 |
Human Resources Board of Chilmark
Sept. 12, 2013
APPROVED MINUTES
Present: Stephen Lewenberg, Chair, Jennie Greene, Max McCreery, Steven Flanders, Jim Malkin, Bill Rossi, Board of Selectmen Representative, Tim Carroll, Executive Secretary
Not present:
Public/ Board or Comm. Members:
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant, Chuck Hodgkinson, HRBC Staff Representative, Keith Emin, Highway Superintendent
Meeting called to order at 8:10AM
- The minutes were reviewed. Discussion occurred about the Asst. Assessor position. Mr. Malkin asked why the position is not salaried and exempt. Ms. Greene noted town counsel has recommended in the past that the position be non-exempt, salaried. Chair Lewenberg noted the four criteria under which a position would be classified as exempt. He noted the position would only be eligible to be evaluated as an exempt position under the administrative criteria. He further noted that the position was reviewed by counsel and it was determined that the position does not exercise great discretion and independent judgment. Mr. Hodgkinson read the list of all the exempt & salaried positions. Mr. Hodgkinson noted the Tax Collector position is exempt but has similar responsibility to the Asst. Assessor position. Discussion
continued. Mr. Hodgkinson summarized the prior discussions and facts relating to the Asst. Assessor position. Mr. Lewenberg noted that the Board, at the time of the reevaluation of the Asst. Assessor position in 2010, felt that the position might be salaried/ exempt, but town counsel recommended otherwise. Further discussion occurred about how to determine whether the position should be classified as exempt. Ms. Greene stated that the Board of Assessors are the decision-makers and the Asst. does not make the decisions, ultimately. Mr. Malkin stated what is occurring now is a “work-around” for this position (i.e. the Asst. Assessor is paid on a salaried basis, but logs hours so that she may qualify as non-exempt). Mr. Lewenberg stated that the issue is: should the Asst. Assessor position be exempt or non-exempt? He asked, “Does the position exercise significant discretion or independent judgment, and therefore would classify as exempt under the administrative
criteria, or not?” Mr. McCreery noted the Asst. Assessor does work with the public and noted there is great knowledge that the Asst. Assessor shares with the public. Ms. Greene noted knowledge base is not a criteria for exemption. Ms. Greene noted the Board was advised by legal counsel that the Asst. Assessor position must comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the position is not exempt. No more discussion occurred. Mr. Malkin made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Greene seconded the motion. All ayes.
- Highway Laborer Position Sept. 2013 DRAFT:
- Chair Lewenberg introduced the topic noting the new job description the Highway Superintendent has rewritten, with assistance from staff representative, Mr. Hodgkinson.
- Chair Lewenberg noted that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) has asked the HR Board to review the position description with an aim to increasing the Grade to 5 (it has been re-graded to a Grade 4 (up from Grade 3) in July 2013.) Mr. Rossi noted the BOS did not recommend a specific grade, but rather noticed that some duties were not included in the job description (July 2013) that was submitted to them at their meeting on August 27, 2013.
- Mr. Malkin noted the minutes of the BOS meeting says that discussion occurred regarding the fact that other island towns pay a similar position at a rate that would be near a Grade 5 here in Chilmark. Mr. Flanders inquired whether the position is seasonal. Mr. Emin confirmed it is a year-round position. Mr. Flanders expressed his feeling that the position is manual labor and not a position that needs to be compensated at a rate that would make it possible for the employee to support a family or a similar situation.
- Mr. Rossi felt that there is value in attracting a skilled employee and noted that lifeguards currently are paid $16-17/hour.
- Mr. Malkin noted if the issue is the disparity between wages between similar jobs, then maybe the Board should focus on that rather than try to change the grade levels. He further noted the discussion that occurred at a HR Board meeting that was attended by Selectman Jonathan Mayhew (at which the discussion of the Highway Laborer position was first discussed.)
- Ms. Greene made a motion to approve the new draft (Sept. 2013) position description of the Highway Laborer at a Grade 4. Discussion occurred about the actual pay increase that would occur for the position in a change from a Grade 4 to a 5, depending on which step the employee is set.
- Chair Lewenberg stated the next step would be to accept the job description and send it to the BOS with a recommendation of grade. Ms. Greene noted the discussion & recommendation of grade has already been completed at the previous meeting.
- Mr. McCreery seconded the motion. The motion came to a vote. 4 in favor, 1 abstain. Mr. Emin and Mr. Hodgkinson were commended for the quality of the job description.
- Mr. Hodgkinson reviewed and read aloud the scores in each of the levels during the re-grading of the Highway Laborer position. It was confirmed that the Board did account for the use of heavy machinery in the job.
- DRAFT Municipal Position Evaluation Manual (MPEM) Testing:
- Continued test of the MPEM using the Coordinator of Admin. Support Position Description:
- The Board tested the MPEM beginning at Level 5.
- The position resulted in a Grade 10. It is currently graded at a Grade 11.
- Discussion occurred regarding why the position resulted in a lower grade and the topic of the subjectivity of the process was reiterated.
- Mr. Hodgkinson suggested looking at the actual scores for each position that was used to test the MPEM and see what the differences show. Mr. Malkin noted that the review of the MPEM draft, when the testing is complete, should be done with a focus on the extent of the divergence from the current and tested grades.
- Mr. Malkin inquired how many more position descriptions need to be graded in the test of the MPEM draft. Ms. Christy stated she would count the remainder and let the HR Board know this week.
- Mr. McCreery inquired why the Board was not notified of the theft that occurred in the Beach Department.
- Mr. Lewenberg noted he was alerted by Mr. Carroll of the situation and chose not to share the information with the rest of the Board.
- Mr. Carroll noted the position is seasonal and the employee has no recourse to the Board in any case.
- Mr. Malkin noted that termination or discipline matters with employees are not under the purview of the Board. The Board deals with policies and procedures and the issue did not seem to come under those areas.
- Mr. McCreery stated that he felt the Board should be informed of the issue.
- Mr. Lewenberg stated he asked Mr. Carroll, when they spoke on the phone, what the Board should do and Mr. Carroll stated he did not think it was an issue the Board needed to address directly.
- Mr. Hodgkinson read a section of the HRB Procedures Manual and the section does not state that a termination of a seasonal employee needs to be reviewed by the HRB.
- Mr. Carroll summarized the situation and noted the software of the Beach Dept. was malfunctioning which contributed to the difficulty in detecting the theft.
- Mr. Rossi suggested the HR Board Chair notify the Board members of issues in the future. Mr. Carroll noted that the Chair had been notified before the situation was “public.” Mr. Lewenberg noted he was told the issue was confidential.
- Mr. Malkin noted that the issue should not be on a HRB agenda and the Chair does not need to alert the other members, but recommended the Chair notify the members at the point that the issue becomes public.
- Continued Discussion of MPEM Manual Draft Testing:
- Mr. Hodgkinson reviewed the testing process and summarized the results and the changes.
- It was noted the test of the draft MPEM was resulting in adequate results that seem to verify the draft manual as a usable document.
- September 19, 2013
- October 10, 2013
- October 24, 2013
- Meeting adjourned at 9:25AM
| |
