January 20, 2026 – Personnel Board – Video & Transcript

January 20, 2026 - Personnel Board

Autoscroll:

So we have a quarrel. We're just waiting for Mary Ellen, but I will call the personnel board meeting of January 20th, column 26th, to order at 4.01 p.m. And Jill Zuckerman is taking minutes. We have President in the room, Jill Zukerman, Dave Williams, Mary Ann Peabody. We have Paul Morenberg online, and we have Kate Ryan, our HR director for the town of May 1, in the room. And our Zoom coordinator is Robbie Bullard.
Can I ask two quick questions? I'm sorry. Is Mary Ellen expected or not expected? I'm here. I'm here. Can you hear me? I don't know whether I'm supposed to get into the panelist or as an attendee. Oh, an attendee, right? I don't feel over. I'm a scooter driver. And do you prefer to go by Dave or David? Yeah, Dave's great. Dave. So should I get off and go back on? I'm here again. So, as good as you would be. Okay. The location for in-person meetings is wheelchair accessible. If you need other accommodations, this is the future, I guess, in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Wayland's ADA coordinator at 508-358-6821 at least two business days in advance of the meeting. While the municipality will do its best to accommodate you, certain accommodations may require the hiring of outside contractors who may not be available if requested immediately for the meeting. Just so people know, the meeting is being recorded and will be made available to the public on Wacom as soon as possible after the meeting. The public will be excluded from executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote access in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting, oh, we're not on the remote, but the public can be permitted and also may watch or participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at When required over the law or allowed by the chair, now someone's making a recommendation here, and I don't know who, but somebody says, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting, may do so at the meeting location and personal remote access is applicable, and this is the recommendation. The public should try to comment their comment to limit to two minutes per person. The agenda for the public and for everybody in the room, call to order, announcement, and public comment. Then we'll have a discussion and possible vote to recommend provisions to the following personnel bylaws, mutual respect in the workplace, sexual harassment, protection from retaliation, standards of conduct, and equal employment opportunity. I didn't get the numbers, but then we go to human resource manager report with personnel board questions and comments, an update on the classification and compensation study, and discussion and approval of open session meeting minutes of 10, 8, 25, and 11, 5, 25. And I don't have the lines from December available yet. And then we have the personnel board members' reports and concerns and topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance. If any, we will set the next meeting date when we're all sharing. And we would all of us like to welcome our new personnel board member, David Williams. Thank you. Hi, Paul. Welcome. David, take a quick minute and tell us about yourself. Yeah, yeah, sure. So I have been in Wayland for about seven years now. I live over on Sherman's Bridge. For me, from a professional standpoint, I've been in either agency recruiting or corporate recruiting for about 20 years. And then about a year ago, I started my own HR consulting firm, and I specialize in talent acquisition. So I work with small and mid-sized companies that will provide their hiring and recruiting processes. Personally, I have my daughter, Avery, is in middle school. She's in seventh grade. And then my wife and our little dogs. We have much little ones at home. I think I'm most of the time. Thank you. You're welcome. You get it? Um, the next, uh, is announcements and public comment. I have no announcements. Hey, do you have any announcements? Um, and Robbie, is there anybody to make public comment? I'll see more online. Okay, thank you. Uh, so we'll go to the, um, the, uh, personnel policies. And I think we want to, uh, while it's through your thought process on the ones that we're going to merge together, and then, um, yeah, just start us off. Yeah. So, um, yeah, so, um, um, I, I, I, uh, I have a number of policies in your, um, your packet. Uh, I'm not recommending that we listen to all of them. I added the standards of conduct and the people from an opportunity because I feel like it is a broad conversation. They should be part of what we're talking about, the anti-discrimination, harassment, and combining those into one. So there's been, there's a trend, not just in municipalities, but in general, of combining both sexual harassment policy into a larger framework that is harassing into discrimination, into one policy. Because Massachusetts requires that we have a sexual harassment policy and that we give it to employees every year that sign an acknowledgement. So I guess the recommendation here is to combine, you know, to broaden this sexual harassment policy basis we currently have. So it includes harassment and I think go as far as anti-discrimination and you can also include the equal employment opportunity piece in this, which I did not do, but we can talk about whether or not you can think that might be a good idea. I did, I do think that the mutual respect to the workplace policy is somewhat redundant if we're going to move forward with this new policy. And we may, I mean, my recommendation would be to sunset, but it's no longer a policy. And then any language in the mutual respect in the workplace is completely shifted to the sexual harassment or perhaps to be stated as a product for those things to kind of, you know, fit together. So that's, that's the big picture overview. I'm happy for, oh, I did also include in your packet, the Mass Municipal Association has a sample policy, which is a discrimination, harassment, and then there was a sort of a white, or not a white group, but an e-update from KDP Law, who's our, our actually, our council, training council, on combining that and that trend of combining those into one policy. And they also provided an example. So I'm happy for comments, suggestions, go through the policies. I have one general question, well, two, actually. One is, they're not, these are numbered not sequentially, and sometimes they're in different places, and they'll kind of put them together and renumber them. So all of these policies that are similar will be closer together. And the other thing I wanted to say is that in the first paragraph of mutual respect in the workplace, it was drawn up, it was drawn up by the personnel board, but it really applied equally to committee members and board members. And so if we take this away, it completely goes away, and perhaps the select board would want to put one somewhere for mutual respect in the workplace or employees and town volunteers and, you know, town citizens or the residents. That would be my question as well, because the mutual respect in the workplace adds residents and individuals conducting business with the town, that wouldn't be in, like, a workplace harassment policy. I agree. I mean, I think, I don't know that the personnel board has the authority to, I mean, if this would be sort of a mutual respect to policy for boards and committees, that really should fall on this level, but not the personnel board. So I think it's a little odd that it was included here, because this is really a personnel policy rather than a board and committee policy. Yeah. So I agree. I think it would be helpful to have someone like this with boards and committees for that. I think it's always found historically in the fact that board members, some of them, were in and so considered employees, and almost not, not to the same perspective, and there were some people that hadn't been open to or something way, way back. But, but we were, I mean, when I was on the board of health, we were paid, we selected one of these to be paid, not anymore. So I think that's maybe why they just didn't pay me there, but I don't know why you. I think this is a real quick question. So this is the first time it's being revised since 2005? I think so. Yeah. What prompted that, was it just, we need an update for it, or kind of, kind of, you know, just to go back for them instead of getting up for it? Well, yeah, going through all of our policies right now, we've done, we've focused on the non-union policies, so we have separate ones for these policies to provide everyone across the board, even those covered by climate department. I mean, only a separate policy, so there's like a sick time on vacation, holidays, just for our amount of union, and we went between those. And now we're sort of, sort of, going back to some of the broader policies, and I thought this was, well, our chair wanted to start out with me, so. We, and we have always done the personnel policies, and over time, but then there were several years that there was a lot of turnover in town personnel. And so, even though the personnel board would say it's fun to do the policies, there was nobody to step up and do it, so it's a little more stable now in the back room. Yeah, good.
If this were to be sunset, is it something that we have to vote on, Marianne? Is it something that Kate could, like, how would we then move this forward to the select board? I mean, we think it's a good idea. I mean, I don't know why it fell to the personnel board to begin with, but it did fall to us at a time. They wanted to have residents and committee members and board members with the policy, because there were times in town that there were some pretty testy interactions between personnel, town personnel, board members, committee members. Yeah, so that's what we were talking about. So, the action on that is that Kate will ask the select board. Okay, great. I don't know how to address this, but the microphone for me is terrible. I can barely hear you guys. Oh, this one here? Yeah, well, I mean, I hear some of what you're saying and not everything, but, you know, I wish I could be there in person. Oh, so we try and speak up more, I guess, right? I'm sorry? If we try and speak up more, does that help? Yeah, or speak toward the microphone. I mean, I'll do my best, but I'm just letting you know. Is this microphone working? I don't know. So, Mary Ellen, are you having the same issues?
No, I'm not anymore. I'm on the wrong view of this, but every once in a while, there's static. Okay, thank you. So, but I do want to ask a question now that my mic is opened. So, we have A2-01.01 for mutual respect in the workplace. And the one that we have here in our packet is A2-1.1, mutual respect in the workplace, but it adds all employees. Is that the same one? Because I don't even see that number on our packet, on the personnel board documents included. So, I was a little confused there. Well, it's the same, isn't it? It's only a number. Just about the zero. Yeah, it's the same. Okay, it's A2-01-01. Yeah, but that's not what the piece of paper says. That's what I'm asking you. Okay, I see. Okay. It's the same one? It is the same one. Yeah, sorry about that. No, no, don't be sorry. Don't be sorry. When we categorize it, it will be changed, correct? Yes. Okay, that's all I wanted to clarify. Thank you.
So, does anyone... Yes. Go ahead.
Are we going to look at this additional meeting? Well, it sounds like the mutual respect in the workplace, correct me if I'm wrong. One we won't actually do anything with, it'll go to the select board to change as they feel appropriate? No, we'll be moving it into the other... We'll be moving it into... The mutual respect in the workplace, I think it would go to the... The wording. I think there's some opinion to the harassment policy, but I think it's somewhat redundant with what we have already, so I'm not sure that it's needed. I mean, we could look at that, but... So, we can hold that in a bay and look and see what we think about the policies that Kate has presented and see if everything in there is included. So, the next one here that we're looking at is A2-5-1, and it's... It was the harassment, sexual harassment. It used to just be sexual harassment, right? Correct. Okay. Right. Yeah. I had a one... I had a couple changes, but on that first page, it changes sexual harassment to harassment in a couple places, but then in the middle of that paragraph, it says, an investigation of sexual harassment complaint. Shouldn't be... That should be... Sexual should be crossed out there, because it's not only sexual harassment. Right.
Which paragraph is that, Paul? The third. The third paragraph under policy. Mm-hmm. Under the first crossed out sexual, there's another. Yes. And the same issue happens again in the next paragraph. The next sentence. It will respond. Because the town of Wayland takes allegations of harassment seriously, it will respond promptly to complaints of harassment. Yep. Not sexual harassment. Well, yes, sexual harassment and other forms of harassment. So, in there, in paragraph two, we're excluding those employed by the Wayland Public Schools. Do they have their own policy? They do. And are we ever going to have town-wide policies that are not yet? Yeah, I don't know. I've never really explored that. Oh, right. Right.
I mean, Kate, weren't you telling us that there are some employees of the schools that are under the town, like nurses? Yeah. So, then you have a curious situation where those employees are covered by two different policies. Because, like, if a school nurse is harassed by a teacher or a principal, two different policies apply to that situation. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about that, but it just, it's, it creates an interesting dynamic. That's a good point. Our nurses are town employees, so they would technically be covered under these, but they work in our schools. So, yeah, I'll have to sort of think about that. Maybe we need to work with the schools on, you know, I can pull their policy and bring it forward in the future. But wouldn't it be, well, if you were an employee, but you were working off-site at a different location, you would be covered under your employer's policy, not the policies of where you're working?
Well, you're covered by both. So, like, if a school nurse is harassed by a teacher or principal, what, the way harassment is defined, the way the investigation is spelled out, it would be governed by both sets of policies. But if you were like... Which is not a problem unless there's, unless there's inconsistencies or, you know.
It would also happen with some of the social workers that would be used, right? No, no, they, they don't. They don't generally provide a youth advisor or council workers. Yeah, they don't, I mean, they do some work in the schools, but it's like, they're not working. It might. It might. Yeah. I can look into that.
And the building and maintenance people that are in the schools, you know, they're being part of the building and maintenance of the town now, or they're being part of the schools. No, they're still town. Oh, I'm sorry, school employees. They're school employees. On page 14, paragraph, oh, I'm sorry to interrupt. Are we, do we want to just jump that far ahead or do we want to go through this? Because I had stuff, we can do that, but I had something, other things earlier. Oh, sure. Let's go back. Yeah. We could go page by page. Is that the best way to do it, I think? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Does anybody else have anything on page five?
I know. Okay, so on page six, it's just the way this policy is designed, but it first defines harassment very broadly, and then it gives sort of examples and violations. And I don't know if this requires a revision, but the harassment is defined in a very narrow, limited way. So it refers to the display of, or circulation of written materials or pictures, and then it refers to verbal abuse, slurs, derogatory comments, or insults. And I understand it's not, it's, it includes, but it's not limited to, it's not restricted to that, but this is not like covering a lot of forms of harassment. Like, so for example, harassment could be just being unwelcome, sort of, you know, contact, you know, texting, calls, you know, you know, it could be cyber stalking. It could be, could be commenting on one's appearance. It's, it could be a lot of things that are not covered by these two broad definitions of harassment. I don't know if that requires a revision. Further on in the policy, when it gets into sexual harassment, it's a little broader. But the first, the first definition to me is inadequate.
And so you're suggesting unwelcome texting, calls, cyber stalking, derogatory comments about appearance? Well, yeah, I'd have to, I mean, it's sort of hard to do this on the fly. I mean, I, I normally would like kind of mark this up, but yeah, I just say it's, it's too narrow, in my opinion, the way it's defined. And you'd want the broad definition, even though it's not limited to this, to be a little more inclusive of other forms of harassment. Good point.
And how do you differentiate harassment from bullying? Is it, is there any distinction or do you not? Bullying is not, bullying is not unlawful. I mean, at least it may be, it may be under town, other town policies on kind of respectful behavior. Bullying would be unlawful to the extent it's based on a protected characteristic, but sort of just being, just being like a jerk in the workplace, at least under, in a private workplace setting is not unlawful, unfortunately.
And that's what you would call bullying? Well, so yeah, I mean, bullying could be harassment, but, but bullying can, bullying can also be, as people understand it can just be, it could be like, you know, yelling, it could be berating, it could be, could be a lot of things that are not harassment.
That's actually a good point in the sense, like, so, so, you know, bullying is a form of harassment if it's based on a protected characteristic. So if someone were kind of getting like unwarranted, you know, workplace scrutiny based on their gender or protected characteristic, that could be harassment. Like if someone, if a manager was only calling out a, a, a female employee or a minority employee or a disabled employee on their kind of communication style on their, I'm just, I mean, just sort of thinking here on the fly, but if it was, or if they were like raising their voice with one person or, or, um, cutting off one person when they were trying to give feedback at meetings, you know, that could be, that's, that could be a form of bullying that's harassment. So you may want, you may want to include bullying based on the protected characteristic. And you said based on a protected characteristic, Paul? Oh, yeah, well, based, based, well, yeah, well, for it to be harassment that's unlawful would be based on your membership in a protected class. So the, uh, I think that's defined on the first page, you know, so there's a, um, about a dozen different forms of, a dozen different, you know, uh, uh, categories that are potentially protected classes. Um, I think, uh, if I can jump in, jump in, um, so I think this definition of harassment is, so the MCAD has a sort of standard policy and, um, I was mirroring, I'm sorry, not MCAD, I meant the Mass Municipal Association. I was mirroring their language and the language that was in the KB law. Um, but I can go back and, um, you know, rework this so that it's, uh, you know, broader. Um, I, I did actually look at a number of other town, um, towns to get a sense of what, what they're doing. Um, so I, I don't know if it's a, this is sort of standard, you know, language, but I can, I can do a little more digging that. Yeah. I mean, the MCAD has a model sexual harassment policy, but yeah, that's focused on sexual harassment. Um, and, and here they call it hostile work environment under sexual harassment, but it could also be under general harassment, right? I mean, see if I can't, what I'm saying. Yeah. So, yes. Right. Hostile work environment applies to any form of harassment. Yeah.
So would you take out the sexual and sexually part of that one? Are you, are you now talking about like the, um, page seven or? Uh, oh, I'm on the, I'm on the corrected page. So it's page 13, but you're in the, you're in the red line version. Yeah. My, my, my computer printer for some reason didn't print that out in color. So I just ignored it. And we just went to the regular line and compared it. Um, so seven, um, six. Yeah. Paul, you're on page six, right? You're on page six. The bottom of page six. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Six. Right. Yeah. I would definitely get rid of sexual harassment there. Yeah. Yeah.
Should say hostile work environment is a form of harassment. Uh, we're, we're pervade, uh, pervasive and hostile work conditions. And then it would seem that the plea pro quo should be put up ahead of it because it really is under sexual harassment. Right. That's right. Right. Yeah. I mean, plea pro quo is definitely, is general. I think it's generally understood to be sexual harassment only, but I'm trying to think if there could be another, a non-sexual context for that, but I don't think so. I think the intent of this is to say that hostile work environment is all, can also be a type of sexual harassment. Not that it's not also can be general harassment. Well, I, I, I thought that this was, this was based on the statutory definition, and I think that's why it is in here. Um, but I think if I can check that and bring the stat. Yeah. I'm, maybe I should have put that in your packet too, so you can see it, but on the Massachusetts statute, on section 1, I think that is why it comes there. Um, okay. Yeah. So actually I'm, I'm now, I kind of overlooked this a little bit. So, so section three and section four are separately kind of defined and maybe, and so, so I think it's fine to define sexual harassment if you want to separately, and then you wouldn't necessarily have to change the hostile work environment definition there, but you almost need, you almost want to like, um, I mean, some of the things in the sexual harassment definition apply to the harassment definition, like you, like hostile work environment concept should be part of harassment as well. Well, you know, if you want to have it separately there for the sexual harassment section, that's fine, but I think you need to have that hostile work environment concept in general harassment or not have, or not have a separate thing on sexual harassment. I mean, that just seems to be like inconsistent what we're doing here. I, I, I struggled with, with that, sorry, with whether or not to have just one law definition section, um, and under that would be harassment, sexual harassment, um, and whatever else. So I, I could restructure it. I think there were some, some policies that were structured in that way. But those are just examples, right? It's not really, um, those things are examples of such crime, right? It's not a definition of, um, no, I, I think these are actually statutory definitions. And I think the way I've structured it actually makes it look, um, like they're separate sections. So I think that's maybe some of the confusion. I think you're right, Paul. I mean, I think, um, I think this needs to be reorganized. So I, I can do that and bring it back to another, um, uh, another meeting.
Yeah. I mean, you know, another option too would be for, you know, for, uh, to mark it up. You know, we could also mark it up and send it to you for your consideration. Yeah. That would be great. I would, I would love your input. Great. If it would be helpful, I can send a word version. So you can do it electronically or, okay, I'll send it. Yeah. All right. So are we allowed, I mean, you probably don't want to get like, uh, four different sets of comments or, or, or, or, are the, are personnel board members allowed to kind of circulate a draft amongst themselves or one at a time? No. Well, we could, no. No. That's it. That's it. Yeah. You can't do that. But what you can do, I can send you the, uh, I can send you all a copy of the, you know, word version draft. You can make your own, um, edits and then send them back to me directly and I can combine them. That's really the only way we could do it. And as we go through it now, people are raising questions and those are the questions that Kate's going to tackle anyway. So, um, and you have particular expertise in the area. So your input is, you know, important.
It's six. I know you, but it sounds like we'll each take this policy individually now and then give it back to Kate and then she'll redistribute it. Yeah. So I don't think we need to go through this line by line right now. Well, I think it's better to go through page by page so that we can give her the general categories where people are having issues. Because if we send her four different versions, that's going to be more. If she understands the concept of what we're talking about or what the objections are or what the suggestions are, that's probably a way that she can get a better handle on it. But I think the points are important points. Yeah. I mean, for me, the biggest thing is that you need to, you need to, under three, you need to have that hostile work environment concept in there. You know, if, yeah, and the sexual harassment definition, you know, might be a longer policy just because sexual harassment is more of a problem and there's more of a kind of a developed, you know, case law and about what that can be. But I definitely think you need to add like a number three on a hostile work environment under section Roman numeral three. So can we go through and just look page by page and people bring up what kinds of things they've seen. Does anybody else see anything on page, this is six we're still on, and then into seven, page seven, page eight. It says complaints harassment. You mean the harassment complaints now that it's taken out of section Roman numeral. Anything else on page eight and 14 that anybody see? How about nine and 15? We're done. Hold on a second. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, I think we talked about this a little bit, but I was a little concerned about the, under the complaint of, of harassment. Um, the effort to, uh, permit, um, residents, you know, uh, um, visitors, vendors to complain about this. I mean, I just. Yeah. You know, um, you're right. That, that language, I think I actually took from the mutual respect in the workplace policy. Um, and I just wanted to call it out. I, I, I think you're right. It should be employees and not necessarily apply to all these other groups.
Yeah. So like, you know, so the town has a duty and any employer has a duty to protect its employees from harassment by third parties, if known. So like, if there's a, a Fed, um, I use this example because I, I saw it for many years there not to pick on FedEx, but I, I worked at a law firm where there was a FedEx driver who was a nice guy and quite charming, but also, uh, very flirtatious. And for, you know, every single day he came to the office and, and flirted with the same secretary. And then, so, so like, you know, the town does have a duty if there's a vendor who's harassing an employee to do something about that. What I do think is problematic is I don't think you, Kate, or anyone else in the town wants to be fielding a complaint of harassment from a, a town resident. Yeah. Um, I just, I don't think that's appropriate. I mean, maybe there, maybe there's a different policy where, and maybe like where, maybe the select board would handle that. If, if someone, if a town resident felt that a, a town employee was unprofessional or inappropriate, but that should not be part of a, of a workplace harassment policy. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. That makes sense. Are you also suggesting though, that, uh, if an employee believes that they are then subjected to harassment of any kind from residents, visitors, applicants, vendors, that that should be in there? Well, yeah, kind of. I mean, that's like, so, you know, um, no, the only thing that would come to like, sort of like, so, I mean, for just, just to give a sort of a, uh, an example. Like, if you take a public facing position, like the town clerk's office, if there was somebody who was like visiting the town clerk regularly or a town clerk employee and being inappropriate, I think the town has a duty to do something about that or any other public facing position. You know, um, so I do think we want to capture that type of situation. But not the, not the, not the reverse, which is what comes first in this policy, right? Yeah. Yeah.
You know, actually, going back to the, these two sentences on, is that age eight? In that middle period, I actually pulled those from the, uh, Mass Municipal Association policy. So, I'm not sure why they added that, but I, you know, I think it's worth consuming, president speaking.
I came from the Mass Municipal Association. Yeah. I think it's really interesting. Yeah.
I'm, you know, checking with them as to why it was in there. Yeah. I mean, I might, um, so I think what will, I might, uh, once we have a more finalized draft, I think I'm probably going to send it to council and have them look at it. Uh, and make sure that we're good. Um, but yeah, I can, I can leave it in and get a sense of whether council feels it's appropriate or not. I can also reach out to the other. What about, uh, page nine and 15, anything in there?
Um, on page nine, I think that's, to me, it's okay. I think, um, I don't know if you want to tighten up this language on the, um, ability to engage an individual who's not a town employee. I think that's perfectly appropriate. I think the thinking is like, you know, you outsource a sensitive investigation to a, a third party investigator, like a law firm. Um, I do think it raises some questions here. Well, first of all, it's, it just doesn't say like who that individual could be. I mean, it kind of gives you the ability to like call up anybody, you know, you know, um, you could call up like some, you know, freelance person to do it. I'm not sure you want that. I don't know if you want to restrict yourself to council or, uh, you know, um, kind of, uh, you know, HR consultant type of person. Um, but, um, yeah. And then, you know, yeah, go ahead. How would you phrase that though, Paul? Reserves the right to engage a qualified individual who is not a town employee? Yeah, qualified and qualified and, um, unbiased or, or neutral. I don't know. Yeah. Independent. Independent. Yes. Yeah. And then you, you sometimes get into the situation. Maybe, maybe you can address this. Like has, has, um, you know, if, if your investigator is, um, town council, I mean, then you get this, like if it were KP law, you know, that's potentially problematic in my opinion, because it's, you know, is that even though they're well, potentially well qualified to do it, are they actually independent? Like, do you want, uh, you know, town council to be investigating, uh, the people who are hiring them and paying them? Yeah. Since I've been here, you know, town council has not conducted any kind of personnel related investigation. However, they haven't given us recommendations for, um, you know, consultants, individuals that do this. And we, we only use, uh, you know, third party, not council, um, to do these. We've had a couple. And if the, if the independent third party is a law firm, then there's attorney client privilege, which you don't get with someone who is not a, not a law firm. Yeah, right. So, right. But you wouldn't want like, um, so in a real, a real investigator, there, there, there shouldn't be, uh, privilege, right? Like your, your investigator is basically a fact, a fact finder, like, you, like the town would, could call KP law and, and KP law could be advising the town as, you know, uh, defense council or, you know, to, you know, to protect the town, but the, an actual third party investigator, there should not be attorney client privilege there. Oh, even if it's a, even if it's a law firm? Well, right. If it's a law firm. But you're not retaining them for legal purposes. Right. But they're just conducting, they're just conducting an investigation. If it's an investigator, then they don't have attorney client privilege? They will, they will tell you that they do. So I'm asking. Well, yeah, I mean, there are. Because you're not retaining them for legal purposes. They're, they're conducting an investigation. Right. So, so like the invested, so if the investigator, like if the investigator, the attorney investigator was interviewing like a town manager, I mean, if you wouldn't want there to be a privilege claim, because then like certain things could be shielded from the investigation findings. And it would be perceived as unfair, and it would be perceived as unfair by the complainant who would say, okay, well, there's, I have no, you know, privilege in my answers to your questions. You're a fact finder. You're a fact finder, not a, not a legal advisor. When you were given third-party vendors, were they, was it a lawyer or was it? They were an attorney, but they had a separate consulting firm, you know, firm that they do, they do these types of, in fact, we used, I think, two, three different investigators, and they've all been attorneys, but they have a separate consulting specialty. So a qualified independent investigator, or a qualified independent individual to conduct the investigation. Yeah. Kate, have you, have you ever had a situation where a town employee who filed a complaint wanted to be on paid leave during an investigation because they felt they couldn't, you know, they couldn't perform their job or they didn't feel safe during an investigation? No, we've not come up against that, no. Because that sometimes happens where people are on paid leave during these things. I mean, it's, you probably don't need to spell it out, but I just wanted to ask about it.
Page 10 and 16, anything on those, I just saw spelling problems on 16 under disciplinary action. If it's determined that inappropriate, separate words, conduct has been committed by an employee that has a misspelling there, the town will take... I'm not, I'm not sure where you are. Oh, I'm sorry. On, on the corrected version, page 16. So it's 10 for everyone. Yeah, it's 10, but it's the corrected version, I think, that has the errors on it. An inappropriate is that and inappropriate, two separate words, and then been committed by an employee that's misspelled. And then it says the town will take appropriate action as is appropriate. I would say the town will take action as is appropriate under the circumstances. It's a repeat of the word appropriate in the same sentence.
But it's, it's the end of page nine, the beginning of page nine. Oh, six, yeah, sorry. Yeah, just a little bit. Oh, I think you, maybe, maybe it was like that. I didn't see it like that.
So it's, yeah, absolutely. Under seven there. Okay.
And are these current numbers for the Commission Against Discrimination in the EOS? Yeah, I double-checked this.
All right. Anything else on that policy?
What about training, harassment prevention training? I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be part of a policy, but is that something we do with managers or? Yeah, we do. We haven't, to be fair, we haven't done it in a couple of years. But Michael has actually directed the HR department to start doing, we're going to do bi-monthly trainings on a variety of topics. So we're kind of planning throughout the year, and one of those is going to be prevention of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, which we, that was the one that we did, we did it a couple of years ago. So, and we actually made that mandatory for all town employees. It wasn't just managers. They have two levels of training. One is for managers, which is like the MCAD training, which takes three hours. And then they have another one that is basically an hour for, you know, other employees. So, yeah, we are working on that. That's good. I'm glad to hear that. Yeah. And if someone joins as a new team member, do they have to go through a training as well? Or is there any type of onboarding portion of that? Yes. So what we're planning on doing is we're going to record these sessions and build our own library. Although my Massachusetts Insurable Insurance Association, they provide our insurance and they do a lot of work for municipalities. They have a whole library of training videos that we can tap into as well. But that's a really good call out because, you know, you get everyone trained and then you start hiring folks and want to make sure everyone's on the same page. So, yeah.
Great. Anything else with these dog harassment policy? And then, people, go ahead. So, no, I think it's fine. And I think for 11, page 11, acknowledgement, it felt wrong. Or is it just me? No, it is definitely spelled wrong. Thank you. Too many days. I'm sorry. Oh. Thank you. So, protection from retaliation on all employees. And I just was looking at the one that was finished. So, I have a page 18. And then, oh, here, the, no, that's standard of conduct. Where did you, did you do one for retaliation and then red line? It's only in my line. Oh. I didn't include, uh, eight, four, three. Oh. So, I think you're going to go to that. I mean, just, uh, protection from retaliation, it really is just updating, um, the names, um, of the contact and some details. But I believe, um, while I brought some, we talked about this in the past, and I can't remember exactly where we left it. Um, I may go, I'll have to go back and look at minutes. But I'm happy for feedback if, um, because, again, this also, that's what I've looked at since 2005, so.
I defer to the lawyer. Yeah. So, so theft or gambling would come under the term in violation of a law. If that was what someone wanted to report, that would be, that would come under, uh, the person reasonably believes is in violation of a law. So if they saw theft, or if they thought they saw theft, or if they thought they saw gambling on the workplace. I'm just questioning, are whether things that people would report if they thought somebody was committing, uh, theft or fraud, that would come under the, uh, topic of in violation of a law, so you don't have to call it out separately. Yeah, this is more of protection for the individual who's making the complaint rather than, uh, the individual who's, you know, alleged. Right, but it's the, it's whatever they complain about. So that could include theft or gambling or fraud if they think they see it in a fellow employee or. Yeah, it could, I think that the law is written broadly when I said it, okay. Well, then it, it poses a risk to public health, safety, or the environment. That's what, uh, the, if, if it's something that's against the law and the person thinks it's against the law. Are you saying that, like, we should, the policy should expand upon what is against the law? No, no, I just was asking if those kinds of things would be covered under the category of in violation of a law. I can, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't know, I think I'd have to go back to the statute. I'm, again, I'm sorry, I really should have given you the statutes on these, and I'll bring this one back as well. Okay. Um, so you can see the language. Because it only, it will, I don't, I only raised a question when it said the person believes it poses a risk to public health, safety, or the environment. And those may not. Yeah.
But they still would be the kind of thing that people might report. Right. And would be protected against, being retaliated against.
Is there anything else? This is protection from retaliation policy number A2-7.1. Is there anything else on this policy that anyone wants to discuss or bring up?
Uh, well, so, yeah, I mean, this policy, I think, is actually pretty good, because it tracks the law. I just wanted to sort of point out that there's like a sort of a higher, there's a greater level of sort of detail and guidance about legal claims. It's probably fine, but it mentions a two-year statute of limitations for civil actions in Superior Court. The harassment policy mentions the 300 days to contact a state or federal agency, but doesn't mention the three-year statute of limitations to bring a claim in Superior Court. I'm not sure it needs to, but I'm, you know, I just wanted to point out sort of a different level of legal guidance.
It's probably okay. So, even if people miss the 300 days? No, no, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to hit both. So, you've got to, you've got to file with a discrimination agency within three days. Okay. And then, and then, to the extent that you want to pursue something in court, you've got to file within three years of the violation.
And some people, some people might, will be satisfied by the agency, you know, handling the process to completion. But if you want to go to state court, you have that three years. What would be the harm of adding that? There would be no harm, correct? There, there'd be no harm, but I don't, I'm not sure if it's typical. I don't think, I don't think it's typical to have that in there. But I just, I just, the reason I bring it up is it's just because you have that in the whistleblower protection.
So, it also gets complicated, too, because, yeah, you know, it gets complicated. It's straightforward under state law, but like, you know, if you bring a federal, like if you bring an EEOC claim, it's a little more complicated because there's a statute of limitations and there's a right to sue letter and you have 90 days to bring a claim in federal district court. So, it's probably, it's probably, because you can go either direction, state or federal, it's probably, maybe it's wise not to try to give too much legal guidance because the pathway is different. And will, will people bring a complete, learn that from the agency that they bring it to, what their time frame is for that particular state or federal? Yeah, I believe so. I'm not sure actually about that. They'll probably get an information sheet. I don't know for sure. I'm ready to move on to the next one, which is policy A2-2.1. Is it standard of conduct, or is that, are we changing that one? Can I go back to the last one? I just wanted to check. Do you want me to come back with this one, or did you think it was sufficient to vote on now, or, oh, I'm happy to bring it back to you. And there was that question regarding the two-meter, whether we need to put that in the two-meter or not. So, I can bring it back. Do you want to bring it back, Paul? I think it's, I think, was this red line, this one? I don't think it, were any changes made? No. Yeah, at the end, it's just the names are changed. The titles. Oh, I see. Okay. Right, right, right. So, then we would vote, and it would be updated by the current case. If you want to vote on it, now we can.
I would feel comfortable voting if you do. But, again, Paul, I defer to you as the employment lawyer. Yeah. I think it's pretty good. So, I'm just sort of thinking aloud to, well, thinking to myself right now, would there ever be situations where both Kate and Michael have, or sort of, you know, potentially have a conflict, and you'd want a person other than them to receive a report? That's possible.
Yeah, I mean, we could designate someone else. It could be a department head, or it could be, I don't know. So, I mean, in the case of, I think, in the case of, like, a harassment complaint, I think you say it can be sent to the, to the supervisor.
So, I don't know if you want to be consistent with that, or if you have a preference to send it to Kate or Michael. Well, it actually does say in the paragraph before that, unfortunately, it's been retaliated against for making a report in accordance with this policy. It should report such belief immediately to the department head or acting, second by second. Now that I, we have to remember, acting exactly as a secretary, except that we often think exists. Where is that? Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
What do you mean by acting executive secretary? That doesn't exist anymore. That should be, I should have struck that out. You know, I was seeing his position when he was here, you know. That should just be department head, period. Okay.
The acting executive secretary, that was a long time ago. We've had an administrative for a long time ago. So, but you raise a good point. I mean, the department head, then the human resource director, then the town manager, is there anywhere else that people can go?
Well, I think if you then don't feel like you've been treated fairly, then you go on to civil court, which it says in that paragraph. Yeah. So, do you want to, do you feel comfortable voting on it now? I'd vote. Paul? Yeah, sure. Okay. Can I have a vote? I move to approve the protection from retaliation, all employees, as amended. Second. Roll call vote, Paul? Yes. Barry Allen? Barry Allen? Yes. Dave? Yes. Jill? Yep. Barry Allen, yes. Hey, shoot. Where's my... Here.
I'm sorry. Who seconded that? Paul, was that you? I did, yes. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry about that.
So, can we move on to A2-2-1 standard of conduct? What are we going to do with that law? So, I don't know if we need to review this now. So, this policy has a statement in it that says, the rules and regulations contained within the standards of conduct are expected to be observed in conjunction with the town's mutual respect in the workplace policy. So, these two are kind of late. Yeah. And I'm not sure that that's necessary, you know, if we decide or whoever decides to sunset that position, but that in policy, we don't need that. The fiscal policy also says boards, committees, and employees, where we would be focused on just the employees. And customers. Yeah. So, again, that's a question for the select board. And I was looking at writing on someone else's time cards. Do we still use current cards? We, unfortunately, do have papers.
For tracking the patient's sake, things like that. We don't have, like, 20 charts. No, we don't. But we are moving, we are actually, our HR generalist is moving us into a electronic process as we speak. So, okay, soon it will be a, yeah, that will be nice. What do you guys use it? We have news. Yeah. So.
And then I noticed inappropriate use of town equipment and printing, distributing, or displaying sexually explicit or pornographic materials. But what about, like, political materials and stuff like that that's just not appropriate for town use? I mean, it has a separate board of political. Whatever is it, I need to do it. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I see it. It's the second part of the job. Yeah. Performing personal non-town business.
Yeah. So, this was from 2017.
But that means. Yeah. I kind of feel it's a little dated, but I just, I'm trying to think of an example of something we're missing here. And, uh, I, I, I, I bring some other town examples. Um, I, I think it's a little dated to be fair. I use, I use, but when I've had to, in a disciplinary context, his policy, because it has all these bullets can be very beneficial, because it's really explicit. It doesn't cover every case, but, um, so, yeah, but I think you're right. I think we should revisit structure, and, because I think there were, there have been instances, at least when I, when I was on the board, where there were instances where those things happened. And that's why the policy was put into place to begin with, which is identifying standard of conduct for employees, but this, again, was made more broadly to include board members and committee members, who sometimes also have the same issues. Um, you know, so it's, there's no, it's really clear on what's not appropriate, really, essentially. Yeah. I like one, one, one example where it's dated is, you know, there's the personal use of the telephone, more than minimal personal use of the telephone, and more than minimal personal use of a personal computer or the internet, smartphone, you know, uh, uh, smartwatch. I mean, it could be really any, any electronic device, um, but definitely a, uh, a smartphone, because that's the, that's the way most employees, uh, waste time at work these days. Yeah, that's true. You might, you might want something about, um, just because of the, the sort of the info, you know, how pervasive, uh, gambling is, you might want something about, you know, prohibiting, uh, use participation in, um, in online gambling or, um, uh, during, during work hours. And just out of curiosity, do you have to maybe specify now, like smoking of cigarettes as well as these cigarettes or vaping or those types of things? That's a really good question. Um, so in Massachusetts, um, you can't discriminate against someone who smokes, um, so we could actually make this, and I believe this building is a small free campus, um, so we could add that, you know, as a requirement for employment for, um, no smart smokers. I mean, I don't, I'm not sure, I'm not sure that's right, Kate. I think you can, I mean, I think you can discriminate against someone who smokes. You can't, you can't disqualify them from employment, but I think you can say you're not smoking, you know, here, you know, you're not taking excessive breaks to, to, uh, indulge your, you know, um, addiction. Yeah, so it's, it is, it's a bullet point now, smoking in workplace areas where smoking is prohibited, but I was just maybe the clarification of smoking cigarettes or vaping or those, because it's now beyond what was smoking in 2017. It's just different than it is now, unfortunately, but I don't know if there was a reason to clarify that if someone just said, well, I was just smoking as opposed to smoking. I mean, any cigarettes aren't smoking or vaping isn't smoking. Yeah. That's absolutely. Yeah. I mean, you probably don't want people vaping at, you know, in the office. I don't, I haven't really, surprisingly, that has not come up too much, uh, for me, but I would think that this, I would think you don't want people vaping because like, if you can, you know, if you can vape, you know, you can, why can't you smoke if it's, uh,
I guess what I meant by not discriminating is that it's not a protected class in Massachusetts. Right. It's not a protected class. No. But it is actually in other states. There are other states who have actually put their similar state laws that you can't discriminate against someone because they smoke. Um, so maybe North, maybe North Carolina. I'm not sure where else, but, uh, yeah, but no, no, I mean, you get into something, you certainly can't discriminate against people with a, with a disabling condition, which could be, which could be, you know, alcohol, uh, or drug dependence where they're in treatment or, you know, um, but I think you can certainly restrict and, and, um, smoking in the workplace, vaping in the workplace.
So we, just, just for reference, are, uh, all of our firefighters, um, you, you are disqualified if you're a smoker. So that is the condition of employment for a fire. Yeah. Actually, I believe police officers as well.
And I have to check on the police officers again. I know it is for firefighters, but. Uh, and is that a regulation that came from the firefighting academy? Or, um, you know, I'm not sure if it's in state, if it's in trying to stay off or, or if it's, um, but I know it is in our, our, our job descriptions. So, you know, and it's very common. It's, it's, it's, it might be state law. Oh, what about, what about, uh, distracted driving? You don't want anybody in public works using their phone when they're on town business. Um, anyone using, uh, anyone using a town vehicle or, or commute or on town business in a vehicle shouldn't be using, uh, you know, self, I don't know, self, I don't think, I mean, you can't like hit, you can't hit everything. So, I mean, but that's definitely a major concern. Um, so I do know that DPW has their own department policy about self-use while during work hours, and it does actually touch on that. So, but it's a good thing to fall out of something like this. Okay, do we have a parameter around the public buildings that they can't smoke? I mean, is there so many feet from the door or, you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I don't, I don't think that it's, it's really mapped out in policy, uh, but it, it should be something we revisit. I think it's, it's worthwhile to have designated smoking areas. And I think we do have some, some, because you can't smoke near the schools, right? You're not supposed to anyways, right?
So the consensus is to revisit this one and just update it. Is there anything else that people see that they want to bring to Kate's attention while she's thinking of updating you?
Um, you can't, you got the gambling one. I would definitely address that. Um, what about like, um, what about AI? I mean.
Yeah. So I've, I've been talking with our new IT director, um, and we're, he actually drafted an AI policy, use policy that is still very much a draft. Um, it hasn't, I don't think Michael's even reviewed it yet or he hasn't sent it to council or anything. So, um, we are working on there, we have some very outdated policies around IT views, you know, so electronic, we do have a new social media policy, um, which actually the slide board, um, uh, approved last October. Um, and it touches on quite a, quite a few issues. And, um, but yeah, I, yes, AI is, it is in the works we are working on. Uh, maybe you want to add a sentence either in the sort of prefatory paragraph or the concluding paragraph that mentions that, uh, the town expects all employees to adhere to departmental, uh, policy and guidance and that violations of either can be, uh, would be, uh, a violation of the standard of conduct policy. Say that one more time, Paul, I'm sorry. The town, the town further expects all employees to adhere to, uh, departmental policies and guidance, guidelines. Yep.
The violation of, of which would also be, would also violate the standard of conduct policy. Thank you.
Oh yeah. No, I'm sorry. You had that. You have, I was going to say, uh, private information, but you have a confidential information section. Um, so when you talk about online gambling, what about those cards? It's that they have when they do it for teams, you know, when it comes to a major, right. Everybody loves brackets. Is that what it's called? So, you know, I got it. Yeah. The super, super, super ball, the super, hopefully we're going to, the Patriots will be in the Superbowl again. And there'll be another one circulating. You get to choose a box with the different scores at the end of each corner.
Not only is that. You're an authority on that, Paul. Well, yeah.
I think if we, I think if the Pats make the Superbowl, that's not a violation and you have, you're encouraged to do that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm just, I'm kidding. Well, it's true.
Are we set with that line? And that will come back. Then, uh, policy number A1-1.1, equal employment opportunity on UABs. So I added this mostly so that you could talk about it in the context of the harassment slash sexual harassment policy and whether you wanted to incorporate it into that policy and have it stay in the room. Um, the board did actually, uh, review this and made some changes in 2024. So it, you know, I just, it, I would, I would be happy for, um, you know, feedback on whether you'd like to, which way you'd like to go with it. But I don't know that we need to actually go through the policy itself unless you want to. I don't have a policy. The only question we all gave it a year ago, but I don't understand what protected hairstyles law unless it's head covering that's the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, that's verbiage that has to be, oh, I don't, you need an equal employment opportunity. I think it's separate. So it's interesting that you were actually, it looked like they were combining it all in one, so it probably needs more sense to just leave it separate. I like them separate. Okay. I agree. Right. Cause it's a, it's a little bit, it's a little bit different. Yeah. I agree. You want to change it to human resources director? Yeah. Yeah.
Uh, yeah. So like, um, on this one, this one needs a little work. So I don't think you want to just say criminal record. It's more specific than that.
I mean, you can consider, you know, conviction history, uh, for felonies and, um, certain misdemeanors. It's, um, yeah, this needs more work. Yeah. Because anybody who works with children. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so you got, yeah, you definitely can consider criminal record. Um, I mean, there's the ban in the box so that, so that there is limited protection, but not, not criminal record generally. How did they distinguish that thought in learning? Yeah. So you can't, it's, it's, it's that ban in the box. You can't be disqualified from applying, um, but, uh, you have to get an initial application. You have to be, there shouldn't, you shouldn't be asked about that. Um, and then there's, in terms of, once you've kind of, um, passed that level, you can be asked about convictions for felonies. Um, I can get you the exact language, but.
Because there's also people that have to handle money, those kinds of divisions. Those are important things in there too. Yes. Yes. Financial dishonesty. Yeah. Yeah. When people handle money, are they bonded? Is that not the term? Well, yes. Our, our treasure collector and our assistant treasure collector are bonded. And what about the people at the, the, uh, town dump? Do they ever collect money? Sorry. Oh, at the dump. Um, yes, they do collect money, but I don't believe they're bonded. They, they collect it, but then it comes to the, you know, they bring it to the treasury. Is there a large amount that passes through their hands? No, it's not, it's, it's very small compared to other. Well, there may, there may be, but you only get a small not back. No, I think we discussed this before. That's why I'm bringing it up. Miriam may remember. I believe that we discussed this before.
I, I don't mean to be, be disparaging the, the fine folks at the, uh. Transfer station. Transfer station. Yes. Yeah. That was meant to just. Oh, that's not my intent. Okay. There you go. And is there a standard application that you've shared that has some of this? Okay. Yeah. We do have a standard application. In fact, we have a policy on, um, new buyers and retention, which I'd like to bring back. I think that I'm really helpful. Because it is very old. Um, it's, it's, it's decades, it's over a decade ago. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's along the lines of what Paul had mentioned too, in terms of the questions that you should ask in the front end too. Yeah. Yeah. So, Matt, that one's going to come back to us as well. And do you have enough information? But I think, yeah, if there's specific learning, then the board members should get that to you. So, Paul, I think that's, uh, something that Kate would appreciate from you on that one policy that we talked about before. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Sure.
So, the human resources, manager report, personnel board questions and comments. Director. Yes, director. You wrote this, Koi, yourself.
Thank you, sir. Take that promotion. Thank you, sir.
So, I don't, I don't, unfortunately, have as much of an update as I would have hoped. It's pretty much the same status. We have a final report, a draft final report. Um, they, our consultant is working on, um, mapping out, it's now mapping all of our existing employees onto wage scales. So, they've developed the wage scales for all of our various, um, units. So, it's non-union, our ass-me, uh, group, uh, library association, and DQDOPI. Those are the, the four categories and the employees that revolve in our classic mom study. Um, so, they are helping us build new wage scales, and then, uh, transitioning and costing out what it costs us to put our employees on those new scales for the next just a year. So, it's, um, it, there are a lot of moving parts, because we then have to bring these scales to the negotiating table. Um, so, I'm not sure how, how quickly we can, sort of, you know, when we can disclose them or when that, how that works. Um, so, we're still figuring that out, but that's, that's what we're up. We have made a lot of progress, which is, is great, and we are hopefully, um, going to know something, Michael was by the end of February, early March. Um, so, um, uh, MGT, who is our, our consultant, they will come and do a presentation. We haven't quite figured out how we're going to do that. If it's to you, we do two separate ones, one in the personnel board, one in the select board, how we're going to manage that. So, they will be doing that, hopefully, in March. How long has it been since this, we had this, um, approved and it was worked on and now it's finished? How long of a period of time? Uh, so, I believe we awarded the contract in August. Yeah, but it sounds like August. Um, and so, we estimate... Of 2025, Kate? August of 2025 or 2024? 2025. Yeah, okay. Um, uh, I believe it was approved, the let, the dot, the funding was approved. Let's do. Correct. Um, and so, for this fiscal year. So, uh, and I think we estimated between six and nine months for the fall study to be, we're, we're about there. Maybe a little on the longer side than we hope, but we're getting there. It always happens. And then, if there's, there are some changes, like if there's scale changes or numbers of steps, all that gets to negotiate, to get the negotiated. Yeah. So. Well, my concern is that, you know, it's taking its time, and I understand those things, but, you know, by the time it gets out there, are those numbers going to be stale and we're going to be looking for new numbers? No. Um, so, the numbers, um, all of the, basically the salary survey is based on, uh, current fiscal year. So, fiscal year 2026. So, it's our current fiscal year, um, all of our comparables. So, it's actually very current for us. I mean, you know, we're moving into the fiscal year, but it's, it's very current numbers. But the study is complete. The study is basically complete. Uh, we have a lot of steps to get it from the finish line, um, but, yes, it's basically done.
Okay. Uh, any other questions? Um, wage and salary, classification, and comp study? The next item is discussion and approval of the open session meeting minutes. First, we'll take October 8th, 2025, and then we'll move November 5th, 2025. So, thank you for getting, uh, these in. Um, Paul, you did the October ones. Yeah. There's a type, I know there's a typo on the, uh, last page. Um, um, hold on a second. I put, um, but there might be earlier stuff too. Okay. Um. One thing I was going to suggest is in the, in the, before you, uh, where it says, uh, Michael McCall and several members of the oil and fire department, I would say firefighters local, what's a local number? 1978. 1978. Okay. Sure.
Can you, okay. Can you do that? Or do you need me to do that? No, I can, I, I, if this could make it easier, I can make the changes that you discuss and improve, and then maybe, you know, I'll just move forward. Okay. We'll just do it that way. Love that. Yeah. I love that. Yeah. That's quick rhythm. Anything on the first page? Can I, so, uh, this first section, members of the public and the link, and then pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023, that, none of that has to be included in your minutes Oh, because it's on the agenda. I was just double checking select board doesn't include it, none of our other, um, boards. So you don't have to do that moving forward if you don't want to. You can, but it's not, it's not required. Deb used to do it and she always had the best in it. So I just copied hers. Great. It's not required. Okay. It only came in during COVID actually. I mean, if you do want to include it, um, it should be acts of 2025 or 2023. No. Right. Um, and do we also, can we take that out of the executive session minutes as well? Lovely.
I think, um, page two, anything on page two that he sees a couple of suggestions. One is, um, on the discussion of the proposed amendment to policy N4-4.1, because I was having trouble understanding what it said. Um, and MP asked her heads up on this type of issue. MP stated that the policy voted in the 2016 viola is the current policy. Um, and then the personnel, um, and then it has K.R. went back to past minutes and could not find any change to the policy. Um, MP identified the personnel board meeting minutes in 2015, where the language was voted prior to bring, uh, was voted prior to bringing it to the annual town meeting in 2016. It was because Kate went back to minutes, uh, a policy from 2005, um, not realizing we had that policy from 2016. So she had updated the 2005 policy. So we had to take her updates plus the updates that were included in 2016 to, to make the policy be what it needed to be. Uh, and that we finally voted on, I think they even made an additional, uh, addition, additional change to it, an update. So that's, if you want the wording for that, I can get that too, but yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then, um, oh, on the first line of that, K.R. explains that the select board examined this issue when two non-union employees were recently retiring, uh, because then it just, it just came up and that's when it went up. I have a serious issue with these notes, Paul. Yes. You spelled my name correctly at the top, but then for every vote, you added the dreaded C to my name. I do that. Oh no, I'm so sorry. I know. I thought you knew me. I do know you. I'm so sorry on page, uh, I apologize, John, it's not a big deal on page two, uh, on the sick leave policy, it should say MC inquired past tense and then, and then below the vote on open session minutes, it should say, um, Castagna, uh, uh, logged off at 5.58 PM. I'm not offed.
And on the last line on that, if we can say NPS to the personnel board members to submit any approved minutes for posting, cause it was whoever took them and updated on that. And so those, there was a couple missing. That's the only reason, but not people, is it anything more on the minutes? If not, I will take a motion to approve as amended. So moved. Thank you, Mary Ellen. Seconded. Jill, thank you. Um, roll call vote. Mary Ellen. Yes. Jill. Yep. Paul. Yes. Dave. Yes. Mary Ann. Yes.
When we're on your vote, we have to have a roll call vote. We're all here for things. Okay. Um, so that's those minutes. Um, the next item, personnel board members reports. My minutes. I sent my minutes for 11. That's the only minutes. November. I said, you know, that was too young. I happily just moved away from them. No, but I don't know where we are. Bye. And you'll update them? Yeah. Yes, I will. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. So I have a question, but not with your minutes. So, under, under discussion and possible vote to recommend revisions to the following non-union personnel policies, Jill recommended the verbiage of less than 20, but more than 15 years of service under the sick leave payout. Did that wind up? Did that wind up as a end copy? I think it must have not filed. It said more than, um, it said it might have went in as under 15. It did not go over the funnel. Um, well, so I think we would have to grandfather folks in who are hired prior because they were hired under the prior policy and they're expecting to get a payout, you know, less than 20 years of service. It's not, it's not, you know, so I have to qualify the language. Well, you, I want to get into a conversation because this is just about minutes, but I can bring that policy back. Yeah, because you were the person who suggested it. Yeah. Yeah. And I didn't realize that we had voted it, but when, when it came out, it wasn't in there. I didn't remember that. So if you want, you want, you need the more than 15 years of service. Otherwise everybody would have gotten it. Right. But anyone hired before a certain date should, should get, should be grandfathered. That's what I'm saying. You can't just take that benefit away with that because if you were hired, you know, I don't know, 10 years ago, five years ago, do you think you're going to get a payout? And if we change the economy, it's true. Yeah, so all we need to do is add the date of which it went back to more than 15, but less than 20, which is 2025 or 2026. Now, it's now. Yeah.
But that's the one that's the select board also looked at. Okay. Yes.
Under the next page, under human resources, manager report. K.R. discussed the, I think it was the draft wage and salary classification study, right? Is that what, that what you were writing about? Yes. Okay. So it was, you know, discussed the weighting salary classification study with the board. They are not ready to present it, but there's been a lot of progress. And she had said there were no big surprises, which is why it made me think it was a wage and salary classification. Anything else that anyone sees in the minutes or wants to bring out?
And you avoided spelling out your name. So that's fine. You get out of it. But you never do that. If it's okay, I would be willing to take a motion to approve the minutes as amended. No motion. Thank you, Mary Ellen. Second?
Do I have a second? I have a second. Thank you, Dave. All right. Roll call vote. Mary Ellen? Yes. Dave? Yes. Jill? Yes. Paul? Paul? Yes. Thank you, Mary Ellen. Yes. The next agenda item is personal board members' reports and concerns.
Are there any? No, we don't have any. Okay. Thank you. And topics not reasonably anticipated, 48 hours in advance, if any. I know of none. No, I don't. Okay. Next meeting day. Now, we had agreed on the first Wednesday of every month. Yeah, we haven't actually made it yet, right? Three months. So, what's the next Wednesday? The first Wednesday? I mean, we're pretty late in the month already. So, what do people want to do? It would be February 4th. So, two weeks away? That's probably not going to work. That's $2. No, I know. So, we can... That week of the 15th is school vacation week. Yeah. So, I'll be there.
So, maybe we change it to the end of the month? Sure. Why not? Yeah. What about the 11th? Just had to carry out. Because that's... So, we had the 4th of the 11th, and then there's school vacation the week after that, right? I can't do... When is school vacation week? It's the week that has the 15th. Yeah.
I'm 50-50 on the 11th. I have to go into Boston.
I could do the 24th, 25th, or 26th. Yeah, I could do the 25th. We're doing the 15th. And then that means we won't do the first Wednesday in March. That's for sure. Paul, how about you? What's your time frame? I'm flexible. We could also potentially skip February, right? Or is there anything time sensitive? Well, I'm not sure. You may have to vote on the warrant article. I'm not sure when they have to be fully included. But I think you need that you will need a meeting set of warrant. Okay. Okay. So... I could do the 11th, but... I can do the 11th, as well. Who can't do the 11th? Were there people who couldn't do the 11th?
I'm not sure. Paul, you could do the 11th. I could do the 11th. Yeah.
Mary Ellen? Do you think the warrant article is struggling with her view? I don't know. I'll just pencil it in. I don't have the right... I can't scroll between the camera and the phone, you know? I mean, the calendar. So I would have to say tentatively yes, and it's the 11th. Yeah. Okay. I can give it my best shot. Sure. I mean, and I can do like the 24th to 25th. But I'm trying to think of when I can... And then I'm going away.
So wait, I'm sorry. Are we going to do the 11th or the 25th?
It's a long article. It's not as long as you read the 11th. So then the 25th. Yeah. Yeah? Okay. It might not even be ready on the 25th. It's Wednesday the 25th. Wednesday. Wednesday. Does that work for everyone? Okay. That's the day I'm traveling. And can't we skip it like Paul suggested if we're not going to... If it's going to go into the first Wednesday... Or should we do the 24th instead? Can you do... I can do the 24th, which is a Monday. Tuesday. Not Tuesday. Oh, on Tuesday. I'm on the road on the Wednesday. Or I can do... Does the 24th work for you guys, Paul and Mary Ellen? Yeah. So far. All right. So let's do the 24th. Okay.
So February 24th. Yep.
There will be... I move to adjourn the personnel board meeting at 5.42 p.m. So moved. Okay. Yep. Whatever. Sorry. I don't believe you need to have a role... Any kind of a role for adjournment. But anyway, we will. Jill? Yes. Dave? Yes. Paul? Mary Ellen? Yes. Mary Ellen? Yes. I think you can always do a roll call.