Before I get into the reasons I am against the Personnel Board’s non-union salary increase, let me first say that, in general, I am for increasing the salary of all non-union personnel. What I have issue with is the unethical manner in which the proposal was created, the false way in which it was presented, and the fact that it allows employees to jump many “steps” in 1 year. The last issue is responsible for crazy salary increases of 25%, 40%, and 60%
The first reason I am against this study is the simple reason that the most senior employees are being allowed to jump up to 8 steps at once in 1 year. For those not familiar with steps, a step is a payment designation where you get a percentage increase (in the latest proposal, 2%) to your salary one year at a time until you get to the ‘max’ step. At that point only Cost of Living Adjustments allow you to continue to get a raise year to year. Normally if you add steps to allow for more salary increases for currently ‘maxed out’ employees, they have to go up 1 step every 1 year. For example, if the old max step was 7 and we added steps 8 through 15, that ‘maxed out’ employee would have to continue moving up the pay scale 1 step every year. This is done intentially to avoid the exact situation we are in now. What the Personnel Board decided to do was throw that precedent aside and instead move ‘maxed out’ employees directly to the new max step, all in 1 year. This is why we are seeing such huge salary increases. Some employees are jumping 8 Steps in 1 year. These large salary increases are going to be a point of contention for other unions when we begin negotiations. If this passes Monday night, the Unions may very well try to use this as leverage to get bigger salary increases for themselves. The Town will most likely claim that the 2 things are not connected at all, and it will set the tone for the first few contract meetings to have a lot of friction. We need to agree on a plan for raises that’s fair to ALL employees, not just the most senior staff already at the top of the payscale.
The second reason I am against this proposal, is that anyone within the current step structure, i.e. employees who are not ‘maxed out’ are going to be seeing a decrease in their year to year step increases. The existing step percentage increase is 2.5%. The Personnel Board proposal, while increasing steps, reduces the persentage increase from 2.5% to 2.0%. So it adds more steps which will help out ‘maxed out’ employees, but lowers the percentage increase which hurts the non maxed out employees. I would recommend keeping the 2.5% for the steps that currently exist to ensure that no employee is losing out.
The third reason for being against this is the pure lack of collaboration with the Selectboard on anything. One meeting to hear the concerns of Selectboard memebers could have avoided all of this, but this was not something anyone felt the need to dicsuss apparently.
Forth reason, but possibly the biggest problem is due to an Ethics Violation. Massachusetts State Law regarding Self-Dealing and Nepotism is worded as follows: “A public employee may not participate in any particular matter in which he/she or a member of his/her immediate family (parents, children, siblings, spouse, and spouse’s parents, children, and siblings) has a financial interest.” If you watch public municipal meetings enough, eventually you will see someone recuse themselves so that this law is not violated. Selectman Kobus, being a teacher, on many occassions has recused himself from discussions or votes regarding the schools. Selectman Kerrigan has recused himself if votes may benefit family members. Every board seems to understand this simple and self evident rule with the expection of the Personnel Board. For some reason, they find no issue with 2 employees driving the salary study and also having a memeber of their board being a son of a Town Employee and not recusing himself. And both employees pushing the study are getting large raises out of it. It is true that there is nothing wrong with an employee serving on the Personnel Board as some have pointed out. However as a representative from the MA Ethics commision has noted, this does not prevent them from still having to follow all rules regarding Self-Dealing and Nepotism and recusing themselves anytime there is a discussion or vote where they or an immediate family member could directly benefit. This did not happen. I do not know what effect this ethics violation has on the approval of the proposed salary structure, but we will find out in due time. This was really an option of last resort. Nobody wanted to file a complaint, but few options were left available when the Personnel Board was moving ahead in such a brazen manner with no intention for discussion on the few concerns that some of the Selectboard members had. If they had agreed to one simple meeting to voice these concerns and come to a compromise, we could probably have come to some kind of understanding that would make filing these ethics complaints unnecessary. But at every turn the Peronnel Board has chosen to stick a thumb in our eye and just charge ahead.
But even after all that, I still want to implement some form of a salary increase based on the study done, we just need to meet and discuss it. Please join me in Voting No, on Article 3 which is the Personnel Board’s proposal. After that we can meet with the Personnel Board and come to an agreement and then do a Special Town Meeting to get it passed properly. So contrary to what you may have heard, Selectman Kobus and myself are for almost all of the recommendations in the non union salary increase proposal. Our only execption is the fast tracking of employees up to 8 steps in 1 year. Its unprecented and it will add months of pointless posturing and friction at the onsett of other Union negotiations.
MA Ethics Commission Link: Self-Dealing and Nepotism- Conflict of Interest Law Restrictions (G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 and 19) | Mass.gov