CHILMARK PERSONNEL BOARD MEETING JUNE 29, 2006
CHILMARK TOWN HALL FINAL
CALL TO ORDER: 8:02 AM
PRESENT: Members Jennie Greene, Susan Heilbron, Max McCreery and Richard Williams. Also present: Selectmen’s Liaison Riggs Parker, Executive Secretary Tim Carroll (arrived at 8:10 AM), and Chuck Hodgkinson. Absent: Lois Norton.
Ms. Greene opened the meeting in a fair, open and transparent manner to discuss some issues the Personnel Board (PB) has with the Executive Secretary’s (ES) actions with respect to the advertising and posting of an administrative assistant vacancy in Town Hall. Mr. Parker asked if the PB felt he should leave the room, as he is one of the ES’s supervisors. He added he did not want his presence to compromise the PB’s independence in any way. The Board discussed whether or not it should enter executive session once Mr. Carroll arrives. Ms. Heilbron preferred to keep the meeting open unless the ES requests to enter into executive session. The Board agreed. Ms. Heilbron continued by saying she believes both Mr. Parker and Chuck H. should leave the room because of their
reporting relationships with the ES. The Board agreed and both people left the room.
Mr. Carroll arrived at 8:10 AM. Ms. Greene re-stated her opening comments. The balance of these minutes is drawn from a tape recording of the rest of the meeting. There was discussion and debate on several issues including: 1. Was the advertisement of a reorganized administrative assistant vacancy a violation of the personnel by-laws because the appointing authority (Board of Selectmen-(BOS)) didn’t approve the reorganization? 2. Is the posting of any vacancy notice without the prior approval of the BOS a violation of the personnel by-laws? Can this approval be delegated? 3. Do the flaws in the advertising and posting process require re-advertising? 4. Was the BOS’s decision to go ahead with the interview process, notwithstanding those
flaws, objectionable? 5. Should job descriptions of administrative assistants be specific or general? 6. Historically, Selectmen and their practices have changed over time. Should clear protocol/operating guidelines be drafted? Is there a demand or need for the creation and, then, the policing of such “clear protocol, operating guidelines”? 7. It was agreed that a spirit of cooperation was needed -- while difficult to draft, it could be considered. 8. Should the PB generate letters to either the Executive Secretary or to the BOS, or both?
Mr. Carroll asked what is the jurisdiction of the PB in this matter? If the Selectmen ratified the Executive Secretary’s actions, why does there remain a problem for the PB? He added attention must be paid to the Open Meeting Law, especially relative to ex parte communications via email among PB members. The executive secretary (ES) believes his job description requires him to report to the BOS and respond to their direct supervision and cooperate with the PB. He believes the PB does not have the authority to oversee the management practices of the ES. The personnel Board added they might intervene when they believe the Town’s personnel by-laws have been violated as it is within their authority as specified in the by-law to communicate with the BOS.
After nearly two hours of debate no consensus was reached on how to resolve the issues. It was agreed to continue the discussion at a subsequent PB meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 AM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 
