 |
Human Resources Board of Chilmark
August 8, 2013
APPROVED MINUTES
Present: Stephen Lewenberg, Chair, Jennie Greene, Max McCreery, Steven Flanders, Jim Malkin, Bill Rossi, Board of Selectmen Representative, Chuck Hodgkinson, HRBC Staff Representative
Public:
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Meeting called to order at 8:08AM
Mr. Hodgkinson inquired whether the BOS had approved the Highway Laborer regrading as recommended by the HRB and whether the BOS had approved the Social Media Policy.
Ms. Christy stated that she had not heard whether the BOS acted on either issue.
Mr. McCreery stated he felt that the Board should seek training or continuing education on the subject of position description appraisals.
- Minutes: July 11, 2013 Minutes & July 25, 2013
- Minutes from July 11 July 25 were reviewed. Mr. Malkin made a motion to approve the minutes from July 11 as written. Ms. Green seconded the motion. All ayes. Ms. Green made a motion to approve the minutes from July 25 as written. Mr. Malkin seconded the motion. All ayes.
- Mr. McCreery inquired whether the employees had been apprised, as a group, about the process of testing a new Municipal Position Evaluation Manual (MPEM) and inquired further whether the employee body may be invited to a meeting in order to address the process directly with them. The topic was discussed further and it was decided an employee meeting would not be useful.
- A review of the written comments received regarding the new procedures commenced. The Administrative Asst. and a member of the Board of Health cited the busy season and suggested a review of the procedures at a later date. Mr. Malkin proposed to postpone discussion and adoption of procedures until the off-season. No action was taken.
- Discussion continued regarding written comment from the Library Director on the topic of whether an employee currently occupying a position, during the development of a position description and/or a grading exercise, should be specifically asked to participate and whether the employee would be primarily concerned with gaining a higher pay grade. The Director further noted the presence of the employee would make the position description evaluation process more challenging for the Board and would hinder the Board’s efforts to focus on a position rather than an individual employee. Mr. Hodgkinson stated the process could be adapted to request the department head meet with the current employee prior to the re-grading exercise in order to ensure that a full understanding of a position description is
gained.
- Mr. Flanders stated he felt the employee should not be included in the process of re-grading because the overriding concern for an employee is compensation and therefore the employee may provide biased input.
- Discussion occurred about whether there should be changes to the 1st section of the proposal removing the employee input on #3, striking the last sentence in #6 and, whenever Department Head is stated, replace with ‘Department Head, Supervisor or Board’.
In the second section, regarding re-grading, it was proposed to remove any statement regarding the current employee in a position and to remove the statement in #6 specifically stating that the seasonal employee may not participate in the process.
Mr. Malkin moved to approve the new procedures with changes and to recommend the procedures to the Board of Selectmen. The motion was seconded and brought to a vote. All ayes.
- DRAFT Municipal Position Evaluation Manual (MPEM) Testing:
- Re-testing of the draft MPEM occurred on the factor level of ‘Experience’. The position descriptions of Janitor, Assistant Assessor, Tax Collector, Building Inspector were reviewed and the MPEM was re-tested again, using those four position descriptions, on only the factor level of ‘Experience’. The Janitor position description (Grade 5), originally evaluated to test the draft MPEM on June 6, 2013 and given a Grade 3, was re-tested and it remained a Grade 3. The responsibilities of the Asst. Assessor were discussed. The main topic was the amount of years of experience desired by the Town for an Assistant Assessor applicant, upon the commencement of the job. The Assistant Assessor position description (Grade 10) was first evaluated, to test the draft MPEM, on June 6, 2013 and resulted in a
Grade 8. Upon re-testing, the position remained at a Grade 8. The Tax Collector position description (Grade 9) was used to test the draft MPEM and remained at the same grade level as the previous test, Grade 7. The Building Inspector position description (Grade 10) was first evaluated, to test the draft MPEM, on June 6, 2013 with a result of Grade 9. During the second evaluation, the position scored higher than during the previous evaluation, placing the position at a grade 10.
- Mr. Lewenberg asked for a recap of the results. Ms. Christy read the current grades and the tested grades for Ambulance Chief, Deputy Ambulance Chief, Administrative Asst., Custodian, Janitor , Assistant Assessor, Tax Collector, Building Inspector. Discussion occurred about the fact that the grades for many positions were lower using the draft MPEM. Ms. Greene expressed concern with the grade of the Custodian, based on the test of the draft MPEM using the Janitor position description, and stated the Custodian position description should be reviewed again.
- Mr. Hodgkinson suggested re-evaluating positions that resulted in lower grades through the test of the draft MPEM.
- Mr. Malkin inquired about the HRB’s next steps as a result of the testing of the draft MPEM. Mr. Malkin suggested a possible next step would be to ‘red circle’ certain positions which resulted in lower grades during the test of the draft MPEM and, upon the retirement of an employee or a vacancy, the position would be compensated at the reduced grade level.
- Mr. Hodgkinson noted that the test of the draft MPEM had not involved a review of the pay grades of positions in other nearby municipalities or the input of department heads. He further noted that these steps that would normally be done during a formal evaluation of a position description for grading purposes. Mr. Malkin stated that process would be outside the scope of this testing process. Mr. Hodgkinson stated that it appeared the goal was to lower the pay grades of town positions. Mr. Malkin stated another re-evaluation of positions that have resulted in lower grades through the testing of the draft MPEM would likely result in maintaining high grades or increasing grades.
- Mr. Flanders expressed his feeling that the format of the MPEM may constrict the Board in their evaluation of positions.
- Chair Lewenberg suggested adjusting the grade points attributed for certain factor levels. He also stated that he felt the Administrative Asst. position description needs to be reviewed and tested again.
- Mr. Malkin inquired about the goal of the test of the draft MPEM. He asked for the Board to contemplate why the change to the MPEM is being done.
- Ms. Greene stated she felt we should start with the Administrative Asst. position description, with fresh eyes, and re-grade it using the draft MPEM.
- Mr. Malkin suggested there be a discussion with the Board of Selectmen regarding the discrepancies with the testing process and a request for guidance from the BOS. Chair Lewenberg stated he did not think the HRB had a product that was ready for presentation to the BOS. Mr. Rossi stated the BOS would want a final draft MPEM. Chair Lewenberg suggested the Board start the next meeting with a review and test of the Administrative Asst. position description. Ms. Greene suggested the Board also review the Asst. Assessor position description and the Receptionist position descriptions.
- Mr. Hodgkinson stated the internal process that the Board has followed to test the draft MPEM is at odds with the procedures for grading position descriptions that were earlier voted to be recommended to the Board of Selectmen. He noted he felt the results of the testing process are not relevant scores for use in actual changes to the grades of positions. He further stated the goal of the test of the draft MPEM is a validated MPEM and not re-graded positions.
Next Meeting: Monday, August 26 at 8AM
- Asst. Assessor Timesheets:
- Mr. McCreery inquired whether the Asst. Assessor is required to fill out a timesheet. Chair Lewenberg stated he has discussed the issue with a Board of Assessor member and the issue will appear on the agenda for the August 26, 2013 meeting. In the interim, the Asst. Assessor has been asked to complete timesheets as usual.
| |
