Lovely. I got that. >> Um, Chief Sini is the new employee representative to the committee. He was uh voted in May, right? Didn't we do the vote in May? >> Seems like I think so. Yeah. In preparation for Keith's retirement.
>> Um, so, um, we could always just table this until we get Joyce. I know I can just keep for now. Okay. So, we the next item is
to review and vote on the minutes for previous meeting. So, we actually have two meeting minutes that need to be approved. April 23rd and April 28th. >> There are any comments? Feel free or edits that you need. Otherwise, I'll take a motion
>> to accept the ordinance. >> Second. >> Moved by Susan, seconded by Brenda. And all those in favor? >> I. >> Any abstensions or
nos? Okay. Both meeting minutes are approved. Approved >> so long ago. All right. Um, item three, there's a few different policy items. All of these would be policies that will be in the
will be or currently are in the personnel policies. Um, for the first two items I'm going what I provided to you are examples from other communities of their classification and compensation policy, how they implement it, how it's
written into the policy, as well as a sick leave bank policy. I'll get into more detail on both of these. My suggestion for both of these items is that um >> just turned her off. >> Oh yeah, sorry.
>> Hi Joyce. >> Hi. Um >> um >> we go >> nice. >> I can't see any of you. Is the owl turned off? on. >> That was my bad.
>> Notice. >> All right. >> Okay. >> So, Joyce, we've approved the meeting minutes, but we didn't do the reorg. So, we could go back in through the reorg. >> Okay. >> Or we'd be looking for a nominee for
chair and a nominee for vice chair. >> Um, >> anybody interested? Well, I mean, I don't mind carrying on as chair. Um, uh, for as long as I'm on this committee. Um,
that I mean, that that would be fine with me. Uh, or I'd be co-chair. If there's somebody itching to chair, I'd be happy to co-chair. >> Any any any willing >> I could do vice chair.
Okay. So, we have a city too. >> I'm due. >> We have a recommendation of Joyce as chair and Jerry as vice chair. Anybody want to so move that? >> So, move
>> by Brenda, seconded by Susan. Um, all in favor, we have to do roll calls because Joyce is remote. Uh, we'll start with Joyce. Uh, I >> Jim, >> I Brenda >> I >> Jerry I've Susan
>> and that's unanimous. Okay, so we have it's going to be Joyce and Jared. >> Perfect. >> Thank you both. >> Yes, thank you. Really? That's >> and I'm I'm happy to help out with what I can because I'm usually around during the day. >> Yeah.
>> But being new, I just >> Don't worry, there's homework and great Um, so just as you were getting on, uh, Joyce, I was mentioning that the main section here is about personnel
policies. The first three sub items are essentially policies within the personnel policies. The first two, the classification compensation policy and the sick leave bank policy. I've given examples of other community policies for
both of these items. My suggestion is we can certainly discuss either of the or both of these. However, I think it might make more sense if I was to work with an individual or two individuals on each of these topics and we can flush out a
version for weight and then at the next uh personnel committee you can actually approve the policies. I just wanted to give you the material. Now we can kind of discuss what the intention of that policy is and the committee can determine whether it even wants to do
the research or drafting of it and then if so then myself and whoever volunteers we can work together put together our own version and then come back. This committee would then make the recommendation a final recommendation of that to the select board because the
select board is the overseer of the personnel policy. Is there an existing policy now? >> Personnel policy. >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. There's a full policy that was >> May >> recently updated in May of 24. >> Yes. >> And that is available on the town website.
>> But not for these topics. >> Uh item C is but the first two items those topics are not current. The first >> So the first one is the one that is >> is there a version of these documents
>> currently for Wling? >> No. No. The first two items A and B do not exist in our personnel policies. That's why I've given you versions of other communities so we can write a version for our >> I wasn't sure been enhancement existed or No, no, that that's why I was saying we need to discuss if we want to do it
and if so I gave you examples. We can then write one and then tweak it as a body and then bring it to the select board. So that first one classification and compensation policy. This is the policy that we would we would essentially be revising the compensation
section in there is a compensation section in the personnel policies. it has nothing about the grade table for set table because it didn't exist. Um so that's that's why we would need to write up that policy how we will implement it
how we are going to use it going forward and I do did provide you >> examples from Prisbury and Westford. >> Yep. Uh yes, >> those are the two that I found that had substantive classification compensation
policies. Um and so I'm happy to work with somebody to um determine how we will take our table and write this up and create it put it into our personal policy. Um
>> right. So would I be wrong? I'm trying to think like what the the goal of having that policy. I mean we did the classification and compensation work last year. Um and having a policy would mean that we are sort of codifying our
in a way our thinking process as we thought through how do we ascribe you know what which jobs to which levels >> is that >> it's that yeah like if we ever have to reclassify a position in the future such as we add in a new position how do we
put them into the table >> um or if we were to expand an existing position how do we reclassify tie it into another step. But then it's also how do we now implement the steps are
will the policy say employees move up on an annual basis based ten specifically on tenure or is it going to be a mix of tenure and evaluations? Is it strictly that's what we also because
>> we need to be able to tell staff that this is what the policy is. So there if there is an expected step movement or not >> the other part of that would be the utilization of colas >> um cola is a strictly budgetary I mean it has nothing to do with personnel
policies >> but the utilization of the step program as you're describing it will come with a 2.5% or more um raise in addition to potentially whatever the cola is. So I think
>> poss yes >> we need to have some discussion and >> we can have a discussion >> cola is not part of your step table is on a annual basis communities decide whether or not there was a cut of living impact
>> um it's strictly budgetary it has nothing to do with policy personnel policy >> correct I guess my my perspective would be last year we brought everybody to what I think was a really good level of wage >> and now the question is moving forward If theoretically,
let's call COLA this year 3%. It's not as extreme as it was last year, but we then say, oh, we're also going to do an annual step for everybody. If that's the policy, then that's a five and a half% raise relative to the impact on the
budget and that may not be where we want to be. >> That's not a personnel committee discussion. >> Yep. COLA is not a personnel committee discussion other than to recommend it. >> Right. I'm just talking about how we utilize the table. I understand the COLA
piece. I'm just trying to say if we fix in this committee utilization of that matrix as an annual step increase or a merit-based increase that needs just to be considered relative to colum. It's all
right. I'm not trying to create a how do we compensate employees next year inside of the committee. It's just a matter of how do you use that table? Some people would say that table of steps should be merit-based or you're coming in, you know, you're
coming in step four and you did an incredible year, right? You increased your responsibility. We're going to bump you a step. >> Correct. Not that everybody should get an annual step because that's what I think COLA is intended to address.
>> No, no. COLA there's to So COLA is strictly to address the cost of living impact, >> right? >> Whereas step tables actually are not merit-based. They're based on the fact that you put in this time. You as an employee have increased your job
knowledge and your tenure within time invested in the town. Therefore, you get an increase in pay because now you've gotten more history. You've gotten more experience. You are now a more valuable employee because you put in that year of time. So, you've got more tenure which
has both a positive and negative phrase. I totally acknowledge that. Um, but that's why I keep emphasizing to you cola and a step table are completely separate and should not be conflated. They should never be you. You should not
determine a step should or should not happen because the town is going to do a two and a half% pull up. The cost of living has nothing to do with the person's ability to do their job >> or do their job >> or have done their job. Correct. Has nothing to do with that. has to do with
the fact that the economy has shifted and therefore it's more difficult for them to possibly even live in the area and provide service to you. >> Correct. Well, it's that utilization of the step table for compensation basis. I'm saying I believe still needs to be
flushed out. >> Oh, that's what this that's what this is about. That's what this policy is. But that's why I keep saying cola you have to take cola separate. Cola is not part of this conversation. I get it. Well, I came from the private sector. So, we didn't do any of this,
>> right? Um, it was based on merit only >> and company performance, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Unfortunately, we don't get to do it that way. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but I'm just saying before we started saying, oh, on an annual basis, everybody should get a
step that there still be some consideration of use of the table more as as you were saying, job enrichment, merit-based. Yes. Because not everybody, some people might go up two or three steps, not some might not go up any at all. They just sort of flatlined
performance. >> How how do you how do you determine that though? >> Yeah. >> You do that because you could base the the steps on a, you know, somebody that meets the standards for the review, >> right? >> But if somebody got
I know an exceptional rating on one thing, do they now go up two steps? Do they >> Well, that and that >> seems like they'd either go >> what we would be developing in this policy. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because that seems kind of I don't want to say arbitrary, but it kind of seems okay, you're going to go up one, but you
you've only been here a year, but you can go up two steps because you did really good last year, >> right? So, >> that seems >> right. The world I came from, we did reviews. So the employee would be reviewed with the supervisor and they'd sit and talk about the job, what they
did, what went well, where improvements could happen. >> Um, sometimes we did 360 reviews, so peers reviewed bosses, supervisors reviewed the bosses, clients might review the bosses. I don't think that
sounds overly complicated. >> Yeah. But it might I think there should at least be annual conversation between not necessarily related to the assignment of the step but there should be some sort of a review structure in the town for the town employees
>> and that's what yeah that was what was established in the update of personnel policies and that's what we actually are in the middle kind of finishing up >> is the reviews for FY25. >> Cool. Okay,
>> so that's classification compensation policy. That's to flush out how we're going to implement the step table. But then the other one, item B, which again is an example policy from other communities, does not exist right now.
It's a sickly bank policy. What a sickly bank policy is is um under our personnel policies, every employee, every benefited employee has sick time. um that's given based on a perated basis.
Sick time is uh renewed or acrewed annually. The problem is there are situations where people may have a significant health issue or an accident or something that takes them out for a longer period than what they have in their sick
availability. What a lot of municipalities have done is they create a sickly bank. A sick leave bank is a bank of extra hours that can be overseen by either a sick leave a sick leave bank
committee or a personnel committee that then would review or request to use hours out of that for their extended leave. They would have to guess they have to document the sever not everything within HIPPA. They would have
to document the particular need. a doctor had would have to verify that yes, they will need to be out for this extended period or they are out for this extended period. Um some towns the way they've implemented it in the examples you'll see that employees have the
ability to opt in or opt out. If they opt in, they donate a certain amount of their s hours into that bank so that they're reducing theirs a little with the off chance that in the future they can actually take more from it. Um
>> meaning they contribute for other people. >> Yeah. You're contributing for the greater good. Okay. >> Um, you're contributing for the good with your potential of using as part of it. Other communities, I saw one or two where the town just said the sickly bank
is immediately given 120 hours. Employees don't have to donate into it, but they still have to apply and they would have to be approved by whatever committee has to oversee it. Uh the rationale there is your sick leave time
is essentially just something that we have. There's a nonmonetary basis connection to the sick leave hours. It's not like we fund it as a separate budget item. It's still part of your personnel. It's your department budget. Um
whereas others are treating it if you donate into it, you you do have a theory of value to that time. We don't get paid out sick time unless you retire.
You get you don't get your sick time paid out to you unless you retire from the town. Um if you quit from the town or get fired, you lose it. So there it has a there's a mixed view on whether or not there's an actual dollar value to it. >> What determines retirement?
>> Um it's age related. Yeah. >> Is it carry over? Now there's the six sick leave if they don't use it >> carries over. Yep. >> I think while we were doing the policies we said that we could roll it over carry
it over up to a certain >> you know a cap. There is a cap. >> It's a large cap, right? Isn't it like >> there's cap? I know we've capped a few of them. I'm not now I'm not sure if sick leave was one.
>> Oh, no. I don't think there is actually. It's vacation. >> Vacation. >> Vacation. There's a cap. It's sick. There's no cap. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> 720 hours. >> Oh, there is. sick. >> Okay. >> See, I knew it was some >> It is 720 hours for full time, 360 for part-time.
>> So, if you retire, you get one day per year of service if you have the time, if you have the sick time. >> So, you don't get you don't get that 720 hours. You would get one day per year of service. >> Yeah. >> So, if you're here 30 years, you get 30 sick days.
>> You might not get the full 720. >> That's Yeah. Three months. Yeah. >> Three and a half. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> nice retirement because you started at $18 an hour and now you're making 50.
>> I know some long-term employees that >> had built up over a thous. reason they did it was they saw their sick leave as their insurance policy because they knew they had that ability
>> 1520 $20,000 bonus when you retire. >> Um >> so again, this is simply a suggestion. We don't have a new one. Um it's just that it did recently come up with a an
employee that did need um to go out for on a long stay and did not have sick hours. Um so it would help employees to know that should something catastrophic happen that they they don't
put off a a medical action simply because they don't have enough sick time available. Um, so again, if we if the committee feels that it is worthwhile to draft something that we can then all look at for a weekly version, I can work
with one of you and we can use the examples. Um, but I would say for these first two items we it's homework. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, >> it's homework for two of you along with myself. um or if more want to work on
it. Um but uh so for a who would like to work with me on the classification compensation and policy draft? >> I would. >> Okay. Anybody else? I can't have more than two
because once there's three of you then it constitute a committee. >> Yeah. So I'm happy to help on either A or B or both whatever. I don't want to, you know, too many chefs, but uh I Yeah, since my colleagues are generously volunteering, I better volunteer for
them. I'll do A with you guys or just B. Um >> All right. >> So, either way, >> I'm happy to help with B. >> You want to work on B? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Jim, you want to do the other B or I'll wrestle you?
>> I'm happy to help with whatever. Yeah. So if nobody wants to jump in then I'll >> Well, you know what? Actually, it would it'd be good to get your perspective because I feel like police unions typically have a sick leave bank. Not that we have one, but you may have people that you could talk to about how
they >> Yeah. And I think it would be be valuable to have our employee rep on the on the sick leave one as well, I think. I probably I mean actually on both but it um you know I I think this cle bank you'd have a little more insight into
>> what people need. >> Already looking at looking at the policies that you presented to us already there's already a couple of distinctions. Some of them say at the start of the year July 1st you give up one of your days that goes into banks. So you don't get 10 sick days anymore. You only get nine.
>> Yeah. because you're giving, you're forced to give one versus donating one or saying, "Hey, I'll give I've got a bunch of hours, so I'll give two of my days or three of my days." You know, some of some of these policies have the the only option is a days taken from you at the beginning of the year.
>> So, that's something to consider. >> So, it's mandated as a sick pack. >> Yeah. >> I like the idea of the donations. >> Yeah. I know one of them they actually seated it like the town seated a portion of it and then you could donate it to it as well. So >> yeah. Yeah. >> But it Yeah, it'd be good. I mean
>> that' be a good effort on part of the town. >> Yeah. >> Do something like that. >> So >> So we'll have Jerry, Brenda, and myself on the classification compensation policy and then Susan, Jim, and I on the
sick leave bank policy. And so we'll plan to make sure that we have like a rough draft on each theme for the next committee meeting. Um the next personnel policy item is a
request to recommend an amendment to it to the existing policy and this is specifically to the vacation section and the carryover allowance. Um the carryover of vacation currently says that
um each employee can carry over into the next fiscal year a maximum of 80 hours of paid vacation leave and prrated employees meaning those less than 40 are allowed to carry over a maximum of 44 hours of paid leave to the next fiscal
year. The problem with this is that it treats all pro-rated employees the same, saying you all get to carry over 44 hours regardless of what percentile of part-time you are. And it means so down in my example here, if a employee works
20 hours per week, that's 50% of full-time hours, meaning they're able to carry over more than 50% of their of the 80 hours that a full-timer would be able to carry over. Again, there's not they can carry over more than they earn, but they're able to carry over more than
their relevant equivalency on a full-time basis. >> Whereas another employee may be 28 hours per week is actually a 70% full-time equivalent, but they're only able to carry over 55% of what a full-timer could carry over. So, we're not treating
it the same. There's an easy fix. It's simply to change that second sentence so that it says benefited part-time employees are allowed to carry over a maximum amount of paid vacation leave hours on a pr-rated basis to the next fiscal year. We use that same language
in other sections for some reason in the vacation we stipulated a specific >> I'm not sure if you remember the conversation why that happened. I think it was a missile. It was like we would have
I mean that was a that was a while back. It was like 2024 or 2023 to 2024. Yeah, >> it was so that was a while back and I it I think what you suggest in the um where is it? It's on one of my screens here.
Um what you suggest in the packet the vacation carrier there I found it again. um at the bottom just changing it to prorated basis. That seems like the most fair thing to do and probably what we should have done
to begin with. >> Agreed. >> Okay. Is that is that prorated based on the number of hours they work or the number of hours? Look if they're a 20our week or 30 hour a week employee prorated on that or what if they work 34 or 32
hours a week. Does it get is it based on the hourly wage prorrated? I'm not sure how the no prorated what it means is if you're a 20our a week person you're 50% >> FTE. So yeah, as long as your if your
employee is has a standard number of hours per week. >> Okay. as if it's under 40, it's 40th based on that prorated percentile against the 40 >> percentage of what you're what you require to be. >> Yeah. Yeah. So percentage of the 40hour.
>> And what's the minimum number of hours? >> 20. >> And what's considered full-time? 36. >> 40. >> But no, 40 is fulltime. Okay. >> I thought it was 36 to be considered full-time in weight. It's 40. It's just
40. Yeah. 40. To get benefits, you have to be 40. >> No. >> 22. >> 20. That's That's why the minimum is 20. >> And everything else is prrated as far as benefits go except for this. >> All All things are prrated. >> Yeah. Except for
>> the carry over. Yes. Carry over and not prorrated right now. But your vacation acral is prorated right now. >> Yeah. So it just makes sense to have everything. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, then um it sounds like the committee is in agreement with the
change. >> Agree with the motion. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I I would that we changed the language of the second sentence to say benefit part-time employees are allowed to carry over maximum paid vacation hours on a
per basis of risk. >> Sorry. >> Oh. Oh, sorry. Joyce, you can take back over. Yeah, >> you can take that. You have a you have a motion and a second. >> Sorry, I was I was reading the uh
reading, you know, reading over the the thing. What am I supposed to do now? >> You know, roll call vote. >> Roll call vote. >> All right. Uh roll call vote. We'll start on your end. Uh let me see. Uh Susan, >> hi. >> Uh Jerry,
>> hi. >> Brenda, >> hi >> Jim. I >> Joyce I >> All right. I'll bring it to the select board at the next meeting and we'll finalize that. >> Um the next two items are related.
Um I was kind of discussing it earlier but um last year when we put out the job I was looking for the community development administrator we removed the job title of assistance fun administrator. The intention there was to take that job title and put it out of
point any existing employee going forward who could fit the responsibilities not make it always have to be the CDA. uh because the previous CDAS didn't want to fulfill that nor had the experience to do it. Um and I just wanted the
flexibility of asking the select board to appoint a different person whenever it might make sense. So um what I would like to do is we stripped out the job title but we didn't really really move the responsibilities
over. So, what I've done here is I've given you a draft of the job title for assistant T administrator and the CDA's job title with those items with a blue line through them. So, you can see what
would be amended. Um, it was also updating the work schedule because we did through the select board change the work number of work hours. Uh the ATA would not be a separate
employee, would not be a new hire, would not be a job posting. This is simply just the board adding the responsibilities onto do we just need to outline what those responsibilities are, which is essentially to support me. How does a compensation factor into
that? >> My recommendation to the board when it happens is that the existing employee would move up one grade because their responsibilities are now increasing. So it would just take wherever they currently are, let's say they're step
three in grade five, they'd be moved to step three of grade six. >> So would that be for just the portion of time devoted to assistant town administrator? No, because we won't track the time separately.
>> It's difficult to tell a person >> you're only doing this rule from two to 3 p.m. So, it would be it that's why it's not doing a separate pay uh because then we'd have to we'd probably be paying harder possibly. This
is saying we'll increase hours a little bit, give you the added responsibility, but you're going to get a higher pay rate. Uh, one step high or one grade higher >> or at least 4% is what you have in here. So, if you if you went up that one grade
and it wasn't equivalent to 4%, then you get the 4%. >> No, grades are grades are 8%. >> Grades are 8%. >> But you had Yeah, see if I can find it. It had been here that it had the >> behind the front second paragraph.
>> An employee appointed as the assistant town would moved up one grade level from their existing positions grade in classification compensation. I don't know where I spelled that. Was there two different versions of this or was it was no >> so
>> I mean grades are the bigger uh categories and then within each grade there's steps right so and when we were doing this before the grade was sort of the vertical ones >> and then >> steps were the across ones and the across ones were like >> two and a half
>> two and a half >> two and a half >> percent uh spread across there and then the difference between the blocks was something like 8%. >> So if somebody was at a step three and
position three, grade three, and they increase, would they go to step three of the next position? >> That that would be my recommendation to the board. Yeah. >> Got it. And everybody, they have their job split, you're saying
right now, just so I understand, they're just compensated at an hourly rate. There's no timekeeping. just one hourly rate for that person. >> Multiple roles. >> Oh, in this instance. >> Well, yeah, I guess in any instance
because potentially you drop in somebody who would happen like you don't have somebody at $25 an hour, 28 for another part of the job. >> We do. Um the only person that I can think of, well, no, there's a few. All
of our firefighters, they all have other jobs in the town, but there's a clear delineation of when they're working as a firefighter as opposed to when they're working in the highway department. So, it's very easy to track those separate times. >> Y >> this person as an ATA here.
>> Yeah. >> You can't tell them don't go into that door. >> Got it. >> To ask them accounting job questions when they're currently doing ATA role. That's the problem. Why we can't? >> Everybody here inside the building is at a set hourly wage regardless of what
their crops entitle. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's good. And then so again, if they were step three of grade three, they'd go to step three of grade four. Correct. >> Which would be is it a correlating 8% increase?
>> Yep. >> Going down that table through steps as well as >> Yeah. >> jump. >> Yeah. And so if they, my last part of that question would be, if they get the new job, then they move up a grade, what
happens with the new fiscal year relative to the step increase? And I know you're not going to want me to say anything about CO, but is it possible that I don't know if that's a problem or not. It's just occurring to me as I'm
thinking it through. on what the policy is going to say. If the policy is going to say that a person, >> an employee gets a step increase every annual, you know, >> they would just move >> to the next step in that grade. >> So theoretically, somebody could have been in position for two weeks.
>> No, moved up. >> That is a good question. >> Increase and then got up another step. >> We we implemented this last year when we did the policy or not the policy when we did the table. >> Yep. that anybody who had a rate increase or was hired within less than
six months was not eligible to be moved at all. They got it. >> We needed to we could we would only apply a cola on them essentially is the way that we worked out that table last year. >> Right. New hires >> for others we were trying to make sure that they got it to a proper step and
the cola. the others we simply looked at their current rate and gave them a colola. So in this particular case we're in December FY is in July. If in March this
position were implemented that person went up 8% and then come July 1st theoretically we were to use a step table that way they'd go up another two and a half%. >> They would only go up whatever the cola They wouldn't get that. You can't double
dip. >> Correct. Because it's less than six months. >> We should just specify that. >> Well, we can't specify it until that c somebody drafts the policy. But the intention the intention in the way that >> the the intention in the way that it is
done universally in other towns is you do not give a step increase if you've been in that role in Lester. >> We look forward to writing that together collaboratively with you. >> You do get a cola because the cost of living is impeded on everybody
regardless of how long they've worked somewhere. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the time. Um, so those, yeah, so that's the intention with the ATA. That's why there's a drafted to job
description, but then I didn't want the two positions getting confused. So that's why the CDA's job description would have to be amended those responsibilities. >> Um, and then again, it's just also adjusting that work schedule because we
did agree to hire the current CDA at 28 hours a week. um with the ability to work up to 40 should once they're done their masters programs go to a full-time role. Um so that's why that just have that amendment
in there. But if the committee is good with these I can then bring these to the select board and ask the select board to sign off on these job descriptions. I have one comment on the ATA under essential duties and responsibilities section of the last
Massachusetts land use laws. Looks like it was a cut and paste. >> It was a cut and paste >> and that it wouldn't be land use for that time. >> Broad knowledge of town operations and Massachusetts law. Yeah, we could just get rid of that.
>> Good catch. That was the only thing that I saw though. >> It's on the CDA. >> It's on the ATA. >> No, the CD CDA is accurate. >> It's on the CDA. >> Yep. >> Just not specified.
>> Good catch. >> Um, >> what a good work. Then the other parts of this, the bullet points under general duties and responsibilities, this is for the CDA, um, are essentially not changed. They're
not changed from the current, are they? >> Yeah. I don't want to I want to take off the responsibility from Catherine since that wasn't the intention wasn't that she was going to be doing those anyways, but I wouldn't want to change any of her current. >> Right. Right. Now, I just want because I
don't see something that's redlined here. I just see the the um >> Oh, do you have the word version open? >> I'm I went to the packet and I um open the file. Is there a different version I'm supposed to be looking at? >> Well, are you open in a in Word? itself
or are you in the browser? Because if you're in the browser, it's going to show you what the changes. >> It's in a browser window. >> Yeah. So, you need to open it in Word so that you can actually see track changes. >> Okay. And then All right. So, I hit that button.
>> But it is. >> Yeah. >> I'm just going to download the whole the whole uh package. >> Yeah. You're then you'll be able to see the red line. Yeah. Okay, I see the the red line version. That makes good sense.
They're like you didn't change anything in the document >> and pretty much the ones that are taken out of the studio. That makes the purpose of I feel like given the additional like responsibility and contact with
sensitive information and the things that we were considering when we were sorting about grades. Um, a grade step is probably appropriate here. >> Mean for the ETA.
>> Yeah. >> If the committee is in agreement with that one edit. >> Yeah. >> Take a vote and then I can bring it to the bridge. Okay. >> Patient very patient.
>> I just wasn't sure if any >> was I was waiting for it. >> For a while. >> Yeah. >> See, not sure about the font choice >> size. I have to wear my glasses. >> I get a six page and one of them.
>> So, I'll move to recommend. You want me to do them one at a time? >> You can. >> Sure. >> Whatever you prefer. >> I'll move to recommend the uh position description for the assistant town administrator. >> Does that have to be in that motion as well?
>> Edited. >> Edit it. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Did I hear a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Um any no further discussion? And we'll take the roll call vote. We'll start with Susan again. >> Hi,
>> Jerry. >> Yes, >> Brenda. >> I. >> Jim, >> I. >> Me? I. All right. And I'd entertain another motion on the community development administrator.
I move that we accept the revised um descript job description for the community development administrator with the recommended revisions. >> Second. >> Okay, great. Moved and seconded. Let's to go to a roll call vote. I'm going to
mix it up this time. Jim, you first. >> I. >> Brenda, >> I. >> Jerry, >> yes. >> Susan, >> hi. >> Joyce, I All right. Great.
Um, then item number four, right, is preparation for the budget season and items that the personnel committee will need to make recommendations on. So, have you got uh some more homework for us here, Pete?
>> Um, yeah, I guess so. So the yes, >> you you know, well, at least the longtime personnel committee members know, every year you have to make recommendations to the finance committee as to pay increases as well as pay
adjustments should somebody need to be adjusted differently than uh you would normally do as well as your cola recommendation. Now that we have the step table, you're going to be making the recommendation to the board about how that step table was implemented. So
the personnel committee definitely still needs to make recommendation on colola, but you will also receive, if I receive any recommendation from any department head who would may ask the
personnel committee to consider moving somebody beyond where they currently are in their step. um if that that department head feels because that person got a certification or something and so they'd like the personnel committee to move the person from a step
two to a step five. You would essentially be also making the recommendation to the finance committee essentially saying we want to adjust their pay from this to this because the finance committee doesn't get to determine steps but they do get to determine how much money gets to be
outlaid. So you're going to be making that recommendation if if any commit um all departments were advised that's how we do it in the past if they wanted to make any arguments or any propose
anybody to do a significant adjustment then we would bring it to you. >> Would that also apply to number of hours? No person could say, "I have an employee who's currently only working two days a week, and I really could use their help three days a week or four days a week."
>> It would only apply if it's specifically within their job description because then they're essentially asking the job description to be revised, which the personnel committee does weigh in on, but on the number of hours that can go in essentially to pay the person for
that budget, that's a budget discussion that really is the finance committee income. Yeah, because at Fincom, that's when you see the list of the employees on the budget sheet. We do say number of hours per week so that you're told how many. Um, and that's when you say, you
know what, the finance department is asking for too much money this year. That 24-hour person, we want you to move them to a 20our person. And that's why you get told >> or vice versa, the other way or the other way around. I wasn't sure >> but that's how you as the finance committee get to make the recommendation
on ours because of the the actual budgetary application. >> But yeah, if the job description was void of like hour restriction, there wouldn't be any for. >> Okay. Thank you. I guess the
possibly oh if they were if the recommendation was to shift them from parttime to full-time that would definitely be >> because the personnel would kind of want to understand impact of having more staff. Um there
might be some rationale because it was 20. >> Yeah. Y 40. >> Yeah. >> I know the police position part-time to full-time is a great increase the whole >> grade. Yeah.
The position. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, there would be some instances for that. But yeah, I guess it would be on a case by case not that we're subjectively determining whether it come there would be a definitive reason why it would work.
>> Thank you. Um, so I guess as to Joyce's question about homework, yeah, if anybody would like to start looking into the cola, um, I did I was talking with the
Fairfield town administrator and he was saying they've already started looking at cola and unfortunately because of the government shutdown, it does mean that data for October or November does not exist, which is impacting the ability to look at the >> right
>> market impact um at least this early. So you could still start doing the looking at it. Um the fin comp discussion is going to be there is likely we're likely still going
to have to plan for a 20% increase on health insurance again >> not just >> everybody it's just approved for town meeting >> correct yeah for FY27 all all
government agencies at least In Massachusetts, they are expecting insurance cost to go across the board go up 20%. >> That's mostly because of that class of drugs. >> This point there there's no pinpointing it other than that the the medical
claims are not going down. >> Um it's still a problem uh across the market. So >> So it's another 30 grand, right? The health insurance like 150. No, we're at
um we're now at 666,000. >> Yeah. >> Budgeted. >> Yep. Um so if we go up another 20% >> Yeah. Thank you. Your guess. So we'll be about 700,000. No, about 800,000 next year.
We always look at um I get numbers from treasury because that's where we have our number of uh accounts well the types of accounts that we sorry uh insurance coverages whether number of families
accounts that we have singlepayer accounts because we will look at those and get a better number. But in general, we're we have we should budget for a 20% increase. The other thing is the GIT is
planning to offer additional plans to reduce cost, but regardless, Frontier Regional is already budgeting. They're planning on a possible 20% increase. They just want to set the ground. Um, and so that's what I'll likely put in
initially and then when we get better data from uh git we can revise that number. But >> so the the reason why I bring this up is because Deerfield whether it's good or not is planning on
a lower cola than last year because the health insurance coverage is going to be increase is going to be so much. So they're kind of looking at it to half% for next year. >> They went early last year, I think. Weren't they also December? We didn't do ours until
>> March or April. >> No, pretty late game. >> No. Um, we did ours in June and they did theirs. No, I remember the determining. >> Oh, determining the colon. >> Yes. Well, that's why is they're doing they always do it, >> you know.
>> So, >> um yeah, they're Yeah, I guess it's because they try to line wise budget here, but >> So, they're doing 28 >> I think 2. Oh, did they say 28? >> No, I thought 2.5. >> 2.5.
>> Yeah, >> that's currently what they're discussing, but they haven't voted on it. Social Security has come out with 2A. >> Correct. >> Oh, really? Okay. And they're 2A and you can still get a lot of CPI data even
though they missed those eight weeks because you can do it year-over-year. So, you just leave that six week period of insanity out. Probably shouldn't say that, but there's still meaningful data available. But it's early in the
process. I think >> it feels to be in case. >> Yeah. So, generally it's around 3% right now. >> Yeah. >> Well, >> yeah. Yeah. I think our finance committee might not be ready to hear from us about this until March.
>> So, we have a little while to be looking at that data as it goes along. >> Right. Pretty fluid at the moment. So, >> yeah. >> The Fed's going to meet actually probably till like right about this time tomorrow.
where they went with their stuff. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> So, no homework choice. >> Not necessarily unless you know somebody wants to have some fun. >> Yeah. Looking for data that's not there. >> Yeah.
All right. Well, it looks like we are at the end of our agenda. Are there any items that were not anticipated? I would the only item I would say because it's not listed I forgot to list it is maybe setting a next meeting
>> simply to review the drafted policies those two policy drafts um totally acknowledging the fact that we do have the holidays but I'm wondering if maybe um even if it was the week of January 19th
because if we do it that week, then I can bring it to the select board January 28th. If we do finalize any of the policies, I can bring it to them January 28th. That still gives me plenty of time to whatever the determination is on the step usage to figure out how it
plays into the budget. So that once we get really into the meat of the budget in March, I will have already been able to calculate everything. >> What day of the week? >> Um I that's that's a discussion. The week of January 19th is what I was looking at. Yeah. >> Monday is more weekend.
>> Yeah. >> And classes are not in session yet. So I am pretty flexible that week. >> Okay. We have a big come meeting at >> 5 on the 20th. Um
but otherwise earlier on Tuesday or there's Wednesday or Thursday. >> Wednesday afternoon doesn't work for Does Tuesday afternoon work between >> okay with me? >> It'll be fresh in your head so you can
report to the big car. >> Yeah. Do you want two meetings in a day? >> You guys are hurting. >> We don't have to do a Tuesday. >> Is that a Tuesday? >> Yeah. Um, I have to check because I have client meetings every other week at one o'clock on Tuesdays. I just don't know
if I that's an on week or an off week. >> Well, we can always look at Thursday. >> Yep. >> How does Thursday the 22nd sounds? >> I'll have to check again because that's my other client. >> But that's at 3:00. So
>> we did earlier >> really anytime is fine on that day because no classes yet. >> Oh, >> there's no classes for my classes don't start till the 26th. >> Does one o'clock on that Thursday work okay for everybody?
>> Oh yeah, we had a lot of items today and we're done in an hour. So, >> so Thursday the 22nd at one. >> Thank you. >> Great.
>> I guess I have a procedural question. Um, additional items like adding things to the agenda. Is that just like notifying you? So, we talked about the review process that we're going through right now and possibly discussing that with the personnel committee.
>> Um, that is that like an agenda item that has to go on there. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, if you want if any committee member ever wants an item to be added to an upcoming agenda, you would essentially send it to Joyce and copy a so that I can put it onto it. But you
send it to choice because the chair actually is the controller, the the ends the end person to decide what does and doesn't go on an agenda. So yeah, >> you really do need Joyce to sign off on it. Um, >> it's just >> But I'm pretty I'm pretty tough on that,
right? >> And that's Joyce's response are it looks good. >> Yeah. or we've got a lot of work to do. >> Or oh, this one's thin. I might be out by seven. >> Yeah.
Is that a 48 hour window? It's got to be in within 4. >> Yeah, the we always post at least a week before the meeting. Um but we can't amend the uh the agenda at least to add items within 48 hours. >> Okay. >> We can we can remove items, but we can't
add items, >> right? So, good to get it in 48 hours ahead or or even more. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Do you want um discussion on the performance evaluation process to be on
the next agenda? >> I don't I don't think it would hurt because we'll probably be done by then. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> And then we could kind of evaluate the process as we went through it. >> Yeah. I'd like I'd like to hear an update. >> That sounds like a good idea. All right, let's put that on the agenda. Pete, >> that was easy.
That's a chair speaking >> and I think do you want to reach out to the appropriate pair of people for each of the topics for policies. Sorry. Oh, sorry.
>> For schedule, for example, Jim and I are working with you. Oh, yeah. Basically, do you want to reach out to us with >> Yeah, I'll email each of the groups with these attachments again and then just see who wants to take the initial stab and how you would want to work together
um on reviewing and drafting and we can kind of flush that out. We have um we have a little bit of time, but I'd rather not wait till the end um to have something. But yeah, I'll I'll email each group separately.
>> Thanks. Sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Need a motion. >> I heard >> I heard a motion, but I didn't hear a second.
>> We need a second, guys. >> Second. >> All right. Great. Roll call this vote. Jim, >> yes. >> Brenda, >> I. >> Jerry, >> hi. >> Susan, >> hi.
>> Joyce, I thanks everybody.