recently-completed PERB arbitration process that will set the terms of the 2004-2006 collective bargaining agreement between the city and the PBA consisted of 12 days of hearings from Nov. 6 to Jan. 11, followed by the submission of briefs on Feb. 11 and reply briefs on March 12.

Since then, the PERB panel has met once, in April, to consider the evidence contained in hundreds of pages of transcripts of oral testimony and written briefs.

At press time, those deliberations were continuing.

As we have made clear, the PBA has presented overwhelming evidence supporting our fundamental argument — that New York City police officers are woefully under-compensated. We believe the record is decidedly in our favor and that we have presented ultra-convincing arguments to undermine the city’s tired, ineffective and decidedly unhelpful position that pattern bargaining is the only possible course of action. We have shown that the pattern has been broken— by us — in every round since at least the year 2000, without the city suffering the labor chaos it has predicted.

Our case was compelling, with extremely strong factual and expert witness testimony, and addressed all the criteria that the panel is by law compelled to consider. We made it clear that, to any reasonable person, the Taylor Law requires a police-to-police comparison of compensation, and that New York City police officers — by any standard of comparison — are significantly underpaid. The city’s pattern-bargaining policy — its main argument in the arbitration — simply does not satisfy the “fair and reasonable” criteria of the Taylor Law.

The importance of each of the prior PERB decisions is evident in that they have paved the way for this arbitration chairperson to distinguish us from other groups in the city.

This should help her withstand the pressure the city will undoubtedly exert on her and give her the evidence she needs to join two previous arbitration chairpersons who recognized the distinction between PBA members and other city workers. Every other city union has played by the rules “at great pains to their members.” We belive that our role is to have our members compensated at the top of their profession. We will not sacrifice that principle to get along.

We also proposed many other ways, both monetarily and otherwise, tocompensate our members and improve their situation. These include:

We’ll keep you posted.