I want to bring you up to date on recent developments in bargaining and advise you of recent favorable budget news that should, if viewed fairly, help in our contract fight.

First, the PBA has been meeting with the city for some time, attempting to reach an agreement at the table. While the bargaining climate has improved, the substance does not appear to have changed much. As I have stated before, the best way to obtain a contract is through a negotiated settlement at the bargaining table and we will continue to do everything in our power to reach a fair resolution for our membership. To accomplish this, the city must be a willing partner and negotiate in good faith, otherwise we will then be forced into another arbitration.

On June 28, 2005, the day after our second arbitration award was issued, the PBA wrote the city’s Labor Commissioner and requested that bargaining start immediately for the period of August 1, 2004, to July 31, 2006. On August 9, 2005, we began our first negotiating session with the city. We submitted and explained our demands for a much needed and overdue wage increase for our members.

On September 20, 2005, we met again with the city for a second bargaining session. As anticipated, the city put their demands on the table and commented on our demands. As far as the city’s demands go, not much has changed.

The city’s document includes the same preamble paying lip service to the valuable work that we as police officers do. The one significant change is the city’s proposal on the salary schedule. The city has proposed that “there shall be a new salary schedule for police officers that will more appropriately reflect ratios between basic maximum salary and sixth-grade, to be funded through increased productivity.”

The city did indicate that they wanted to compress the steps of the salary schedule and it is also clear that they are again looking to fund any future wage increases through productivity savings. In other words, they want to fix the front end of the salary schedule, which they pushed the arbitrator to change in the last arbitration and they want to charge us for it. The irony here is that NYPD superior officers testified at our arbitration that there was no retention and especially no recruitment problem. They stated that the reason we have approximately 4,000 fewer police officers is because that’s what the city has planned and budgeted. They stated that the NYPD has an ample pool of applicants at the ready. Well, the result of the lower salary schedule is going to make recruitment that much harder. The rest of the city’s proposals are self-explanatory and largely ones that we have seen in the past. (Copies of the PBA’s and the city’s proposals can be seen on the PBA website.

A third session was held on January 11, 2006, a previously scheduled session having been postponed due to the funeral for P.O. Daniel Enchautegui. At this meeting, the PBA commented on the city’s demands, essentially reiterating the PBA’s position that any givebacks or demand that wages be paid for with productivity are unwarranted and make little sense, particularly in light of the differences in our pay with that of police officers in surrounding communities.

We stated that we must fix the wage problem in its entirety, not just the front end. We discussed external funding sources, using federal money for anti-terrorism work to provide a terrorism premium for all our members. We also expressed our desire to set up more detailed negotiations on the most important issues — wages, for example — to determine whether the city is serious about reaching a negotiated settlement in this round of bargaining.

While we lag far behind the pay scale of other local police departments, including the Port Authority, we will continue to push for amounts that will close the gap and bring us up to market rate with our surrounding police jurisdictions.

Regarding budget issues, another factor that will affect our negotiations, the news appears to be favorable. The modified financial plan the city released on November 22, 2005, projects a surplus of $1.74 billion for fiscal 2006. The Independent Budget Office predicts even higher surpluses. As previously reported, the actual budget surplus for fiscal 2005 was in excess of $3.5 billion. Nevertheless, in typical fashion, the city estimates a budget deficit of $2.25 billion for fiscal 2007, down from the $4.7 billion deficit projected last June. Significant, however, is the fact that the city will have substantial surpluses for most, if not all, of the period covering August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2006, the contract term referenced in our collective bargaining demands this round.

I will continue to keep you updated on contract developments in this forum and others as this round progresses.