Employee Confidentiality?
Once upon a time, it was thought that discussing employee issues in a public forum was a VERY bad idea! As in creating a lot of legal issues.
From the TA report dated may 10, 2018:
"6. h. As you may recall from the budget hearing on the Sewer Department budget we were unable to
reach agreement with the Commissioner representing them to phase-in the Administrative Assistant to
full time in accord with the Policy on the Reduction and Control of Fringe Benefit Costs. The sticking
point was he was unwilling to accept that the Personnel Policy provision for the accrual of sick leave
should be applied to this person. After lengthy discussion the BoS instructed me to include a figure in
the budget to bring this person to a forty-hour schedule effective July 1, 2018. Subsequent to that the
BoS instructed me to carry out a study of the costs and benefits of implementing the long-standing
recommendation of DOR and two audit firms
Since then I have had lengthy and continuing discussions with the Commissioner seeking that he instruct their software vendor to speak with our vendor on specific questions to which we need the answers to in order to complete the study you directed me to undertake. This request has been rebuffed in the continuing conflict of why the sick leave policy should be applied uniformly across the organization and the risks of implementing any policy based upon singularism and favoritism. At this same time the issue arose on then need to clarify the maximum accrual of leave time for part-times which was not worded as artfully as we might desire.
This amendment seeks to address the two matters at issue. The first is to establish the maximum amount of time part-time employees can accrue in total. While the current policy is consistent with statute in that the maximum that can be earned in one year is 40 hours, it does not clearly address the total amount that can be earned. We propose that be set at 40 hours in total.
The second is to address those people who work substantially more than 20 hours per week but are not full time. For those people we propose to revert to the approach that was in use in the prior 2013 edition of the Personnel Policy and more closely aligns to the provisions for vacation and the like. At this time, we only have two such employees (Ms. Prime and Ms. Osborne). The annual accruals would be impacted by an additional 75+/- hours per year. Total accruals would see a greater
increase. However, this impact goes down substantially if Ms. Prime goes to 40 hours per week with the adoption of the proposed budget. In the Sewer Department Ms. Osborne was budgeted at 40 hours/week when you could not reach an accommodation with the Commissioner over a phased plan to comply with the Policy on Reduction of the Costs of Fringe Benefits. However, this modification will meet the objection they had and we could, within the adopted budget, drop back to 36 hours/week.
This will go a long way toward improving relations with them in general if we can resolve an agreeable effective date. The Sewer Commissioner has indicated they require the effective date be July 1, 2018 and spoken to the idea of different policies for different (one size does not fit all). I have told him I am uncomfortable with that as I have come to believe one should attempt to treat all issues in the same way each time with only limited variances to meet predetermined criteria (one policy driven by fact-based criteria apply uniformly). In fact, that is the reason I have expanded this to all such employees and not just Ms. Osborne.
Since then I have had lengthy and continuing discussions with the Commissioner seeking that he instruct their software vendor to speak with our vendor on specific questions to which we need the answers to in order to complete the study you directed me to undertake. This request has been rebuffed in the continuing conflict of why the sick leave policy should be applied uniformly across the organization and the risks of implementing any policy based upon singularism and favoritism. At this same time the issue arose on then need to clarify the maximum accrual of leave time for part-times which was not worded as artfully as we might desire.
This amendment seeks to address the two matters at issue. The first is to establish the maximum amount of time part-time employees can accrue in total. While the current policy is consistent with statute in that the maximum that can be earned in one year is 40 hours, it does not clearly address the total amount that can be earned. We propose that be set at 40 hours in total.
The second is to address those people who work substantially more than 20 hours per week but are not full time. For those people we propose to revert to the approach that was in use in the prior 2013 edition of the Personnel Policy and more closely aligns to the provisions for vacation and the like. At this time, we only have two such employees (Ms. Prime and Ms. Osborne). The annual accruals would be impacted by an additional 75+/- hours per year. Total accruals would see a greater
increase. However, this impact goes down substantially if Ms. Prime goes to 40 hours per week with the adoption of the proposed budget. In the Sewer Department Ms. Osborne was budgeted at 40 hours/week when you could not reach an accommodation with the Commissioner over a phased plan to comply with the Policy on Reduction of the Costs of Fringe Benefits. However, this modification will meet the objection they had and we could, within the adopted budget, drop back to 36 hours/week.
This will go a long way toward improving relations with them in general if we can resolve an agreeable effective date. The Sewer Commissioner has indicated they require the effective date be July 1, 2018 and spoken to the idea of different policies for different (one size does not fit all). I have told him I am uncomfortable with that as I have come to believe one should attempt to treat all issues in the same way each time with only limited variances to meet predetermined criteria (one policy driven by fact-based criteria apply uniformly). In fact, that is the reason I have expanded this to all such employees and not just Ms. Osborne.
You will need to make the final decision. That may be influenced by the related matter that I opened
this brief on; the Commissioner has indicated he will not instruct the current provider of the billing
software to converse with our software provider about the questions we have until the BoS acts to
adopt this amendment and makes it retroactive to July 1, 2017. Even with such access you must see by
now the continuing challenge is making the long-advocated conversion despite its benefits to our
financial management system(s), the savings to the taxpayer, and the savings to the sewer user.
I must inform you once again that I can complete the report that you await on the possible software conversion until I receive such information as I have informed the Commissioner I need.
I must inform you once again that I can complete the report that you await on the possible software conversion until I receive such information as I have informed the Commissioner I need.
Do we have Sewer Commissioners? Did we vote for the Selectmen to act as Sewer Commissioners?
Define "artful".
No comments:
Post a Comment