Committee Report - Leg Matters - 10-9-12 — File 193836

October 9, 2012 Legislative Matters Committee Page 1 of 3 Printed 10/12/2012 REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS COMMITTEE meeting as a COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Rebekah Gewirtz Chair Present John M Connolly Vice Chair Present Bruce M. Desmond Alderman At Large Present William A. White Jr. Alderman At Large Present Thomas F. Taylor Ward Three Alderman Present William M. Roche Ward One Alderman Absent Maryann M. Heuston Ward Two Alderman Present Tony Lafuente Ward Four Alderman Present Sean T. O’Donovan Ward Five Alderman Absent Robert C. Trane Ward Seven Alderman Present Dennis M. Sullivan Alderman At Large Present Gerald McCue Advisory Board Member Present Sarah Kloos Personnel Director Present Frank Wright City Solicitor Present Ed Bean Finance Director Present Mary Jo Rossetti Ward Seven School Committeeman Present Tom Bent Advisory Board Member Present Phil Ercolini Advisory Board Member Present Mary Aicardi Consultant, Collins Center Present Janice Delory Chief of Staff Present **** NOTE **** At the request of Alderman Heuston, the Board of Aldermen amended this committee report by approving a motion by Alderman Heuston, rescinding the motion contained herein, that she made at this committee meeting. 193632 - Requesting the amendment of Ordinances 2-322 and 2-323 pursuant to the Municipal Compensation Advisory Board recommendations.: Ms. Kloos distributed and reviewed some information in response to the questions raised by the committee during the September 10, 2012 committee meeting. Mr. Bent spoke about the communities considered for comparison and stated that Framingham was rejected because it was too far from Somerville, Worcester was rejected because it was too large and too far from

Committee of the Whole October 9, 2012 Legislative Matters Committee Page 2 of 3 Printed 10/12/2012 Somerville, Everett was rejected due to its population size and Medford was rejected due to its population size and its level of economic development. (Also, no comparable data was received from Medford.) Mr. Bent noted that employee salaries of those rejected communities were looked at prior to making the decision to exclude them from the study and Ms. Aicardi stated that salary information was not requested from the communities prior to their rejection, but budget information was. A resident asked why Melrose and Arlington were included, since their populations are much smaller than Somerville’s, and Ms. Aicardi replied that several factors were considered prior to presenting the data to the Compensation Advisory Board. Ms. Kloos explained that after the 2006 wage study, employee raises were capped and that action, combined with the plan not being implemented, led to the present situation, i.e., the salaries of some positions never even made it to the lower side of the suggested pay grades. As a result, some employees will be receiving large salary increases now, to bring them to where they should be, according to the employment market. Ms. Kloos added that of the 93 individuals who left the employment of the City since 2007, she estimates that 30-40 were due to salary issues. Solicitor Wright clarified that the only matter the committee, (and the Board of Aldermen), would be voting on is the actual ordinance creating salary ranges and grade classifications. The Administration has the responsibility for setting any progression steps and/or raises. Any increases in salary lines would have to come before the Board of Aldermen for approval. Mr. Bean informed the members that a supplemental appropriation would be needed to cover the cost of the proposed raises and that the raises would be retroactive to July 1, 2012. The following information was requested by the committee: • A comparison of grades/positions in the current ordinance vs. the proposed ordinance (Alderman Trane). Solicitor Wright provided that information prior to adjournment of the meeting, • A written description for each grade level, (A, B, C, etc.), detailing the criteria for each grade (Alderman Trane). Ms. Aicardi will provide the data, but she cautioned the members not to suggest changes, adding that the data should be considered in isolation, • Additional data for the comparable communities, as the data provided this evening was inaccurate and did not answer the question asked at the September 10th committee meeting (Alderman White and Chairman Gewirtz). Mr. Bean provided the budgetary portion of the information prior to adjournment of the meeting. Solicitor Wright informed the members that School Department employees and School Committee members were not part of this study and Ms. Rossetti stated that, on advice of the School Department’s counsel, School Committee members will not speak on this matter publicly.

Committee of the Whole October 9, 2012 Legislative Matters Committee Page 3 of 3 Printed 10/12/2012 Alderman Taylor questioned why the Clerks of Committees (COC) were not included in the study and Ms. Kloos replied that part time employees would be dealt with separately, at a later time. After requesting and receiving permission to comment on this matter, Clerk of Committees Peter Forcellese pointed out that there are several part time positions included in the study and asked what differentiated those positions from the COC positions. Ms. Kloos stated that part time individuals working less than 20 hours per week were excluded from this study. Mr. Forcellese noted that the COC positions were included in the 2006 study and ordinance. Alderman Taylor, Chairman Gewirtz and Alderman Heuston spoke about the work performed by the COC’s and expressed their desire to include them in this study. Alderman Heuston’s motion that the Director of Personnel place the Clerk of Committees and Asst. Clerk of Committees positions into a classification level and consult with the President of the Board of Aldermen to establish the appropriate salary for those positions, was approved. **** SEE NOTE ABOVE **** Alderman Taylor questioned the classification of the Treasurer/Collector position in relation to the Finance Director/City Auditor position and Ms. Aicardi explained that at the present time, the Finance Director also serves as the City Auditor. If and when the City Auditor’s position becomes a separate position, it would be placed in Grade Level B, along with the Treasurer/Collector, since both positions report to the Finance Director. Chairman Gewirtz has scheduled the next Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss this issue for Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM. RESULT: KEPT IN COMMITTEE