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 January 8, 2009
M i n u t e s
Thursday December 11th, 2008
Chilmark Town Hall
13:02
Present: Max McCreery (Chair), Jennie Greene, Stephen Lewenberg, Polly McDowell (Staff Liaison)
Also Present: J.B. Riggs Parker (Selectman), Tim Carroll (Executive Secretary), Chuck Hodgkinson, (Coordinator of Administrative Support), Marina Lent (Personnel Board Secretary), Melanie Becker (Treasurer), Pam Bunker (Assistant Assessor), Rodney Bunker (Custodian), Martina Mastromonaco (Tri-Town Ambulance Coordinator, Beach Supervisor), Kristin Maloney (Assistant Library Director), Jonathan Klaren (Sergeant, Police Department)
Absent: Susan Heilbron
Weekly vs. bi-weekly Payroll: Melanie Becker explained that she would like to address the question of possible cost savings to the Town by issuing paychecks every two weeks instead of weekly. She asked that the Personnel Board consider the impact on staff, and make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
Max McCreery noted that this issue had been dealt with in the not-so-distant past, and that a primary reason for deciding to issue weekly paychecks is the hardship it imposes on the seasonal staff, in that seasonal workers could face an extended waiting period for their first check. Melanie stated that the longest waiting period for the first check of the season is 17 days.
Jennie Greene felt that the Personnel Board would have to have input from staff before making a recommendation. Stephen Lewenberg asked Melanie Becker for an estimate of savings that could be realized through this change, since this was the primary argument in favor of moving to a bi-weekly system. He also observed that it could cause significant consternation and resentment among the staff were the Personnel Board to recommend such a change without consultation.
Polly McDowell pointed out that some staff members live paycheck-to-paycheck. Having to transition to a bi-weekly system would cause great difficulty. Stephen Lewenberg responded that many employers make an internal line of credit available to their employees to address emergency needs for funding, and asked Melanie if this was an option for Chilmark. Melanie Becker replied that she would have to research whether such a program would work for a municipal employer.
Martina Mastromonaco stated that it would be hard for the college students she employs for the Town’s beaches to have to wait for two weeks to get their first paycheck. Jonathan Klaren noted that employees currently pay into a deferred compensation account, and asked for clarification as to how a move to bi-weekly pay would affect this system.
Pam Bunker asked to know how much could be saved through such a change, so that one could better assess whether the savings would actually justify the inconvenience to staff. She noted that being late on payment of bills could affect a person’s credit score and interest rates charged on credit card, so the inconvenience is potentially significant.
Stephen Lewenberg asked whether a given paycheck pays for the current or the preceding week. Melanie Becker responded that it pays on the Wednesday for the week previously worked. This system evolved in order to address concerns that the Town could lose money if somebody is paid for an upcoming week and then decides to leave before working to cover the check received.
As to the potential cost savings, Melanie Becker noted that the payroll processing line item is $ 6K under the current system, and could possibly be cut by up to half. She also noted that many of the college students working for the Town are living with their parents and don’t always cash their checks promptly. Regarding deferred compensation, she said that the State has changed the contract for this service from ING to Great West. Deferred compensation monies used to be sent out monthly; they are now going out on a weekly basis.
Tim Carroll noted that the weekly pay period had been instituted to address a variety of concerns, and that this compromise had been reached only after extremely arduous consideration. He also noted that the Treasurer’s hours had had to be increased to accommodate the weekly payroll system, and asked whether changing to bi-weekly payroll would entail reduction in hours for the treasurer position. He suggested that instituting direct deposit across the board would realize savings of $ 1K.
Stephen Lewenberg recalled exhaustive discussion of this issue in the past. He felt that the savings to be realized may not be worth re-opening this debate. His feeling was that it would be better to stick with the current payroll system. Chuck Hodgkinson agreed that a change in the payroll system creates anxiety in some employees that may outweigh the benefits of savings.
Max McCreery suggested that the Personnel Board could ask Tim Carroll to review the matter, gather the needed information, and come to the Personnel Board with his findings. Tim Carroll said he would be willing to poll the staff, and if no strong objection was found to a bi-weekly payroll, it could be seen as a way for the Town to cut expenses.
Riggs Parker said that case-by-case decisions on cost-saving measures should not be undertaken in isolation. The Town will collect a wide variety of cost-saving measures, and weigh them all in relation to the whole budget. He noted that Town departments have been asked to develop a level-funded budget. With this budget, departments should submit a list of things that had been or could be cut, and provide an explanation of the rationale for doing so, and, importantly, of the associated cost in service or capability of the department that each cut would entail. This will enable the BOS to weigh its options to achieve the best possible configuration of cost-cutting measures that will result in the least disruption of the quality and quantity of services which the Town provides to its citizens.
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA): Max McCreery said that the anticipated COLA for this year, according to the formula used by the Personnel Board, would be in the neighborhood of 4.7%. The Personnel Board had been seeking ways to preserve the formula, while addressing the need for savings in this year’s Town budget. Answers to questions from the Personnel Board submitted to personnel legal counsel Jack Collins were not yet available.
Stephen Lewenberg noted that this issue has generated keen interest among the staff, as evidenced by the large attendance at this meeting. He stated, however, that the Personnel Board is not the policy-making body when it comes to the annual COLA. The Personnel Board determines the way in which the Town chooses to set the level of the COLA. The Personnel Board acts as the “staff organization” which implements decisions made by the “line organization”, namely the FinCom/BOS recommendations, and, ultimately, town voters at the Town Meeting.
Jennie Greene confirmed that the Personnel Board’s role is to determine the level of COLA according to the agreed formula—however, it is the decision of the BOS and, ultimately, town voters, as to what COLA, if any, is actually granted.
Riggs Parker noted that the BOS recommends the budget to the Town Meeting, and that voters can vote to grant a COLA if they wish to do so. As to the budget process during this year of level funding, he felt that it will become clear that some Departments have nothing to give up, while others can realize substantial savings. The possibility of granting a COLA, and what level of COLA could be granted, will become clear after all cuts and savings have been assessed.
Jonathan Klaren said that what he was hearing from the Personnel Board today was not what he had heard before this meeting. He had heard that there was consideration of not granting a COLA on earnings over $ 30K. Max McCreery clarified that the Personnel Board had reviewed various possible options which would address the need for a level-funded budget in an equitable fashion.
Chuck Hodgkinson recalled the letter sent out by Executive Secretary Tim Carroll indicating a budget process Department heads could follow in order to address the BOS desire to see level-funding. That letter had said to plan the budget with the step increases, but without the COLA. He noted that this would make the Personnel Board’s role with respect to COLA quite simple: the Personnel Board can submit the COLA per the agreed formula, and the BOS will determine whether to apply it.
He also suggested that we consider basing next year’s COLA on the October figures, as this would alleviate the enormous time pressure faced by those producing the final budget figures. Tim Carroll noted that Selectman Frank Fenner had suggested a COLA based on September’s figures, however, a formula which does not include any fourth-quarter figures distorts the final outcome considerably. He suggested that using October figures would address these concerns. Formulating the level of a COLA based on earlier figures than we currently use would make the budgeting process significantly easier.
Riggs Parker felt that a budget should not be formulated with a COLA in it. Treating the COLA as optional provides flexibility for budget planners. Chuck Hodgkinson noted that budget planning worksheets included COLA and step increases. This year, we are being asked to submit budgets without the COLA, and leave the decision on granting a COLA to the BOS. If this is to continue, it represents a policy change.
Riggs Parker stated that, as a fiscal conservative, he approaches budget-making by starting with what you need, rather than with what you want. COLA should not guide a budget level: the expenses needed to provide the required service should be what drives the level of the budget. He felt that a full COLA should not be viewed as a given.
Jennie Greene made a MOTION to use October figures to determine the level of the annual COLA. The Finance Committee can review December figures with the option of adjusting the COLA if the variance is substantial. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Seasonal Positions: Max McCreery introduced the question of the seasonal compensation plan with its separate rate of step increases. At today’s meeting, the Personnel Board would like to initiate a discussion on the issue, and is gratified to have attendance from most of the Town departments hiring seasonal employees. The Personnel Board highly values and encourages their input in this discussion.
Chuck Hodgkinson described the step increase differential, with a 7.1% increase for each seasonal step, and a 3.4% increase for each step in a year-round position. He noted that the seasonal positions will max out their step increases in half the time it takes for the year-round positions, but, adjusted for actual time worked, a seasonal position reaches its maximum income after 8 months of work, while it takes the equivalent year-round position 8 years of work to reach the same level of income.
Stephen Lewenberg asked how many years the average summer employee returns; Martina Mastromonaco responded that this is highly variable. There are beach employees who have returned every summer for the past nine years. She noted that the seasonal step increases are highly generous, but that she does feel concern if a change in grading for these positions is being contemplated.
Stephen Lewenberg asked if there was a way one could estimate the increase in productivity of the returning summer worker to assess whether it would merit a step increase. Martina Mastromonaco noted that having returnees enables her to match the more experienced, responsible employees with the brand new guards in a planned mentoring program, especially on Menemsha and Squibnocket beaches, where the guards generally work more independently. Jonathan Klaren pointed out that the Town saves 120 hours worth of paid training time for each returning summer officer. Stephen Lewenberg felt that perhaps there was not significant enough benefit to the Town from returning workers to justify step increases, and that the Town could consider setting a flat rate for seasonal positions annually, according to what the Town budget
can carry and what would be competitive in the Island labor market.
Jennie Greene suggested that it might not be practical to have to go to Town Meeting every single year to get a seasonal compensation plan approved. Stephen Lewenberg clarified that he saw it as a one-time endeavor to reconfigure the seasonal compensation plan to better reflect current Island rates for corresponding positions in other Towns. Annual consideration could be given as to whether or not an adjustment in the rate is needed – a COLA for seasonal positions.
Riggs Parker noted that he had always wondered at the concept of the “seasonal employee”, as if a person somehow retained some status as a Town employee from one year to the next. He felt that seasonal positions are hired new each year with no guaranteed right of return. Polly McDowell said that this would clarify that seasonal employees do not fall under the Bylaw. She also stated that while Beach Guards are paid more in Chilmark than in other Island towns, Library Assistants are paid less, and that these imbalances should be addressed.
Kristin Maloney said that eliminating step increases might work for the Library if the Director and Trustees were able to set a reasonable salary rate in advance. She did not see, however, why it was reasonable to do away with a COLA entirely, as she felt there would have to be some form of incentive to come back. She noted that there was a clear benefit to the Library in having experienced summer help, rather than having to undertake an elaborate training program for all summer employees each year.
Chuck Hodgkinson queried whether it would be worth the additional staff time to determine varied wage scales each year, when seasonal staff makes up only 20% of the Town’s salary budget.
Stephen Lewenberg suggested that a working group of the board review the question and come back with a recommendation to either remain with a separate pay/step increase plan for seasonal and year-around positions, or to have the board rethink the entire seasonal compensation system.
Max McCreery noted that Susan Heilbron has already been deeply engaged with these questions and should be on the working group. Members agreed that Susan Heilbron, Stephen Lewenberg and Polly McDowell will meet to review this question. Max McCreery urged the seasonal employing departments of the Town to weigh in with subcommittee members and give us their views and experience on these matters.
Riggs Parker suggested that the Board not attempt to come forward with a comprehensive recommendation on this question of seasonal compensation in time for the FY’10 budget. He stated that hasty action would create anxiety. This is a process that will take time, and will require getting input from all affected departments.
Personnel Board Budget FY’10: In response to questions from Personnel Board members, Marina Lent confirmed that she was able to do the 4 hours per week allocated under the FY’09 budget, but that this left little time for anything other than servicing, attending and writing up the meetings of the Board. Max McCreery noted that the Personnel Board may need additional staff time for completion of the Bylaw and Procedure Manual.
The following proposed FY’10 budget was ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY by the Personnel Board:
Account |
Proposed FY’10 |
Change from FY’09 |
Administrative Assistant |
$ 4,506.00 |
0 |
Professional Development |
$ 200.00 |
( 650.00) |
Advertising |
$ 100.00 |
0 |
Postage |
$ 30.00 |
0 |
In-State Travel |
$ 100.00 |
( 480.00) |
Dues and Memberships |
$ 75.00 |
( 25.00) |
TOTALS |
$ 5,011.00 |
( 1,155.00) |
Hiring Process for Police Chief: Riggs Parker brought to the Board’s attention the request from the BOS to prepare a hiring process for a Police Chief following the upcoming retirement of Police Chief Tim Rich in July 2009. Jennie Greene and Max McCreery will address this issue and bring their findings to the Board.
The meeting was adjourned at 14:32.
| 
