skip to Main Content

4th Annual MCSPBA Golf Tournament

August 1st, 2011
Shadow Lake

(1850 Five Mile Line Road, Penfield NY)

>>> (click image for flyer)

Scramble Format. Shotgun start at noon.

$100 per person includes: greens fees plus cart, lunch and buffet dinner.

**Sponsorship Opportunities Available!**
Contact Joe Bates at 509-5631 or

All proceeds to benefit Anna’s Wish (

Email Greg Woodworth with your foursome (



TO THE MEMBERSHIP – – – – – – – – – – – May 20, 2011

The following is an update on current issues:

DMV Record
We have received inquiries regarding car insurance companies obtaining information when you are involved in a MVA at work which may, in turn, affect your premiums. In researching this (ref: Kabir case), any police officer involved in a line of duty motor vehicle accident should use a standard accident report form (MV-104). 

However, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 605(a)(4), accidents occurring while a police officer or firefighter are responding to an emergency are not to be included on the driver’s DMV abstract unless he or she was found to have violated the Penal or Vehicle and Traffic Law or to have been grossly negligent.

In order to help ensure that the accident is correctly coded by DMV, the narrative portion of the report should include the following language:  “This accident occurred in a police (or fire) vehicle owned/operated by (fill in name of agency or department) while responding to an emergency.”

If the police officer is not responding to an emergency, it goes on their record just as with any other driver at work. If the officer is responding to an emergency, then it should not be listed on their record, as long as the accident report indicates such.

If you were responding to an emergency and the accident is listed on your DMV record, we can attempt to contact DMV and get the accident(s) removed. 

We have just had an issue with time frames on positions in specialized assignments. The Chief felt that management has the authority to exclude timeframes on a specialized assignment. Additionally, they have the ability to pull the member out of the assignment when they see fit. This causes obvious hardships on the member in regards to personal schedules.

The board has brought it to management’s attention that the contract states, “In the case of specialized assignments, the posting shall include the duration of the assignment, if applicable.” Our feeling is that if the position is a temporary assignment, then it is applicable. Although timeframes have been put in the Chief’s minutes or on the roster sheets, this does not dismiss that the timeframe may not have been indicated to the member before he/she put in for the position.

Current postings that occurred in 2008, GRANET Sergeant and the Community Services Sergeant, were posted with no timeframe. After those vacancies were filled, the Chief implemented a 3 year term for those positions. Management felt it was their right to be able to pull those Sergeants after 3 years or when they desire. Historical practice for the Granet position has been anywhere up to 7 years. The union board feels that if the member does not have a specific time assigned to their position, management can use that against them as leverage to possibly flex their work hours or work days, when they wouldn’t have to do so.

I notified the Chief about those previous postings and the union’s stance with posting timeframes on future specialized assignment postings. The Chief decided that he was going to extend those previous positions to four years b/c those individuals were not told of the timeframe when they put in for the position, the members involved and I believed that this was fair. The next postings for those positions will have the timeframe indicated on it before the member decides to post for it.

The understanding is that if the term is going to be 3 years, then it needs to be written on the posting. This will prevent possible hardships on a member and his/her family, not knowing when they may have to switch work days and hours in the future. Additionally, management will not have the ability to use leverage on a member with the possibility that the member will be removed from his/her assignment if they do not cooperate.

If specialized assignment postings come out in the future that you are interested in, make sure there is a timeframe indicated. Contact your rep with details of the posting immediately.

Board Vacancy
Second Vice President, Scott Stauber has chosen to resign from his position on the union board. Scott has explained that he has a lot on his plate currently and feels as if he can’t give the union work the attention that is needed. We thank Scott for his hard work and dedication while serving on the union board. His resignation will take effect on 06-04-11.

According to the bylaws, the board has the right to fill this position until the next annual meeting. Second Vice President, Scott Stauber’s position would have been up for election at the end of September, 2011. This is when the election will take place to fill the 2 year term of Second Vice President.

The board has elected to select Sergeant Jeff Delgudico to temporarily replace Scott Stauber as Second Vice President. Since Sergeants are another unit of our membership that isn’t currently on the union board, it is our feeling that a Sergeant would be a benefit to serve on the union board. We asked Sergeant Delgudico to accept this role because he has been a union member that attends all union meetings and functions, is well liked and respected by his peers. Sergeant Delgudico has also proved himself in his ability to make rational decisions when needed; he has a vested interest in the next contract and is a good communicator. We appreciate Sergeant Delgudico’s acceptance of this position on such short notice. Please extend your gratitude to him when you see him.

Investigator Sergeant Position
I announced at our last rep meeting that I intended to take the next Investigator Sergeant civil service test. As a reminder, I took myself off the civil service list last time because of the issue whether the Inv. Sgt. Position would stay as an Investigator position or would the union fight to have it eliminated. I felt that I needed to be independent and did not want it to be seen by the membership that I had a vested interest in which way the vote would go. The majority of the membership voted to keep the position as an Investigator position. There is no union issue with the position now, so to prevent other Investigators with significantly less time than me as an Investigator to be promoted as my supervisor, I have chosen to take the test coming up and I have been transparent about it.

As always, feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.

MCSPBA Union President
Investigator Greg Woodworth
585 509-5601

Back To Top