The meeting opened with a discussion about hiring a new assistant director for the senior center. The preferred candidate was recommended for hire at step four of grade five, above the usual step three, due to her 16 years of experience and familiarity with senior center operations. This decision prompted a debate over the fairness of the hiring process. Concerns were raised about hiring someone at a higher step than usual, which could set a precedent affecting future compensation practices. One board member expressed that the process should ensure fairness and adhere to established pay structures to maintain equity among staff.

The candidate’s qualifications were a focal point, as she was noted to possess a strong background in councils on aging and was perceived as overqualified for the role. Her extensive experience was seen as an asset, potentially allowing her to assume the director’s responsibilities if needed. However, the lack of a formal first aid certification, despite holding CPR certification, was questioned. The conversation also touched on the importance of her degree qualifications, with clarification sought on whether she met the bachelor’s degree requirement for the role.

The board’s deliberation reflected differing perspectives on balancing budgetary constraints with the need for qualified candidates. While the proposed salary was lower than the budgeted amount, resulting in savings, there was concern that hiring at step four might affect future hiring practices and perceived fairness.

The discussion then shifted to the organizational structure and compensation related to positions within the Council on Aging. Concerns were voiced about the pay grade discrepancies, as the assistant director position was at a lower grade than the outreach coordinator, despite having greater responsibilities.

A motion was passed to hire the candidate at the recommended step, acknowledging her experience while recognizing the need to address the broader issues within the bylaws and organizational hierarchy.

The meeting also addressed proposed changes to the Department of Public Works (DPW). A suggestion was made to remove facilities management from the DPW director’s responsibilities, but this was met with opposition. Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of job classifications and expressed dissatisfaction with changes made post-approval without consultation.

The potential creation of a DPW director position and its presentation to the town for a vote was another point of contention. Some members questioned the wisdom of creating a new position amid existing departmental tensions. Concerns were raised about the impact of restructuring on stakeholders, including water and sewer commissioners, and the need for effective cross-departmental coordination.

The board ultimately decided to hold off on further votes or motions regarding the DPW director position until more information could be gathered. The importance of transparency and ensuring the town is informed before making decisions was emphasized, with a deadline looming for submitting changes to the warrant.