Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mou Budget Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police commissioners debate MOU with Rochester City Council over who controls officer counts in budget
Summary
At a meeting of the Rochester Police Commission, Commissioner Grama urged renegotiating the 2013 memorandum of understanding with Rochester City Council, arguing the MOU conflicts with city charter sections 24–25 and limits the commission's authority to set the number of sworn officers; the city manager defended the MOU as a clarifying agreement and commissioners debated possible renegotiation steps.
The Rochester Police Commission debated whether to renegotiate a 2013 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Rochester City Council after Commissioner Grama said the agreement has been treating the commission's police budget "like any other budget," in his view undercutting the commission's charter authority to set the number of sworn officers.
Grama told the commission he wanted the record to show that the department requested six additional officers in the chief's budget and that the commission should formally request renegotiation of the MOU so the commission's position on staffing would be clear. "What they have basically done is say ... we don't care what you said," Grama said, arguing the MOU conflicts with the plain reading of city charter sections 24 and 25.
The city manager, invited to respond, said the MOU was intended to clarify areas of ambiguity in the charter and that honoring MOUs helps ensure continuity and stability across administrations. "The intention of the MOU itself was to mutually agree upon clarifying those areas where that was lacking," the city manager said, adding that the city continues to fund recruitment and retention needs where feasible within the local tax cap.
Other commissioners and the chief discussed practical constraints, including the city's tax‑cap requirement and the difficulty of filling positions. The chair and others said they supported reexamining the MOU but were reluctant to adopt a six‑month hard deadline proposed by Grama for renegotiation. A motion to continue the present agreement for six months while renegotiating it was proposed and seconded but, after discussion, the chair said he preferred to reopen the document without imposing a strict timeline and no formal six‑month motion was adopted that night.
Commissioners also debated whether certain civilian positions should be designated as ex officio constables under state RSA provisions so they would fall under commission oversight for line‑item control. Grama cited RSA 106‑B as supporting the idea that police employees can be ex officio constables and proposed drafting a policy naming positions (animal control, dispatch, crime analyst, evidence technician) for discussion. The chief and other commissioners noted RSA 105‑2a and the charter language that give the chief day‑to‑day operational control of employees, and they agreed to review legal language and possibly obtain updated legal advice before any change.
Outcome and next steps: commissioners agreed to review the MOU and meet with council/mayor staff to discuss concerns; the specific six‑month continuation motion was not adopted on the record. The commission also indicated it would consider legal opinions and follow up discussions with the mayor and city manager before taking formal action.
Context: The debate centers on the interplay of the city charter (sections 24–25), state RSA provisions cited during discussion, and the MOU that has governed budget interactions since 2013. Commissioners expressed consistent support for increasing sworn staffing but differed on how to balance that goal with tax‑cap constraints and municipal budgeting practice.
What happens next: The chair said he would reach out to the mayor and city manager and the commission will revisit the topic, potentially seeking updated legal analysis and negotiating language that clarifies roles without disrupting budget processes.
