Brockport settles police chief contract
Settlement reached after more than a year, 3-2 vote to approve

It took 45 minutes and at the end - by a margin of three to two - a contract resolution was reached between the Village of Brockport and its police chief. The approval of the renegotiated contract came after more than a year of legal wrangling and back and forth between the parties because of the revocation of the police chief’s former contract in October 2005.

The four trustees and the mayor spoke before calling for a vote on the resolution to accept the proposed contract.

Trustee David Wagenhauser, armed with a spread sheet that detailed the costs of the proposed and former contract, said, “Over the past few months, settlement negotiations have progressed to the point that we have the proposal we are voting on tonight. Having been a party to the negotiations, I am confident that this is a fair proposal. It clearly meets the village board’s goals,” he said.

Wagenhauser explained that the proposed contract was for a term of two years and seven months. “This takes out of controversy the issue of the contract extending beyond the term of a sitting board,” he said.

The original contract was revoked by the former board, of which the sitting mayor, Mort Wexler, was a part. The original contract for Chief Daniel Varrenti, signed in 2002, was for a 10-year term. It was on August 15, 2005 that Wexler, Trustee Connie Castaneda and former Trustee Mary Jo Nayman voted to revoke the contract. The revocation sparked a lawsuit in which the three were named. “The rationale given was, first, that the term of the contract extended beyond that earlier board’s term and was voidable. The other reasons for the revocation were the severance package and the cost of the contract,” Wagenhauser said.

The contract presented eliminated Varrenti’s severance package and “saves money over both the original contract and the subsequent terms under which Varrenti had been operating,” Wagenhauser said.

Under the terms of the contract approved at the November 6 board meeting, Varrenti will receive $102,615 in salary from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007 (annual increases would factor in after that). Additionally, he will receive more than $2,000 in longevity, $3,000 in health care benefits, close to $5,000 in paid holidays, $500 clothing allowance and $592 in sick days. The package totals $114,087 not including a $20,000 payment in accrued severance. The original term of the contract including all benefits was $133,183.

“This settlement would be comparatively less expensive than the original agreement,” Wagenhauser said. “The bottom line is simple. Financially, this proposed settlement is in the best interest of the village taxpayers.”

Wagenhauser also said, “Those who say this is too much to pay a police chief must understand that there are laws that restrict one’s ability to reduce a police chief’s salary and benefits. We are, to a large extent, restrained by previous contracts and agreements - you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

Following Wagenhauser’s comments, Wexler said, “I oppose the motion to approve the contract,” he said. “I do not believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers. This contract is the only one any non-union employee in this village possesses. No one has a contract except the chief.”

Wexler said the contract proposed offers Varrenti provisions that are not available to any other department head. “This creates a double standard,” he said.

Wexler agreed that he and the former board made a mistake when Varrenti’s contract was signed in 2002. “We have been trying to rectify this situation, but this contract is not the solution,” he said.

He pointed out the provisions in which Varrenti’s work schedule is Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. “There should be a provision in there that states he is on call 24/7 and should put in whatever time is necessary to fulfill the duties of a chief,” Wexler said. “He gets 13 paid holidays at eight hours a day at $48 an hour for a total of $4,992, salary increases of three percent annual, six weeks vacation time - we offered him four weeks - one-and-a-half days of sick time per month, everyone else in the village accrues one day per month. We sat down and tried to get a fair settlement and we couldn’t get one.”

Wexler said the numbers can be camouflaged but that the village is still paying him more money now than before. “How many times can we go to the well,” he said. “The chief sued us (over the contract). He sued the taxpayers of this community.”

Trustee Carrie Maziarz said, “This community has suffered and lost enough. We have witnessed not only the loss of money for the lawsuit but the loss of civility and respect,” she said. “There may have been a mistake in the contract in 2002 but it was a mistake to make the taxpayers foot the bill (for the lawsuit). Hopefully once we vote on the contract it will give us some closure and bring to an end the animosity between the board members.”

Maziarz said the disposition of the contract will send a message that the board is an honorable, reasonable one.

Castaneda agreed with Wexler that the contract is not in the best interest of the residents. “We represent the taxpayers. And, the chief doesn’t need a contract, he is protected by civil service law. We are setting a double standard to offer him a contract when no other department head has one.”

Although she has only been on the board for four months, Trustee Hanny Heyen said she was familiar with the issue of the contract, its revocation, the aftermath and the settlement. “I believe the residents want and deserve the police chief contract to be settled,” she said. “The contentious issue has been costly both financially and emotionally and diminished the positive image of our great Erie Canal village for far too long.”

Heyen said the chief had made concessions, “despite the fact that his original contract was signed in good faith ... and despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong, and he was willing to work towards closure.”

When comparing other police chief’s salaries and benefits in the county, and when factoring in non-salaried items she found that the costs to municipalities appeared more alike than not, although Brockport is the only village college community in the county. “Let’s look at the overall picture,” she said. “The contract will remove the five point police chief’s lawsuit from the courts and the village will save thousands of dollars on further litigation.”

“I would like to have seen how Varrenti’s lawyers would have responded to the brief we filed. We would have been a better position to negotiate from a position of strength not weakness,” Wexler said. “Civility is a wonderful trait if it’s not brought about with pain by capitulation.”

Wexler called for a vote on the contract. Wagenhauser, Maziarz and Heyen voted to approve, Wexler and Castaneda voted against approval.

Varrenti was excused from the board meeting, as are all department heads at the first meeting of the month. When reached for comment on the approval of the contract, he said, “I’m very glad this is finally over. I’m happy for the board, the people of Brockport and for my family and me. I’m looking forward to continuing to serve the people of Brockport with the highest degree of professionalism. I hold no ill will toward anyone and I just want to build on the successes we have been able to accomplish during the past five years. I’m excited about our upcoming second annual appreciation and our second annual holiday gift giving program we will be sponsoring in December. Thinking or continuing to speak of the past will only waste time and get in the way of planning for tomorrow,” the police chief said.

November 12, 2006