Media Release

CLAY COUNTY LODGE 104

MEDIA RELEASE

December 12, 2007

 On December 12, 2007, the sworn members of the Clay County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) overwhelmingly voted to retain collective bargaining with the Sheriff as a means to improve our working conditions.  In doing so, the men and women of the CCSO clearly communicated the message that they do not believe Sheriff Rick Beseler and his administration are effectively addressing their grievances brought to them by their employees. 

In April of 2006, the sworn employees of the CCSO chose to be represented in collective bargaining negotiations with the Sheriff after the Florida Supreme Court rendered a decision that Deputy Sheriff’s were entitled to this basic right.  At that time, 77% of the 202 sworn employees voted in favor of collective bargaining and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) as their bargaining agent.  This choice was made because we felt we needed to protect our positions and benefits from arbitrary actions by the administration.  We also felt we needed a collective voice, and a process by which we could bring our grievances to light.  On December 12, 2007, the employees were forced to vote again to retain collective bargaining in an attempt to decertify the FOP bargaining units.  As before, the men and women of the CCSO showed their desire to have a voice and 73% of the 227 sworn employees voted to retain the FOP collective bargaining units.  

Since April of 2006, the FOP has been in contract negotiations with the Sheriff and has attempted to improve the working conditions of our brothers and sisters in uniform.  Despite publicly claiming to honor the decision of the employees and bargain in good faith with us, the Sheriff chose to adopt a policy of misinformation and began waging a campaign of delaying tactics in an effort to cause dissension and dissatisfaction with the FOP.  As a result, the Sheriff drove contract negotiations to a standstill in May of 2007 and we were forced to declare an impasse.  The declared impasse was not about wages, as many have been told, and in fact wages were never bargained in this contract.  The dispute has arisen out of the Sheriff’s refusal to allow a mandatory due process procedure and third party review of disciplinary action.  These are the same basic due process rights that law enforcement officers across the state and members of the private sector currently enjoy.  Job security for the employees is, in our opinion, essential to ensure that the sworn officers are working efficiently.  The FOP has demanded that the employees be treated fairly, and not to have to concern themselves with fears of job instability caused by political decisions of the Sheriff.  The Sheriff however, refused to negotiate at all on this issue and adopted the position that he was elected by the citizens of Clay County because they believed he could always decide what was best for everyone. The Sheriff has stated that he doesn’t believe the citizens of Clay County care about the deputies and supervisors in our agency or what they think. According to him, the people care about the Sheriff and what the Sheriff says. We find this point of view to be short-sighted at best and we disagree wholeheartedly.  Considering that most citizens and deputies alike will see many different Sheriffs over the years, we believe that we, like the people, should have some say in the issues that are important to us and our families. The men and women of the CCSO consider the citizens of Clay County our first priority and it is in this spirit that we seek to improve our working conditions, because we know that people work more efficiently when their needs are being addressed.  

In October of 2007, a special master was requested to arbitrate the dispute between the Sheriff and the employees and oral arguments were presented. We expect a ruling from the special master by December 17th, 2007, and expect that he will agree with the FOP in many areas of the disputed contract. We expect the Sheriff to ignore the ruling of the special master though, as he is not bound by law to follow the recommendations. It is the intention of the FOP to then ask the Clay County Board of County Commissioners, as the governing legislative body, to hear the dispute and decide a resolution. The FOP believes that the Sheriff will attempt to block the Commissioners from becoming involved by claiming they have no jurisdiction over him as an elected official. We would like to go on record at this time by saying that we feel this would be a grave injustice and would be counterproductive to the collective good of Clay County. The FOP believes this issue to go far beyond the current Sheriff and his relationship with his employees, and we are prepared to take the issue to Circuit Court if necessary.  

In summary, it is the hope of all FOP members that the Sheriff will now recognize the legitimacy of our collective bargaining units and the need to truly negotiate with us in good faith. We also sincerely hope that the Sheriff will agree that we should work together in achieving the mutual goals of becoming the most professional law enforcement agency around, and providing the absolute best service to the citizens of Clay County.

Where can we reference the media release?  There is no attachment.

Now we can see it.

Baxley, Pioneer, Angela, Oneman, Lilyslore, Claycounty, Finder????????????????????

I know you folks have some commentary.  This should be interesting to see your take on this topic. Baxley you ask me about the issue of job protection a few weeks back.  Here is your answer.

Back in March 27, 2007 Besler sent a letter to the BCC

Honorable Rick Beseler, Sheriff, Re: Opposition to HB 479

 HB 479 - Resolution of Public Employee Collective Bargaining Impasses

GENERAL BILL   by Gibson, A. (CO-SPONSORS) MeadowsResolution of Public Employee Collective Bargaining Impasses: Specifies that board of county commissioners is legislative body if public employer is sheriff; delineates sheriff's role in declaring impasse & in impasse proceedings.Effective Date: July 1, 2007. Last Event: Died in Committee on State Affairs on Friday, May 04, 2007 4:12 PM Beseler's 4 years are almost up it's time for him to move on.

OK Magnum, I'll be the first guppy to rise to the bait. Though I certainly hope I'm not the only one. I'd like to hear other views as I don't really know the Sheriff very well.

After 26 years in the Navy, I never ever wanted to be a card carrying union member. Then I got a job where I had to be one. Hated it. Thought the Union was a blood sucking parasite that had out lived its usefulness.

I would guess that CCSO is one group of employees that can't strike, and me not liking unions, I do think having a 'union' as a bargaining agent is probably a good thing for them. Though they may not be able to strike, I'm pretty sure they know how to pull a 'sick out'. I'd hate to see it come to that.

I've met a couple of CCSO employees since I've been here. They seem to me to be dedicated to, and passionate about the job they do. I could not do the job they do. I'm afraid that I would never ever have to go before an investigative board for using a Taser on a suspect. The gun shoots further and stops them faster.

Now I know there are always two sides to a story and I'm sure that the FOP is trying to get all the backing it can, but it just seems to me that the Sheriff is kind of acting like a pompous a.... I read recently that a pay raise for the employees had been approved for a 1 October start date but he refuses to hand it out.

I guess my take is that the FOP has some very good points. Sheriffs come and go, but the CCSO Officers are always there. Not having them subjected to the total political posturing of the Sheriff is probably a good thing.

Getting rid of the current Sheriff during this election might not be a bad thing either from what I've seen and heard so far.

Alright everyone pile on and let me know why my thinking is way off.

Finder

2nd Guppy up.

Finder, thanks for saying how I feel about unions in general.  I joined the Carpenter's Union way back, and after 2 weeks of being paid half what my 2 supervisors were, and doing twice the work while they sat on their butts, I returned to non-union work where I got paid what I was worth, not for how long I had been an employee/union member.  I could be way off on unions, but they seem like they drive up the cost of everything.  I'll give them BIG credit for looking out for their members, but threatening strikes when you don't get your way - basically able to put a business out of business - seems heavy handed, especially in current times.  I know I sound like a broken record sometimes, but the market will regulate itself.  If you treat your employees like crap, they will go work somewhere else.  If you treat them well, they will stay and help make your business successful.

But, Police, Fire, etc. are not exactly business.  I think civil service employees should be protected from political job loss.  Does that require a union?  It seems as if unions are always threatening to strike.  The Clay County Fire Department recently concluded acrimonious union negotiations.  It seems as if all unions push their requests for various benefits to the point where the "administration" says "We can't afford that," and then the union says, "Strike," and everyone runs around like their hair's on fire, then back room negotiations with "administration", a Master of something implements a compromise that the 2 parties refused to accept first time around, and life goes on.

I want to be protected by fire, rescue, sheriff, etc, but I don't care for unions.  Maybe I'm jealous because I don't have a union to run to guarantee a profit.  I pay through the nose for "catastrophic care" medical insurance, my income depends on how hard I work, and nothing's guaranteed.  But, that's the way I like it.  Sink or swim on your own. 

But, a professional law enforcement officer who is doing a good job should not have to worry about his/her job after the election.  By the same token, the Sheriff should not have to suffer a fool just because he pays his union dues.

Guppy #3 - you're up.

We really appreciate your desire to understand our FOP issues.  Just so you all know, police cannot strike (blue flew included).  The Clay County Sheriff's Office Deputies sought protection from the Union for their jobs and workplace conditions.  Anyone that reads the issues that required the recent impasse with the Sheriff will quickly see that NONE of the issues at impasse involved money.  Simply put the major issues are as follows: equal discipline guarantees, guarantees that in the event of layoffs the last hired will be the first fired, binding arbitration in the event of questionable discipline or terminations.  As employees of a politician, the Deputies are simply seeking assurances that they will not be subject to a Sheriff that is less than professional.  The Clay County Sheriff's Office has seen 235 employees leave or be forced to leave since this Sheriff took office.  A Deputy Sheriff is not a person that can simply apply at another job without relocating to another county, which sadly many have had to do.  Clay County has lost significant experienced professionals and replaced them with inexperience from the top down.

The recent union vote was nothing personal against the current Sheriff.  If an employer genuinely cares about their people many of these requests should be "no brainers". 

The FOP union representatives are not high paid union reps.  In fact, the local FOP reps are simply cops that volunteer to work for the members.  Their pay is no more than the gratitude of their peers for sticking their necks out and risking their jobs with the adversarial relationship caused by this Sheriff.

Ok, Magnum, I'll be second to take the bait in the pond...I'll say a little now and add more some other time.

I had noticed for a few days that we had some new bloggers--Insider, adiossheriff, Paulrevere, etc...and had carefully watched as the tag team match unfolded.

I know many deputies, some quite well, so I asked them about the information presented on the blogs by these newcomers. Interestingly, they said Rick Beseler is the best sheriff they have worked for in Clay County. They say he is an honorable, honest, fair man who works hard for the good of the constituency and his officers. The deputies said there is a small contingent of CCSO employees, most Scott Lancaster (former sheriff) fans, who are spreading inaccuracies to help candidate Mike Taylor get elected.

They also said Beseler's predecessor, Scott Lancaster, threatened the officers into remaining non-union. Unlike Lancaster, the deputies received no such threats from Sheriff Rick Beseler.

The deputies said they are now the highest paid, best equipped, best trained and have the most benefits they have ever had in the history of the sheriff's department. According to some of the deputies, Beseler has increased their pay 12.5% in 3 years, increased their off duty par rate, improved leave benefits, and created programs like college incentive pay, cost cutter awards, improved training and equipment.

I am sure Sheriff Beseler will continue to serve the citizens of Clay County well.

That is all I can say.  The only one that ever threatened the Union was your favorite Sheriff Beseler, who has also held a pay raise over the heads of the members to leverage his influence over the recent union vote.  Whoever you have been speaking to, obviously does not know the facts.  Sorry, Sir.  The union was voted in by 73% of all sworn members, a far cry from a few disgruntled Lancaster holdovers.  Yes I am new to the blog scene.  Not a real blogger for you.  But, someone has to get the truth out to the public.  We thought the FOP media release should have been enough. 

In fact, under Sheriff Beseler 3 unfair labor practice actions have been filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission by the hard working men and women at the Sheriff's Office.  Another action never before seen in Clay County.  These unfair labor actions and the delcared impasse information can be read at the official website of the FOP.  Please read.  It is obvious that you care.  We are happy to inform you of the truth.

http://www.clayfop104.com/

Insider

So it's Binding Arbitration that is so important to you ...I hope no sheriff in the state would agree to that. That would mean the union, not the elected sheriff, controls all decisions in the department.

With binding arbitration, if the sheriff decides to do something, the union can appeal and an outside mediator makes a binding decision on the sheriff. Well, outside "mediators" make their living because unions exist, so it's not hard for me to figure out how they will rule.

Bax

I, too, was once a union member. In fact, I helped form a union nearby. I spent lots of time in union activities and tons of hard earned money on dues. My one regret over my many years of reflection concerning this (I say many years, because I'm probably old enough to be the grandparent of most of the bloggers.) is that my focus was not on my job. It was on my "volunteer" union activities.

OK Insider, I hear what you are saying but I'm still pretty neutral on this issue. As you could tell from my initial response, in general I think unions have outlived their usefulness. I've been around a few days and have watched them cause more trouble than they are worth.

I worked at an employee owned shipyard for a while. It had 7 unions 'to protect the employees from management'. What? It was employee owned! The employees were management! I had the good fortune of watching them eat themselves after the 4th strike in 5 years. The company is 40% more profitable today.

Whether your negotiators are paid or not is not really the issue. I would have a couple of questions and comments about what is going on:

When were these unfair labor practice actions filed? Was this before or after the union was voted in? Isn't it a favorite tactic of unions to file these types of actions? Actually, I think that unions are the only ones that can file them aren't they?

Don't spout last in first out as a great accomplishment of the union. Been there done that. Good old 'Fat Butt Joey' has been here for 10 years, hard charging 'Sally' started 5 years ago. 'Joey' got his name the honest way, he earned it, but 'Sally' gets the axe. Not in my business. When was the last time CCSO had a 'layoff'?

You state CCSO people can't just apply somewhere else because they have to leave Clay County. What is your point? That's called going where the work is. You don't want to move, stick with what you have. You don't like where you are working, move. 

I'm not against getting rid of the Sheriff during this election. I'm not against some of the changes you say you would like to see at CCSO. All I'm saying is give me some real solid reasons and information to make a decision here. So far, all I've really heard is standard Union drivel and posturing.

At this point, you've lost a few points. You were better off before you stated that whoever Pioneer was talking to didn't know the facts. Whether or not he was speaking to a CCSO employee or not, obviously you think that the 27% that voted no on the union didn't know the facts. If they did, the idiots would have voted your way.

Now see, that is what I call standard union tactics. We are the great protectors; you need us because you have some people here that can't make an intelligent decision. If they could, they wouldn't have voted against us.

The ball is in your court. I'll listen to good solid aruments but so far I haven't seen enough to put me hard over to your side. Actually, you've kind of moved me a little further away from your side. And that is real unfortunate.

Finder

First let me say I didn't support Lancaster and I did vote for Beseler. This was based off his statement of integrity and coming out of the Grand Jury trial of improper use of taxpayers money by Lancaster. I think 52% of the voters agreed too.

After I saw Beseler at the BCC meeting with his announcement that he was giving back a million dollars to the taxpayers. I found out by the way of public records from a women, where he was in a meeting with Commissioner Rutledge to give him back his money prior to his big press release of giving the taxpayers their money back. What part of integrity is that move on the part of a Sheriff.

In my opinion that is a misuse of a public office, violation of the public's trust, and doesn't say integrity to me at all. As a matter of fact a misuse of a public office is a 2nd degree felony.

Frankly, I don't care if you are not paying your credit cards back on a timely basis, or back room negotiating with a Commissioner to get taxpayers money outside of the public's view. Both of them are wrong and neither speak of integrity to me.

If he handles the business of the CCSO in that matter then I have to lean with the Officers on his integrity to negotiate with them fairly. The Fl Sheriff's Association is a boys club that's worst than a union, and they work against the officers. Sheriff's are elected and each one of them are elected, and officers are hired.

The Sheriff's Association lobbyist who is proposing the prison-for-profit plan (a disaster) for our county is just another example to make the Sheriff look good not the people who protect the citizens, which are the officers.

If you don't have integrity you don't need to be a Sheriff. I don't care if you cut up credit cards on tv or not. According the all the money the Sheriff is spending by pioneer's post looks like there may be alot more back room negotiation than I thought. It certainly supports my statement that his budget alone is going to eat the entire county's budget if he isn't stopped.

If you don't have the integrity to deal with the public funds then you must not have integrity to deal with the officers either. Evidently is all about getting re-elected to this Sheriff.

Crime stats are stats, and if they have been manipulated then that in itself is a crime. If he were manipulating crime stats then that would be to get additional money from the taxpayers. I think the Green Cove Springs residents who have a police dept but are being double taxes by the CCSO is wrong in itself. Then after taking money from the taxpayers shows up in Green Cove to give the police dept money back is to make himself King of the money and the support of the GCS Police Dept. still at the detriment to the taxpayers.

4 years is enough for all elected officals and some of ours have been there way too long. Now I would just love for Beseler to release his letter to the press that he detailed his meeting with Commissioner Rutledge and explain to us the taxpayers just what this was about. Then maybe Rutledge would release his email where he said the meeting never happened. One of them is not being truthful. And personally I think they both should go after having paid a minimum of 9 million taxdollars to get some other mess in a landfill cleaned up. I am tired of paying to clean up public officials messes and I would like to use our taxdollars for the citizens who paid that money.

Noverber is election time A New Sheriff maybe needed. He's got a  very intense   backround.CLAY CO SHERIFFS it maybe time for a change. Look at MIKE TAYLOR FOR SHERIFF

Spot,

Yes I have looked at Taylor’s resume and there are two dozen of us that have more experience and education.  Your next question probably will be why we aren’t running for Sheriff.  We are not interested and want to have a life after work.

I knew the comments would be mixed from this group of bloggers.  For many years I have explained to deputies that the general public is only concerned with response times, crime solvability, and the agency is not corrupt.  As for employer and employee relations and benefits they could care less.  For the most part I believe I am right on target.  Regardless of the relationship employees may have with the employer the men and women that wear that green uniform are going to be professional.  About 20 years ago I had the opportunity to work at the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.  I tuned the job down because in my heart I wanted to work in the community that I have lived all of my life.  I look back now and I would not have changed that decision for any amount of money.  Yes had I gone to the JSO I probably would be making 20-25K more a year now.  It’s not always about the money.  Most of these guys live beyond their means and that’s why they are grumbling all the time about money.  No matter the amount of raise they get it will only satisfy them temporarily and then they will be complaining about something else, and it will be something else.