T o w n o f C h i l m a r k P e r s o n n e l B o a r d
Approved December 11, 2008
M i n u t e s
Thursday December 4th, 2008
Chilmark Town Hall
8:00 am
Present: Max McCreery (Chair), Jennie Greene, Susan Heilbron, Stephen Lewenberg, Polly McDowell (Staff Liaison)
Also Present: J.B. Riggs Parker (Selectman), Tim Carroll (Executive Secretary), Chuck Hodgkinson, Marina Lent (Secretary), Melanie Becker (Treasurer)
Melanie Becker requested to be put on the agenda of the next Personnel Board meeting. She explained that she would like to raise the question of maintaining a level-funded budget by issuing paychecks once a month or every two weeks, instead of weekly, as is currently the case.
Max McCreery asked if one of the Board members would like to meet with Melanie Becker prior to the next meeting to gather information on the subject. Susan Heilbron will do so.
Retirement of Police Chief Tim Rich Max McCreery brought to the Board’s attention a letter from Police Chief Timothy Rich announcing his retirement as of 1 July 2009. Max noted that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) had not yet had a chance to meet and discuss this important development, and that the Personnel Board will not address the upcoming hiring process at this time. However he wished to express, on behalf of the Personnel Board, his great appreciation for the quality of the service to the Town rendered by Chief Rich, and the positive and constructive relationship of the Police Department with the Personnel Board. He requested that Marina Lent draft a letter to this effect.
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Jennie Greene reported on deliberations on this matter by Max McCreery, herself, and Chuck Hodgkinson. They had considered various options to address the question of the COLA in the context of the level-funded budget called for by the BOS. Agreement had been reached that seasonal positions should not receive a COLA in the FY’10 budget. In addition, they would like to recommend that year-round positions receive the 4.7% COLA on the first $30K of their salaries, but not on salary above that.
The working group had felt strongly that jobs and benefits should be protected. They had also tried to protect the integrity of the COLA formula, while still trying to realize some savings. The full COLA of 4.7% will cost the Town $82K which will require painful cuts in other areas. The limited COLA proposed by the working group would cost $31K.
Polly McDowell suggested that a smaller COLA granted equally to all staff members would be more equitable. She also pointed out that people who have maxed out on step increases and earn more than $30K would bear a disproportionate burden.
Stephen Lewenberg noted that this proposal represents a major change in the Town’s established compensation plan. He asked for guidance from the BOS. Jennie Greene pointed out that the BOS has already given guidance and had asked for a level-funded budget in FY’10.
Selectman Riggs Parker welcomed the healthy discussion, and affirmed that the BOS has called for a level-funded budget which he acknowledged is difficult to achieve. What formula will achieve the goal of level-funding for the Town budget as a whole remains to be seen. The BOS will have review the entire budget to assess how best to achieve this goal. He stressed the extreme seriousness of the economic recession facing us in the coming year. The Town was not cutting staff, but he felt strongly about not asking taxpayers to pay any more than last year, and said that he personally would not be able to recommend any increase in the Town budget. The Town may choose to vote a tax increase for itself, including granting a full COLA to all Town employees, but that will not be on his recommendation to the Selectmen.
Susan Heilbron asked for clarification of the role of the Personnel Board in this situation: while the Personnel Board has the responsibility to recommend the level of a COLA, is it the Personnel Board’s responsibility to say whether a COLA should be granted or not? Riggs Parker affirmed that the Personnel Board can and should recommend what it deems best. However, the BOS ultimately decides these questions.
Chuck Hodgkinson pointed out that we now have very clear directions from the BOS, via a memo from Executive Secretary Tim Carroll sent to Departments on 12/3/2008. He noted that this memo had not been available to the working group to guide its deliberations, and that perhaps we would be best to follow the clear directions outlined in the memo.
Personnel Board members felt that more detailed information on various elements of staffing costs is required in order to formulate sound recommendations. Chuck Hodgkinson emphasized that members should agree on a set of questions to put to Town Accountant Tom Wilson, and assign one person to do so, rather than having numerous people inundate him with similar questions.
Members determined to ask for the following:
· Cost of the working group’s proposal, based on today’s COLA figures;
· Cost of step increases;
· Cost of step increases plus the $4.7% COLA across the board;
· Cost of 4.7% COLA without step increases and without a COLA for seasonal positions.
Jennie Greene agreed to lead the discussion on the COLA at the next Personnel Board meeting.
Library Assistant Position: Ebba Hierta came to the Personnel Board requesting that the Board reconsider the impact on the Library budget of its recent recommendation to re-grade the Library Assistant’s position from a Grade 3 to a Grade 5 in light of the level-funding requirement. The Library Trustees had accepted the re-grade to a Grade 5, rather than Grade 4. The BOS, however, had pointed out that such a steep Grade increase would necessitate corresponding budget cuts in other areas, and suggested that the Personnel Board could review the re-grading recommendation in the light of current budgetary constraints.
Jennie Greene pointed out that the original job description had been listed as a “seasonal Grade 3”, which is really “year-around Grade 4”. Ebba Hierta concurred, stating that she intended to come back to the board in the future to address the issue of seasonal vs. year-around Library Assistants.
She emphasized, however, that leaving the position at a Grade 3 would place her at a significant disadvantage with respect to other libraries, who are hiring at Grade 4 rates. This would make it very difficult for her to attract qualified summer employees. She suggested that the Personnel Board could upgrade both the seasonal and year-around staff to a Grade 4, and that she would return to the Board at some point in the future to address the problems inherent in the differential rate of step increases between the seasonal and year-round positions.
Jennie Greene pointed out, however, that the current disequilibrium between seasonal and regular pay rate increases has created a situation in which seasonal staff is paid more than the year-around person for the exact same position. This constitutes discrimination, and puts the Town in a vulnerable position.
A MOTION to re-grade the year-around, permanent Library Assistant position to a Grade 4 was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ebba Hierta stated that this could result in losing staff to other libraries. Riggs Parker noted that, in a serious recession such as we are currently facing, it should not be difficult to attract staff. Ebba Hierta noted that Grade 5 for the year-around, as previously approved by the Personnel Board, would allow the seasonal staff to be graded at Grade 4, which would solve the issue of differential pay. Tim Carroll noted that this was a good example of the kinds of hard choices we will all have to make: if the Director of a Department can accommodate large increases in staff pay within a level-funded budget, it is all very well to call for such increases. But that may not be possible without cutting other staff or services.
The Board reviewed the pay differentials, and a MOTION to maintain the Grade 3 for the seasonal Library Assistant position was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ebba Hierta called for a comprehensive review of the compensation scale, noting that her seasonal Library Assistants are being paid less than the seasonal beach staff for a job that requires considerably more hard work and training. Members agreed that the compensation plan needs to be reviewed.
Ebba Hierta also noted that the timing of setting our COLA makes the work of producing a budget extremely difficult, and she suggested that we set our COLA based on earlier data.
Personnel Board members reiterated their strong appreciation for the high quality of the Chilmark Library.
Board of Health (BOH) Position Description Jennie Greene noted that the Personnel Board has already approved in principle the BOH position description as drafted by the Board of Health. She has reformated the position description and had made it available to the Personnel Board at the November 20th meeting. However, the Board of Health has not yet formally reviewed the reformatted position description, so the Personnel Board will hold off on final approval of that draft until its January meeting.
Clarification of Personnel Board Procedure Susan Heilbron, who had not been present at the last Personnel Board meeting, requested clarification of the “15 minute rule” and “completed staff work”. Max explained the concept of assigning specific time-frames to agenda items to focus the Board’s discussions—perhaps this could be known as the “Minute Limit Rule”, as the number of minutes allocated varies according to the agenda item. As for “completed staff work”, it was explained that this refers to work assignments undertaken by Board members who agree to prepare an item and lead the discussion on it. Doing more of the work outside the meetings and considering a near-completed product rather than starting with a blank page would make the Board
meetings more productive.
Procedure Manual Stephen Lewenberg suggested that members each prepare an index for the Procedure Manual, so that the drafting could then be assigned to members. Susan Heilbron noted that she and Chuck had already made inroads on that task by culling from the draft bylaw what more appropriately belongs in the Procedure Manual; however, Stephen Lewenberg noted that items lifted from the draft bylaw did not necessarily constitute a comprehensive procedure manual.
Meeting Dates: The next meeting of the Personnel Board will be on Thursday, December 11th at 1pm.
Minutes of November 20th adopted as amended.
Preparation of Upcoming Items Max McCreery introduced a rolling agenda item under which members would flag issues for future work such as the review of the compensation plan. This would allow the Board to plan for allocation of the items to individual members for preparation and to lead the discussion. The Personnel Board could then also determine a timetable for addressing such issues. He encouraged members to bring a list of future issues for the Board to address to the next meeting. Tim Carroll noted that Board members would have to prepare a warrant article prior to the January meeting if they wished to have funding for a compensation plan study.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31am.
| 
