Tempers flare over true cost of Brockport police chief contract

Tempers flare over true cost
of Brockport police chief contract

Board members divided

BROCKPORT - Divisiveness on the Brockport Village Board continues in the face of on-going police contract talks, negotiations and financial questions.

At the regular board meeting on February 6, Trustee David Wagenhauser presented board and audience members a paper entitled, "Economic effects of revocation of police chief contract and non-renewal of (Sec. 211) retirement waiver." The paper detailed - from public information - Brockport Chief Dan Varrenti's salary, clothing and retirement benefits under the original terms of the contract which were: $97,960 for salary; $1,000 clothing allowance; and under the terms of the prior contract, which was revoked, the chief was entitled to 5.2 weeks salary per year due to police chief at separation.

Under the new terms offered to the chief, according to Wagenhauser's figures, his salary would be $100,113, there would be a $250 clothing allowance and because the board failed to sign the 211 retirement waiver, the village is now responsible for $16,518 toward Varrenti's retirement.

"It should be noted," Wagenhauser read, "that there are other costs which may be forthcoming. Obviously legal fees continue to mount and at this point approximately $10,000 to $12,000 has been expended on this issue." Should a settlement not be reached, fees could balloon to six figures, he said.

"Not to inflame an already incendiary issue, but the economic implications of the police contract issue are that we are, and will continue, to pay increased costs," Wagenhauser said. "There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. The best we can hope for is to settle before we go to court."

Wagenhauser said he is concerned because he "keeps reading articles in the papers" that state the police contract issue will save taxpayers money.

Trustee Carrie Maziarz said she ran a spread sheet using the most conservative numbers available and the figures show the village will continue to lose money every year, especially now that they have refused to sign the 211 waiver. "We are now looking at having to pay into his retirement fund annually," she said. "This isn't about taking sides on an issue. We are on the taxpayers' side and that's why we are researching the numbers. We were forced to go through this on our own."

Mayor Mort Wexler said the village presented the chief a proposal on December 16 and has not received a response. "I was told that papers were going to be served. I have to assume that means he rejected the contract proposal," he said.

Wexler said that when you start throwing numbers around there are no guarantees that a third party won't step in and change those numbers. "If we're going to ask the Stetson Club for help in reducing the price of the police department and if we are going to ask the officers to take a cut we need to start at the top and ask the chief to take a cut in pay," Wexler said. "It's all a crap shoot. We don't know what's going to happen. All we do know is that we were given a contract that extended beyond the life of the original board and that is not legal (that's why it was revoked)."

Trustee Maria Castaneda read from the 211 retirement waiver, pointing out sections that showed the reasons the board didn't authorize the signing of the waiver by the mayor. In addition to the mayor stating he didn't want to perjure himself by signing the waiver, Castaneda read sections that alluded to provisions in the waiver which prevent double dipping into the retirement system.

"According to the Attorney General's opinion, Varrenti would get the retirement regardless of whether we sign the waiver," Wagenhauser said. "Our village attorney didn't see a problem in the waiver being signed. The word perjury is just being used as a bargaining chip."

At the end of the discussion, Wexler admonished Wagenhauser and Maziarz for bringing up information in a public forum that would have been better addressed in an executive session.

"The numbers are public information, as is the chief's contract," Maziarz said.

Wagenhauser said the public needs to be made aware of the numbers in a public forum.

Village resident and meeting attendee Linda Borrayo said, "With the police issue all of the talk is about money but the village needs to obey the law first. If the 211 waiver was signed it would be signed illegally and I can't believe the chief, being a man of the law, would want that done."

Borrayo also said she doesn't like seeing the board divided. "I don't see my taxpayer money being taken care of by this board, all I see is that some of the people are working for the police chief, rather than for me."

"This is all a matter of numbers, not personalities," Maziarz said.

In an interview following the meeting Maziarz said, "The main message is that this issue isn't about any personalities or about a particular person. It's all about the money," she said. "We are charged with safeguarding the taxpayer dollars - that is what we have to look at. It isn't fiscally responsible to destroy a contract and spend more money in lieu of it," she said. "It's misleading for people to sit and chastise us (David and I) for not caring about the taxpayers when all we are trying to do is save village money. If the intent of canceling the contract was to save money, it isn't working."

If all of the board members had done their homework, Wagenhauser said, everyone would have had the numbers and would have seen what it was going to cost taxpayers.

Resident Joan Hamlin said she supports the police chief and the police department 100 percent but said the board meetings have become a "feeding frenzy" and that there is no cooperation between the elected officials.

"We didn't vote for a kindergarten board. We voted for a mature board that would take care of the taxpayers," she said.

Norm Giancursio said that while he respects the chief, he pointed to the salary of former City of Rochester Police Chief Cedric Alexander whose salary was less than $116,000 but that he was responsible for hundreds of officers and an eight-mile radius.

Wexler called a halt to the discussions and the board adjourned to executive session to discuss pending litigation and a request by Sergeant Douglas Ziegler for an executive session.

The second February meeting of the board was canceled. The next board meeting will be March 6 at 7 p.m. at which a public hearing on trash collection will be held.