Youngstown must not bend to wage demands by police

We would like to think that the recent 7-0 vote by Youngstown City Council adopting a state fact finder's report on a labor contract between the city and the police was part of a strategy to curry favor with an arbitrator. Otherwise, council's willingness to give police officers raises of 3 percent and 4 percent the next two years suggests a disturbing break with reality.
The reality is that Youngstown government cannot afford the $300,000 to $450,000 price tag for the raises. And the reality is that the fact finder's recommendation for monthly contributions toward health insurance premiums -- zero in the first year, 3 percent in the second year and 4 percent in the third -- are less than the 10 percent management employees now pay.
The fact finder does recommend that police start making the same copayments as management workers for doctors visits, prescription drugs and the like.
While city council was unanimous in its adoption of the report, the Youngstown Police Association, which represents patrol officers, was just as adamant in its rejection: 108-0. No, officers didn't turn it down because they thought it placed too much of a financial burden on the city treasury, or because they believed the health insurance premium copayment plan was too generous, compared with what management must absorb.
Here's what the officers are demanding: 4-percent and 60-cent raises each year and no health insurance contributions.
By contrast, the city sought a wage freeze and 10 percent health insurance copayment.
Police rejection of the fact-finder's report means that the contract will go to binding arbitration.
Public discussion
Given that an arbitrator will ultimately decide how taxpayer dollars are to be spent, Mayor George M. McKelvey and members of city council have an obligation to publicly discuss how far they are willing to go on the issue of wages and copayments.
Last month, the mayor and members of council met for 50 minutes behind closed doors before lawmakers voted in public session to accept the fact-finder's report. What was the reasoning behind the acceptance? Did the mayor remind council that the city has had to weather two years of deficits and will struggle this year to make ends meet? Did anyone bring up the issue of the other unions expecting to get what the police officers are granted?
Answers to these and other such questions have not been forthcoming because McKelvey and city council have wrapped a cloak of secrecy around the negotiations. The people's business must be conducted in the open. Taxpayers have a right to know if the mayor and council are being responsible stewards of the public treasury.
Two months ago, McKelvey said publicly that the city had no money for raises and urged the police to accept a wage freeze. The fact-finder recommended a freeze in the first year only, a far cry from what the mayor was proposing.
Yet, city council voted to accept the report and the 7 percent increase in wages in the second and third years in it.
What gives?