|
Warner Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes January 24, 2006
Present: Selectman Wayne Eigabroadt – Chairman, Selectman David E. Hartman and Selectman Richard A. Cook Town Administrator Laura Buono Recorder of the minutes is Mary Whalen Others present: John Healy George Packard Paul Fouliard Bob O’Connor Pete Newman Richard Senor Judith Rogers Ken Benward Intertown Record Argus Champion Martha Mical The Selectmen met with Paul Fouliard and asked if he would like to hold this session in non-public. Paul declined. Chairman Eigabroadt summarized to date; goals and objectives would be created for Paul, as well as possibly rescinding all Department Head performance evaluations. The TA would also set goals and objectives for each Department Head. Selectman Cook recalls that no decision was made at the last meeting regarding the rescinding of performance evaluations and added that the Board needs to address Paul’s other request for a public apology towards a newspaper article. Chairman Eigabroadt asked Paul what his expectations are for this evening. Paul has reviewed a list of goals and objectives created by the Town Administrator and agreed to what was presented:
The TA is also willing work with the remaining Department Heads to establish their goals & objectives along with re-looking at the evaluation process and forms. Selectman Hartman clarified that this was the second year the current performance evaluations were used. Paul spoke about a 360 degree review which is used by most colleges. Selectman Hartman’s opinion of the current evaluation forms is that they were not all that bad; the ranges that are used gave a lot of latitude. The same form was edited and issued to employees for them to complete self evaluations. Selectman Hartman does not feel that the performance evaluation process that was just completed was a wasted cause and hesitates agreeing to rescind them, including Paul’s Paul’s, admittedly, was not the best review of all the staff, but, at that point in time as Selectmen, it was a fair assessment of Paul’s performance. Selectman Cook agrees with Selectman Hartman in not rescinding all the performance evaluations, it is well worth looking into changing and looking at other possibilities, but is in agreement with setting goals for Paul. Chairman Eigabroadt commented that the current process has no measurable standards to base the evaluations on. Chairman Eigabroadt asked Paul if he agrees with the presented goals & objectives. Paul agreed. Selectman Hartman clarified that the goals and objectives as stated are derived from the performance evaluation as well as from the TA. Selectman Cook understands that the performance evaluation would be set aside. If goals & objectives are met, then the performance evaluation would be destroyed. If there are continuing problems then the performance review would be revisited (staying in the personnel file). Chairman Eigabroadt had the understanding that the performance evaluation would go away, in its place would be the goals & objectives used as a measure towards Paul’s next review. The TA said the new evaluation would be based on how well the goals are reached or at least worked on. Paul would like to see the evaluation go away. Selectman Hartman has re-read Paul’s review again and sees it as a statement of fact according to the Board of Selectmen at that time. The TA commented that after reading Paul’s review she feels it mainly had to do with poor communications. The goal regarding working harmoniously with the Board of Selectmen has been an issue with Selectman Hartman in particular with what Selectman Hartman feels as unwarranted accusations and lack of communication with him personally. Selectman Hartman does not understand why Paul cannot communicate with him. During Paul’s presentation of the Transfer Station’s Capital Improvement proposals Selectman Hartman pointed out to Paul that the work he is proposing in the amount of $20,000.00 could not be done, Paul was unable to discuss the proposal seriously. Paul also constructed a small tire structure after the Board said not to; Selectman Hartman doesn’t understand why Paul did so after being told not to. So, Selectman Hartman felt at the time of the performance review that the scores Paul received were appropriate. Chairman Eigabroadt asked Selectman Hartman if at any time he asked Paul "why he did it". Selectman Hartman explained that Paul has said publicly that he does not want to speak to him. Selectman Hartman said that after seeing the vertical baler operating without safety guards, he doesn’t understand why it would ever be run that way. Then Selectman Hartman explained that he was accused by the staff that if he knew the baler was not being operated correctly why he didn’t bring it to the operator’s attention. Selectman Hartman further explained that Paul told him not to speak to his staff, he is to speak to Paul directly. Selectman Cook agrees with the points that Selectman Hartman has made, the performance evaluation reflects what was going on at the time it was completed and does not feel the situation has improved. There is a lot of time and energy being spent on this subject, there are a lot of other issues that need to be dealt with. The time that Paul spends lobbying against the Board is a waste of time, which is not the type of work the Town is paying Paul for; Selectman Cook would like to see this topic move forward in a positive resolution. John Healy - What is the reason why Selectman Hartman and Paul cannot communicate? Is it possible that a past encounter between Paul and Selectman Hartman and the words that Selectman Hartman used hurt Paul and that he prefers to keep a wall up? Selectman Hartman doesn’t know, the only thing he thinks is that Paul does not want to be questioned on how he runs the station by him. Selectman Hartman said that there are many things that are done right by Paul and the staff. John Healy – John thanked Selectman Hartman for saying the last comment because he has not had that sense from any of the meetings. Richard Senor – Communication is a two way street. Performance evaluations are a great idea but should be thrown out after a year. Richard has read Paul’s review and feels some of the comments are personal, comments should be objective. Bob O’Connor – Need two different performance evaluation forms; one for Department Heads one for staff. Bring in some outside help. Working harmoniously with the Board does not necessarily mean there is agreement; it should also mean that there will be disagreement with the understanding that there will be work towards a common goal. Pete Newman – Commented on a baler incident, the correction was made immediately by Paul. A tire structure that was constructed by Paul after the board said not to; was the size of a dog house with literature available. Townspeople showed interest in the structure. When asked to take it down, it was dismantled immediately. John Healy – John asked Paul based on OSHA or the Department of Labor where does the job of a Transfer Station employee rank as far as a hazardous job. Paul says it ranks #7 in the entire world. John asked Paul the reason why. Paul explained it is because of disease, equipment, bacteria, and amputations. John asked Paul since he has been Department Head how many lost days of work have your employees had due to work related injuries. Paul said one day. John said if that is not a good example of good management then he doesn’t know what is. John asked Selectman Hartman, in his opinion the figures submitted in Paul’s Capital Improvement Plan was intuitively not workable. Selectman Hartman said "yes". John asked what the difference is between knowing intuitively and knowing objectively. Selectman Hartman explained that he has experience creating building plans and cost estimates, such as excavation. At the point of discussion with Paul, Selectman Hartman said to Paul that he doesn’t believe the work listed could be done for $20,000.00, which was the last the Board heard from Paul regarding the proposal; the Board did ask for more detail and has not seen anything yet. Bob O’Connor – Bob understands regarding the tire building that there was discussion between Paul and the Board. The Board did not accept the structure, but Bob understands that a comment was made about looking at a sample of the structure to see what it is like (cannot verify if true). Capital Improvements is anything $50,000.00 or more and if Paul tells you that he can do something for $20,000.00 it is because he already has people committed to do things on a volunteer basis. Paul Fouliard – Four years ago the pole barn at the Transfer Station that is all closed in, that was slated to be revamped for $38,000.00, Paul revamped it for $69.00 plus meals for prisoner help. Paul said that he has worked construction all over the world and if he says he can do it for $20,000.00 then he can. It would mean calling in a lot of favors and using material at hand; it could be done or at least started. Richard Senor – Richard feels it is the Board’s responsibility to follow up on requests. Chain of command is the Boards responsibility to tell Paul if a staff member is doing something wrong. Tire building, there was talk amongst the Recycle Committee regarding the structure, an article was completed in the Warner New Paper and people have asked why the structure wasn’t completed. George Packard – The evaluation process needs to be determined whether it is good or not. If it is good, and then the Board needs to decide why they should treat Paul’s evaluation different from other supervisors, and have good justification. Chairman Eigabroadt asked the Board for ideas toward a resolution. Selectman Hartman recommends leaving the evaluations as they stand, hold Paul’s performance evaluation in abeyance (contents will not be brought up before the next evaluation is performed) and accept the presented goals and objectives created by the TA. Selectman Cook did not have any suggestions to add. Paul agrees with the goals and objectives but does not agree with holding the performance review. Chairman Eigabroadt recommends all performance evaluations for the Department Heads need to go away, the TA would create goals and objectives, and employee evaluations would stand as they are. Selectman Hartman and Selectman Cook do not agree with Chairman Eigabroadt’s recommendation. Chairman Eigabroadt explained his theory; performance evaluations negative or positive have an affect on an employee, they are considered legal permanent documents. The difference is that Paul was evaluated on his relationship with the Board not on his performance as a Department Head. Richard Senor – Richard asked Paul if he went through his evaluation and discussed some of the issues that he felt were not right? Paul said yes, he and the Board went over every item. Richard began to discuss item #8 on the performance review (Richard had a copy of Paul’s review) and the Board felt that it was not necessary to discuss the actual contents at the public session. Richard said instead of throwing out all the Department Heads evaluations change the few that are wrong on Paul’s. Chairman Eigabroadt closed the issue to further public comments. Selectman Cook asked Selectman Hartman to clarify "abeyance". Selectman Hartman explained that Paul’s review would be kept with either the TA or in the personnel file. The review has been made public by Paul, in abeyance means the Board would take no action based on the performance review between now and the time that there is another review completed; the Board would then consider the TA’s recommendation toward the review being kept on hold. Laura stated she previously spoke with Paul and recommends that he should write a statement regarding the items he disagrees with and attach it to the performance evaluation, that way if it stays in Paul’s personnel file, Paul’s point of view is attached. Selectman Hartman agrees with Laura and that Paul was asked to write a statement and did not respond. Chairman Eigabroadt asked John Healy for the record if he was at the meeting representing Paul. Mr. Healy explained that he does work for Paul, he has been gathering facts for him, Paul will be meeting with Mr. Healy’s personal attorney next week, and John is here in support of Paul. Selectman Hartman made the motion to keep the performance evaluations as is in 2005, hold Paul’s review in abeyance, work with Paul throughout the year to address the presented goals and objectives. Selectman Cook seconded the motion. Selectman Cook added an amendment to the motion at the time of the next performance evaluation, if the Board of Selectmen feels that the goals and objectives were successfully met, the 2005 performance evaluation would be eliminated from the personnel file. Selectman Hartman seconded the amendment. Selectman Hartman asked if the amendment includes removing all items relative to the 2005 performance review including Paul’s self evaluation, the Boards evaluation, and Paul’s written response. Chairman Eigabroadt clarified that the self-evaluation should not be part of the personnel file. Selectman Cook said "yes" to Selectman Hartman’s question of what the amendment includes. Chairman Eigabroadt asked for public comment. Richard Senor – Instead of throwing it all out, change the points that are a problem. Chairman Eigabroadt explained that Paul has voiced that he is in disagreement with the whole document. All in favor of the amendment as read: Selectman Hartman, Aye, Selectman Cook, Aye, Chairman Eigabroadt opposed. Amendment passed. All in favor to the motion: Selectman Hartman, Aye, Selectman Cook, Aye, Chairman Eigabroadt opposed. Motion passed. Requested verbatim: Chairman Eigabroadt: I believe the Board’s position on the first amendment was that the Board feels that there were no infringements on first amendment rights based on information that was sent to Town Counsel, which we said two weeks ago that we were going to do. We were going to check Town Counsel, in fact it was recommended by somebody here at that meeting. Now, Town Counsel was advised of the situation and feels that based on his expertise in reading some case history and case law that your first amendment rights, in his opinion, were not infringed upon in any way. I will look into… I did have a question for Laura that I put to her this afternoon, just to make sure that all the information was sent to the attorney because I’m not comfortable with the fact that all the information was actually sent to the attorney. So, that information will be sent or forwarded to the attorney and we have to wait for his opinion to come back once he has all the information. So that’s were we stand with that. But on the original portion of it with the alleged rumors down at the Transfer Station the one about the telephone call to OSHA or the Department of Labor, that one there the attorney feels that there’s no issue with, the newspaper story there was no issue. Selectman Hartman: A newspaper could print what it wanted to in a public session. Chairman Eigabroadt: It was all done in a public session the newspaper was just reporting what was said in the meeting at that point. So that’s all we have on that one, alright? Paul Fouliard: OK Building Inspector, Ken Benward met with the Selectmen regarding a mobile home situated at 14 Pleasant Lane. The mobile home was constructed around 1974 and may not meet all of the current HUD standards. Ken has inspected the mobile home, the windows and doors do not meet HUD requirements, and some things do meet HUD standards (height of the ceiling and the number of windows). The material the home is constructed from may not meet the standards. A plan has been submitted that will bring the doors and windows to HUD standard. The Board questions if there is any liability for the Town if an occupancy permit is granted. Proof of compliance should be the burden of the owner of the mobile home park. Town Counsel will be contacted. Colby Realty submitted a sign permit for approval by the Selectmen. Selectman Cook made the motion to approve a "Sign Permit" for Colby Realty located on Map 31 Lot 57. Selectman Hartman seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed. Selectman Cook made the motion to approve a building permit for Map 28 lot 6 & 7. Selectman Hartman seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed. Presented for the Board’s consideration are increased Elderly Exemption assessment levels. The Board and the TA recommend that the increased assessment levels be place on the ballot. The Town Clerk will contact the Secretary of State regarding a received petition article for the veteran’s exemption. The question is does the petition go on the ballot or the warrant. Administrator’s report: Handicap Parking – A request from a resident came in with regard to a handicap parking space at the Transfer Station and the lack thereof. After speaking with Paul Fouliard, Ms. Buono was informed that there is a designated space however Paul is going to see if there is a more appropriate spot that will work. Laura also requested that the highway department designate a space since they do not currently have one. The Board agreed that the area should be as close as possible to the building and compactor. Transfer Station – There was a near accident at the Transfer Station on Saturday when the glass container was being emptied. Selectman Hartman was the resident who was nearby when the accident happened although no one was hurt. Selectman Hartman said there are only three legs vs four on the container which poses a problem when they set it down. Ms. Buono has spoken with Paul Fouliard about this and due to the weather, it couldn’t be done on Monday but will be taken care of ASAP. Laura and Paul also spoke about making sure there is always a second person present when this type of job is done especially while the facility is open to the public. Laura said that the container is slated to be repaired tomorrow. The Board asked Laura to put in writing that she has spoken to Paul and to add that anyone operating the bobcat during the disposal of the glass someone an attendant or Paul must be available to spot. Selectman Hartman agrees that spotting should be made part of the process. Discontinuation of Old Rte. 114 – A letter was received from Atty. Peter Rotch from McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton who represents the Trustee of the Bock Revocable Trust, with regard to a request to discontinue a portion of Old Rte. 114. Atty. Rotch has outlined the same information that the Board has already received although he did mention that Bradford had discontinued the portion in their town in 2004 which may or may not be something the Board had already been aware of. The TA recommends discontinuing the whole parcel; return the land to the current owners of the abutting properties. The warrant presented by the Bocks attorney is specific the lot owned by the Bocks. The Board also recommended looking at other properties in the area that are similar in nature for next year. Martha Mical recommended checking with Town Counsel on the wording of the article, and also if the Town can discontinue all of old route 114 between the Bradford town line and the Henniker town line. The Board asked Laura to check with the Director of Public works regarding the discontinuance of the whole parcel. Warner Business Association – Laura attended her first WBA meeting on Friday morning (1/20) as representative from the Town and is looking forward to future projects with them. The annual meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 25th from 5:00 – 7:00 at the Telephone Museum for any of you who would like to attend. Laura will be attending until about 6:30. Ballot Awareness Night – Laura has been asked to participate in a Ballot Awareness Night at the United Church on Sunday, February 19th. She will be reviewing what is on the ballot with those in attendance. A representative from the School will be there as well. If there are any points the Board would like to focus on, please let Laura know. Warrant – Laura distributed a draft copy of the draft warrant to each of the Selectmen for their review. The Board will need to vote their recommendations so that they can be added to the articles. A discussion as to whether or not the Board wants to amend the elderly exemptions is being placed on the next agenda. Gore Rd. – Allan Brown has sent in a reminder for the Selectmen to designate Gore Rd. as an emergency lane. A Public Hearing will be scheduled. Highway Block Grant – Notification as to the amount the Town will be receiving by way of a highway block grant has been received. In 2006, Warner will receive $112,170.77. Adjustments will be made to the Highway Department budget, the winter sand amount will now become part of this figure. The Selectmen changed their decision regarding the $8,600.00 from an insurance claim. Initially it was decided to let it roll into revenue; the decision is changed to put the money in an account. Selectman Cook made the motion to approve meeting minutes dated January 3, 2006. Selectman Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Motion to adjourn 8:50 p.m. Board of Selectmen Wayne Eigabroadt – Chairman
|