Personnel Minutes 2011-06-22

Moderator: BettyAnn

Personnel Minutes 2011-06-22

Postby BettyAnn » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:18 pm


June 22, 2011

Members Present: Ellie Chesebrough, Debby Heinz, BettyAnn McCallum
Non Members: Jeanne Lovett, Mike Guzinski, Brian Maser (Labor Attorney, Kopelman & Paige)

 ADMINISTRATOR’S AUTHORITY: When the Town accepted the Acts of 2009, it gave the Town Administrator a great deal of authority. The question is who will administer the personnel policies and what authority will the Personnel Board have? It appears that changes made to the Personnel Policies & Procedures manual by Town Counsel are in direct conflict of the personnel bylaw, specifically Section II, E & F. Mike stated that there should be a collaborative effort between the Administrator and the Board. The Board disagreed with what the term “administer” means. After much discussion, it was decided that the Board would discuss this further and possibly look at how personnel boards are administered in other towns that have an administrator.

 5.17 Dispute Resolution: Missing paragraphs from the May draft will be added back in.

 MINUTES: Minutes from 5/23/11 accepted as amended.
Minutes from 6/7/2011 accepted as written.

 PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing was held at 2:30 p.m. regarding the new changes made by Town Counsel to the Policies & Procedures manual. The following were in attendance: Ellie Chesebrough, Debby Heinz, BettyAnn McCallum, Mike Guzinski, Brian Maser (Kopelman & Paige), Adam Furno, David Furno, John Furno, MaryBeth Mello, Eileen Damore, Patty Brule, Marleen Bacon, Maria Lajoie, Jane Alger, Julie Kessler, Steve Zisk, Pam Carter, Suzanne Kane, Jeanne Lovett, Jeff LaPorte. The following concerns were discussed:

1.4: Steve felt that this section was in conflict with the bylaw
3.1: Ellie wanted clarification on who was the appointing authority—administrator or
personnel board
3.1F & 3.5: CORI checks—we are not certified to do them on current employees
3.1G: Why do unsuccessful applicants need to be notified by mail
3.6: Must employees have direct deposit
4.1: Last sentence in conflict with bylaw
4.3: Library Trustees and Water/Sewer Commission should be added
4.4: All employees are paid bi-weekly
4.6: In conflict with bylaw
4.7: Must all personnel files be kept in Administrator’s office
5.13: Employees felt the dress code was too strict and “flip-flops” should be defined
5.4: Paragraph 3, correction should be made to “Section 5.5.2”
5.17: Library Trustees and Water/Sewer Commission should be added
6.3.3: Missing
6.6.1: Authority over the Sick Bank will go back to the Personnel Board
Appendix D: Guidelines for Disciplinary Procedures—too many changes
Appendix I: Meal Expense Reimbursement--#2 Board of Health should be added

 JEFF LAPORTE’S PROPOSAL FOR EVALUATIONS & RAISES: Jeff presented his new proposal for evaluations stressing the following advantages:
1. performance is rewarded
2. longevity negatives are eliminated
3. pinpoints strengths and weaknesses of employees
4. promotes excellence
5. raise incentives are the result of performance
A base pay would be used for the percentage of raise given, with an increase in base pay every years or so.
It was decided to meet with a representative group of employees to work on this new procedure.
VOTED: The Board voted to have Mike appoint a subcommittee to discuss the new proposal.

 NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, July 6th at 2:00 p.m. Debby will post.
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:44 am

Return to Personnel Board Meetings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest