The board’s most significant topic of discussion centered on a proposed overhaul of the town’s job classification system. There was a consensus on the need for a more structured and objective system, which would replace the existing model that relies on subjective evaluations. The proposed system would incorporate 12 or 13 factors, compared to the current nine or ten, to minimize bias and ensure fairness across various roles. This potential shift was supported by some members who expressed concerns about the current system leading to inequities in job evaluations.

Further supporting the case for change was the idea that if the town was already updating its documents and processes, it would be logical to modernize the classification system as well. This sentiment was echoed throughout the meeting, with a focus on the potential benefits of a more transparent and equitable approach to job classification.

In addition to the classification system, the board also emphasized the importance of regular reviews of job descriptions. There was a strong push for implementing a systematic review process to ensure job descriptions accurately reflect current responsibilities and market conditions. The board considered the idea of conducting a review of job roles every three to five years, with the aim of avoiding discrepancies with market trends. This would involve reviewing approximately 20 of the 60 positions annually, allowing for a complete evaluation over a three-year cycle.

To streamline this process, a suggestion was made to implement a flag system that would alert the board when a job description has not been reviewed for two to three years. The responsibility for reviewing and updating job descriptions would fall to department heads, who would report back to the town administrator to ensure that all roles are accurately documented.

The board also discussed the importance of aligning compensation with market benchmarks from other municipalities. It was noted that many roles had not been reviewed for years, raising concerns about the town’s competitiveness in hiring and retaining employees. The need for a distinction between job description reviews and compensation assessments was emphasized, with the latter requiring a different process that considers budget cycles.

The meeting also addressed the logistics of conducting external compensation reviews. It was proposed that these reviews should occur every three years, focusing on external market factors such as minimum and maximum pay rates. This would involve benchmarking against a select number of towns. The board agreed on a three-prong approach: annual reviews of job descriptions by managers, specific needs brought to the board by the town administrator, and external market assessments on a three-year cycle.

The discussion further highlighted the need for consistency across departments to avoid discrepancies in job roles, particularly in a smaller community setting where responsibilities can vary significantly. This was underscored by historical context, noting that pay increases had not been consistently applied in the past, and recent updates aimed to address these stagnations.

Towards the end of the meeting, the board considered the logistics and timing of future reviews, with a focus on aligning these processes with budget cycles to ensure any necessary adjustments can be made before the fiscal year begins. There was also a discussion about future reviews and whether the board should remain with the same external source or seek additional bids, depending on anticipated costs.