Town Meeting made it through article 18 before calling it a night. the articles discussed all dealt with budget appropriations. These included but were not limited to appropriations for Employee Benefits ($14,556,077), Public Safety ($11,040,641), & Public Works ($15,774,311). All passed, many unanimously, but there were issues discussed and concerns voiced. The Clerk’s salary was one and the assessor’s stipend another.

Laurie Stillman, Precinct 2, rose to question salaries were set of elected positions. Karen Friedman Hanna, also of Precinct 2, followed up on the question asking if the salary should not be commensurate with the experience of the clerk. The clerk’s salary was a campaign issue in the recent election. One of the candidate’s Mike Joyce, had committed to reducing his salary if elected by 40%. The clerk’s salary was listed in Article 14 at $85,989. Joyce had said that the clerk’s salary reflected that of a clerk (Mr. James Mullen who had been in office for over 30 years and that anyone entering the job should not command as high a salary. There were three candidates. In addition to Joyce there were Marion McEttrick and Susan Galvin. McEttrick said she was open to reviewing the salary but was not sure on who or how that salary was set. Galvin said the clerk earned that level of compensation due to 24×7 nature of the job. Galvin won the election.

Ewan Innes noted that the Town Treasurer’s salary was not adjusted when there was a change. Kevin Sorgi retired a few years back after over 20 years in the position. Mullen held the clerk’s job for over 30 years. Innes said that the Warrant committee would not seek to reset the clerk when the treasurer’s was allowed to stay. Ann White, chair of the Personnel Board, acknowledged the request to review the salary but added that the recommendation would be on a “go forward” basis not address the current salary. It appeared that the salaries of elected officials are reviewed if Personnel Board is asked and Stillman et al’s comments constituted an “ask.”

Also questioned was the stipend paid to the Assessors (The chairman receives $1800, the other two $1500). Chris Huban, Precinct 3, sought to amend the article and have the assessors stipend reduced to $0. Steve Morash, Precinct 2, said, “I don’t believe what I am hearing.” he suggested that the Government review committee take up the issue and mentioned it would be helpful at some point to get an update on what that committee is doing.

The amendment was defeated.

It is an open question whether the recently formed government review committee will look at elected officials salaries and how those salaries are set or might be changed should the positions be appointed rather than elected. The other question to review is why certain elected offices (Selectmen, Assessor) receive a stipend and is that still warranted. More important perhaps than the stipend is the benefit of pensionable service. While elected officials may earn a modest stipend (or nothing) their time in office can be applied to other government work. Should they take a salaried position the time served can be used in determining the pension. This is a policy that has been in place for some time. Tim Lowney, Precinct 5, said the Personnel Board should do their work and town meeting should not delete a line item such as assessor’s stipend that had been in place since he had been a town meeting member (~10 years).

Article 15 also generated some discussion due to longstanding loggerjam between the Selectmen and the Council on Aging. Ann White of the Personnel Board and Rick Neely both rose to object to comments made in the article by the Warrant Committee. The issue relates to the funding of a portion of an employee’s health benefit. The Warrant Committee had added $12,000 as a one time  cover the portion of insurance while departments and boards resolved issue. No resolution has occurred and hence, (from the warrant)

The Warrant Committee is extremely frustrated at the inability of the groups to come to a solution and has asked the Council on Aging to craft a detailed presentation to the Personnel Board for FY14. If no agreement is reached it is the opinion of the Warrant Committee that the additional funding (which has again been provided as a separate line item) cease in FY14.

Ms. White stated on the floor that the “justification did not warrant the increase in hours.” She acknowledged that $12k might seem like a small amount but that there were many employees in similar situations and that the board which she said is extremely fair followed all proper procedures. Mr Neely objected to comments in that a singular person was being singled out and it was a significant amount for the department. Mr. Innes addressed the comments with a detailed review of the situation. The Warrant Committee held to its position. The article as written passed.

You can find the complete warrant here.

Town Meeting will resume on Thursday at Milton High School.