Loading...
12/01/19691 233 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS, HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1969 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, was called to order by City Clerk B. E. Rohrbach, at 8:08 P.M. ROLL CALL: Roll Call indicated the following aldermen present:. Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels, Present also were: City Comptroller Blietz, Police Chief Hintz, Fire Chief Haag, Commissioner of Public Works Warnicke, Building Commissioner Schuepfer, City Engineer Fletcher, and City Attorney DiLeonardi. There being a quorum present, the meeting was in order. MAYOR It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman PRO -TEM Swanson, to appoint Alderman Prickett Mayor -Pro -Tem during the Mayor's absence. Motion declared Carried PRAYER PLEDGE MINUTES: The meeting opened with prayer by Vicar Hersberg of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Hinde, to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 1969, as pbhlished. Correction was made on Page one, "Cook Co. Zoning Dockets" by adding the words following District, "if found to be within 12 miles of the City Limits". Motion declared Carried. REPORTS OF City Comptroller Blietz submitted copies to Council CITY OFFICIALS:members and Press the Mayor's 1970 proposed budget. Chief of Police Chief Hintz reported that beginning 9:30 p.m. Police November 30th, police officers began reporti:rig in sick and to date twenty-five officers have reported sick. He further reported that the Police Department is being manned with supervisory personnel, officers who are not members of the CCPA, and officers who have just completed Police Training . He further reported that he accompanied City Attorney DiLeonardi to the Circuit Court today to file necessary suit for relief.....At this point in the meeting Mr. Flood, of the CCPa interrupted the meeting requesting to give a report of the policemen and a presentation to the City Council. The Council voiced objections to allowing Mr. Flood to address the Council as an officer of the CCPA, but granted permission to Officer Ornberg to address the Council, as President of the Local Chapter of the CCPA, stating that it is the Local Chapter's feeling that they should be recognized and that the City Council shouIe3recognize the Parent Organization. COMMISSIONER Commissioner of Public Works reported on the progress of PUBLIC WORKS the leaf sweeping program and further reported that the 800 trees have been planted. ISEWER - FARGO AVE. Following the recommendation of Engineer Fletcher, it was moved by Alderman Bonaguidi, seconded by Alderman Seitz, to award the bid for the Fargo Avenue Sanitary Sewer to the low bidder, Rossetti Contracting Company, in the amount of $11,467.25, and return checks and or bonds of unsuccessful bidders. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT;0 - None - There being sixteen affirmative Motion declared Carried. votes, �/� STORM SEWER SECTION 18A River Street METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT Complaints ZONING CASE 69 -59 -SU Kiwanis Property POLICE CCPA Recognition Court Reporter's Transcript attached & made a part hereof. 12/1/69 234 Page two Following Engineer Fletcher's recommendation, it was moved by Alderman Bonaguidi, seconded by Alderman Shillington, to award the bid for Section 18A of the Storm Sewer Program - River Street - to the low bidder, Rossetti Contracting Co., in the amount of $7,902.00, and return the checks and or bonds of the unsuccessful bidders. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. City Attorney DiLeonardi reported that approximately twelve complaints had been served upon the City of Des Plaines from the Metropolitan Sanitary District re certain sanitary sewer connections in the City. It was moved by Alderman Wagner, seconded by Alderman Bonaguidi, to authorize City Attorney DiLeonardi to defend the City and Engineer Fletcher in aforementioned complaints. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. Following the recommendation of City Attorney DiLeonardi, It was moved by Alderman Czubakowski, seconded by Alderman Hinde, to reconsider the action taken at the last regular meeting re Zoning Case 69 -59 -SU - property located on Woodland Avenue and Grove Avenue, commonly known as the Kiwanis Property. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 14 - Alderman Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 2 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo ABSENT: 0 - None There being fourteen affirmative, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Leer, seconded by Alderman Sherwood, to rescind the action taken at the last regular Council meeting in Zoning Case 69 -59 -SU - property located on Woodland Avenue and Grove Avenue, and take under advisement the Zoning Board's recommendation. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 13 - Alderman Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 3 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Wagner ABSENT: 0 - None There being thirteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. City Attorney DiLeonardi reported to the Council that a suit had been filed by the City in the court today to be heard before Judge Epstein tomorrow, requesting that the Court issue a temporary restraint order directing that the policemen return to work. He further stated the City's position with reference to CCPA recognition, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Following this, Officer Flood, President of the CCPA addressed the Council, requesting Council action to recognize this organization as the bargaining agent for the Des Plaines policemen. Debate between Attorney Lovey, City Attorney DiLeonardi, and remarks from wives of police officers in the audience were heard at this time, and no action of the Council was taken at this time. 12/1/69 Page three 235 LIME It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman SLUDGE Thomas, to open the one bid received for Cleaning of Lime Sludge pits. Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Michaels to award the bid to Trumbull Excavating Co., Inc. for 4,000 yds. semi -dry lime 'sludge removal and disposal @$3.25 per yd for a total of $14,000 and sludge removal from both lagoosn using Dragline Machine @$29.00 per hr. for total of $1,392.00. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. POLICE VAN TYPE TRUCK It was moved by Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Hinde, to concur with Police and Finance Committees' recommendation to award the bid for the Police Van Type Truck to Jim Aikey Ford, in the amount of $3,388.64. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: _ 16 _ Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. POLICE It was moved by Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Wagner, RADIO EQUIP. to concur with Police and Finance Committee's recommendation to purchase radio equipment for Police Van Type Truck at an approximate cost of $610. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, H inde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. RESOLUTION It was moved by Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Wagner, R-17-69 that Resolution R-17-69 having to do with recognition of POLICE DEPT. the Local Chapter of the CCPA be repealed. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 13 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Leer, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Michaels. NAYS: 3 - Alderman Bolek, Figard, Shillington ABSENT: 0 - None There being thirteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. MAYOR It was moved by Alderman Bolek, seconded by Alderman Thomas, BEHREL's to adopt a resolution requesting that Mayor Behrel return RETURN from the National League of Cities Conference in San Diego, California. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 3 - Alderman Szabo, Bolek, Thomas NAYS: -13 - Alderman Koplos, Prickett, Sherwood, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels ABSENT: 0 - None There being thirteen negative votes, Motion declared Lost. OFFICE It was moved by Alderman Szabo, seconded by Alderman Figard, QUARTERS to concur with Building and Grounds Committee's recommenda- CITY tion to lease approximately 900 square feet for office ENGINEER quarters for the City Engineer, to be located at 1583 OFFICE (Cont' d) RESOLUTION MFT SECTION 89CS DEVON AVE. PARKING LOTS North School Prairie Ave. CIVIL DEFENSE Relocation of Siren BILLS PAYABLE: ORDINANCE M-51-69 Business Licenses 12/1/69 236 Page four Ellinwood Street, at a rental of $395.00 per month, for a period of three years - City Comptroller to negotiate for possible two year lease. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels 0 - None NAYS: ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Leer, seconded by Alderman Koplos, to concur with Streets and Traffic Committee's recommendation to adopt MFT Resolution appropriating $40,000 Motor Fuel Tax Funds for the widening of Devon Avenue from Des Plaines Avenue to the Northwest Toll Highway - Arthur Rogers to pay $65,000 as his share of the improvement. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Koplos, seconded by Alderman Wagner, to concur with Parking Lots Committe0s recommendation to authorize the City Engineer to draw the necessary plans and specifications for all necessary improvements for the North School and Prairie Avenue Parking Lots, including mechanical coin collection equipment. Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Czubakowski, seconded by Alderman Leer, to concur with Civil Defense Committee's recommenda- tion to award the bid for the relocation of Civil Defense Siren to the low bidder, G & I Electric Co., in the amount of $1,685.00. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Swanson, seconded by Alderman Hinde, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES THAT THE FOLLOWING BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE AND THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK BE AND ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR SAME: $245,488.56. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Sherwood, seconded by Alderman Bolek, to adopt Ordinance M-51-69, having to do with Business Regulations. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 15 - Alderman Koplos, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 1 - Alderman Szabo ABSENT: 0 - None Theree being fifteen affirmative votes, Motion declaredtk HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AIRCRAFT NOISE "NOISE" H. W. Lochner, Inc. Proposal PICTURE JUDGE SENGSTOCK 1 ADJOURNMENT: 12/1/69 Page seven 239 It was moved by Alderman Czubakowski, seconded by Alderman Figard, to concur with Mayor Behrel's appointment of Mrs. Robert L. Gay, 1434 Ashland Avenue, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Miller and Mr. J. T. Fankhouser, 824 Greenview Avenue, to fill the vacancy of Mt. Moehling, on the Des Plaines Human Relations Commission, terms to expire December 31, 1971, and December 31,1970, respectively. Motion declared Carried. /Alderman Sabo voted No. The letter from Clifford A. Deeds, Director of the Town - Village Aircraft Safety & Noise Abatement Committee regarding "Noise" (National Organization to Insure Sound -controlled Environment) was referred to the Special Aeronautics Committee. The letter and Proposal from H. W. Lochner, Inc. for preparation of preliminary plans and feasibility studies in connection with planned separation of grades at River Road and Dempster Street was referred to the Streets and Traffic Committee for study and report. It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Czubakowski, to authorize the City Comptroller to purchase the portrait of Judge Albert Sengstock presently on display in the Council Chambers, from Virginia Close, painter, and dedicate same at the first meeting in January. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Shillington, seconded by Alderman Sherwood, that the regular meeting of the City Council adjourn. Motion declare l arried. Bertha Eleanor Rohrbach, APPROVES BY ME THIS DAY OF 196 A. !, E'BERT H. BEHREL', MA OR 1 ity Clerk November 12, 1969 STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES RELATIVE TO THE COOK COUNTY POLICE ASSOC TION Recent press releases by the CCPA and written statements by Des Plaines Chapter members of.that organization have made it necessary for the Mayor to respond with a statement of the City's position in this most important matter. However, before stating that general position, the Mayor feels compelled to respond to the published charges that he "double-crossed" the CCPA, our policeman, or both, andthat he failed to live up to an "agree- ment" reached with the. CCPA and ourmen in the Mayora office on October 25, 1969. Conceding for purposes of discussing that either the CCPA officials or local chapter Officers present at that meeting were reasonable in concluding that there was any "agreement".reached on October 25,, it was never any part .of such agreement that the Mayor would recommend that the City. Council recognize and negotiate with the CCPA parent organization. The discussions that day were that the Mayor would recommend that the City Council recognize and negotiate with the local CCPA chapter officers as representatives of the policemen. This was what'. was in the written proposal delivered to the CCPA officials and local chapter officers on October:25. The written proposal said: "The ordinance would provide for recognition of the local chapter of the CCPA as the bar- gaining agent of its membership, ; and would obligate the City would bargain with it." The resolution which was passed as a result of that October 25 meeting (R 17-69) states: "Section 1;:. The Mayor ie hereby authorized to recognize and .negotiate with duly selected representative members of the Des Plaines Police Department as bargaining .agents for the members they represent, which representatives` may be the officers of the Des Plaines Chapter of the Cook County Policemen's Association (CEPA), but not to recognize or negotiate with the CCPA or representatives of that .•par�nt association." Second, it was agreed thata non-binding arbitration procedure would be established for the mediation of disputes arising:, during the collective bargaining process. It vies made clear that the City_ had no power to make any such arbitration legally binding, but that each side would feel morally bound by the recommendations of that panel. The written proposal submitted to the CCPA officials and local chapter members on that date said: ;"The impasse,=resolving machinery would be a three man arbitration. panel„ to be 'selected - one by the Hoard,. one by the union and those.two members so selected would chcoee the:third member.. The panel would hold hearings, make findings .of fact -and recommendations (which.. could be made `public), and would mediate the `dispute.'" The said resolution, R-17-69, states: "Section 4: Should the City and said repre- sentatives epre-sentatives reach animpasse in their negotia- tions, such impasse shall be referred to a three member arbitration panel, to be selected as follows: The Mayor and said representatives of the P,lice Department shall each appoint a member, and the two so selected shall select a third. Should the two so selected fail to select a third member in five days, the, American Arbitration Association is authorized td select a third member. The arbitration panel so selected shall conduct public hearings on the issue in dispute, make written findings of fact and recom- mendations, and attempt to mediate ..the impasse.... The findings of factand recommendations may be made public, but shall not be binding upon any party. The costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the City and the membership of the Police Department so .represented." • Third, the proposal submitted required a no -strike pledge. That portion of the proposal stated: , •"...the ordinance .would contain an absolute prohibition against strikes or any work • stoppages." The resolution passed, R-17-69, says: "Section 31 There shall • be obtained now from such representatives on behalf of their membership within the Des Plaines Police Department, a written pledge not. to strike or threaten to strike at any time under any condition, the breach of which shall thereupon cause the obligations of the City under this Resolution to cease at once." The form of the legislation passed to implement the said propOsal and the discussions of'October 25, 1969, was that of a resolution rather than an ordinance, a matter of legal form and not substance. /f our policemen want the legislation. to take the form of an ordinance, that can be done. The content of the resolution did not vary significantly or in substance from the • mattersdiscussed with the CCPA officials and our local chapter officers on October 25, although minor changes in language were made by alderman prior to passage. If anything, these minor changes actually broadened the City's responsibility in that they obligated the City to deal with duly selected representative members of the Police Department whether such "representative members" were local officers of the. CCPA or not, without limiting the City's responsibility todeal only with local CCPA officers. This broadening of the language of the resolution leaves our policemen free to affiliate themselves with any other organization of their choice, while maintaining the same rights under the resolution. Perhaps this is what the CCPA really objects to. In *any event, the public should ''be .assured that no agreement was broken or faith unkept on the part of the Mayor or. anyone. ..connected with: the administration. The following is a general statement of the City's position in its dispute with the CCPA. At the outset, . it 'must be made plain that: (1).. The issue. isnot whether our policemen have. the right to organize by affiliating themselves with the CCPA or any other organization. P xbl:ic employees have that' r'ight,,: a rid we have 'never objected to their doing so. (2) The issue is not whether the City refuses to recognize any organization • selectee to represent our ` policemen:; in, economic and/or non -economic mattore►„ The record of this City has been to the contrary, .having dealt and.. negotiated with organizations representing public n. the past, and continues to including policemen, do so :presently with an. organization representing the public works employees. (3) The issue is not whether the, City acknowledges that our policemen are entitled to increases in wages and other ,benefits. On the contrary, the record indicates that the City has nOt only recognized this need in .recent years, but has done every- , thing in" its power to fill the need;` .including wage and economic benefit increases of 5 per cent in fiscal year 1967, iiper cent in fiscal, year 1968, / 0 per cent in fiscal. year 1969 and oposal , of an increase oft 7, `v per cent for ,fiscal year -1970, which proposedincrease has not met with dissatisfaction from our policemen. (4) The issue is not whether the City should "establish"grievance-procedures for our policemen, as Sergeant Flood would have us believe. The City has had well-established written grievance procedures within the department and under the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners for man/ years, and no policemen has ever communicated to me or the Police Chief any dissatisfaction over present grievance machinery. (5) The issue is;not whether the City should agree to binding arbitration in economic or non -economic disputes, because by law the City is absolutely forbidden to do so, as such would amount to the illegal delegation of legislative and executive authority. (6) The. issue is not whether the City is violating either a mandate or option of the law in refusing to recognize or deal with the'CCPA. The plain fact is that the City does not have any express authority whatsoever -to do so., Nonetheless, however, the City has done so with the Des PlainesPatrolmen's.Association in former years, is dealing now With an organization of our public works employees, and remains ready and willing to recognize and deal with any responsible organization or representative of any group of public employees. (7) The issue is not whether the City acknowledges thepersonal dignity, pride or worth of its policemen as individuals. The Mayor and alderman have always had the highest regard and respect for our employees, and if there is any doubt about that, 1 state it hear and now. (8) The issue is not what concession should be made to the policemen in exchange. for a no -strike pledge, for policemen never had and do not now have the right to strike. It seems to this administration that we have reached a sad day when we have to horse trade for a pledge to forebear the doing of an illegal act. .Rather, the issue is whether the City should be forced to deal with . an organization which repeatedly threatens illegal strikes of policemen, in Cicero, Berwyn, Evanston, Skokie, and now Des Plaines. The local chapter. officers of the CCPA tell us" that they would ,not strike and`.are, not . subject to persuation by 'the CCPA, in. theevent. that the CCPA would recommend such' action.: But the record is to the contrary. On both known occasions that the issue of a , str membership of our ,department; the menhave voted -to strike. they' voted 44 to nothing to :strikes, and "on, they :voted .32 to 5 to strike. The said votes -were 'taken on' those occasions .after presentations to ::the memeership, by CCPA officials.. The. -threat of policemen to strike is, the protection of persona and property within the .City. None of the CCPA officials or local chapter officers with whom this subject has been ,discussed In length. wishes to use ; the word "strike", ' and consistently .refers to it as., "alternative methods' "illness is a definite' possibility'' and so forth. Perhaps the .CCPR ' offici.als and our local 'men who support the CC,P2 strike.,'pol:icy should. stop ,fooling themselves ,into:.thinking that what they threaten is anything..l.ess than public' calamity and personal tragedy, to those :citizens who would fall. victim - .during thee: absence of 'police protection... 'This . administration feels that, the risk of public' calamity is too "great a risk. to take, and we for that' reason have refused to recognize or. deal :with the CCPA. We have refused dues. check -off to the CCPA 'for the same reason= we do not want to help sustain the life -blood of an organization thatthreatens to paralize the public safety at any moment. In short, it has been, and continues -to be, the position of this administration that the CCPA is not a responsible organization with which the City should be ` forced to deal under the threat. of an illegal strike, and at the risk of public tragedy. If our policemen wish to continue to affiliate themselves with such an organization, that is a personal value judgment that they are free to make, and we can do nothing about it. In the meanwhile, unless and until the parent organization of the CCPA, as well as our local chapter, publicly repudiates its strike policy, we , shall continue to stand last in our present posture. If this meansa strike, then let us have it now ,rather: than later as the result of a dispute at the bargaining tab3,e. If a strike occurs, we are prepared to use every available remedy to restore police protection to our citizens and their, property as quickly as possible, and to see to it that the full force of the law is brought to bear upon those individuals responsible for the public peril. That is' our duty as we see it. As your Mayor_I pledge to continue to work for the preparation and passage of meaningful : and effective State Legislation to illi thelegal vacuum in which Illinois municipalities find themselves at the moment in the area of public employee relations. Until such Legal rules are established for the game of collective bargaining between public employer and employee, the City will refuse to "play the game" with any employee organization which ORDINANCE M-52-69 Rental & Lease Tax ORDINANCE M-53-69 Liquor License Applications ORDINANCE T-31-69 Alternate Parking ORDINANCE T-32-69 4 -way stol Dulles & Beau ORDINANCE T-33-69 Oakton & Maple ORDINANCE T-34-69 Non -Resident Parking 12/1/69 Page five 237 It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance M-52==69 repealing Chapter 42 of Title V of the City Code, having to do with Rental and Lease Tax. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirm ative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Bolek, seconded by Alderman Hinde, to adopt Ordinance M-53-69, having to do with Liquor License Applications. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Se:tz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It Tas moved by Alderman Leer, seconded by Alderman Figard, that Ordinance T-31-69 having to do with alternate parking remain on First Reading until next meeting. Motion' declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Shillington, seconded by Alderman Michaels, to adopt Ordinance T-32-69 providing for 4 -way stop signs at the intersection of Dulles and Beau Drives. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Swanson, seconded by Alderman Thomas, to adopt Ordinance T-33-69, eliminating from the 4 -way stop street schedule the intersection of Oakton & Maple. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Koplos, seconded by Alderman Swanson, to adopt Ordinance T-34-69 increasing the Non - Resident Parking Permit Fee for City Parking Lots Two and Five to $25.00 for six month period from January 1, 1970 to June 30, 1970. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. 1 ORDINANCE Z-23-69 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Z-24-69 1560 S. Mt. Prospect RESOLUTION R-20-69 265 Hawthorne ORDINANCE M-54-69 ZONING CASES: 69-58-R 69-68-V 69 -68 -SU 69-66-R PARKING Seegers Rd. RESOLUTION State Right of Way RESIGNATION Youth Commission C.C. Lothery AIR POLLUTION APPEAL BOARD 12/1/69 Page Six 238 It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Sherwood , to adopt Ordinance Z-23-69, amending the Zoning Ordinance of 1960 having to do with Planned Development. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Swanson, seconded by Alderman Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance Z-24-69, providing for Special Use of property located at 1560 South Mt. Prospect Road. It was moved by Alderman Bolek, seconded by Alderman Shillington, to table Ordinance Z-24-69. Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Figard, seconded by Alderman Leer, to adopt Resolution R-20-69 declaring the building and structures located at 265 Hawthorne Lane as dangerous and unsafe buildings and as a public nuisance. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: - 16 - Alderman Koplos, Szabo, Prickett, Sherwood, Bolek, Leer, Figard, Hinde, Czubakowski, Wagner, Swanson, Thomas, Bonaguidi, Seitz, Shillington, Michaels. NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None There being sixteen affirmative votes, Motion declared Carried. Placed on First Reading was Ordinance M-54-69, retitling Ch.pter 6 of Title X of the City Code to read "Miscellaneous Driving Rules". The letters from Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals on the following Cases were referred to the Municipal Development Committee for studyand report: 69-58-R - Touhy and River Road 69-68-V - Variations of lots of record 69 -68 -SU - 955 S. Elmhurst Road 69-66-R - C & NW Coach Yard The letter from Attorney M. J. Glink regarding parking regulations on Seegers Road was referred to the Traffic Commission and Streets and Traffic Committee for study and report. It was moved by Alderman Leer, seconded by Alderman Figard, to adopt Yearly Resolution for permit construction on State Right of Way. Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Sherwood, seconded by Alderman Shillington, to accept the resignation of Clifford C. Lothery from the Des Plaines Youth Commission, and request the Mayor to write letter of commendation. Motion declared Carried. It was moved by Alderman Sherwood, seconded by Alderman Figard, to concur with Mayor Behrel's appointment of the following to the Air Pollution Appeal Board: Edward T. Prell, (P.E.) Term to expire 11-30-71 Raymond Dindinger 11-30-70 Mrs. Raymond Dindinger 11-30-70 Eric C. Kuntze 11-30-71 Richard C. Peterson 11-30-72 Thomas R. Pofahl 11-30-72 Mrs. Jean Branding 11-30-73 Motion declared Carried. r CHARLES McCORKLE, JR. COURT REPORTER SUITE 1000 180 W. WASHINGTON STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY of COOK ) BEFORE THE MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL OF DES PLAINES ILLINOIS • COMMENTARY AND REMARKS RELATIVE TO THE REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT DI LEONARD' Monday, December 1, 19E 8:00 o'clock p.m. City Hall Building Des Plaines, Illinois 2. MR. DI LEONARDI: We have'gone to the Circuit Court of Cook County, where we filed a petition for relief from the illness of the police officers. We are hoping it will be heard tomorrow morning at the Circuit Court. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Thank you. For what purpose do you rise, sir? MR. FLOOD: For the purpose of addressing the Chair; as the Chief has addressed the Chair, I would like to make a representation to this Board. MR. DI LEONARDI: If I might answer, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: You may do so. MR. DI LEONARDI: You know the position we have taken with respect to dealing with the Cook County Police Association organization. For that reason, I would advise that while the City Council may well wish to have you address it, we should have a clear understanding we will not recognize you as representing your organization before the City Council. If you tell us you are representing the policemen on behalf of the Cook County Police Association, we have made it very clear in the past that we have refused to have you or your organization recognized as bargaining agent or representative of our policemen, and we say if you wish to speak as you have spoken in the past to this Council, the Council will have to determine if it wishes to give that permission. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Alderman Robert Hinde, you may speak. 3. ALDERMAN HINDE: I hope you will set some kind of a time limit on it. I have no objection to hearing him. alderman sykes; I have no objection so long as he speaks under Mr. Di Leonardi's restriction. I believe that they are personal local problems and if Mr. Flood will concede to Mr. Di Leonardi's restriction, I will not object; but otherwise I would. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Will you speak to us under the conditions as set forth by our City Attorney? MR. FLOOD: Restate that restriction, please. MR. DI LEONARDI: We do not wish to have you speak to us on behalf of the organization you represent or our policemen. MR. FLOOD: We represent that organization and would like the people to know, and we want to make known to the people, how the Mayor and Mr. Di Leonardi have deluded them as to just what the circumstances are. We are in a very chaotic situation at the present time. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: You are out of order, sir. This Council advisedly objects to hearing from you, I am sorry. Officer Ornberg, do you care to speak on behalf of the men you represent? There being no objection, you may do so. MR. ROBERT ORNBERG: President of the Local Chapter. I wish to reassert right now on behalf of the members our position. 4. • It is still one hundred percent to be represented by the group. The Local Group Chapter has no intention to remove ourselves from the parent. We feel we should have bar- gaining procedures and we are restating our position as in the past. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Is that all? MR. ORNBERG: Yes, that is all. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Thank you very much. MR. DI LEONARDI: I will state the nature of this report. After I have finished, I will be more than happy to discuss anything you want me to with respect to giving the position of the City. I believe it is time the real position of this Council be made clear to everyone. For months we have tried to make our position known to the bargaining committee. We have to date met with little success. Those here today may learn something by listening to what we have to say. I would state briefly the nature of our suit and then this Council should hear whatever other have to say, whether it is Officer Flood or Officer Ornberg or anybody who has struggled with this problem. I would like to spend some time on behalf of the City to acquaint you with the Council's position, and then to speak again after you have had your say, in order to give our position. 5. Last night, at about 11:30 P.M., I received a telephone call from Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, who had just received a call from the Chief of Police, that six of the ten men who were supposed to appear on the 11:00 o'clock shift had phoned in sick. This morning another ten, who were to report for the 8:00 o'clock A.M. shift, also called in sick. That made sixteen out of a total of twenty-three men, who were supposed to report for duty on those two shifts and for that reason, claimed the right to be absent from duty. Immediately, we prepared a complaint for injunction, which we filed this afternoon in the Circuit Court. A motion for preliminary injunction to restrain the strike is to be heard tomorrow morning before Judge Epstein at ten o'clock. The nature of the motion is this: The Court is asked to issue, a temporary restraining order directing all policemen who went on strike that they cease that strike. (Here, there were shouts from the audience of "sick, not strike.") Somebody told me a rose by any other name, smells just as sweet. The law is not fooled by the appellation you give this as "sickness". The City Attorney is not fooled by that appellation. The Aldermen are not fooled. You know it is a strike. The Judge will not be fooled. Seventy thousand people who live and work in this City will not be fooled. 6. The second prayer of relief is this: The Court is asked not only to stop. the strike but to have those out on strike report to work or resign. That is the remedy for any policeman in this town, who believes he is aggrieved. He should not call en -masse claiming to be sick. The notice of tomorrow's court proceeding right now is on its way to every police officer involved. As I speak to you now, there are thirty-four police officers, who have failed to perform the duty they swore to uphold, on the premise they are sick. I have also served notice of the motion upon Mr. Loevy and Mr. Flood, and telegrams were sent on the way to the thirty-four officers. I make the statement now as a matter of public record - that there will be a hearing tomorrow. There will be there as many of you defendants as wish to attend. We welcome you there. We are wishing to join issue with you as whether you have the right to have done what you have. We have done that and we are ready. I told you the last time ;when we spoke, this City Council will meet you with every legal tool at its disposal. That gives you the essence of my report. Anybody in the audience who wishes to speak can speak. If Officer Flood speaks, it will be with the understanding that this is not recognition 'of the Cook County Policeman's Association and not as representative of anyone on our police force.. The Cook County Policemen's 7. Association recognizes only one thing - strikes, and the threat of strike. As long as it remains that kind of organiza- tion, this City Council will not deal with Mr. Flood or Mr. Loevy or anybody espousing such a doctrine. That strike concenpt is what is at the heart of this problem. And many have lost sleep, worrying about what would happen. I suggest that in a matter of such importance anybody with anything to say should be heard. MR. JOHN FLOOD: I would like to address the City Council. CHAIRMAN ERITCKETT: You have permission to address us. MR. JOHN FLOOD: First of all, Mr. Di Leonardi, when you state the case, you should bring out fully what has transpired. In the City of Des Plaines, the police officers find themselves to be compelled to work by a Court Order because they cannot have fair labor practice relationships, and if it goes through, it will be the first time in the State of Illinois, that police officers were forced to work. The City is threatening to put them in jail.. They are not giving them the fair representation they enjoy by law. If we were under the National Labor Relations Act, there would be no question the things the police officers have requested would be granted to them. Covered by the proposed State legislation, there would be no question that what they wanted would be granted to them. 8. Mr. Di Leopardi, you should make the public aware that you and the Mayor sat down and proposed an agreement and we accepted that agreement.. You said you would bring that forth. In that agreement, the Cook County Police Association was given authority in its entirety. It was not for a year. We went through every area we could possibly go into. You asked us to vote in an election. We won it forty-eight to two. Subsequently, between the time you made that and the time you presented it, we gave you the "No -Strike" clause. We would give it to any community, if you bargain in good faith. You want to suppress the policeman. You say if you do not work, you will be under a Court Order. It is a shame when you have to compel men to work by law. The last time they did it, they called it slavery. OFFICER ORNBERG: There was one other thing. I have seen nothing in writing. I have heard there is a special notice } which is being served upon the men at this time, is that correct? MR. DI LEONARDI: When you are through, I will respond. MR. ORNBERG: I would like an answer to that question. MR. DI LEONARDI: The answer is that the City has taken into consideration every possible legal remedy at its disposal. I would be less than candid, if I told you one of the things we have been considering was that the policemen who refused to work without cause will be suspended. It may happen. It is one of our lawful remedies. MR. LOEVY: I am the attorney for the Cook County Police Association. Rather than threatening the Des Plaines policemen not working tonight, rather than threatening them with puttimg them in jail, would it not be more intelligent on the part of your officials to sit down and negotiate to reach a settlement and we make the request tonight. We would like to hear your response. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: The answer is no because the Mayor is not present. MR. LOEVY: I would be remiss if I failed to point out that it is unthinkable that something as important as this should be decided by a shake of the head of a non -elected official. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: The City Attorney is through with discussions with you and I do not think we can. resolve anything here tonight, as far as the question is concerned. MRS. CYNTHIA LANG: I am a citizen of the City. There are speeches of imperilling the City, but you avoid the issues at every turn. You turn them down at City Council Meetings and say you will take it up at the next time. Just because the Mayor is not here, we do not see any reason why it cannot be decided tonight. MR. DI LEONARDI: A couple of weeks ago, the Mayor and I prepared something in the nature of a general statement of the City's position on the entire matter. This is a most appropriate time to read that statement. However, in doing so, we do not expect to convince those in the audience who have been so pointed in their views tonight. The City's position is: 10. First, the issue is not whether the policemen have a right to organize by affiliating with the Cook County Police Association or any other labor organization. Public employees have that right. We recognize that. Secondly, the issue is not whether the City refuses to recognize any organization representing its employees. Rather, the City's position is to the contrary. We have in the past recognized such groups. We do now with the Public Works employees. Thirdly, the issue is not whether the City reoognizes that policemen are entitled to further benefits. The City has not only recognized this, but has done everything in its power to fulfill that condition. Theyhave given substantial increases. Fourth, the issue is not whether there should be grievance procedures. The City has had these procedures within the Department and under the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners for many years. To our knowledge, no policeman ever disclosed any dissatisfaction with any present grievance machinery. Maybe, Mr. Flood or Mr. Loevy can tell us what they want in the area of "grievances". MR. FLOOD: We indicated what we were after and what we were seeking was representation of the men duly elected and we have standing to represent the men before this City with grievances. MR. DI LEONARD': Mr. Loevy, is there any grievance or lack of grievance machinery at the moment? MR. LOEVY: What disturbs us at the moment is the elected membership would not have representation. 11 MR. DI LEONARDI: The answer is "No", am I correct? MR. LOEVY: You asked me a question. If I get you right, you were asking a question. In fairness to this Council, they do not know the facts. MR. DI LEONARDI: Just be fair. MR. LOEVY: I will. You indicated what the position of the City is. Would you indicate what proposals you made to Mr. Flood, myself and the Mayor and the Executive Board in that same Saturday morning meeting? MR. DI LEONARDI: Yes, I will get to that, but first I wish to finish my statement of the City's position. Fifth, the issue is not if the City should agree to binding arbitration. The City, by law, is unable to do that. Sixth, the issue is not whether the City violates any mandate or law in refusing to deal with the Cook County Police Association. In fact, the City has no express authority to do so at all. Nonetheless, the City has done so with the local Des Plaines Police Association in previous years and is doing so now with the Public Works employees. We remain willing to recognize and deal with any responsible organization, including any representing the policemen. Seventh, the issue is not whether we respect our police- men as individuals. We have the highest regard for the police- men.. Lastly, the issue is not what concessions should be made for a "No Strike" pledge. The policemen do not have and never had the right to strike. It is neither ours nor theirs to give or take away. It wouldseem that we have reached a sad day when we have to horse trade with policemen on whether or not they will violate the law. Mr. Flood knows, and every member knows, 12 policemen do not have the right to strike, and I hope they never have the right to strike; and that has been the hang-up with the Cook County Police Association from the beginning. We said last week and at the meeting of October 25th that if you insert in the Constitution and By -Laws of theCook County Police Association a clause that your organization recognizes the illegality of police strikes and give us a pledge as the parent organization that you will not strike under your Constitution, we will recognize you tomorrow. We gave you that challenge and you have refused to make that change. When you say tonight that strikes are abhorrent and you are against them and that the CCPA is against them, and yet refuse to put such a statement in your By -Laws, and continue to strike in this town and last week in Harvey and in previous weeks in other towns, we can come to no reasonable conclusion but that the Cook County Police Association stands for a strike concept and strike threat. I am not going to mince words. It is a threat to paralyze the safety of an entire community; it is nothing more than that, or nothing less. Some of this has already occurred. Tonight, we have heard shouts about "sick" men. In past weeks we've heard such weasle-wordsas "alternative methods", "preparations for an extreme situations", that "illness was a definite possibility", etc. I think it would do Mr. Flood some good and do you all good to say "We are on strike in the City of Des Plaines,' and the sooner you recognize that the better you will be. MR. LOEVY: May I ask you to read the proposal you made that morning and which was concurred in by the Mayor. Will you then indicate you shook hands and said you would enter into this agreement with everyone in this room. MR. DI LEONARDI: You know there was no agreement reached on that Saturday. If there was, I have no idea what you have in mind. MR. LOEVY: You made the proposal. MR. DI LEONARDI: Do you want me to answer the question? I will read and compare the language of our proposal and our resolution. All of these proposals and answers have come from the City. We have gotten nothing from the Cook County Police Association except your same three demands and criticism of documents we've prepared. There have been no suggested ordinances or proposals from the members of the Cook County Police Association. We've made them all. (Here, Mr. Di Leonardi read the written proposal and the resolution R-17-69.) Let me add this. Part of the reason this Council was even willing to do what it did in passing that resolution was that we were pretty well convinced when you and Mr. John Flood said to us and the. Cook County Police Association said "we will not strike", you meant it. Now, I do not know what the feelings of this Council are about relying on this again. There was never any agreement to reached. There was an agreement reach an agreement concerning 14 these points and the City Council did pass a resolution concerning the different points, and your group rejected it. I say again, your group rejected it. Your group is on strike. This Council has now taken affirmative action to get the public protection covered again because you struck. I think you should respond. I am not going to get in a debate. Whatever value it has, that is the City's position. We cannot shake the dice with the Cook County Police Association on the assumption every time we fail to agree they will threaten to strike and to threaten the public safety of the town. MR. LOEVY: Mr. Di Leonardi, we would be willing, we are willing, and we have always been willing to accept the proposal you made on that Saturday morning meeting in writing over your signature. There were certain changes made in that proposal. They were agreed to by Mr. Behrel and also by us. You cannot deny this. Specifically, you said no agreement would be acceptable unless the Cook County Police Association changed its entire By -Laws. We talked about this for five minutes. Then the Mayor said: "Bob, you are being completely unrealistic" and you said, "You cannot blame me for trying." We walked out with an understanding in substance. With the agreement you proposed, we agreed and we thought we had now an understanding. We reached another. If there was going to be any change, it would have to be submitted to us first. It to was agreed by Mr. Di Leonardi and by the Mayor. We would be contacted. Ten days later, or perhaps six days later, we were presented with the Resolution which was completely different in 15 our judgment from that presented that morning. If there was no difference at all, they should go back to the original resolution. You prepared it over your signature. It should be submitted to this Council. If they agree, we will have no problem. It was you who changed your mind. We were not given even the courtesy of seeing it. By the way, we did not find it out directly. He read it over the telephone. I indicated my dissatisfaction over the phone. You have literally refused to talk to me, as counsel for these men. You have refused to talk to Mr. Flood, President by a vote of forty-eight to two and you refused to talk to anybody connected with the Cook County Police Association. If that resolution were to be adopted by this Board in its entirety, the resolution over your signature with those points, and if paseed, there will be no problem. Are you willing to submit that to this Board because you did agree to do that on that morning. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: This Council will not agree to that without the changes made. MR. LOEVY: Did Mr. Di Leonardi tell you at the time, if there is any changes, we would be contacted and we would be in for more meetings. MR. DI LEONARDI: We are getting into things here now, where you have a better recollection than I do and perhaps some where I recollect better than you. There was no resolution submitted on the 25th. There was an outline of major points we were willing to agree to. It is my judgment and that of every member here despite the fact it came up for discussion, I think with minor changes, the substance over my signature was adopted in resolution form by this Council and rejected by the Cook County Police Association. We will not get far by our saying you reneged, and you saying we reneged. The fact is that we are here now a month later faced with a police strike, and the best evidence that these policemen are not really sick is what transpired tonight, it is a strike, pure and simple; a concerted, planned refusal to go to work because our City Council has not recognized the Cook County Police Association. I say it is in the hands of the Circuit Court. The Court could find the policemen are justified. The Court may find the other way. It seems to me we should let it rest there and not suppose what the Court will be doing. MR. LOEVY: If there is anything firmly implanted in the minds of your employees, your policemen, it is that they could not deal honestly any longer with the municipal officers of this City. They sat down and reached a satisfactory agreement. We took it back and recommended it to the members. They accepted it. There was a different resolution which they rejected. If he said the only changes were those lacking substance, I suggest to solve the problem, they be passed. Obviously, 17 he recognizes these are really ones of substance. He told our Chapter Officers and Mr. Flood and the Mayor said they were willing to recognize us providing we entered into a no -strike clause. We agreed. The plicemen do not believe in the municipal officers. Let me address myself to one other point. The City Council may be misled. Let it rest in the Circuit Court, he says. He is making a decision to have the Courts be involved in a matter between the policemen and the municipal officers of the City of Des Plaines. He has made a judgment not consistent with the judgment of the other con wunities, The reason was stated or not; but no circumstances should be required to have a police officer carrying his weapons under a Court Order requiring him to do so by a Judge. This is what the real issue is. Other communities realize that these questions can be worked out. You have made another decision. I think it can have no other effect but to have a detriment to the police force of this community. ALDERMAN BONAGUIDI: I have a question to ask you, Mr. Loevy. Have you indicated to the Mayor or the City Attorney that your organization would be willing to revise your By -Laws to incorporate the no -strike agreement in the said By -Laws? MR. LOEVY: Ours is an organization that represents over fourteen municipalities, 1750 men. Myself, John Flood, your Des Plabes officers, Evanston men, all are included and could 18 speak for themselves as to what'to do. I have no authority, to state what the men there would do. What we did propose in response was not only would we agree we will not strike in Des Plaines this year, but not strike in Des Plaines ad infinitum and go on the line and do everything within our control to prevent Des Plaines men at any time from going out. We said this with true sincerity. We could not speak for the men in Evanston or Wilmette. When we suggested this to the. Mayor after haggling back and forth, the Mayor said you are right, how can we propose you discuss or direct what your men in other communities are going to do. At this point Bob Di Leonardi said well, you cannot blame me for trying to do it. We are not only willing to not strike now, but in the future. ALDERMAN BONAGUIDI: But, you are striking now. Cannot you amend by voting after putting it to the members? MR. LOEVY: We will ask every member to vote on this. It will be done by secret ballot. CHAIRMAN PRICKETT: Put it to your membership. ALDERMAN BONAGUIDI: Who authorized the strike in the City of Des Plaines? MR. LOEVY: There was none by the parent organization in the City of Des Plaines. I think what this City Council should do is to consider the kind of situation that it has created. I do not believe it is done by people from the outside. 19 The kind of situation created when ninety to ninety-five percent of the patrolmen call in sick on a given night you are aware of this. We gave no order. We have no power or authority. But, consider the situation where you have ninety to ninety-five percent of patrolmen calling in sick. I do not think it is fair or right to point the finger at Mr. Flood or myself, which is the suggestion you have made. What about the problem when your patrolmen have so little confidence in your officials that such a thing can happen. The answer rests with you. They asked to have an organization to represent them. I think it would do well to allow them to be represented as they wish. ALDERMAN BONAGUIDI: Apparently, we do not have a strike, but is a lawful work stoppage because the men are "sick". The Cook County Police Association is a doctor not a makesman in this Council Chambers. VIII?r tilt MI r r