UPDATED 10/7/24 9:40PM: To note the Council approved the contract Monday night and to include comment from Springfield HR/Labor Relations Director Mahoney.

Pearl Street’s supervisors reached a deal with the city this time. (WMP&I)

On Monday, Springfield city councilors will consider a negotiated contract with the Springfield Police Supervisors Association (SPSA)—a contrast from the terms a state panel imposed last year. The new pact ostensibly addresses inadequacies both city officials and the supervisors had identified in the arbitration award.

The contract includes higher raises than what the Joint Labor-Management Committee (JLMC) handed down to cover the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The new deal also lengthens the window during which supervisors can be charged for discipline, putting them on the same footing as rank-and-file cops.

The city’s labor relations director said the new agreement settled lingering matters from the Department of Justice settlement. The SPSA could not be reached for comment.

The mayor—or his designee—is the city’s bargaining agent under state law. Yet, a labor agreement requires Council approval if it includes financial obligations. As a practical matter, almost every contract between the city and one of its bargaining units has a monetary dimension.

Hence, the Council reviews and approves—or rejects—all bargaining agreements. Rejection forces the parties to bargain anew for the period the contract covers.

Just over 10 months ago, the JLMC ordered the parties to accept a pact with 3% annual raises. It also added language in the contract that allowed for provisions of the police department’s consent decree with the federal government.

Although both parties were required to support the pact, including before the Council, City Hall sources said then supervisors were hoping for better raises. The 3% raise the JLMC awarded was lower than the 3.75% raise the patrolmen’s International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 364 had negotiated.

Root canals yield more excitement than SPSA head Capt. Brian Keenan could muster for the JLMC pact last year. (still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

Several councilors had also wanted to see the charging window, then 90 days, expanded to the same length as the IBPO window. The patrolmen’s window is and remains 120 days. (Both contracts allow charging beyond the window for late but good-faith discovery of misconduct).

SPSA members either abandoned their subtle push to scuttle the deal or the effort failed. Councilors worried about the window said they would not hold up the agreement with negotiations on a new one imminent. After a delay, the JLMC award passed unanimously on December 4.

The new pact, which runs through June 30, 2028, gives supervisors 3.5% raises annually. It also increases the stipends for Field Officer Training and Performance Evaluation from $1000 to $1500.

In addition to a 120-day window to charge discipline, the city received other concessions from the SPSA. The pact now makes clear that recordings of disciplinary hearings can be handed over to the consent decree’s compliance evaluator. In addition, the city can demand the supervisors wear nametags.

The summary sheet councilors received indicates that this agreement also resolves all issues pertaining to the Force Investigation Team/Unit.

The almost pedantic nature of the concessions the city obtained does fit the more aggressive reputation the SPSA has among Springfield’s four public safety bargaining units. On the other hand, the city HR/Labor Relations Director William Mahoney noted that the parties could not address everything related to the consent decree before the JLMC. The arbitration process only allows each side to present five issues.

“Interest arbitration in Massachusetts limits the parties to 5 issues each, plus wages and duration,” Mahoney wrote in an email. “As we had more than 5 DOJ settlement issues we could only get our top 5 into arbitration. This settlement resolves the remaining DOJ settlement issues with the SPSA.”

Yet, the more substantive impact of the deal could be financial.

The SPSA’s new pact is still lower than patrolmen’s annual raise for July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2024. The IBPO’s rate of raises was partly a response to inflation after the pandemic. Price growth has cooled considerably since. The SPSA’s raises make it likely the patrolmen will receive something similar for new pacts starting from this past July.

It could affect other negotiations, too. City firefighters received only 2.5% during the same timeframe. Partly because public safety union bargaining is subject to JLMC arbitration, Springfield’s negotiations with its four units—the fourth being district fire chiefs—often affect one another.

The cost is not an issue on its face. The city, broadly speaking, emerged from the pandemic fiscally healthy. The budget has not experienced the revenue gyrations that have bedeviled the state. Nor does Springfield rely on weakening commercial property values quite as Boston does.

However, tax bills have become a perennial issue for councilors. Anything that pushes up expenditure—and therefore keeps pressure on property taxes—could attract attention.

Plus, the root of Boston’s problem could come to Springfield. If commercial values remain flat as residential values rise, Springfield could max out how much it can shift the tax levy to commercial taxpayers.