Okay. All right. With the time now being 5:45, um I now call a meeting of the appointments committee of the Gardener City Council to order. If the clerk would please call the role. >> Councelor Heath, >> present. >> Councelor Heg, >> present.
>> Councelor Kazinsitz. >> Announcement of open meeting recordings. Um there's no one here besides staff. So um if anyone decides to come in the uh oos are right there on the wall. Um reading of minutes of prior meetings
there are none. Interview of the following appointees. There are none. Resignations. Um the mayor's office isn't here to go ahead and speak on this. However, we did just get communication today about um city clerk um TT um Safira.
Did I say her last name? >> Surfan. I I won't mess it up the next time as well. >> Um and I think her date of July 2nd will be her last day. >> Um discussion of appointees. Um item 11644,
a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of Plet Burns to the position of board of assessors member for term expiring August 21st, 2028. >> Mr. Chairman, um since we met on this one, I think we had a great meeting. She's only a reappoint. I would move to
recommend to the full council the measure be confirmed. >> Awesome. Second um motion made by councelor Hegman, seconded by councelor Heath to um put this item to the full council for
confirmation. Is there any discussion? Um all those in favor say I. >> I. All those against say no. >> Motion pass. Appointies confirmed and council. Um, with this right here we have Greg Dumis, Conservation Commission. Melissa McDonald, building commissioner, Linda
Rice, Historical Commission, Derek Wright, uh, police officer, Stanley, uh, Lucos, uh, Council of Aging, Christy Livingston, Council of Aging, Sherah House, Council of Aging, Mary Shader, Council of Aging, and Denise Miriam
Bson, committee. Is there a report from the clerk? >> Yep. So for these appointees, obviously again they've been confirmed in council. Um just to note, Melissa McDonald for building the commissioner did come in yesterday to take her oath. Um so just for the next agenda, as of right now,
she'll be moved down to section 7 um oath administered. As for the other ones, I will be contacting them again tomorrow and we'll see if anyone is able to come in in the next couple weeks. >> Awesome. Yeah. Um, so yeah, it'll be good if we can get those in so this list
can get smaller and smaller. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Hopefully uh disappear cuz the next meeting we're going to have about >> 12 or so interviews and >> you know >> so that'll be awesome. >> On that, do you have everything you need? Have you been able to do you have everyone's contact info?
>> Okay, so I've got emails for some people. I've got phone numbers for some people. So whatever the best way for contact with each one is, I go that route. So >> and then are we keep keeping track? I thought with this last night of the 90day window at all for some I don't
think anyone's close yet, but obviously I don't want anyone to not count because they missed that window. >> Yeah. So, with the um with the new template that the mayor gave us, it now shows the expiration dates. So, I actually have a calendar of when that 90
days will start to expire to the point where I hope to within the next couple weeks have the template where not the template but basically we'll know exactly who's going to be in the July, the August and June, you know, and so
forth as far as um making sure that they're in that window. So, I started working on it. Um, again, the way that the mayor went ahead and he put the expiration dates, expedited it. >> Mhm. >> Cuz it was really difficult before. Um,
because if you look at, for an example, um, pilot um, burns, it expires August 21st. This was one that was more timed since September. >> Mhm. So now, you know, that will go ahead and um we won't have that issue
after this next grouping of the 12 um that we have coming up on the next um appointments meeting. However, I already know who will be in the next May meeting at the end of the month. I already know who's going to be in the next June meeting. So,
>> but for their but once there's once they're approved, they have 90 days to take their oath, right? >> Oh, you're talking about to be confirmed so that we don't have that exact issue. I apologize. >> We've confirmed them, but now they need to take their O's for the 90 days. >> Gotcha. All right. So, yeah. You know what? Um,
>> and I don't know if we've thought of that. I thought of it only last night. >> Gotcha. From what? Um, just from quick memory, I want to say Greg Dumis was the earliest confirmed one on this list and I believe that was February. So, we are still within 90 days from that. >> Yes, I'm right. Thank you. So um not to
add more work, would it be too much to ask if kind of like when we have our um council meetings where is show um the date that we met on things as such, right? It shows that it in the parenthesis. >> Can we put that over here for when they
were supposed to be and then that would be easy for us to go ahead and go see that 90day? >> Yeah, I can definitely add that date on to >> Yeah, I think that would be >> the section. >> Okay. Um >> that's a good idea. I like that. >> Okay. >> Especially if it's Yeah. Not too much extra. >> Is it a lot on your plates?
>> All right. Is there any more discussion on the um appointees confirmed? >> For me. >> All right. Um appointees all administered. Um as the clerk just said, um Melissa McDonald just got hers um taken care of. So she
she will be on the next uh um agenda under that right there. But since I we already know it, I just spoke on it. Uh, communications items 11797, a measure confirming a measure approving the job description change for the
city's human resource director. >> Um, these two items go together, if you don't mind. >> No. >> Can I um And then item 11798, a measure approving the job description change for the city's youth center director. Um,
any discussion? >> Yeah, I think, you know, I looked them over. I I still think the human resources and it's great that now we have the original. So I I did a quick side by side. I'd like it one more time anyway, but it looks pretty good to me. Um it looks very similar. She just I think consolidated some things and
cleaned up some language. Uh for the youth center, I know we had suggested some edits the last both the first time we met on this and and the mayor was here for that meeting. Obviously, he hasn't been able to make it since. Um and I know the HR director couldn't make
it tonight. So I I would think we should have a little more time for that as well. We talked about things like adding changing the grades to 7 through 12 cuz that's the grade levels he actually serves. Um asking for some clarity on like what very responsible functions are
for the job duty. Uh mentioning making sure that there's mention of you know the pool aspect somewhere in the first page because that's all that's buried in the duties list. So there's a few things we pointed out. Nothing too big but um just to make sure there is no issue. It'd be nice to get some input from the
mayor or the HR director. So, they both look pretty good. I think there's a little left to be done on the youth center director myself, but uh so I would ask for more time if there's no objection to that. >> Okay. Um there's no objection from me. However, I just want to go ahead and
note that I did get an email today from um Director Morse um of the human resource um in favor basically speaking on the transition, but it would be great to be able to go ahead and have the discussion with the mayor in which he will be here be present for the next
meeting. Um I don't feel like there's a rush on this. So, >> agreed. I I definitely um I agree with you and the wording is important. So, we'll just go ahead and um again, if there's no objection, more time like you said. >> Thank you. >> All right. And that would be on both
items 11797 and items 11798. We'll ask for more time. All right. Item 11819, a measure, a communication from the mayor regarding ordinance requirements for length of terms for appointments.
>> So, on this one, Mr. Chairman, I um I guess it's a quick point of order. At the last meeting that we had, >> I had motioned you had seconded we had voted to send this to the full council for uh review and to place on file. >> So, we've already taken an action.
Technically, this should have gone onto the last full council agenda. Um but it didn't get for whatever reason it didn't get onto it and it's still here. So, it's it's technically just improperly on our agenda. We've already taken action on it. So, the only action we would need to do today is for you to just remove it
from our calendar and then for the clerk to make sure it's on the the full council agenda. >> All right. So, to be clear, you're making a motion to remove this from the calendar. >> Yeah. >> And a reminder for the clerk to go ahead and add it on to the next full council.
All right. Motion made by councelor Heglin, second by councelor Heath. I'm sorry, second, by the way. Motion made by councelor Heglin, second by council Heath. a communicate um to go ahead and remove item 11819, communication of the
mayor regarding ordinance requirements uh for length of terms for appointments to remove it off of the count off of the calendar and for this to be on the next council meeting. >> Correct. >> To be voted on.
>> All right. Um is there any discussion? >> Nothing further. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. All right. All those against say no. Motion pass. Item 11823. And if you don't mind, item 11824. They do go together. Um 11823, review and
approval of city clerk job description. And 11824, review and approval of assistant city clerk job description. Um, as you as you know, we are going to go ahead and we're going to be looking at
all the job descriptions. Um, and this right here is just um just some of them on the whole list of them that we're going to have to go ahead and get to. Um, is there any discussion on this? >> Sure. Thank you. Um, you know, obviously with the the change and the resignation
of the city clerk, it's a natural time to do this where we're going to have to hire a new clerk. So, I think it it makes sense that this is on our agenda. I did have a chance to start looking them over. I think my only questions and I'm not sure who we would really pose
these to unless we know today would really first and foremost was who wrote this one if we know uh it's you know dated April 2026 as the change which I think would make sense if it was submitted as a change for this meeting. However, you know with the ordinance we
would actually be reviewing the original dock as a council. So, that's one of my questions really. Who wrote this? Where did this one come from? Who made this change? Uh, can we get the original? Why don't
we have the original already before us? And or is this a suggestion? In which case, I would just be curious to know who though if the author of this could could speak on it and why they wanted to suggest what they suggested. So, those are my initial questions and I
don't know if that's something you through as as chair want to pose to the clerk or council president on the committee's behalf. Um, but this would be my initial question that since we don't have since the ordinance would be reviewing the job description and this is a job
description created in April of 26, we need the original to see to actually review and and and decide if we need to change the job description. Um, if this is a suggestion, that's fine, too. But we also need the original to compare it. And then whoever
wrote this and submitted this to the appointments committee, do they want to present on it? >> And I can always type up those questions and email them to you if you want. And then we can hopefully track down some answers. >> Well, um, >> unless you have a note.
>> So, um, what do you have a motion? Um, I guess at the moment my just for discussion, do you know any of those answers? Do you know if there's any answers as to who wrote this or updated it and or if it's a suggestion? >> So, I know that um so to answer your
question, I I know that this is so it's a suggestion. I know that I went ahead and I asked the mayor um initially and this was for all job descriptions that we have the old versus the new. >> Mhm. And don't quote me on the exact
date, but these job descriptions weren't done since 2014, >> probably. Yeah. >> And so I personally expected to see those on here is cuz if you had the date, that means you've seen it. Um so I I expected it in the minutes. Um well,
I'm sorry, in the packet. Um in which it's not. So, I would definitely go ahead and say that we can go ahead and pose the questions and have the answers, but in the meantime, ask for more time >> and absolutely. >> Yes. And and definitely go ahead and um again, the mayor will be here to speak
on this at the next meeting. So, who's better to get that information from than the mayor himself, but we can go ahead in the meantime, go ahead and send an email, have the questions, and then we can go ahead and uh discuss at the next meeting to go ahead and um look at it.
>> That'd be great. I I I I was going to ask for more time ultimately anyway. So just for the initial discussion, those are my quick thoughts and >> is was that. So yeah, if that's amenable to you, I can I'll happily send you my questions either to you or if you want me to just email them directly to the mayor and I can do that too and HR and
the clerk, they might know. I can always >> you can CC right away. >> Yeah. And I'll CC that would be great. >> Find out who wrote these, what the suggestion was, etc. Um, and then yeah, I haven't had much chance to review this for myself anyway. Um, so there's
definitely more I want to look at, but you know, one quick thing I caught on the assistance um, job description, and it's probably just a typo, but the job title says city clerk, the report two says city council president, but then in the body of the language, it, you know,
it notes assistant city clerk. So there's just a missing word on the job title. It should say assistant city clerk and it should report to I assume the city clerk, council president, um or both depending on what the suggestion might be or the best practice would be. So
there's definitely some edits and I think things to look at and I think more time is going to be needed regardless. >> All right. And um this is that example right there is um example number 153 on exactly why it's great to have a teacher here to go find these little errors that
I definitely looked over. Um, but I did I I didn't get to give this as much time as I would want to. Um, so more time is definitely beneficial for me to actually go ahead and look at it. Um, so if there's no um objection, more time.
>> Thank you. >> Along with the email that we'll go ahead and, you know, we'll pose the right questions to go ahead and have answers for the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. discussion on appointee I mean I'm sorry appointments committee rules
um did you have anything >> I don't have anything at the moment but I wouldn't mind hanging on to this just a little longer I guess just in case counselor Kazinskus who was in here today you know just at a difference to her maybe she's at our next meeting then if we it's probably something we could remove soon I think the meeting the
rules but maybe just in case keep that a little longer anyway >> keep it >> just to see if she has something she wanted to add. >> Yeah. Well, I I mean, I think it's good to keep it on the agenda, too, because we keep on having missing parts. We can go ahead and >> we're kind of building this as we
>> Yeah. So, keeping it there kind of keeps us in a um um way of getting reminders and, you know, so that we can be on the same page with a lot of things. Um so, yeah, we'll go ahead and um we'll keep this on the agenda. All right.
Discussion on current status of appointments. Um, I kind of touched on this earlier. Um, you know, the plan is, like I said, we'll be able to go ahead and know exactly when these, um,
appointments are supposed to go in, you know, what month, which um, appointments are supposed to be there. Um, hopefully we can get to the point of knowing what position, not even the person, just the position of the appointments can get there. But um, I guess we got to crawl
before we walk. And so um that's that's all I have for the discussion on current status of appointments. Um we will go ahead and we will discuss on a potential change on how we're going to contact and get in touch. Um because right now as
you know the last meeting we had one of 12 >> appointments coming. So we will be changing that process um on how we can get in touch. I did I spoke to one appointee today who should be at the next meeting and um
you know he he was like oh I didn't I didn't get in contact but I don't think he has a cell phone I think he has a home phone I don't know if he has a voicemail you know what I mean so we try to go ahead and go figure out ways that we can get these appointments in um which could include the new form in
which um we presented where a write up and things like that might be sufficient for some of them that can't get here. Um, obviously those that are uh stipened in um salary positions will be here, but some of these the one that I spoke to
today was not um was a volunteer. Great guy. Very, very great guy. So, you know, um that's all I have on discussion. Did you have any discussion? >> Nothing for me. Nope. >> All right. Clerk, did you have any discussion? >> Nope. Not specifically for that part.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. And then um upcoming meetings um we have May 12th. We're going to have a host of uh interviews that day. Um >> hopefully. >> Yes, hopefully. And um we'll know more within the next couple days. You'll
reach out and >> and we'll go ahead and we'll see if the new process uh helps us out to get more people to come in and uh thank them for the service and renew them for, you know, for what they signed up for. All right. um and vet them of course. Um so
we have uh May 12th uh at 5:30 and then we have June 9th at 5:30 um right here in city council chambers. Um with that being said, I'd like to entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Do I second that? >> Technically.
>> Second. >> All right. Um motion made by councelor Heglin for adjournment. Uh seconded by councelor Heath. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. We stand a journ.