By Katie Farrell
NEWBURYPORT — Mayor John Moak said he may go before the City Council to ask it to reconsider its rejection of two new police contracts.
Councilors voted 8-3 to reject transferring $10,218 for the new patrolmen and superior officers' contracts, saying they will not take action on any union contracts until they see movement from the unions on a new health care plan. The unions voted against joining the state's Group Insurance Commission in October and have not yet voted on a proposal to join a new tiered program by Blue Cross Blue Shield. The unions also voted against joining the GIC last year.
Moak, who was on vacation Monday and not at the meeting, said the contracts were negotiated "in good faith" by the city and the police and were "fair and equitable."
"Our contracts have been very conservative over the last few years," Moak said, which is why the city has been able to stabilize its finances.
Moak said he may approach the City Council and formally ask them to reconsider its vote but had not made any decisions yet.
"I was concerned it didn't go to Budget and Finance (subcommittee)," Moak said, adding that has been the council's protocol on financial documents. The subcommittee reviews the material and makes a recommendation to the full council.
The city's Public Employees Committee, the group of union representatives overseeing negotiations on the health care plan options, has not yet provided the mayor with a date on when a vote on joining the Blue Cross/Blue Shield program will occur.
"They are not ready to vote yet," Moak said.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield new tiered program is a "unique plan," and if Newburyport joins, it will be among the first municipalities in the state to do so, the mayor added.
"I am not panicking about this vote," Moak said, adding that the city would like to see a vote this fall in order to fully move into the program later this year.
Ward 2 Greg Earls said yesterday the city must rein in costs like the private sector is doing, pointing to the debt exclusion proposal that was defeated by voters at the polls earlier this month.
The vote was not taken with malice but with an eye toward the city's finances, Earls said.
The city has good employees, and the council's actions are not a reflection on them, Earls said.
"Do I feel bad? Yes, but you can't vote with emotion," Earls said. "I hope there is no ill will."
