Meredith Selectmen to hold spending increases to 2%. Link job performance to cost of living increases

or 2.8-percent, “without changing any other line in the operating budget.” Vittner described the increases as “non-controllable,” moving Selectman Bob Flanders to exclaim “I get all crazy when I hear uncontrollable. They’re not uncontrollable. We can’t control the costs, but we can control the units.” Vittner added that a COLA, which she pegged at 2.5-percent, would add another $125,000, raising the percentage increase to 3.8-percent. Chairman Peter Brothers opened the discussion by suggesting that the board seek to limit increases in “uncontrollable” costs, postpone funding new projects and explore tapping fresh sources of revenue. “I’m trying to get us circled in the corral instead of opening the gate and running in all directions,” he remarked. Much of the discussion turned on the issue of a COLA. Last year the Selectboard withheld a COLA from its 2008 budget, but assured employees that it would be restored in 2009. However, Town Meeting voted a 3-percent COLA, worth some $153,000, for the town’s 71 employees on the motion by Lieutenant Keith True of the Police Department. True said that the budget was the first in his 17 years of service not to include a COLA and, alluding to the annual increases of 5.7-percent negotiated with the Inter-Lakes Education Association, said that “none of the selectmen spoke against the raises for the teachers.” Miller Lovett was the first selectman through the gate. While stressing that employees must be paid fairly, he said that “all increases need to be based on merit” and that “a merit-based pay scale could be introduced without a COLA.” Flanders pointed out that there are only 12 steps on the town pay scale. “Without more steps you can’t just throw out the COLA,” he said, explaining that an employee of 35 years would work two-thirds of his career without an increase. “If there isn’t a step for every employee,” he continued, “then we need to come up with a system where every employee could earn a merit increase if they’re doing a good job. I’m not opposed to an overhaul.” Then Selectman Colette Worsman jumped the corral fence. “We’re in an environment of a potential Senate Bill 2,” she declared, alluding to the petitioners effort to replace the traditional town meeting with the official ballot next March after narrowly failing last year. “We can push it over or show the taxpayers that we can put together a responsible budget,” Worsman said. “there will at least 3,000 weighing in SB-2.” “We’ve been asking for a merit system for three years,” Worsman said. “Last year we paid for a study that showed many of our employees are paid above the average.” She said that together a step increase and COLA amounted to a 5-percent increase, which she claimed “makes no sense! Either we don’t do the COLA or we don’t do the steps.” Without a merit system, Worsman said, COLAs should be awarded on the basis of performance. Flanders changed his tune. “I would agree with Colette as long as we’re not creating a problem with the personnel policy,” he said, asking “would we be treading in muddy waters by suspending step increases?” Brothers disagreed, warning that adopting a merit-based compensation schedule risked losing employees to other communities with annual steps and COLAs. “You will see good people leave the service of the town and other sorts of labor action,” he said and

urged the board to wait until merit pay is “universally adopted.” “I disagree with you,” Worsman countered. “Unless we take the giant leap to make it happen, it won’t happen. The taxpayers are telling us we’re not getting 5-percent or even 2.5-percent,” she continued. “The taxpayers of the community have tried to get a message to us and we haven’t listened.” “You’re not the only member of this board who speaks for the taxpayers,” Brothers shot back, repeating that he was seeking agreement for a COLA. Selectman Chuck Palm acknowledged that “a COLA is very important because there are too few steps,” but added that it should be tied to performance. “But, the key,” he said,” is 72 people. Maybe we ought to be looking at efficiencies, getting rid of positions rather than paying the position that kind of money.” Granfield hastened to say that the elimination of any positions would require “clear direction from the board.” Then, turning the discussion to the budget itself, she asked the board for guidance on the targeted percentage increase. Flanders proposed limiting the increase to 3-percent. “It’s a high hurdle, but something we can do.” “I’m thinking along the avenue of 2 percent,” Palm said. “I could be sold that,” Flanders replied. Worsman preferred “a level funded budget. I don’t really see that we have a choice,” she said, suggesting an increase of “zero percent.” Clearly troubled, Brothers said “I don’t want to cut it to the point where we do serious damage,” but agreed to “target 2-percent to start with. Let’s not start with a cut that won’t heal. We can bruise it up a bit then move to surgery,” he said. “I would love 2-percent,” Lovett remarked. “I would love 1-percent.” Flanders went a step further, suggesting that along with preparing a budget with 2-percent increase, department heads be asked to submit budgets with a 2- percent decrease. “A 98-percent budget,” he explained, but dropped the idea when it drew no support. Afterwards Granfield said that she took the consensus of the board to favor “some sort of COLA with a merit component,” indicating that she would consider a range of percentage increases reflecting performance.

TOP