The board members engaged in debates and discussions. They scrutinized the level of independence associated with the role, ultimately deciding on a rating of 4.5 out of 6. This rating acknowledges the position’s need for consultation on certain policy changes, suggesting that while the role carries a significant degree of autonomy, it still requires close collaboration with other departments and town officials.

The consequence of errors in the position was also a topic of discussion, as members weighed the potential impact of mistakes in critical areas such as tax collection and payroll against existing checks and balances designed to mitigate risks. After thorough deliberation, a rating of 4.5 was agreed upon.

Discussions also revolved around the importance of working relationships for the position, with the board eventually settling on a rating of 4.5.

The board explored the performance and duties associated with the role, emphasizing the evolving nature of interactions as fewer individuals visit town hall due to the rise in online transactions. The members noted the importance of maintaining and developing contacts to manage financial and reputational risks effectively. They acknowledged the challenges faced by the office in dealing with tax payments and foreclosures, comparing the level of tact and communication required for the role to that of the chief of police and director of Public Health.

Further discussions ensued regarding the supervisory responsibilities of the treasurer collector position. Members debated the extent of these responsibilities, questioning whether the role supervised multiple departments or specific functions within one department. This led to a clarification of the supervisory nature of the position and a subsequent rating of 4.

Physical demands and working conditions were also evaluated, with particular attention to the role’s computer use and visual concentration. Opinions varied on the level of fatigue and physical strain associated with the position, resulting in a rating of 2.5 for physical demands. The working conditions, generally considered favorable with minimal disadvantages, received a rating of 1.

The difficulty of finding suitable candidates for the treasurer collector position, given the required expertise, confidentiality, and breadth of responsibilities, was also taken into account. This discussion highlighted the challenges the town may face in filling the role in the event of a vacancy.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on potential salary adjustments for the reclassified position. The board debated whether reclassification would automatically lead to a salary increase for the incumbent employee, acknowledging that any such decision would depend on budgetary constraints and fund availability. The decision was tabled until the next meeting, with members requesting updated documentation to ensure informed decision-making.