Central to the meeting was the presentation of a draft report on a compensation survey, which involved data collection from nearby communities such as Boxford, Essex, and Georgetown. The survey aimed to align Newbury’s salary ranges with market averages, covering 65 positions and classifying them within levels 12 to 22. The methodology involved quantifying salary data to reflect various percentiles, particularly the 65th and 75th, to maintain market consistency. The report also introduced a rating system based on 14 job factors, designed to categorize roles by essential criteria rather than ease of hiring. This system seeks to avoid subjective interpretations that could hinder pay equity.

A discussion followed regarding potential adjustments to the classification schedule based on survey findings. Members acknowledged the town’s compensation practices were generally in line with market conditions but emphasized the need for ongoing review and potential adjustments to remain competitive. Despite some disagreements on job classifications, the dialogue highlighted the collaborative effort necessary between board members and the HR department to implement the report’s recommendations.

A review of firefighter salary data revealed discrepancies in average and median figures, calling for further verification. The importance of acquiring accurate data from neighboring municipalities was stressed, as it aids negotiations and market understanding.

Discussions also touched on how salary adjustments over the past 15 years have primarily been driven by cost-of-living adjustments rather than market trends. This reliance was seen as a factor in current recruitment challenges, with many entry-level salaries not keeping pace with the market. A consensus emerged that regular, updates to the salary schedule should occur, ideally including both COLA and performance evaluations to ensure competitiveness.

The meeting explored demographic trends affecting recruitment and retention, noting the challenges posed by younger generations’ reluctance to commute long distances. The lack of residency requirements offers flexibility in hiring, but the conversation noted the need for a better understanding of where employees live and how far they commute. This demographic analysis was seen as complex, requiring extensive data analysis.

In terms of compensation data from other towns, it was noted that some provided only current pay rates without minimum or maximum figures, potentially skewing averages. This highlighted the need for a comprehensive pay structure to avoid misleading data interpretations.

A brief discussion on stipends for part-time roles, such as inspectors with their businesses, raised concerns about compliance with labor laws and potential conflicts of interest, especially when employees live within the towns they serve.

The potential adoption of a new rating system for employee evaluations was another point of focus, with questions about fairness and equity within the existing point system. The current system’s perceived subjectivity was suggested as a reason to consider alternatives, and there was interest in comparing the new system with the current framework to understand differences.

Updates on staffing changes included the introduction of new call firefighters and the resignation of a dispatcher and full-time firefighter. The dispatcher’s departure was attributed to better career opportunities elsewhere. Adjustments in roles were noted, such as increased hours for the shellfish constable.

Recruitment of seasonal help for the Harbor Master’s office was discussed, with a focus on finding qualified teenagers for boat launch assistance. Strategies for outreach to local schools and organizations were considered to attract candidates, with the potential for paid internships to appeal to younger workers.