The board’s discussion on hiring a new veterans agent was the focal point of the meeting. The urgency was underscored by the impending departure of two part-time veteran agent clerks by January, coupled with a pressing need for uninterrupted service as Plymouth will no longer process veterans’ claims. The candidate under consideration had completed all required certifications from the Veterans Administration and was viewed positively for her qualifications. However, her proposed salary of $67,000, a notable increase from the $58,729 allocated in the fiscal 2025 budget, sparked debate among board members.

The discussion on salary touched on several issues, including the fairness of step placements and how they could impact the morale of existing employees. A member raised concerns about the lack of information regarding the candidate’s educational background, suggesting that while her experience was valuable, equity among current employees must be maintained. The proposal for the candidate to start at grade five, step seven, was contentious, with one member advocating for a lower step accompanied by a stipend to compensate for her certifications. This approach, they argued, would preserve fairness within the compensation structure.

The board also explored the broader context of salary benchmarks, referencing a wage and benefit survey conducted among comparable communities. The proposed salary of $63,497 at step five was compared to an average salary of $57,588 from this survey. Discrepancies in the communities used for comparison and the methodologies employed were points of contention, with some members questioning the validity of the data. A particular reference was made to Abington and Carver’s salary ranges, highlighting the variability in compensation for similar positions.

The integration of the veterans agent’s role within the Council on Aging (COA) was another significant aspect of the discussion. A proposal to have the veterans agent work from the COA aimed to streamline services for veterans already visiting the center. This integration was seen as a way to encourage veterans to access available benefits conveniently. Financial implications were a concern, particularly how the veterans agent’s salary would be managed if responsibilities were shared with the COA. The COA currently receives state funding for a SHINE (Serving the Health Insurance Needs of Everyone) agent, prompting questions about similar funding possibilities for the veterans agent.

The board members explored the potential of utilizing state support to fund additional hours for the veterans agent. Suggestions were made to increase the agent’s availability at the COA to better serve veterans seeking assistance. There was also a discussion on the possibility of the veterans agent taking on some SHINE-related responsibilities to reduce waiting times and improve service delivery.

Tensions surfaced regarding regional collaboration, specifically the lack of interest from Duxbury in partnering with Kingston on veterans services. This lack of a cooperative strategy was seen as a hurdle in effectively addressing veterans’ needs regionally.

Ultimately, a formal motion was put forth to approve the hiring of the new veterans agent, specifying the grade and step level. The motion received unanimous support from the board members present, culminating in the official appointment of the candidate. The meeting concluded with a discussion on appointing a financial aid reviewer following the resignation of the previous appointee. A participant volunteered for the role, and the board unanimously confirmed the appointment.