|
October 1Mth. 19~.
<br />
<br />The following communication was presented by a committee of the firemen:
<br />
<br /> ,This committee, representing the personnel of the portsmouth FireDepartment,
<br />has been r~quested to appear before your honorable body in regards to restoring our salary re-
<br />ductions. The minimum of ll% was the hoseman reduction with the officers at higher percentage,
<br /> ~ng were the rates of pay at that time. C~tains $162.50
<br />dates back to June 1932. The follow~ Hosemen $4.95 per diem, which amounted to $150.00
<br />per month, Engineers $155.00 per. mort h, and
<br />per month.
<br /> Informed of the prospective reduction in the Public Safety DePartments allot=
<br />ment, in the 1937 budget, we are appearing here for due consideration inthls matter. Other ci-
<br />ties, through the State have restored or partly restored the reductions in salaries.
<br /> The firemen of the City of Portsmouth are the only city employee,s that are re-
<br />quired to work more than (8 hours a day, yet we are classed as per diem men and work (2~) hrs.
<br />a day. From a list of ~5OO cities, Portsmouth is the only one that pays Firemen on the per diem
<br />basis. The firemen of Portsmouth work straight through three days or 72 hours, after which we
<br />have 2~ hours off. Even on our day off, we are subject to call for duty. Firemen in other ci-
<br />ties the size of Portsmouth work under better conditions and shorter hours. T~ere is not another
<br />instance of 2~ hour firemen classified on the per diem basis that we know of.
<br /> Hosemen pay in Portsmouth is 18~ ets. per hour as per diem men, or $~.~6 a day
<br />for 2~ hour service.
<br /> There are two classifications in our Fire Department~ The officers are monthly
<br /> men, hosemen and engineers are per diem mem. These conditions do not exist in other fire de -
<br /> nartments and we do not believe it fair that same should be allowed to exist in our department.
<br /> ~e therefore ask this Council to place all firemen on a monthly basis, this will place all men
<br /> on the same footing as far as working conditions are concerned, Hosemen and engineers at pres-
<br /> ent are ~aken off the pay roll for sickness, sometimes caused by exposure, but officers do not
<br /> lose pay when sick.
<br /> The City of Portsmouth does not own a bed, bed linens, bed clothing, or rubber
<br /> clithes for fire fighting, such as are provided by other cities. Firemen of this City have to
<br /> furnish and maintain these materials and furnish them for any substitute the 0bier designates
<br /> to work in his place. These materials are expensive and cause additional hardships on the men
<br /> and is equivalent to a further salary reduction.
<br /> AS the cost of livlnghas, and is still, advancing rapidly, we hope this hono-
<br /> rable council will give our request their earnest and careful consideration, we are,
<br />
<br />Respectfully yours,
<br />
<br />TheFiremen~s Committee."
<br />
<br /> Mr. S. H. Hall was granted privilege .of the floor and spoke in favor of
<br />reques%s of ~he firemen.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Weiseman, same was referred to the 193~ budge~.
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br /> The ~ohool budget for 1937 was presented, and on mo$1on, referred to the 1937
<br />budget.
<br />
<br /> The Compensation reportof the Treasurer, Commissioner of Revenue and Common -
<br />wes~th Attorney, for September, was received, and on motion of Mr. Fox, approved for payment.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Fox stated that at the joint, meeting of the Council and Supervisors, held
<br />this A.M., the Superintendent o~ Ferries said that the launching of the new ferry was set for
<br />October 275h, amd on that date, the regular meeting of the Council will be held. The Superin-
<br />tendent of the Ferries was_ recuested to have the day of the launching changed, and being in -
<br />formed by the Maryland Drydoc~ Company that the invitations had been mailed, motion ~f Mr. Fox
<br />to postpone the regular meeting of the City Council to October 30th, was adopted, and by the
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br /> A~es: Leigh, Fox, Grimes, Howard, Hutchins, Lawrence, Warren,
<br /> ~ Wei~eman, Wilson - 9
<br /> Nays: None.
<br /> the project which included
<br /> The City Manager stated that/the removal of ~he parkwaE on Washing$on St. be-
<br />tween High and LOndon St~,~would h~Ve to be doqe~within'slx months from the date of the Project
<br />and would repeat his recOmm~ndatioh that the sa~ parkway be removed. '
<br />
<br /> Motio~ of Mr. HU~chins that the Manager's recommendation be concurred in, was
<br />adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />~ves: Grimes, Howard, Hutohins, La~rence, Warren, Wilson
<br />Nays: Leigh, Fox, Weiseman - 3
<br />
<br /> Privilege 'of the floor was granted to Mr. J. Lewis Thomas, who spoke against
<br />and %% Mr. LloYd Hughes, who spoke in favor of said removal of parkway.
<br />
<br /> After much discussion, motion of Mr. Lawrance to reoonsid~ the adoptiom of
<br />Mr. Hutchins' motion, was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />A~ves: Leigh,-Fox, Grimes, Howard, Lawrence, Warren, Weiseman, Wilson- 8
<br />Nays: Hutchins - I
<br />
<br /> Mr. Hutchins repeated his motion to concur in the Gt~y Manager's recommenda-
<br />tion to remove ~he parkway from ~ashtng~on St., between High and L~n~ts., which was adopted,
<br />and by ~he following vote:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|