A newly released report shows the city of Akron and its police union are at an impasse over proposed pay raises in the union’s collective bargaining agreement.
The contract expired on Dec. 31, 2024, and the city and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #7 have continued negotiations ever since. After failing to reach an agreement on several provisions, the city and union went into the fact-finding process, in which an independent attorney heard arguments from both sides and issued recommendations.
The FOP asked for 9% raises this year, then 6% raises in both 2026 and 2027.
The city proposed a 3% raise each year for the next three years, citing budget concerns.
This, and other disagreements, are spelled out in the fact-finder’s report, which Akron City Council rejected last week. Ideastream Public Media obtained the report through a public records request.
Following council’s 11 to 2 vote Friday, the matter now goes to another level of mediation called conciliation. An independent conciliator from the State Employment Relations Board will make a final decision.
What does the report show?
The 33-page report details several provisions upon which city officials and union members disagree. The independent fact-finder, Columbus-based attorney Meeta Bass, heard arguments from city and union attorneys and developed the report with her recommendations.
In voting down the report, Akron City Council was particularly concerned over the proposed raises, Council President Margo Sommerville said.
The report found the Akron Police Department has, on average, lower salaries than departments in the biggest metropolitan cities in the state except Canton.
The FOP’s suggested increases would put Akron fifth, ahead of Dayton and just under Toledo, according to the report.
Bass suggested a compromise: a 5% raise this year, followed by 4.5% in both 2026 and 2027.
That proposal, if implemented, would lead to more than 100 job cuts in the coming years, Akron Director of Finance Steve Fricker said in a Tuesday news release.
“The fact-finder’s recommendations would have required the City to find new revenue sources, deplete our general fund, or make deep cuts across departments, including public safety, in order to balance the budget,” Fricker said. “We would be facing fiscal caution by 2027 with less than 30 days cash on hand and by 2029, would need to cut between 100-180 city jobs. The recommendations are not a sustainable path forward for our residents or our workforce.”
The wage increases would put the city’s overall financial health at risk, Mayor Shammas Malik added.
“The recommended terms of the fact-finder's report are financially untenable and would create unsustainable cost obligations, jeopardize staffing and service levels across all departments and put the City’s short and long-term fiscal health at risk,” Malik said in the release.
The police union supported the fact-finder’s report and approved it last week. Members of the police union packed the city council meeting Monday night, with several criticizing council members for rejecting the report.
FOP President Brian Lucey called out the mayor for not supporting the police department.
“After last Friday, now 11 of you also share some of that responsibility,” Lucey said. “Akron needs leadership that prioritizes public safety and values its employees, so for those of you using police as a political talking point, stop doing it unless you are going to act on your word.”
The proposed wage increases would ensure the police department can recruit and retain officers, said Lt. Matthew Whitmire, a member of the FOP who spoke at Monday's meeting.
“Every single major metropolitan city in the state of Ohio makes more than Akron police officers,” Whitmire said. “I want my officers to be fairly compensated for the violent work that they have to encounter every day.”
Council President Sommerville said she supports the police department but voted against the report because the city can’t afford the changes.
“This is not, about, you know, not valuing [officers] or not appreciating them or their service. You know, I wish that we could be able to provide our police officers top dollar, our firefighters top dollar, and every city worker top dollar because they do deserve it,” Sommerville said. “It's difficult to get there overnight, particularly when we're facing all of the financial uncertainties that we're facing currently right now.”
Sommerville hopes both parties can find a compromise in the conciliation process.
“I don't know if 3% was the right number, you know, we can't negotiate that,” Sommerville added. “What I am hopeful for, you know, within this next stage of conciliation that we can find, you know, the middle ground.”
Council members took issue with management rights, chief responsibilities
Councilmember Donnie Kammer, who also voted against the report, said he was concerned about the city’s budget as well but took more issue with a different provision. He felt, based on the presentation given to council members in executive session ahead of the vote Friday, that the administration and police chief would have more power to reassign officers under the fact-finder’s recommendations.
“The chief has the authority to say, like, let's say someone's working in the 911 dispatch center … he has the right to say ‘No, you're going to go out here on patrol,’” Kammer said of a proposed change. “I'm pretty shocked that the union supported that part.”
The city proposes changes to the ‘management rights’ section of the contract, according to the report.
Officials want to add language stating the administration has the “exclusive right … to lay off, transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees, and to maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations; to effectively manage the workforce; and to take actions to carry out the mission of the City as a governmental unit,” according to the report.
While the union opposes that change, the fact-finder ultimately agreed with the city, adding that other comparable jurisdictions have adopted “broader management rights language” using the same phrasing.
Kammer also disagreed with the city’s suggestion to allow the police chief to bypass seniority bidding and have discretion to assign officers in the Office of Professional Standards and Accountability, which investigates citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents.
The fact-finder ultimately agreed with the union’s pushback to this change and suggested keeping the current language.
The city and union also disagree over frequency of paychecks and direct deposit, according to the report. The city proposed requiring direct deposit for paychecks and that officers will be paid twice a month instead of weekly. The fact-finder agreed with the city and suggested this change begin in July 2026 to allow employees time to adjust.
