Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-06 RMLD Policy Subcommittee MinutesReading Municipal Light Department Board of Commissioners Policy Subcommittee Meeting 230 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 February 6, 2003 Start Time of Regular Session: 6:35 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 7:30 p.m. Attendees: Commissioners: Hughes, Pacino, Ames, Soli and Herlihy - RMLD Staff: Messrs. Cameron, Acting General Manager and Ms. Antonio Messrs. Blomley, Donahoe, Price and Butler a Ms. Blomley" rte: cr7 Commissioner Soli arrived at 7:15 p.m. and Chairman Hughes arrived 7:25 p.m. ~s RMLD Policy Number 21, Revision Number 7, Management Salaries and Overtime Mr. Cameron started the meeting by stating the need to change this policy arose because Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager, Town of Reading had specifically informed Mr. Cameron he was not prepared to sign future payroll with vacation buyback. Mr. Cameron conveyed to Mr. Hechebleikner the vacation buyback has been a past practice for a many years but in order to avoid any fixture concerns it would be put in a policy, because it was not in the existing revision of RMLD Policy Number 21, Management Salaries and Overtime. Mr. Cameron mentioned that it appears the Town of Reading has been looking at this issue since November 19th when this was discussed at a School Committee meeting. This issue came up again on the date Mr. Cameron interviewed for the General Manager's position with Mr. Hechenbleikner (January 29th). Mr. Cameron provided Mr. Hechenbleikner with the two union contracts for 2001-2003 as well as the prior contracts, which were two-year contracts. In the latest contracts it states that the union gets the same vacation benefit as management however, it does not specifically state the vacation buyback. Mr. Cameron pointed out the vacation buyback was not negotiated away in the most recent contracts the verbiage was taken out of the contract. Mr. Cameron stated that Mr. Hechenbleikner has no authority to take away vacation buy back from the union and management however, he will sign payroll. The Commission needs to take action otherwise Mr. Hechenbleikner wants an adjustment to the payroll. The Department has been forced down this path. Ms. Antonio pointed out that vacation buyback is a practice, which has been in effect over forty years. Mr. Cameron then broached the issue of personal leave as union and management personnel get two days per calendar year. Employees are afforded an extra day if they take no sick days in the calendar year. Mr. Pacino noted there is a small necessity leave in the laws which require employees receive days off. Ms. Antonio replied it is up to three days a year. Mr. Ames is seeking the total number of days, vacation, personal days and sick time. Discussion then ensued as to sick time how it is accrued and the basis of the sick leave buy back provisions. Ms. Antonio explained that employees can take thirty-two hours of sick time without a note otherwise they lose the sick leave buy back. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Two February 6, 2003 Mr. Ames inquired as to the difference between personal leave and vacation buyback. Ms. Antonio explained personal days are non-cumulative. On the management side an employee can use a personal day without notice to the Department. An example given is a management employee can call in the morning they wish to use the personal time. Mr. Ames briefly addressed the sick leave buy back and how this spares loss of overhead for the Department. Mr. Cameron commented most employees do take vacation and they are allotted one week of carryover. Mr. Herlihy inquired as to how the former General Manager handled his vacation time. Ms. Antonio replied it was a combination of carryover and buy back. Discussion ensued as to the vacation time the former General Manager took during the last two years of his employment. Mr. Herlihy inquired as to how much time the former General Manager had at the end of his tenure? Mr. Cameron replied the vacation time consisted of approximately four to five weeks however, he could provide Mr. Herlihy with the exact figures if he desired. Mr. Cameron believes the former General Manager did take vacation a week or so before he went on administrative leave in January 2002. Discussion then turned to carry over of vacation time. Mr. Herlihy noted he is against carrying over of time he fmds this unwieldy. Mr. Pacino replied this consists of approximately twelve to fifteen employees who carry over time. Mr. Ames stated this time is carried over by request. Mr. Cameron interjected that unless it is extenuating circumstances there are not many instances where by December 29th employees may have two weeks vacation left. Ms. Antonio did state there have been employees who have lost vacation time. Mr. Cameron then addressed the longevity pay (Section VI of the policy). Ms. Antonio gave a brief history stating this arose due to a payroll issue where Commissioner Herlihy asked the Department to provide documentation on longevity. Mr. Herlihy reiterated he simply wanted this in writing some place, as the Department did not have anything for the management employees. Mr. Herlihy requested the word "substantially" be stricken under Section VI Longevity Pay. Mr. Ames would also like "substantially" taken out of this section as well. Mr. Ames requested a review date be put in, as in November 2003 the contracts will start to be renegotiated. The review date should read January 2004 or in the event of a change of the union contract. Mr. Herlihy requested another item be added to the longevity section. Mr. Herlihy pointed out it does not state when the longevity is to paid it needs to state the first pay period in December. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Three February 6, 2003 Mr. Cameron then addressed management overtime (Section V of the policy), which needed updating. Ms. Antonio stated the management overtime issue was briefly discussed in November. Mr. Cameron stated in the management overtime the changes in management "call in list" and there are two title changes. The two title changes are the Engineering Manager and Engineering Project Managers. This also includes two management positions Customer Service Manager and Station Supervisor. Mr. Cameron explained when normally restoring service the management employees to be called in on a regular basis are the Chief Engineer, Engineering Project Manager(s) and the Station Supervisor. The Station Supervisor is the single contact point for all HAZMAT conditions. The Customer Service Manager would be called in for long-term outages or in the event of a pending storm, which has the potential of significant damage. Mr. Herlihy expressed his concern relative to the call in list. Mr. Herlihy's concern is how do you differentiate versus cherry picking who will be called in? Mr. Cameron replied there are designations as to who has to be called in. The Engineering Manager decides which of the Engineering Project Manager(s) who will be called and they are accessible by beepers. Mr. Herlihy inquired what percentage of management employees are on the call in list? Mr. Cameron replied the Engineering Manager, three Engineering Project Managers, the Station Supervisor and the Customer Service Manager. Mr. Ames added it is based on level of expertise. Mr. Herlihy stated after Call-In List the word "includes" needs to be added. Mr. Cameron stated the longer the restoration period then more management are kept on. There may be a storm, which requires all employees to stay. Mr. Herlihy inquired who declares the emergency? Mr. Cameron replied the General Manager or designee. Mr. Ames replied not the Chair. Ms. Antonio stated there is a storm procedure and a "storm czar" who is Paul Carson. He has a series of steps to take when a storm situation exists. This storm procedure directs all aspects of the Department through a storm situation. Mr. Cameron added the storm procedure distinctly and clearly states who is going to respond to the storm outages. Mr. Herlihy inquired what changes in an "emergency"? Ms. Antonio replied it is mandated employees come to work and to work until discharged. Mr. Pacino added an emergency is caused by weather conditions. Mr. Cameron replied in March 2001 was the last storm situation. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Four February 6, 2003 Mr. Ames had no trouble in supporting the policy as modified. Mr. Ames did however point out in Section IV the issue of bonuses. Commissioners Pacino and Ames stated they did not know about the bonuses given out by the former General Manager therefore have no recourse. Ms. Antonio stated one bonus was paid. Mr. Ames would like to see it spelled out what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Mr. Pacino stated all bonus pays should be in a separate warrant. Both Mr. Cameron and Ms. Antonio pointed out bonuses can be paid by the General Manager. Discussion ensued as to bonuses. Mr. Herlihy then stated he would like to see a separate warrant for longevity pay. Discussion then returned to the subject of bonuses. Mr. Pacino requested the criteria for bonuses are three signatures on a separate warrant. Mr. Herlihy inquired on the economic indicators, local, Boston, North Shore ranges? Ms. Antonio replied the Department has fallen with these ranges for the last two years. Mr. Herlihy stated in the spirit of the economy the Department should give this consideration. Ms. Antonio replied the Department uses the CPI, MEAM study and the Watson Wyatt study as its justification for increases. Mr. Herlihy stated Article (Section) VII he cannot support the vacation pay. Mr. Herlihy mentioned he laid off seven employees. Mr. Herlihy stated it is time to cease and desist on the vacation buyback. Mr. Ames replied Reading Municipal Light Department is a municipal; it does not compete with the Town, rather with NSTAR and other electric utilities. Mr. Herlihy noted in light of the economic times this looks insensitive. Mr. Ames pointed out this is a utility world not the governmental world. Mr. Herlihy replied not on the face of it, it is insensitive and it is a bad time at Town Hall. Mr. Cameron addressed Mr. Herlihy. You were voted in by the ratepayers you are not representing the Selectmen, how the Department operates is fundamentally different, we are separate from the Town. Mr. Herlhy replied the public does not know it. Mr. Cameron replied if this is put off the employees will be put off and there will be a hellacious problem. Mr. Cameron emphasized the Department has revenue requirements it has to consider. There are operational numbers to support this it is not oversight. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Five February 6, 2003 Mr. Herlihy replied he would not support it. Mr. Cameron asked who will take the beating? Mr. Herlihy replied wait one month. Mr. Cameron answered wait one month or if Peter Hechenbleikner starts adjusting the payroll then he will have no control. Mr. Herlihy replied this might go to the legislature. Mr. Cameron replied they are not sneaking it in. Mr. Herlihy replied the Town made it an issue and there should be an adjustment to the agenda. Mr. Cameron replied with Peter Hechenbleikner's memo. In the last line of his memo it states in his memo dated January 30, 2003, relative to vacation buy back "If not, then adjustments will have to be made to those who have already received vacation buyback." Mr. Cameron added Camille Anthony in her letter dated February 5, 2003; she wants both Boards to meet on this. Mr. Herlihy asked Mr. Cameron to wait and talk it out. Mr. Cameron replied, then the Selectmen will fix the economy. Mr. Herlihy again stated stop pursuing this until there is a full airing afforded to the Selectmen, give them the opportunity. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Cameron replied there are expectations of the employees. Mr. Pacino pointed out why did Peter Hechenbleikner send this memo out? Mr. Ames noted why was this not sent out a year ago versus ten to fifteen years ago? Mr. Herlihy suggested this would look bad and cautioned to wait one month. Mr. Ames replied why penalize the RMLD employees because of what is going up on the hill with Town Hall. Mr. Pacino added the intent is not to make trouble because the Department has received this shotgun blast. Mr. Herlihy replied it is simply a timing issue. Mr. Cameron inquired is this due to the fact you are running for a position on the Board of Commissioners? Mr. Herlihy used the analogy of Finneran (referring to House Speaker Finneran) and the Vice Chair and it is timing. Mr. Cameron replied this is a zero sum game. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Six February 6, 2003 Mr. Ames cautioned to Mr. Herlihy to think this through. The Department is a viable operation and it should be compared with other municipals. When the call goes out on a snowy night and there are outages you want to ensure employees are available to respond. Mr. Ames explained it as a balancing act. You are asking to move beyond the call of duty yet cater to the demands of the Selectmen. Mr. Ames envisions this being a problem for employees responding to come in if called in based on what is going on here. Discussion ensued as to what the Department's concerns are versus the Selectmen's. Mr. Cameron stated this issue was discussed on November 19'h at a School Department meeting. As far as the Town of Reading is concerned no one called or came down to the Department on this issue. Subsequently, a memo went out January 23, 2003, the subject being Home Rule Legislation - Vacation Buybacks and Bonuses. This is not true. Mr. Cameron noted in the grand scheme of things it is unfair to hit ninety employees with such issues. Mr. Herlihy reiterated to wait a couple of weeks on this and base it on its merits. Mr. Cameron replied the Board (RMLD Board of Commissioners) sets policy. Mr. Ames added the Selectmen are not responsible for keeping the lights on. Mr. Herlihy replied these are not two archrival organizations. Mr. Cameron pointed out the RMLD employees receive benefits, which most other employees receive in other municipal electric utilities. Mr. Herlihy questioned the RMLD in comparison with other light departments? Ms. Antonio replied the RMLD gives its employees what is comparable within the electric municipal industry. Mr. Herlihy stated we can win this on its face. Mr. Cameron stated lets see what the Board says as a whole relative to this issue. Mr. Ames stated it is important to understand (addressing Commissioner Herlihy) how as a Commissioner you were appointed and what your responsibilities are. Mr. Ames pointed out a huge concern is if the system goes down. If no employees come in to restore power, there is a responsibility and there would be hell to pay Mr. Pacino replied the RMLD Commission has been put in a corner. Mr. Herlihy replied at this point no action should be taken. Mr. Cameron noted there will be the need to make a motion. Mr. Herlihy replied he does not know if he can support the whole thing. Mr. Ames replied the Board cannot pick and choose. Mr. Cameron pointed out tonight, there is the need to move this forward. Mr. Herlihy replied he cannot approve Articles 5 and 6. RMLD Board of Commissioners Subcommittee Meeting Page Seven February 6, 2003 Mr. Ames noted half the policy has been revised. Mr. Herlihy reiterated wait one more month and hold back on this issue. Mr. Ames replied this is the third committee the Town will be setting up. Mr. Cameron pointed out he received an e-mail from Gail Wood stating this would not pass. Mr. Ames noted we have to reasonably stand up to this issue. Mr. Cameron replied he has heard echoing of a professional management union being formed at the RMLD. This one instance is why management is doing this. This professional union would be coming before the Commission.