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
M i n u t e s
Monday December 14th, 2009
Chilmark Town Hall
5pm
Present: Max McCreery (Chairman), Jennie Greene (Vice-Chairwoman), Frank LoRusso, Stephen Lewenberg, Chuck Hodgkinson (Staff Representative Member)
Also Present: JB Riggs Parker (Board of Selectmen Representative), Tim Carroll (Executive Secretary), Marina Lent (Secretary), Elizabeth Oliver (Board of Assessors), Pam Bunker (Assistant Assessor)
Assistant Assessor Position Description The Board reviewed the position description of Assistant Assessor. Chuck Hodgkinson reported on the process leading up to this point: the position had been brought to the Board as part of the annual performance evaluation of Assistant Assessor Pam Bunker. Over time, the responsibilities of the Assistant Assessor have changed, State requirements have increased, and the position description as approved in 1999 no longer accurately reflects the job being performed.
The Assessors, together with the Assistant Assessor, and assisted by Chuck Hodgkinson, made an initial draft updated description of the position to reflect duties currently being performed.
Jennie Greene reported that, at the request of Board of Assessor Chair Clarissa Allen, she and Max McCreery, assisted by Personnel Board Staff Representative Chuck Hodgkinson, had reviewed the position description, making some additional edits. (Chuck Hodgkinson noted that reporting relationships changed in the draft stemmed from a Personnel Board editing process, not from the Board of Assessors’ changes). Following this exercise, the description had sufficiently changed that a grade-evaluation was needed. The initial re-grading exercise of the draft position description, undertaken by Jennie Greene, reflected a Grade 9.
Max McCreery and Chuck Hodgkinson also carried out a re-grading exercise of the new draft position description, and had scored it at a Grade 10. Max McCreery stated that he felt that the greater responsibility and increased State requirements warranted a review by the Personnel Board as whole.
Members expressed some dissatisfaction with the grading manual itself, pointing out aspects of Pam’s performance and accomplishments that could not be reflected in the system followed by the manual, but which clearly resulted in enormous benefits to the town and constituted significant features of her job.
Some felt that rating all jobs with the same manual, on the same scale, was not possible. Tim Carroll explained that the manual had been specifically designed to adequately evaluate all municipal employees, from the ditch digger to the Information technology person. He further pointed out that, at the time the manual was developed, the town had decided to keep a unified grading system. Two separate evaluation manuals, one for desk workers and one for more manual labor positions would create distinct classes of employees, which would encourage unionization, and the consultant at the time had advised against it.
The Board decided to undertake the full re-grading exercise to determine whether the position as amended would qualify as a Grade 9 or Grade 10.
Stephen Lewenberg emphasized that a single position could not be rightly evaluated in isolation from all comparable jobs in Town Hall, in particular, the Town Accountant and Tax Collector, which were also currently graded at grade 9. If they are comparable positions, all the other Grade 9 positions, including Harbormaster etc would have to be reevaluated. However, given that the level of responsibilities seems to have changed over time, a re-grading of this position would be appropriate.
Jennie Greene pointed out that the grading points in the grading exercise undertaken by Chuck and Max had given points for “supervision”. According to the definition of supervision in the grading manual, these points could not be applied to this position. She felt very strongly that it was important to scrupulously respect the integrity of the grading process to ensure that it is transparent and equitable to all employees.
Tim Carroll reminded the Board that a short while back they had initiated discussions towards a comprehensive re-evaluation of the grades of all Chilmark positions, as well as reviewing comparable positions in other towns, but that the economic downturn had made it advisable to postpone this important review. A comprehensive review would consist of two components: an evaluation of all current Chilmark positions in relation to each other through in-depth interviews with employees, and a broad survey of other towns, both on- and off-Island, to ensure that Chilmark is comparable.
Members agreed, noting that they felt the manual was not an ideal instrument and required some updating. But they conceded that the economy and goals of the Chilmark Finance Committee and Selectmen for a 0-growth budget this year would not allow for such a major undertaking at this time.
Members undertook the line-by-line re-grading process. They noted how difficult it is to assess the position alone, without regard to the performance of the individual filling it. All were in agreement on the high quality of Pam’s performance in the job, but that this exercise should focus on the position description, regardless of performance.
At the conclusion of the re-grading process, the point value assigned to the position was within the range for a Grade 10. Pam Bunker would thus move to a Grade 10, step 6, which is the lowest step at the new grade which would not result in a decrease in pay effective FY’11.
(1:00:00) Jennie Greene stated that she felt that this up-grade would result in demands for upgrades from all the positions in Town Hall currently graded at Grade 9. Others pointed out that the exercise undertaken by the Board at today’s meeting indicated that the position is rightly graded at a grade 10. All other positions can be likewise evaluated in the course of the employee’s performance evaluation. Jennie Greene reiterated her concern that an upgrade in this position could have a ripple effect, resulting in moves for up-grades from many other Town positions.
Stephen Lewenberg felt that the role of the Board was to conduct a technical evaluation, based on the agreed point system outlined in the manual used by the Board, and to submit its findings to the Board of Selectmen, who would evaluate the broader effect of implementing the Board’s evaluation or not, based on global considerations regarding the welfare of the Town. Max McCreery disagreed. He felt that the Board of Selectmen has charged the Personnel Board with making recommendations which reflect the Personnel Board’s view of the broader perspective for the overall welfare of the Town, going beyond a merely technical recommendation based on an agreed formula. (1:18:30)
Chuck Hodgkinson summarized the process:
- the performance review triggered an update of the position description, which was last updated ten years ago;
- the group agrees that, according to its position-grading system, this is a grade 10 position
- members of the Board are uneasy about the fact that the other town finance positions are at a grade nine; however, there is no requirement that all these jobs be graded the same, and the grade is no reflection on the performance of the individual filling it: the grade of the position would be contingent on how the point value assigned to the position by the town’s grading system.
Jennie proposed that the other financial positions be reviewed before the new fiscal year. Chuck pointed out that the high turnover in the entire town hall finance department, with a new tax collector and accountant, calls for a more comprehensive review of the department, which can be conducted prior to the beginning of FY’12. The Board discussed whether to postpone the decision to the following year, then decided to recommend to the Selectmen that the Assistant Assessor position be increased to a Grade 10, by a vote of three in favor, with one abstention (Jennie Greene).
Tim Carroll asked why the boilerplate language in the revised Assistant Assessor position description had been changed to read that the position reports to “Board of Assessor, through its Chair.” Jennie Greene stated that Pam Bunker had reported that she reports to Chuck Hodgkinson, not to the Executive Secretary. Tim noted that the reporting was to Chuck for the purposes of the performance evaluation, since he had delegated this task to Chuck. And the position description as amended doesn’t even reflect a supervisory position with Chuck; this directly contradicts the organization chart adopted to guide reporting relationships within the Town, and would have far-reaching consequences for other positions, such as Board of Health and Planning Board, where
employees work for elected Boards.
Jennie Green felt that the language regarding supervision through the Executive Secretary should be restored to the position description.
Regarding preparation of Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Tim Carroll pointed out that drafts of RFPs should be brought to town procurement officers, the Executive Secretary and Accountant. Jennie Greene agreed, and suggested the language be changed to say “drafts RFPs,” rather than “prepares RFPs”.
Marina Lent Performance Evaluation:
(1:42:26) Chuck left the meeting. The Board reviewed the self-evaluation form provided by Marina Lent.
Max McCreery encouraged an open and interactive process, and invited Marina Lent to open with suggestions. Marina pointed to some small possible changes in the language of the position description, which were stylistic, rather than substantive. She also noted that, unlike other of the Town’s position descriptions, the position of Administrative Assistant applies to a number of different employees. She noted that the Housing Committee had supplied an explanatory memo, outlining the features of the position of the Administrative Assistant serving that Committee. She felt that this might be a useful model for other bodies served by the position, and would help to more clearly define the expectations of the Personnel Board for this 4-hour per week position.
Stephen Lewenberg stated that this is the role of the goals and objectives evaluation: for the Board to define its priorities within the responsibilities outlined in the position description as to what the staff person should emphasize in the coming year.
Max McCreery asked Marina to outline what she sees as the core responsibilities of the job. She listed joint preparation of the agenda together with the Board’s Chair; attendance at the Board’s meetings; writing up minutes of the Board’s meetings; and maintaining central records of the Board such as minutes, position descriptions and correspondence. Tim Carroll added writing correspondence of the Board conveying its decisions to the Board of Selectmen and other relevant parties.
Stephen Lewenberg noted that, while the duties listed are appropriate for a four-hour-per-week position, the needs of the Board for staffing support go far beyond that. He noted that Chuck’s volunteer work had filled the void, but that it should properly be the task of an expanded Administrative Assistant position. Max noted that Marina would not be able to accommodate an expanded position in light of her responsibilities towards the Board of Health.
Riggs noted that broader personnel duties fall to the Executive Secretary. He reminded the Board of its efforts to secure a personnel officer for the Town, which had failed at Town Meeting. (01:50:58)
Jennie Greene concurred with the self-evaluation regarding the need to refrain from taking part in the discussions of the Board, and requested that agenda and documentation be made available as far in advance of the Board’s meeting as possible; Frank LoRusso reiterated the importance that minutes not be “edited” in any way, and that attendance and absences from meetings be duly recorded; Riggs Parker noted that he did not like the use of expressive italics or other literary devices in the minutes, as these supplied an editorial flourish to what should be a strictly neutral narrative. In addition, the Board suggested that it be made known that the Personnel Board’s agenda is closed on Friday afternoon, to discourage last-minute additions
to the agenda that made advance preparation for an upcoming meeting impossible.
Max McCreery mentioned the awkwardness of working around Board of Health activities in the office, and asked if there were a way of working uninterrupted. Marina suggested that she could establish a standing Personnel Board hour at 5pm on Thursday evenings, one hour prior her regular night shift with the ambulance, which would not conflict with Board of Health.
Max McCreery said the Board would complete the evaluation process in the future.
The next meeting of the Board is set for January 7th.
| 
