- The account may be used by Medicare-eligible employees (65 or older).
- Upon your death, a surviving spouse and qualifying dependents would continue to have access to the HRA account.
- The City does reserve the right to amend, change, terminate or cancel the Plan at any time, subject to the City’s obligations under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act. No amendment, change or termination would reduce or eliminate benefits retroactively. The City is establishing this HRA Plan with the intent that it will be maintained for an indefinite period of time.
If you have questions about the VRIP program or need application forms, please contact your Human Resources Business Partners: Eric Sarha at 823.0522 or Chris Parra at 823.0339.
You may also contact the PPA with questions at 503-225-9760.
Voluntary Retirement Incentive Supported by Chief Mike Reese
April 18th, 2013 by officemanager
TO: PPA Members
FROM: Daryl Turner, PPA President
Today Chief Mike Reese has advised me that the Portland Police Bureau is supportive of the retirement incentive offered by the City of Portland to city workers who are eligible to retire.
There is no “first come, first served” feature to the program. Meaning, getting your application in first or last in no way impacts your potential candidacy to be offered the incentive.
Please feel free to contact your Human Resources Business Partners: Eric Sarha at 823.0522 or Chris Parra at 823.0339.
PRAY FOR BOSTON
April 16th, 2013 by AngelaW
Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by the chain of events at the Boston Marathon. We commend the actions of the first responders, volunteers, and citizens who rushed to help the injured participants and spectators wounded by this tragedy. Their immediate and selfless reaction showcases the American spirit of generosity and compassion.
We hope for the expeditious capture of the individuals who committed this cowardly act and forever marred an American Tradition.
SB 747
April 10th, 2013 by AngelaW
Statement of PPA President Daryl Turner Regarding SB 747
Before the General Government, Consumer, and Small Business Protection Committee
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Daryl Turner. I am the President of the Portland Police Association. I have been Union President for nearly 3 years. I have also been a Portland Police Officer for almost 22 years.
There is a common misconception in the community and in the media that there are many use of force discipline cases in Portland; that the PPA challenges all of them; and that the Portland Police Bureau is reluctant to discipline police officers. None of that is true.
The case that best highlights these misconceptions involves the tragic death of James Chasse in 2006 and the subsequent discipline of Sgt. Kyle Nice and Officer Chris Humphreys, who is now Sheriff of Wheeler County. The Oregonian has cited this case as a prime example of what is wrong with binding arbitration in use of force cases in Portland. The Oregonian’s reliance on this case is misplaced.
A common misconception is that Sgt. Nice and Officer Humphreys were disciplined for excessive force. In reality, the officers were disciplined for how they communicated with paramedics–not for excessive force. The PPA challenged their discipline because it firmly believed that the officers had not violated any police bureau policy. The arbitrator hand-selected by the City agreed with the PPA. In fact, the arbitrator also agreed with former Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer, who described Mr. Chasse’s death as a “terrible, tragic accident,” and lamented that “the Portland Police Bureau and the individual officers [had] been unfairly demonized.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Statement of PPA Lawyer Anil Karia Regarding SB 747
Before the General Government, Consumer, and Small Business Protection Committee
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Anil Karia. I’m the lawyer for the Portland Police Association. Briefly by way of background, I have represented the PPA since January 2011, and have represented police unions since 2009. My predecessor, Will Aitchison, represented the PPA for over 30 years. I lecture to both labor and management on labor issues, including police-specific labor issues.
I have three points that I’d like to make in opposing Senate Bill 747. First, for 40 years, there has been a strong public policy preference under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA) for binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes, including police use of force discipline cases. Notwithstanding this strong public policy, Senate Bill 747 would deny Portland Police officers the right to arbitration in use of force discipline cases. The Bill targets only one jurisdiction—the City of Portland and its unionized police officers. The singular targeting of one labor organization and its members is inherently unfair. In fact, I cannot think of any other place in the PECBA where one local government is hand-picked as exempt from the protections and obligations of the State-wide statutory scheme.
Second, discipline cases are very rare in Portland. A 2011 report issued by the City of Portland’s Independent Police Review division notes 56 instances of discipline against Portland police officers for the period 2009 through 2011. Only 2 of those cases have been arbitrated by the PPA. Similarly, of the 16 in-custody deaths and officer-involved shootings over the 4-year period from 2007 through 2011, there was only 1 sustained excessive force claim that went to arbitration—that of Officer Ron Frashour. In fact, in the 35 combined years that Mr. Aitchison and I have represented the PPA, there have been only 4 arbitrations in excessive force cases. An average of 1 labor arbitration every 9 years is not a problematic pattern, and most certainly should not be the basis of targeted legislation against Portland Police officers.
Third, the loss of binding arbitration would deprive Portland Police officers of a neutral, independent review of discipline. Sometimes, the Portland Police Bureau’s discipline is unsupported by the facts or lacks due process. These cases may include basic day-to-day performance issues or whistle-blowing matters. Sometimes, these cases involve high profile police incidents, such as Officer Frashour’s use of deadly force. Senate Bill 747 would strip away from Portland police officers their one and only opportunity for a fair trial before a neutral body. In its place, the Oregon Legislature would be trusting the City of Portland’s political leaders, who would have the final say in discipline, to get it right without any checks and balances from an independent body, such as a labor arbitrator. The Oregon State Police Superintendent and the Governor don’t even have this level of unfettered discretion in discipline matters over state troopers.
Checks and balances are important, because the City of Portland has gotten it wrong in discipline cases, most recently in Officer Frashour’s case. It was only through the independent review of a labor arbitrator that the City’s mistake in terminating Officer Frashour was identified and fixed.
After the City terminated Officer Frashour in November 2010 for using deadly force in the line of duty against Aaron Campbell, the City and the PPA submitted the case to arbitration. The City hand-selected a highly qualified labor arbitrator with over 20 years of experience to consider the case. In an exhaustive review, the Arbitrator conducted 16 days of hearing, considered over 115 exhibits, and heard from 31 witnesses, including Officer Frashour and the City’s police chief. She also heard from 11 on-scene officers and 10 officers who had trained Officer Frashour—all of whom believed in their professional judgment that Officer Frashour had followed his training and policy. The arbitration was the first time these key witnesses were heard.
In the end, Arbitrator Wilkinson determined that Officer Frashour should keep his job. This is how final and binding arbitration works. A skilled third party selected by the employer and labor organization makes a neutral decision after weighing all the evidence and arguments raised by the parties.
It’s important to know that Arbitrator Wilkinson was not alone. Four others had preceded her. A Multnomah County Grand Jury, the United States Department of Justice, the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, the Oregon Employment Department, all acting within their own regulatory schemes, had all previously found nothing inappropriate about Officer Frashour’s conduct. The Oregon Employment Relations Board spoke last, and upheld the Arbitrator Wilkinson’s award.
In sum, Senate Bill 747 is a solution in search of a problem. That independent, neutral arbitrators have overturned the City’s discipline in past cases, including Officer Frashour’s, does not mean that the system is broken. It simply means that the City’s discipline was unwarranted in those particular cases. Senate Bill 747 would target the PPA and rob its members of the fundamental right to a fair trial before a neutral arbitrator.