The City of Omaha sought three concessions from the Omaha police union in contract negotiations earlier this year.
The city wanted police to pay more into the pension system; to change the interest rate of the deferred retirement program; and to reduce the number of officers with take-home cars.
A trial in the police union’s suit against the city began Thursday and gave insight into city-union negotiations, an often-tense process that is normally confidential.
A procedural matter is at issue in the trial. But the judge’s ruling determines whether officers can keep their current benefits for the rest of the year, or if they have to go back to the negotiating table.
The Omaha Police Officers’ Association wants to see the contract that expired in 2013 stay in effect through the end of this year. A lawyer for the union argued that should happen because the city neglected to send a letter declaring its intention to open negotiations for 2014.
The city argues that the discussions with the union, which began before the April 1 deadline, were negotiations, and therefore the union waived its right to have the contract automatically carry over to 2014.
The city wants Douglas County District Judge Joseph Troia to order the two parties to keep negotiating a new contract.
A lawyer for the city, Christopher Hedican, said the union is playing a game of “gotcha” that was “orchestrated by the union’s president, John Wells.”
Hedican argued that the union is trying to force an extension of the contract, which he described as “unprecedented” in the history of Omaha negotiations.
Wells testified Thursday, as did his predecessor, Aaron Hanson.
Wells and Hanson rejected the suggestion that the union is trying to force an extension, saying the city could have sent a notification.
“I think the only way the police association could force the city to roll over their contract is if they stole all their papers and pens so they couldn’t send a letter,” Hanson said.
Wells said he specifically told Mark McQueen, another lawyer for the city, that he intended to allow the current contract to roll over if the city didn’t send notice by April 1.
Wells said their discussions focused on three issues: pensions; the interest rate of a fund for a deferred retirement program; and changes to the take-home car policy.
Wells said pension contributions would be a “nonstarter.” He said it would be premature to discuss the deferred retirement fund because there was a study about the program whose results hadn’t been released.
But he said he was open to negotiating about take-home cars. In fact, he and police officials drafted a memo that would reduce the number of officers who take home vehicles.
The issue has not been resolved.
Wells also described a series of meetings with McQueen at the beginning of the year.
Wells said the relationship started out “cordial,” but the meetings became increasingly tense.
After some informal discussions, McQueen called Wells and was angry, Wells said.
According to Wells, McQueen said he had spoken with fire union President Steve LeClair, who let him know that the police union thought the city messed up and that the contract would roll over.
Hedican asked Wells if he had said something like: “We’re not like the firefighters. We don’t lie. You can rely on what we say.”
Wells acknowledged that he had.
Wells said McQueen later suggested a “nuclear option”: that the city unilaterally implement changes to the take-home car policy.
A final meeting on the issue, Wells said, was “short and abrupt” and involved shouting.
The city’s attorney is scheduled to begin arguments today. Mayor Jean Stothert said she expects to testify today, along with other city officials, including the police chief.
Contact the writer: 402-444-1084, roseann.moring@owh.com