We were extremely disappointed on Tuesday when the Martin County Commission approved a two-year extension to their current contract with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) that was not due to expire until October 2009. This new agreement was reached in a closed “executive session” with the Commission on July 24 th, approved by a two-part union membership vote on July 31 st and August 2 nd and entered as a “consent” item on the Commission’s August 5 th agenda with virtually no media coverage. Objections by one Commissioner opened the subject to debate. The one-sided debate was somewhat heated and tended to focus on arguing individual provisions of the agreement along with emotional discussion on the value of our excellent Fire/EMS service.

Most of this missed the big picture and the real points of our objection. First, we are very concerned that the County committed to a 5% + a negotiated cost-of-living (COLA) across the board raise every year until 2011 with knowledge of the coming budget challenges, which appear ominous.

Second, at a time when well over a hundred County Administration and Sheriff’s jobs are cut and services to some of our most needy residents are curtailed they are giving a significant increase in pay and benefits to a large number of individuals making over $100,000 per year for two 24 hour shifts per work week. The cost per household for FY 2009 is budgeted to be approximately $270 per person. Multiply that by the average of 2.2 persons per household (as used in County calculations for schools and impact fees) = approximately $700 per household for 2009.

Third, these pay raises and concessions cause serious management problems for all County supervisors, particularly the Sheriff, School Superintendent and Administrator, who are also facing tough union negotiations. Their employees will either blame their unions for not being aggressive enough, or management for not taking care of their employees. Either way (maybe both) it is not good for the efficiency or effectiveness of their organizations and the vital services these employees provide.

Why was this done? The professed reason was that in June the IAFF requested that the contract be reopened so they could help the County’s budget problems by voluntarily giving up ½ of their 1 October 2008 10% pay raise. It now appears more likely that it was the County’s escalating budget problems, and perception that a better deal could be had prior to the coming elections. At the time we applauded the initiative and wrote a column on June 28 th centered on thanking the union for the estimated $1.5 million “give-back”. Shortly thereafter the strings attached began to be pulled. The union wanted a say on who/how the retiring Director of Emergency Services would be replaced. They wanted two new ambulances. They wanted nine firefighters and two new administrative personnel. The final straw was that they wanted an extension to 2011, a guaranteed 5% plus COLA increase to be negotiated every year and a contract that cannot be changed for any reason without union approval.

Why was this questionable contract extension negotiated so quickly over a year before the old one expires? Why are additional management prerogatives being given away? The short answer to both are that our Commissioners insist on acting as the County’s negotiator(s) with an extremely talented and politically savvy union - during an election year - while they are running for office.

We have recommended for years that all union negotiations with the County be accomplished by outside professionals. It was the top item on our wish list for the new administrator two years ago. The effort appeared successful and there was an attempt to hire a consultant for this purpose last year. It was killed by Commission vote. This latest IAFF agreement is now consummated, but you still need to be fully aware of the problems with it. The impact of this agreement will be felt for years and there are always other union negotiations just ahead. Maybe increased voter awareness will make the new Commission be more astute in handling the County’s “negotiations”.